;;

Saturday, April 30, 2016

Clr. Green's Complaint

Update: In light of this topic being the subject of a lot of discussion, we sent Clr, Green the following questions. If he replies, we will post his response:

It appears clear that you had a logical reason for being where you were at the time you were questioned. Do you think that that reason would have been apparent to police, or anyone else for that matter who may have observed you at that point in time. What would you think the appropriate response should have been with the police? Or do you believe they should have simply driven by? If this incident did not involve a person of colour, do you believe it would have unfolded the same way? Can you explain your answer?

Clr. Green was kind enough to provide a copy of the complaint he filed, based on his recent incident with Hamilton Police. The following is his complaint:

April 27, 2016

Hamilton Police Service
155 King William St
Box 1060, LCD1 Hamilton, ON L8N 4C1

RE: Hamilton Police Service Complaint Arbitrary Stop April 26, 2016

To whom it may concern:

On Tuesday April the 26th at approximately 3:15 pm I arrived at the bus stop located on the Eastbound/South side of Stinson St and Victoria Ave. waiting for the 5 Delaware bus to take me to my home a few blocks away.

Having underestimated the temperature outside I was dressed in dark blue sports blazer, light blue dress shirt and casual pants and decided to cross the street to stand beside the bridge adjacent to the Central Memorial Recreation centre in order to shield myself from the frigid wind and wait for the Eastbound 5 Delaware bus.

While reading emails on my phone, two Hamilton police squad cars exited the parking lot from Central Memorial School, turning left onto Stinson in the eastbound/north side of the street. The first officer driving squad car 725-1 stopped directly in front of me with his window rolled down.

The following conversation contained in this complaint is part of but not limited to the extent of the stop which felt like roughly 7 or 8 minutes in duration.

Having a relatively familiar relationship with Division 1 frontline officers my first thought was that he was going to say hello so to my surprise he began to arbitrarily question me in an intimidating tone asking, “what are you doing there?”

To which I replied, “checking my phone”.

He responded, “under a bridge?”

I replied, “out of the wind waiting for the bus”.

His line of questioning and tone became more agitated as cars began to line up behind him and he held up traffic.

He further asked, “where I was going?”

Recognizing the nature of his questioning and feeling harassed I believe I replied, “why does that matter?”

He responded, “the bus won’t be able to see you” thinking that I was waiting for the westbound bus when in fact I was waiting for the eastbound bus which I would have easily seen turning down the street off of Wellington St. South.

When I looked to his partner who was waiting behind him in a separate squad car, his partner said, “tell him he’s holding up traffic”. Which I relayed to the officer questioning me while the roughly 5 or so cars were left waiting.

The officer said, “they can wait”.

I asked him if he’d rather pull over to have this conversation to which he replied “no I’m good here”

He then asked me “are you from this City?”

To which I replied that “Yes I’m very much from this City and you?” He then asked me my name in an annoyed tone to which I replied “Matthew Green and what’s your name?

To which he replied “Officer REDACTED (spelling unknown) I believe it was at that time that he followed up with, “are you the City Councillor?” To which I did not answer and looked to his partner hoping the interaction would have ended and he would have continued along his way.

Perhaps recognizing that I was an elected official he proceeded to repeatedly ask me, “are you okay?”

To which I replied “are you okay?” I do not feel the interaction was caused by any particular concern for my wellbeing or safety. The conversation felt confrontational in nature and I was made to justify my existence in my own community. Nor do I believe it followed the proper Hamilton police protocols given the nature of the interaction.

This process of arbitrary stopping and questioning in public with cars lined up on the street waiting caused me embarrassment, frustration and anger. He repeatedly questioned my credibility, acting in an intimidating manner and continued to harass me even though it was clear I was not a suspect in any crime nor involved in criminal activity. I feel what he was doing was unlawful and unconstitutional.

This questioning was both arbitrary and agitating in nature and constitutes both harassment and intimidation as I was not under any investigation nor related to any criminal activity or events in the area.

Respectfully Submitted,

Matthew Green


Note: As per our site policy, only respectful comments will be published. 

204 comments:

  1. Here's my take on it.

    Green acted reasonably, knowing what he knew to be true.

    However, the police did not know what he knew. They did not know why he was standing where he was. Of course, he had every right to be there, according to why he was there. But the police did not know why. So, I don't blame the cops here. And overall, perhaps Green has a valid point to make. But it seems like not the greatest of examples.

    I don't know why he did not disclose that he is a city councillor, when asked. I find that strange.

    Anyway, I don't think Green is out of line here. But I do see that the police have a defensible;e position on this-that ' just according to reading Clr. Green's side of it, and not knowing what the police would say.

    I would advise Clr. Green and remind him that many people see him as a bright light on council. I continue to support him, and I hope he is careful with how he proceeds.
    Sorce

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Nothing to add. I agree with you.

      Delete
  2. "He responded, “the bus won’t be able to see you” thinking that I was waiting for the westbound bus when in fact I was waiting for the eastbound bus which I would have easily seen turning down the street off of Wellington St. South. "

    This is a key statement.

    ReplyDelete
  3. I see nothing in the officers line of questioning out of the norm. Even if he recognized the Clr, I too would be wondering why is he standing under a bridge and not properly clothed for the cold weather. Perhaps the officer believed the Clr was in some sort of trouble. Given that it was only 3:15pm on a work day, one would assume the Clr should be at the office working. I would be asking the same questions - Are you ok? Where are going? What is your name? etc... If Clr Green found the conversation becoming confrontational, it is proballay because he was not cooperating as any normal person would to when being questioned by the police. In my opinion, Clr Green was intagonizing the office by answering questions with a question, and from the Councillor's own report, he is coming across as arrogant and being difficult. I would ask Clr Green to take a step back and look at this scenario from the officer's point a view. A young professional looking man standing under a bridge, inproperly dressed for the cold weather, on his cell phone at 3pm. Anyone would wonder - why is this guy standing under a bridge and is he ok. Clr Green even admitted to not answering some of the officers questions. This would raise even more suspecision as to why and what this guy was doing under a bridge and not at work. Let's be fair, respectful and thankful for the good work our police force does for this city. One other mention. I know the Stinson and Victoria well and there are no schools there. There is only the Memoria Recreation Centre one block West of Victoria off of Stinson Ave. Karen

    ReplyDelete
  4. In response to Karen's comments, as a citizen Clr Green and you and I have an absolute right to be arrogant, not answer questions, and be difficult with a police officer. Police officers do NOT have the right to be arrogant, or withhold their names. Yes the police have a tough job, and we as citizens should co-operate when approached by police in a respectful manner. But, when we as a community give guns and uniforms to our fellow citizens, we have the right if not the obligation to see that our police practice the highest possible standards when dealing with citizens going about their business.

    ReplyDelete
  5. "as a citizen Clr Green and you and I have an absolute right to be arrogant, not answer questions, and be difficult with a police officer. Police officers do NOT have the right to be arrogant, or withhold their names."

    I do not agree with you. We should not be arrogant with those who we trust to protect us and our families.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "...we trust to protect us and our families" your "we" does not include me. or my wife. or our daughter. we dont automatically trust anyone except family and friends. trust is earned. individual police constable have earned our trust AND respect. many others have earned our mistrust and disrespect. any police try this crap on our family it will not work as we know our rights and have role played scenarios where police TRY and question us arbitrarily. best of luck to councillor green.

      Delete
    2. would love to see some of those role play scenarios posted to something like "YouTube" as I am sure they would make you a sensation overnight and provide a valuable community service. Heaven help that child.

      Delete
    3. Trust must be earned. So I guess you don't call 911 in an emergency? After all, you could get a random ambulance driver show up at your house intent on harming you.

      Get real

      Delete
    4. i HAVE called a police officer to my house for a 911 emergency. it doesnt meant i TRUST them. it means i NEED them. before they came i made sure there was no cash lying around. my wife made sure she wasnt wearing anything too sexy. the police were NEVER alone with one of us, and we NEVER allowed either out of sight in our home. we are VERY real.

      Delete
  6. Marvin,

    I have agreed with your viewpoint on many issues Marvin but on this one I could not disagree more. I have stated that in my opinion this issue/ situation is a very grey area from the perspective that we could not possibly begin to understand the rational of the officer at the point in time he decided to question Green. The councilor has chosen to make this racial and even suggest that he had to "justify my existence in my own community" which I think is stretching things a bit. If the officer in the car was a person of color and Green was Caucasian is this incident racial? The police are in a no-win situation and are damned if they do and damned if they don't. There may actually be some, what we might refer to as "bad cops" but I firmly believe the vast majority are there to protect us so let's find reasonable guidelines that they can use to accomplish that task and let them get on with it!

    ReplyDelete
  7. "If the officer in the car was a person of color and Green was Caucasian is this incident racial?" it wouldnt exclude racism as factor. black people can be racist about other black people as well. no ones perfect. except the cops right? from what you say, for your own reasons, you it sounds virtually IMPOSSIBLE for this incident to have a race aspect to it. why? cops arent perfect. you admit that. so why NOT keep and open mind?

    ReplyDelete
  8. I wasn't there but for Clr. Green not to answer the question as to whether he is a city councillor, sound like he was copping some attitude. I don't think that helps him.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. if thats your problem about the excahnge then problem solved. the part about the cop asking him being if he was a city coumcillor was near the end of the exchange. right? so what "attitude" was councillor green displaying prior to the cop asking who exactly he was "policing"?

      Delete
  9. "sound like he was copping some attitude" you reallly want to use the word "uppity" dont you?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. No, I wanted to use sound like he was copping some attitude" and thats why i used it. I don't get your point.

      Delete
  10. Samuel from StinsonApril 28, 2016

    I think the police did their job properly, given the circumstances. I would have asked what he was doing as well. And not because he is a man of colour. I would have become even more suspicious if he was not forthright with his answers, or if he was answering questions with a question. I hope he doesn't think being a councilor gives him any sway. It does not work that way.

    ReplyDelete
  11. I think he contributed to the "confrontation" by his responses. Is there not more important work to do to move the City forward? This poor officer will have this interaction hanging over his head for the remainder of his career. I don't agree with Marvin. Treat people how you expect to be treated, in this circumstance Clr Green appears to have received what he was dolling out.

    My issue is the posting to Twitter to seek headlines. I don't believe this is a true reflection on Hamilton or the Police. He has used his position to cast a black eye in the media on Hamilton rather than deal with this through the proper channels like an average Hamiltonian. This has been picked up by media provincially. We want to attract talented people to this community and this type of publicity is negative and will not help.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. the police started it by asking him who he was where he was going and what he was doing. "poor officer" made his own be lie in it. i see these two squad cars idling by central rec constantly. 100 000 k per year for drinking coffee and hassling bystanders. this cop tries this with me or my family, same result.

      Delete
  12. I was not aware that Clr. Green has publicized this incident far and wide. I think that was a mistake.

    As mentioned, I don't think the case was strong enough to rely on. I think the police have a defensible position in this and by the Clr.'s own account, some of his responses to the police were not cordial or non responses.

    I also think it sends a message about Hamilton that is unfortunate, particularily because I don't think this particular case warrants this attention. It should be investigated to determine if there is anything the police could have done differently, but , as I say, I beleive they have a defensible position.

    I also heard Green in an audio interview saying that he tries not to look at the comments on sites , I suppose, like this one. I find that offensive. Many thoughtful people, like myself and others, contribute our views for the interests of our city. Since when are we not important enough?

    If you are going to draw this much attention to an incident that appears to be wobbly at best, and potentially ruin an officer's rep, then at the very least, have the courage to face the responses.

    Sorry Clr. I still beleive you are a bright light but sometimes you can be a better model, by simply being a bright light on council.

    I challenge you to debate this issue with the people who care enough here to comment.
    Sorce

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. AnonymousMay 09, 2016

      "I find that offensive. Many thoughtful people, like myself and others, contribute our views for the interests of our city" that is possibly the most infantile statement ever made on this site.

      Delete
  13. Green should withdraw the complaint and ask to meet with the two officers so that Green and the two officers can find a respectful way of understanding what happened and what could have been done differently, if anything.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. thats what grownups do;-)

      Delete
    2. AnonymousMay 10, 2016

      he already has. next.

      Delete
  14. This is not a police state. The police had absolutely no right to ask what Green was doing under the bridge. None of their business! Because Green was black he was targeted. White people will not understand this reality and creating artificial what if scenarios reversing the roles is stupid. There is no such thing as reverse rascism. Rascism is about privilege and power and exercising that through a racial lens. Don't forget that just a few years ago an innocent black man getting off a GO bus was arrested and thrown in jail despite his protestations after a jewellry robbery when there was absolutely NO REASON for him to be a suspect. That's the police for you. Carding in Hamilton is targeted at Blacks. So glad Green is shouting it from the rooftops and Twitter and those who care about Hamilton's reputation more than a persons feelings be damned.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I think Clr. Green should be mentored by someone. I like the Clr. and I hate to see him step in it. I think he stepped in it this time and I also think he stepped in it when he by-passed the mayor and sent a letter to upper levels of gov't.

      I think the Clr. needs to swallow his pride and allow himself to flourish as a Clr. and not get side tracked.
      Sorce

      Delete
  15. Way too many Anonymous comments but it is OK to post if you don't have the conviction to stand by your remarks at least call yourself Joe or Bill or Bob or something so we can follow along. Although this isn't a police state the police have every right to ask these questions because that is what they are there to do - protect us. If you don't believe they should do these things than to pursue further constructive conversation please suggest an example of what they should and can do.

    ReplyDelete
  16. "If you don't believe they should do these things than to pursue further constructive conversation please suggest an example of what they should and can do" stop random checks of bystanders with no probable cause. like the law says.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Section 8 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms provides everyone in Canada with protection against unreasonable search and seizure. This right provides Canadians with their primary source of constitutionally enforced privacy rights against unreasonable intrusion from the state. Was the questioning of Green "unreasonable" - clearly by the definition of the last anon it was - me thinks not!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. starting jan 1st 2017, these are the new regulations for random police checks in ontario. these regulations are being accepted by the police. why? well its certainly against their will, and the police unions. anyway. because the courts have directed them that this is THE ONLY way to do a random spot check WITHOUT violating a persons rights. again, the courts have ORDERED the police to comply with these new regulations so as to not violate peoples rights and conform to the COURTS interpretation of the charter. dont believe my copy and paste, google.

      As of January 1, 2017, police officers are required to tell a person they stop that they are not legally required to talk or answer questions. Officers must also explain why they stopped a person.
      Refusing to co-operate or walking away cannot be used as reasons to compel information.
      But police officers can still stop a person and gather personal information during routine traffic stops, when someone is being arrested or detained, or when there is a search warrant. so michael, did the interaction as described by councillor green meet these soon to be introduced standards for random police checks?

      Delete
  18. Anon:

    We can argue about this until the cows come home but in my view, fundamentally, if we are going to handcuff the police from doing their jobs to the point that they cannot effectively fulfill that mandate then why have them. To your point above - have the police publicly declared that they will enforce this new order of the court ahead of the implementation date? Has every officer in Ontario and for that matter Hamilton been trained in the enforcement of this new order?
    I wonder if there are any statistics as to how many crimes were foiled by the police by early intervention by way of questioning individuals?
    I cross the border routinely on business and get asked many probing questions by the customs officer and I am neither offended or feel that I am being treated as a terrorist. Green has suggested that he was targeted and harassed - he was standing alone! If he was in a group of six individuals and the officer picked him out becase he was the only black I would believe he was targeted.
    Read the interaction above as described by Green very carefully - when first asked what he was doing there he states it was in an "intimadating" tone to which he replied "checking my phone". Was his reply in a flippant manor - we will never know because Green has chosen to make this a political issue and claim this happened becasue he was black. The police have an already incredible and dangerous job dealing with criminals and us righteous do gooders make it even harder. In my opinion, despite his lofty stature as a City of Hamilton councilor, Green doesn't know how to answer a simple question in a manner that gives the individual asking the question the belief this guy is "OK". I can only repeat that in my opinion this is a NO win situation for the police - they are damned if they do and damned if they don't. They are in a position of authority and some of us don't like it - we put them there and for a purpose no less!
    Under different circumstances had this individual been say a child molester violating parole restrictions we would be applauding their actions - damned if the do and damned if they don't!!!

    ReplyDelete
  19. "but in my view, fundamentally, if we are going to handcuff the police from doing their jobs" ok, but remember thats your view, not the law. stop confusing what the law IS and what you think it SHOULD be. "have the police publicly declared that they will enforce this new order of the court ahead of the implementation date?" some, have some havent. google acting chief weatherills comments on how hamilton police have virtually stopped random spot checks altogether, they were down by over %70 last year. "Was his reply in a flippant manor?" why is this relevant? i will assum councillor green was polite. but assume he wasnt. professional, highly trained, highly paid PUBLIC SERVANTS should be able to hear a tone in someones voice they dont like and still not escalate. commone sense says since the police stop and questions thousands of people per year they should know people might be something less than happy about it. this si no excuse to abuse their beahviour. "Green doesn't know how to answer a simple question in a manner that gives the individual asking the question the belief this guy is "OK"" the police officer didnt ask if he was of till seven or eight minutes into the exchange. did the police constable rollup and say "sir, this is a sketchy spot, are you ok? can we help you?" no. IF they were concerned for him, why did they ask him 7 minutes of who why where who why where? "they are damned if they do and damned if they don't" do you know the meaning of that phrase? i dont think you do. no one would damn them if they smiled and nodded at councillor green and drove on down the road. "we put them there and for a purpose no less!" yea, we put themthere to stop child molesters for instance, not have TWO cops, TWO cruisers, TEN minutes on random people cause they had a whim. damned if the do and damned if they don't!!! they will be damned if they continue to violate peoples rights, the will EARN more respect when they stop.

    ReplyDelete
  20. I just read this whole thing. too much is being made out of this. As someone else said, the police didn't know the circumstances and asked. I want the police to do that.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "the police didn't know the circumstances and asked" what DID they ask for TEN minutes? who where what? once he said hes waiting for the bus, one minute into the exchange and the drive off, end of story. right? one minute, a few are you oks, then move on.

      Delete
  21. Anon:

    I respect your opinion.

    I'm done - pick that one apart.

    ReplyDelete
  22. This was Councilor Green. But what if it was someone else. Let's say, to keep the example identical, someone of color who was hanging around that bridge looking to roll someone, or snatch a kid, or deal crack. And what if police now are reluctant to get involved based on the stink this is causing. And what if it was your family member who became the victim......

    ReplyDelete
  23. Mr. Green appears to expect police to ignore intuition, personal experience, statistical data and any similar historical encounter while he is free to associate this interaction with what he perceives as a lifetime of abuse. This is unfair to all concerned.

    The officer has a clear duty to the community, swearing an oath to "serve and protect" Similarly Green has sworn an oath, including "... no member of council shall use or attempt to use their authority or influence for the purpose of intimidating, threatening, coercing, commanding, or influencing any city employee with the intent of interfering with that employees duties, including the duty to disclose improper activity..." and "... no member shall maliciously, falsely, negligently, or recklessly injure the professional or ethical reputation or prospects or practice of city employees..." and finally "...show respect for the professional capacities of city employees." Is Green using his office as a pulpit for this discussion? Has he demonstrated respect for the officer involved? Have his actions been prejudicial in injuring the reputation of the officer and the force prior to a proper investigation?

    The encounter ended peacefully. Notwithstanding his hurt feelings, no one was physically injured during the exchange.

    Mr. Greens actions do not promote public confidence, and will not bear close public scrutiny

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. AnonymousMay 01, 2016

      "and will not bear close public scrutiny"
      thats what you said about other cops that have eventually been convicted of crimes. action aquad anyone? arent you worried about being wrong, again?

      Delete
    2. AnonymousMay 01, 2016

      more situational ethics fromkin graham. its funny you know the code of conduct when its councillor green. when journalist joey coleman said he was assaulted by councillor ferguson you said words to the effect: there was no assault, if there was it was no big deal, it was a waste of time and money to investigate, and joey coleman is a big baby that should man up. no one is surprised anymore by your sliding scale of standards depending on the people involved.

      Delete
    3. AnonymousMay 03, 2016

      its actually events like the hamilton police officer being investigated for sexual assault that is in the news TODAY that "do not promote public confidence" in the police. im assuming the suspect constable has jim grahams full support.

      Delete
  24. As I continue to learn more about this matter, and as I consider Green's response and complaint, I am more and more convinced that mr. Green has made a mistake in this matter. I believe he should withdraw his complaint. I'm not even sure that he could withstand a complaint to the Integrity Commissioner- then again, each installation of the IC has been a waste of money and a disaster.Forget that route
    Sorce (TSOAKAV)

    ReplyDelete
  25. AnonymousMay 01, 2016

    "...no one was physically injured during the exchange" are you implying that UNLESS someone is physically hurt then there can be no abuse of police power?

    ReplyDelete
  26. AnonymousMay 01, 2016

    swearing an oath to "serve and protect"... which some police, perhaps many, ignore on a routine basis. like when they violate someones rights by stoppng them with no PROBABLE cause. you might want to google "probable cause" you see, the courts dont accepts "intuition" and flawed statistical data they accept something called "evidence" and "legal precedent" get off your soap box and google police officers convicted of violating a citizens rights in Canada. police HAVE been convicted. look at the examples. pay close attention to the legally binding examples of police convictions. your welcome for the learning. make a donation to black lives matter and we will call it even.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. AnonymousMay 02, 2016

      all lives matter EQUALLY is the point. councillor greens life is EQUALLY important as the police constable that questioned him arbitrarily and humiliated him for no reason.

      Delete
  27. AnonymousMay 02, 2016

    I am very interested is hearing Green's reply to the new questions you sent to him. Will The Hamiltonian be notifying people of the reply?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The Hamiltonian AdminMay 02, 2016

      If we receive a reply, we will post it and send out a notice via our list server and twitter.

      Thank-you for your interest.

      The Hamiltonian Admin

      Delete
  28. AnonymousMay 03, 2016

    I am hoping that someone files a complaint with the Integrity Commissioner. I am contemplating doing such. I believe going to social media, Twitter in this case, was an attempt to seek publicity and intimidate city staff, in this case the police. I have little doubt that Clr Green's actions have had a chilling effect on those that serve and protect us, they will think twice, or three times before engaging with suspicious behavior, or worse simply keep on driving. Due to the media attention this is now an out for criminals. I believe this action has done damage to the City's reputation and our future. What the Clr suggests is not Hamilton. I really wish he would have not tweeted the matter and dealt with it through the appropriate channels which he is doing. It was inappropriate to use his position with the City and tweet the occurrence. This act has (in my mind) created many issues for us Hamiltonian's including our ability to be a first class city.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I do not wish that a complaint be filed against Clr. Green, for 2 reasons:

      1. I appreciate the point he was trying to make and it is a valid one. I don't think this particular situation was compelling enough to warrant it though.
      2. I encourage everyone to read the each investigative report ever issued by the I.C. Then you will understand why it is a waste of time and money. They should can the position altogether.

      I believe Clr. Green should now withdraw the complaint, because he has sensationalized it. If he simply filed the complaint without sensationalizing it on social media etc., then I would say that he should see it through.

      Given how he has chosen to go about this, i think he should withdraw it and simply meet with the officers involved and see if they can come out with a better understanding.
      Sorce

      Delete
  29. AnonymousMay 03, 2016

    Read the last three reports that Basse submitted. I agree with Mr. Sorce

    ReplyDelete
  30. AnonymousMay 03, 2016

    No reply yet to your questions to Green huh? I'm not surprised. That's pretty cowardly. First he creates all this attention and then he won't respond to some good questions? This is backfiring on him.

    ReplyDelete
  31. I'll add this. People are complicated. Usually there is more than one reason for doing something. For example, when i buy a piece of pizza, it's because I'm hungry. Secondly, it's because i happen to like pizza as a food choice.

    Likewise, there cops probably questioned Green because he was standing in an odd spot. To that extent, I agree with the cops. They had every right to.

    If, another reason they did so is because he is a person of color, then they are completely wrong and should not have done so.

    But, this whole thing has been marred with sensationalism and when that happens, points get lost.
    Sorce

    ReplyDelete
  32. AnonymousMay 03, 2016

    "I am contemplating doing such" you wont. "I have little doubt that Clr Green's actions have had a chilling effect on those that serve and protect us, they will think twice, or three times before engaging with suspicious behavior, or worse simply keep on driving" if by "suspicious behviour" you mean standing on a street corner on your cell phone i hope the "chilling" effect you mention chills them into driving by. since they would finally following the law.

    ReplyDelete
  33. AnonymousMay 04, 2016

    You're right Anonymous of May 03, I won't. I've read the three reports that have been filed. Might as well save the time and dollars for us taxpayers. I agree with Sorce. Thank you Sorce. Anonymous of May 03,I think you're confusing the matter. My point is his approach not his complaint. Everyone is entitled to register a complaint. Just don't go to social media as your first action.

    I'd be happy if he answered the questions and acknowledged that going the social media route was an abuse of his position. As 1 of 16 public representatives of this City I believe he abused his position and that reflects negatively on this fine City. I really wish public figures would understand the effect of their actions on the public and how people see the community I'm invested in. One cannot take the power and influence lightly. Shooting out your personal issues on Twitter is unbecoming of an elected rep. Follow the process as any other citizen, just because you have a position of authority does not mean you have a right to be above process.

    ReplyDelete
  34. AnonymousMay 04, 2016

    you state that you have no faith whatsoever in the complaints process to the integrity commissioner. you say the process is a joke and counterproductive and a waste of time. im paraphrasing but thats the gist right? yet you want councillor green to go through a complaint process with the police services that for him, me and many others is, wait for it, a joke and counterproductive and a waste of time. i and may citizens faith whatsoever in the complaints process to the police as they have not in my memory ever admitted they were wrong or erred. even after being found guilty of misconduct in a court of law. city hall is city hall, whether the ig or the psb. i dont think councillor green is the type of person to abuse his power and its clear he displayed this integrity during the police stop. when the police asked his name he could have said "im councillor matthew green. i represent the ward you are policing" or "im surprised you dont recognize me. im ward three councillor matthew green" he didnt pull rank did he? he didnt ask for special treatment did he? he didnt take a "dont you know who i am" attitude did he? no, he behaved like ANY OTHER citizen exercising his charter rights not to answer the police. in addition, he let the police constable treat him like the constable would apparently treat ANY young black man on a street corner. only after nearly TEN MINUTES of who where why did the constable realized exactly who he WAS talking too and how this arbitrary questioning of a citizen just might be a little different than most. as well, councillor green has held his silence since he filled his complaint. councillor green is a private citizen with the RIGHT to make both private AND public complaints when his rights are violated first, and a city councillor second. if you sensibilities are offended, that takes a distant second place to correcting potential abuse of police power.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I am unaware of any other citizen-ever-tweeting about an encounter with the Police and then conducting interviews with the CBC, The Spec and any other new outlet that would entertain him. Clearly he believes either he is special or the incident was unique, why else would you complain? Green will finish a distant second place come election time. Remember where you heard it first.

      Delete
    2. AnonymousMay 04, 2016

      "I am unaware of any other citizen-ever-tweeting about an encounter with the Police and then conducting interviews with the CBC, The Spec and any other new outlet that would entertain him" its painful how unaware you seem to be on the subject of police abuse of people of colour in hamilton. the first and most obvious example of something you are unaware of: michael dixon. google michael dixon + hamilton ontario police abuse and misconduct. let us know what your defense of the police in this event would be.

      Delete
    3. AnonymousMay 05, 2016

      still waiting jim.

      Delete
    4. for the bus? are you ok?

      Delete
  35. This is no Dixon case. It's an snotty nose answer to the police by someone on a mission

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. AnonymousMay 05, 2016

      "This is no Dixon case" the paralells are uncanny. mr dixon, a black man questioned at his bus stop by police with no just cause. he is co -operative with police, is polite and answers their questions truthfully. he then has his life ruined by police abuse of power and misconduct. he is released and paid compensation for his life being ruined. any apology from the police? no. this well know event is at the front of mind of MANY people when dealing with hamilton police. especially young men of colour.

      Delete
    2. AnonymousMay 05, 2016

      i guess allan has his work cut out for him this week. yet ANOTHER hamilton police constable investigated for a sex crime - at central station no less! which excuse will allan taylor use THIS time for yet more apparent police misconduct?

      Delete
    3. Again no similarities

      Delete
    4. AnonymousMay 09, 2016

      relevant. you and others say we should believe the police every time. automatically give them the benefit of the doubt. you dont think police should be investigated for misconduct. another example of why your blind obedience to authority is dangerous was todays announcement that ANOTHER hamilton police constable has been charged with assault.

      Delete
  36. AnonymousMay 05, 2016

    "snotty" - allan it seems to many that you want to use the word "uppity"

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. No snotty nose works. Complete disrespect gets disrespect. Nothing to do with race.

      Delete
    2. AnonymousMay 06, 2016

      race? what a horribly outdated concept. can we stick to facts and not fantasies about other "races". there is ONE race allen. the HUMAN race. there are different skin tones, but ONE race.

      Delete
  37. I don't know who you are Mr. Anon but maybe you should pick a handle so we know what is coming from you. But I can't understand your train of thought. You are mixing apples with oranges. Each case is different and you can't mash them altogether.
    Sorce

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. AnonymousMay 05, 2016

      two young men of colour. both at bus stops. both doing nothing to attract the attention of the police. both questioned by hamilton police with no justification. not similar enough for you? this is where the stories of mr dixon and mr green diverge. mr dixon was, as you seem to place great importance on, polite and co operative with hamilton police and answered their questions, even though he had no compulsion to do so, he did so voluntarily because he had done nothing wrong. his life was ruined. destroyed. councillor green was polite. as per his CHARTER RIGHTS he did not answer questions. he was as co operative as his CHARTER RIGHTS compelled him to be. and he is not in jail on false charges. if you cant see a parallel, you need to try harder.

      Delete
  38. AnonymousMay 05, 2016

    It is pretty clear who has been defending the actions here. Why don;t you just answer the questions?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. the similarities you reference constitute racial profiling-by you-a practice you claim to abhor. You are racist and a hypocrite. Was Green detained? Arrested? Had his life ruined? Requested compensation? No one on this thread has attempted to defend the actions of the officers involved in the Dixon case, yet you persist-a myopic, hypocritical racist with far too much time on its hands furthering am argument without merit. Enjoy your bus-ride.

      Delete
    2. AnonymousMay 06, 2016

      "Was Green detained? Arrested? Had his life ruined? Requested compensation?" he may very well have had ALL of those happen to him if he had of done what you say he should have done - he knew his rights, he used them, he was not arrested.

      Delete
  39. AnonymousMay 05, 2016

    I think it is important Anonymous who chooses to defend Clr Green's actions of the following:

    1. This is only his side of the encounter.
    2. Why are you adamant that this is a racial issue, my understanding is that a quarter of the people carded are visible minorities in the past.
    3. I am a white male, who wears a suit and have been carded downtown and I didn't care, I didn't tweet about it (they didn't have twitter at the time lol)and I certainly didn't complain.
    4. Just because people don't agree with you does not make you right and them wrong
    5. You are comparing apples to orange to bananas

    When I was carded I wondered why, however, I thought, well you know what, they're doing what we're paying them to do, keep the community safe. People of all races and genders commit crimes.

    I will never be convinced that the Hamilton Police have a bias towards visible minorities. Heck, they have a very diverse police force. It isn't 1960 anymore.

    I prefer to hear both side of the incident, that isn't going to happen hear because of Clr Green's actions. I don't really think he answered the questions in a way not to lead police to ask further questions and who knows what his body language was portraying. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised at all if he instigated this encounter. I think he is on a mission of headline grabbing and a mission of his own.

    Anyways, the point is don't jump to conclusions when no one knows the full story. If you're a public official don't use your position to intimidate action of staff by providing media interviews and sending off tweets. I have little doubt he'll be re-elected simply due to name recognition now.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. AnonymousMay 06, 2016

      Good point. Why is everyone relying Green's side of the story? Obviously he has an interest in it, as we have seen from all the publicity he tried to get, so why are we not looking at the other side? Oh...that's right, because the other side is following the complaint process.

      Delete
  40. AnonymousMay 06, 2016

    Most people who truly understand the effects of racism and systemic racism, are very skilled at combating the problem and are very tempered about how they do it. These are the people who actually get results. Green seems to have run with something that he himself is not blameless in. He's conceded to not answer at least one question the officer asked. Ever hear of the law of clean hands. Don't make a case for something unless you are blameless. This is like a publicity stunt and is a cheap attempt at trying to solver a problem that takes authenticity.

    ReplyDelete
  41. AnonymousMay 06, 2016

    "He's conceded to not answer at least one question the officer asked" do you understand that councillor green has NO LEGAL OBLIGATION to respond to the the officers questioning under the circumstances described? do you understand that the continued questioning of councillor green by the police as described violated councillor greens charter rights?

    ReplyDelete
  42. AnonymousMay 06, 2016

    can anyone provide ONE instance in councillor greens past where he has been accused of lying, cheating, falsifying, frauding or ANY other form of dishonesty? no and no again. can anyone provide ONE instance in the hamilton police services RECENT past where members have been accused investigated and CONVICTED for lying, cheating, falsifying, frauding or and other forms of dishonesty? yes and yes and yes again. but by all means lets question councillor greens integrity.

    ReplyDelete
  43. All - I have continued to follow the discourse and long ago indicated I was done, however, do us all a favor and call yourself something, anything other than anonymous so we can very easily and clearly know which opinion goes to whom.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. he was redmike at the Spec until Howard threw him out, then he morphed into orangemike at RTH and the CBC. Now he likes to stop in here and anonymously remind us all of that there are many different voices in our community.

      Delete
    2. AnonymousMay 07, 2016

      im the only one HERE defending councillor green. i am the only one HERE holding the police accountable for their actions. kinda easy to follow.

      Delete
    3. AnonymousMay 07, 2016

      m the only one HERE defending councillor green

      think about that.

      Delete
    4. correction, you are the only one left defending Green, because you have driven off any reasonable support. With "friends" like you, the Councilor is further tarnished, left to regret the mess he has created.

      Delete
  44. BlackmanMay 07, 2016

    Is it any coincidence that Sorce Graham and all the other apologists for the idle police that hide behind their guns in their cars are white? If they were black and on the receiving end of the wrong end of the stick they would believe you me be singing a different tune. Trust Councillor Green. It took courage for him to go public. Others with less celebrity would quietly go away to nurse yet another humiliation.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. more false, racist vitriol. I sing like Beyonce.

      Delete
  45. Hamiltonian AdminMay 08, 2016

    Hello everyone. We encourage you to continue this conversation to your satisfaction. However, we have had to hold back a few comments based on name calling, or other violations of our site policy. Everyone continues to be welcome here, but please refrain from behaviors that violate the policy. We'd like for everyone to be able to continue to debate this.

    Thank-you all
    Hamiltonian Admin

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. AnonymousMay 09, 2016

      hello hamilton admin. do you notice how jim graham likes to use the fact that i have used a bus as an insult? im confused as to why he would feel use of bus transit is an insult? "go ride the bus buddy" to jim graham seems to be the worst insult imaginable. used to saying something about someones mom was the biggest insult, now its riding the bus. im not suggesting censoring him, please dont. im just saying insults and disrespect come in various forms. thank you.

      Delete
    2. thin-skinned, presumptive and confused, but at least you are consistent. All aboard

      Delete
  46. gordon harropMay 08, 2016

    I have been following the comments on this issue and would just like to ask. If the officer (in my opinion) who was doing his job was not white,but one of the many other officers of different etnic backgrounds,seving this community, would this issue be getting the same amount of attention?

    ReplyDelete
  47. I was pulled over by a black officer a few months ago. He was very professional . I've been pulled over by white officers as part of their standard ride stops. Again, very very professional. I am finding it hard to believe that Green was treated as badly as he implies he was, and that he did not egg the officer on. Something something just doesn't ring true here.

    ReplyDelete
  48. BlackmanMay 08, 2016

    Trust Councillor Green on this.
    None of you apologists were there so you really have no evidence of the incident. If you have evidence that Councillor Green is generally a person whose word is unreliable, that is a different matter. You are entitled to disbelieve him.
    However I have no reason to disbelieve him. His report of how he was approached is plausible because there is a wealth of evidence in urban areas of Ontario (Hamilton is not unique so DON'T take it personally) that carding and intrusions on citizen's civil liberties are experienced more prevalently by minority communities to the point the Ontario government has stepped in to regulate it.
    Stop pretending the elephant isn't in the room.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. stop insinuating the elephant is black

      Delete
  49. AnonymousMay 09, 2016

    Here is evidence:

    To which he replied “Officer REDACTED (spelling unknown) I believe it was at that time that he followed up with, “are you the City Councillor?” To which I did not answer and looked to his partner hoping the interaction would have ended and he would have continued along his way.

    Perhaps recognizing that I was an elected official he proceeded to repeatedly ask me, “are you okay?”

    To which I replied “are you okay?”

    Now....what Green should have done is simply say that he is not agreeable to answer any questions and ask whether he is free to go. The police would either have to detain him for cause at that point, or respect his rights and allow him to leave or leave themselves.

    Instead, Green seemed to adopt an attitude. That doesn't play well anywhere. no matter if you are dealing with cops, bank tellers, grocery store clerks and it does not matter what colour they are. It is universally unrespectful.

    You asked for evidence. There int is. And this is only his side of the story. What he chose to tell the press. I wonder what the other aside is. There are always 2 sides.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. AnonymousMay 09, 2016

      this not evidence of anything. this transaction happened 7 or 8 minute into the interaction. councillor green had ALREADY been asked who why where for OVER five minutes at least. his rights were ALREADY violated. next.

      Delete
  50. AnonymousMay 09, 2016

    Here is more evidence:

    To which I replied, “checking my phone”.

    He responded, “under a bridge?”

    I replied, “out of the wind waiting for the bus”.

    His line of questioning and tone became more agitated as cars began to line up behind him and he held up traffic.

    He further asked, “where I was going?”

    Recognizing the nature of his questioning and feeling harassed I believe I replied, “why does that matter?”

    He responded, “the bus won’t be able to see you” thinking that I was waiting for the westbound bus when in fact I was waiting for the eastbound bus which I would have easily seen turning down the street off of Wellington St. South.

    If you asked a grade 8 student to summarize this conversation, what would they say? They would probably say that it was police questioning someone because they could not understand what he was doing under a bridge by himself.

    That's the NATURE of the interaction. The Nature of interaction was not police harassing a back man. It did not become about that until Green made it so.

    Again, that's just the evidence we know about.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. AnonymousMay 09, 2016

      still not evidence. the police constable asked a citizen what he was doing. the citizen answered. why didnt the police constable say "oh, sounds logical. have a good day. bye" thats a two minute interaction. doesnt take 7 or 8 minutes to get there does it? next.

      Delete
    2. AnonymousMay 11, 2016

      How do you know how long it took. Hoe do you know exactly what was said? Do you not understand that when someone tells a story, it is usually slanted in his own direction. You are taking Green's account as the be all and end all. I doubt it is.

      Delete
  51. AnonymousMay 09, 2016

    Evidence part 3...and here is the way it should have gone:

    “what are you doing there?”
    To which I replied, “checking my phone”.
    He responded, “under a bridge?”
    I replied, “out of the wind waiting for the bus”

    Insert: "Thanks for your concern officers. Am I free to go?"

    ReplyDelete
  52. AnonymousMay 09, 2016

    still not evidence. heres how it could have gone, quicker and easier. "youre checking your phone? ok. be safe. have a good day sir" whats wrong with that version? my version has the added benefit of being legal. next.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Sorce (oakv)May 09, 2016

      I think the gentleman, or the woman who has presented "evidence" has made some very valid observations. Your dismissal of points that any reasonable person would allow is "infantile"
      Sorce

      Delete
  53. Anon - you know who you are.

    On April 28th you suggested "keep an open mind" - you clearly DON'T practice what YOU preach!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. AnonymousMay 09, 2016

      michael, if that is your real name, i DONT have an open mind on the subject of police violating peoples rights. my mind is made up: it happens, and its is very bad when the police violate someones rights, like they did councillor green. how do you feel about abuse of police power? cause by your own admission, your mind is incredibly closed on the matter of police abusing their authority "There may actually be some, what we might refer to as "bad cops"..." there MAY be bad cops? MAY be?

      Delete
    2. AnonymousMay 09, 2016

      here another doozy "so let's find reasonable guidelines that they can use to accomplish that task and let them get on with it!" the COURTS, the SUPREME courts have ALREADY established guidelines for police questioning citizens. google them. understand them. whats your comprehension problem on the charter of rights?

      Delete
  54. AnonymousMay 09, 2016

    Why didn't Green answer this?Maybe cause he has no answers?

    It appears clear that you had a logical reason for being where you were at the time you were questioned. Do you think that that reason would have been apparent to police, or anyone else for that matter who may have observed you at that point in time. What would you think the appropriate response should have been with the police? Or do you believe they should have simply driven by? If this incident did not involve a person of colour, do you believe it would have unfolded the same way? Can you explain your answer?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. AnonymousMay 09, 2016

      He did not answer because he would then have to defend his position, instead of tweeting.

      tweet tweet tweet tweet

      Delete
  55. BlackmanMay 09, 2016

    Anonymous said "Instead, Green seemed to adopt an attitude."
    There you go. When a person of colour stands up for himself, he has "attitude".
    Trust Green - he is the one who got the tone of the police officer. It wasn't an are you ok tone, a can I help you tone. It was a what are you doing there tone.
    None of his damned business, pure and simple. The police are there to apprehend people committing or who have committed a crime. They are not there to interview citizens and ask them what they are doing or where they are going. When are you going to get it that this is not a Police state. Stop trying to defend the indefensible because you are making fools of yourselves. Go read your civics courses you took at school and you'll learn more about this.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. AnonymousMay 10, 2016

      bravo blackman. some people cant handle the truth.

      Delete
    2. Nothing to do with colour. Attitude is attitude. Are you racially biased when you believe everything negative said about a person is based on race. That's what I see

      Delete
  56. Green believes that the color of his skin uniquely enables him to identify and combat racism. The Police are supposed to ignore skin color, some call it racial profiling.

    Green believes a lifetime of abuse entitles him to challenge and confront that which he deems unnecessary. Police must now ignore intuition and historical context, some refer to it as stereotyping

    Greens silence belies his regret, he knows he has been unreasonable and unfair. His "supporters" are clearly not as willing to let this go, they see it as an opportunity to wedge the divide and further the acrimony. Greens legacy?

    It is no wonder no one takes the bus anymore

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. AnonymousMay 10, 2016

      what part of this is it that you dont understand. heres a HUGE point you forget. when a police officer detains or questions a person without following ESTABLISHED LEGAL COURT MANDATED procedures, even if that person is found to be breaking the law, the court throws out the charges and the person goes free. the ESTABLISHED LEGAL COURT MANDATED procedures for questioning someone are "sir/madam. you are suspected of being involved in criminal activity of XXXXX nature. i am questioning you for this reason. submit" then you MUST submit. simple. easy LEGAL. this IS the LAW. why you REFUSE to understand that is not our concern. you will not be taken seriously until you gain basic comprehension of charter rights.

      Delete
    2. Actually the officers followed established legal court mandated procedures. They are allowed to ask questions of anyone, it's not your responsibility to answer.

      Delete
    3. AnonymousMay 10, 2016

      "They are allowed to ask questions of anyone" oh allan, so close. no cigar. the police are allowed to question you IF they tell you why. the police constables in this instance did not tell councillor green WHY they were questioning him AFTER he explained WHY he was WHERE he was. if the police cant state something akin to "i am asking you these questions because i am investigating a specific crime or suspect your involvement in this specific crime" they police did not do this with councillor green. his rights were violated.

      Delete
    4. Sorry but the fact is its not an infringement nor illegal for police to talk to citizens. The sooner we all understand that the sooner we can improve relationships

      Delete
    5. In your explanation you are required to answer. He wasn't required to answer, end of problem. The police did nothing wrong

      Delete
    6. AnonymousMay 11, 2016

      do you get dizzy talking your self in circles?

      Delete
  57. Anon - your the only one who knows who you are???

    Michael Desnoyers

    Lived in and have been active in Hamilton my entire 58 years, highly regarded, awarded and successful business owner.

    You have VERY strong views but do you have the conviction to stand by those views when your name is attached to them? Grow a pair and let us all know - or are you special?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. AnonymousMay 10, 2016

      "Grow a pair and let us all know - or are you special?" michael, this sounds very testosterone-y. "grow a pair". "are you special" our back and forth was vigorous, but why go there? is this your natural inclination when you are challenged? to get macho? to throw down a gauntlet? is this how you WANT your peace officers to interact and behave with the citizenry? when ever challenged go for the gonads, is that the idea?

      Delete
  58. Hamiltonian AdminMay 10, 2016

    Note: We have received a post from someone who appears to have chosen to provide details associated with who they are- i.e.: their full name.

    To that individual- please email us at admin@thehamiltonian.info, so that we can verify that it is you who is actually seeking to post that message and not someone else. Once we receive that verification, we will post your message.

    Thank-you
    Hamiltonian Admin

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. AnonymousMay 10, 2016

      hi hamilton admin. at other sites i registered using a simple process. i dont like the blogger registration. is there an alt method i can use to register? thanks.

      Delete
    2. Hamiltonian AdminMay 10, 2016

      Sorry but the registration process is dictated by the blogger infrastructure.

      Delete
  59. Anon - YOU challenged me "michael, if that is your real name". So now you know that I have the courage to stand by my opinions and convictions - good or bad, right or wrong, plain and simple! As usual you avoid the obvious and go on a diatribe about testosterone etc. The grow a pair comment was very simple - have the courage to stand by your VERY strong opinions and open mindedness!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. AnonymousMay 10, 2016

      i called you michael as per your non verifiable self identification as michael. it is not a unreasonable to point out that anyone can call themselves anything. i dont think non verifiable self identification gives someones opinions special weight over someone that doesnt want to register through an intrusive personal data capturing portal like blogger (no disrespect hamiltonian admin). you have since gone to great lengths to prove your name is michael desnoyers. if youre the michael desnoyers that was/is fighting urban boundry expansion and the aeroflopolis scheme good on yea. thanks for the efforts. if not disregard. as per OUR exchange and your calling me a hypocrite regarding open minds (right?) the following statement is FACT, not opinion: in recent years a wide range of police in hamilton have been investigated AND convicted in open court AND police tribunals of serious felonies. this week, a constable investigated for sexual assault at central station and one more investigated for domestic assault. when you say "There may actually be some, what we might refer to as "bad cops" well we KNOW there are cops in hamilton that ARE bad. right? or what would you call sgt derek mellor? or police inspector rick wills? or the downtown "action team"? if they arent BAD what are they? these are well known public matters of record. yet you dont allow at all for the POSSIBILTY that the police that questioned councillor green could be acting with malice or be unprofessional or hostile or violate councillor greens rights. you dismiss the entire notion whole cloth from the jump. and then you take umbrage at me calling for you close minded. makes zero sense.

      Delete
    2. AnonymousMay 10, 2016

      I don't know why people seem to think that police are not people. They are. They have problems at home, like many of us do. Some have addiction issues, like many of us do. Some have marital problems, problems raising kids, depression, etc. etc. etc. So, don't be surprised when some get convicted of crimes. They are people. But don't assume that one things proves something else, that is completely different. that makes no sense.

      Maybe I'm wrong?

      Delete
    3. AnonymousMay 11, 2016

      police constables ARE human. they are people. they have bad days. they have pressures. they make mistakes. so its entirely possible that the constables that violated councillor greens rights by arbitrarily questioning and detaining him were having a "human" day due to "pressures" and made a simple "mistake" lets assume there was no racism or malice. the incident still happened and these incidents need to stop and the constables in question can simply admit their error, take the punishment, then do some important retraining and reeducation.

      Delete
  60. AnonymousMay 10, 2016

    here is a very important part that you have forgotten-only you and Green have convicted this officer of any wrongdoing-not a court, and certainly not the general public.

    You are prejudiced and profoundly biased, disabling any attempt at reasonable dialogue. When it comes to evidence I will trust an officer of the Court before some anonymous hack or a Councilor with an agenda to promote.

    What is difficult to understand is how this officer mistakenly thought Green was you.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. AnonymousMay 11, 2016

      various members of the hamilton police force have been proven in a court of law to be liars. read the news published TODAY from an ex police officer on the hamilton force about what goes on. you have found councllor green guilty of lying when there is no evidence to support your accusation.

      Delete
  61. AnonymousMay 10, 2016

    What if this were not Green. What if this were a predator, a crack addict looking to role someone for money, or someone else up to no good. Are the police supposed to drive be and do nothing? That's absurd. Grow up. What if your child got abducted because the cops were too afraid to stop and ask questions?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. AnonymousMay 10, 2016

      the cops asked the question "what are you doing here" councillor green answered. right. cooperation. the police asked "why here" councillor green answered, again. cooperation, again. no one can say these werent reasonable and logical answers. then, for the next 7 or 8 minutes, the police ask over and over and over again "who are you. whats your name" for almost ten minutes. what OTHER crimes WERE committed while two constables and two squad cars spent nearly ten minute asking a private citizen "whats your name?" is that how criminals are caught "who are you? whats your name?" if the police thought they were talking to a child abductor or mugger, would they sit in their squad cars asking "who are you? whats your name" over and over for so long? is that what you think they do?

      Delete
  62. AnonymousMay 10, 2016

    Even more evidence:
    what are you doing there?”
    To which I replied, “checking my phone”.
    He responded, “under a bridge?”

    There's the "why." The cop thought it odd that someone was under a bridge alone. It was very early in the conversation.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. AnonymousMay 10, 2016

      then very early in the "conversation", at that exact moment, the legal procedure the police have to follow is "sir/madam. i suspect you of a specific criminal act. this is the act. submit" the person being questioned then must submit and the police can LEGALLY question, and detain him. did THAT happen? no. no one has responded back so maybe you will. councillor green explained WHY and WHERE he was. police questioned asked, citizen answered. why did the police then not say "have a nice day sir" and drive on? the police questioned him for ANOTHER 6 or 7 minutes. why? cause the :AW says they cant fo it the way they did it.

      Delete
    2. AnonymousMay 11, 2016

      Wake up. Potential criminals do not always tell the truth to police officers. In fact (newsflash) many of them actually like. At the point they spoke to Green, they could not tell if he was telling the truth or if that was a cover d=for something else he might be planning. Sometimes it takes more than two questions and 2 minutes to satisfy yourself that nothing sinister is happening. yes- evidence

      Delete
  63. AnonymousMay 10, 2016

    i would like everyone here that is confused to google and read the definition of "police detainment" in Canadian law. pay special attention to number three. remember, councillor green has witness's that the police constable repeatedly held up a successive number of vehicles, and that the constables waived around numerous vehicles. once its understand how much THIS alone is going to convict those "poor" constables, some heads here are going to snap crackle and pop.

    ReplyDelete
  64. AnonymousMay 11, 2016

    It is Councillor Green that has stated the interaction took 10 minutes, again one side of the story. Based on the details Councillor Green has provided with respect to the interaction, I find it hard to believe that it in fact occurred over such a protracted time period. From what I have read it would take two minutes maximum.

    Also, I am the Anonymous who was questioned by the Anonymous from May 3rd whom obviously supports Councillor Green's actions 200% no matter what others have to ad or suggest.

    On another note, I like being able to join in the discussion without revealing whom I am as I am aware of cyber crime/hackers etc, and know that revealing my true identity in such forums could jeopardize my employment and therefore my family's well being, family is what life is all about. However, I am still a Hamilton citizen whom likes to hear others opinions and ask questions or challenge.

    I believe it is healthy even though some challenge it, which it is easy when you self declare yourself a highly respected, award winning business owner. Unfortunately, most people such as myself have employers. Good for you though Mr. Desnoyers on your success. I am not a coward just concerned about my family's well being not my own personally. I have to take care of them financially and socially. Thank you to the Hamiltonian for letting us "Anonymous" to participate in much needed dialogue.

    I appreciate having this forum. What I find most interesting is the dialogue that has been created over this issue. We started with a Councillor's abuse of position (in my opinion) by not following the established process for such complaints and it has spiralled into many other areas, although it appears to simply be one person but who is comparing apples to oranges and bananas.

    1. Their perception of a corrupt police force
    2. Their perception of a racially biased police force.
    3. Their perception that all Hamilton police are corrupt, biased based on a few bad apples.

    I still believe there are two sides to every coin. Unfortunately, given the Councillor's tactics and media attention the other side needs to be carefully managed given his propensity to resort to social media and not gain an understanding of the other side of the story.

    This City is on the cusp of great things, we don't need such a personal matter by a public official giving the City a bad reputation.

    Councillor Green, work within the existing processes, if you don't like them, then proceed with you colleagues collaboratively to change them and hold the process and people in power administratively accountable. That is what you have been elected to do, not shoot out Tweets about you personal opinions, you have the opportunity, seize it, but understand you are but one person elected to a Council of 16. Actions/issues may not always go the way you personally wish but understand the people of Hamilton have elected 15 Councillors and one Mayor. Please be respectful and collaborate to make this City even better and achieve new heights.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I do not agree that Green has to be told to collaborate with council. I think he is doing fine in that department and I would encourage to not always collaborate, but seek his own way. Trust me, some councilors should not be where they are.

      As I mentioned through, I think he handled this poorly in that he is not entirely without provocation in this instance.
      Sorce(oakav)

      Delete
    2. AnonymousMay 11, 2016

      you spend a LOT of words trying to appear reasonable but you betray your bias from the first paragraph where you call councillor greens is a liar. i guess we could stop there but lets continue. then your classic straw man argument on points one through three. my stated position is SOME members of the hamilton police force are corrupt and racially biased, as HAS BEEM PROVEN IN OPEN COURT. when you say that matter of the public record that are verifiable are my perception you are revealed to be misleading. also, i have NEVER stated, suggested or implied ALL hamilton police are corrupt. when someone like you invents words that have not been used in this forum you display the inherent weakness of your opinion. it also makes you appear deceitful. "we don't need such a personal matter by a public official giving the City a bad reputation" the fact you care about pereception and image more than police abuse of citizens is staggering and appalling. do you realize that your attitude precludes you from involved in these matters when they count? when REAL decisions are being made? try repeating that concept to someones face outside of a chat forum on the internet and see what the reaction is. reality check are the word your looking for. heres a simple question you WONT answer cause you CANT answer: what rule did councillor green break by going public with his complaint? what process was not followed?

      Delete
    3. AnonymousMay 12, 2016

      well, why havent you replied? do you have something to hide? are you going to tweet the response?

      Delete
  65. did Green miss his bus? was he held against his will?
    Green was never detained, but contacted, and he would have been able to refuse any such questions and go about his business, a liberty he failed to initiate. Confused? A bowl of Rice Krispies for our little friend

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. AnonymousMay 11, 2016

      we can end this part of right now if you like. you wont like it im sure. google, find the legal standard for police detainment in Canada. cut and paste it. then explain how councillor green wasnt detained. thanks in advance for something you wont do.

      Delete
    2. never once in his complaint does Green mention or describe being detained by anyone. He was contacted and questioned and he feels intimidated, frustrated and angry as a result. His words. His feelings.

      Delete
    3. AnonymousMay 12, 2016

      i know youve googled the defintiton of detainment. i know you understand it. i know it terrifies you. that the police CANT operate the way you want them too. and if they do WE will hold them accountable. i knew you wouldnt post the legal standard for detainment, as your entire premise is revealed false. the incident as described by councillor green (you say hes lying about the whole thing but..) meets the standard for detainment. since the police had no probable cause to question or detain councillor green, the whole incident is illegal and a CLEAR violation of a citizens rights. fine. here ya go. end of story.

      Types of Detention[edit]
      A person can be detained physically or psychologically.

      Psychological detention has three elements:

      1. a police direction or demand;

      2. the individual’s voluntary compliance with the direction or demand resulting in a deprivation of liberty or other serious legal consequences; and
      3. the individual’s reasonable belief that there is no choice but to comply

      Detention by police does not continue subsequent to release on terms of bail, and so entitlements such as the right to silence do not apply

      The purpose for detention can have concurrent reasons, such as conducting traffic enquiries while making observations of drug related offences.

      An officer cannot detain a suspect on the basis of a hunch.

      Delete
    4. and now we learn Green was psychologically detained. Who knew Dick Cheney was now working a beat for our men and women in blue. When you and the family enact out this little scenario at home, who gets to use the scary voice? Continue moving the goalposts around Mikey, you'll make sense of this yet.

      Delete
    5. AnonymousMay 12, 2016

      i have no doubt dick cheney is your type of guy. when we role play scenarios of police abuse of power we take turns using the scary voice. the goalposts have been set by the supreme court. while you and your cohorts were whingeing about commies and immigrants taking over the world, people like me actually took over YOUR world. twenty years ago police often did as they pleased with impunity. after decades of hard work,social justice warriors like me and others have made it so police are finally being held accountable. a police officer in ontario convicted of murder! its a beautiful new day where members of the police force doing there job properly can prosper. concurrently, corrupt racist cops are being charged and convicted with increasing regularity. its a very common occurence daily to see ANOTHER one of our men and women in blue are being investigated and CONVICTED of the serious crimes they commit. its still to few a number. far too many police still abuse their authority. but what with the young generation like councillor greens and our daughter knowing and exercising their charter rights, and their parents with education and resources behind them proudly supporting them, we will get the rest of those "bad apples" yet.

      Delete
    6. He was not detained. The police broke no laws nor infringed upon his rights. I really don't think that you even want to understand what detention really is

      Delete
    7. yet another reason mikey must remain anonymous and keep his light hidden under a bushel. Some children in our community never really stand a chance.

      Delete
    8. AnonymousMay 13, 2016

      two fellas refusing to admit the rules of engagement have been established in ontario. rules of engagement that give them fits. i dont know if its "commies" or "hippies" they blame. maybe they blame "agitators" and "social justice warriors" or black lives matter or katherine wynne. but theyre taking their fear and anger out on councillor green. councillor green with a UNBLEMISHED record and ZERO history of integrity issues. what could it be about councillor green that make allan and jim SOOOO scared and angry? who knows? why do so many people support donald trump? anyway, what i posted is VERIFIABLE. the courts have spoken. the police have NO CHOICE but to comply with the "clarifications" on how not to violate a citizens rights. if allan or jim want to refute with some verifiable facts cool. but we wont be holding our breath.

      Delete
    9. again with the "we" while whistling in the dark. I blame Green, and you, no one else. Why don't you invite Mattie over for a game of role play? See how long it takes to get him to seek the Services assistance with a restraining order.

      Delete
    10. Im not scared. I will say that the rules of engagement were followed so there really is no cause for complaint. Its not me that refuses to admit that the police are not forbidden from talking to citizens

      Delete
    11. And BTW I am not hiding my name so frankly my posts are more credible than some anonymous poster

      Delete
    12. AnonymousMay 13, 2016

      you have a screen name. the screen name is allan taylor. your real name could be rob ford. or sara palin. you created the screen name in a non verifiable registration process. you didnt submit dna or a retinal scan. who knows who you are or arent. frankly who cares.

      Delete
    13. AnonymousMay 13, 2016

      "police are not forbidden from talking to citizens" as long as they have probable cause and follow the legal court approved process. thats COURT approved. not allan and jim approved.

      Delete
    14. AnonymousMay 13, 2016

      "I blame Green, and you, no one else" jim i would love to take the credit for reigning in corrupt criminal racist cops, of which hamilton has its fair share. but my efforts over the last thirty years have been just one person out of many that have changed Ontario so that allan and jim and your cohorts dont recognize it anymore.

      Delete
    15. like Green, you possess a misplaced sense of self importance. You have accomplished nothing-ever-as evidenced by your station in life. Provide one "verifiable fact" of your positive influence on our community over the past 30 years. Nada. You have no friends, you have no support. All alone, waiting for the bus

      Delete
    16. AnonymousMay 14, 2016

      jim the reason you are veering so far off topic and making value judgments about me is that your views have no legal basis that you can provide no matter how many times your are asked to. when you have no factual basis for your views (almost always) you stoop to personal attacks. your wasting space on this forum by attacking aspects of my life that arent relevant and you have no knowledge of. common aspects were you use wrong AND childish insults: my supposed economic status (you say im on welfare, i work),my supposed height (you say im little, im 5'11) my use of public transit (i use the bus and we own a car) my residential status (you say i rent in a apartment building but we own our house) but the insults you use are very telling arent they? jim feels my views arent worthy and his are because of what he feels he knows about "my station in life". this is jims thinking on life "people with money count. people that are poor dont count. if you have money you drive a car. if you are poor you take the bus. therefore, people that drive count and people that take the bus dont" you could be responding with facts or data or evidence for your statements. but you use insults like calling someone a bus rider. ohhhhh. take that back.

      Delete
    17. what is a poor person? are you a poor person? are you ok?

      Delete
    18. For the umteenth time, police are not forbidden from talking to people. The is no requirement for probable cause to talk to people. Where the problem was the police were asking for identification. That they need probable cause for. The simple fact is the can talk and ask questions but we don't have to respond if we don't want to. Personally I think it is stupid to look for a fight but it is your right. Matthew was within his rights but so were the police.

      Delete
    19. AnonymousMay 14, 2016

      "The is no requirement for probable cause to talk to people" talking to people such as "hello. how are you today" no probable cause needed. "who are you?" "what are you doing here?" is not talking. its questioning. probable cause is needed. and when the questioning goes on for close to ten minutes with the same request from the police for identification without probable cause while police hold up a line of cars that need to be waived by because they are stopped up down the block could meet the legal definition of detainment.

      Delete
    20. no probable cause required. Period, end of story. Your argument doesnt stand up Mr Green was never detained

      Delete
    21. AnonymousMay 15, 2016

      "no probable cause required" the supreme court of allan has spoken.

      Delete
  66. AnonymousMay 11, 2016

    For someone who has created such a furor over this, I don't understand why he would not answer the questions below. They seem fair and even. They give him a lot of opportunity to further explain. Why is he not responding? hmmmm

    "It appears clear that you had a logical reason for being where you were at the time you were questioned. Do you think that that reason would have been apparent to police, or anyone else for that matter who may have observed you at that point in time. What would you think the appropriate response should have been with the police? Or do you believe they should have simply driven by? If this incident did not involve a person of colour, do you believe it would have unfolded the same way? Can you explain your answer?"

    ReplyDelete
  67. BlackmanMay 11, 2016

    One symptom of racism and stereotyping is to deny it in oneself and to deny that it exists in others or in institutions despite evidence to the contrary. Deny deny deny. That is the mantra. I am glad this happened to Coouncillor Green and not to some other innocent chap on the phone sheltering under a bridge. We would have never heard about it. It took courage for Green to cry out foul. Who cares about "Hamilton's" reputation. Reputations should not be built on burying one's head in the sands and ignoring whats going on in society.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. AnonymousMay 11, 2016

      stop it blackman. you are making too much sense.

      Delete
  68. AnonymousMay 11, 2016

    I want to know why Green has not answered the questions that The Hamiltonian asked. Since there one or two of you that seem to be experts on Green, can you say why he has not answered?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. a misplaced sense of entitlement? Green appears to be beholden only to a relatively small segment of our society, specifically those who share his vision of division and irresponsibility

      Delete
    2. AnonymousMay 12, 2016

      and the thousands of people that voted for him. the majority of votes placed actually. called democracy. and he will win again next election.

      Delete
  69. AnonymousMay 11, 2016

    im not great at math but the quick breakdown of commenters here seems to about: 30% feel councillor green invalidated his right to due process under the law by making his complaint public. 30% feel councillor green invalidated his right to due process under the law by not keeping the comment boards on local media forums current hourly on his complaint. 30% think councillor green is a liar or fabricator or sensationalist or an opportunist or some combination of all of the above. and they all think they hold the majority opinion, silent or otherwise.

    ReplyDelete
  70. AnonymousMay 12, 2016

    Press Release: Councillor Green Response to Arbitrary Stop by Hamilton Police

    interesting yet accurate choice of words by the hamiltonian staff. arbitrary. what does that mean?
    1.based on random choice or personal whim, rather than any reason or system.
    2. (of power or a ruling body) unrestrained and autocratic in the use of authority. very fitting. lets google the definition of "stop" just kidding. thank you hamiltonian staff for calling this incident what it was.
    http://www.thehamiltonian.net/2016/04/media-release-councillor-green-response.html

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hamiltonian AdinMay 12, 2016

      This is not our wording. It came with the media release

      Delete
  71. Let's not get ahead of ourselves. Clr. Green isa not prince. Green won an election in which 41% of the 30% of people who turned out to vote in his ward, voted for him. So, in essence, his support was from a small minority of the population.

    Further, the turn out of voters for Mayor was 43%. So, this council is best seen as a bookmark of sorts.

    Secondly, being a councillor does not a celebrity make.

    I don't think Green will lose votes over this issue. It will be forgotten by the time the election comes around. I would not let this issue get in the way of voting for him, if he were in my yard and if he were the best candidate.

    But without doubt, the way he handled this issue, and his writing to other levels of government while by-passing the mayor, shows a lack of good judgment and an opportunity for growth.
    Sorce

    ReplyDelete
  72. AnonymousMay 12, 2016

    Purple rain...purple rain......

    ReplyDelete
  73. BlackmanMay 12, 2016

    Green has chosen to not respond to the questions for the same reason he chose how to respond to the arrogant constable. The questions are stupid and Green will not lower himself to the level from which those questions come.
    When did you stop beating your wife questions are designed to put someone on the defensive.
    If there are any questions put it should be to the powers that be that allow this farce to go on.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. AnonymousMay 12, 2016

      How do you know all this. You seem to know a lot about Green. It's like you are in his head. Or are you him?

      The questions are stupid? Really? So, the people who bring us The Hamiltonian are stupid? Really?

      Delete
    2. AnonymousMay 13, 2016

      I have answered the questions in a sarcastic way, to show why they are not stupid:

      It appears clear that you had a logical reason for being where you were at the time you were questioned. Do you think that that reason would have been apparent to police, or anyone else for that matter who may have observed you at that point in time.

      Yes, I believe that everyone can read my mind, or should be able to read my mind.

      What would you think the appropriate response should have been with the police? Or do you believe they should have simply driven by?

      Just drive by. Let the druggies deal crack, let the thieves roll seniors, let the pedophiles do their thing. None if the police's business.

      If this incident did not involve a person of colour, do you believe it would have unfolded the same way?

      Of course not. It's all about me.

      Can you explain your answer?

      I doubt it.

      Delete
  74. BlackmanMay 13, 2016

    To anonymous who asked "If this incident did not involve a person of colour, do you believe it would have unfolded the same way?"
    No it would not have. That's the whole point.
    The police saw a black man and had the temerity to question him. If he was a white man like Whitehead they would have left him alone. The police constable who is supposed to catch crooks that have committed crimes and should have known what his bosses look like mistook his boss for a crook because he was black. Do you have any confidence in a service that relies on stereotyping for selecting suspects?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. AnonymousMay 13, 2016

      i find it just as likely they knew who councillor green is and were trying to scare him. unsuccessfully. i find it so hard to beleive that the police in ward three dont know who the councillor is. the police have been in training for months on the "clarifications" to the legal process of questioning and detaining a citizen. councillor green has done much good work on holding police accountable and combating abuse of police authority for all, and black people in particular. that they didnt know who they were talking to beggars the imagination.

      Delete
    2. AnonymousMay 13, 2016

      i know that for everytime a middle aged white homeowner is abused by the police it is happening to poor people and people of colour at and exponentially higher rate. heres my incident. out front of my house one morning. lokking at the stars. cup of tea. cat on porch. two cyle cops roll up. "who are you?" "whats your name?" i reply. "no worries constables. i live right here. gettin some air." one says "kinda late. whats your name?" i smile. lower my hand holding the tea cup slowly to waist level. walk backward two paces. i say "good mornin constables" turn. get the cat. go in the house. lock the door. they hang outside the house for 40 minutes. they leave. next day neighbour is watering his lawn, and who should roll up and start asking questions about me? right. now allan and jim will see this as "good police work" and make excuses about them TRYING to violate my rights that morning and them actually violating my rights the following day by returning. could have been worse though. if i was black who know how that would have went. maybe i could get away with being so "uppity" when other couldnt.

      Delete
    3. but it has and does happen to whites, 75% of the time

      Delete
    4. more like a very bad attempt at fiction

      Delete
    5. AnonymousMay 13, 2016

      you dont believe that happened to me allan?

      Delete
    6. you have changed the particulars in this story so many times it is unrecognizable and lacks credibility. Your memory actually seems to improve over time. As a witness, your "evidence" is easily impugned and dismissed as biased and prejudicial

      Delete
    7. AnonymousMay 14, 2016

      show me any detail i have changed. show me ONE core detail that has changed. you wont cause you cant. typical jim. as well, examples of details that differ that would make you look foolish for addressing and wouldnt count towards discrediting me: if in one telling i dont mention the cat and one telling i do. if in one telling the police were outside 35 minutes in another 40. if in one telling i say it was 2.00 am and another i say early in the mornin. this is minutia. the core facts: me minding me biz in front of my house, two cops asking who is was, me politely declining to be questioned, me ignoring them, them returning to "investigate" again, show me a detail that has changed in my account. use other forums. you wont cause you cant but thanks in advance anyway. anyway, you have stated in the past you think i created the whole incident from scratch.

      Delete
    8. no anonymous. I dont believe you. I dont even know which posts are yours

      Delete
  75. AnonymousMay 13, 2016

    show your work allan. like i did. i used a legal database link to find and post the legal definitions of detainment. like what happened to councillor green. anyone can type any number and say it represents something.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. AnonymousMay 14, 2016

      allan, are you EVER going to provide a link of verifiable data about what you post? still waiting for where the %75 came from.

      Delete
  76. AnonymousMay 14, 2016

    When he first told this tale, it happened at his apartment building, no home, no cat, no cup of tea. He told them "to get lost" then "closed the door, as is my constitutional right" (always with the Constitution this guy) Just because we know you are full of beans doesn't mean we are not paying attention-you are like a car crash in slow motion. Now I ask you, which scenario is more plausible? Your attempts to "normalize" your predicament and your behaviour have failed

    ReplyDelete
  77. AnonymousMay 14, 2016

    we have lived in this house fourteen years. i have never posted anything anywhere that could have indicated in anyway i was a apartment dweller. you are confused or misleading. the spec for instance caps your word count in comment submissions. no room for details like cats or cups of tea. in other forums with no limit on word submitted i HAVE included details about my cat. may have included his name (dexter) his colour (orange) and what was in my cup (herbal tea of some sort) if given the chance to add detail i do, cause the more details i can share of that night the better. cause NOTHING i was doing was suspicious. the details about beverage and cat and the door being open are important cause it shows a clear case of residency and that i had every right to be WHERE i was WHEN i was no mater WHO i was. so space permitting, sometimes there are more or less details,but the details dont change. you use the quotation marks around the phrase "get lost". you are a liar.plain and simple plain language, a liar. i never used that language that evening and i never posted that i used that language. show me when and where i used that phrase.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. our very own redfisher, and this is his updated version of Scuttlebutt Lodge, spinning tall tales and spreading manure.

      Delete
  78. You are anonymous, basically anything you say could be a lie

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. AnonymousMay 14, 2016

      so you have chosen allan taylor as your SCREEN NAME so that means youre telling the truth? and if i chose a screen name, ian paisley lets say, then you would find me credible? you would not. its my views and beliefs you have an issue with allan. you have seen my post that particular event with the police before at the spec under the screen name redmike and you called me a liar then. you could see it with a copy of my birth certificate and my baby footprints you would still call me liar. so dont pretend that you being allan taylor and me being anonymous makes any difference to you.

      Delete
    2. yes it does. You could be redmike or not. In fact its unlikely you are redmike or youd post as redmike

      Delete
  79. The 75% came from police data actually

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. AnonymousMay 14, 2016

      quelle surprise. i will have a look. thank you.

      Delete
  80. 22% visible minorities http://m.thespec.com/news-story/5749150-hamilton-police-have-carded-9-000-since-2010

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. AnonymousMay 15, 2016

      the action team?! i ask for VERIFIABLE data on percentages of white people vs non white people and the first and only time you provide "data" to back up your position and you provide "stats" from the action team? the same action team that is being investigated internally and externally for FALSIFYING arrest information? for creating FALSE tickets for NON EXISTENT offenses and logging them as real? the same action team that was INVENTING non existing crimes and attributing them to actual citizens? is there another action team you know about that isnt being investigated for multiple felonies? this is your "proof"? did you know this when you posted this as "proof" that the police stop white people and non white people equally?

      Delete
    2. AnonymousMay 15, 2016

      did you read the "proof" you submitted that police stop white people and non white people equally? i dont think you did, or your bad at math or you ignore/lack crucial data that exposes your position as false. lets assume for a minute im going to believe data from a source under POLICE investigation for falsifying arrest data. the link you provided for data from july 2015 shows 15.7% of the city is non white, yet non white people were 25% of the citizens carded. non white people stopped 25% of the time yet only making up less than 18% of the population. ok. here more "data" from the action team with a breakdown of skin colour. notice how black people in hamilton make up about 6% of the cities population yet they account for 12% of police stops. you do realize that math like this destroys your position that white people and black people are stopped by police equally?

      http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/hamilton/news/do-hamilton-police-actually-card-black-people-disproportionately-1.3174274

      Delete
  81. Replies
    1. AnonymousMay 15, 2016

      so if black people make up 6% of the population yet black people are carded by police 12% of the time. and this is your proof the police stop white people and non white people equally?

      Delete
    2. AnonymousMay 15, 2016

      and why do think it makes you look credible to use "data" from sources being investigated by the POLICE for serious crimes?

      Delete
  82. I never said it was equal what I said was the vast majority of police stops are stopping whites

    ReplyDelete

Your comments are welcome. Please abide by the blog's policy on posting. This blog facilitates discussion from all sides of issues. Opposite viewpoints, spirited discussion and even pointed comments are welcome, provided they are respectful. Name calling is not allowed and any posts that violate the policy, will simply not be authorized to appear. This blog also reserves the right to exclude comments that are off topic or are otherwise unprofessional. This blog does not assume any liability whatsoever for comments posted. People posting comments or providing information on interviews, do so at their own risk.


Comments posted on this blog, may be used as excerpts in whole or in part, in other media sources .
This blog believes in freedom of speech and operates in the context of a democratic society, which many have fought and died for.

Views expressed by commentators or in articles that appear here, cannot be assumed to be espoused by The Hamiltonian staff or its publisher.