|Blog Home ~ E-Mail ~ Facebook Share|
G20 Toronto Aftermath
- What Not To Do If You Are A Demonstrator
<< Previous | Next >>
Toronto, July 3, 2010 - Observations after watching http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HZgjX5vHt2o
The gentleman (demonstrator) in http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HZgjX5vHt2o is seriously mistaken as is the heading for this video.
The gentleman proceeded to make things worse by passive-aggressively resisting arrest (listen carefully for the Sergeant's warning) and by not allowing the security for the grounds (Police Officers) to examine the goods being brought to the grounds of a Toronto park. You cannot be there carrying weapons of any kind. The minute you make a fuss about consenting to inspection of goods being brought there raises the suspicion that your intentions are wrongful.
Police have not explained themselves in depth (camera shy?), but they are well within their duties. The initial patrolman who engaged the gentleman has invoked the Ontario Trespass To Property Act which is the same act that allows a home owner to remove a person from their property or to set conditions for access. Bouncers at pubs rely on the same statute. Security at rock concerts does the same thing. It's about protecting the other users of the facility and the physical property itself as well as its assets. It is the method and procedure ordinarily used to prevent knives, guns, grenades, fertilizer bombs and other weapons from being brought to a government building. A similar statute exists in most countries and in the United States the security veil is allowed to shoot first and ask questions later. Don't try this in the USA or at a US Consular office.
What you see the police doing here could be done by any security guard, or any store owner, landowner, landlord etc. charged with the security of the property.
The statute allows the owner of the property or agent (police) to enforce the no trespass or conditional access aspects. Any reasonable amount of force needed to remove the person is allowed ONLY after the person has been given a reasonable amount of time to leave.
The officer on the right immediately explained the statute under which he acted at around 38 seconds into this video.
If this person had been charged under the Ontario Trespass To Property Act, the fine is very small.
The police acted in an exemplary fashion to this incident.
There are many video accounts showing wrongful conduct on the part of police. This is not one of them.
This would be an excellent film for training security how to deal with a person bent on creating a disturbance. The patience of police here, particularly the Sergeant, is extraordinary. One particular note of worth, some of the male police officers were starting to get snarly but at no time did the female officer lose her cool. BZ
There are a number of aspects to this video that suggest to me that within the next 5 months (Summary Offence Limitation) this person could be arrested and charged for some of the conduct herein. I for sure don't think that is likely.
I do not offer that or any comment as legal advice. This person should retain his own counsel.
This is how it goes:
10. A police officer, or the occupier of premises, or a person authorized by the occupier may arrest without warrant any person he or she believes on reasonable and probable grounds to be on the premises in contravention of section 2. R.S.O. 1990, c. T.21, s. 9 (1).
To the proponents of this video I can only say your enthusiasm is great, guys, but this episode, while disturbing, only shows a person taunting authority. Get a second opinion or third or whatever but know your law when you make these allegations. We do have serious allegations to make. Do we want to conduct a serious action to rebuff the G20 Security or just taunt authority? Already this movement is on the losing side of public opinion almost 3 to 1 owing to things like this video. Thanks for your efforts here but this is a very naive and bad presentation of evidence to advance the cause of a G20 inquiry. It suggests excellent behaviour of police. If all police conduct were like this throughout the G20 we would not be doing this: http://chiefblair.resignnow.ca/
At some point the orders changed. Police in this video were their usual selves. Toronto has pretty good police officers. That's where this video serves a purpose. It shows normal restraint by officers even in the face of a very difficult protester. Be honest: this guy was a jerk and the cops stayed cool. The average protester or passersby on 27 June who was beaten and or arrested behaved like perfect angels compared to this guy.
By 27 June, Sunday, G20 security acted like thugs compared to the uniforms in this video. What order was given to create that change? I suggest this is where leadership failed and this is why we are riled and will not go away.
On 26 June, some people wearing bandana's and other concealment garments on their face ran amok, lighting police cruisers, assaulting a police officer, breaking store windows on Queen and Yonge streets, invading private homes on Soho street, and committing a number of other crimes I observed in video footage but for now have forgotten. These persons, few in number, while committing these crimes decimated the morale of this city--I mean this *entire* city from it's bank managers, janitors and street vendors to its police, gardeners, plumbers and electricians. That's a bigger sin than breaking a window.
For all the things it caused, it's effect was the rape of a city .
A TV cameraman was able to follow this rampage of thuggery with a heavy camera, doing his job!
Why weren't police doing their job?
I still believe that Chief Blair deliberately caused that inaction for improper purpose. If I am wrong and in the alternative, it was not deliberate inaction, then it was incompetence or just plain dereliction of duty.
You had millions of dollars at your disposal and many thousands of troops, Chief, so there is no excuse whatsoever.
In my opinion, Chief Blair should resign because I believe he lied to us. I also believe he deliberately tainted a large group of ordinary innocent citizens to justify excessive spending from the public purse. I saw that he unlawfully caused the arrest of innocent people whose conduct was far above reproach. I also further believe he, for wrongful purpose deliberately allowed black-clad and masked-thugs burn police cars, wander into neighbourhoods and steal objects from gardens then continue through Toronto, unhindered, breaking windows and doing repeated crime. I have no confidence in Mr. Blair doing his job. Toronto needs to have confidence that its police will apprehend all criminals including criminals whose acts the Chief for any reason supports or exploits to taint or controvert a larger group of citizens, in this case the protesters.
We demand an accounting and full inquiry and in the meantime demand the resignation of the Chief of Police.
See: Toronto has no confidence in Bill Blair as Police Chief.
The average Toronto copper on G20 duties did a good job. Some like the Sergeant and the first patrolman in this incident conducted themselves in an exemplary fashion in a tense environment. This G20 Summit should not have happened in Toronto. It was a big mistake of leadership, not cops. THANKS to the individual Toronto copper who served the people of Toronto well. To the small percentage who abused their authority, take up another career and be prepared to face charges for misconduct under the Police Services Act.Share
Ruffian.Angel @ ThemisMusic.com