1991 Riots

[fluffy]

We here in the west are such a bunch of uptight party-poops that we've even enshrined into laws the sort of Orwellian nonsense that Ken 7 describes and enforces.

But aren't the laws still in place because we can't seem to deal with the "Let's go out and get loaded tonight" mentality that abuses the freedom when it's handed to them? Sure it's usually a minority that make it bad for everyone else, but the amount of pain and damage inflicted by this minority is way out of scale with its size, and severe enough to warrant the laws being in place to protect everyone, minority included.

[juz516]

One thing I have never seen is drunken behavior exhibited by anyone, ever.

Mexicalidreamer: I find this difficult to believe...lived in Mexico for 9 years and have seen many many drunken "gringos", even right off the plane. Because the laws are so different, Americans and Canadians imbibe to extremes and the spring breakers are even worse, some of which are injured/killed out of stupidity every single year. Many people arriving from a country with stringent rules on this hit the airport with beer in hand and continue it on through their holiday.
Because our governments insist on "protect at all cost", IMO, people have not learned how to handle a lax rule situation. Like little kids all of a sudden granted freedom of rules, they take it to extremes and abuse the freedom.

[fluffy]

Because our governments insist on "protect at all cost", IMO, people have not learned how to handle a lax rule situation. Like little kids all of a sudden granted freedom of rules, they take it to extremes and abuse the freedom.

True. The cultures that enjoy relaxed laws don't show the level of problems we have. It would be nice to think that we could reach that point down the road and perhaps we will, but doesn't the current state of affairs indicate we aren't ready for it just yet?

[juz516]

Not only not ready for it, but many in society want it that way, imo. We have become a society who's rules and regulations are constantly upped to a point where people do not have to take personal responsibility for themselves, the "errors of their ways"and/or the consequences of their actions.

[bipdl]

I concur with juz516.

Like I said... uptight.

Although there should and must be limits, I resent "the government" (ie; the people... other people) continually tightening their grip around my neck as if to supposedly be protecting me from myself. A fine example of this is the sorts of laws Ken 7 cites about what constitutes the legally acceptable conveyance alcohol.

I'm all in favour of protecting innocents from the irresponsible over-indulgences of the foolhearty, but there comes a point where the sublime becomes the ridiculous. I believe the '91 riot well illustrated this point.

[fluffy]

I'm all in favour of protecting innocents from the irresponsible over-indulgences of the foolhearty, but there comes a point where the sublime becomes the ridiculous. I believe the '91 riot well illustrated this point.

I'm sorry, I'm missing the connection. Can you elaborate please?

[asas]

This will teach me not to get on the bike and go for coffee in another town!
99 - I was there before, during and after, and I was not listening to a police scanner as I had my own radio. We were gathering intel based on information received that trouble was planned for this event and so it appears our intel was correct.

bipdl - Not new, 30 plus years and you cannot seize anything without reasonable cause, and IF the events described by previous writers occured, laws were broken.
Do not talk about condesending talk as you have taken words, entered your own spin, and taken me to task. "Just to be clear blah blah" was meant just to be clear, nothing nefarious. (ps...that is one of my bad habits too)

One has to recall that city councils that pay for policing have a lot of say as to how the police will "enforce" regulations vis-a-vis keep the paying public happy. Ask Kamloops members why they are not allowed on the floors of concerts to enforce liquor and drug statutes. City council backed requests by the promoters to keep police away from the problem children.

As to 1991....mistakes were made by the police, and this was well documented by, are you ready for this, the police! At the time, riot training was almost non existant, and the members sent in were basically cut loose to regain control. The supervisors of the time, thought herding everyone like cows was the answer, but now everyone knows better. You see, despite comments to the contrary, efforts are made to do things better, but arm chair quarterbacks do little good. It is the people who were there and saw the mistakes as they worked, that had to make the changes.
Now I have pages of notes and kazillions of pages were recorded relative to the thousands of investigations conducted on the criminal activities and the conduct of the police. What do you have?
Finally, let me say that for those that are still down on the police after 21 plus years, let me invite you to read that huge amount of data availiable on line relative to "crowd mentality". Add to this, decisions made NOT TO TRAIN for these situations, city fathers looking at the cash cow, and intel (that was confirmed obviously) that indicated trouble was being planned, and you have exactly what happened.
Siezing (legal or not) of liquor, arresting drunks(heavy handed or not), and bringing in outside members DID NOT cause this riot. In some small way, just to be clear and fair, those actions did not help the situation, but the points I detailed above did.
Have to wait till a.m. for coffee, but cheers!

[bipdl]

The cliche "just to be clear and fair" is just that - a cliche. It's used by politicians as an obfuscating tactic when they have nothing intelligent to say whilst hoping to convey an air of legitimacy as they blow smoke up our *bleep*. Such hyperbole is mere patronizing fluff and a waste of computer bytes that adds nothing to anyone's otherwise possibly worthwhile argument.

The "IF" word again... really? Well then, history well knows; laws were broken by the RCMP!

I am edified by your report that the RCMP actually learned something after the mistakes they made in Penticton in '91. I guess, in retrospect, it's a matter of better late than never.

Your reference to so-called "problem children" attending whatever concert you're talking about in Kamloops further reveals your contempt for young people having a good time, even when they don't wind up causing mayhem. In fact, your example very effectively illustrates what happens when RCMP get held back from going all jihadist when a few of our society's more arcane rules are "disobeyed". People have a good time, no-one is hurt, the sky doesn't fall, the courts don't get plugged up with frivolous cases, and the concert attendees can resume normal tax paying participation in our society the very next day without having a criminal record as a mill stone hung around their necks for the rest of their lives by some philistine minded zealot on a sanctimonious power trip.

Just having "kazzilions of pages" doesn't translate into an individual knowing what's written therein, much less coming to any sort of basic understanding of what lessons were learned. On the contrary, being overloaded with documentation generally results in what's called in military parlance; a SNAFU. I have a Bible on my bookshelf... but that doesn't mean I've read all of it yet or that I have a sound grasp on everything contained within its pages.

As has already been stated, MOST cops try and indeed succeed in doing a pretty darned fine job in their day to day execution of their duties. But, being turned loose as a part of a mob (and knowing they can get away with pretty much anything), coupled with their alleged lack of training on how to properly handle an "enemy" mob, is a recipe for excessive brutality and retaliatory civil insurrection just as we saw in '91. So, the salient question seems to be: "Who was in charge of that whole dog and pony show?" City council, the Mayor, individual police officers, their superintendents, the bar owners.....?

Alas, 21 years later and it doesn't really matter! It's a whole new reality nowadays.

[bipdl]

I'm sorry, I'm missing the connection. Can you elaborate please?

I suppose it basically boils down to my belief that some laws make sense and serve to maintain peace and good order.

But there exist lots of laws that constitute an excessive impingement on personal freedoms that, when enforced, serve only to assuage those who seek to lord matters over others who really pose no threat to either other individuals or to the fabric of society in general. Also, there are a whole lot of laws that are so obscure, so antiquated, so ridiculous and so irrelevant in our day and age as to be utterly asinine, yet law enforcers remain free to hassle people with these laws at their personal discretion.

I think the riot was a manifestation of what happens when you over-govern people. The actions of the police in '91 exacerbated a situation who's roots actually lay in archaic liquor laws. Rather than simply letting people tucker themselves out and leave the bars of their own accord, BC liquor laws require that everyone is to be flushed out into the streets all at the same time (ready to settle down and go home or not) and right into the hands of police who are duty bound to try and keep a tight lid on this "bar flush" scenario. This is never seen in Quebec... namely, heavy police presence required in the streets because all the bars close at once (and in B.C.'s case, too early, in my opinion (which is based on what I've observed in other jurisdictions)).

[asas]

I have to say that you seem educated bipdl, but your errant bitterness succeeds in dulling valid points you attempt to make. Even when a writer attempts to explain that his words were not made to insult, you waste countless megabytes of whatever to continue down a bitter path. Really?
There are a couple of others that use these forums, that are so focused on their past they cannot hold a discussion without oozing bitterness and contempt against the police. People are now challenging those two to explain their unusual points of view and hopefully you will not have to suffer that embarassment as well.

I will leave the 'clear situation' as I believe that has been covered sufficiently, so let's talk about IF. I say IF, because I have not seen that, and for no other reason. It was not meant to say it did not happen, but possibly due to testifying in court, I have formed the posture of not confirming things, like the illegal siezure of liquor, without first seeing the offence or having knowledge of the offence having occured. In other words, I have never seen or heard of this act, ever. Could it happen? No doubt in my mind.

If you do not like our laws, you are wise enough to take legal participation to have them changed. Join or support a legitimat political force and get things changed. These parties can also inflence the direction police take, so ??????

I'd like to say finally, but....As to Quebec's policies not causing heavy handedness.....Why do they have an annual Anti-Police Brutality Riot every spring??
I like their laws better, where liquor is concerned, and as you attempted to point out, the 0200 flush is gone. The problem is that our youth have not been exposed to wines and spirits like the francaphone society and our youth tend to not be able to handle the priviledge as well in many situations.

AND FINALLY, you obviously let your bitterness out again when you decided you know my attitudes towards our youth. YOU HAVE NO IDEA what you are talking about. Go buy some Bill Cosby LP's and learn why I used "problem children". There was no need for that comment . As to the actual situation I spoke about, do you really think that drunk children stabbing each other or numerous youths beating on one child is better that having police on the floor? We are not naive enough to believe there will be no drinking or dope there, but we want to move those that cannot behave themselves away from those who were there to party before anyone is hurt.

It is raining hard enough, I thinks another coffee is due before venturing out on my assigned errands (more Bill Cosby....)

[bipdl]

Asas, I appreciate your comments.

I was unaware such serious problems truly occurred at the Kamloops concert you alluded to ("drunk children stabbing each other or numerous youths beating on one child"), and, I had no idea you were referring to a Bill Cosby skit when you used the term "problem children". Perhaps next time, you could frame your comments with a little context or background so as to avoid being misunderstood as being a hard-ass cop with a penchant for kicking butts and busting kids for being... well, kids. We don't get news reports about what goes on in Kamloops when it comes to such matters. As you surely are well aware, regional media outlets focus primarily on sensationalizing local events only and devote no time to news concerning market areas other than their own. Now that your statements clarify that you were referring to very specific and unacceptable isolated situations of violence which you actually observed occurring at - which concert was it? - (and were not talking about all concert going youth in general) I respectfully withdraw my comment about what I misconstrued as being your "I'll show them" predisposition vis-a-vis "problem children".

I do take exception to the use of the word "if" when discussing the roadside confiscation of legally obtained and possessed liquor. I understand your explanation of the legal technicalities pertaining to why you carefully chose to use that ambiguous word, but under the circumstances, it certainly appeared to have been expressed in order to suggest there exists some element of doubt as to whether or not liquor confiscations actually took place. The fact that you did not personally observe such confiscations is a cop-out (no pun intended), no different than me calling into question the fact that Sir John A. McDonald was a drunk! (Hey, I didn't personally see him imbibe, so all the various recorded historical reports might NOT be true.) Yeah, as "if"!

Your recommendation of becoming politically active is tantamount to telling someone to go beat their head on a wall. It should be pretty obvious that those who don't vote (almost half the population) feel that those who trust in "the democratic process" live in shear denial of its pathetically dismal record. It has a long history of sanctioned corruptibility and graft, exists purely for the sake of it's own indulgences and excesses, and, assuming there ever was the slightest modicum of integrity among elected politicians, democracy at its VERY BEST could only ever lay claim to representing 50% plus one of any population's values. IMHO, democracy is like lotteries.... millions of pie-in-the-sky wishful dreamers buy in, but only a handful realize fulfillment of their desires. I don't buy lotto tickets for the same reason I don't peg my hopes and dreams on our political processes... both are loser's games. Again, this argument; "that you won't win if you don't buy a ticket" disguised as an alleged means of affecting change, is a cliche.

The Anti-Police Brutality riots in Quebec you mention are exactly that. Why do you suppose that is? Did a bunch of peaceful people just sitting one day decide; "Tabbernack, we have nothing better to do. Let's have a riot to protest police brutality!" Give your head a shake! Furthermore, "if" those riots actually occur, they have nothing to do with 0200 hr. bar flushes and naive city council edicts. WAIT A MINUTE! I seem to recall seeing a news report about an incident when police beat a guy to death in a park who was sitting with friends one summer afternoon and refused to pour out his beer when ordered to do so. He was a black man I believe. Gee, sounds like how Natives are treated by plenty of Mounties everywhere west of, umm, Signal Hill, Newfoundland. Lucky for you guys that natives are a pretty passive bunch of people, considering how you don't get properly trained for such situations (your assertion). I'm just extremely thankful that I was born Caucasian and know better than to exercise my right to freedom of association, much less anything to do with free speech... because, as you've written; "People are now challenging those two to explain their unusual points of view and hopefully you will not have to suffer that embarrassment as well." Sounds like bullying (or bull-something) to me! (AKA: You can have an opinion, as long as it agrees with mine.) Say, did you ever read Animal Farm by George Orwell? Good read!

Excuse me now please. I'm off to buy a Bill Cosby LP record, as soon as I figure out where in the attic my old turntable is.

[fluffy]

There seems to be a portion of society that sees drinking to excess as socially acceptable behavior. I think this is were the problem has its roots. To put it simply, the issue of how cops react to drunks would not be under discussion if there were no drunks in the first place. Archaic liquor laws become a necessity when people hold archaic views as to the appropriate use of liquor.

[bipdl]

Absolutely right, Fluffy.

Clearly something needs to change. But downloading the responsibilities for affecting social change on to police forces is wrong minded.

There will always be abusers in all things, and they must be dealt with appropriately. But tightening the grip on the general populace leads to backlash, as we've seen in the "middle eastern spring of discontent". Those heavy handed regimes fell into chaos, and we're only a few steps behind if our governments don't smarten up.

It will be interesting to see how this new 3 a.m. closing time law works out! I think (hope?) it's a step in the right direction.

[fluffy]

Clearly something needs to change. But downloading the responsibilities for affecting social change on to police forces is wrong minded. There will always be abusers in all things, and they must be dealt with appropriately. But tightening the grip on the general populace leads to backlash, as we've seen in the "middle eastern spring of discontent". Those heavy handed regimes fell into chaos, and we're only a few steps behind if our governments don't smarten up.

I don't see it that way. The responsibility for social change lies with society itself, and clearly in this instance we seem content to go with the status quo. The police role is one of just that, policing. Since we seem unwilling to deal with social norms that permit going out and getting loaded as an acceptable activity then the police become necessary to keep things from going too far. Remove the police or shackle their authority and things will get worse. The police "problem" is a reaction to the drinking problem, first things first.

It will be interesting to see how this new 3 a.m. closing time law works out! I think (hope?) it's a step in the right direction.

Yes it will. I see the reasoning in the later closing time, that the crowd will shrink by attrition over the extra hour and the gang that hits the streets at closing time will be smaller. Sounds good in theory. Let's hope we don't end up just giving an extra hour of drinking time to people that really should have left at midnight.

[asas]

Sometimes I neglect to remember not everyone is young enough to recall Bill, but I will attempt to tender my script in a clearer fashion.
The concerts I alluded to were two Nickleback and one Snoop Dog event. Nickleback was great with few events beyond sending some youths away for fighting in the (I will spell this wrong) Monges Pit????, but Snoop Dog was another story. IMHO his music sucked and the crowd was a different lot with far more aggressive behaviour. Knives, throwing people from the stands, fighting in the first aid post. No fun here folks.
'If' is still my preferred word, because I have never even heard of this type of action before. I have seen liquor seized due to drinking in a vehicle ( and you can apply to get that back) and underage types will also lose the liquor, but never just a seizure presumably to prevent whatever??? I repeat, however, that I am not saying it did not happen.
As to politics, we actually agree! Our opinions there are very similar, but I was trying to be sincere with my suggestion to become 'active'. If we can convince real people to enter into politics and somehow legitimize the process, maybe we can have actual laws/processes passed that are suitable for our country. Fluffy makes some excellent points however, in that our society has to become more responsible for their actions and not head directly to 'excesses' just to be noticed by their peers.
Quebec has held the Police Brutality Riot every March for 17 years. I have no idea why, and while "Police Brutality" was no doubt at least part of the reason, I also wish to remind readers that the Penticton Riot was at least partially planned by a minority that wanted to event to occur (do not know why) and played the crowd mentality to the fullest. I can say that out of town people were the main source of the 'planning' for the Penticton event. Perhaps, and I am only guessing, there is a radical element in Quebec that feels this is the only way to forward their views on policing, but what reading I did suggested the police wait for the march to turn violent, then react. I just do not know.
Your comments on natives was interesting, in that I have found/witnessed that natives are far easier to deal with than caucasions. I have worked some violent reserves, but found the violence was directed at other natives rather that towards the police. I once had an extremely large and powerful native who was very drunk at the time, ask me what I would do if he punched me in the face. I told him I would bleed. He laughed, put himself in the rear seat of my unit without any problems. He told that story for years and while he continued to get in trouble, he never challenged any police. Even the rail blockades at Seton Portage had few events, as the natives were content making a point rather than physical confrontation.
So while you look for Bill, I will look for Animal Farm.
Cheers