Canuckleheads

[Darren Dirt]

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.

[Thorin]

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.

[Thorin]

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!

[Thorin]

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.

[Lazybones]

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.

[Darren Dirt]

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.

[Darren Dirt]

Brock Anton is stupid. "Rockstar stupid".
http://www.bclocalnews.com/news/124043164.html

[Thorin]

Brock Anton is stupid. "Rockstar stupid".
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.

[Darren Dirt]

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

?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.

[Thorin]

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:

"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?

[Darren Dirt]

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/

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

[Thorin]

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.

[Darren Dirt]

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.

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.

[Darren Dirt]

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

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

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.

[Mr. Analog]

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...