[Newsbot]

Title: Toronto police chief retracts G20 arrest video comments
Category: Law & Order
Posted By: Curtman
Date: 2010-12-03 14:39:47
Canadian

[andyt]

Little catsup with your crow, Bill?

$1:

On Nov. 30, the SIU — a civilian organization that deals with death, injury and sexual assault cases involving the police — reopened its investigation into the arrest, during which Nobody sustained fractures to the face.

The SIU concluded on Nov. 26 that it was probable that excessive force was used in the arrest after talking to the police officers involved and witnesses but that they were unable to identify who was responsible and no charges would be laid.

[Freakinoldguy]

$1:

John Bridge, who recorded the video, sent a sworn affidavit to the Special Investigations Unit (SIU) saying the video was not edited and that he had just turned off his camera for a few seconds as he backed away from advancing police officers.

I no way shape or form an I defending the Toronto Police Chief, but, I find it ludicrous that the press would assume because someone sent in a sworn affidavit, everything he video tapped must be the truth.


Are we becomming a society of nitwits?

[andyt]

The SIU also seems to have accepted that what he taped is the truth. Why must it be false, as you imply?

[Freakinoldguy]

andyt andyt:

The SIU also seems to have accepted that what he taped is the truth. Why must it be false, as you imply?

I'm not saying it's false at all.

What I am saying is that it seems pretty knieve of the Press and SIU to think if this guy had an agenda, his signing of a sworn affidavit, would for some reason suddenly make him honest and the video truthful.

But like I said it's not about this gentlemans integrity, it's about the knieveity of the SIU and press.

[EyeBrock]

He fucked up, he coughed to it, move on. Show me a single politician who has done the same.

[andyt]

Freakinoldguy Freakinoldguy:

andyt andyt:

The SIU also seems to have accepted that what he taped is the truth. Why must it be false, as you imply?

I'm not saying it's false at all.

What I am saying is that it seems pretty knieve of the Press and SIU to think if this guy had an agenda, his signing of a sworn affidavit, would for some reason suddenly make him honest and the video truthful.

But like I said it's not about this gentlemans integrity, it's about the knieveity of the SIU and press.

Now the SIU is naive too? You're not saying it's false, but you're sure twisting trying to make it just that. Wonder if you apply the same skepticism to when the police make claims?

$1:

Blair also apologized to Adam Nobody, 27, the man arrested and injured during the protest at Toronto's Queen's Park, for the suggestion police officers were rushing to arrest an armed criminal and that is why force was used against him.

"I have no evidence that he was armed or violent, and all charges against the injured man have been withdrawn," Blair said.

Of course just because the Chief doesn't have any evidence that Nobody was armed and violent doesn't mean he wasn't, right? I see how you play the game now.

[andyt]

EyeBrock EyeBrock:

He fucked up, he coughed to it, move on. Show me a single politician who has done the same.

Far more serious that the cops fucked up, but "can't be indentified," and yet the Chief was still trying to spin this thing till he got spanked for it. The usual wall that goes up. This guy wound up with a fractured face, yet faces no charges for why he deserves a fractured face. And the cops walk.

[Mustang1]

Blair crapped the bed big time, but a simple apology, in this context, is cheap and simple. Either he was too blinded by his bias or lacked the skills necessary to render an impartial conclusion, but in any effect, this unacceptable behavior by someone in his position.

[Freakinoldguy]

andyt andyt:

Freakinoldguy Freakinoldguy:

andyt andyt:

The SIU also seems to have accepted that what he taped is the truth. Why must it be false, as you imply?

I'm not saying it's false at all.

What I am saying is that it seems pretty knieve of the Press and SIU to think if this guy had an agenda, his signing of a sworn affidavit, would for some reason suddenly make him honest and the video truthful.

But like I said it's not about this gentlemans integrity, it's about the knieveity of the SIU and press.

Now the SIU is naive too? You're not saying it's false, but you're sure twisting trying to make it just that. Wonder if you apply the same skepticism to when the police make claims?

$1:

Blair also apologized to Adam Nobody, 27, the man arrested and injured during the protest at Toronto's Queen's Park, for the suggestion police officers were rushing to arrest an armed criminal and that is why force was used against him.

"I have no evidence that he was armed or violent, and all charges against the injured man have been withdrawn," Blair said.

Of course just because the Chief doesn't have any evidence that Nobody was armed and violent doesn't mean he wasn't, right? I see how you play the game now.

Let me make this perfectly clear. My assertation has nothing to do with the integrity of the people involved in this story.

The point I'm making is that people, seem to knievely take at face value that a sworn affidavit, affirmation or an oath is a guarantee that what people say or sign is the truth,.

The same fact applies to the police in courts. How many times have they lied under oath to get a conviction, or how many times has someone who's guilty as sin lied to get off?

Do you get the point I'm making? Oaths or affidavits don't have the same meaning they had even 30 years ago. As the matter of fact they pretty much mean shit in todays world no matter who uses them, police, citizens or protestors.

An oath or an affidavit is like a lock, it looks good but all it does is keep the honest people honest.