Headlines

Loading...

wibiya widget

Tuesday, May 24, 2011

On CBC, a further demonstration of Toronto cops' contempt for us

On Metro Morning today, Matt Galloway talked to police union boss Mike McCormack about the nameless asshole who broke Dorian Barton's arm at the G20 last summer, and about the SIU's investigation coming to a dead end.

Anyone want to guess where Mike makes his stand?

Apparently the 11 other officers can't identify this prick because – wait for it – they don't work together every day! They were just thrown together in the heat of the moment! They come from all over the city! And the suggestion that they're conspiring to protect this guy is just absurd!

Oh, sorry. In Mike's words, it was a "very dynamic situation." Many of the officers "aren't part of the same team." And there's no such thing as the Blue Wall. It doesn't exist. Our officers cooperated fully with the SIU. It's not our officers' fault that Ian Scott couldn't get full information, and it's not fair of him to throw our officers under the bus. The only thing missing was the standard witch-hunt accusation.

Let's review: The sadistic coward's face is in the picture. His badge number's there as well. Anyone with basic imaging software could enhance it in about a minute and a half. And yet eleven police officers trained to notice clues and follow leads can't put two and two together? One has to wonder what good all that money and training are doing.

Same lame-ass bullshit as always. And as usual, Matt lets him skate.

It's hard to say what's worse: that, or the fact that the guy knows he can get away with it.

Oh, wait a second: here's something even [sarcasm] better [/sarcasm]: according to Rosie DiManno, the son of a bitch has already been identified. As she writes:

In fact, as has now been revealed, the officer under scrutiny — so unrecognizable to every single cop near him that day — has been identified. He’s got a name and a badge number, both given to the SIU by the police department.
Police spokesman Mark Pugash told the Star Friday night that the department has three times since January provided information to the SIU about how they identified the officer — by his clearly-obvious badge number.

So why isn't this guy trading smokes with Babak Andalib-Goortani? Well, as Rosie continues:

The Star was unable to contact Scott on Friday. But in a radio interview the previous evening with As It Happens, the SIU director said what’s still lacking is “a linkage’’ between the photo and the name provided by the very police department that employs him.
This is preposterous and only serves to reinforce the suspicion that there’s one law for cops and one law for everybody else.
The person who took the photos might be able to link the two. “That’s not good enough,’’ said Scott. “I need someone to complete the loop. We don’t have a statement saying, ‘I know that person and I can ID him in court.’ ’’
Scott has asked Chief Bill Blair to provide documentation for how the officer in the photos came to be identified.
Why is this even necessary? You can be damn sure if this was a civilian captured by a camera assaulting a cop, no ultra-exacting linkage would be required.

So there's the double standard we've come to know and love so well.

Hypocrites, sadistic pigs, cowardly sacks of shit and/or Good Germans. If there's any other way to describe the folks walking around in Toronto police uniforms, I don't see it.

Update: the CBC's first news hit.

Related posts:


1 comment:

  1. One law for the Plebes, one law for the Senatorial class and both enforced by the legions. I suppose immunity from prosecution is just a perquisite of the job.

    Who was it who said that he never worried about the poor because he could always pay one half to shoot the other half? One of the robber barons, wasn't it?

    I am frankly disgusted, and I keep wondering when the people will reach the tipping point and rise up against this.

    On the upside, without a long gun registry we'll be able to more easily arm ourselves for the inevitable violent rebellion. So there's that, right?

    ReplyDelete

Share