"A series doesn't start until someone loses at home. Best of 3 and The Canucks have home ice advantage"
from someone tweet, doesn't matter who...
http://twitter.com/search?q=%23ruinthebruin
Prime Minister Approved!
http://lockerz.com/s/109126704
Pfft!
(http://i.imgur.com/qAJVv.jpg)
Say g'night Vancouver! http://youtu.be/KNRLKmjpo0I
Nice choice of words, Curb Stomp, it unfortunately triggered a memory in my brain.
http://www.filmsnmovies.com/video/3632/american_history_x_curb_stomp/
http://dneiwert.blogspot.com/StompIllegalAliens.gif
:-B
Quote from: Mr. Analog on June 10, 2011, 08:47:50 AM
:-B
??? ??? ??? "Drooling Out Of Both Sides Of Mouth" (according to http://www.cool-smileys.com/text-emoticons )
Yeah, Boston sure got a fire lit under their butt!
You gotta admit Vancouver was doing everything they could to shoot on net, but Tim Thomas musta been a brick layer in a previous life, because he built a giant wall!
Best thing Vancouver's coach did in game 4 was pull Luongo before it turned into a bigger blowout. Too bad he didn't do it earlier, when Vancouver could've still built up a comeback.
Quote from: Darren Dirt on June 10, 2011, 08:54:40 AM
Quote from: Mr. Analog on June 10, 2011, 08:47:50 AM
:-B
??? ??? ??? "Drooling Out Of Both Sides Of Mouth" (according to http://www.cool-smileys.com/text-emoticons )
Uhh, buck-tooth emote, as in I'm happy I triggered a nerd moment that forced a Googlin'...
"Drooling Out Of Both Sides Of Mouth" !?! Double-u Tee Eff!!!!
Quote from: Thorin on June 10, 2011, 09:03:37 AM
Yeah, Boston sure got a fire lit under their butt!
You gotta admit Vancouver was doing everything they could to shoot on net, but Tim Thomas musta been a brick layer in a previous life, because he built a giant wall!
Best thing Vancouver's coach did in game 4 was pull Luongo before it turned into a bigger blowout. Too bad he didn't do it earlier, when Vancouver could've still built up a comeback.
Yep! Finally got some hockey! Now if both teams play their asses off tonight I will be happy, I don't wanna see blowout hockey for either team really, that's boring.
Take it "home" Canucks!
Don't choke as bad as ... [insert name of team notorious for getting an early lead in series/games then giving it away]
Hah, my post for game 4 and game 6 is pretty much the same - they shoulda pulled Luongo earlier to give their team a chance!
But I thought he's fort like 0.75 against when HOME. Gonna be a near shut-out tonight, my prediction. Vancouver wins it like 2-1.
Can't believe their not calling ANYTHING it's madness!
2:0 Boston WOOOOOOOO!!
Make that 3 - zip!
:dance:
4-0!!! Unbelievable!
http://youtu.be/5apEctKwiD8
And now the angry mob wrecks downtown. Way to go fans, way to go.
I didn't get to see the blowout (if that is what it was). Was the game at least interesting/exciting?
Quote from: Lazybones on June 15, 2011, 09:43:40 PM
And now the angry mob wrecks downtown. Way to go fans, way to go.
That many people there @%&# was gonna get wrecked anyway... pretty sad though...
Quote from: Mr. Analog on June 15, 2011, 11:04:45 PM
Quote from: Lazybones on June 15, 2011, 09:43:40 PM
And now the angry mob wrecks downtown. Way to go fans, way to go.
That many people there @%&# was gonna get wrecked anyway... pretty sad though...
If you watch the videos, most people in the "mob" aren't doing anything but photographing / videotaping what the stupid few are doing.
This "riot" made me go look up what our rights vis-a-vis assembly are, as the news people were reporting that the police were announcing that these were now "unlawful assemblies".
We have the right to peaceful assembly.
We may become part of an unlawful assembly if we, as a group of twelve or more, are preparing to disturb the peace.
We may become part of a riot if we, as a group of twelve or more, start disturbing the peace in a tumultuous manner.
If we are part of a riot, an officer of the peace may read an official proclamation and give us thirty minutes to disperse, after which we can be arrested and jailed for up to two years.
If we are part of a riot, officers of the peace are compelled by law to stop the riot with force equal to that required to stop the riot - for instance, if the officers are being yelled at they may push back with riot shields, if the officers are being pelted with rocks they may shoot back with less-lethal rubber bullets, if the officers are being assaulted with weapons, they may shoot back with deadly force.
Most of the people standing around videoing were in no way part of an unlawful assembly or riot, as they were clearly not preparing to or actively disturbing the peace. They were merely spectating. Also, since no official proclamation was read, people could not be arrested and jailed for two years (the official proclamation has
very specific wording).
I was very surprised that the Vancouver Police Department didn't come down like a giant hammer on these "riots", and I applaud them for their measured response. Yes, lots of things got broken (cars, store windows, etc). But with all those cameras around, most of the people who broke those things will be found and charged with property damage. Meanwhile, the police made sure people had ways to leave the riot zone, and made sure not to escalate the situation into one where people would be seriously injured or die from clashing with police.
I would not be surprised to find out that the actual property damage ended up being done by people whose sole purpose it was to stir up trouble, regardless of the outcome of the game, and that these people had planned it out as a group beforehand. Hockey fans don't normally carry liters upon liters of gasoline with them when going downtown to watch game 7 on a big outdoor screen, yet that's what was used to set at least a couple of the cars on fire.
Yes, I keep putting "riots" in quotation marks, because there was only one person listed as injured, and that person doesn't appear to be injured due to riotous behaviour, but rather due to drink-induced lack of balance.
Peaceful assembly?
http://news.nationalpost.com/2011/06/16/photos-riots-fire-destruction-after-vancouvers-loss/
WTF!!
Check out the aerial video here:
http://www.ctv.ca/CTVNews/Canada/20110616/vancouver-riots-110616/
Unbelievable.
WTF! Looks more like a food RIOT or political uprising than a post hockey game scenario.
I am so ashamed of my countrymen today... so ashamed.
Quote from: Melbosa on June 16, 2011, 08:27:32 AM
WTF! Looks more like a food RIOT or political uprising than a post hockey game scenario.
I am so ashamed of my countrymen today... so ashamed.
That's for sure, we all look pretty bad today internationally thanks to a few jerks and a large, dumb crowd.
That helicopter footage really put it in perspective for me, the on the ground photos don't really give the sense of scale...
Quote from: Mr. Analog on June 16, 2011, 08:31:19 AM
Quote from: Melbosa on June 16, 2011, 08:27:32 AM
WTF! Looks more like a food RIOT or political uprising than a post hockey game scenario.
I am so ashamed of my countrymen today... so ashamed.
That's for sure, we all look pretty bad today internationally thanks to a few jerks and a large, dumb crowd.
That helicopter footage really put it in perspective for me, the on the ground photos don't really give the sense of scale...
What I am hearing this morning is they also looted future shop the bay and several other stores... Apparently it was groups of 20 somethings, that came prepared.. Alchohol was not a factor, some had gas with them to light the car fires.
Quote from: Lazybones on June 16, 2011, 09:18:48 AM
Quote from: Mr. Analog on June 16, 2011, 08:31:19 AM
Quote from: Melbosa on June 16, 2011, 08:27:32 AM
WTF! Looks more like a food RIOT or political uprising than a post hockey game scenario.
I am so ashamed of my countrymen today... so ashamed.
That's for sure, we all look pretty bad today internationally thanks to a few jerks and a large, dumb crowd.
That helicopter footage really put it in perspective for me, the on the ground photos don't really give the sense of scale...
What I am hearing this morning is they also looted future shop the bay and several other stores... Apparently it was groups of 20 somethings, that came prepared.. Alchohol was not a factor, some had gas with them to light the car fires.
Yep, there was certainly a plan in action for some, the sad part is how crowds react to stuff like this, it was a powder keg looking for a match...
Quote from: Mr. Analog on June 16, 2011, 06:39:40 AM
Peaceful assembly?
http://news.nationalpost.com/2011/06/16/photos-riots-fire-destruction-after-vancouvers-loss/
WTF!!
A few dozen morons who were planning on stealing/destroying no matter what happened in the game. Maybe they recently watched "Fight Club".
PS: [sarcasm]nice creative, unique wording to describe nearly every single photo. Sounds like for the most part, people were "run[ning] amok". Man, it's been a really long time since I've run amok. Kinda miss those days of my youth... [/sarcasm] :rolleyes:
I dunno, like I said before, the helicopter videos show the real scale...
I see a lot of Canadians brushing this off but really? Honestly? How many cars need to be on fire and businesses trashed before it's a "real" riot? I don't get how anyone looking at this mess could just shrug it off as "just a few troublemakers".
This was real all right, real embarrassing.
I dunno, all of that helicopter footage appears to be of the same single block. The news report someone linked to earlier states the first car to be burned was specifically brought down to the "riots" to be burned. Many of the pictures in that other link are of the same three or four locations - a bank, a Sears store, a couple of police cruisers, a car on fire.
I wonder if anyone'll make a map showing where the various problems occurred - I imagine it'll cover a lot less ground than it is being made out as. Compare that to the clashes between protesters and police in Greece that have happened in the last couple of days, where protesters started peacefully assembling a couple of weeks ago but are now bringing Molotov cocktails to throw at police.
I still say there were a few people in that crowd of Canucks fans who were intent on damaging as much property as possible, who managed to incite a few actual Canucks fans to do the same, while a large contingent of Canucks fans stood back and watched and took pictures.
So today people are organizing to put photos of rioters online so they can be identified and arrested. There was also a flash mob organized to help with the cleanup: http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/story/2011/06/16/bc-riot-thursday.html
And I guess it's just the huge number of people standing back and not participating, compared to the small number of people actually burning stuff, breaking stuff, or taunting police, that makes me feel like it's being blown out of proportion.
Really how much bigger and out of control does it need to be, isn't that enough?
Quote from: Thorin on June 16, 2011, 10:28:58 AM
it's just the huge number of people standing back and not participating, compared to the small number of people actually burning stuff, breaking stuff, or taunting police, that makes me feel like it's being blown out of proportion.
^ this.
and btw
Quote from: Vancouver Mayor Gregor Robertson blamed the rioting on a small number of troublemakers, and said "they will be held accountable."
Vancouver Mayor Gregor Robertson blamed the rioting on a small number of troublemakers, and said "they will be held accountable. The rioters came with a plan for destruction in mind. They had a game plan that they carried out and it was very difficult to contain. This group was mobile. They split up. They had tools to start fires," said the mayor.
Quote from: Thorin on June 16, 2011, 10:28:58 AM
I wonder if anyone'll make a map showing where the various problems occurred - I imagine it'll cover a lot less ground than it is being made out as.
map found!
http://www.cbc.ca/news/interactives/vancouver-riots/index.html
Quote from: Darren Dirt on June 16, 2011, 10:46:54 AM
Quote from: Thorin on June 16, 2011, 10:28:58 AM
it's just the huge number of people standing back and not participating, compared to the small number of people actually burning stuff, breaking stuff, or taunting police, that makes me feel like it's being blown out of proportion.
^ this.
What? If it was only a few people causing an issue and the rest of the crowd was
totally passive then how come the police weren't able to pick up the few and leave the rest on their merry way? Even if those few people were spread out it's not like the RCMP can't talk to each other wirelessly to converge on trouble spots.
The
worst of it was no doubt the result of a select few asshats, that doesn't trivialize it. Fact of the matter is there was a huge crowd in downtown Vancouver because of the Stanley Cup, it turned ugly. And while yeah, it could have been worse, it's already plenty bad...
well it seems that (based on the map I linked above, in an edit that took place after your quote -- sorry about that) the overall area of trouble was limited to maybe 2x5 blocks. And the majority of people present (non-police) were not involved in violence per se, they were mostly standing and observing or recording (for evidence or entertainment, who knows).
It appears that the police may have been staying more standoffish, instead of just hauling everybody in sight into the paddy wagon, trying to avoid escalating the situation by presuming criminality out of simply being presence (the way the G8 police usually seem to do) and imo that mighta kept it from getting to be a really bad situation.
But a lot of these non-violent participants weren't completely innocent, many of them were guilty of LOOTING, if not rioting. Average Joe isn't gonna light a fire in a gas tank (esp. a police car) but has less of a problem entering the already-broken window of a Future Shop or whatnot and taking something.
Still sad, and embarassing. But not as bad as what it coulda been, and not as bad as how the international press might be tempted to portray.
Quote from: Mr. Analog on June 16, 2011, 10:59:39 AM
Quote from: Darren Dirt on June 16, 2011, 10:46:54 AM
Quote from: Thorin on June 16, 2011, 10:28:58 AM
it's just the huge number of people standing back and not participating, compared to the small number of people actually burning stuff, breaking stuff, or taunting police, that makes me feel like it's being blown out of proportion.
^ this.
What? If it was only a few people causing an issue and the rest of the crowd was totally passive then how come the police weren't able to pick up the few and leave the rest on their merry way? Even if those few people were spread out it's not like the RCMP can't talk to each other wirelessly to converge on trouble spots.
The worst of it was no doubt the result of a select few asshats, that doesn't trivialize it. Fact of the matter is there was a huge crowd in downtown Vancouver because of the Stanley Cup, it turned ugly. And while yeah, it could have been worse, it's already plenty bad...
I was watching live footage from the streets after the game, and what I saw mostly was crowds on the street near an intersection, police on the other side of the intersection telling people to go home over a loudspeaker, and a couple of idiots running out of the crowd and taunting the police.
Later on, I saw video of police rush a crowd - they were targeting a specific individual that had been throwing things at them, they pushed him down to the ground with their riot shields, they arrested him, and then they backed off the crowd again. No other people in that crowd threw things.
Yes, the big crowds might have been in the way of the police, but then the police didn't even try to enter the big crowds, they just slowly moved them along like a parent tirelessly nagging a child to do their homework.
Interestingly, the same number of people (or more?) were gathered for the Olympics, but there the crowd was peaceful. I suspect this had to do with the large number of security forces (12,000+ soldiers? extra police from other precincts?) coupled with said security forces' reluctance to just start beating on people the way the G20 security forces did.
The real question for me is what could be done to stop this kind of mob action without putting people's lives at significant risk? I mean, putting snipers on rooftops with orders to shoot riot leaders would work, but goes against the very fibre of the Canadian Criminal Code, which says you meet violence with an
equal level of violence.
Here's a video showing someone actually standing up to the crowd and telling them they're idiots, and at least some in the crowd calling for something, anything, to happen to entertain them:
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/video/video-lone-woman-stands-up-to-vancouver-rioters/article2063297/
Perhaps there is some truth in that the crowd of onlookers caused the riots to happen, dimply by wanting to see something happen.
National Geographic had a good article on that, too:
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/06/0620_050620_sportsriots.html
edit: added the video link, d'oh!
Here's a home video showing what the crowds were like. Police showed incredible restraint, especially as things were thrown at them and they were insulted.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JFO-KKCxuec
Watch from 6:00 to 7:00ish, and you'll see that they did arrest individuals who threw things if they could identify them.
Quote from: Mr. Analog on June 16, 2011, 10:59:39 AM
What? If it was only a few people causing an issue and the rest of the crowd was totally passive then how come the police weren't able to pick up the few and leave the rest on their merry way? Even if those few people were spread out it's not like the RCMP can't talk to each other wirelessly to converge on trouble spots.
If you watch the videos you see that the trouble makers are surrounded by by-standard in every direction in the thousands blocking up the street. Lots of cover to run into and vanish.
Also those by-standards could turn ugly if the police tried to force their way in.
Quote from: Lazybones on June 16, 2011, 02:35:10 PM
If you watch the videos you see that the trouble makers are surrounded by by-standard in every direction in the thousands blocking up the street. Lots of cover to run into and vanish.
Also those by-standards could turn ugly if the police tried to force their way in.
^ this.
And also, it looks like periodically the police WOULD grab the evil-doer among the crowd of innocents, and leave the rest of the masses alone.
Overall, count me as one of the people glad this didn't turn into G8/G20/G##??? Redux.
Brock Anton is stupid. "Rockstar stupid".
http://www.bclocalnews.com/news/124043164.html
Quote from: Darren Dirt on June 19, 2011, 05:15:35 PM
Brock Anton is stupid. "Rockstar stupid".
http://www.bclocalnews.com/news/124043164.html
Quote from: http://www.bclocalnews.com/news/124043164.html
Anton did not respond to messages to the Facebook page yesterday, but the News Leader Pictorial did reach his father, Jim Anton.
"I don?t know if he was or wasn?t (at the riot)," he said. "He?s 23 years old. He?s no responsibility of mine. It?s got nothing to do with me."
This dad has it completely right. We call this Brock fella a "kid", but he's five years into being an adult. At this point, let him suffer all of his own consequences. At some point, responsibility shifts from your parents to yourself.
Yeah, I really like the fact that the dad said that, AND that the media included it in the story.
And here's a yahoo, Nathan Kotylak, who was doing unsavory things to a particular gas tank while the camera focused on him, he has owned up, maybe his emotional public apology is sincere, and not just a case of "oops I got caught, now how do I smooth things over"
http://www.thestar.com/news/article/1011554--i-am-truly-ashamed-says-teen-involved-in-vancouver-riot
Quote
?I want to apologize to Mom and Dad,? he said, choking back sobs. ?What I did does not reflect the love, values, lessons and great opportunities that you have provided for me.?
^ but saying stuff like that sure can't hurt.
Yeah, he only came forward
after being outed in the media. If he truly was sorry for what he'd done, rather than just sorry for being caught, he'd have turned himself in
before being named.
In fact:
Quote from: http://www.thestar.com/news/article/1011554--i-am-truly-ashamed-says-teen-involved-in-vancouver-riot
"I just want to make sure that people know there have already been serious consequences and I anticipate there will be more," he said on television. "I felt my name had been tarnished and been thrown around in such a manner that this was necessary."
His main concern is that his name has been tarnished?
NP writer who usually discusses political stuff, has something to say about the incident, the people, and the future.
http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2011/06/16/kelly-mcparland-lessons-to-learn-from-dolts-at-a-hockey-game/
Quote
Anyone who thinks such violence is anything but a deliberate criminal act should quit kidding themselves. What took place in Vancouver was deliberate and premeditated, as, clearly, was the outbreak of general lawlessness in Toronto a year ago during the G20 summit. People turned up at both events hoping and planning for an opportunity to riot, smash windows, torch cars and create havoc. Much of the crowd ? the much greater part, no doubt ? was there to engage in peaceful public acts
A lot of the comments are reasonable discussion-inducers, as well.
Food for thought: http://sports.nationalpost.com/2011/06/15/remembering-the-1994-stanley-cup-riot/
was/is public "shaming" a good and healthy/helpful response? http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/article/1011879--backlash-hits-vancouver-riot-s-shaming-websites
Also you can see a few extra photos, including pre-"riot", here:
NP's Brian Hutchinson --
scenes from Vancouver's streets before (and after) game 7
http://embed.scribblelive.com/Embed/v5.aspx?Id=25927&Page=0&ThemeId=809
Quote from: Darren Dirt on June 22, 2011, 10:53:08 AM
was/is public "shaming" a good and healthy/helpful response? http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/article/1011879--backlash-hits-vancouver-riot-s-shaming-websites
Public shaming, yes. Go ahead and dig up whatever you can about people. If it was already publicly available and all you're doing is aggregating it in one spot for easy perusal, you're not breaking any laws. Remember that you can't publicly identify minors, though.
Public punishment, no. Leave it to the courts to punish people for their actions, because vigilantism, while it feels great to do to others, sucks to have done to yourself.
Threats, no. Anyone caught calling up people and threatening them with violence should be arrested and charged just as much as rioters who were caught on camera.
Quote from: Thorin on June 22, 2011, 11:38:05 AM
Public shaming, yes. Go ahead and dig up whatever you can about people. If it was already publicly available and all you're doing is aggregating it in one spot for easy perusal, you're not breaking any laws. Remember that you can't publicly identify minors, though.
Public punishment, no. Leave it to the courts to punish people for their actions, because vigilantism, while it feels great to do to others, sucks to have done to yourself.
Threats, no. Anyone caught calling up people and threatening them with violence should be arrested and charged just as much as rioters who were caught on camera.
"Rather than Big Brother watching the public's every move, citizens are equipped to watch each other."
http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2011/06/22/vancouver-riots-social-media_n_882144.html
but as you pointed out, the photographs are to be given to the professional investigators and justice system to actually interpret and apply the laws to the alleged criminals. Presence @ destructive riot != involvment in riot destruction.
Quote from: Thorin on June 22, 2011, 11:38:05 AM
Threats, no. Anyone caught calling up people and threatening them with violence should be arrested and charged just as much as rioters who were caught on camera.
Sad but true, the doctor dad of the water polo goon has had to discontinue his medical practice due to threats from idiots. And we all know how tough it is to find a new family doctor, thanks to Morons From The Web [tm] there's one less BC doctor to serve the needs of sick people.
on this topic, are social networking and the like bringing the death of anonymity?
http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2011/06/21/youre-mad-youre-on-youtube
Quote
Nothing is anonymous or invisible. Will the recent cases make people more careful about how they behave? Will they keep their tempers in check at the post office, or stop telling strangers how to raise their children? How does this growing "publicness" affect civility, privacy rights and free expression?
7 "debate" positions presented with this article, #1 = http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2011/06/21/youre-mad-youre-on-youtube/the-virtues-of-anonymity
Quote
Surveillance cameras are propagating like insects. Facial recognition makes it harder to go about in public or online without being identified. If people are acting badly, others can readily launch an online shaming campaign against them. They can snap cellphone photos of people, post them on the Internet and then invite others to identify the people and supply information about them.
Destruction of anonymity is not necessarily a good thing. For all its vices, anonymity has many virtues. With anonymity, people can be free to express unpopular ideas and be critical of people in power without risking retaliation or opprobrium. The anonymity in everyday life enables people to be free to do many worthwhile things without feeling inhibited.
The loss of anonymity might make many people more civil in their speech and more circumspect in their actions. That?s a good thing. But it might also chill a lot of valuable expression. A world where everything people said and did was monitored, recorded and scrutinized would be an oppressive place to live.
Anonymity is an issue where it is hard to take one side or the other. The choice need not be to allow unchecked irresponsibility or to live in a fishbowl. We need to find an appropriate balance.
interesting.
Someone challenged the Slashdot community this morning to uncover their identity, someone was able to do it in about 15 minutes... posted Anon of course. Additional phone numbers, work history, place of residence, marital status and a couple other details followed after the basic contact information was posted.
The days of anonymity are over for the average person...
Quote from: Mr. Analog on June 22, 2011, 04:12:39 PM
Someone challenged the Slashdot community this morning to uncover their identity, someone was able to do it in about 15 minutes... posted Anon of course. Additional phone numbers, work history, place of residence, marital status and a couple other details followed after the basic contact information was posted.
The days of anonymity are over for the average person...
I would love to read that thread.
Quote from: Lazybones on June 22, 2011, 05:09:21 PM
Quote from: Mr. Analog on June 22, 2011, 04:12:39 PM
Someone challenged the Slashdot community this morning to uncover their identity, someone was able to do it in about 15 minutes... posted Anon of course. Additional phone numbers, work history, place of residence, marital status and a couple other details followed after the basic contact information was posted.
The days of anonymity are over for the average person...
I would love to read that thread.
Doink -> http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2258326&cid=36526488
Though I think two different guys ended up getting their details shared... one guy had his own domain so I'm thinking that was an easier nut to crack (WHOIS probably)