From Zoom at KnitNut:
“Yes,” I said, “I’m refusing.”“Real nice,” he said in disgust, “Thanks a lot.”
And he turned around and started to walk back to the knot of officers and the unconscious handcuffed woman.
“It’s still Canada,” said a young man in the crowd.
The cop wheeled around.
“You say something?” he demanded of the young man.
“Yeah,” he replied, “I said ‘It’s still Canada.’”
“What’s that supposed to mean?” demanded the cop.
“It means,” said the young man, “that we have rights here. She can take a picture of anything she wants and she doesn’t have to delete it just because you say so.”
“Oh yeah?” demanded the cop, “I told her I work undercover and I don’t want my picture anywhere, but she doesn’t care what happens to me.”
“Maybe she cares about what happens to that person lying unconscious on the sidewalk,” suggested the young man.
“You a lawyer?” demanded the cop, “Cause if you’re not a lawyer then mind your own business.”
Then, inexplicably, the cop said, “You own property? Eh? You own property? Cause I own property. That means I pay police tax. If you don’t own property, you don’t pay police tax!”
Got that? A Canadian police officer believes that, unless you're a lawyer or own property, you have no right to speak in a public place, certainly no right to contradict him, no matter what he and his cohorts have been doing to a defenceless woman.
First, please read Zoom's full narrative. It will frighten you because, even without those photos, you'll know it is a story that could happen, one way or another, to any of us but most especially to the most vulnerable among us.
It will also inspire you. Zoom's courage in the face of that bullycop was awesome, and it was also contagious. A young man in the crowd spoke up and spoke back. That's how we do it, citizens.
Second, if you're a blogger, please link to Zoom's story, and then send the link to your own post to the Ottawa Police Service complaints site. Bene Diction has further advice for citizens who live in Ottawa.
It's still Canada. So many of us know why that young man piped up with that curious sentence, both worried and proud. The rest of us have to pipe up too. That is the only way that the martinets who think they are in charge are going to get the message.
This is fucking retarded. So what if a cop asked a bystander to erase the pictures they were taking and got mad when they didn't. That's hardly something to get worked up over.
Um, Robert? Perhaps I am missing your humour, although I don't think so.
I only quoted a bit from the midsection of Zoom's narrative. Have you read the whole thing? There's that little matter of a young woman who had her head smashed into the sidewalk by the police? Which is how this whole story developed?
Suppressing video seems to be a fetish with Canada's Finest. Remember how hard it was to pry the Dziekanski tape from their clammy clutches?
Not sure about the title of this post, however. With the House suspended, and our Dear Leader trying to do an end run around the British Parliamentary system, and huge numbers of ignorant citizens egging him on, I'm starting not to recognize this place. Authoritarian cops are just icing on the cake.
Yes, I did read the whole thing. I also read the histrionic comments that ensued. It's a rather mundane tale of the sort I see on rightwing blogs that is used to whip up the rubes.
There's that little matter of a young woman who had her head smashed into the sidewalk by the police?
Hopefully she'll have learned her lesson not to put up "a helluva fight" next time.
We have a problem with law enforcement agencies holding themselves above the law while treating people like subjects who should obey rather than citizens who have rights. The number of incidents involving tasers in situations in which the person who's been shocked obviously posed no real threat is the most obvious symptom but not the only one. When police officers start bullying law abiding citizens into looking the other way and suggest that some people have fewer rights than others, we should get excited about it.
This, coming from the man who posted a video of Adolph Hitler with subtitles insinuating that the man is Stephen Harper. Don't get me wrong -- I thought the video was pretty funny, but it could be said that websites about Stephen Harper being an evil dictator could be interpreted as slightly over-the-top too, no?
My point is that you are irrationally choosing this time to make a stand, probably because you have a chip on your shoulder that stems from something entirely unrelated. And I'm guessing this because I perused the comments and very, very few struck me as "histrionic"; in fact, most were simply informing this Ottawan of her rights regarding taking photographs. Gasp!
Robert McClelland, I don't understand what's up your nose about the interaction zoom described at her blog.
As in any profession - medicine and teaching come to mind - there are individuals in the police force who behave as bullies. They drag down the standard of professional comportment that we expect of cops.
As to not fighting back when apprehended by police officers, individuals have a fight or flight reflex that is triggered in situations when your body - rightfully or not, tells you that your life is threatened.
Perhaps your life experience is such that you would meekly comply when approached by a group of men. Some women do not. There are reasons for that.
If only to inform people as to their rights about when they are "allowed" to take a photograph on a public street, I'm glad this has gotten the attention it has on the blogs.
But for pity's sweet sake! That a police officer told this woman - in the city I live in - that she has to delete a photo she took of one of her employees (and mine too, damnit, I pay property tax in this city which idiot officer seems to think is the standard!) potentially mis-performing his job...
Aside from the fact that this guy needs to get a freakin' clue... there are so many things wrong with this whole situation!
When police officers start bullying law abiding citizens into looking the other way and suggest that some people have fewer rights than others, we should get excited about it.
There was no bullying involved. The officer asked her to delete the photos, she refused and he left. As for his comments directed at the other bystander, so what. People say stupid things when they get angry or frustrated. What he said was the equivalent of someone saying they pay taxes therefore the police work for them.
Hopefully she'll have learned her lesson not to put up "a helluva fight" next time.
Mmm... we've got a problem here that's the same in essence to that of the Taser controversy, with all the delirious right-wing excitement at cops having instant pain at their disposal. To put it as simply as possible, so that the wingnut retards can understand, it is this: Cops are not in the judgment and punishment business. That is the job of the court system. And why? Because the courts can consider all circumstances and come to verdicts that have a chance of approximating justice. One can easily imagine circumstances where this young woman would be found not responsible for her actions by a court -- if she was mentally ill, for instance. But teenie-weenie wingnuts need Judge Dredd cops as mental Viagra, I suppose. It's a bully reaction caused by recognition of profound personal inadequacy.
There was no bullying involved.
Oh horsefeathers. The cop had no right whatsoever to make the request. The very fact he made it shows that he did not know his place -- it should be prima facie grounds for termination. When an armed individual who seems to suffer from the delusion that you are his subordinate gives you an order, that's bullying.
I'm guessing you are defending him not because you think he wasn't bullying, but because the bullying turns you on, Robert.
The cop had no right whatsoever to make the request.
Sure he did. If you take a photograph of someone they have the right to ask you to delete it just as you have the right to tell them to piss off. What the officer didn't have, was the right to use his status as a law enforcement official to coerce the photographer to delete the photo. And the officer didn't do that.
Robert, you can't have it both ways. If you claim that the woman involved should not have struggled against the cops' assault on her because their badges give them authority to say and do what they want, then how does that make them mere citizens when one of them speaks from that same position when telling a citizen that she must delete photos she took?
I never thought I'd see the day when Robert McClelland's reflexive contrarian vaudeville routine would put him in the position of vigilantly defending the abuse of police authority.
"Retarded" is however par for the fauxgressive course.
I am both a lawyer and a property owner. But when I try to intervene in a situation, identifying myself as a lawyer, police officers often say: "He hasn't hired you as his lawyer yet, buddy!"
I think the core idea is that nobody has the right to intervene, ever, because what they say, goes.
Courts too often let them get away with this.
deBeauxOs, you don't have the right to resist arrest.
Mr. McClelland has outed himself as an authoritarian. He simply does not believe that the law as it currently (de jure) applies in Canada is appropriate. There are enough Canadians who think that way to keep those laws from being de facto applied, at least for marginalized people.
On the points at issue, you do not have the right to resist arrest, but you do have the right to not have excessive force applied to you.
Onlookers do have the right to witness and record police behaviour.
So how does someone not resist arrest yet ensure that she won't be physically or sexually abused by a police officer?
There really isn't any protection against a cop's decision to use extreme force unless there are independent/objective witnesses present to observe the process, is there?
Off topic, but Jeff, great seeing you're still alive!
Remember the El Salvador conference?
As for "Robert McLelland," I don't believe this is he. Some impostor making him look bad.
I can understand the cop who works undercover not wanting his picture plastured over the internet. Once something goes on-line, it can become immortal, and make doing his job undercover too dangerous to continue. I can also understand his frustration at being denyed this request by one of the people he risks his life to try to protect. He chose to try intimidation to try to achieve this, and that was the wrong way to go, on many levels. Getting heckled by the other guy probably didn't help his mood either, but his outburst is indicative of a growing gap between the regular citizens and the uniformed police. Many people are too quick to assume the worst of this country's police forces, and unfortunatly, many high profile cases seem to back up this low opinion.
As for the women being arrested, use of force is hard to gauge in the middle of a fight. Too little, and the fight drags out longer, increasing the odds of injury to either cops or suspect, too much, and well, this happens. Medical care was summoned quickly and the suspect was cared for. Even though they left themselves open to critcal onlookers, they did put her health over their own discomfort, - they could have just thrown her unconcious into that van and taken off, but they didn't. I think some administrative punishment, and maybe remidial use of force training would be more helpful than anything else.
The police are there to protect all citizens, not just the rich, the tax-paying, or even just the law-abiding, and some of them need this reminder. As for the citizens of this country, some of us could stand to be reminded that the police are trying enforce the laws that keep us safe, and allow our society to function at all. It is a moral, ethical, and on occasion our legal obligation to assist them when possible. In the case of this arrest, and of this photograph, the photographer had reason to beieve this was possible police misconduct she was recording, and so holding on to the picture was the right move. Of course putting it on-line served no actual purpose except to possibly endanger the undercover officer. Turning a copy of the pic. over to a police watch-dog organization, a lawyer, or even turning a copy over the police complaints dept would have been far more appropriate.
Finally an aside - deBeausOs - are you really arguing that woman being arrested believed she was being sexually assaulted by cops, in broad daylight, in front of witnessess, by a female arresting officer???????
And actually, not resisting is the best way to not be physically abused by a police officer. If you fight and there is no witnessess, he/she could use their own injuries to argue that injuries inflicted upon you were needed to subdue you.
I work as the officer in charge of the Professional Standards Section at the Ottawa Police Service and am currently reviewing this matter at the request of Chief Vern White.
The Service recognizes that there are specific concerns raised here about the conduct of Ottawa Police officers. For everyone's information, the police service takes any allegation of this type very seriously and encourages anyone with such a concern to visit our site at:
http://www.ottawapolice.ca/en/serving_ottawa/compliment_complaint/complaint.cfm
or to contact our Professional Standards Section at (613) 236-1222 ext 5830 to speak with an investigator, or to obtain more information on the process.
In order to comply with due process in matters such as this one, we do not comment on specific cases until any investigation is concluded and a decision is reached about the possible laying of any charges under the Ontario Police Services Act.
If you have any further questions or comments, please direct them to info@ottawapolice.ca . Your concern will then be forwarded to me or to the appropriate person responsible within the police service.
Should you have been a witness to this incident, please contact the Professional Standards Section as your assistance would be greatly appreciated.
Denis Cléroux
Professional Standards Section
Staff Sergeant
Central Division centrale
Ottawa Police
Staff Sergeant Cléroux, thank you very much for acknowledging and responding to our concerns.
deBeauxOs, you don't have the right to resist arrest.
False, you actually do have the right to resist arrest when the arrest is unlawful.
The real Robert would have gotten that right.
If the cop were doing nothing wrong, he would not have objected to having his picture taken. It's that simple.
Bina - uh no, it's not that simple. He had a very good reason to not want to be identified, and said what that reason was. In fact to hear "if your not doing something wrong you have nothing to worry about" argument used AGAINST police is rather amusing. It's the same one most law and order types use to remove privacy and civil liberties from the rest of us.
To make sure my stance is clear - nothing wrong with holding on to the picture in these circumstances, but publishing it online was the wrong thing to do, and was just what the officer was worried would happen. By doing that, his ability to do his job as an undercover officer has been jeopardized, and as his job is protecting us all, well, his frustration is easily understandable.
Yeti, since when do undercover policemen wear police uniforms?
Just because an officer does undercover work dosen't mean he's undercover every single day. Cops who work undercover have done uniform work in the past, they just do it in different areas and circumstances from were they work undercover. Of course, if his picture is taken and published, it doesn't matter anymore that his undercover work is done in another city, any yahoo with a computer gets to see his picture.
The sheer number of officers involved here leads me to suspect that they knew this woman was going to a)run b)fight or c)both. It also suggest this was a lot more than just a bunch of cops beating up on a random woman just for fun, but a planned take-down, that didn't go quite as planned. Has anyone been able to learn what this woman has been charged with in addition to resisting arrest? and what, if any, criminal record she has? Both of these facts would help to shed some more badly needed light on this case.