Mayor Olivia Chow's Toronto

[Northern Light]

I had been told the Clarence Square encampment would be cleared by now; someone, it seems got cold feet.

However, the police did remove a couple of people running a sizable illicit drug ring out of the camp.

Two Toronto men charged after drug investigation at encampment at downtown Clarence Square Park

Police say they found drugs and a metal replica firearm while executing a search warrant on a number of tents in an encampment.

www.thestar.com

I noted in the past clear evidence of a criminal theft ring. (far more bikes than encampees by a few dozen at least)

This camp does need to be cleared, with compassion for any who are legitimately homeless, but it is clearly a material criminal enterprise more than emergency shelter.

 

[kev1n1m]

I had been told the Clarence Square encampment would be cleared by now; someone, it seems got cold feet.

However, the police did remove a couple of people running a sizable illicit drug ring out of the camp.

Two Toronto men charged after drug investigation at encampment at downtown Clarence Square Park

Police say they found drugs and a metal replica firearm while executing a search warrant on a number of tents in an encampment.

www.thestar.com

I noted in the past clear evidence of a criminal theft ring. (far more bikes than encampees by a few dozen at least)

This camp does need to be cleared, with compassion for any who are legitimately homeless, but it is clearly a material criminal enterprise more than emergency shelter.

Two drug dealers and a bike thief turn the entire encampment into a criminal operation? That's a bad take.

 

[Northern Light]

Two drug dealers and a bike thief turn the entire encampment into a criminal operation? That's a bad take.

First off, its not one bike thief, its a ring.

Second, the take is fine.

You often give takes without having a single fact in your possession, which should suggest that you remain silent,.

But you're happy to insult multiple posters here for 'bad takes' who have a far better understanding of things than you do.

That's a bad take.

 

[DSC]

Council are again talking about alcohol in parks and, as one might expect, it is taking hours. So far we have 3 motions

Motions (City Council)​

1 - Motion to Amend Item moved by Councillor Brad Bradford (Final)
That City Council amend Economic and Community Development Committee recommendation 1 to include the following additional parks in Ward 19, Beaches-East York:

a. Stan Wadlow Park, 373 Cedarvale Avenue; and

b. East Lynn Park, 1949 Danforth Avenue.

2. Motion to Amend Item moved by Councillor Paula Fletcher (Final)
That City Council amend Economic and Community Development Committee recommendation 1 to include Dieppe Park, 455 Cosburn Avenue, in Ward 14, Toronto-Danforth.

3 - Motion to Amend Item moved by Councillor James Pasternak (Final)
That City Council direct that no parks in Ward 6, York Centre, be designated for personal alcohol consumption.

 

[Northern Light]

Council are again talking about alcohol in parks and, as one might expect, it is taking hours. So far we have 3 motions

Motions (City Council)​

1 - Motion to Amend Item moved by Councillor Brad Bradford (Final)
That City Council amend Economic and Community Development Committee recommendation 1 to include the following additional parks in Ward 19, Beaches-East York:

a. Stan Wadlow Park, 373 Cedarvale Avenue; and

b. East Lynn Park, 1949 Danforth Avenue.

2. Motion to Amend Item moved by Councillor Paula Fletcher (Final)
That City Council amend Economic and Community Development Committee recommendation 1 to include Dieppe Park, 455 Cosburn Avenue, in Ward 14, Toronto-Danforth.

3 - Motion to Amend Item moved by Councillor James Pasternak (Final)
That City Council direct that no parks in Ward 6, York Centre, be designated for personal alcohol consumption.

Isn't there a clothing drop box location, a fence dispute or a tree removal we can debate instead? LOL

 

[Richard White]

Isn't there a clothing drop box location, a fence dispute or a tree removal we can debate instead? LOL

What about debating STRs?

 

[DSC]

Isn't there a clothing drop box location, a fence dispute or a tree removal we can debate instead? LOL

Clearly not, they are now up to EIGHT motions with Crisanti, Holyday, Pasternak and Nunziata also not wanting any of 'their parks' to have any alcohol. . I will post when all is done.

EDIT:

I think we finally had 12 motions. Staff Recommendations passed (20-4) and so did the all the votes on ADDING extra Parks. None of the motions for Wards where the Councillors wanted NO alcohol passed (usually defeated by one or two votes.) It took hours!

 

[christiesplits]

Council are again talking about alcohol in parks and, as one might expect, it is taking hours. So far we have 3 motions

Motions (City Council)​

1 - Motion to Amend Item moved by Councillor Brad Bradford (Final)
That City Council amend Economic and Community Development Committee recommendation 1 to include the following additional parks in Ward 19, Beaches-East York:

a. Stan Wadlow Park, 373 Cedarvale Avenue; and

b. East Lynn Park, 1949 Danforth Avenue.

2. Motion to Amend Item moved by Councillor Paula Fletcher (Final)
That City Council amend Economic and Community Development Committee recommendation 1 to include Dieppe Park, 455 Cosburn Avenue, in Ward 14, Toronto-Danforth.

3 - Motion to Amend Item moved by Councillor James Pasternak (Final)
That City Council direct that no parks in Ward 6, York Centre, be designated for personal alcohol consumption.

Disappointing to see the sluggish pace of the inevitable city-wide adoption of alcohol in parks.

I suspect some councillors are receiving pushback from certain cultural communities, where alcohol consumption, particularly in parks, is seen as taboo or frowned upon. It's interesting that Detonia Park, a large east end park that regularly hosts cultural festivals like Eid, is excluded from the list, while other parks of similar size in the area are included.

 

[DSC]

Not too surprising and certainly shows that one should not jump to assumptions before knowing all the facts.

A man accused of fatally running over a Toronto police officer has been found not guilty.

Umar Zameer pleaded not guilty to first-degree murder in the death of Det. Const. Jeffrey Northrup, who died on July 2, 2021 after he was hit by a vehicle in an underground parking garage at Toronto City Hall.

Zameer and his family members burst into tears when the verdict was read out.


The facts that Zameer ran over Northrup and caused his death were not in dispute. Rather, the case centred on whether Zameer meant to hit Northrup – or even knew it happened – and whether he knew Northrup and his partner, who were in plain clothes, were police officers.

Prosecutors alleged Zameer knew Northrup was an officer and drove directly at him, while the defence argued Zameer thought he and his family were being attacked by robbers and tried to escape in the safest way possible.

Jurors returned with a verdict on the fourth day of deliberations, during which they asked three questions.

 

[Northern Light]

Not too surprising and certainly shows that one should not jump to assumptions before knowing all the facts.

A man accused of fatally running over a Toronto police officer has been found not guilty.

Umar Zameer pleaded not guilty to first-degree murder in the death of Det. Const. Jeffrey Northrup, who died on July 2, 2021 after he was hit by a vehicle in an underground parking garage at Toronto City Hall.

Zameer and his family members burst into tears when the verdict was read out.


The facts that Zameer ran over Northrup and caused his death were not in dispute. Rather, the case centred on whether Zameer meant to hit Northrup – or even knew it happened – and whether he knew Northrup and his partner, who were in plain clothes, were police officers.

Prosecutors alleged Zameer knew Northrup was an officer and drove directly at him, while the defence argued Zameer thought he and his family were being attacked by robbers and tried to escape in the safest way possible.

Jurors returned with a verdict on the fourth day of deliberations, during which they asked three questions.

You appear to be quoting a news story; can you provide the link please?

 

[DSC]

You appear to be quoting a news story; can you provide the link please?

Yes, sorry https://www.cp24.com/news/jury-finds-zameer-not-guilty-in-death-of-toronto-police-officer-1.6855899

 

[smably]

From the Star's story, Ford and Tory owe this poor guy an apology at the very least:

The jury’s decision also rejects the high-profile public narrative that emerged immediately after Northrup — a beloved veteran officer in downtown 52 Division’s major crime unit — was killed. At the time, then-interim police Chief James Ramer told the media, “We believe this was an intentional, deliberate act.”

Later, Zameer was subject to further scorn when he was granted bail in a rare decision for such a serious case. Premier Doug Ford said that ruling was “beyond comprehension” while then-Mayor John Tory said it was “almost impossible to imagine” why Zameer would be released.

 

[DSC]

From the Star's story, Ford and Tory owe this poor guy an apology at the very least:

As does the police chief who also needs to look VERY carefully at the evidence his officers gave and which was clearly coordinated and incorrect.

 

[Northern Light]

From the Star's story, Ford and Tory owe this poor guy an apology at the very least:

Looking at the key facts here.

Zameer (the accused, now found not guilty) had no criminal record and was not known to police at all.
He was approaching his vehicle, in a mostly deserted parking garage sometime close to midnight.
Inside the vehicle, his pregnant wife and very young child
Then, 2 strangers, not in police uniform, appear out of nowhere and move towards him and his car at speed.
He suspects danger and moves to get in the car and lock the doors.
The strangers begin banging on his car, loudly, and cause his young child to cry
He panics and tries to drive off
An unmarked police van cuts him off, he take a series of evasive actions during which the plainclothes officer was hit and killed.

****

The only facts in dispute was whether the police identified themselves; and whether or not Zameer intentionally ran over the officer, or did so unintentionally in the course of trying to escape what he thought was a robbery or worse.

****

Looking at the above, this really falls on very poor police conduct.
That the officer who was killed may well have been a very nice guy who meant no harm but to do his job here, is tragic, but self-inflicted.
I think any reasonable person would perceive the actions of these plain clothes individuals are comparable to carjackers, and respond in a similar way.
That the police seem obtuse about that is deeply disturbing.

That by all accounts police then chose to lie about how things unfolded, under oath, in court, providing testimony that is in conflict with evidence from security cameras and experts on accident reconstruction is beyond disturbing.

Sadly, one imagines the deceitful officers will not be punished/removed from their force, as their chief has come out already saying he hoped for a different verdict (which is to say, he hoped for the conviction of an innocent man, based on the lying testimony of his officers).

The chief should, but I don't imagine will resign.

 

[christiesplits]

Looking at the key facts here.

Zameer (the accused, now found not guilty) had no criminal record and was not known to police at all.
He was approaching his vehicle, in a mostly deserted parking garage sometime close to midnight.
Inside the vehicle, his pregnant wife and very young child
Then, 2 strangers, not in police uniform, appear out of nowhere and move towards him and his car at speed.
He suspects danger and moves to get in the car and lock the doors.
The strangers begin banging on his car, loudly, and cause his young child to cry
He panics and tries to drive off
An unmarked police van cuts him off, he take a series of evasive actions during which the plainclothes officer was hit and killed.

****

The only facts in dispute was whether the police identified themselves; and whether or not Zameer intentionally ran over the officer, or did so unintentionally in the course of trying to escape what he thought was a robbery or worse.

****

Looking at the above, this really falls on very poor police conduct.
The the officer who was killed may well have been a very nice guy who meant no harm but to do his job here, is tragic, but self-inflicted.
I think any reasonable person would perceive the actions of these plain clothes individuals are comparable to carjackers, and respond in a similar way.
That the police seem obtuse about that is deeply disturbing.

That by all accounts police then chose to lie about how things unfolded, under oath, in court, providing testimony that in conflict with evidence from security cameras and experts on accident reconstruction is beyond disturbing.

Sadly, one imagines the deceitful officers will not be punished/removed from their force, as their chief has come out already saying he hoped for a different verdict (which is to say, he hoped for the conviction of an innocent man, based on the lying testimony of his officers).

The chief should, but I don't imagine will resign.

Good summary. I believe the court made the right decision.