"At no time did the officers in question engage in provocation or incite anyone to commit violent acts," said Savard.
He also said one of the officers was given a rock by protesters but the officer had no intention of using it.
"One of the extremists gave the rock to one of our police officers and he had a choice to make," Savard said.
"He was asked by extremists to throw the rock at the police, but never had any intention of using it."
Public Security Minister Stockwell Day, meanwhile, continued to brush of questions about a call for a public inquiry.
"The thing that was interesting in this particular incident, three people in question were spotted by protesters because were not engaging in violence," Day said Friday in Vancouver.
"They were being encouraged to throw rocks and they were not throwing rocks, it was the protesters who were throwing the rocks. That's the irony of this," said Day, adding the actions were substantiated by the video that he has seen of the protests.
"Because they were not engaging in violence, it was noted that they were probably not protesters. I think that's a bit of an indictment against the violent protesters."
Day submits he has seen video to substantiate the claim that officers were given rocks, and only "found out" through their refusal. The simpliest way for the police to eliminate any confusion, release the video of the violent protesters. Everyone has seen the YT video, wherein a riot officer is clearly seen with a video camera, why not release the footage?
The video we have seen, shows no relationship whatsoever to the claims made by police. Even if you eliminate the "granny" protesters, the people dressed in black, berating the undercover agents, are clearly seen with NO rocks. These are the people that outed the agents, so if Day and the police are honest, we should see some evidence of objects. There were only four people arrested, from the C of Canadians, how is it that none of the rock throwers were arrested?
Day is making a crucial mistake, interjecting himself this way, because he is now shifting the burden of proof onto the government. For him to make these claims, Day must bring forth something to support them, otherwise he is open to the allegations of coverup. Where's the video?
Thank you! I was so hoping someone would point out this obvious travesty.
This reeks of Day and company counting on the fact that most people won't actually look at the video for themselves. So he just says what he wants people to believe it shows.
It they had proof of what he is now claiming, it would have been released on day 1 - or earlier in an effort to point out how evil the protesters were. Yep, that would have been the conversation the day this video broke . . instead of arguing about yellow triangles versus hexagons on the bottoms of the keystone cops matching boots before the "oops they actually are the same" admissions after being caught in the lie.
Shameful. This disgusts me more than anything I've seen in ages, and Day's comments just make it that much worse.
These 3 were arrested, right? Why? If they weren't throwing rocks, or whatever, what did they do to get arrested? Or were they just being "pulled from the scene"?
These 3 seem to be amateurs extraordinaire. Couldn't the RCMP or SQ find someone to dress them?
I think you're right, there counting on people not looking at this with a critical eye. Day is just trying to confuse everything, present an alternative, and hope that superficially the noise overrides the truth. In THE video, you can clearly see a riot officer filming everything, and it didn't just start with the YT video, so there should be evidence of the lead up, with the rock throwing protesters turning on the poor undercover officers.
One has to wonder what brainiac sent those three out, dressed like that. It actually concerns me that the police force is so detached from reality that they actually thought that would fly.
"burden of proof now on the government"...
I knew we could count on Doris. Doris, like most of his party, would fail a competence test that came with an answer sheet. But, he does delight our sense of the absurd, doesn't he?
Post a Comment