Good to see the liberals just dominating the polls recently, well into to majority territory, with well deserved high satisfaction numbers for handling of covid19

https://www.macleans.ca/politics/ott...tives-expense/

To the first post you are correct and the first officer did not resort to any violence. Are you suggesting the first officer did not have the right to arrest the chief.
You do not consider resisting arrest to be fully relevant? Can you see were the chiefs hands are reaching? THe other officer saw his partner in trouble....

What if the Chief had been reaching for the officers gun or taser?

Baffles me as you cant see the Chiefs behavior in this situation troubling.

Already have said I think Trudeau wins again. Trudeau is better at capitalizing on the issues that the Conservatives are not. Andrew Scheer has done a horrible job.

Take the latest bill. It was the conservatives that wanted stronger measures against the cheats and than they vote against it. Than they say Trudeau is jeopardizing disability benefits yet they will not just vote yes on those.

Though I do agree if you can go to church and you can hit the casinos and bars you can reconvene parliament safely either with masks and social distancing . You just take 1/2 of each parties members and have them sit with masks and testing .
Trudeau will delay parliament as long as he can as it allows his minority to do more

6 days away from another big decision on the US border. I hope he keeps it closed another month. With all the protests and the climbing cases in the USA they may see another wave

I am curious do you place any responsibility for the incident with the Chief?

Do you think you are I would have been treated differently by the RCMP with the same actions?

This is a pretty terrible misread. Nowhere did I suggest anything remotely close to this. As I said over and over and over this is entirely irrelevant. Of course the police has a "right" to arrest him, and it is even irrelevant whether they police "should" arrest him. The reason Justin Trudeau completely correctly calls this shocking is because of the brutal punching, tackling, chokeholding attack of the second police officer. Whether he has a right to arrest somebody is just absolutely not relevant to this discussion.


Sure. It is the second officer we are criticizing - obviously. The first office certainly wasn't perfect, there was no need to escalate that situation. The second officer was on the scene and they should continue the practice of non-violent deescalation leading to eventual arrest. As the suspect was clearly non-violent at the time but also non-compliant, the approach should be to keep it non-violent until such time as he can be safely arrested. So the first offer is a little bad. The second if unconscionable.


It is partly relevant. Non-compliance does not justify police violence in situations where nobody is at threat. If the suspect was acting violently, then violence can be appropriate.

No. Please include the exact timestamp of what you are talking about. The first officer chooses, inappropriately, to escalate the situation by grabbing the arm. The chief shrugs it away and keeps walking away saying "don't ****ing bother me". Again, non-compliant but non-violent. He isn't reaching at the officer or threatening him in any way.

The first officer very clearly is not in trouble. He is not successfully detaining a non-compliant but non-violent suspect. But he is not in trouble.

He wasn't. That would be a different conversation.

It is just irrelevant. The national conversation right now is about unjustified police violence on POC. That doesn't mean the victims of police violence act in a perfectly flawless way that doesn't upset your grandmother. But why point out the chief said the F word (as the police did too)? It doesn't justify this violence. The right does this over and over again when a POC is brutalized, they spend the majority of their time - just like you did - focusing on the minor transgressions of the victim.

See I see the Chief trying to use the issue to get off. When I was pulled over for expired tag on my plate I never told the cop to

• Fuxx Off and leave me alone through the window
• Get out of my truck and toss my jacket down and challenge the officer to a fight
• Use the Phrase " Do you know who I am "
• Again threaten to fight the officer
• Resist being arrested and fight with the cop

If I had I would expect to me tossed down and taken into custody were I may incur some injuries.

Reality is the Chief was a passenger and needed to stay in the truck.

Reality is the charges will be withdrawn and the Chief will extort a settlement out of the RCMP .

I do agree the second officers actions do need to be fully investigated. Though in many areas in the USA he might have been shot


There is no question in this country we have a problem with how Aboriginal communities are dealt with in this country. Its never going to be solved by keep tossing cash at them to fix it.

Border can't open in 6 days when windsor, toronto and peel(directly north of toronto) can't join the stage 2 opening on June 19.

Why do you keep talking about the chief?

[QUOTE=lozen;56235253]See I see the Chief trying to use the issue to get off. When I was pulled over for expired tag on my plate I never told the cop to

• Fuxx Off and leave me alone through the window
• Get out of my truck and toss my jacket down and challenge the officer to a fight
• Use the Phrase " Do you know who I am "
• Again threaten to fight the officer
• Resist being arrested and fight with the cop

[quote]

Non of this is even a tiny bit relevant. We aren't having a national conversation about whether this guy is a perfect person. We're having a national conversation about police violence. It doesn't matter if he swears. It doesn't matter if he says "do you know who I am". This isn't a national referendum on the character of this person.

It is the police's job to deal with non-compliant suspects safely. If they are being violent, then violence can be a necessary, reluctant measure. But if they are being non-compliant but also non-violent, then violence is not the right answer. Police are going to encounter people who swear. They are going to encounter people who are non-compliant. They are supposed to deal with that appropriately, not tackle, punch, and choke them!

This is a common rhetorical technique form conservatives that happens over and over. Instead of focusing on the issue of unjustified police violence, they pivot to trying to drag the victim of that violence through the coals, focusing most of their attention on every bad phrase or action they can find about the victim. You're better than that.





Ok. So can we talk about police violence against indigenous people, or are you going to pivot back to talking about the naughty words the indigenous person said?

Because there is only one person that elevated this to the situation were the police officer used an aggressive tactic to take him into custody. There is only one person who thought he was entitled and only one person responsible for the situation. The Chief

This incident has nothing to do with race I would expect the police to do the same to me

This is such a terrible take that I feel I need to hear your position one more time just to confirm. You think that violence - being tackled, punched, and choked - is 100% the fault of.....not the person who committed the violence......but of the person who swore and was entitled?

You are just fundamentally confused about the role of police violence. Police are not justified to use violence simply because someone is non-compliant. They have a responsibility to minimize the use of force, using it only when it is necessary for their or for other people's safety. Police are going to come across people that aren't behaving perfectly. We tolerate alcohol in this country, for instance. There is zero value in trying to blame 100% of police violence on the imperfections of the victims of it. Sure, if he had been completely compliant, this would likely not have happened, but the fact that he was non=violently non-compliant doesn't justify the action. That somebody was non-compliant is not a news story, theres no need for that to be in the national conversation.

Victim-blaming is one of the most disgusting components of conservative ideology, it's pretty sad seeing your full throated embrace of it.



How on earth do you know that. You said before the only entitled on was the victim. How do you know the 2nd police officer wasn't entitled? How do you know they were not influenced by race? How do you know they would treat you identically?

In almost every case of police violence against POC, it is impossible to know the degree to which race plays a role. But as BLM so eloquantly identifies, there are systemic issues in society, worse in the US than Canada but not nonexistent in Canada. And so this incident is, rightly, a part of that conversation even though you and I know can never know whether what you are saying is or is not true.