[Zipperfish]

The title of this thread is a bit of a misnomer. You don't have to be wearing a mask at a riot. You can be weraing a mask at an "unlawful assembly" which is pretty loosely defined in Canada. If the cops see three people standing there, they can call it an unlawful assembly.

Maybe I'm overreacting. Probably I am. But given the recent indications that pretty much everything I do is being monitored (metadata only of course ), and given the growing secrecy of government, I'm getting the overall impression that things are tipping a little bit in thir favour.

Maybe it's some of the reading and observing I've been doing lately, but it's depressing how bovine people, taken in aggregate, are; how easily manipulated. Actually, I used to think that when I was 18, but lately it's come back again.

[BartSimpson]

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

The title of this thread is a bit of a misnomer. You don't have to be wearing a mask at a riot. You can be weraing a mask at an "unlawful assembly" which is pretty loosely defined in Canada. If the cops see three people standing there, they can call it an unlawful assembly.

Maybe I'm overreacting. Probably I am. But given the recent indications that pretty much everything I do is being monitored (metadata only of course ), and given the growing secrecy of government, I'm getting the overall impression that things are tipping a little bit in thir favour.

Maybe it's some of the reading and observing I've been doing lately, but it's depressing how bovine people, taken in aggregate, are; how easily manipulated. Actually, I used to think that when I was 18, but lately it's come back again.

I second this motion.

[OnTheIce]

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

Maybe I'm overreacting. Probably I am. .

You are.

[stratos]

Not sure how much motor sports you have in Canada, I know the F-1 has an event but do you have anything like NASCAR? If so next time a fight breaks out in the pits will the drivers wearing helmets and pit crew members wearing fire gear be charged? Their faces are covered and a multi person fight can be called a riot.

[BartSimpson]

OnTheIce OnTheIce:

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

Maybe I'm overreacting. Probably I am. .

You are.

He's not. It's just a matter of time before some cop uses this new law to charge someone for the same reason they use 'resisting arrest' as a generic reason to f*ck with people they don't like.

[Tyler_1]

I am worried about the Root Bear.

[OnTheIce]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

OnTheIce OnTheIce:

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

Maybe I'm overreacting. Probably I am. .

You are.

He's not. It's just a matter of time before some cop uses this new law to charge someone for the same reason they use 'resisting arrest' as a generic reason to f*ck with people they don't like.

Cops abuse their power all the time. This law won't change that considering there's already provisions in the criminal code to deal with this anyways.

[stratos]

$1:

Cops abuse their power all the time. This law won't change that considering there's already provisions in the criminal code to deal with this anyways.

Well sense its already there why do they need to make this law? Are they catering to those who want more action aginst rioters? Is this a give them a warm fuzzy feeling law that will have no teeth and or never be enforced except in very rare cases? Man I'm aksing way to many questions and over thinking this way to much. There will end up being so many exemptions and what not to this law that it will never be enforced.

[Gunnair]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

OnTheIce OnTheIce:

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

Maybe I'm overreacting. Probably I am. .

You are.

He's not. It's just a matter of time before some cop uses this new law to charge someone for the same reason they use 'resisting arrest' as a generic reason to f*ck with people they don't like.

Interesting. Rioters out for a lark and hiding behind a mask get a pass but you'll take the cops to task because you think someone will be a bad boy or girl and abuse their powers?

Risk analysis suggests that the masked rioter is more likely going to do something silly than the beat cop.

I get it though, you don't like cops either.

[OnTheIce]

stratos stratos:

$1:

Cops abuse their power all the time. This law won't change that considering there's already provisions in the criminal code to deal with this anyways.

Well sense its already there why do they need to make this law? Are they catering to those who want more action aginst rioters? Is this a give them a warm fuzzy feeling law that will have no teeth and or never be enforced except in very rare cases? Man I'm aksing way to many questions and over thinking this way to much. There will end up being so many exemptions and what not to this law that it will never be enforced.

Perhaps that the current law isn't specific enough towards riots...perhaps the clarity is needed to define these acts and ensure prosecution. I really don't know....but I don't subscribe to the chicken little mentality of Bart.

[BartSimpson]

Gunnair Gunnair:

I get it though, you don't like cops either.

Nope, I just don't like you. Say, did your mom say yes or no to letting you have your balls back for the weekend? Just curious.

[stratos]

$1:

Perhaps that the current law isn't specific enough towards riots...perhaps the clarity is needed to define these acts and ensure prosecution.

It will be something I would love to see tried in court. Would make for some intersting arguments for and against. They (prosocuters) will use it some day hope I can watch their arguments on TV.

[stratos]

It's a myth here in the USA that the RICO act has always won. The first time it went to trial the prosicution LOST. They made a movie out of it called Find Me Guilty. Staring Vin Deseal. All the court action is from court documents.

Sorry just what OTI and I were talking about brought it to mind.

I think the first couple of times they attempt to enforce this law it will fail. They will have a rewriting of it to narrow it and make it more aplicatable.

[Zipperfish]

OnTheIce OnTheIce:

This law won't change that considering there's already provisions in the criminal code to deal with this anyways.

Yes, there's already provisions in the Criminal Code to deal with concealing your identity during an indictable offence. Smashing, looting and wanton destruction are all potentially indictable offences. So what is the point of this law?

It's because this is pre-emptive. To remove mask-wearers early on, before they start any trouble. In my opinion, it isn't right to arrest people before they have committed a crime.

I also think it's so that agencies can easily identify organizers for intelligence purposes.

[BartSimpson]

OnTheIce OnTheIce:

Perhaps that the current law isn't specific enough towards riots...perhaps the clarity is needed to define these acts and ensure prosecution. I really don't know....but I don't subscribe to the chicken little mentality of Bart.

And I don't subscribe to the naive notion that our munificent masters can be universally trusted with ever-increasing power.