Canadian ambassador tackles protestor, eh

20Cent

See the video going around where the Canadian ambassador tackles a protestor at a commemoration for British troops killed in 1916. Bet nothing happens to him yet the protestor will be in trouble.

http://www.thejournal.ie/kevin-vickers-rising-ceremony-2790197-May2016/

keith16

Hahahahaha

ytpe2r5bxkn0c1

Putting a protester in his place is far from assault.

Hande hoche!

Sure the protester is lucky he didn't get shot.

Mr. CooL ICE

Mod: Edited thread title because that was not assault

20Cent

Not to question modding in a thread but it's definitely assault running over and grabbing someone then dragging them off.

Birneybau

What's that all aboot, eh?

Mr. CooL ICE

20Cent wrote: »

Not to question modding in a thread but it's definitely assault running over and grabbing someone then dragging them off.

Your definition of assault must be different to my definition of assault.

Regardless, the article doesn't have any use of the word 'assault', not including the comments section.

testicles

This post has been deleted.

Tell me how

That video made me smile.

Not trying to debate against the individuals right to protest or the possible over reaction at the end with the handcuffs.

Just, so much made me laugh in this particularly the security guy at the end of the video with the earpiece in just standing there and the Garda strolling over to have an auld look at things. Also funny was the guy at 15 seconds with the gun on his shoulder deliberately ignoring what was going on.

Birneybau

testicles wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

He also shot an Islamic terrorist in Canada.

With these interventions, he's really spoiling us.

For Forks Sake

Any excuse...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kwC_IaY3BmY

20Cent

2.—(1) A person shall be guilty of the offence of assault who, without lawful excuse, intentionally or recklessly—

(a) directly or indirectly applies force to or causes an impact on the body of another, or

(b) causes another to believe on reasonable grounds that he or she is likely immediately to be subjected to any such force or impact,

without the consent of the other.

keith16

Birneybau wrote: »

He also shot an Islamic terrorist in Canada.

No, he murdered a freedom fighter dead.

20Cent

Birneybau wrote: »

He also shot an Islamic terrorist in Canada.

And well done to him for that. Still doesn't mean he can go all diehard with members of the public here.

stimpson

20Cent wrote: »

2.—(1) A person shall be guilty of the offence of assault who, without lawful excuse, intentionally or recklessly—

(a) directly or indirectly applies force to or causes an impact on the body of another, or

(b) causes another to believe on reasonable grounds that he or she is likely immediately to be subjected to any such force or impact,

without the consent of the other.

A. He probably had lawful excuse
B. He would have diplomatic immunity
C. He's my hero. We should ask him to police water protests
D. Canada is awesome.

davycc

20Cent wrote: »

2.—(1) A person shall be guilty of the offence of assault who, without lawful excuse, intentionally or recklessly—

(a) directly or indirectly applies force to or causes an impact on the body of another, or

(b) causes another to believe on reasonable grounds that he or she is likely immediately to be subjected to any such force or impact,

without the consent of the other.

hope the ambassador gets charged over this - way over the top reaction going by what ive seen so far

20Cent

stimpson wrote: »

A. He probably had lawful excuse
B. He would have diplomatic immunity
C. He's my hero. We should ask him to police water protests
D. Canada is awesome.

What lawful excuse?

luftmensch

20Cent wrote: »

2.—(1) A person shall be guilty of the offence of assault who, without lawful excuse, intentionally or recklessly—

(a) directly or indirectly applies force to or causes an impact on the body of another, or

(b) causes another to believe on reasonable grounds that he or she is likely immediately to be subjected to any such force or impact,

without the consent of the other.

Didn't the "victim" approach Charlie Flanagan, as well as the British and Canadian ambassadors whilst shouting? He has a right to protest of course, but from a security point of view, that could be interpreted as threatening behaviour. Especially considering the high profile guests that were present.

Just to give some background on Ambassador Vickers

Canada hails hero Kevin Vickers for shooting gunman dead during attack on Ottawa’s Parliament Hill

As Canadians continued to mourn Thursday for a murdered reservist soldier, the focus was turned to Kevin Vickers, a man deemed a hero for stopping the callous terrorist attack on Ottawa’s Parliament Hill.

The 58-year-old House of Commons Sergeant-at-Arms has been lauded by lawmakers for shooting dead suspected shooter Michael Joseph Hall, a 32-year-old recent Islam convert from Quebec known as Michael Zehaf-Bibeau, inside Parliament’s Centre Block building Wednesday morning.

“MPs and Hill staff owe their safety, even lives, to Sergeant at Arms Kevin Vickers who shot attacker just outside the MPs’ caucus rooms,” New Democrat MP Craig Scott tweeted after the chaos.

“Kevin Vickers is such a fine man,” added Green Party Leader Elizabeth May. “His actions today are no surprise. Proud to call him a friend.”

The modest public servant has spent the past eight years in the largely ceremonial position at Parliament, where he dons green robes, white gloves and a tall imperial hat while carrying a gold scepter into the House of Commons each time before elected representatives meet.

But he’s also armed with a handgun and is ultimately responsible for the building’s security. As video shows law enforcement swarm Centre Block, Parliament’s main building, it was Vickers who stopped the attack on Canada’s federal complex.

“He’s a very intelligent and responsible person,” Vickers’ cousin, Keith, told CBC News. “He’s a people-person-type fellow, too, but you don’t want to mess with him. All the boys, the local guys, they’ll be quite proud to hear he did what he did.”

On Thursday, Vickers led the procession of elected officials into the hall, where he was met with a standing ovation and roars from the members of Parliament. He appeared to hold back tears during the emotional moment.

In a speech from the floor of the House of Commons, Prime Minister Stephen Harper heaped praise on Vickers before walking over and offering his hand and hug to the hero.

"Here were are in our seats, in our chamber in the very heart of our democracy, at worker," Harper said during a defiant and emotional speech. "We will not be intimidated.

Before he took the Parliament post, Vickers spent 29 years with the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, earning accolades for his work 14 years helping settle a heated dispute in Burnt Church, New Brunswick over native’s fishing rights in the community.

“The inspector was a real community man,” Bobby Sylliboy, a longtime band constable with the Burnt Church First Nation, told the National Post. “People around here, let me tell you, they hold him in the highest regard. He was this 6-foot-3, non-native guy, coming to our reserve — and even coming to our Christmas vigils. He was hard to miss. He was a Down East guy, just a guy from the Miramichi. But to us, he was the chief.”

The understated Vickers again proved adept at diplomacy in his duties as sergeant at arms when he decided to allow Sikhs to bring in kirpans, a ceremonial dagger, to the House of Commons. The decision in 2011 came despite the fact the Quebec National Assembly had banned the kirpan and earned Vickers a tribute from the World Sikh Organization of Canada, The Globe and Mail reported.

Vickers told the group he had been raised to accept diversity and differences in culture as a boy in Miramichi, a coastal New Brunswick city of some 20,000 people.

"I see your wearing of the kirpan, especially in our Parliamentary buildings, as exactly that, respecting your dignity," he told WSO members at a 2011 fete in his honor. "But just as the kirpan issue came before us last winter, we are reminded how vigilant we must be to not only defend but promote the practices, cultures and religions of all peoples."

In the aftermath of Wednesday’s shooting, which shook up sleepy Ottawa and the rest of Canada, normally so secure against gun violence, Vickers was once again lauded by his countrymen for his decisive and sure actions.

“Mr. Vickers, the whole country is unanimous in all matters that count: bravery, duty, selfness – you are as good as they get,” CBC reporter Rex Murphy said during his “Point of View” show Wednesday evening. “The office of sergeant at arms can never have been better filled.”

sgoldstein@nydailynews.com

Augme

20Cent wrote: »

2.—(1) A person shall be guilty of the offence of assault who, without lawful excuse, intentionally or recklessly—

(a) directly or indirectly applies force to or causes an impact on the body of another, or

(b) causes another to believe on reasonable grounds that he or she is likely immediately to be subjected to any such force or impact,

without the consent of the other.

Ding ding ding.

SmilingLurker

I am proud of the ambassador of the country of my birth.

A polite protest is fine. I might disagree but I respect that. The protester does not do his views any good.

I am a strong be liver in a Republic (even of Canada)

Cienciano

davycc wrote: »

hope the ambassador gets charged over this - way over the top reaction going by what ive seen so far

Diplomatic immunity

stimpson

20Cent wrote: »

What lawful excuse?

Self defence.

Augme

20Cent wrote: »

What lawful excuse?

A and B should have him easily covered.

Section 18(1) of the 1997 Act gives lawful excuse a statutory basis. It provides:

The use of force by a person for any of the following, if only reasonable in the circumstances as he/she believes them to be does not constitute an offense:
a) Protecting against injury, detention or assault caused by a criminal act.
b) Protect from trespass
c) Protect property
d) Protect another’s property
e) Prevent crime or breach of the peace

Gatling

He gets my vote well done ambassador

20Cent

stimpson wrote: »

Self defence.

Was he being attacked?

Cienciano

Augme wrote: »

A and B should have him easily covered.

Section 18(1) of the 1997 Act gives lawful excuse a statutory basis. It provides:

The use of force by a person for any of the following, if only reasonable in the circumstances as he/she believes them to be does not constitute an offense:
a) Protecting against injury, detention or assault caused by a criminal act.
b) Protect from trespass
c) Protect property
d) Protect another’s property
e) Prevent crime or breach of the peace

I like what he did, but neither a or b apply here. Breach of the peace maybe, but you can argue any protest is breach of the peace

darkpagandeath

Lol... Just lol.

h2005

Massive over reaction by the ambassador and probably actually is assault. Why hadn't the many gardai that were there intervened? Had the man actually committed any offence? Next time someone protests and I don't agree with it can I act the same way?

Augme

Cienciano wrote: »

I like what he did, but neither a or b apply here. Breach of the peace maybe, but you can argue any protest is breach of the peace

I'd have thought that would be the case quite often with protests.

vicwatson

Protestor on public property I assume?

darkpagandeath

h2005 wrote: »

Massive over reaction by the ambassador and probably actually is assault. Why hadn't the many gardai that were there intervened? Had the man actually committed any offence? Next time someone protests and I don't agree with it can I act the same way?

Private function ? Private property ?

SEPT 23 1989

That's the kind of hot head we need as garda commissioner

Do you think he would have unnarmed gardai riding around on bicycles in the middle of the shooting gallery that is the north inner city if he was in charge

RayM

Cienciano wrote: »

I like what he did, but neither a or b apply here. Breach of the peace maybe, but you can argue any protest is breach of the peace

I get the impression that a lot of Irish people would love nothing more than to see all forms of protest banned.

h2005

darkpagandeath wrote: »

Private function ? Private property ?

I don't know the answer to either

vicwatson

darkpagandeath wrote: »

Private function ? Private property ?

State function so I guess a public function no?

darkpagandeath

RayM wrote: »

I get the impression that a lot of Irish people would love nothing more than to see all forms of protest banned.

Nope just not the time or place for it, I would expect the same to happen if it was a guy at the 1916 remembrance for the Irish that died in 1916.

arayess

Canadian ambassador is an asshole.

given his gung ho history he probably relishes this type of confrontation.
pr*ck

darkpagandeath

vicwatson wrote: »

State function so I guess a public function no?

Invite only so nope.

vicwatson

Cemetery is looked after by the OPW according to wiki

RayM

darkpagandeath wrote: »

Nope just not the time or place for it, I would expect the same to happen if it was a guy at the 1916 remembrance for the Irish that died in 1916.

If a commemoration honouring British soldiers who died in 1916 isn't the right place for a peaceful protest, then I don't know what is.

Zaph

What sort of petty minded individual goes to an event like that just to make a scene anyway? Having a commemoration like this shows how much we've grown as a nation over the last 100 years. Protesting against it just shows that guy up to be a throwback from the Dark Ages who really needs to get over himself. The ambassador deserves to be applauded for removing that idiot.

vicwatson

darkpagandeath wrote: »

Invite only so nope.

Who makes these stupid rules about who gets invited, Gubberment thinking they are above us peasants again. Elitism.

testicles

This post has been deleted.

darkpagandeath

RayM wrote: »

If a commemoration honouring British soldiers who died in 1916 isn't the right place for a peaceful protest, then I don't know what is.

So you would be fine with some nut shouting at the opposite event ?

RayM

darkpagandeath wrote: »

So you would be fine with some nut shouting at the opposite event ?

If they felt strongly enough about it, then yes, absolutely. You don't have to agree with someone's viewpoint to accept their right to express it.

darkpagandeath

vicwatson wrote: »

Who makes these stupid rules about who gets invited, Gubberment thinking they are above us peasants again. Elitism.

If it's private property then it's an entirely different issue. And would you expect to turn up to any private function and cause issues without being removed ? My opinion is not based on it being British soldiers.

luftmensch

vicwatson wrote: »

Who makes these stupid rules about who gets invited, Gubberment thinking they are above us peasants again. Elitism.

It's probably for the best. If everyone was invited, then more scumbags would surely be present.

darkpagandeath

RayM wrote: »

If they felt strongly enough about it, then yes, absolutely. You don't have to agree with someone's viewpoint to accept their right to express it.

True but I treat remembrance events with decorum.

Cienciano

I'm getting old. I pretty much disagree with everything in this story.
I disagree with a ceremony to honour British soldiers.
I disagree in which the way this guy protests.
I disagree with how the Canadian ambassador tackled him.
I disagree with how the garda present stood around doing nothing.