Flood of Charges Against Toronto Police

[Hydrogen]

No, I wasn't reading too much into it. If anything, you were the one reading too much into things. I didn't raise the idea of a culture of lawlessness, I was commenting on it.

If you would to read my post carefully, I was criticizing the idea that the majority of police (or night clubbers for that matter) belong to such a "culture."

With that, shall we get back to the topic?

 

[voxpopulicosmicum]

Because of the poor actions of a few, does that mean all police officers are automatically untrustworthy?

I didn't say all police officers are untrustworthy. I said "the Club District's law enforcers are demonstrably untrustworthy". That opinion is based on the above-posted news articles and others that have described the extent of police corruption in 52 division. (For e.g., see this story from 18 months ago about an internal affairs detective who was disciplined for calling for a public inquiry "because the force is rife with systemic corruption.")

Corruption on the scale of 52 division means is that it is reasonable to fear that any particular officer in 52 division could be compromised. That is the pernicious nature of police corruption.

Adam Vaughan has frequently described a "culture of lawlessness" existing in the club district. In context, he is referring to certain elements of nightclub patronage. My original post was intended to question whether the "lawlessness" that is exhibited by certain club-goers can ever be meaningfully addressed when there are many good reasons to believe that the local constabulary "barrel" hasn't yet removed its rotten elements.

As to Hydrogen's comment that "law-abiding persons ... don't require the presence of the police in order to be law-abiding." Yes, but for the Rule of Law to be an effective cultural norm, the police must be law-abiding, uncorrupt and anti-corruption. If, however, the police are corrupt, the law-abiding person is at personal risk of harm if he acts under the mistaken belief that the police can be trusted.

There was also some discussion about the distinction between theory and praxis, so here's my opinion of the practical reality of the club district: one would have to be incredibly naieve to believe that the club district's law enforcers are interested in maintaining peace and order. (They may, in fact, be so interested, but recent history suggests otherwise).

 

[voxpopulicosmicum]

So there are no minority cultures? That's news to me.

Maybe you shouldn't confuse a dictionary for reality.

Hydrogen, you're kind of a bully. Your defense of the police would have more credibility if your actions weren't so stereotypically police-like.

 

[Hydrogen]

Hydrogen, you're kind of a bully. Your defense of the police would have more credibility if your actions weren't so stereotypically police-like.

Your kind of an idiot. I wasn't defending the police but rather questioning opinions such as yours which are not based on any actual facts. There is a big difference between an assertion and actual evidence for systemic and total police corruption.

Yes, but for the Rule of Law to be an effective cultural norm, the police must be law-abiding, uncorrupt and anti-corruption. If, however, the police are corrupt, the law-abiding person is at personal risk of harm if he acts under the mistaken belief that the police can be trusted.

Again, you speak inclusively, as in the police as all the police. Can you prove that all police are corrupt? Or is it simply a belief on your part?

 

[unimaginative2]

Or are you agreeing with Adam Vaughan's view that there is evidence of a culture of lawlessness among patrons of the Entertainment District clubs?

I personally consider that view to be disgraceful and beyond absurd. The overwhelming majority (i.e. greater than 99.99%) of patrons of the area are not violent or lawless in the slightest. Many find the over-policing of the area and excessive security at establishments to be quite insulting.

 

[MisterF]

No, I wasn't reading too much into it. If anything, you were the one reading too much into things. I didn't raise the idea of a culture of lawlessness, I was commenting on it.

If you would to read my post carefully, I was criticizing the idea that the majority of police (or night clubbers for that matter) belong to such a "culture."

With that, shall we get back to the topic?

Okay, if you're not reading too much into it you're at least jumping to conclusions. I know you were only commenting on the idea, never did I suggest that you raised the idea. Nor did I suggest that the majority of police or clubbers belong to such a culture. All I was doing was disagreeing with this:

The so-called culture of lawlessness is intended to describe the actions of the few, not the actions of the majority - both within the police force and within society in general.

I highly doubt that whoever coined the term "culture of lawlessness" meant it to describe a small minority. They meant it to vilify the whole group, or at least the majority of it.

 

[Hydrogen]

I personally consider that view to be disgraceful and beyond absurd. The overwhelming majority (i.e. greater than 99.99%) of patrons of the area are not violent or lawless in the slightest. Many find the over-policing of the area and excessive security at establishments to be quite insulting.

If the area is "over-policed," it is a result of the tiny minority who create problems that generate public reactions. Is there a concentration of people who have had too much to drink in the Entertainment District on some nights? Yes. Are there acts of violence in that district? Yes. Are there large numbers of people having fun there? Yes. Which one will make the headlines? Which one will get politicians talking and demanding that something be done? Sadly, the fact that a majority of people are having fun won't make the headlines. A shooting will, because it's unusual. Things like this will drive police deployments.

I highly doubt that whoever coined the term "culture of lawlessness" meant it to describe a small minority. They meant it to vilify the whole group, or at least the majority of it.

And as I have pointed out earlier, the idea that the majority of people in the Entertainment District are part of a (so-called) culture of lawlessness is just wrong. What Adam Vaughan was likely trying get at is that the District attracts a concentration of people who, in his view, belong to a culture of lawlessness. For the sake of clarity, I think you would have to ask him as to exactly what he means with respect to whether he thinks this is a majority or minority of people frequenting that part of town.

Regardless, I don't see a majority being described here; but there are people who do go to the Entertainment Disctrict for what certainly amounts to illegal ends (as defined by the law).

 

[unimaginative2]

I would expect that a city councillor, especially one with as much media experience as Adam Vaughan, would think about what he's trying to say before he damns 50,000 people for being part of a "Culture of Lawlessness". If he were talking about an individual, that would be libel. If nothing else, his camera-grabbing statements have made a good third of his ward seem like a hellhole to outsiders, which is hardly what people elect a councillor to do.

 

[voxpopulicosmicum]

Your kind of an idiot.

An ironic statement if ever there was one. Does that mean that you are my kind of an idiot? In any event, you're syntactic disability makes reading you're posts difficult. See what I mean? Frikkin' barrel-sucking, illiterate bully...

I wasn't defending the police but rather questioning opinions such as yours which are not based on any actual facts.

Fact: The news articles in this thread detail many instances of police corruption, including findings in courts of law.

Fact: There are numerous criminal actions being pursued against 52 division police relating to a violent police extortion and drug-running racket in the club district. Among those charged are two of former police chief McCormack's sons as well as the former head of the police union. Allegations in sworn court documents include assaulting informants, stealing money from drug dealers, giving false testimony in court, falsifying court documents and faking search warrants.

Fact: According to affidavits filed by the RCMP anti-corruption task force, 83 per cent of the charges laid by the 52 division drug team between 1996 and 1999 were stayed or withdrawn because of questions about the officers' credibility.

Fact: In May 2006, Sgt. Jim Cassels, a 30-year veteran of the force and a member of the internal affairs unit tasked with investigating the 52 division corruption, stated publicly that police brass routinely covered up cases of brutality and corruption, including numerous cases beyond those at the centre of the pending 52 division criminal trials. Cassels faces internal police charges for his unauthorized comments. In November 2006 Neal Ward, another member of the internal affairs unit, confirmed Sgt. Cassels' assertions and said that he and other task force investigators are waiting for action on 14 additional cases uncovered by the task force and brought to police management when the task force concluded in 2004.

There is a big difference between an assertion and actual evidence for systemic and total police corruption.

I agree completely, which is why I was careful to also cite allegations of widespread corruption made by a police officer who went on record about the widespread corruption within 52 division. I introduced this evidence in addition to the ample evidence of corruption that was set out in the other press accounts that started this thread.

Again, you speak inclusively, as in the police as all the police. Can you prove that all police are corrupt? Or is it simply a belief on your part?

Where did I say that all police are corrupt? Learn to read. The only thing I need to prove is that I have evidence to support my assertions. To that end, what I have said and will continue to say is that the corruption within 52 division (you don't dispute that such corruption exists, do you?) means that a reasonable person should be afraid to cooperate with the police because doing so would put his/her personal safety in jeopardy. As a result, any "lawlessness" that exists in the club district is exacerbated because even the non-corrupt police will be tainted by the presence of corruption.

I think, on a balance of probabilities, it is safe to say that widespread corruption exists in 52 Division. Can you prove that to be false?

 

[voxpopulicosmicum]

I would expect that a city councillor, especially one with as much media experience as Adam Vaughan, would think about what he's trying to say before he damns 50,000 people for being part of a "Culture of Lawlessness". If he were talking about an individual, that would be libel. If nothing else, his camera-grabbing statements have made a good third of his ward seem like a hellhole to outsiders, which is hardly what people elect a councillor to do.

I doubt Adam Vaughan has ever "damned 50,000 people for being part of a 'Culture of Lawlessness'". What he has said is that some of the violence and property destruction in the club district can be traced back to a feeling that one can get away with actions in the club district that wouldn't be possible elsewhere in the city (for simplicity, I will refer to that "feeling" as the "Culture of Lawlessness").

Again, my point is that the Culture of Lawlessness is exacerbated by the city's failure to ensure that its law enforcers are focused on enforcing laws and, most importantly, are NOT involved in undermining the rule of law.

 

[unimaginative2]

He said that the patrons of the club district are part of a culture of lawlessness. That's pretty explicit to me.

 

[voxpopulicosmicum]

He said that the patrons of the club district are part of a culture of lawlessness. That's pretty explicit to me.

But I don't think he was condemning and ascribing blame to each and every one of them. Rather, the vibe I get from his many public pronouncements on the subject is that, for example, a person who wouldn't otherwise urinate on someone's front door (or crank their car stereo to 150dB while drinking in a parking lot, etc.) is more likely to do so if they see someone else doing it.

Unfortunately, that element of the "Culture of Lawlessness" is part of the draw of the club district, just as it is in New Orleans' french quarter.

 

[adma]

Unfortunately, that element of the "Culture of Lawlessness" is part of the draw of the club district, just as it is in New Orleans' french quarter.

I've been to New Orleans' French Quarter. And you, Toronto Club District, are no French Quarter

 

[Hydrogen]

Posted by voxpopulicosmicum:
An ironic statement if ever there was one. Does that mean that you are my kind of an idiot? In any event, you're syntactic disability makes reading you're posts difficult. See what I mean? Frikkin' barrel-sucking, illiterate bully...

Where did I say that all police are corrupt? Learn to read. The only thing I need to prove is that I have evidence to support my assertions. To that end, what I have said and will continue to say is that the corruption within 52 division (you don't dispute that such corruption exists, do you?)

I think, on a balance of probabilities, it is safe to say that widespread corruption exists in 52 Division. Can you prove that to be false?

I see I've hurt your feeling, poor dear.

Here's what you said:

How is a law-abiding person supposed to behave in such a situation? If you have evidence of criminal activity, how do you get past the high probability that the police will disclose your identity and the fact of your cooperation to the very same criminals?

That reads like you are suggesting that a considerable portion of police are willing and ready to break the law. Can you prove that such a thing will happen? Because it begs the question as to how any investigation of the police would ever have ended up taking place.

Widespread does not mean all, and 52 Division is not the entire police force. And if you would bother to read, you will note that I never stated that there is no police corruption. Reread post #9.

I said "the Club District's law enforcers are demonstrably untrustworthy". That opinion...

How many law enforcers are untrustworthy?" By what criteria? Yours? I suggest that it is a minority with respect to legal measures. Your opinion on the numbers and what constitutes untrustworthiness appears, shall we say, vague.

 

[voxpopulicosmicum]

Your opinion on the numbers and what constitutes untrustworthiness appears, shall we say, vague.

Yet somehow I will manage to retain that same vague opinion as is held by multiple investigating officers who complained about their investigation being covered up by their superiors. Silly me.