Saturday, August 05, 2006

Community Speak-out Against Police Violence and Harassment

I just received this:

Follow up from Police Assault on Ander and Shawn in Sudbury:

It has been over a month since Ander and Shawn were harassed and assaulted at the Grotto in Sudbury. We say no to police violence and harassment in our community, are calling on the crown to drop all charges against Ander and Shawn, and for an independent community-based group that monitors police actions.

On Monday, August 14th at 6 pm at N’Swakamok Native Friendship Centre there will be a speak-out about our experiences of police brutality and targeting. By sharing our stories we will start breaking down the invisibility that survivors of police violence and harassment experience.

We know that what happened to Ander and Shawn was not an isolated incident, but that police frequently target marginalized peoples in our community and that it is widespread in other communities.

Our streets, parks, and public places are not safe for everyone as long as police are allowed to target marginalized peoples under the ‘Safe Streets Act’, ‘Brian’s Law’, and other campaigns that give cops the legal right to conduct street sweeps and bully people who are perceived as undesirable and unconventional.

We want an independant body separate from the police themselves that will hold the police accountable for their actions. We want to find an immediate way to protect each other against routine profiling, harassment and violence and become informed about our rights when dealing with police.

With your help we hope to pull off a boisterous action on this date and stick (our experiences) together in a more cohesive way to resist police practices, as well as find support, strength and relative safety in numbers. Bring your stories and your friend’s stories to share with eachother!

The poster is here.

Sudbury Coalition Against Poverty

I know that most people who happen by this site are not local but if you do happen to live in the area, please come on by this event, share your story, and listen to the stories of others.


Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Anonymous said...

Good Work Says:
August 7th, 2006 at 12:44 pm
Davidson was an Inspector in charge of criminal investigations in Ottawa before returning to Sudbury.

Davidson is a Vice President of (OACP) Ontario Association of Chiefs of Police.

How can you reach this level when you haven’t a clue what you’re doing?

Davidson’s brother Gary followed him into police work and is a local staff sergeant.

I wonder if his brother was working the night or morning in question?

Good Work Says:
August 7th, 2006 at 1:04 pm
The police require officers to train one every 12 months in the use of force and how to use a gun but nowhere are they trained yearly on the laws of our land or on the rights of our citizens.

14.3 (1) Every police force shall ensure that, at least once every twelve months,

(a) every member of the police force who may be required to use force on other persons receives a training course on the use of force;

(b) every member of the police force who is authorized to carry a firearm receives a training course on the use of firearms. O. Reg. 552/92, s. 9.

(2) The police force shall maintain written records of the training courses taken by members of the police force on the use of force and the use of firearms. O. Reg. 552/92, s. 9.

(3) Spent: R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 926, s. 14.3 (3). See: O. Reg. 552/92, s. 9.

14.4 The training courses referred to in sections 14.2 and 14.3 shall include training on the following matters:

1. Legal requirements.

2. The exercise of judgment.

3. Safety.

4. Theories relating to the use of force.

5. Practical proficiency. O. Reg. 552/92, s. 9.

The Standards of training aren’t very high, are they?

As I posted earlier common law is not set by statue. It is set by judges who set precedence when making rulings. Thus, the law and rights of citizens changes everyday yet the police are not required to update their knowledge.

The Canadian Charter of Rights is like a living tree. It keeps growing and growing. As new cases are heard by the courts new arguments are made and new common law or changes to the old laws are made.

Shouldn’t the police be required to train at least once a year on this as well?

Good Work Says:
August 7th, 2006 at 1:32 pm
The prescribed training doesn’t include updating your knowledge on the law. How odd is that?

An officers duties do include assisting victims of crime, apprehending criminals and other offenders and others who may “lawfully” be taken into custody.

No assistance to these victims of crime was provided after their unlawful arrest.

The law requires “every” officer to “apprehend criminals and other offenders and others who may lawfully be taken into custody” and to “lay charges and participating in prosecutions.” Since this hasn’t been done “every” officer has withheld his services in violation of section 75 (2) and is deemed guilty of misconduct under 74 (e).

Police Officers

Duties of police officer

42. (1) The duties of a police officer include,

(a) preserving the peace;

(b) preventing crimes and other offences and providing assistance and encouragement to other persons in their prevention;

(c) assisting victims of crime;

(d) apprehending criminals and other offenders and others who may lawfully be taken into custody;

(e) laying charges and participating in prosecutions;

(f) executing warrants that are to be executed by police officers and performing related duties;

(g) performing the lawful duties that the chief of police assigns;

(h) in the case of a municipal police force and in the case of an agreement under section 10 (agreement for provision of police services by O.P.P.), enforcing municipal by-laws;

(i) completing the prescribed training. R.S.O. 1990, c. P.15, s. 42 (1); 1997, c. 8, s. 28.

Anonymous said...

Only the Lieutenant Governor in Council may make regulations with respect to the Police Service Act.


135. (1) The Lieutenant Governor in Council may make regulations,


23.1 defining “frivolous or vexatious” and “made in bad faith” for the purposes of clause 22 (1) (e.1) and subsections 59 (3), 62 (2) and 65 (3);

The Lieutenant Governor has made the regulations but nowhere can a regulation defining “frivolous or vexatious” and “made in bad faith” for the purposes of clause 22 (1) (e.1) and subsections 59 (3), 62 (2) and 65 (3) be found.

Thus, there is no regulation, and at no time can a chief, detachment commander, Board or Commission refuse to hear a complaint or dismiss a complaint based on their opinion being that the complaint is “frivolous or vexatious” and “made in bad faith."

They simple do not have the jurisdiction to define “frivolous or vexatious” and “made in bad faith"; only the Lieutenant Governor in Council has, and he or she has neglected or refused to do so.

That's good news for the citizen.

Anonymous said...

Ah, the poor chief of police had his unregulated slush fund taken away from him. How sad.

What kind of police force would allow people to buy their way out of a conviction?

A corrupt one, that’s what kind.

Anonymous said...

If the criminal cops claim they did in fact file a use of force form with the chief as required, what excuse does the chief have for not reading it?

He expressly stated he never found out about ander's beating until he read about it in the paper days after it occurred.

Is use of force not important to the chief?

Would he not read the report the very same day since this happened at 3 a.m.?

I suggest to you that not many use of force forms were filed that evening, if any, so there would only be at least this one he had to read. So why didn’t he read it?

The chief expressly articulated that 99 percent of people go peacefully when arrested.

According to Davidson, when Sudburians are arrested, 99 percent go willingly.

So that leaves only 1 percent where force is needed and a form required to be filed.
How many people were arrested with force on June 26?

We know of one, so only one form was filed. Did one form get lost in the empty use of force form file when there was only one form in there?

Is the chief going to say he knew about the beating and unlawful arrest the day it happened but he did nothing about it because he didn't know ander was complaining until the article was in the paper?

Whose lying here, the chief of police or the criminal assaulting cop?

Or both of them?

Anonymous said...

How pathetic is our provincial government?

"Keeping a campaign promise from the 2003 election, Kwinter paid a visit to Greater Sudbury Wednesday as part of a Northern Ontario tour to announce his government's commitment to hiring 1,000 new officers across the province."

They brag about keeping their promise to put more cops on the street.

However, consider the reality of the promise.

Our city doesn’t need the province’s permission to hire more cops. The provincial government is only paying for the new 14 officers until the end of 2008, or for a two-year period once the officer is hired. The city taxpayer has to pay 100 percent of the cost after two years. The cops wages are much higher in year three and beyond versus year one and two when the province is paying the cost. The promise the province has made is nothing less than a joke. It’s the same as me promising to buy you a car and than asking you for the money to pay for it and then claiming I kept my promise once you buy it and pay for it.

Completely Pathetic.

Hiring one cop cost 45-50,000 dollars in the first year. The chief claims he's already hired two.

"Greater Sudbury is getting 14 new officers as a result of this initiative. Two are already on the job, two more will be hired this week right out of police college, and the final 10 will be hired before the end of fall, said Greater Sudbury Police Chief Ian Davidson."

The province presented the city with a cheque for just over $20,000 and that doesn't even cover 6 months of one officers wages that have already been paid.

"Kwinter presented members of the Greater Sudbury Police Services Board with a cheque for just over $20,000 as the first installment of provincial funding under the program."

How pathetic is our chief for not speaking up for the city taxpayer?

Anonymous said...

Have you ever noticed that the police lay as many charges as possible for the same occurrence?

For example, when someone is charged with murder they are not charged with manslaughter, first degree and second-degree murder. They are charged with one or the other. However, with our youth and disadvantaged citizens they police will charge them with mischief and vandalism and everything else they can think of for the very same occurrence.

The person charged with urinating on the Navy League monument in Memorial Park last week was charged with possession of a prohibited weapon, resisting arrest, carrying a concealed weapon and possession of a dangerous weapon. These charges are all related to the very same offence yet the police rack up more outputs on their pathetic record.

Since the park is a public place where is the public washroom?

There is none.

Whose fault is that?

Was he just supposed to pee his pants?

Why did the police issue a news release on this story but not do so on anders beating?

"Greater Sudbury Police issued a news release saying officers observed Morris urinating on the monument, while carrying around a bottle of beer, around 12:30 am Wednesday."

Doesn't this seem a little odd to you?

Our police force is in need of outputs to justify the need for so many officers. Without charges being filed they cannot justify the need for more money every year. For example, if I hire you to cut my grass, as soon as you are finished cutting my grass there is no more work for you to do, thus I lay you off. Without charges being filed there is no work for these officers and thus they would be laid off. Therein lies the need to file as many charges as possible, even if they have to frame people or make up crime, because their employment relies upon it.

Sudbury is in need of less crime, not more officers. Hiring 14 new cops means an increase in crime is forthcoming; not a reduction. Next year we will have many more charges laid than we had this year.

Anonymous said...

The more arrests a cop makes the more money he makes.

What a great incentive program our government has going.


18. Arresting a person on a warrant or without a warrant


19. Serving summons or subpoena


20. Mileage to serve summons or subpoena or to make an arrest, both ways, for each mile


(Where a public conveyance is not used, reasonable costs of transportation may be allowed.)

21. Mileage where service cannot be effected, on proof of a diligent attempt to effect service, each way, for each mile


22. Returning with prisoner after arrest to take him before a summary conviction court or justice at a place different from the place where the peace officer received the warrant to arrest, if the journey is of necessity over a route different from that taken by the peace officer to make the arrest, each way, for each mile


23. Taking a prisoner to prison on remand or committal, each way, for each mile


(Where a public conveyance is not used, reasonable costs of transportation may be allowed. No charge may be made under this item in respect of a service for which a charge is made under item 22.)

24. Attending summary conviction court or justice on summary conviction proceedings, for each day necessarily employed


(Not more than $2.00 may be charged under this item in respect of any day notwithstanding the number of proceedings that the peace officer attended on that day before that summary conviction court or justice.)

Anonymous said...

The police lost their unregulated slush fund so now they need to charge people with silly offences.

They were running radar all weekend and out of the 100,000 plus drivers in Sudbury there were only 44 speeders. That’s pretty good. But not good enough for the pathetic police department. They charged 10 people with failing to merge to the left lane while the police were pulled over with lights flashing on the shoulder in on a four-lane highway. They raked in 4000 dollars for these 10 charges alone.

This offence is not taught by the MTO when you get your licence. It is not on any test. I didn’t even know the law existed, and clearly neither did these drivers who we’re speeding. Had they know about the law they clearly wouldn’t have broke the law since they saw the cop right in front of them. The pathetic police could’ve just issued a warning and informed them of the law, but nope, not these pathetic cops, they fined them.

Notice the OPP were as well patrolling the four lane highways and charged no one with these silly offences.

Here’s what the police do. They have no one stopped, they just pull over on the shoulder, turn on their lights when they see a car approaching, and then chase you down and fine you.

It’s harassment and entrapment because they are setting you up.


Anonymous said...

We have 156,000 people from all walks of life.

We have 243 police officers. Not one is black. There is only one native officer and he was just hired.

Most if not all city staff are white. An all white city council and mayor. No black fire fighters or ambulance drivers.

Sure, we don't live in a racist city.

I almost gagged when I read this Davidson quote.

“Knowing the high level of professionalism within our service,..."

Saturday, January 15, 2005 10:42
Police chief reacts to racism allegations

Greater Sudbury Police Service Chief Ian Davidson has finished his internal investigation into allegations of racism by two of his officers.

The investigation was the result of media reports last month which suggested a citizen was arrested because he was black.

He said the allegations made against these officers are unsupported.

“I directed a thorough review of the circumstances,” said Davidson in a news release. “It is suggested that racial profiling occurred in this incident.

Profiling happens when law enforcement officials consider race or ethnicity when deciding with whom, or how to intervene in a law enforcement capacity. However, this is not the case.

“Knowing the high level of professionalism within our service, I was not surprised that there is no evidence to conclude that racism or racial bias was the basis on which the officers approached the gentleman in question. Indeed, the two officers involved possess high ethical standards and are fine young men…”

Davidson had an obligation under the Police Services Act to investigate the allegations.

The investigation is conducted by the Professional Standards Bureau.

At the end, a report is submitted to see if any misconduct has been committed under the Police Services Act.

Anonymous said...

I find this truly hard to believe. It doesn't say much for the FBI training or Carleton University.

Davidson "holds a bachelor's degree, major in law, from Carleton University and is a graduate of the Rotman School of Management's police leadership program and the FBI National Academy."

Anonymous said...

Ha! I told you. Outputs and data. The bigger the number the more money the police are given. The more officers hired the sooner Davidson gets another raise.

“We encourage you to phone us because it increases our data capacity,” Davidson told residents."

Romaine Chappell said she would be willing to pay an extra $50 in taxes a year for more police protection — as would many residents who raised their hands in support when presented with that option.

Anonymous said...

The police are obligated under the Police Service Act to ensure the safety of our citizens. Ander was injured, and injured by the police. They omitted to do anything to help her and showed wanton and reckless disregard for the safety of her person.

Criminal Negligence

Criminal negligence
219. (1) Every one is criminally negligent who

(a) in doing anything, or

(b) in omitting to do anything that it is his duty to do,

shows wanton or reckless disregard for the lives or safety of other persons.

Definition of “duty”
(2) For the purposes of this section, “duty” means a duty imposed by law.

Anonymous said...

Nine cement head cops, the chief of police, the police service board members, the city of Sudbury, and the crown attorney involved in a conspiracy to prosecute Ander and Shawn for an alleged offence, knowing that they did not commit that offence is something that would only happen in Sudbury.



465. (1) Except where otherwise expressly provided by law, the following provisions apply in respect of conspiracy:


(b) every one who conspires with any one to prosecute a person for an alleged offence, knowing that he did not commit that offence, is guilty of an indictable offence and liable


(ii) to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years, if the alleged offence is one for which, on conviction, that person would be liable to imprisonment for less than fourteen years;

Anonymous said...

Notice the word "expressly" in section 465 above?

Expressly or express mean written. Ander had written permission to be at the Grotto which is expressly written on the Grotto's website. The Trespass Act states you need express permission.

Every person who is not acting under a right or authority conferred by law and who,

(a) without the express permission of the occupier, the proof of which rests on the defendant,

Ander and Shawn had it.

The chief admits the police didn't have express permission to trespass or to remove people from private property, they just had a blanket agreement, which is as good as the garbage in your garbage bag. There is no such definition in law of a blanket agreement and even if there were it still doesn't save them, because they need express written permission.

The Police will never win a conviction because they have no evidence and no case. But we have a strong case against the police because the police are guilty.

Scott said...

Hey "anonymous"!

I'm glad you're finding it useful to add comments to this post. Though I've lived here a year, and certainly wish to support Ander and Shawn in their struggles with the cops, I don't know enough about local politics yet to really contribute to or comment on most of the things you've said. So while I'm glad you're posting this material here, might I suggest that it might be useful to start your own blog, focused on police misconduct in Sudbury, both this case and whatever else you're interested in? You could then promote it in the local social justice community, and make it a more useful tool for building critical consciousness around the power-over wielded by the cops than can perhaps be done purely with comments on this post. As I say, I don't mean this to discourage you from making comments, just making a suggestion about how best to make use of the wonderful resource that is the internet.

Anonymous said...

Hiya. I was pretty much finished anyway. I wanted to touch on fabricating evidence, misleading justice, and aiding and abetting, and then it was case closed and court adjourned. Starting a blog is a great idea. I never thought of it and I should do it. Watch for it. Justice In Ontario. Thanks for the space and good luck with your blog and future endeavours!


Anonymous said...

disrespectful, why don't you put on a uniform and get away from you're computer .....Oh wait you're doing such a great service for our community by sitting there and bashing people you don't even know.

How do you sleep at night. You mention names of police officers killed, these officers have families who me, I would know. And all you can pull from sudbury police patrolling the streets of sault ste marie is the amount of money it costs? You need some morals.

And I changed my mind. Don't get off of your computer chair and patrol the streets. You aren't worthy of that much responsibility.

Maybe when you have someone knocking at your door at 3:30 in the morning telling you your father/mother/son/daughter has died. Then you can say something about these people.


Someone who has integrity.

Scott said...


If you look carefully, you can see that the vast majority of this content was not written by me. I wrote the initial post, which was announcing an event that was responding to the experiences of two youth I know who were beaten up by the Sudbury police. That's it. The rest of this material, which seems to be what has you so upset, was added by an anonymous commenter such as yourself. I don't know who it was and don't know anything about all of the situations this commenter talks about. Of course it is my site, so I could delete it all if I wanted, but I have been reluctant to take the information down because it was obviously someone who has had some pretty nasty personal experiences and who is using this as a way to respond to may or may not be a useful or effective response, but that's where I understood it to have come from. I have no basis to assess how accurate or inaccurate all of those comments are. If there are seriously inappropriate things that are brought to my attention in a respectful way, I might consider deleting them.

I should add that I suspect you and I still have very different understandings of the police. I know people go into the police service for noble reasons, but what the police actually do at a social level often has some serious problems with it. They beat my friends up. They beat people up all the time. They are often used as a response to people organizing against exploitation by inflicting violence and criminalization on them. I think there would be better ways to organize our society's response to many of the needs that are currently dealt with purely as a policing issue.

That said, I want to state again that the comments that seem to have you most upset, I had nothing to do with. I haven't looked at them in the year or two since they were put up and I forget what's in them, but I will look again and see if they warrant removal. If you have something to contribute to that decision that is not just going out of your way to be insulting, I am interested in hearing from you.

Scott said...

Hi again. I took a look at at the comment containing the name that brought the combative anonymous commenter form just above to this site. It does contain a reproduction of a mainstream news article that mentions the death of an officer, but as far as I could tell it said nothing disrespectful about that officer as an individual. However, I had noticed that that particular name had been drawing people to this post recently, so perhaps the case has been in the news again. I am not generally one to remove content from this site just because someone doesn't like it, but I have no desire to reawaken grief in someone who has found this post by accident. So what I have done is removed that one comment out of the dozen and a half that the original anonymous commenter left a year and a half ago. It is not lost and gone forever and could be restored if someone really wanted me to do so. In the meantime, I have left up all of that persons other words...which, I again must emphasize are not mine, and which I might or might not agree with if I had more information on the specific cases involved, though I remain profoundly critical of the police and their social function in a more general sense.