Riots Downtown Toronto

[tboy]

I think you should review the law ... or you will end up like that guy in Chinatown who protected his shop from a shoplifting drug adict ... he was charged with assault and forceable confinement. Again we are no Texas.



kf

I think the issue with the guy in chinatown was that the perp wasn't actually caught in the act, he'd committed the crime earlier that week. If you're standing right there and someone goes to vandalize your property you can stop them. I think the shopkeeper also detained the perp in the back of a vehicle for hours, as opposed to taking him directly to the police station.

To use the same example I used on "the other board": I had a new honda civic and it was parked in front of my parent's house. I looked out the window and saw some punks sitting on the hood. I opened the door and told them to get the fuck off my car....then thought, ok, so now they'll come back and key it. I called the police and asked them, what, if anything I can do if I caught them. The sargent said to me: well, you can stop them obviously, but if they try to run you can catch them and detain them thereby effecting a citizen's arrest. Don't break their legs or anything but do within reason what needs to be done".

 

[Maurice Boscorelli]

I agree.




The conditions and treatment of people being held are being held regardless of the severity of their charges, is disgusting. Contrary to popular belief they were not offered food and water (my friend went for 30 hours without these). To transport arrested protesters they were shackled by the hands, feet, and necks in paddy wagons for hours as they were slowly taken to the holding tank in the East end and finally to Jane-Finch court.

From his first hand experience, people (himself included) were held in overcrowded wire cages over night. Lack of medical attention is also a big issue, injuries, including broken bones, were not given proper care for over 24 hour periods. People were random chosen to be taunted and beaten up by cops, his experience was lighter than others, he was just punched in the stomach multiple times and had police thumbs driven into his eyes while his hands were zip tied behind his back (what they were using instead of cuffs at the time of arrest).

What did he do? Not move fast enough when the riot cops moved in. According to legal services, who I had some good talks with today in court, a minimum of 50 people were arrested for just this reason in Queen's Park alone. Like everyone I'm incredibly pissed off by Black Bloc tactics, but I'm also disgusted by how the police reacted in private to those who were arrested.

I could think of reasons to go down there and protest as well but being a sane individual I would think it through.

One should realize that a percentage of the protesters are going to be extremists that are going commit acts of violence just for the sake of violence.

In a perfect world there would be a peaceful objection to the summit but the days of Mahatma Gandhi seem to be over.

Therefore I have very little sympathy for those who chose to participate because one would have to be very naive to not know what was going to happen.

 

[blood sports]

Don't break their legs or anything but do within reason what needs to be done".

What is within reason?, iffy subject if you ask me.

 

[tboy]

What is within reason?, iffy subject if you ask me.

Kind of like was stated on Penn and Teller's Bullsh*t the other night:

what is deemed necessary to reasonably defend oneself. Yeah, it's a grey area but as the sargent said to me "don't break their legs or anything".

Now if you cracked some heads immediately, yeah, that would be excessive and you most likely would be charged. If you tackled them to the ground, and sat on them while someone else called the police? That wouldn't be. If you tied them up and kept them in the freezer for 4 hrs? yeah, that could be deemed excessive. If you tied their hands or used duct tape and loaded them into your vehicle and took them immediately to the police station? I don't think they'd deem that excessive.

Now what could end up confusing the issue is if they don't stop with a warning or a threat. Like that photo showed the masked punk driving a 2 x 4 through the window. You see them approach, they go to break the window, you raise your bat and say: break the window I break your head! and if they still continue to move as if the break the window, you swing the bat and either hit them on the hand or knock the 2 by out of their hand. If they pick it up again? I'd say you're good to go to smack em until they are no longer a threat or move to pick up their weapon.

There was a story floating around somewhere where someone who took combat defence training broke an assailant's neck while they were unconscious on the ground. I believe he was charged with murder even though he initally was being attacked. Yeah, that's excessive.

But say they have a handgun? You hit him with your bat or pull out your own handgun and shoot them. They go down but move to raise the gun again at you? Do you shoot them again? I would, but only to wound (like a leg shot). If they move yet again to point it at you and there is no way of escape? Then you shoot them again, maybe this time, not necessarily to wound, but to 100% incapacitate.

I think the basis on self defence is to use the force necessary to negate the threat and ONLY negate the threat.

Now in the US, last Halloween, someone shot and killed a trick or treater while Mom stood at the end of the drive and watched. The man was let go and not charged because he DID post a sign saying no tresspassing and the story went that how was he to know who or what was coming up onto his property? It was dark, and all he saw was a figure moving in on him. I am not condoning this in the least because it's insanity. He should have known it was fricken halloween and installed lights or fired a warning shot. But that's just how fucked up the US is when it comes to guns.

 

[ralp]

Does anybody remember the store owner in Chinatown up on charges? Your rights in this area, at least as far as the police and crown are concerned, are way less than described in this thread.

If you take this route, better hope you get an understanding judge, and the get tough on crime weenies haven't forced mandatory sentences.

 

[tboy]

As I stated ralp, if you read my post(s) is that I think the determining factor there was that they tied the guy up in the back of a van for hours.....

 

[HOF]

1. I support the Military, RCMP, TPS, Corrections and ISU.
The CSIS director is an idiot for speaking to on the National, Plain and Simple.
Laison from the ISU should have been: P.O.s Office, RCMP Office, Chief's Office al
coordinating their efforts.

The goal was to ensure the I.P.Ps safety & security, and to gaurd the fence!
This was done and was successful. They should have intervened Saturday in full
force and hard.

It's understandable that citizens don't see the appropriateness of the response;
they tried to be "hands off" and use of numbers on Saturday. In fact, when the
windows were broken, cars ablaze and others being pelted is when immediate
reaction should have occured.

For the record, in my opinion, the Military should have been running the security
Red Zones and I.P.P. areas.

The Police Units, should have been blocking the secondary redzone and protecting the ancillary streets. The Private security firms should have been in teams of 6-8 spaced along Yonge St and given power to contain, restrain, detail and arrest.

The undercover units should have had better position among those wearing black attire and detain when masked or vandalizing started.

2. Without question, both Summits should have been held at the Toronto CNE grounds. Road closures, redirection, convoys could have been facilitated much easier.

3. The media centre was at the CNE and Summit could have been too.

4. The fenced off red zones would be much easier to have managed and Military/Police air support could have been utilized.

5. Water cannons should have been brought in, and the disruptive alarm could have been sounded. Another tactic would be playing "THE BAY CITY ROLLERS MUSIC or EVEVATOR music on the loudsystem. People would leave.

6. If there are 4000 protestors, 400 are solely there to wreak havoc, 400 will get involved at a lessor amount, 400 will be idiots and question the police. That's 30%
That means that the potential targets were dealt with. Those Black Bloc members will be caught; however, catch one another one joins, just like the Taliban. Those little Black Bloc rats come out from under their rocks.

7. For those who were caught up innocently, as some are saying. They heard or saw what happened on Saturday, and they made poor decisions to be in those general areas. When an officer asks to show identification, you are only looking for the confrontation by arguing or refusing to do so. Who's lacking in common sense there? The lookie-lous, you didn't need to put yourself in a hot zone. No empathy from me for your stupidity. Where is your common sense, you became part of the problem, the solution would have been to stay home or not be in that general area.

8. No all the different protest groups that were there. None of them communicated amongst each other. None of them had prepared speeches. CUPE was the only one that really had a plan. If these organizations had 1/4 of a brain, they would have had meetings of their leaders. They would have put the word out to the good folks, if you see masked idiots, people with weapons, molotov cocktails, inform someone! Police, other protesters, etc. I did see one young man tell a young woman who had a bandana on to not associate with his group of friends.

9. When an Officer tells you to move in crisis situations like this weekend. Just do it and don't be stupid about it. Oh, I don't resist arrest, that's is an entirely different charge under the C.C.C.

10. G20 Detention Unit: There were 12 cameras strategically placed so everything is on film as was being monitored from different areas in Toronto and Barrie. There was ample EMS and Police Meds there. In fact, where do you think they got ice, bandaids, gauze, peroxide, slings, stitches. On site, at G20 Detention, where detainees were offered sandwiches and water and given when they wanted it. It was the same with medications, oh yeah, medications or allegies that are musts, you should get a medic-alert bracelet. Port-a-potties, no doors due to safety measures-some dummy may stick their head in potty. Toilet paper is rationed in detention centre. If you really want more BYOBW.

Accommodations for the evening or two are not Hazelton! So STFU! You're a detainee in detention, being processed for a bail hearing. You made a choice to attend a protest that got ugly and when ordered was established you were in the middle of it or causing it. So now, you get to sit on your ass on the very cold floor, in a very cold building, which is not your mommies and daddies nice homes. No, you don't get a blanky, a teddy bear or a bedtime story. On second thought, here's a bedtime story-One day this girl who thinks she's gonna be a big shot and protest in a hot zone, gets arrested, spends the better part of a weekend in detention where there is no bubble bath, no milk and cookies, no mommy/daddy-Just you and your new criminal friends. So STFU Buttercup!

 

[ralp]

As I stated ralp, if you read my post(s) is that I think the determining factor there was that they tied the guy up in the back of a van for hours.....

So if you caught somebody and the police didn't show up right away you'd let them go?

What is a reasonable time to hold someone?

My point is it is a slippery slope, with evidence that charges are likely.

 

[tboy]

So if you caught somebody and the police didn't show up right away you'd let them go?

What is a reasonable time to hold someone?

My point is it is a slippery slope, with evidence that charges are likely.

Ummm if you catch someone in the act you take them to the nearest police station...

It's not rocket science......

BTW Hof:

Very good post!!

"
There are three categories of offences: Indictable, summary conviction and hybrid, which means the offence can be either indictable or summary conviction and it’s left to the Crown’s discretion as to which it is. Ninety per cent of the offences in the criminal code are either indictable or hybrid and if something is a hybrid offence it is deemed to be indictable at the initial stages before the Crown makes its decision as to which way to proceed. That means anybody can arrest somebody that they have seen commit an indictable offence or they have a reasonable suspicion that somebody has committed a criminal offence.
In a “citizen’s arrest”, you are allowed to arrest somebody if you have seen them commit an indictable offence. You do not necessarily need to have seen the crime committed, but you must have reasonable suspicion to believe that somebody has committed a criminal offence. So if you have seen a suspect put items in a bag and walk out of a store without paying, you can make a “citizen’s arrest” and hold the suspect until a person in authority is found who has the right to make an arrest."

From the criminal code of canada: (pay attention to the term "forthwith" meaning immediately):


494. (1) Any one may arrest without warrant
(a) a person whom he finds committing an indictable offence; or
(b) a person who, on reasonable grounds, he believes
(i) has committed a criminal offence, and
(ii) is escaping from and freshly pursued by persons who have lawful authority to arrest that person.
Arrest by owner, etc., of property
(2) Any one who is
(a) the owner or a person in lawful possession of property, or
(b) a person authorized by the owner or by a person in lawful possession of property,
may arrest without warrant a person whom he finds committing a criminal offence on or in relation to that property.
Delivery to peace officer
(3) Any one other than a peace officer who arrests a person without warrant shall forthwith deliver the person to a peace officer. R.S., c. C-34, s. 449; R.S., c. 2(2nd Supp.), s. 5.

 

[Spy]

I think the issue with the guy in chinatown was that the perp wasn't actually caught in the act, he'd committed the crime earlier that week. If you're standing right there and someone goes to vandalize your property you can stop them.

This is correct. The issue is that a citizens arrest can only be done on the spot, at the time the crime is being committed, not some later time. If they had nabbed him in the act there would be no problem. I think the other issue is they transported him from where they caught him back to the store, they should have just held on to him on the spot where they got him, called the cops, and waited for the police to arrive. So they did two things wrong.

In the case of the riots if you were there and you saw someone smashing property, you could legally apprehend them and hold them for the police. Of course with 30 or 40 of those thugs in a mob that might not be smart.

 

[Kingfisher]

Ummm if you catch someone in the act you take them to the nearest police station...

It's not rocket science......

BTW Hof:

Very good post!!

"
There are three categories of offences: Indictable, summary conviction and hybrid, which means the offence can be either indictable or summary conviction and it’s left to the Crown’s discretion as to which it is. Ninety per cent of the offences in the criminal code are either indictable or hybrid and if something is a hybrid offence it is deemed to be indictable at the initial stages before the Crown makes its decision as to which way to proceed. That means anybody can arrest somebody that they have seen commit an indictable offence or they have a reasonable suspicion that somebody has committed a criminal offence.
In a “citizen’s arrest”, you are allowed to arrest somebody if you have seen them commit an indictable offence. You do not necessarily need to have seen the crime committed, but you must have reasonable suspicion to believe that somebody has committed a criminal offence. So if you have seen a suspect put items in a bag and walk out of a store without paying, you can make a “citizen’s arrest” and hold the suspect until a person in authority is found who has the right to make an arrest."

From the criminal code of canada: (pay attention to the term "forthwith" meaning immediately):


494. (1) Any one may arrest without warrant
(a) a person whom he finds committing an indictable offence; or
(b) a person who, on reasonable grounds, he believes
(i) has committed a criminal offence, and
(ii) is escaping from and freshly pursued by persons who have lawful authority to arrest that person.
Arrest by owner, etc., of property
(2) Any one who is
(a) the owner or a person in lawful possession of property, or
(b) a person authorized by the owner or by a person in lawful possession of property,
may arrest without warrant a person whom he finds committing a criminal offence on or in relation to that property.
Delivery to peace officer
(3) Any one other than a peace officer who arrests a person without warrant shall forthwith deliver the person to a peace officer. R.S., c. C-34, s. 449; R.S., c. 2(2nd Supp.), s. 5.

You are welcome to test this anytime you like, however if the person you are arresting resists in any form, or chooses not to comply to your request to be arrested without warrent leaves you open to lawsuites and possible criminal charges. It is not as simple as you make it out to be, in fact Police Officers have additional legislation that allows them to arrest without warrent with limited liability.

Just because it appears to be in 494, doesn't make it a good idea.



kf

 

[tboy]

Believe me King, I don't need your permission. I mean seriously, if some crackhead broke into your house would you just step outside and say to him, have at it, enjoy yourself!!!!

Or if you were walking down the street with some girl and an asshole started accosting her....you'd just stand aside and say to her: you're on your own while I call for the police???

I don't know you but you are certainly implying that you'd do just that.....