[wopchop]

I don't think many people in Toronto think that.

Sadly, I work with people on a daily basis who do think this, and not only about black Canadians.

 

[nfitz]

I don't think many people in Toronto think that.

I'd disagree. I think it's quite clear that the police DO treat black people differently. Why would a black person with no run-ins with the law, have been carded 50 times in the same parts of town I've never been carded? Even John Tory commented that this happens.

I hope that Saunders would reform TPS.

Jeez.... past tense already?

Past tense? That's a subjunctive form. If one says "If I were you I would" doesn't preclude it happening in the future. Perhaps the correct form though is "I be hoping that Saunders would reform the TPS"? Maybe we save that for "Talk like a Newfoundlander Day". Though perhaps someone with better grammar than I should chime in - the subjunctive form often evades me.

 

[Admiral Beez]

I'd disagree.

If you look at my post, I don't think you do.

 

[nfitz]

If you look at my post, I don't think you do.

You seemed to be saying that not many people in Toronto think police officers don't treat white people differently than black people.

If that's not what you were trying to say then I wouldn't disagree.

I'm not sure honestly what you are trying to say. There's a simple solution; don't stop people for questioning if you don't think they have committed a crime. Pulling over a car to card people? Really? This has only happened to me in countries under military rule.

 

[the lemur]

I'd disagree. I think it's quite clear that the police DO treat black people differently. Why would a black person with no run-ins with the law, have been carded 50 times in the same parts of town I've never been carded? Even John Tory commented that this happens.

Past tense? That's a subjunctive form. If one says "If I were you I would" doesn't preclude it happening in the future. Perhaps the correct form though is "I be hoping that Saunders would reform the TPS"? Maybe we save that for "Talk like a Newfoundlander Day". Though perhaps someone with better grammar than I should chime in - the subjunctive form often evades me.

It's a little unclear when the first past of the sentence is in the present.

I hope that Saunders reforms the TPS - expresses hope for something that may yet happen
I would hope that Saunders reformed the TPS - expresses hope for the future, but more cautiously
I had hoped that Saunders would reform the TPS = expresses a past hope that was not fulfilled

 

[NorthYorkEd]

Last summer a friend and I were walking up Yonge St from Queen and a cop was minding a barricade due to street closures (Pride events were going on). There were two black guys ahead of us, dressed "street" style. The Don't Walk light came on at one of the intersections and they decided to cross anyway, as there was no traffic coming off the side street, or anywhere within sight.

The cop yelled, "HEY!", and not in a friendly way. He barked at them to stop and return to the other side. The guys kept walking. He immediately moved towards them and said "You got a problem?" while shoulder-bumping one of the guys. Hard. (My friend later said to me, "That's assault!")

The guys just kept walking, and I'm glad they did. If they had so much as talked back or became indignant at being yelled at and then bumped by this cop, all hell would have broken loose and there would have been a dozen cops swooping down to throw these guys to the ground (or worse).

If the persons crossing had been me or my friend, or perhaps more professionally dressed, the cop might have asked us to stop crossing and return to the other side, but he would have used a much friendlier (even if firm) tone. He snapped at these guys like he was yelling at his dog. Offered no respect. And when they ignored him, he had to take it up a notch to try and save face.

The guys were not supposed to cross the street. But it was a special circumstance as the road was barricaded to traffic and any reasonable person would feel safe to just continue on their way. The cop could have asked them politely, could have treated them with respect. But he chose to be a bullying ass, and it was easy to see how situations like this could easily spiral out of control and end up with someone getting hurt, all over something so trivial.

With the advent of phone cameras, many whites are finally realizing what blacks have known all along, that certain cops are overstepping and treating them differently, sometimes fatally so. I've heard many stories similar to the one above. I expect to hear more, despite the regime change.

 

[SunriseChampion]

As for Saunders - the fact that he thinks that a constitutionally illegal practice is a "valuable tool" tells me everything I need to know about the man. Clearly Saunders is unfit to be Chief of Police if he thinks that violating the charter rights of citizens is a "valuable tool".

He must be a Bill C-51 proponent....in which case... *spit*


PS: Not to take away from your very valid point, NorthYorkEd, but that exact thing happened to me (in the exact same place at that time of year) a few years ago...and I'm white.
Some cops are dicks to ALL people.

PPS: Sorry....not the exact same thing...I ended up having my LCBO bag searched for open booze and getting a jaywalking ticket.

 

[MetroMan]

I'm surprised this hasn't been brought up yet but I'm very curious what Saunders is going to do with Brazen 2. For all intents and purposes, it's still an active investigation into the former Mayor.
Blair screwed it up by getting personal and then having to hand it over to the OPP who screwed it up even further, putting the investigation back by perhaps years.
Chief Saunders will have to decide what to do with it. It's not personal for him so perhaps he'll be able to be impartial and move it forward or simply drop it. This will forever be on Bill Blair's back. He had evidence of serious wrong doing by the Mayor of Canada's largest city and he blew it because he let it get personal.

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

Well anyone who got the TPA nod is immediately questionable.

AoD

 

[Twin Towers]

I'm surprised this hasn't been brought up yet but I'm very curious what Saunders is going to do with Brazen 2. For all intents and purposes, it's still an active investigation into the former Mayor.
Blair screwed it up by getting personal and then having to hand it over to the OPP who screwed it up even further, putting the investigation back by perhaps years.
Chief Saunders will have to decide what to do with it. It's not personal for him so perhaps he'll be able to be impartial and move it forward or simply drop it. This will forever be on Bill Blair's back. He had evidence of serious wrong doing by the Mayor of Canada's largest city and he blew it because he let it get personal.

BBM What evidence is this? The infamous crack video is of no evidential value since it is impossible to prove Mayor Ford was smoking an illegal substance. I am not aware of any evidence of wrong doing on the part of the Mayor that would hold up in court. You can be sure that if Blair had any real evidence he would not have hesitated to lay charges to justify the $5 Million Blair reportedly blew on his investigation into the Mayor's private life.

 

[King of Kensington]

Welcome back, CN Tower.

 

[nfitz]

I am not aware of any evidence of wrong doing on the part of the Mayor that would hold up in court.

The former disgraced mayor you mean.

He did confess on TV to using crack, and pretty much every other drug under the sun. They released images showing public urination, and is still illegal.

Not sure the point in defending a drug-using wife-beating misogynistic bigot like Rob Ford at this stage. At the same time though, it's pretty clear that charges aren't pending. And little point in Saunders pursuing.

 

[Riverdale Rink Rat]

Welcome back, CN Tower.

Hahahaha... I do like the new 'Twin Towers' moniker! If you're going to go full-on conspiracy theorist, you definitely need to embrace it!

 

[rbt]

He did confess on TV to using crack, and pretty much every other drug under the sun.

A confession alone isn't enough to convict someone.

 

[Riverdale Rink Rat]

So, Saunders comes out for carding and Royson James blisters him for it.

I get why the opponents hate it, but I don't get why the supporters care to keep it. Am I obtuse? The evidence doesn't seem to ever get used in court. What am I missing?