Canucks Central

[Prometheus]

Originally Posted by logan5

I believe by laying back and not engaging too closely, the mob eventually ran out of energy.

Oh, you do amuse logan5. Of course the mob ran out of energy. But not before it caused the greatest wave of violence and destruction that the city has ever seen. LOL.

Originally Posted by logan5

While there was property damage...

Yes there was. It was the worst amount of property damage and looting in the history of Vancouver.

Originally Posted by logan5

the physical violence, considering the size of the mob was kept to a minimum.

Kept to a minimum? Dude, multiple hospitals were placed on Code Orange, which means that they were receiving mass casualties.

Logan5, the facts speak for themselves. On every level, whether it was destruction of property or human casualties, Wednesday night was an unprecedented disaster. Whatever the police strategy was, it clearly failed.

As I said before, your argument is not with me, but the facts.

[mr.x]

Originally Posted by Prometheus

Kept to a minimum? Dude, multiple hospitals were placed on Code Orange, which means that they were receiving mass casualties.

I'm surprised nobody was killed, although we still don't know about the guy who fell off the viaduct...or jumped, whatever.

Code Orange was established at two hospitals, but it was said that on CTV that it was a "small" Code Orange, in that it didn't require them to call in additional staff. Code Orange is also used for major traffic accidents.

[Prometheus]

Originally Posted by cornholio

if everyone tried to analyze everything like I am trying to then we would never achieve anything.

First intelligent thing you have said.

[Prometheus]

According to Bob Whitelaw, the man commissioned to write an analysis and more than 100 recommendations for British Columbia’s attorney-general and the British Columbia Police Commission after the 1994 riot, Wednesday's riot was worse than 1994 in part because the police failed to act quickly:

The 2011 Stanley Cup riot will be remembered as much worse than the 1994 riot, the man who investigated the 1994 riot says.

“This was worse than 1994 in terms of the violence, the fires, the hooliganism, the vandalism and the sheer outright defiance of law, seeing the police pelted,” said Bob Whitelaw, who wrote an analysis and more than 100 recommendations for British Columbia’s attorney-general and the British Columbia Police Commission after the 1994 riot.

“I am astounded and professionally very upset,” Whitelaw said. “Some of my findings were not adhered to last night, principally, the parked cars in the downtown area, when trouble began those cars were damaged, and they didn’t disperse the crowds quickly enough, or have enough exits going before the cover of dark.”

Whitelaw says the police were lulled into a sense of security because things went well in the first six games.

"The first six games set the police up in a complacency mode: everything is going well, everybody's having a good time, let's back off; apathy then came into the play: let's just let them have fun, and then denial that anything was going to happen, and boy, it sure unravelled last night," Whitelaw said.

He said police were too slow to intervene, and there may not have been enough of a police presence downtown.

"I saw more police standing around waiting for instruction," Whitelaw said. "What they could've done, was to be more proactive."

http://www.vancouversun.com/sports/2011+Stanley+riot+worse+than+1994/4959547/story.html

[BCPhil]

Originally Posted by xd_1771

I'm not trying to make any discussion about sympathy here anymore, what I'm saying is that there seems to be quite a turnaround effect from these crowds and their cellphone videos & such. We may be able to access all this evidence from multiple people. It's foolproof; with so many cameras on you at one time while you're smashing that car to pieces, there's no way you get away with it unapprehended, unless perhaps you have a mask to the face. Through their photos and videos, we are also able to identify and apprehend rioters as the public, there is another movement online with over 3000 supporters (last I checked) doing this right now.

People who take videos of their own crime (or get people to do it for them) and then post them online, that's definitely plain dumb though, and worthy of a standardized Jean-Luc Piccard facepalm on any account.

Now it's just making excuses. I would gladly trade away all the video that's out there if instead all those people went home, and the couple hundred real rioters that were charging police were left behind to have their eye sockets skull f*#ked by police batons.

Those people that hung around to indulge their adrenaline fueled curiosity to snap the perfect profile pic or trendable twitvid directly contributed to the size of the crowd, thus making it harder for the police to manage and find the real criminals and help the people in need. The riot was as bad as it was because those dipshits hung around, cameras out, setting the stage for the alcohol fueled asshats to perform on.

As nice as it is to have evidence of the vandalism and looting, if those people weren't there in the way, the police could have acted much faster and PREVENTED the vandalism and looting.

They got in the way and anyone that got hurt by the police deserved it.

Originally Posted by cornholio

It is completely positive. Achieving change through civil disobedience(rioting) is the most basic form of democracy. I dont disagree that the people were idiots, what my point is that the end result is a reminder for everyone what people are capable of, that is priceless.

After today every major movement and protest will be a little more relevant around here, thats a good thing. People need to know that there is no limit to the level of civil disobedience that society is capable of. If a bunch of drunk hockey fans can make such a strong point(obviously there was no point, thats why it was a pointless riot, but..) then anyone of us can do the same. Imagine this happend over the HST? The next day Campbel would be gone, and the implementation of it would be stopped the same day until the problems with it were fixed. Plus politicians would be bit more honest as they would not be able to rely on the system completely protecting them.

Its great to see what people are capable of.

It's not democracy, it is thuggery. It is the domination of the stupid and bull headed over the civil. Democracy is about voice and debate, while mob rule, or Ochlocracy is about the domination by the crowd.

In Democracy, people act in the best interests of the community, in a riot, people act in their own interests.

A riot is the simplest form of might makes right reasoning, and has nothing at all to do with democracy.

There is no guarantee that if a riot broke out over something like the HST that the rioters represent the wishes of the majority, or even a significant minority. What is certain is that we elected the legislature to make decisions and they make them. If we don't like them we vote for someone different. If we relied on politicians appeasing the most violent and ignorant members of society, I don't know if we would ever get anything fair done.

Originally Posted by cornholio

How about you say something constructive and explain why you think my comment is stupid?

I think its good and important for society to know what level of civil disobedience they are capable of.
With out last nights reminder society will forget what its capable of.
Last night was a reminder, as I said that is good.
Therefore I look positively on the end result of last night.

So explain your self?

A reminder that we can't hold our shit together when we lose a hockey game?

You think this crowd, acting out and breaking windows represents some substantial group or idea? It is people acting out because they are brainless idiots who thought it would be cool.

This was a breakdown of society and the bonds between human beings, not a show of will and determination to get things done. It was man vs man on the street. It was Hobbes in action: "a war of all against all" and it was "nasty, brutish, and short."

If anything this is a reminder to how close our city is to a savage and lawless land, and that, as Hobbes argues, it is wise to trade over some of our rights to the sovereign so that we can enjoy peace.

This is a reminder of how close our society is to being brought to chaos by a relatively small group of drunks and malcontents. I don't see how that is anything like democracy at all.

If you really want to play the violence is a good thing card, then it is good in the opposite direction. In our social contract with the state, it has the obligation to protect the citizens and property and maintain peace, therefore any amount of violence used to curb any such acts is a good.

If violence is democratic, then whoever brings the bigger stick to the party wins. Also, if a group of people can't affect change without winning a violent struggle, then any battle the state wins means it is right.

I don't know if I want to go down the road where decisions are made based on how well you can punch.

This was a riot over nothing. It was a breakdown of law and order, and it was the police's responsibility to restore it.

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

Over-exaggerate much? Some cars burned, and they cause a lot of smoke for the amount of material that burns. Were any buildings on fire? At all?

It looked like the police strategy was to let people make a mess that could be cleaned up. They just didn't have the numbers to do much more. There was no loss of life, and no police brutality. Although as mentioned above based on the riot act, they could literally club everyone they walked by that didn't get out of the way faster than their walking speed.

I'm sure they had targeted areas to protect, namely residential ones.

City Council should have given them the bigger budget they asked for, although I'm not sure ~50% more police would have done much better.

That might be true, the police could have been protecting areas they thought were more important.

But it was close to people losing their lives and buildings burning down. At the end of the day, no buildings were lost, but there was no way for the police to know for sure that if they let those cars burn, that nothing would have happened to the Bay. And people away from the police lines were getting the crap kicked out of them. If it wasn't for other people stepping in, stopping fights and carrying people to the hospital, people would be dead.

The police ended up the lucky side of things. Those cars could have lit the Bay on fire, and there were people who were shopping in the store when the riot broke out.

I think most of the crowd were cowards and was there for the scene. Any show of early strength from the police would have resulted in at least 90% of them turning tail and running. The police engaging the crowd might make some people more violent, but most people shut down and give up when their eyes are watering and they can't breath. There would have been some idiots who would charge the police or fight, but they wouldn't win and so what if they got hurt.

Originally Posted by mr.x

I'm surprised nobody was killed, although we still don't know about the guy who fell off the viaduct...or jumped, whatever.

Code Orange was established at two hospitals, but it was said that on CTV that it was a "small" Code Orange, in that it didn't require them to call in additional staff. Code Orange is also used for major traffic accidents.

It was enough that they had triage centers set up complete with doctors in hazmat suits.

[s.p.hansen]

Yikes

[BCPhil]

Anyway, here is the actual reading of the riot proclamation declaring the riot. I hope some people get fucked over in court and are made examples of with some extreme sentences (but we all know that probably won't happen). Failing that I would love to see a few hundred have their lives forever altered with criminal convictions, even if they only spend a day or two in jail. It would be great for those criminal record checks when job hunting.

• Video Link

And for XD, here is a sample of the tear gas warning they were using.

• Video Link

It seems pretty clear to me, anyone still in the area got exactly what they deserved (or more likely got off too easy). I'm actually surprised noone is dead or got shot.

[Millennium2002]

Interesting you mention that image with the tough-acting Chinese kid. Apparently from FB rumors and observations:

- this high school student who lives in Richmond has since been caught
- he just got arrested and expelled from school after friends noticed the match
- seems to be well-known; friends are surprised at his actions
- was part of Cadets (not sure when or where)
- FB profile pic of him smiling in biology lab certainly doesn't fit this image

(This post has been edited from before. The following is a summary of the 15+ lines that were written earlier, to ensure completeness with the reply below.)

The latter point makes me wonder... certainly he should know right and wrong (especially being a Cadet), and we have the history to prove that these actions will not be tolerated... But then again, the profile pic is distracting me... criminal records + tarnished reputation will already hurt lots, and I'm not a fan of creating hardened and "better criminals" with longer sentences aka US prison system. So should the sentence be longer or shorter? I dunno. =O

[BCPhil]

The police already arrested around 100 people. Deal with them first. A few will appear before the court tomorrow on stabbing charges and a lot were released today. Some were interviewed by TV on their way out of jail and appear to be total douche bags and douchettes (one of them had just gotten out of jail on Wednesday hours before the game, from Surrey of course). Anyone who was dumb enough to actually be arrested by the police should have the book thrown at them.

It is clear there are people who deserve punishment more than others and punishments for some crimes are stiffer than others. But I don't think there are many that should be let off Scott-free. A message has to be sent that this is a city of laws, and people who break laws are punished. Even if it is a slap on the wrist for this good kid, people need to know that if this happens next year (and hey, we WILL be in the cup again next year!) that there will be consequence to your actions. I mean, if it was his first offence at drinking and driving would/should we give him the bennefit of the doubt?

Justice is supposed to be blind to such things. If we are lenient to kids with a good family and decent background, then we create a classicist/caste system, where status gets you off the hook for your actions.

That said, the facebook and social media headhunting taking place is a bit over the top. We do have police for a reason, and they should be the ones that sift through the images/video to find people they are interested in. If they spot a serious crime taking place and can't identify the perpetrators then they can ask for the public's help in identifying them which many will be more than happy to supply. But as it is right now it there is a bit of vigilantism going on, which if left unchecked, can get as bad as rioting.

My beef was that the police should have been enforcing our laws on the street, and it is also the police that should be enforcing our laws after the fact through our court system. We shouldn't rely on the public's thirst for vengeance to solve this issue and instead use our court system (as lenient as they can be in sentencing, they usually get convictions correct more often than the court of public opinion).

[Millennium2002]

Yeah the headhunting is rather... ehh..... =O

But I do understand and agree with your points.

[Metro-One]

Originally Posted by BCPhil

The police already arrested around 100 people. Deal with them first. A few will appear before the court tomorrow on stabbing charges and a lot were released today. Some were interviewed by TV on their way out of jail and appear to be total douche bags and douchettes (one of them had just gotten out of jail on Wednesday hours before the game, from Surrey of course). Anyone who was dumb enough to actually be arrested by the police should have the book thrown at them.

It is clear there are people who deserve punishment more than others and punishments for some crimes are stiffer than others. But I don't think there are many that should be let off Scott-free. A message has to be sent that this is a city of laws, and people who break laws are punished. Even if it is a slap on the wrist for this good kid, people need to know that if this happens next year (and hey, we WILL be in the cup again next year!) that there will be consequence to your actions. I mean, if it was his first offence at drinking and driving would/should we give him the bennefit of the doubt?

Justice is supposed to be blind to such things. If we are lenient to kids with a good family and decent background, then we create a classicist/caste system, where status gets you off the hook for your actions.

That said, the facebook and social media headhunting taking place is a bit over the top. We do have police for a reason, and they should be the ones that sift through the images/video to find people they are interested in. If they spot a serious crime taking place and can't identify the perpetrators then they can ask for the public's help in identifying them which many will be more than happy to supply. But as it is right now it there is a bit of vigilantism going on, which if left unchecked, can get as bad as rioting.

My beef was that the police should have been enforcing our laws on the street, and it is also the police that should be enforcing our laws after the fact through our court system. We shouldn't rely on the public's thirst for vengeance to solve this issue and instead use our court system (as lenient as they can be in sentencing, they usually get convictions correct more often than the court of public opinion).

Classic missunderstanding here, everyone blames the police for lack of pushment or convictions. The key to the problem is out judicial system. For it is the judges who hand down these extremely light sentences. The police have no true power, that is why they often become complacent because they arrest the same punks all the time committing property crimes, theft, etc.. but they receive little to no punishment. So why bother arresting them again and going through all that paper work if nothing is going to happen to them?

Also i love how much social media has been able to track these thugs / idiots down. Social media is essentially open media, if they are dumb enough to post pics and brag about their crimes on such websites, then i have no problem at all with people re posting their shit and hanging them out to dry. There are only so many police, and the public helps out in a big way here identifying the core culprits.

Now if people started going after them physically or damaging their property, then I would agree that would be going too far and then we would have a true vigilantly problem on our hands.

And I agree as well, no special treatment, it does not matter how nice of a boy / girl people say they are or how affluent their family is, everyone should serve the same punishment for the same acts.

[invisibleairwaves]

I watched the game downtown, got out as things were getting ugly. Can't really think of anything that hasn't really been said about the riot.

On the subject of hockey: I can't believe people are suggesting we trade Luongo and keep Schneider. That's absurd. Until this round, Luongo was the best goaltender in the playoffs, and he had two shutouts in the final. Yes, he had awful games as well, but it's ridiculous to suggest that Schneider wouldn't. Hell, Schneider already blew a game for the Canucks in the Chicago series. And blaming the outcome of the series on goaltending doesn't make too much sense either; yes, Luongo let in some stinkers, but in the four games the Canucks lost, they scored a total of 3 goals. When you get shut out, it doesn't matter how good or bad the goaltending is on your end, you're gonna lose the game. Blaming the loss on Luongo is like blaming the 1-0 Boston losses on Tim Thomas. It's ridiculous. I can never understand the massive hate-on this city has for its franchise goaltender, a Vezina nominee who allowed the fewest goals in the regular season and had 4 shutouts in the playoffs.

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by Prometheus

It's no exaggeration, at least for those who are following events with open eyes. I guessed you missed the live coverage which showed that the Hudson Bay's awning was beginning to catch fire from one of those burning cars and the building itself was that close to going up in smoke. The CTV reporter on the scene kept expressing extreme concern that the building was on the brink of catching fire. Since the police had no part in it, it's mere dumb luck that the crowd cleared when it finally did and the firefighters were able to put the burning car and smoldering awning out in time.

Is the Chief of Police your brother-in-law or something?

An awning outside a stone building constitutes "downtown Vancouver almost burnt down". I'm pretty sure that's the textbook definition of exaggeration.

I live downtown, smartass. We saw the initial smoke from the first car, and a few more plumes later on. I turned on the news and watched for a while, and as usual, the news was trying to be more sensationalist than what was actually happening.

This was an extremely serious event, no doubt about it. But to say the city almost burned down is a joke.

[baggab]

Originally Posted by jlousa

As soon as I heard what was happening to our city I went into the crowd and did my best to stop as much damage as possible. I fought long and hard before throwing in the towel a little after 11pm. Suffered quite a bit of damage but I'll heal, it was absolutely shameful to see my fellow citizens around me telling me to just let them be. The people down there that just let it happen really embarrassed me of being a Vancouverite, grow a set and defend your city.
The Police were limited in what they could go, the job fell on the crowd on deal with the problem makers and they decided to take pictures instead.

Yep, Everyone that was watching and cheering were just as much of a problem as the rioters themselves and I think all should be punished including the onlookers. I can't believe how badly some people got swarmed though.

Just shows how many rats live underground in this city.

[s211]

Originally Posted by whatnext

Absolutely. The crowd sees no pushback and that emboldens them. Add the permissive history of Vancouver:
-Want to break the law on 420 day and wander into the streets stoned? Sure go right ahead!
- Want to hold monthly Critical Mass rallies that snarl traffic, endanger pedestrians and slow emergency vehicles? Aw, you funsters, be our guest!

The extreme permissiveness in this city is it's least appealing attribute. Guess what "anything goes" can buy you these days.

[s211]

Originally Posted by 240glt

^ quit being an apologist. That's embarrassing to the entire city. Vancouver is in disgrace right now, trying to justify any of that is sickening. The city bears some responsibility for this as well. Never should have allowed that kind of congregation to take place in the first place.

I was in Van in '94, left downtown before the shit went down. You had to be stupid to not see it coming. A lot of those people bear the responsibility for what went down... even if they didn't throw a newspaper box through a window or helped flip a car.

Exactly. If ever there was a reason to shame the BCCLA, this is a good one.

[whatnext]

A good time to remind everyone David Eby just missed being elected a Vision Vancouver candidate in 2008.

Frankly, I'm getting quite annoyed at the Mayor and Chief Chu for trying to shift the blame onto proefessional anarchists. Its simply not true. Great column in the National Post about it:

Surely, none of them were hockey fans. Not the guy in the vintage Trevor Linden jersey posing next to the burning truck in front of the Post Office; not the guys in the Pavel Bure or Alex Burrows or Roberto Luongo jerseys who rampaged through Vancouver’s downtown core, smashing windows and looting and setting cars on fire. Surely they were all just dead-enders, anarchists, professional felons. Makes sense.

Except it doesn’t, and the attempt to peddle the fallacy is not going to help Vancouver move past whatever sickness ails that city...

...Pretty organized for anarchists, when you think about it. And so many of them didn’t even hide their faces, which is probably another disguise. And they never seem to pop up anywhere else. Damned organized anarchists. There oughta be a law.

Ridiculous. Surely there was a criminal element in the crowd, but to say that there were no Canucks fans among the rioters is like saying there was nobody from Vancouver among the rioters. It’s convenient, and impossible.

It’s terribly convenient to say that the thousands of people who acted badly did not represent Vancouver, or were not even from Vancouver, or were not Canucks fans. Even if they were wearing Canucks merchandise, some said, they were not Canucks fans, or they were bandwagon jumpers. Real fans wouldn’t do that....

http://sports.nationalpost.com/2011/06/1...ver-rioters-were-hockey-fans/#more-35971

[s211]

Originally Posted by whatnext

Are you trolling, or just incredibly stupid?

Both, unfortunately.

[xd_1771]

As sadistic as it seems (my excuse), it's unfortunately a good one.
To think, if some more of the crowds actually left, that may not have necessarily changed the largely non-intervening action of the police, which as mentioned was the reason this riot escalated out of control.

There was one parkade which was actually on fire at several points, on Seymour.

[Prometheus]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

An awning outside a stone building constitutes "downtown Vancouver almost burnt down". I'm pretty sure that's the textbook definition of exaggeration.

Let's hope you are not employed by the Fire Department in any way, for your grasp of the basic physics of fire and how it spreads is both laughable and frightening. For some bizarre reason you seem to think that a structure must be substantially ablaze (and constructed completely out of wood timber) to conclude that it and the other structures around it could have burned down. According to your logic, if a grease fire occured in your kitchen but was suppressed in time, it would be an over-exaggeration to conclude that your house almost burned down, which is precisely what would have happened in the absence of any intervention, according to the laws of nature.

Moreover, in addition to the Hudson Bay almost catching fire as the authorities stood by, there were numerous dumpster fires which, thanks to the efforts of private citizens, were pushed away from the backs of buildings, preventing a potential disaster.

As Assistant Fire Chief Wade Pierlot concedes:

Assistant Fire Chief Wade Pierlot said people had to be rescued from rooftops and bathrooms where they had hidden for safety. He said some people moved burning dumpsters away from buildings to prevent further damage.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/jun/17/vancouver-riot-kiss-photograph-mystery

So, as any rational person can see, we were very lucky not to have had major fires throughout the downtown core, no thanks to the authorities who dithered and hesitated.

But as long as you do not hold a position of any importance within the Vancouver Fire Department, then your cockamamie understanding of fire is nothing worse than amusing.