****Love Police's Charles Torres Veitch arrested in Canada at the G20

[Georgiacopguy]

I am not condemning them eternally, they just need to realize they are being a dipshit and just stop. They need to rekindle their humanity, How is another question entirely.

Some of the phucks deserve to be condemned forever. Some of the ones I have talekd ot to try and wake up think its good to be the police in a police state. That mentallity scares me, and deserves to be condemned.

[Freeski]

IMHO any LE that participates in this is a dipshit. Ignorance of being a dipshit is no excuse.  And cameras are the new guns, yes, they are because they even claim they are and arrest you for it.

Right! And saying "I'm just doing my job" is the coward's way out. Same goes for virtually every government bureaucrat: they are ALL traitors due to their ignarance and apathy of the historical intent of the "free world", and especially of America as the one-time leader of the free world. The truth hurts, and should embarass these dipshits enough to educate themselves and change their ways.

[MonkeyPuppet]

Probably not "full compliance", at least not technically: "to furnish his or her name and address[1], to identify himself or herself[2] and to state the purpose[3]" (there are three aspects to this - although it is no doubt intentionally vague).

Statement under oath to be conclusive evidence

4.For the purposes of this Act, the statement under oath of an officer or employee of the government, board, commission, municipal or other corporation or other person owning, operating or having control of a public work, as to the boundaries of the public work is conclusive evidence thereof. R.S.O. 1990, c. P.55, s. 4.

Refusal to obey guard, etc.

5.(1)Every person who neglects or refuses to comply with a request or direction made under this Act by a guard or peace officer, and every person found upon a public work or any approach thereto without lawful authority, the proof whereof lies on him or her, is guilty of an offence and on conviction is liable to a fine of not more than $500 or to imprisonment for a term of not more than two months, or to both.

Arrest

(2)A guard or peace officer may arrest, without warrant, any person who neglects or refuses to comply with a request or direction of a guard or peace officer, or who is found upon or attempting to enter a public work without lawful authority. R.S.O. 1990, c. P.55, s. 5.


http://www.e-laws.gov.on.ca/html/statutes/english/elaws_statutes_90p55_e.htm

Still somewhat puzzled, though the cops not being well-versed on implementation could be part of the equation (*snicker*).

The statute as written (got my info from the same link, but here's a better source) says "A guard or peace officer may require...".  I'm no expert in language, but this tells me that unless a demand is made, the information cannot be expected.  Asking for someone's name does not automatically compel that person to also state their address and intent.  However, Charlie's private conversation/interrogation away from the camera may also include his refusal to give more information.

The Arrest section above is limited to the statute, so the neglect and refusal to comply is restricted only to those actions which the statute and implementing regulations may require.  Again, the regulations become an important piece of the puzzle.  The regulations can't change the law, but they will prescribe the method by which enforcement is carried out and may provide additional clarity on the whole compelling of performance aspect.

Another reason why the regulations are important is to find out if there is any prescription there for verifying the information provided.  I mean, if you give A name, AN address and say "I'm sight-seeing", is that not in full compliance with the law as written?  This takes care of Section 3(a), now you just have to put up with 3(b) that says they can search you without a warrant.  After which, they could still use 3(c) to simply obstruct your entry or remove you by force (nothing about arrest, though).

The law is crap and crappily written, no doubt, but we're only seeing half of it.  So far, no regulations are available on the internet to review.  Which is kinda messed up since there should be at least one regulation prior to any recent changes.  So, the law is not secret, but the regulations are.

[chris jones]

Right! And saying "I'm just doing my job" is the coward's way out. Same goes for virtually every government bureaucrat: they are ALL traitors due to their ignarance and apathy of the historical intent of the "free world", and especially of America as the one-time leader of the free world. The truth hurts, and should embarass these dipshits enough to educate themselves and change their ways.

No argument.

   These guys are carrying out the orders given to them by the pols. Sure, some are true blue powertripping sadistical egomaniacs , true, no argument...
But please include their superiors, their chief, the mayor and on up to the Ol Govenor. If these guys knew without a doubt if they were to step over the line they would be fired, no benys, no pention, ZIP, and if their act was criminal in any way they would be charged ,,things would be a tad different!!!! is that the case? not by a long shot.
  The focus here for me is the superiors, ya I know that there are a segment of cops who are definetly members of the  goonsquad, but who is truly to blame here.
  Don't get me wrong , I'm not sticking up for the atrocitys, I'm not defending those who are commiting these acts, I'm only trying to hit on a subject that seems to have been sidetracked.

Times have changed, could be I'm seeing this from a perspective of long ago, heck, I'm probably missing something here, admittedly. Why, I marched with the Vietnam vets in the mall  WDC. Yes and I know things were different then. But we established a communication with the cops on all levels. " we aren't going to become violent, we don't want a confrontation, we will keep our group in controll, we only ask you will do the same, keep your guys on a leash. We are calling out the regime, give us space to do this and we will get along just fine. And we did. Though I have to add this was profiled, MSM was all over this and we had public support.

I can't help mentioning this, there is a bread and butter aspect to this. I wondered as i read this what i would have done many years ago if I had been posted at this event. Would i have called in sick and joined the marchers, probably, i was single-and solitary responsibility, and didn't smoke the Govs brand. What if i had a wife and three kids, 10 years time in, different story.

Ive been ranting, and examing this over and over, I respect Charles torres Veitch and all the demonstrators, they are our people. What i have concluded is the cops are buffers, controlled by the pols and their superiors, they are dupes for the most part, there are the shiittbaggs and then of course those who are stuck and have no option. their superiors are well aware of who is a sadistic sold out braindead powermonger, they use them. it all comes down the chain of command.  They are but a controlled extension of the power, I have a habit of aiming for the head, not the finger. Who is realy at blame here.........

this  ...A government changes a law to allow police to arrest people without probable cause.
there are a few cops on site,Georgia Cop and Rawiron, i would like to get their take, what would they do if assigned to this.

[Freeski]

"A guard or peace officer may require...".  I'm no expert in language, but this tells me that unless a demand is made, the information cannot be expected."

Doesn't this apply to the guard's actions towards the "subject", i.e. the guard can use his/her discretion as to whether they choose to require said info from their subject or not?

As we know, every single word matters in these things -- because words and phrases are intended to confuse and distract giving those in the legal field an advantage over us useless eaters. That ain't justice; that's a scam.

[MonkeyPuppet]

"A guard or peace officer may require...".  I'm no expert in language, but this tells me that unless a demand is made, the information cannot be expected."

Doesn't this apply to the guard's actions towards the "subject", i.e. the guard can use his/her discretion as to whether they choose to require said info from their subject or not?

As we know, every single word matters in these things -- because words and phrases are intended to confuse and distract giving those in the legal field an advantage over us useless eaters. That ain't justice; that's a scam.

Not confusing or distracting really.  People just don't read it, and if they do, they aren't familiar with some very basic rules for statutory construction.  One day of study and [most] people could comprehend 90% of statutory law.  It's obviously a rhetorical question, but why isn't such study made part of our public school system?

You're right, though, and that's exactly what I was trying to point out.  The cop/guard may make a demand for the information and thus the "subject" is then required to provide it.  Without review of the regulations, we don't know what constitutes compliance.  As the statute is written, verbal communication would be sufficient.  The regulations, however, may require some form of issued I.D., which would bring about a lot of additional questions about the legality of requiring government-provided I.D.  Unless and until we see the regulations, there's really no way to know.

[ekimdrachir]

It means WE OWN YOU SLAVE

http://www.e-laws.gov.on.ca/html/statutes/english/elaws_statutes_90p55_e.htm