[Parsnips]

It's not OK for people to torch cars....no one in this thread has suggested it is.
It's also OK for the police to arrest these people...no one has suggested otherwise.
However, the police chose to ignore the looting and torching and lazily stand idle...why is that OK?

That was aimed at the media's double standard at the time where they seemed to say that the torching of cars and harassment of officers was "unfortunate" and someone getting arrested as a result of that was "unthinkable and inhumane".

Yeah, they weren't there at the time...I dunno why. I asked an officer why that was able to happen, and he said there were only two cruisers in the area. They tried to stop people but with that kind of crowd it was easy for them to get overwhelmed and have their cars torched. Like I said above, better planning was required for this.

 

[doug]

media's double standard at the time where they seemed to say

your statement, while making little sense, reveals that most of your problems are in your own head.

Yeah, they weren't there at the time...I dunno why.

You don't know much....I see you're backpeddling now anyway....intellectual dishonesty at its' best.

 

[Parsnips]

your statement, while making little sense, reveals that most of your problems are in your own head.



You don't know much....I see you're backpeddling now anyway....intellectual dishonesty at its' best.

How is that just in my head? If you don't agree with me, fine, but just because you don't like my opinion doesn't make me delusional.
... and I was agreeing with what they said, I never defended them not being there or said it was OK. It would be back-peddling if I had defended their absence earlier.

 

[doug]

You think the media has a double standard because of something the 'seemed' to say....that's pathetic.

Your delusions have nothing to with what I think of your opinion.

It's backpeddling because you chose to leave aut a pertinent bit of information....a double standard I guess?

 

[Parsnips]

You think the media has a double standard because of something the 'seemed' to say....that's pathetic.

Your delusions have nothing to with what I think of your opinion.

It's backpeddling because you chose to leave aut a pertinent bit of information....a double standard I guess?

Fine, what they did say.

And yes, my "delusions" have everything to do with what you think seeing as they are what you perceive my opinions to be based on.

And no, the information was irrelevant to the topic at hand. We were talking about civil liberties, not police organizational issues. So not back-peddling good sir.

 

[Woodbridge_Heights]

A many, many, protesters where arrested without charge well before the violence started. Then, lo and behold, when things do start to get smashed up the tens of thousands of officers in the area are nowhere to be seen? If the cops were there to prevent disorder and destruction, then they may as well just have stayed home. I guess they preferred to go after the low hanging fruit.

Also, I submit that some kids throwing rocks and burning cop cars is not even remotely a good enough reason to suspend civil liberties. Moreover, these officers should be able to take some harassment without kicking ass. If someone harasses me, I'm not allow to beat the snot out of them, so why should the police be able to?

Where do you work? I'd like to blow bubbles at you and insult you for 8-12 hrs. If you don't kick my ass I'll pay you $200 if you do you pay me $500.

 

[Parsnips]

Where do you work? I'd like to blow bubbles at you and insult you for 8-12 hrs. If you don't kick my ass I'll pay you $200 if you do you pay me $500.

God bless your soul

 

[doug]

And no, the information was irrelevant to the topic at hand.

It was relevant...which is why you left it out....it didn't help your position...double standard or hypocrisy?

God bless your soul

Keep your fantasies to yourself.

 

[Parsnips]

It was relevant...which is why you left it out....it didn't help your position...

Once again, it wasn't. It had relevance to the planning and positioning of the police. Want to hear me come out against it? I was displeased with the location distribution of the police on Saturday. They should have prepared for the violence happening outside of the designated protest zone. Happy? But once again, this has nothing to do with civil liberties. If you go back and read the conversation, you will see that it was brought up as a separate issue, and when it was I dealt with it seperatly. Don't come into a conversation halfway through.

double standard or hypocrisy?

...Neither, if anything, which it wasn't as I previously stated, it would be failing to state all of the facts to strengthen my argument. Hypocrisy is pretending to hold values that one does not actually have and a double standard is a value that applies to one group but not another. Inapplicable in this case.

It was relevant...which is why you left it out....it didn't help your position...

Once again, it wasn't. It had relevance to the planning and positioning of the police. Want to hear me come out against it? I was displeased with the location distribution of the police on Saturday. They should have prepared for the violence happening outside of the designated protest zone. Happy? But once again, this has nothing to do with civil liberties. If you go back and read the conversation, you will see that it was brought up as a separate issue, and when it was I dealt with it seperatly. Don't come into a conversation halfway through.

Keep your fantasies to yourself.

What? Ok...

 

[doug]

Once again, it wasn't.

Yes, it was...it didn't support your diatribe so you left it out. You're a hypocrite.

You're confusing yourself now.

 

[Parsnips]

Yes, it was...it didn't support your diatribe so you left it out. You're a hypocrite.

You're confusing yourself now.

Ok, I'll take a different approach. It was the topic of civil liberties in which I justified the arrest of supposedly innocent people to maintain peace. I did not mention the failure of the police to be at the violence on Saturday because I did not believe it had relevance. So tell me how police organizational issues is relevant to civil liberties. Enlighten me.

 

[Dilla]

Where do you work? I'd like to blow bubbles at you and insult you for 8-12 hrs. If you don't kick my ass I'll pay you $200 if you do you pay me $500.

If I did kick your ass, I'd be arrested, wouldn't I? It's illegal to kick people's asses. See, most people aren't allowed to take out their frustrations with violence, why are the police?

 

[Dilla]

You're talking about black and white saying that harrassed officers, destroyed property and torched cars is better than having some supposedly innocent people thrown into jail for a day.

No, you're talking black and white. You're trying to make it sound as though we had a choice between one or the other. Not the case at all. Thanks to police incompetence (or an apparent inability to arrest anyone who can run) we got - destroyed property, torched cars, AND innocent people thrown into jail for a day.

And, sorry, you don't consider the looting of stores, the burning of cars and the torment of officers a situation for which drastic action is required?

I do. The police stood idly by and watched this happen. Actually, they weren't even there to watch. A billion spent, and they couldn't stop a handful of teens. Face it, they're terrible at their jobs. What was the number of police in the core that day, 19000-20000? There was none at Queen and University? Yonge from College to Queen? This is where most of the destruction happened, and there wasn't a cop to be seen for blocks and blocks and blocks - with 19000 in the area. According this Sun article (and don't try to tell me the Sun is for the underdog here) there was between 4000 and 8000 protesters. That means there was somewhere between 4 to or 2 police for every 1 protester. Yet riots went on in the streets for quite some time. I wouldn't call that bad planning, I'd say it's somewhere between a Keystone Kop level of incompetence at best, or willful negligence at worst.

If they chose to protect these people's "liberties", they wouldn't have been able to track down and arrest any of the perpetrators and make a statement.

What are you basing that on? That is, what was the instance where the suspension of civil liberties led to large, significant arrests that wouldn't have happened otherwise?
Was catching these people so important that we had to re-write the law to get them off the streets? What are they being charged with? Mischief? Property damage under $5000? Any crimes committed weren't all that bad. It's not like all this effort got any hardcore criminals off the streets.


PS- I love that you put "liberties" in quotes. I'm not sure what it means, but I know it's hilarious.

 

[shilly]

* high fives dilla

 

[Parsnips]

When I say black and white, I am referring to the view that you either have all possible liberties, or none. Neither was the case during the G20- some liberties were suspended, but the protestors were still left with other liberties. Liberties are put in place to protect society. So when those same liberties become a threat to the society that grants them, they may be in part suspended in order to protect the people. And yes, I do believe that the suspension of civil liberties is worth the protection of property owned by people who actually contribute to this world. And you also said that you do agree that the violence and destruction was worthy of drastic action. What solution would you have proposed other than what they planned? And no, they didn't get any hardcore criminals off the street, though I seriously doubt the humanity of somone who travels to a summit such as this for the sole purpose of violence and destruction. But like I said- it wasn't about getting hardcore criminals off the street (mind you they let most of the people go right away). It was about preventing the damage.

I agree with you in part regarding the failure for the police to act on Saturday at King/Bay, Queen St. etc. They weren't terrible at their jobs, it was the higher ups who failed to suspect the possibility of violence occurring outside the designated protest zone. Mind you, the police can't just get up and leave their posts if they see stuff going down at other locations. So yes, it was bad coordination/planning. Don't blame the officers. Calling it willful negligence seems a bit much- why would they intentionally not stop the damage if they had the means to? But yeah, the protection wasn't worth $1B.

PS- I love that you put "liberties" in quotes. I'm not sure what it means, but I know it's hilarious.

Oh? Whysat?