A 49-year-old man is facing several charges, including the dangerous operation of a vehicle, after revving his car’s engine outside Winnipeg police headquarters.
A 49-year-old man is facing several charges, including the dangerous operation of a vehicle, after revving his car’s engine outside Winnipeg police headquarters.
According to a news release, the incident happened around 1:10 a.m. Saturday morning. Police said a “suspicious” Chrysler 300 was on Garry Street, when the driver started revving the engine “obnoxiously.”
When officers approached the car, it quickly drove off. Police said the driver was operating the vehicle erratically; running red lights, weaving through traffic, and hitting speeds around 90 km/h in the downtown core.
Multiple police units, including the Tactical Support Team and the Canine Unit helped stop the vehicle near St. Michael Road and Pulberry Street.
My concerns are the legal apparatus that can not distinguish between nuisance and protest.
I think protests against the genocide in Gaza are appropriate l, and I wouldn’t want people rounded up for being a nuisance.
I think the BLM protests were appropriate, and I wouldn’t want people rounded up for being a nuisance.
I think the protests around truth and reconciliation are appropriate, and I wouldn’t want those people rounded up for being a nuisance.
Basically, I’m just saying the knife cuts BOTH WAYS. Any laws that can shuffle people out of your sight for being something so poorly defined as a “nuisance” opens the gate for it to be applied against protests which are BY DESIGN disruptive to some degree.
The Jury is completely irrelevant because it’s after the fact. What matters is what the police can use as justification.
I’m saying that the bar needs to be raised for what the police can cuff you for. I am not in favour of “arrest them all and let the jury decide” approach to policing.
That’s why the police have to be able to present reasonable articulable suspicion that a specific law was being violated. Personally I would love to be arrested for peaceful protest. I have kids’ college to pay for and obvious civil rights violations are a quick settlement.
You are not logged in. However you can subscribe from another Fediverse account, for example Lemmy or Mastodon. To do this, paste the following into the search field of your instance: !canada@lemmy.ca
My concerns are the legal apparatus that can not distinguish between nuisance and protest.
I think protests against the genocide in Gaza are appropriate l, and I wouldn’t want people rounded up for being a nuisance.
I think the BLM protests were appropriate, and I wouldn’t want people rounded up for being a nuisance.
I think the protests around truth and reconciliation are appropriate, and I wouldn’t want those people rounded up for being a nuisance.
Basically, I’m just saying the knife cuts BOTH WAYS. Any laws that can shuffle people out of your sight for being something so poorly defined as a “nuisance” opens the gate for it to be applied against protests which are BY DESIGN disruptive to some degree.
No, signs and saying words are not the same as revving an engine, and you won’t find a jury who disagrees.
The Jury is completely irrelevant because it’s after the fact. What matters is what the police can use as justification.
I’m saying that the bar needs to be raised for what the police can cuff you for. I am not in favour of “arrest them all and let the jury decide” approach to policing.
That’s why the police have to be able to present reasonable articulable suspicion that a specific law was being violated. Personally I would love to be arrested for peaceful protest. I have kids’ college to pay for and obvious civil rights violations are a quick settlement.
I wish that were the case, because it would provide financial incentive for police restraint.
If the hundreds of university kids who were arrested for Gaza protests hit the lottery, I’d be thrilled.
You’d think so but major civil suits I paid by the taxpayer instead of financially affecting the officer involved. That should change.
I TOTALLY agree.
I think everyone is here thinking I’m pro asshole, I’m just super anti-cop and the problematic systems that enable them.
I am super anti-asshole, but I’m not ready to trade systemic anti-asshole structures that would further enable abusive policing.