Jump to content

Recommended Posts

I think instead of putting them in jail they should make them pay for the damages.

More they damaged the more they pay.

I think that is what the insurance companies are going to do is goto to small, an understament, claims court to recover costs. I heard on a local radio station who had a lawyer on air saying that even with the photographic and video evidence that it'll still be difficult to convict these hoodlums. Looks like just another kick to the groin by these hooligans.

My post to the rioters...in my hockey blog "Puck'n Animal"

You are not Canuck fans if you were a part of this riot. You are just hoodlums looking for trouble...and willing to use any excuse as a means to cause it. It is my sincerest hope that many of your compatriots as well as yourselves are arrested. We as true Canuck fans are ashamed of the fact that so few ruined an special occasion for so many. Despite the fact that we didn't get the result we wanted, true Canuck fans went quietly home nursing their dejection in silence; not in wanton acts of destruction. We shouldn't have had to be ashamed of anything. Now we, thanks to the actions of a few hoodlums and anarchists and a bunch of drunken bandwagon fans, we are all tarred with the same brush. Do us all a favor and turn yourselves in, but I'm sure you'll just continue to waste taxpayer dollars in the manhours that the police will have to put in to find your sorry asses. Forgive the foul language, but that's my honest and heartfelt response to seeing the riots on TV. We didn't have social media forums in 1994, but in any case if we did, my message then would have been the same as now.

Ditto here, Animal. I really enjoyed the Olypmics meeting people from the USA and other countries. I went to one Canucks game this season, sadly the one where Maholtra had his eye injured, and it was fun. Even the crowd after the game was great as we talked about our concerns for Manny. I just hope the mayor and premier follows through with their big talk of punishment for the hooligans and not just making it for political gain.

Maybe the solution is for the Vancouver city government to announce to all residents of the city and surrounding areas that no groups will be allowed to gather on Stanley Cup game nights in Vancouver or their opposing teams city? Vancouver would need to have a police presence that just breaks up any gathering of folks that numbers over twenty. Just have quick reaction squads of officers along with some scout officers stationed throughout the city that report when they see a groups beginning to form. Send one of the quick reaction squads in, and repeat as necessary.

Would this have happened if the Canucks got bounced in the first or second rounds or is this something that would only take place during a cup final series? I'm just curious to know what our Vancouverites think.

Went to the Stanley Cup parade today, it was larger than ANY of the Red Sox or Patriots parades. There were people starting to gather at the start point at 6AM and it didn't start until 11AM!! I took the train in and it was packed to the hilt. It was really crazy the number of fans there. The local news reported there were Bruins fans that drove in from Quebec province and various parts of the Maritimes.

JasonW, I saw parts of the parade on tv and what a beautiful day for it. Wish I was there. Must have been fun.

As for if the Canucks were bounced in the 1st or 2nd or 3rd round, I don't think a riot would have occurred as you can see the team has been knocked out many times early in the playoffs without incidence. So far it has only happened during the finals with a final deciding game 7. In the 1982 finals, Vancouver lost to the Islanders in 4 games and nothing happened.

For your first point, it should have been implemented but because the mayor and premier wants to prevent a No-Fun City label that resulted from the 1994 riot, it won't. I'm sad to say that the VPD dropped the ball on 2011 because even before game 7, there were people arrested for carring pepper spray and pipes to one of the eariler games. This should have raised some alarms. Plus they didn't implement the important recommendations made after the 1994 riot.

Edited by aerofan
Link to post
Share on other sites

I think there's another factor involved, too.

During the Olympics, the crowd was a little more dispersed in the sense that there were viewing areas with large screens in multiple spots in the city; this time, it was all in one area, with far too many people condensed into the small space.

I think had there been viewing areas there at Georgia @ Homer, in Yaletown, in Robson Square and at, say, Canada Place, the crowds would've been smaller at each area, thus easier to manage if something went wrong. Then, too, if something goes wrong in one spot, police could quickly cordon that area off (since these locations are reasonably well separated) and prevent any more people from entering.

Lastly, I think that a partial mobilisation of the Seaforth Highlanders would've prevented anything from happening: if these dinlows were to have seen a few APCs here and there, and green uniforms around amongst the blue ones, they'd have been FAR less likely to engage in stupidity.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Something that is amusing is the Vancouver PD servers crashed with the number of people submitting info on people involved in the riots. The police are having trouble keeping up with the inflow of tips. The leader of the province has commited the full force of the justice system to prosecute those involved.

http://vancouver.ca/police/2011riot/index.html

Link to post
Share on other sites

WAAAAAH!!!! ~sniff~ :crying2: Now my heart is destroyed. Darn you...Scooby. :P

Gotta admit though, the jokes were pretty hilarious. :D The second one nearly had me rolling on the floor. Yeah, the loss still hurts, but y'know...I think we didn't bring our game into the Stanley Cup final and got exposed.

But my heart still bleeds blue and green and will for the rest of my life. :D

Don't worry, the pain goes away after about two years. After about a year and a half you'll be able to sleep again. And once your team has five Cups (but it never will :) ), if you lose (like the Oilers did in game seven in 2006), it isn't so painful because you are content with what you do have. That doesn't mean we didn't have a better team than Carolina. There were better teams in the NHL that year than the Oilers, but I think Carolina was extremely lucky in every series that year. Ward won it for them.

Now I can go back to hating both Boston and Vancouver. :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

I gotta' admit.....having 2,000 young army troops in the crowd would have done wonders. ;)

Yeah, but it would have spoiled the positive image of the military. The media would have spun it in a way to do damage.

I don't think any number of police could have fixed the problem. I don't think it will be fixed until citizens take back the streets on their own. People have to accept responsibility for their actions. As you have mentioned countless times, too many people watched and egged on the activities.

Many people were just ordinary people until that night.

And the media could have influenced people leading up to that night. They could have run sotries stating the did not want a repeat of 94. Or did they?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Scooby:

Someone dropped the ball on staffing levels! VPD had about 600 people on the ground. Probly should have had 4,000 "trained" public order unit people on the ground. VPD did everything correctly according to present day "technology" in crowd management, they just became overwhelmed by the numbers of the crowds. In most jurisdictions in Canada larger centers do not hesitate to rely on Mutual Support. I have worked G-8s, G-20s, Nato ministers conferences, OCAP protests in Toronto, PC party conventions etc etc etc all across the country. (Altho stationed in Ontario) Example: I'm working the G-20 in Calgary a few years ago and I am in a squad with Calgary P.D., Metro Toronto, Peel Regional, Kitchener-Waterloo, Edmonton P.D., RCMP and many other depts.

Believe it or not "crowd management" is a bit of a science. Starts off with mere police presence and escalates as needed to the point of all out battle. It just needs informed personnel on the ground who recognize the signs of change within the crowd and utilizing the proper application of force to suit the situation. Unleashing a multitude of untrained military or police personnel into the equation spells BAD THINGS are going to happen.

My only question is to Vancouver City Leaders! How could you not see things were going to be bad, regardless of the outcome of the game? It'll all come out in the wash I guess!

Alvin5182

Link to post
Share on other sites

Scooby:

Someone dropped the ball on staffing levels! VPD had about 600 people on the ground. Probly should have had 4,000 "trained" public order unit people on the ground. VPD did everything correctly according to present day "technology" in crowd management, they just became overwhelmed by the numbers of the crowds. In most jurisdictions in Canada larger centers do not hesitate to rely on Mutual Support. I have worked G-8s, G-20s, Nato ministers conferences, OCAP protests in Toronto, PC party conventions etc etc etc all across the country. (Altho stationed in Ontario) Example: I'm working the G-20 in Calgary a few years ago and I am in a squad with Calgary P.D., Metro Toronto, Peel Regional, Kitchener-Waterloo, Edmonton P.D., RCMP and many other depts.

Believe it or not "crowd management" is a bit of a science. Starts off with mere police presence and escalates as needed to the point of all out battle. It just needs informed personnel on the ground who recognize the signs of change within the crowd and utilizing the proper application of force to suit the situation. Unleashing a multitude of untrained military or police personnel into the equation spells BAD THINGS are going to happen.

My only question is to Vancouver City Leaders! How could you not see things were going to be bad, regardless of the outcome of the game? It'll all come out in the wash I guess!

Alvin5182

Trust me; I understand it is a science. I was part of G-8 in Calgary too, but we were flying air cover 24-7 (for five days even though the event was only three days long). I also witnessed the mixture of Police forces at G-20. In my time in the military, I was trained in crowd/riot control as part of Base Defence Duties. I am no where near as experienced as you are but I did take part in one BC prison riot in the mid 80s. By the time we were involved it was well out of control. When we entered the prison in our formation the prisoners all turned around and ran back to their cells. I guess the sight of us taking one pace forward, while beating our mahogany batons on our shields and yelling "get-back" in unison was enough to scare the poop out of them. In those days our batons had serrated notches on them so they would do extra damage by breaking open skin. We were trained to go in and take out those who appeared to be in control and then to return again and take over those who took over control. The methods were largely psychological in nature. But I think I am preaching to the choir.

I also understand pack mentality but feel society has to start making changes.

I can't comment on VPD as I don't know what the numbers were and I wasn't there. But I am sure there was somne blame in leadership or lack of it too.

Edited by Scooby
Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, but it would have spoiled the positive image of the military. The media would have spun it in a way to do damage.

I was being very light hearted in my comment about having young soldiers in the crowd. The thing is......you can't use the military against civilians.....it is being done in other countries and it doesn't really work out all that well as can be seen in Syria and Libya etc.

Controling this crowd would have been quite easy if all the bystanders just left the area and the police had the correct staffing levels for that size of crowd. That would have left a tiny number of troublemakers without the protection/cover of the bystanders. And yes the bystanders were giving the troublemakers protection/cover (indirectly), because the police couldn't move in without injuring bystanders....tear gas....pepper spray etc. The hospitals were already overloaded with pepper spray victims.

Regarding the mob mentality.

There was an experiment done to better explain this. The test subject was put in a Doctor's waiting room with other "Patients". From behind the doctors door came the sounds of cries for help from a female voice. The test subject turned to the guy beside him to ask if he heard the cries for help.....he said he didn't hear anything and not to worry. He turned to the woman on his other side after the next cry for help and she gave him the same answer.....the test subject didn't come to aid of the woman crying for help. They repeated the experiemnt nmany times with males and females with the same results.

Then the test subject was in the waiting room all alone. Everytime he heard the cries for help, he burst through the door to offer the woman assistance. Again it was repeated many times with males and females as the test subjects and the results were very consistant.

There is something ingrained into the core of the human mind that causes us to act a certain way in a mob. A strong minded person can overcome this and an older person I suspect is not caught up in this as much due to life experience. But a younger person is very likely to do the worng thing and follow the mob due to their lack of life experience and this ingrained mob thought process that is deep in the human mind. Definately not an excuse.....but it does reinforce the fact that in a situation like this.....bystanders should leave the area immediately and let the police deal with it. The only reason to stick around would have been to offer assistance to innocent people that were being threatened/attacked by the mob. The mob doing the damage could have been contained and arrested very quickly if everyone else left the area immediately.

To be honest......I think it is highly possible that the police on the scene could have contained the hard core trouble makers if the bystanders left the area immediately as soon as the riot began.

It's interesting to note the VPD has 1 million photos and 1,000 hours of video submitted by the public from the riot. Photos are goign online and troublemakers are being identified and there is public backlash against the people being identified. And one family has even gone into hiding due to the negative public attention they have received due to their daughter's antics during the riot......which is more mob mentality at work. :doh:

Link to post
Share on other sites

I was being very light hearted in my comment about having young soldiers in the crowd.

Controling this crowd would have been quite easy if all the bystanders just left the area and the police had the correct staffing levels for that size of crowd.

Regarding the mob mentality.

There was an experiment done to better explain this. The test subject was put in a Doctor's waiting room with other "Patients". From behind the doctors door came the sounds of cries for help from a female voice. The test subject turned to the guy beside him to ask if he heard the cries for help.....he said he didn't hear anything and not to worry. He turned to the woman on his other side after the next cry for help and she gave him the same answer.....the test subject didn't come to aid of the woman crying for help. They repeated the experiemnt nmany times with males and females with the same results.It's interesting to note the VPD has 1 million photos and 1,000 hours of video submitted by the public from the riot. Photos are goign online and troublemakers are being identified and there is public backlash against the people being identified. And one family has even gone into hiding due to the negative public attention they have received due to their daughter's antics during the riot......which is more mob mentality at work. :doh:

I know you were being light hearted. I was only being critical of our media.

I fully agree on the bystander comments you have been making. They should have gone home.

I did university studies on what you speak of. A person is more likely to help someone in distress if they were alone. That one person feels he has 100% responsibility to help whereas if there are 100 people present they feel the responsibility divides between them. They all look at each other to step forward first and when no one does it strengthens their resolve that they are not responsible to help. Often it is a person who holds a position of authority in society who steps forward (ie, police, military, medical) because they know they have a responsibility to act.

I have seen the videos and photo's posted on VPDs facebook page. I know the person who you speak of (I don't know her, but I have seen the videos and images as well as I am familiar with her name).

Link to post
Share on other sites

Gents;

We always used to laugh that the crowd looked like a Mountain Eqt Co-op had exploded and on the way out of the store, they gave every one a camera. Un-believable the people that hang around these demonstrations. People with babies and young children ('Cause it's their right under the charter!) Take them aside and explain to them it's dangerous? They will not listen. Arrested a few over the years under child welfare acts for exposing their kids to mayhem! Got them out of the way temporarily but, they'd be back the next day. It's the hangers on and spectators that tend to get in the way and create a cushion for the hard core types to perform their "magic". I heartily endorse a persons right to protest what they perceive a wrongdoing, and I would have protected them in that pursuit, but there are true trolls in this world that seek these opportunities to express their 'displeasure" with society and institutions that have supposedly done them some kind of wrong. "What? They expect me to work? Not do hard core drugs? "

Link to post
Share on other sites

If this had been about, say, the HST, I'd go, okay, at least there's some /real/ 'reason'. But this was just... destruction just to destroy.

I think at least some blame needs to go to the media, too, for running live coverage of the thing... a lot of the mob knew that they were on TV, and so acted up knowing they had a huge audience...

Link to post
Share on other sites

Why worry about the "media" when you can "perform" for 1,000 or so cameras and end up on facebook or some other social media! Many arrests made over the years for "performing without a permit".(Drunk and stupid in a public place) By the time they sober up and are released "unconditionally" you can direct them to city hall to obtain a "permit". Much fun at city hall!

Edited by alvin5182
Link to post
Share on other sites

Not to make light of the Vancouver situation and ongoing proceedings to arrest folks etc. but the NHL board of governors has officially voted unanimously to approve the sale and move of the Atlanta Thrashers to Winnipeg!

Hockey returns to Winnipeg! There is a hockey god after all. :)

I'm not sure on what planet it was a good idea to have ANOTHER failing hockey team in Atlanta but hopefully this will be a lesson that the Atlanta metro region simply cannot support an NHL franchise.

Now all they have to do is get the team out of Phoenix and move them somewhere better suited to supporting an NHL franchise.

No disrespect to the Atlanta or Phoenix metro regions, they just are not a good place for an NHL franchise to be as we have seen. The financial numbers certainly bear this out.

Congrats to Winnipeg. Maybe the Coyotes will move to Quebec?

Link to post
Share on other sites

No disrespect to the Atlanta or Phoenix metro regions, they just are not a good place for an NHL franchise to be as we have seen. The financial numbers certainly bear this out.

Phoenix has proven they don't care.

Atlanta does, and in both cases, they got screwed out of a team through no fault of their own.

The Flames were sold because the owner lost a lot of money on various real estate ventures, so he sold it to the highest bidder - which was planning to move it to Calgary. There WERE offers to keep the team in Atlanta, just not as big as the Calgary bid, and since the owner was in debt, he took the bigger one.

The Thrashers' attendances over the 11 years in Atlanta were not any worse than Winnipeg's between their entry from the WHA to the relocation - actually, they were probably a little bit better, all told. Overall averages of 13-14 thousand, peaking at around 17000.

And that's with an ownership who didn't care about the team and did practically nothing to promote it. Atlanta Spirit Group /only/ bought the Thrashers because they wanted the arena and the basketball team, and the Thrashers were part of the package. As soon as they got it, they spent the absolute minimum they could on players and staff, did absolutely nothing to promote the game or advertise the team, and in fact did everything in their power to undermine it, so that they could sell the team to an owner who would move it away from Atlanta to get hockey out of their arena - ASG much rather wants to use those 41 home nights for other events such as concerts.

Let's look at this more closely: Atlanta's attendances:

99-00: 17206 (better than ANA, BOS, CAL, CAR, CHI, DAL, EDM, FLA, LA, NAS, NJ, NYI, PHX, PIT, TB, VAN, WAS)

00-01: 15263 (better than ANA, CAR, CHI, FLA, NYI, PHX, TB)

01-02: 13368 (better than ANA, PHX)

02-03: 13476 (better than NAS, PHX - only 400 less than Buffalo)

03-04: 15121 (12 less than Boston, better than CAR, CHI, NAS, NJ, NYI, PIT, WAS)

05-06: 15550 (better than ANA, CHI, NAS, NJ, NYI, STL, WAS)

06-07: 16229 (better than BOS, CHI, NAS, NJ, NYI, PHX, STL, WAS)

07-08: 15824 (better than BOS, CBJ, FLA, NAS, NJ, NYI, PHX, WAS)

08-09: 14626 (better than NYI, 200 less than PHX; this is when the ownership infighting started)

09-10: 13607 (better than NYI, PHX, 300 less than COL; owners suing each other)

10-11: 13649 (better than NYI, PHX, 200 less than CBJ)

Not the greatest over the past three seasons, no - but that was with an ownership who was actively working to undermine the team, to get it out of their building!

You can place a lot of blame a lot of places, but Atlanta's hockey fans aren't to blame. Georgia has high school teams, and there's even been a Georgian player drafted in the NHL draft.

I'm delighted like anyone else that Winnipeg has a team again, I'd just like to try and correct the misconception that nobody in Georgia cared. Hockey isn't the biggest sport there, but it's grown enormously, and had they had an ownership/management that actually wanted the team to succeed and to promote the sport and the team, they'd be doing well. This is NOT at all the fault of the fans, only the ownership - a group so poisonous that the league itself wanted to be rid of them, even if it meant moving the team, and being rid of ASG was even more important than settling the Phoenix issue.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Your point is valid but only to a certain extent. The actual fans of the team are certainly not to blame. The fact of the matter is that part of the US is known as a baseball/football/basketball fanbase. It is not known for being a hockey hotbed by any stretch regardless of a few high schools having teams and a guy from the state being drafted. The college football/basketball teams are huge down there as well. There is only so much sports fan money to go around and a lot of competition for it. Even with the attendance numbers you posted, the region still cannot sustain a profitable or competitive team in the NHL. This is the second time this has happened now. Again, I am not targeting the fanbase specifically as I am sure there are some very good fans in Georgia, there just aren't enough of them. And you are correct, the team ownership did a pretty lousy job with advertising and promoting the team.

I'll argue that the only really good attendance season Atlanta had was their inaugural season in 1999-2000. After the novelty wore off, the Thrashers took a back seat in the minds of Atlanta sports fans. Being better than between 1 and 8 of the 30 teams in the league doesn't necessarily point to tremendous support in the region. In those same instances they were worse than 21-28 other teams. The team spent the majority of it's 12 seasons in the NHL losing money and making the playoffs once (granted the last couple of years was probably more due to the pending lawsuit between investors etc.). The star players they had were not interested in staying. Dany Heatley, Marc Savard and Kovalchuk couldn't leave fast enough in spite of very good, long term contract offers being made to both Savard and Kovalchuk. When Hossa came over in the Heatley trade, but he only stuck around for a season and a half before failing to agree on an extension and getting traded to Pittsburgh.

It's a vicious circle, you need money to be competitive and you need to be competitive to make money. The Thrasher unfortunately couldn't accomplish either.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Goodness ME... Terrible riots !!! <_<

The Hockey Hooligans { oops sorry... they call themselves fans .. :whistle: } need to remember Mike Ditka's words of Wisdom,

" SUCCESS ISN'T PERMANENT, AND FAILURE ISN'T FATAL !"

and they need to take heed from the Dalai Lama,

" Follow the three R's:Respect for self,Respect for others and Responsibility for ALL your actions"

Tsk ! :wasntme:

Edited by HOLMES
Link to post
Share on other sites

The thing is......you can't use the military against civilians.....it is being done in other countries and it doesn't really work out all that well as can be seen in Syria and Libya etc.

I disagree. In the US, all National Guard combat arms troops are given mandatory riot control training (at least they used to back when I went through Basic). Using military units for this purpose doesn't entail a repeat of what we are seeing in Libya / Syria. It seems a bit shortsighted that you would assume this would be the case.

Well-trained troops with the proper equipment would do wonders to controlling the type of riots that we saw after Game 7. It may not be considered politically correct up there but given what happened, maybe that option should have at least been considered and the proper units placed on standby close to the crowds, ready to go, just in case.

I submit that a battalion of properly trained and disciplined infantry or MP's, with adequate law enforcement support, could have cleared that area within an hour, with minimal fuss to either side.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I disagree. In the US, all National Guard combat arms troops are given mandatory riot control training (at least they used to back when I went through Basic). Using military units for this purpose doesn't entail a repeat of what we are seeing in Libya / Syria. It seems a bit shortsighted that you would assume this would be the case.

Well-trained troops with the proper equipment would do wonders to controlling the type of riots that we saw after Game 7. It may not be considered politically correct up there but given what happened, maybe that option should have at least been considered and the proper units placed on standby close to the crowds, ready to go, just in case.

I submit that a battalion of properly trained and disciplined infantry or MP's, with adequate law enforcement support, could have cleared that area within an hour, with minimal fuss to either side.

Not sure when you went through basic. I was active duty Army and USAR/National Guard from 1992-2004. I got plenty of that type of training when I was active duty to prep for Bosnia and joint peacekeeping exercises that we did in the mid to late 1990's. I was infantry in the MAARNG in Worcester for a few years back around 2001-04 and we did some riot and crowd control training but it was not a major focus most of the time. Most units that have been deployed to Iraq/Afghanistan have likely received similar training. That being said, I'm not sure the training for handling a crowd in Whatsifsabad, Bigwhoopinastan is the same as it would be for handling a bunch of yahoos causing grief in Quincy because the NE Revolution lost in the playoffs or some such (although if it were in Lawrence, the training probably would be the EXACT same, heck parts of Lawrence may even remind some of Mujackistan or some other place). You also have a slightly different set of rules when dealing with a foreign crowd over there as opposed to a domestic crowd over here.

To go one step further to your point of well trained military units clearing that area in an hour, I think the mere presence of soldiers/military personnel would probably stop potential rioters cold if deployed BEFORE the potential flashpoint for the riot occurs. If meatheads like that know you mean business and you'll bust a few heads to stop them they almost always back off.

Have the NE Revolution ever even made the playoffs?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Not sure when you went through basic. I was active duty Army and USAR/National Guard from 1992-2004. I got plenty of that type of training when I was active duty to prep for Bosnia and joint peacekeeping exercises that we did in the mid to late 1990's. I was infantry in the MAARNG in Worcester for a few years back around 2001-04 and we did some riot and crowd control training but it was not a major focus most of the time. Most units that have been deployed to Iraq/Afghanistan have likely received similar training. That being said, I'm not sure the training for handling a crowd in Whatsifsabad, Bigwhoopinastan is the same as it would be for handling a bunch of yahoos causing grief in Quincy because the NE Revolution lost in the playoffs or some such (although if it were in Lawrence, the training probably would be the EXACT same, heck parts of Lawrence may even remind some of Mujackistan or some other place). You also have a slightly different set of rules when dealing with a foreign crowd over there as opposed to a domestic crowd over here.

To go one step further to your point of well trained military units clearing that area in an hour, I think the mere presence of soldiers/military personnel would probably stop potential rioters cold if deployed BEFORE the potential flashpoint for the riot occurs. If meatheads like that know you mean business and you'll bust a few heads to stop them they almost always back off.

Have the NE Revolution ever even made the playoffs?

I went through basic during a "kinder and gentler" time and riot control training was geared exclusively towards domestic scenarios. No idea that we would soon be involved in -bads and -stans. Agree with your observation that just having a number of troops in the area may have been sufficient deterrent to stop the rioting before it even started.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I submit that a battalion of properly trained and disciplined infantry or MP's, with adequate law enforcement support, could have cleared that area within an hour, with minimal fuss to either side.

I fully agree on all your points. In Canada....the military is only used domestically for rescue type missions....flooded towns etc or when Marshal law is declared......it has also been used to quell Native Bands that ratchet up the ante beyond what a police force can deal with.

It would have been a very good thing to have the troops on the street.

Here's the kicker.....everyone that remained in the area after the police declared unlawful assembly were subject to arrest and life in prison. So anyone that can be identified in any photos at that riot after unlawful asembly was declared could be put in prison for life.....if you use the strict defination of the law.

The text below can be found at the following link. You need to click on the link in the upper left corner of this webpage

http://www.duhaime.org/LegalDictionary/U/UnlawfulAssembly.aspx

Note the very last sentence below at the bottom.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Now considerably detailed through criminal law definitions in most jurisdictions.

For example, Canada's Criminal Code, at §63, defines an unlawful assembly as:

"An unlawful assembly is an assembly of three or more persons who, with intent to carry out any common purpose, assemble in such a manner or so conduct themselves when they are assembled as to cause persons in the neighbourhood of the assembly to fear, on reasonable grounds, that they will disturb the peace tumultuously; or will by that assembly needlessly and without reasonable cause provoke other persons to disturb the peace tumultuously.

"Persons who are lawfully assembled may become an unlawful assembly if they conduct themselves with a common purpose in a manner that would have made the assembly unlawful if they had assembled in that manner for that purpose."

In R v Patterson, a case of the Ontario Court of Appeal, published at [1931] 3 DLR 267, the Court spoke as follows on the issue:

"The statute was passed to secure orderly and peaceable conduct upon the streets, and to avoid tumultuous conduct of assembled crowds which might cause actual rioting, or which, in the opinion of persons of reasonable firmness and courage, might result in public disturbance.

"The object of those who assemble may be perfectly innocent, even highly commendable, yet, if the circumstances, in the mind of the ideal, calm, courageous, and reasonable man, are such as to lead him to fear that the public peace is in danger, it is the duty of those assembled to disperse...

"No matter how worthy the cause, or how clear the right to be asserted may be, our law requires the worthy cause to be advocated and the right to be asserted in a peaceable way, and not by riot and tumult. The provision of the Code prohibiting unlawful assemblies is for the purpose of drawing the line between a lawful meeting and an assembly, either unlawful in its inception, or which is deemed to have become unlawful either by reason of the action of those assembled, or by reason of the improper action of others having no sympathy with the objects of the meeting."

In the common law, there were three varieties of offences, all on an escalating scale and which started with the unlawful assembly, then to the rout and finally, a riot.

Canada’s Criminal Code includes a little-known and very quaint section of law (§67), a literal “reading of the riot act” and a clear relic of years gone past, where in the event of an unlawful assembly of 12 or more persons, a judge, mayor, warden, sheriff or police officer:

“...shall go to that place and, after approaching as near as is safe, if the person is satisfied that a riot is in progress, shall command silence and thereupon make or cause to be made in a loud voice a proclamation in the following words or to the like effect: 'Her Majesty the Queen charges and commands all persons being assembled immediately to disperse and peaceably to depart to their habitations or to their lawful business on the pain of being guilty of an offence for which, on conviction, they may be sentenced to imprisonment for life. GOD SAVE THE QUEEN.'"

-------------------------------------------------------

I think they should have declared "unlawful assembly".....waited 15 minutes.....then closed off the area and arrested everyone.....shipped them off to a work camp for 3 months in the bush building a road or something. ;)

But seriously.....the crowd could have been cleared pretty quick with massive military grade speakers mounted on trucks and blasting high pitched noise at the crowd.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think that troops would have made much of a difference, or for that matter 500~1000 more police officers. These were the broad issues rated in what I view is the order of importance.

#1 Size and concentration of the crowd:

- Bringing over 120,000 people into the city streets and congregated near the CBC building on Georgia was a disaster. It also hindered attempts to disperse the crowd as there were few ways to get them out of the area. As litvyak noted, there was greater dispersal during the olympics which also made the visible police to population ratio seem much higher.

#2 Lack of police/policy preparation

- Prior to the olympics the Canadian intelligence services waged a dedicated campaign to identify and "notify" potential troublemakers. In addition there was quite a bit of information put out there about the police preparation, proper activities and the like. Closing liquor stores at 4:00, while it may have seemed smart at the time, likely just made people more drunk and belligerent by 6:30.

#3 Lack of Police Presence

- The lack of police was a problem, but the actual need for a presence would have been much less if the other two were effectively accomplished. More cops or troops at 6:30 probably would not have made much of a difference given the size and concentration of the crowd. The only way that would work is if you had staffing levels far in excess of what was present for the Olympics.

One thing to remember is that the VPD restraint during the riot was based on its training from the olympics, not because it was understaffed (particularly after 8 when the crowds decreased in size and the reinforcements arrived from outside detachments.) They knew that attacking crowds generally is not always effective at dispersing them and may inflame the situation.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...