'Officer Bubbles' Sues YouTube Commenters Over Mockery

An anonymous reader writes "'Officer Bubbles' — the Toronto Police Constable who was videotaped threatening a G20 protester with arrest for assault over the crime of blowing bubbles at a police officer has had enough of mocking videos and comments on YouTube. He has decided to sue everyone involved (commenters included) for more than a million dollars each. The complaint is detailed in his statement of claim — most of the comments seem fairly tame by internet standards; if this goes anywhere, everyone is going to have to watch what they say pretty carefully. The lawsuit appears to have been successful in intimidating the author of the mocking cartoons into taking them down."

Comments

Morpheus

[Anonymous Coward]

Is that you?

Re:Morpheus

[Jeremiah Cornelius]

Nabu-kudurri-usur

Re:Morpheus

[Anonymous Coward]

BTW, Officer Bubbles....blows. Whatta fucking turd you are, Officer Bubbles. With a nasty fucking attitude such as that, someone will indeed make your heart bleed. I hope we all get to watch that too...

Re:Morpheus

[techsoldaten]

Be careful, you might get sued for saying that.

Re:Morpheus

[The Fanta Menace]

I wonder if he's going to sue Wikipedia too; he's now immortalized on the "Streisand Effect" page.

You Know What They Say?

[Jeremiah Cornelius]

Mad Dogs and Policemen.

Re:You Know What They Say?

[NFN_NLN]

Mad Dogs and Policemen.

So this is why police don't like to be filmed?! It makes them accountable for their douchery after the fact.

Looks like the court of public opinion made its ruling on Officer Bubbles, I sure hope the official court sees things the same way.

Re:You Know What They Say?

[cez]

I used to blow bubbles when I was little... then he moved to Canada :(

Re:You Know What They Say?

[Maxo-Texas]

Haven't seen the video and think police have turned thuggish over the last 40 years but...

They are trained to take control of situations and something silly like not respecting their authority and blowing bubbles can sometimes escalate quickly into something worse.

It was really a no win situation for the police officer.

Sometimes, they are going to make the wrong call and bring the wrong level of intensity to the situation. Some times they won't be aggressive enough and things will turn ugly... other times they'll be too aggressive and look dumb.

Re:You Know What They Say?

[Anonymous Coward]

Some times they won't be aggressive enough and things will turn ugly... other times they'll be too aggressive and look dumb.

I couldn't agree more; it starts innocently enough with one person blowing bubbles, but what if someone else had started... two people blowing bubbles. Then three... how many bubble blowers should we as a society have to tolerate before we start supporting our police officer's efforts to stamp out this reckless waste of washing up liquid?

On second thought, maybe the cop should have stepped 3 inches further back and made this otherwise lethal weapon system wholly ineffective. Based on his over-reaction, this guy should be more than familiar with exactly how far 3 inches is...

Re:You Know What They Say?

[ColdWetDog]

They are trained to take control of situations and something silly like not respecting their authority and blowing bubbles can sometimes escalate quickly into something worse.

And often, taking 'control' of the situation means backing off. Moving back a few feet, losing the shades (notice the female officer with her glasses up) and smiling would have defused the whole thing right there.

It's not like she was being particularly menacing. The officer was being an aggressive jerk for no good reason. Makes everybody look bad.

Re:You Know What They Say?

[schon]

They are trained to take control of situations and something silly like not respecting their authority and blowing bubbles can sometimes escalate quickly into something worse.

So, a cop sees you doing something he doesn't like (say maybe dancing, or listening to music) and decides you're not "respecting his authority" - it gives him the right to come over to you and harrass you?

fuck that.

This cop had a choice - he could have just ignored it. The female cop that was talking to the protester has no problem, why did Officer Bubbles have to stick his nose in it?

Re:You Know What They Say?

[Jim_Maryland]

My wife worked as a nurse at a county detention center. I don't know about how police actions have been the last 40 years, but my wife saw a good number of admissions where the person had injuries related to "resisting arrest". Some were severe enough that my wife refused to let the officers "drop and go". She'd inform them that the person wasn't stable enough (usually head injuries) and that they needed to first get clearance from the hospital before they could be admitted.

Re:You Know What They Say?

[h4rr4r]

The cops puts on a plastic face protector and thus totally cancels out her weapon of mass cleaning.

Cops want the situation to turn ugly, they want to crack skulls, otherwise they would not use these methods at all.

Re:You Know What They Say?

[Beerdood]

something silly like not respecting their authority and blowing bubbles can sometimes escalate quickly into something worse.

For sure. If we let our kids blow bubbles in front of officers, next thing you know they'll be Wiccan lesbian anarchists doing various drugs and getting into all sorts of trouble. These so called "magic bubbles" are a gateway drug, look at some footage of Woodstock if you need further proof.

Re:You Know What They Say?

[NFN_NLN]

They've probably been in situations in the past where it turned ugly.

One second people are blowing bubbles and the next they are throwing bubble bottles and then next it's rocks and people are setting cars and buildings on fire and looting.

To be fair it doesn't count when the people throwing rocks and setting cars on fire are "agent provocateurs" (for which Canadian police actually admitted to using in the past).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agent_provocateur

Re:You Know What They Say?

[JWSmythe]

    It's explained in the claim. Well, mostly.

    There was a bus detained in the area where that happened, where some of the passengers were suspected of belonging to a group who had already been detained, and weapons seized.

    So, on his side, it was a bad situation.

    On the girls side, she's just being a cute girl.

    She could have been a diversion. She could have just been being cute, blowing bubbles. I suspect the later.

    Arrest was not necessary. He needs to know how to diffuse confrontational situations, rather than escalating them.

    I couldn't read all the comments. Not because there was any problem. I was just laughing too much.

    I have something to say, on or off the record.

    Sir (Officer Bubbles), you need to grow a sense of humor. You are in a public position, and in such a position, you may show up in the press which now does include places such as YouTube and Slashdot. In that, people are going to say what they feel, and this is something you're going to have to accept.

    I'm sure you're a fine officer, and have done your job well for many years. I seriously hope you haven't arrested every person who's made fun of you.

    And stop being a prick. You can't sue every person that says something you don't like. Well, you can, but you're just making yourself look like more of a prick.

    Send the subpoena to my home in the antarctic. It shouldn't be hard to find. I put an inverted reindeer on the roof. :)

Re:You Know What They Say?

[c6gunner]

You do know that here in Canada we have free health care, including mental-health, right?

Re:You Know What They Say?

[camperslo]

He'd better be careful. Rover, the big bubble device from the original The Prisoner tv series, may come after him.

Re:You Know What They Say?

[h4rr4r]

Might want to tell that cop, seems like he needs it.

Re:You Know What They Say?

[Smauler]

One second people are blowing bubbles and the next they are throwing bubble bottles and then next it's rocks and people are setting cars and buildings on fire and looting.

Erm... What the fuck are you talking about? It's like I've entered an alternate dimension in which blowing bubbles is the first step onto becoming an international terrorist. Containing the situation is _entirely_ different from what was seen in the video. The cop was intimidating and overly aggressive.

Confrontationalism like this is what often escalates situations up the straight linear path from bubble blowing to arson and looting.

Wow... honestly.

Re:You Know What They Say?

[crath]

The protester blowing bubbles was behaving in a manner that is usually considered rude. While I agree that the cop over reacted, the protester's continued bubble blowing, when asked to stop, is also socially unacceptable behaviour.

Re:You Know What They Say?

[Anonymous Coward]

Dang - 20 years on the force and he's only a CUNTstable?

It's knobs like that that give police forces a bad image.

Re:You Know What They Say?

[ksandom]

The female cop that was talking to the protester has no problem, why did Officer Bubbles have to stick his nose in it?

Good spotting. I hadn't noticed that. She was like "Is he going there?... Nooooo... He's going there!"

Re:You Know What They Say?

[gfreeman]

I endure insulting comments and inane questions at work all the time. Ever been to an inter-departmental meeting? Feel free to pop along with a camera crew and bring some bubbles, it'll actually help me endure the pain and loathing.

A cop is supposed to be able to put up with way, WAY worse things in a demonstration environment - they're trained to put up with that sort of crap, and if Officer Bubbles breaks his training maybe he shouldn't be on the front line of a police demo response unit.

Re:You Know What They Say?

[Anonymous Coward]

It appears "Officer Bubbles" gave an unfortunate example of why some people lack appropriate respect for police. He was probably threatened by the young girl's lack of cowardice, and was probably already on edge thinking he might eventually have to quell a riot, or use his bulletproof vest. Now he's suing people who commented on the video? That ought to get him a LOT more exposure. (including from me, who never heard of, or saw, the video before today.

I wish the video showed if he got attacked by a soap bubble, or if he just blew his cork. I never thought of arresting my niece and nephew when they blew bubbles at me.

Too bad for the Toronto police, it's a poor example. I'm surprised he didn't also confiscate the video.

But attempting to look at his POV, he was probably concerned with the crowd, and perhaps he's allergic to bubbles?

Re:You Know What They Say?

[gfreeman]

Meh, I don't think so. If I'm on a park bench blowing bubbles, and someone comes running up to me screaming for me to stop, it's not socially unacceptable for me to continue blowing bubbles. Because he's a police officer brings no weight to the argument, I'd carry on blowing bubbles even if he was a uniformed cop. It's not against the law to blow bubbles.

Re:You Know What They Say?

[Ephemeriis]

They are trained to take control of situations and something silly like not respecting their authority and blowing bubbles can sometimes escalate quickly into something worse.

He didn't take control. He lost control. He was acting like an idiot. There's another officer standing next to him who looks more than a little uncomfortable with what he's saying/doing.

It was really a no win situation for the police officer.

No it wasn't. That officer standing next to him looked just fine. Smiling at the lady blowing bubbles. Not acting like an idiot. She looked far more "in control" than he did.

Re:You Know What They Say?

[shutdown -p now]

Why? Because he got pissed off with a couple of assholes who were intentionally baiting him?

His job is to maintain peace and order, and for that he is given considerable authority. This includes the ability to judge the situation accordingly, and not overreact and abuse that authority.

It was not exactly unknown that the G20 would have mass demonstrations of people opposed to it, and that said people wouldn't be happy about the whole thing. The girl in the video clearly was of the harmless kind, though - definitely not something to warrant direct and explicit threats as was done.

But, frankly, I don't think that any explanation whatsoever is needed to any sane person who had seen the video. You only have to look at the expression at the guy's face when he's sticking out his chin at the girl - so "macho"!

Re:You Know What They Say?

[TekNullOG]

Let's all post comments!!!! Maybe we can make him the worlds richest man!!! What an asshole! But seriously, the more people that post, the less his case will stand up in court.

Re:You Know What They Say?

[JWSmythe]

Come on by.

    "Are you attacking me with ... tiny soap bubbles of death? HAHAHAHA! I defeat your bubbles by blowing at them. I defeat your bubbles by poking them"

    When that gets old, I'd reach down and smack the bottom of the bottle so it splashes on her.

    "oops, sorry, I was reaching for my taser."

    Then we could go play "juggle the cameras". I'm not very good at juggling, but it's entertaining while it lasts. Unfortunately, things tend to go up very high, and then down very hard to do some weird thing called .. umm .. gravity. I like the crashy breaky sounds.

    But, I wouldn't arrest you, if I had arresting powers. There are always interesting ways to solve problems.

Re:You Know What They Say?

[c6gunner]

I endure insulting comments and inane questions at work all the time

Yeah, I'm sorry that your boss likes to point out your incompetence, but we're talking different orders of magnitude here.

A cop is supposed to be able to put up with way, WAY worse things in a demonstration environment - they're trained to put up with that sort of crap

No, actually, they're not. If you go out of your way to harass a cop, they can and will arrest you. There is no part of a cops job-description which states "must act as play-thing for every twit he meets", and so police are not trained to take your shit. I'm not sure where you got these weird ideas, but you've been lied to.

Re:You Know What They Say?

[ehrichweiss]

No, homie was being a threatening asshole. Nobody was threatening him and he was just looking to be a dick to make up for the one he doesn't have. The other officer right beside him was cool and didn't give a fuck that she was blowing them because....the girl wasn't brandishing a rock or other weapon. The bubbles also weren't being blown "in his face", she was a good 4 feet away from him. So if you wanna come blow bubbles "in my face" at that range and with the same intensity(5-10 bubbles every 10 seconds or so..hell, I'll give you up to 100 of them), you could ask stupid questions all day long..most I'm gonna do is ignore you.

You know there's this thing called.... *dealing with it*, and cops have to do it too... Of course with your attitude, I'm thinking you're probably a fellow pig(not all officers are pigs but Bubbles is)...maybe even Bubbles himself...

Re:You Know What They Say?

[securitytech]

In your situation, you suggest a police officer decides to walk over and stand in front of you while you're innocently sitting on a park bench.

In the Mr. Bubbles incident, the protester gets in the police officer's faces and continues to blow bubbles directly at their faces from about a foot away after being asked to stop.

Really, the only thing common between the two scenarios is the use of bubbles. Besides that, they couldn't be more different.

I agree the police officer over reacted, but the protester blowing bubbles was trying to provoke the officer. And she was apparently successful at doing so.

Re:You Know What They Say?

[c6gunner]

A cop is supposed to be able to put up with way, WAY worse things in a demonstration environment - they're trained to put up with that sort of crap

And then she'd sue you and the force for millions of dollars, claiming it caused horrible pain and permanent damage when it got in her eyes.

Then we could go play "juggle the cameras".

Yeah, it's a fun game, but unless you can guarantee that you've got ALL the cameras, you're just making things worse.

But, I wouldn't arrest you, if I had arresting powers. There are always interesting ways to solve problems.

I'm betting you've never worked in law enforcement. "interesting ways to solve the problem" usually end up causing more problems than just arresting the fucker. Or at least they do when there are witnesses around.

Re:You Know What They Say?

[sjames]

And sometimes their aggression will severely escalate a situation that was otherwise on it's way to self-diffusing.

In this case, he set himself up. By taking the authoritarian stance with someone who was obviously not a danger at all, he encouraged an us against them mentality and made such a petty demand (under the color of law) that practically anyone would be cheering to have his authority shown up.

Had he taken a friendlier stance, the protester would likely have felt like an ass for disrespecting him and if not, people would be cheering for him to arrest her.

Respect can be either demanded or commanded. Leaders command respect, thugs demand it.

Re:You Know What They Say?

[hesiod]

next thing you know they'll be Wiccan lesbian anarchists

I can see them shrinking.
I can see them getting left-handed.
I can feel them getting the urge to build an igloo.
I can see their skin turning white and their eyes getting red.
I sense they have the urge to buy a Suzanne Vega album!

Re:You Know What They Say?

[Anonymous Coward]

Nah, he stepped in and was all barney badass cause he wanted to impress the woman next to him.

Re:You Know What They Say?

[Anonymous Coward]

It's a fairly standard practice now days. Government official makes a fool of himself on camera, gets ridiculed in the press, and thinks he's now entitled to "compensation" for getting caught on camera being a jerk. I don't agree with the death threats this guy says he's receiving (that kind of behaviour is WAY OUT OF LINE). But he was being an ass, got caught, and now should just STFU and remember to be firm, but more polite, the next time a situation like this comes up.

I like the comment from ColdWetDog (http://idle.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1828646&cid=33950422), the officer should have taken a step back and a much more relaxing posture. It would probably have defused the whole situation which would then have never been "news worthy". This kind of needless aggressive behaviour is sad since most police organizations usually only have a few bad apples that make the whole department look bad. Most cops are just ordinary people doing a job that needs to be done.

Re:You Know What They Say?

[gfreeman]

If "provoking a police officer" were illegal you might have a point. From the video, the girl does not "gets in the police officer's faces" at all, in fact the female officer is happily chatting to the girl from the outset.

At no point after being asked to stop does she blow any bubbles, so bang goes the provokation theory.

Also, a foot? Really?

Re:You Know What They Say?

[gfreeman]

we're talking different orders of magnitude here.

I watched the video, and the horror that cop had to endure was awful. With hand on my heart I seriously hope no-one else ever has to go through such an ordeal. Myself, I've never had anything NEAR as harrowing happen to me in all my life.

Maybe where you're from they don't train police, but where I grew up, the police are quite well trained.

Re:You Know What They Say?

[JWSmythe]

There is no part of a cops job-description which states "must act as play-thing for every twit he meets", and so police are not trained to take your shit.

    There's no part of the job description that says "arrest every twit you meet that isn't absolutely friendly with you" and "pick fights with citizens so you can get your arrest count up"

    If you were a cop and arrested every twit, prick, asshole, sarcastic bastard, backtalking bitch, jit, self-righteous asshole, the local jails would be full of people charged with "didn't play nice" and the courts would be throwing out just about every case.

    The judges would be furious that their courtrooms are not serving justice, but filtering out this crap, and only occasionally hear a real case.

    The citizens will be outraged that a huge percentage of the population gets arrested each and every time they get near a cop.

    And of course, folks will start getting really really pissed off when the cops are busy arresting and transporting nonoffeners, while real crimes are being committed.

    I get it, you're a gunner in the military. You don't have to deal well with others that you don't work with. Shoot 'em all, let the medics sort out the survivors. For the rest of the world, we have to try to get along.

    Damn, and when I've been in Canada, every person I met up there was so annoyingly fucking friendly I was close to snapping, but I did find that liquor brings everyone down to a normal level, and apparently counteracts whatever happy drugs they put in the water and you can suddenly have an intelligent conversation with the locals. I don't know which corner of Canada you came from, but you need to go visit the nearest hospital and get your dose of happy meds, before they deport you to the US where you'd fit right in with the way off nutjobs who favor a police state over a civilized nation.

Re:You Know What They Say?

[Anonymous Coward]

But why does that happen? Is it, perhaps, because there is an innate resistance to such displays of dominance? Knowing a thing happens is not enough to justify a counter-thing.

Re:You Know What They Say?

[Ihateturtlenecks]

No, they admitted to having undercover cops at that protest. There has never been any real evidence the guys with rocks were cops.

Re:You Know What They Say?

[Anonymous Coward]

bubbles really needs a new job, perhaps toilet attendant
what a puppy kicker.

jr

Re:You Know What They Say?

[mywhitewolf]

so you think police are justified in arresting people because they are doing something that the policeman disagrees with on a personal level? Really? that's your argument? what if i find out a cop has a particular religious affinity? and i go out of my way to mock that affinity "God a fag" or something to that affect? would he be justified in arresting me then? how is this different? Also, the female cop obviously saw the funny side of this, she was smirking quite a lot.

Re:You Know What They Say?

[Maxo-Texas]

wow. harsh downmods but still has 11 replies.

Not sure why the mod- nuking. Either too pro police or too anti police for someone I guess.

Re:You Know What They Say?

[neumayr]

What makes evidence "real"? Being upheld in a court of law? I don't know about Canada, but where I'm from suing the police brings you nowhere, it's a waste of your time and really frustrating.
I too have only seen circumstantial evidence, but given how they admitted to having undercover cops there, and police forces often being blamed for employing agent provocateurs with individual officers admitting to it, I tend to believe that some of these undercover cops indeed did intend to provoke the mob. If that was the cops acting on their own or if they really were ordered to is a whole other story.

Re:You Know What They Say?

[c6gunner]

so you think police are justified in arresting people because they are doing something that the policeman disagrees with on a personal level? Really? that's your argument?

I'm sorry, what part of "harassment" did you not understand? Need me to speak more slowly?

what if i find out a cop has a particular religious affinity? and i go out of my way to mock that affinity "God a fag" or something to that affect? would he be justified in arresting me then?

A good friend of mine is a cop, and I mock his religious affiliation on a regular basis. On the other hand, I wouldn't dream of running up to him as part of a giant crowd, while he's on duty, and screaming such insults in his face. If you don't see the difference, you're an idiot, and you deserve no sympathy when you get arrested.

Also, the female cop obviously saw the funny side of this, she was smirking quite a lot.

If she wants to goof off and chat with the crowd instead of doing her job, that's an issue for her and her supervisor to sort out.

Re:You Know What They Say?

[c6gunner]

I watched the video...

... and you know everything about the situation. Bravo, Mr. Armchair Quarterback - you've saved the day again!

Re:You Know What They Say?

[Scrameustache]

so you think police are justified in arresting people because they are doing something that the policeman disagrees with on a personal level? Really? that's your argument?

I'm sorry, what part of "harassment" did you not understand?

The part where you made it up. Watch the fucking video, she stops when asked to stop: That's not harassment.

Harassment is you trolling this thread with your redundant bullshit.

Re:You Know What They Say?

[jeff4747]

On the other hand, I wouldn't dream of running up to him as part of a giant crowd, while he's on duty, and screaming such insults in his face. If you don't see the difference, you're an idiot

The fact that you think there is a difference is a very sad thing for democracy. You have inalienable rights. Use them before an authoritarian such as yourself decides to try and take them.

Re:You Know What They Say?

[c6gunner]

The part where you made it up. Watch the fucking video, she stops when asked to stop: That's not harassment.

Ah yes. That's why there's giant gaps in the footage. Because she just went away after that, and started being a good little girl.

here, have another glass of koolaid.

Harassment is you trolling this thread with your redundant bullshit.

Great, so in addition to having to explain the word "harassment" to you, I now have to explain "trolling" and "redundant"? I think your ESL teacher failed you.

Re:You Know What They Say?

[JWSmythe]

I'm betting you've never worked in law enforcement. "interesting ways to solve the problem" usually end up causing more problems than just arresting the fucker. Or at least they do when there are witnesses around.

    Actually, I have. And diffusing a situation is a lot easier that making it worse.

    The female officer you saw at the beginning of the video had it right. She wasn't confrontational. She was laughing about it. For god's sake, it's just soap bubbles.

Re:You Know What They Say?

[gfreeman]

Looks like a duck, walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, I'll call it a duck. You, on the other hand, are free to call it an elephant, we'll all wait for you.

Re:You Know What They Say?

[c6gunner]

No, it's not just soap bubbles, it's crowd control.

Re:You Know What They Say?

[c6gunner]

Awesome. I'll bet you just LOVE Michael Moore.

Re:You Know What They Say?

[gfreeman]

I do. He's my boyfriend and everything. We're never out of each other's sight.

*sigh*

Re:You Know What They Say?

[c6gunner]

Explains a lot. If you're unwilling to question propaganda, we have no common ground for a discussion. Take care.

Re:You Know What They Say?

[Anonymous Coward]

Lighten up Francis. Time to take your meds.

Re:You Know What They Say?

[NFN_NLN]

You do know that here in Canada we have free health care, including mental-health, right?

So the fact are:
- the police admitted putting "undercover" agents in the civilian crowd.
- the agents were concealing their identities
- they were holding rocks

These are all far more intimidating actions than blowing bubbles into the air which a civilian was punished for.

Perhaps your police buddy can beat some sense into c6gunner.

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2007/08/23/police-montebello.html

"Police said the three undercover officers were only at the protest to locate and identify non-peaceful protesters in order to prevent any incidents.

Police came under fire Tuesday, when a video surfaced on YouTube that appeared to show three plainclothes police officers at the protest with bandanas across their faces. One of the men was carrying a rock.

In the video, protest organizers in suits order the men to put the rock down, call them police instigators and try unsuccessfully to unmask them."

Re:You Know What They Say?

[symbolic]

why did Officer Bubbles have to stick his nose in it?

It wasn't his nose, it was his wiener. Tell me his behavior didn't have testosterone written all over it.

Re:You Know What They Say?

[mr_bubb]

That's bullshit. Nothing was happening. The officer chose to "reach down" as it were and make an issue. It was the officer's actions in fact, that lead to people getting killed. It if would not be assault if it happened to a citizen walking the street, it cannot be assault simply because the officer says it is. Power tends to corrupt; here we see that is has corrupted. If you don't assert your rights, the police are certainly not going to do it for you.

Re:You Know What They Say?

[LifesABeach]

You know the law, "Use a Bubble? go to jail."


"If it was there, you'd eat it" -- Jello Ad, 1970

Re:You Know What They Say?

[yukk]

Probably a good thing you weren't there. I guess you would have just gunned them all down and then there wouldn't have been any more problems huh.

Re:You Know What They Say?

[yukk]

I believe that comment may not - in all truth - have been made in complete seriousness. Maybe you need to check your humour levels. Maybe you need a top-up.

Re:You Know What They Say?

[djdavetrouble]

I'm pretty sure without googling that its "Mad Dogs and Englishmen go out in the midday sun", the 1930's song by Noel Coward. Unless I'm missing something obvious. Sorry to be a sticker.

Re:You Know What They Say?

[Scrameustache]

The part where you made it up. Watch the fucking video, she stops when asked to stop: That's not harassment.

Ah yes. That's why there's giant gaps in the footage. Because she just went away after that

You're speculating that the charming young woman went from being visibly hurt at being interrupted by a fascist while she was having a nice quiet conversation with another cop to some kind of strawman anarchist full of the same bile and hatred as you.

You're full of shit and you know it, stop trolling, STFU and go hide under a bridge, where you belong.

Re:You Know What They Say?

[sarkeizen]

There is no part of a cops job-description which states "must act as play-thing for every twit he meets", Retarded argument. There is no need for someone to act as a play-thing in order for bubble blowing (even *gasp* to the face!) to be something less than right and sufficient cause for arrest. The officer, by the way called the act of bubbles touching him "assault" not harassment.

Reading over his claim it seems he believes that this was an effort to "mock police and diminish their authority". I'd argue that this is at best a tenuous interpretation of the events which in any case does not necessitate harassment and makes idea that the police officer was assaulted ludicrous. However it is interesting to see this window into his mind (through the lens of his lawyers anyway) were I to guess it was the second clause in that statement that made him act. Simply put: He didn't like people *thinking* less of police authority and *that* is something that is not in the job description of police, does not warrant arrest and is something that people should stand up to.

Re:You Know What They Say?

[Maxo-Texas]

No.

I was being serious.

People don't agree but this kind of thing happens.

A flirty pretty girl walked up to a co-worker a decade ago in the parking lot outside a bar and next thing he had a knife in his back and then no car or wallet.

Bad things happen. They start off cute and funny sometimes.

Cops have to be careful (in both directions don't be a jerk and don't be a sucker)

Re:You Know What They Say?

[Maxo-Texas]

Once i"m home I'll have to check out the video. Probably he's being a major jerk from the posts.

Re:You Know What They Say?

[snero3]

here here, well said

Re:You Know What They Say?

[JWSmythe]

From what I could see, crowd control was going fine. Well, until the crowd got pissed off about the arrest.

    Public interaction is far different than a prison environment or military action. You don't have absolute control over the people, and you can't enforce anything you'd like on them.

    Let me give you an example of dealing with a hostile person. This is a real situation I was personally in. It was in a county jail, where we were holding high risk inmates. They were bad felony (murder, rape, etc charges) and state prison felons back in county for hearings. The layout of the jail is pods. Each pod had 4 segments (72 degrees view from the pod control room into each inmate area). Three officers were stationed in the pod control room

    It was the end of the day, and I went in to lock all the inmates down in their cells. They'd always fuck with the officers, especially the felons. I knew the rap sheet on most of them, so I knew what they were in for, and what to expect. I had the lower tier locked down and went up to the upper tier. The first cell I got to, the inmate wouldn't close his door, and was blocking it from being closed. Escalation of force was allowed at that point, since he were being physically non-compliant. I also had other inmates on the tier who hadn't been locked in yet.

    The inmate told me "I already have a life sentence with no parole. I could kill you, and there's nothing worse they can do to me." Again, escalation of force is allowed, due to physical non-compliance, and verbal threat. I could have called for assistance, had him forcibly put in the restraint chair, and put him in solitary confinement. Instead, I said "It's lockdown time. I need to secure your door. Do what you have to do." We went back and forth with his threats and my simple instructions. He may have been able to take me down. He was bigger than me, and he had been convicted of murder, so he could be capable of doing it. If he had, the control room would have had every free officer in the place on him in no time, but I may have still been dead.

    Instead of making the situation worse, I repeated my instructions and didn't show any fear. After a couple minutes, realizing that he couldn't scare me, he laughed, said he liked me, and shut the door.

    Facing a known murderer who may be able to kill me, and knowing that the only retribution would be use of force by other officers (since I'd be down and/or dead), and he'd get another life sentence, I calmed the situation down. After that, he didn't mess with me. I know the word got passed around not to mess with me. Inmates don't have much to do but talk to each other, and figure out how to get out of their shitty situation. I had grief in other pods on occasion, but I treated them fairly. My job is to make sure they didn't escape, they didn't riot, they didn't hurt each other, and they complied with instructions. It's not necessary to make things any worse than they already are.

    I don't know if Officer Bubbles had to, but where I was, every officer had to work in a jail or prison for at least 2 years before being allowed on the road. It does teach you how to deal with very adverse conditions from known worse cases.

    So, the girl blowing bubbles was assaulting him with bubbles. Big fucking deal. She wasn't throwing rocks. She wasn't throwing shit, piss, or blood at him. She wasn't even trying to physically approach him. Diffuse the situation, don't make it worse. It works in jails where they've already proven a disrespect of the law, and it works in public. If (and only if) she had done something worse, would it be worth arresting her. So treat every person you meet like they are a murderer. Unless they've done something to deserve rough handling, there's nothing more that needs to be done. The use of force matrix says what your available options are. They don't say that they maximum level must be used.

Re:You Know What They Say?

[Cyberllama]

No, actually, they're not. If you go out of your way to harass a cop, they can and will arrest you. There is no part of a cops job-description which states "must act as play-thing for every twit he meets", and so police are not trained to take your shit. I'm not sure where you got these weird ideas, but you've been lied to.

It's actually a significant part of their job description. It's pretty much the whole thing. They have to enforce the law, not protect their own egos from a few harsh words.

Re:You Know What They Say?

[Jeremiah Cornelius]

I love the Coward bit - but my reference is to what must be done with mad dogs.

Re:You Know What They Say?

[TheGeneration]

The next thing you know they'll start shooting people for putting daisy's into the muzzle of a rifle.

Re:You Know What They Say?

[rtb61]

Lets be accurate. Officer egoist dickwad was claiming that if a bubble touched him, he would treat it as assault.

So his response would have been to force the girl to the ground, put his knee into her back, twist her arms behind her back and handcuff her and then forcefully lift her by her arms whilst they were now restrained behind her back. It of course would not stop there, they would then detain her, put her in a wire mesh cage for 24 hours, threaten her and feed her one cheese sandwich (it happened to many others), deny her toilet facilities and only provide limited water. That's if she doesn't resist his assault, of she does it get's far worse.

It still doesn't stop there, they would also demand she takes time off work, attend court at her expense and pay for a lawyer if she feels threatened by extended imprisonment for assaulting a police officer (possibly years in prison). The case would then be dropped. All with no charges for the police assault her and, illegally detaining her.

So your telling me a bubble assault warrants that police and legal assault an extremely violent and threatening assault, possibly lethal. Face it bubbles career is over and it would be an embarrassment to be associated with him, now the question is it justified, well that is for each person to individually decide. Personally I think he would do quite well in the US but he is not really fit for a more civilised police force (where the emphasis is on policing no law en"FORCEMENT").

This civil suit will only ensure those cartoons get more gloabl airplay then they ever had before. Officer bubbles ego has obviously gotten ahead of his common sense yet again.

Re:You Know What They Say?

[WitnessForTheOffense]

One second people are blowing bubbles and the next they are throwing bubble bottles and then next it's rocks and people are setting cars and buildings on fire and looting.

Careful, your slippery slope is showing.

Re:You Know What They Say?

[lonecrow]

What a giant waste of time and my money.

What exactly did that women expect to accomplish with her bubble blowing other then what she got?

What was her exact beef with the summit? Did she have an issue? or was she there for the festival and to bait the cops?

I am no fan of heavy handed cops or bureaucratic corruption at any level, but come on. Standing in front of a cop blowing bubbles at them to see what they will do? I am glad the cop had the restraint that he had.

As for the woman, I have no time for her behavior at all. Any thoughts that she had that she was standing up the "the man" and saving the world are just delusions.

Re:You Know What They Say?

[metrix007]

It's kind of idiotic to ignore AC's, not everyone who wants to contribute needs to have an account.

Re:You Know What They Say?

[oldspewey]

Dude, your sense of perspective is way out of whack. They're fucking bubbles.

Re:You Know What They Say?

[oldspewey]

Wow, this is so uncanny, but I also had a co-worker a decade ago, and a flirty pretty girl walked up to him in the parking lot outside a bar, and next thing he was having a conversation with her, and he woke up the next day with no knife in his back, and he still had his car and his wallet.

I think it's time for the entire world to change the training and protocols for police work based on my anecdote.

Re:You Know What They Say?

[oldspewey]

Ever heard of passive protest? You know, where you do something harmless and a little bit fun like blowing bubbles into the air, or handing flowers out to riot police? It must really suck to live inside your skull, where the video linked to TFS shows something that you somehow actually interpret as "baiting."

Re:You Know What They Say?

[ooshna]

Sir (Officer Bubbles), you need to grow a sense of humor. You are in a public position, and in such a position, you may show up in the press which now does include places such as YouTube and Slashdot. In that, people are going to say what they feel, and this is something you're going to have to accept.

I'm sure you're a fine officer, and have done your job well for many years. I seriously hope you haven't arrested every person who's made fun of you.

And stop being a prick. You can't sue every person that says something you don't like. Well, you can, but you're just making yourself look like more of a prick.

Send the subpoena to my home in the antarctic. It shouldn't be hard to find. I put an inverted reindeer on the roof. :)

Your lucky he is Canadian or you'd be barred from ever visiting the country.

Re:You Know What They Say?

[sumdumass]

I'm not sure why everyone is focusing on the bubbles. Blowing the bubbles isn't exactly what made this potentially dangerous. It's the erosion of authority that the act causes that could cause the loss of control over the crowd.

Think of the bubbles as a tool just like a crowbar. It's really the same as the intent was to displace the police's authority emboldening the crowd's. In crowd control, often the only thing that stops illegal or damaging activity is the threat of consequences. With the police being on scene, the threat is there, but if the police allow people to walk all over them and degrade their authority, it presents the appearance of no consequences again. Arresting the girl or smarting back to her in an attempt to reinsert the authority and notion of consequences was proper in keeping control.

The act itself was pretty benign but the effects of the act aren't. This is how you instigate and elevate crowds to more serious actions- showing the crowd that the point of authority isn't authoritative which suggest the lack of consequences for actions. When that happens, all it takes is someone else to incite them and boom, you have almost a riot or a riot like situation which is basically what these people were allegedly going to- a mass protest that has a history of turning into a riot.

Re:You Know What They Say?

[Anonymous Coward]

One second people are blowing bubbles and the next they are throwing bubble bottles and then next it's rocks and people are setting cars and buildings on fire and looting.

It actually happened on my 5 year old's birthday party the other day. Almost at least. They were throwing cars and setting cakes on fire. And the looting! Nothing was left in those candy bowls!

Re:You Know What They Say?

[VJ42]

It's the erosion of authority

The civilian population already have authority over the police - the only reason they are able to police us is because we consent to it; the principle of "policing by consent" is a very important one, at least here in the UK; it's part of the reason why our cops are still unarmed.

Re:You Know What They Say?

[Maxo-Texas]

Wow, life turns out okay 99% of the time! Amazing. I should never be careful or cautious. You've opened my eyes!

---

This is interesting that the anti cop sentiment on slashdot appears to be about as bad as the rabid anti copy right sentiment.

I'm usually in the side disliking the cops and arguing against gross copyright durations. But I can always count on someone here to say musicians and artists shouldn't get any money for even a newly created work (information should be free!) and apparently that cops are always bad- not human beings in a challenging job who are thuggish and lie at times but who also do a job society needs under challenging circumstances.

Re:You Know What They Say?

[Maxo-Texas]

Funny thing you should mention Kent State...

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/04/26/kent-state-riot-police-fi_n_191561.html

Ohio (Kent State), 2009. An end-of-year college block party spiraled out of control as police fired pellets and used pepper spray to break up hundreds of rioting students who sparked a string of street fires at Kent State University.

People riot even when good things happen (like trashing their city after winning a big sports game).

But I imagine the riot was the fault of the police, not the students.

Re:You Know What They Say?

[russotto]

But I imagine the riot was the fault of the police, not the students.

Indeed. The students were apparently just partying in the streets when the cops came down and said 'Get in your houses or we'll arrest you', and then made good on their threats. The cops turned a party into a riot.

Re:You Know What They Say?

[Maxo-Texas]

The students were the ones rioting. They are responsible for their own behavior regardless of the actions of the police. And they were probably engaging in illegal behavior when the cops got pulled in (lateness of the hour, public disturbance, etc.)

Even if someone is sleeping with your husband, that doesn't justify killing them.
You don't get to say, "The cops said to go inside so we were justified in rioting and starting fires".

Re:You Know What They Say?

[B1nd3r DunD4t]

I've lived in Toronto for over 10 years. This guy is an aberration. Toronto Police officers are really friendly and polite. Reeeeeaaaalllllly. That's why this guy went viral.

Re:You Know What They Say?

[sumdumass]

Consent is over the whole of the population not the people within the situation. I'm sure the people going to the G20 summit to protest and cause problems did not consent to the cops breaking those plans up. Just as I'm sure that the bank robbers and drunk drivers do not consent to the cops having authority over them.

While your cops in the UK are generally unarmed, not all of them are and guns aren't far away for them. Mention anything about a weapon and you will find armed cops arriving really quick. Just check out all the pics Google can find of armed cops in England.

Re:You Know What They Say?

[michaelok]

Watch the video - she puts it away immediately after he "asks" her. More correctly, he threatens to arrest her, which seems to happen later anyway. Was the cop looking for any excuse to arrest the people? It seems so. If you watch the other videos, the cops can do pretty much what they want. They were saying things like "That guy has a number on his shirt! Arrest him!". Anyway, it's good to see Canada's finest doing their best to protect the country from bubble blowers. We're all safe, I'm glad that $1 billion dollars was spent wisely, they earned it.

Re:You Know What They Say?

[Maxo-Texas]

Thanks,
Never seen such atrocious modding on a subject.

A riot didn't occur so for all we know, arresting the girl prevented a riot by putting the stupid in the crowd on notice.

Re:You Know What They Say?

[GooberToo]

Correct.

Not only that, but as the officer pointed out, the bubble is a detergent. Detergent is an extremely well known irritant. Pepper spray is another form of irritant. He warned her of the fact that if it landed in someone's eye, it would be assault. Legally that's absolutely correct.

I'm hard pressed to imagine any police officer getting an irritant thrown into their eye who wouldn't arrest you for assault - and rightfully so.

His message was coarse but it was likely in response to a dick hole of a human (the girl). It was pretty clear the girl was going out of her way to be passive aggressive and confrontational with the police; while attempting to walk a line.

Bluntly, the girl is a fucktard and the policeman was rude in response to a dick hole continuously being rude.

Without greater context I can't say I'm angry with the policeman. What I am disappointed to see, is his suit rather than just laughing it off - as should be the case.

Re:You Know What They Say?

[GooberToo]

So your telling me a bubble assault warrants that police and legal assault an extremely violent and threatening assault,

If the bubble has struck an eye, absolutely she would be arrested for assault - as the officer warned.

Re:You Know What They Say?

[rtb61]

My God, then Miss Nancy should be tasered, pepper sprayed and prosecuted for reckless child endangerment. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mDOYOI-L8Zs.

Not only that but Miss Nancy is creating a future generation of bubble terrorists. Get her now before she does more damage. Face it office bubbles was an arrogant dickwad and anybody that tries to defend him is an assclown either that or a swat team needs to put Miss Nancy down.

Re:You Know What They Say?

[GooberToo]

Whoosh!

You've entirely missed the point. If you're purposely projecting an irritant into the face/eyes of someone else, you have committed assault. Period. End of discussion. Simply touching a police officer is assault.

If you don't like the laws, attempt to change them. I fully support your right to do so! Simply whining about enforcement of well established laws makes you, well, a whiner. Whining about a police officer rudely explaining the law to a rude, confrontational, passive aggressive bitch, is pathetic. To make excuses for her behavior is as rude and bizarre as anyone suggesting the police officer's approach is an ideal solution.

Two wrongs don't make a right, but it doesn't change the fact that she was a nut job going out of her way to create confrontation with police.

Re:You Know What They Say?

[mcgrew]

I think your ESL teacher failed you.

-1, flamebait. As are most of your other posts in this thread. The cop was wrong, dude. He was trained to NOT act like that and his actions were counterproductive and foolish. He should have been (and probably was) reprimanded.

Now stop trolling.

Re:You Know What They Say?

[mcgrew]

Never seen such atrocious modding on a subject.

You must be new here.

A riot didn't occur so for all we know, arresting the girl prevented a riot by putting the stupid in the crowd on notice

You never took a psychology course, did you?

Re:You Know What They Say?

[mcgrew]

You need more coffee, your reading comprehension is suffering a bit today. Nobody said anything like "all cops are bad", they're saying THIS COP acted unprofessionally.

Information should be free, but musicians and artists don't create information. And although there are a few here who are vehemently anticopyright, most are simply of the opinion that copyright law is way out of synch with reality and lasts far too long to solve the problems it was originally intended to solve.

I have yet to see a single comment (except yours) saying "musicians and artists shouldn't get any money for even a newly created work". However, I have said myself that nobody ever lost money from piracy, but many artists have had to get honest jobs because of obscurity. The music industry shot themselves in the foot with paid downloads; they should have talked of an uncompressed CD's superiority over compressed downloads, and ussold plastic like they always have. But they have radio and their competetion (indie musicians) don't, so they attack "piracy".

Want to read a book for free? Lots of them at he library. Want to download a book for free? Go to craphound.com/[book name]/download. Want free music? There's shitloads of very good, free, non-RIAA music the artists WANT you to hear.

Re:You Know What They Say?

[Maxo-Texas]

Actually I took two but they probably didn't apply to this situation. Cognitive (we learn things this way, isn't that interesting?) and Industrial ( lighting changes affect productivity- just the changes not any particular change, aren't people interesting?)

I could see this situation playing either way. The cop could be too aggressive and provoke them or the cop could be too weak and provoke them.

The modders and most (but not all) posters seem focused on the wimpy girl and bubbles not the lack of respect which could turn ugly too or the frequent tendency of people to riot for no particular good cause.

I can see both sides, they pretty rabidly only see one side.

Re:You Know What They Say?

[Nemyst]

Whoosh.

Re:You Know What They Say?

[Anonymous Coward]

Hey man your buddy got had, maybe if he had over 1000 of his buddies shoulder to shoulder with him all with bullet proof vests, guns and badges she would have only took his wallet. That's life, bubbles just got off lucky this time I guess.

Re:You Know What They Say?

[rtb61]

So your saying you can aim bubbles, a bubble ring with a telescopic sight perhaps.

Re:You Know What They Say?

[russotto]

The students were the ones rioting. They are responsible for their own behavior regardless of the actions of the police.

That's right, just give the cops a free pass. They can do whatever the hell they want, including throwing people in a cage for no good reason, and any reaction will be judged as if it was completely unprovoked.

Re:You Know What They Say?

[Maxo-Texas]

No that's an overreaction in the other direction.

Rioting has long been a viable tool for oppressed masses to strike back (selective destruction of that catholic church, selective destruction of asian stores in LA riots).

Rioting because someone stopped your party, or because you won a sports game is not a valid reason. You should be rounded up, fined, and sent to jail to prevent similar occurrences.

Rioting should be a tool for desperate people, not for pampered drunken college students.

Re:You Know What They Say?

[Maxo-Texas]

Look at the modding and comments on this thread. It's paramount to "cops are bad, rioting people should get a free pass".

I've seen the "free music" line here on slashdot many many times over the last few years. are you reading the same site? Seriously, they make up about 5 % of the comments in any given copyright discussion thread.

I'm for a reasonable copyright period. I like the 14+14 idea we started with in the US. I also like the "pay an ongoing fee or it goes public domain".

Otherwise, I'm in violent agreement with the rest of your post. The music industry blew it by being greedy, libraries are great, there is a lot of great music (more than I could listen to in the rest of my life) out there at more reasonable prices. And there's basically free legal music on the radio, jango, pandora. Other free music- the signal to noise ratio is pretty bad. You suggest craphound. I'll have to look at it.

Do you know of any reviewer/filter for free music to rate/weed out the dross?

Re:You Know What They Say?

[mcgrew]

Do you know of any reviewer/filter for free music to rate/weed out the dross?

No, but then "one man's meat is another man's poison". I do remember reading about a system/program/website/? that reccomended choices based on what you've chosen before, but it's been a few years and I can't remember the particulars.

Re:You Know What They Say?

[Surt]

Responding to police misconduct of that gravity with a riot is pretty much what you do. Either revolt against or enjoy your oppression.

Re:You Know What They Say?

[Anonymous Coward]

The moment he referred to blowing bubbles as "assault", he lost all respect from that crowd and most of the human race.

It's also not required that the people "respect" the cops, by law or otherwise. If he wanted respect he needed to GIVE respect. Instead he was a ego-maniacal asshole who wanted to escalate the situation by any means necessary. By any means necessary, what a brilliant concept; I wonder what happens when the People start using that concept instead of the corrupt pigs.

Re:You Know What They Say?

[pnewhook]

But you have to admit it was really annoying for the officer. I'd like to see anyone be able to stand there and have bubbles blown in their face for any length of time and not get annoyed. The girl was just being stupid and deliberately confrontational.

Re:You Know What They Say?

[pnewhook]

What if someone stood at your desk at work and blew bubbles on you all day? How long before you would get pissed off and say 'stop it!'.

Re:You Know What They Say?

[ehrichweiss]

First of all, this was a cop, not an office worker(I'm not an office worker either for that matter). Officers are held to a higher standard due to the oath they swear. Secondly, getting pissed off and saying "stop it" doesn't remotely compare to threatening to arrest someone for assault over said bubbles; much less apparently doing so. Perhaps you missed those minor points.

Seriously, is this the best you could come up with?

Countersuit

[Conspiracy_Of_Doves]

They need to collectively countersue him for legal fees.

Re:Countersuit

[Jeremiah Cornelius]

"Men will never be free until the last policeman is strangled with the entrails of the last banker"
-- Diderot, or so.

Re:Countersuit

[NFN_NLN]

They need to collectively countersue him for legal fees.

Seriously, how is this sue worthy:

  Pussymcfats wrote in response, “officer bubbles probably looks at himself in the mirror a lot.”

Officer Bubbles was abusing his power then and he's trying to do it again.

Re:Countersuit

[tunapez]

"Men will never be free until the last policeman is strangled with the entrails of the last banker"
-- Diderot, or so.

Where do the lawyers fit into that scenario?

Re:Countersuit

[Rip Dick]

They were the first against the wall, duh...

Re:Countersuit

[BitterOak]

They need to collectively countersue him for legal fees.

Keep in mind though, Canadian law works very differently than U.S. law, particularly in matters of free speech. Truth is not an absolute defense in Canada as it is in the U.S. People can sue for harassment over statements made online even if the statements are true. Also, it isn't so easy to collect legal fees from the losing party in Canada either. So, I'm not sure there'd be a cause of action in a counterclaim.

I guess the real lesson to be learned here is, if you are going to mock someone on Youtube, do not supply real identifying information when you set up your Youtube account. (I have at least three Youtube accounts. One under my real name, one under an alias, and one under an alias that I only log into through Tor.)

Re:Countersuit

[Scrameustache]

They need to collectively countersue him for legal fees.

Seriously, how is this sue worthy:

  Pussymcfats wrote in response, “officer bubbles probably looks at himself in the mirror a lot.”

Since the truth hurts, that guy was inflicting emotional distress! Won't somebody PLEASE think of the narcissists?

Re:Countersuit

[Anonymous Coward]

You're forgetting the lawyers.

Re:Countersuit

[causality]

"Men will never be free until the last policeman is strangled with the entrails of the last banker" -- Diderot, or so.

Where do the lawyers fit into that scenario?

In this fictional scenario, the lawyers go out of business after the bankers and cops go away.

Why?

[Dyinobal]

Why is it anyone with even the smallest position of power in government seem to think they can just sue everyone over the stupidest things.

Re:Why?

[RapmasterT]

You might be new here (on planet earth), but positions of authority have little to nothing to do with the propensity of people to sue each other.

Re:Why?

[Penguinisto]

Because they're used to exercising petty authority, and cannot stand having their miniscule power challenged. This has been the case since humans first built cities.

Just be glad this retard doesn't have the power of life and death like his contemporaries had in ancient times. Just goes to show - the best measure of civilization is the ease with which a citizen can point and laugh at a stupid official.

Re:Why?

[magarity]

Just be glad this retard doesn't have the power of life and death like his contemporaries had in ancient times
 
Ancient times? You need to travel more - most cops do have that power in any developing country you could list.

Re:Why?

[AmElder]

And in the USA, too. Check out the story of a college defensive back at Pace University who was recently killed by police after a misunderstanding outside a night club. Aside, I hope, from terrible guilt, the officers in that case, and many others, wont suffer much for their deadly mistake. Officer Bubbles was wearing body armor. I imagine he carried a firearm and is empowered to use it. That, and protection from even deadly misconduct, give him and many like him power of life and death. And don't think that the fact that a public protest in view of cameras in broad daylight will necessarily make them hold back.

But this applies to power in general, not just government authority. You'll find people who abuse power in the workplace, in crime, among religious leaders, and anywhere else you care to look.

Re:Why?

[ehrichweiss]

No, when you're in a position of power, you tend to see yourself as infallible and as such any actions against you tend to prop up that feeling of infallibility and piousness, and since you're already acting from a position of "righteousness", you tend to sue(or seek other legal action). Regardless, the average joe will let something slide because they realize that they're not perfect and that they may have done something that would affect the outcome anyway..like maybe harassed an innocent person.... You can see this in such instances as that representative from North Carolina(I think) who thought he could manhandle a college student who was simply asking him questions on camera...

Re:Why?

[Dorkmaster Flek]

Sir, I represent Officer Bubbles and am hereby serving you notice of your inclusion in this lawsuit for the above comment.

Re:Why?

[Labcoat Samurai]

Perhaps he should just take your word for that rather than traveling more.

Re:Why?

[schwit1]

No doubt. The wealthiest area of the country(Northern virginia) permits its officers to commit homicide knowing their will be no charges.

The furtive gesture justification
https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/01/27/AR2010012703907.html

The accidental discharge defense
https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/03/23/AR2006032301117.html

Forgot to pay the bill
https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/02/27/AR2006022701515.html

You have no right to know what the police are up to
http://reason.com/archives/2010/06/29/police-blackout

Re:Why?

[KnownIssues]

Uh, cops *do* have the power of life and death.

ugh

[pak9rabid]

Well..it's good to see that it's not only cops in the US that are douches...

Re:ugh

[jdgeorge]

Well..it's good to see that it's not only cops in the US that are douches...

And I was thinking "it's good to see that it's not only people in the US that are douches..."

Re:ugh

[grub]

Careful, Officer Bubbles will sue you for $1M as well.

Re:ugh

[Jeremiah Cornelius]

Yes. In Canada they're Royal douches!

Re:ugh

[Anonymous Coward]

Well..it's good to see that it's not only cops in the US that are douches...

And I was thinking "it's good to see that it's not only people in the US that are douches..."

Cops aren't people, silly!

Re:ugh

[shadowfaxcrx]

The amusing bit is that somehow I missed hearing about the whole Officer Bubbles thing until he decided to sue, which brought him up in the news again. Had the little jackass just kept his mouth shut and taken his well-deserved lumps for arresting a girl for assault-with-a-deadly-bubble, I'd never have known about him. I'm sure there are many others out there in the same boat. So he's brought quite a bit more shame and embarrassment on himself with this latest stunt.

I wonder if he'll sue.

Re:ugh

[dgatwood]

Streisand effect.

This guy was seriously power tripping in the video. Why should anybody be surprised to find that he responds similarly to criticism? I suspect that even the officer next to him thinks he's a jackass, judging by how hard it looked like she was struggling to bite her tongue.

Congrats, "Officer Bubbles". In my opinion, and that of most of the Internet viewing public, you just proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that you do not belong in uniform. Cops who are incapable of treating others with courtesy have no business interacting with the public. Give that guy a desk job, make him a crime scene investigator, whatever, but take him the heck off of any sort of duty where he interacts with the public on a regular basis.

P.S. To "Officer Bubbles", I hope the people you are suing hit you with a SLAPP-back suit so fast it makes your LAWYER shit his pants... followed by having your sorry ass brought up on barratry charges.

Welcome to the real world, where criticism is protected speech (unless it is threatening or libelous in nature, which opinions almost by definition cannot be).

Re:ugh

[Trails]

We even have Royal Mounted Douches. Nothing is douchier than a horse's ass sitting on a horse.

Re:ugh

[OldSoldier]

When I first read this I though some officer had the unfortunate last name of "Bubbles" and that the protestor was blowing bubbles as a mockery of his name. I was all set to have a smidgeon of sympathy for the officer. But then I saw the video. Nope... "Bubbles" was not his surname, he was just a dick.

Re:ugh

[Mashiki]

Actually no he's not power tripping. Defamation of a public figure and suing over that is legal in Canada.

Welcome to Canada post Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Then again most people outside of Canada, and most inside Canada have no clue how the law works here.

Re:ugh

[shentino]

This is nothing more than a SLAPP attempt.

This story does not belong in idle.

If it wasn't IRL I'd say it belongs in YRO.

Re:ugh

[toadlife]

He defamed himself via his behavior.

Re:ugh

[Mashiki]

He was following the rule, and the letter of the law. He didn't defame himself. Useful thing to know, if you don't like the law change it.

Re:ugh

[Anonymous Coward]

In my opinion, and that of most of the Internet viewing public, you just proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that you do not belong in uniform. Cops who are incapable of treating others with courtesy have no business interacting with the public. ).

This.

Re:ugh

[Cornelius the Great]

Blowing bubbles is against the law? And is mocking his reaction illegal as well? Inquiring minds want to know.

Can police arbitrarily make up laws, or do we still leave that to the politicians?

Re:ugh

[RealGrouchy]

Unfortunately, Ontario doesn't have anti-SLAPP legislation. Contact your MPP to fix this!

- RG>

Re:ugh

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

He was following the rule, and the letter of the law. He didn't defame himself.

How can mocking him for following the letter of the law be considered defamation? Isn't defamation harming a person's reputation through libel or slander - neither of which would apply to openly laughing at someone for following the law.

Re:ugh

[dgatwood]

That really only matters if the person being sued is in Canada.... :-)

Re:ugh

[kalirion]

Honestly I don't see him saying anything out of line. I do wonder what happened between the that part and the "moments later" when some of the protesters were arrested. Why were they arrested?

Re:ugh

[canwaf]

Don't you mean Her Majesty's douches?

Re:ugh

[SleazyRidr]

Ooh. Can I get in on that too?

OFFICER BUBBLES IS AN PATHETIC EXCUSE FOR A MAN WHO IS CLEARLY ONLY WEARING A UNIFORM TO TRY AND GAIN SOME RESPECT WHICH HE COULD NEVER GET THROUGH HIS PERSONALITY OR ACTIONS! THERE IS NO PLACE FOR HIM, OR PEOPLE LIKE HIM IN THE POLICE FORCE.

Come on, sue me too! You worthless little piece of scum. We both know that if it weren't for the uniform you'd be like a scared little kid hiding in the corner, so keep on hiding behind that lawsuit.

Alright, I tried adding non-capitalized insults to get around the lameness filter, but I'm not really creative enough to come up with enough of them, so I'm adding this to the bottom of the post to see if this works. Is this enough yet? Apparently so.

Re:ugh

[Anonymous Coward]

Politicians don't write laws, lobbyists do.

Re:ugh

[FailedTheTuringTest]

Sorry, I have to disagree. It is NOT good to see that it's not only cops in the US that are douches.

Re:ugh

[Anonymous Coward]

No SLAPP in Canada, eh!

Re:ugh

[Eskarel]

He was a douche. The letter of the law is deliberately broad to protect police from things the legislators didn't think of. People think of shitty things to do to the police all the time that no one had thought to legislate against. The fact that that discretion exists and is necessary doesn't mean that officers have the right to use that discretion to be a douche.

If the public weren't up in arms about it, then he wouldn't be suing, he'd just be a cop doing his job.

Re:ugh

[Technician]

I do know that due to the nice guys never wanting to send me anything nice and bad guys wanting to do me harm, I tend to run a little in the paranoid mode. And yes this officer is wanting to do lots of people lots of real harm.

Due to bad people on the net, I generally post in coward mode. My email with this account is in another country, no real name is given, and the email associated with the account has no real name or address registered. They can sue my avatar, but won't get him to show up in court. They can get a default judgment and not receive a check. It will take more trouble than it is worth to track down the correct user of the ISP's IP address.

I am behind a NAT/Firewall with many users.

Re:ugh

[dgatwood]

Also,, even in Canada, truth is an absolute defense, as is opinion. Slander/libel requires stating something as a fact that is not true, at least under English common law and bodies of law derived from it.

Oh, yeah, and Canada does have an anti-SLAPP law, the Protection of Public Participation Act.

Re:ugh

[Jeremiah Cornelius]

Yes, but they no longer come from Harrod's, Mr. Fayed.

Re:ugh

[Naznarreb]

Seriously. Every attorney in the world needs to be familiar with the Streisand Effect and when their clients want to start suing people over being embarrassed on the internet they need to say, "OK, we can file this, but you should know it's going to get picked up by Fark/Digg/Slashdot/Reddit/4chan/etc and then you'll really know what being slandered on the web is like. The only thing you'll be able to hope is that someone even more ridiculous comes along and distracts them before they get a hold of your personal contact information."

Re:ugh

[causality]

Well..it's good to see that it's not only cops in the US that are douches...

Uh, it is? If all the douchebag cops were confined to a single country that would be one hell of an improvement.

The sad fact is, dickheads who love to push people around are strongly attracted to positions like that. This is a global phenomenon.

Streisand effect coming

[Anonymous Coward]

in 3...2...1...

Re:Streisand effect coming

[EasyTarget]

Yeah.. I love the way 'Officer Bubbles (*)' laywer is saying 'the videos are now removed and that is the end of it'.

Someone is about to have a very bad morning.

(*) I'd make a joke about Michael Jackson and chimps in uniform here, but mocking the dead... now that -is- sick.

Re:Streisand effect coming

[bluefoxlucid]

Yeah my first thought was "What the hell is this bullshit?"

Re:Streisand effect coming

[The Master Control P]

It warms me heart and soul when some petty authoritarian dick gets rudely slapped by reality.

Re:Streisand effect coming

[Anonymous Coward]

I for one intend to begin making videos mocking him so I can be sued.

Drinking session

[Darkman, Walkin Dude]

Crazy stuff. Police officers are trained to create a zone of control around themselves, which would include things like threatening random passers-by and generally acting like thugs, its standard crowd control tactics, and while very far from acceptable civilised behaviour, it does work. The commenters didn't understand this, and the police officer didn't understand the commenters, and its all going to make bunch of lawyers wealthy. They should all sit down together and get drunk and forget about the whole thing.

Re:Drinking session

[h4rr4r]

It seems having them behave more like public servants and less like gangbangers might be helpful in more cases than just this one.
The gang in blue somedays seems far more dangerous to public safety than many others.

Re:Drinking session

[Darkman, Walkin Dude]

Standard crowd control tactics. If you're facing an ugly mob that hugely outnumbers you, the only way to keep things under control is often to convince the crowd that you're uglier. I agree that a lot of LEOs everywhere take the concept to places it shouldn't be though.

Re:Drinking session

[geekoid]

No. Officer bubble should sit down with a psychiatrist. Other people didn't do anything wrong.

Re:Drinking session

[h4rr4r]

Normally the crowd is far less an ugly mob than the cops. The police often go looking for a fight. Even if we say he was totally blameless there, these tactics are wholly unsuited for normal interactions with people.

Re:Drinking session

[moogied]

Wow. He was using crowd control tactics? To do what exactly? Piss them off? Let me give you some advice.. when you yell? People try to ignore you. When you whisper? People try to listen.

Re:Drinking session

[Darkman, Walkin Dude]

That's correct, they didn't. The point of the operation isn't to take out the troublemakers and to give everyone else a big hug, that's impossible, its to ensure that the mob mentality doesn't scent weakness. This is why, I'm not saying it's right, but it is an explanation. Another example was the guy wandering past a police line in the UK a while back, an officer rapped him on the leg for getting too close, and he got a heart attack around the corner. All he was doing was taking a shortcut home, but the officers were just doing what they were trained to do.

Re:Drinking session

[jandrese]

I know we didn't get to see the crowd very well, but the part of we we did see in that video was anything but ugly. Mostly just people milling about, taking pictures, and one lady blowing bubbles. It wasn't exactly a mob situation. It didn't even sound very angry in the background.

Re:Drinking session

[Darkman, Walkin Dude]

A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky dangerous animals and you know it.

Re:Drinking session

[Darkman, Walkin Dude]

He's not entirely blameless, he should grow up and not bother suing people. However, they are trained to create a zone of control, which means they need to make crowds think they are tougher and meaner. Standard police tactics.

Re:Drinking session

[Archangel Michael]

Now why didn't I think of that?

Re:Drinking session

[trentblase]

Are you for real? Don't you know bubbles are a detergent? A DETERGENT for God's sake! The situation was on the precipice of doom. DOOOM!

Re:Drinking session

[ObsessiveMathsFreak]

That can't be true!!! I have the right to swing my fists about wildly within millimeters of anyones face as long as I don't hit them!! If that right is taken away, especially when used in the midst of a truculent crowd, then whither liberty!?!

Help, Help! We're being repressed!

Re:Drinking session

[Scrameustache]

Standard crowd control tactics. If you're facing an ugly mob

Cute girl blowing bubbles scares the ever living shit out of a 6+ feet tall, heavily armed and well backed-up man, see it on youTube!

Re:Drinking session

[srussia]

I agree that a lot of LEOs everywhere take the concept to places it shouldn't be though.

Ya, like Iridium Communications.

Re:Drinking session

[Darkman, Walkin Dude]

Yup, I'm not saying he was justified, but in all likelihood he was just doing exactly as his training dictated. That he's decided to try and make bank at this stage does cast him in a more douche-y light though, he'd have gotten a lot more respect among people who know what's really going on if he'd just let it slide.

Re:Drinking session

[elrous0]

That's true. But it still doesn't justify him suing everyone that pointed and laughed at him afterward (if it did, I would have a bunch of big settlements from the day I went to school wearing Spock ears).

Re:Drinking session

[PhilHibbs]

Er, that's exactly what the parent poster said. It's the cops' intention to out-intimmidate the mob. And, when you're interacting with a mob, you have to treat them differently from how you would treat individual people, because they will not behave the way individual people behave. I do feel sorry for him - she was provoking him, and he faced her down. I notice that we didn't see why she was being put up against the wall and put in a van, that is left to our imaginations.

Re:Drinking session

[Darkman, Walkin Dude]

Absolutely.

Re:Drinking session

[h4rr4r]

Standard police tactics seem to often be not ideal. Being tougher and meaner is a great way to make a bad situation worse. Defusing situations should be the ideal not just cracking skulls.

Re:Drinking session

[h4rr4r]

If they just act without thinking, why not use machines instead?
Seems like it would be cheaper.

Re:Drinking session

[Darkman, Walkin Dude]

Thats the point though - they are thinking, just not in a way that's immediately understandable to most people.

Re:Drinking session

[suomynonAyletamitlU]

Police officers are trained to create a zone of control around themselves, which would include things like threatening random passers-by and generally acting like thugs, its standard crowd control tactics, and while very far from acceptable civilised behaviour, it does work.

If "standard crowd control tactics" doesn't accomplish anything and introduces new liabilities, they should rewrite their playbook.

"Civilized" means "we gave up power so that there would be less evil in the world; we can't be consumed by fear and doubt and in that panic destroy people." As a tradeoff, certain trustworthy individuals must have power to prevent those who remain un-civilized from harming others. The only reason that's okay is because they can be trusted. He showed then, and he's showing now, he can't be trusted. He will be consumed, and he will hurt people, and he doesn't care. Get him off the fucking street.

Re:Drinking session

[Scrameustache]

I know we didn't get to see the crowd very well, but the part of we we did see in that video was anything but ugly. Mostly just people milling about, taking pictures, and one lady blowing bubbles. It wasn't exactly a mob situation. It didn't even sound very angry in the background.

This is a G20 summit meeting, these people are there to protest their policies. Therefore, they are opposed to the entrenched power, therefore they are to subdued, beaten, and subjugated. That is what Toronto Police constable Adam Josephs was telling himself, as he wished the camera wasn't there so he could show that little white bitch who's the real man in that street. Sure, Adam Joseph probably can't get "it" up, but the city of Toronto conveniently provides him with a big black rod he can use for just such an occasion.

Yes, I believe Toronto Police Const. Adam Josephs is a potential rapist, and believe that he does not routinely act on his impulses only because he has difficulty maintaining an erection. I do hope that litigious bastard doesn't find out who I am, he would surely sue me, and attempt to insert his night stick in my rectum to compensate for his lack of genital endowment through acts of abuse of power such as the one depicted in the video.

Re:Drinking session

[h4rr4r]

Smacking anyone who walks by with a stick is not thinking, it is what animals do.

The plain fact is they signed up to risk their lives, not to risk other peoples lives, yet they act in the opposite of this manner.

Just doing what you were trained to do, is not thinking, It is repetition, no different than the cat coming running when the tuna fish can is opened.

Re:Drinking session

[h4rr4r]

I am saying it is the wrong idea. Acting that way only incites the mob to violence. Which is actually what the police really want. Then they can bust some heads.

Re:Drinking session

[tenco]

Crazy stuff. Police officers are trained to create a zone of control around themselves, which would include things like threatening random passers-by and generally acting like thugs, its standard crowd control tactics, and while very far from acceptable civilised behaviour, it does work.

Thugs are for fascists. Like, blackshirts and brownshirts. So what does it tell us about the state of a democracy if random, peaceful people are arrested and beaten for disagreeing or even doing basically nothing.

Re:Drinking session

[Darkman, Walkin Dude]

You've got your parties muddled up - I'm not trying to justify it, just telling you how it is.

Re:Drinking session

[josteos]

DOOOOM indeed. A very squeaky clean, colorsafe DOOOOOM!

Re:Drinking session

[Mikkeles]

"but the officers were just doing what they were trained to do.'

Murder people?

Re:Drinking session

[scot4875]

This may be true, but he's trying to look tougher and meaner than someone blowing bubbles. About all that would take is some harsh language like, "knock that off, knucklehead."

--Jeremy

Re:Drinking session

[Darkman, Walkin Dude]

Is rapping someone on the leg with a truncheon a normal way to commit murder?

Re:Drinking session

[Anonymous Coward]

You can keep on saying it, but it doesn't make it true.

Re:Drinking session

[ColdWetDog]

Freud much?

Re:Drinking session

[h4rr4r]

Please clarify?

You are even the one that pointed out they act only by their training, with no thought.

Re:Drinking session

[h4rr4r]

You will find if you did that it would be.

The famous legal thought problem has to do with a thin skull, but this is the same thing.

Re:Drinking session

[Anonymous Coward]

heh terrorist bubbles!

Re:Drinking session

[Heretic2]

Apparently you haven't seen RED yet. Detergent + Ammonia/Draino/some-household-cleaner = Big Boom.

I'm pretty sure everything you see in the movies are true. /facetious

Re:Drinking session

[Mister Whirly]

Yeah, but when the maniacs have something as deadly as soap bubbles, well all bets are off. A man has got to do what a man has got to do to protect society from bubbles. I don't like to use the term hero lightly, but in this case...

Re:Drinking session

[QRDeNameland]

Yup, I'm not saying he was justified, but in all likelihood he was just doing exactly as his training dictated.

If so, why didn't the female officer next to him *not* react in the same way, instead silently bearing a look of embarrassment for her colleague's overreaction? Would she not have received the same training?

Re:Drinking session

[QRDeNameland]

Sorry, "why *did* the female officer *not* react...."?

Re:Drinking session

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, I was particularly fond of that part of the video (which I had heard nothing about, before this /. story) where he says: "IT'S A DETERGENT".

Reality check:

1) most detergents are actually pretty harmless, even when the eye is directly exposed to it: just rinse it off with water and you'll be a-ok (unlike tear gas);
2) the cop is wearing glasses; how the fuck is the detergent going to harm him? oh, ok... maybe he has a protective layer of cruft that can't be exposed to detergent or whatever;
3) unless someone actually sprays detergent at the officer's eyes, I see no harm done: it's not like you can control the bubble's trajectory ("brownian motion", motherfucker, have you heard of it?).

Re:Drinking session

[FishCalledOscar]

Get drunk with Officer Bubbles? How unpleasant. Shitting glass would be more fun.

Re:Drinking session

[Kozz]

...They should all sit down together and get drunk and forget about the whole thing.

So, like, a Molson Summit, eh?

Re:Drinking session

[dgatwood]

I think it's pretty clear from the video that he wasn't talking to the mob. He was talking one-on-one to a single individual.

It took all of two seconds to find a copy of the video in question here. Not sure why the officer's lawyer thinks they got it taken down successfully unless I'm missing something....

I just love the look of shock on the female cop's face when this guy suddenly butted into a polite conversation between her and the completely peaceful, friendly female protester and threatened to arrest her for assault if one of the bubbles touched him. The "tell" was that her jaw dropped *very* visibly. So even other cops on scene thought his behavior was out of line. Based on that, it's hard to believe anyone could defend his behavior.

Re:Drinking session

[Darkman, Walkin Dude]

She only looked embarrassed for a moment, then you will observe the training kicked in. I'm not trying to psychoanalyse individual officers here, just telling you what the process is. You will no doubt see it again and again and again, so it might be helpful keep in mind the reason for it.

Re:Drinking session

[Anonymous Coward]

Yep and you saying that the police officer was correct for getting pissy about bubbles, doesnt make it true either. I don't know why she was soon arrested, but if it was for more bubbles then I say the cop needs to be fired.. immediately.

In fact I would have immediately blown more bubbles in his general direction when he told me to stop. Take me to court, Ill make you look like a jackass in front of the world. Assault with a deadly bubble. Hell I would have turned around and put my hands behind my back the second he threatened to arrest me.

Why do we let these public servants treat all people like they are criminals?

It looks like even his partner thought he was a douche.

Hey Officer Bubbles. YOUR A DOUCHE BAG!
I await my lawsuit.

Re:Drinking session

[Cwix]

You right... Officers should be allowed to hit people for getting too close to them.. They have a personal bubble the size of their baton. Lord help someone who violates the baton sized bubble.

Re:Drinking session

[funkatron]

Another example was the guy wandering past a police line in the UK a while back, an officer rapped him on the leg for getting too close, and he got a heart attack around the corner. All he was doing was taking a shortcut home, but the officers were just doing what they were trained to do.

If this is the incident I think it is you need to watch the video again. It clearly shows an unprovoked assault which is then ignored by the other officers present. If the officers are trained to do this then we have got a serious problem

Re:Drinking session

[Darkman, Walkin Dude]

Acting according to training does not imply acting without thought. However you seem determined to get offended no matter what is said, along with that person with mod points who had his two minutes hate rained on, so eh good luck with that.

Re:Drinking session

[Darkman, Walkin Dude]

Where did I say it should be allowed? Lot of people determined to get upset in this thread.

Re:Drinking session

[h4rr4r]

Again you confirm it would be cheaper to use machines.
The "process" clearly involves removing their ability to reason.

Re:Drinking session

[Tanktalus]

("brownian motion", motherfucker, have you heard of it?).

I'm going to bet "no".

Then again, I only learned about brownian motion due to reading about a slightly warm cup of liquid that was not entirely unlike tea. But I'm not sure this guy would respect a book any more than a bubble.

Oh crap, I'm going to be sued for 1m, too.

Re:Drinking session

[h4rr4r]

Acting according to training without thinking if the training is valid in this case is acting without thought. I am not offended by anything you said, I merely disagree.

I can see how someone so stuck on authority might confuse the two though.

Re:Drinking session

[Darkman, Walkin Dude]

And did you see her face about ten seconds later? I have no idea why people take it personally when the reasons for things happening are explained to them. Nobody as far as I can see is defending it, either.

Re:Drinking session

[QRDeNameland]

She only looked embarrassed for a moment, then you will observe the training kicked in.

Not sure what you mean by "training kicked in", so I watched it again. At first, the female officer is smiling. Then OB threatens the girl with arrest if a bubble hits him. Then it cuts back to the female officer looking embarrassed. Then we cut back to the girl and OB. Then it cuts back to the female officer, and she's smirking. That's the last we see of her in this video, and even if my reading of her facial expression is subjective, the fact that shows no other physical or verbal reaction is not.

She obviously does not react in the same way that OB does, and I'm puzzled as to what you think shows that her "training kicked in" (meaning that she would react in a similar way to OB since they would have similar training).

Re:Drinking session

[Darkman, Walkin Dude]

Are you trying to dehumanise them by constantly referring to machines?

Re:Drinking session

[Darkman, Walkin Dude]

She obviously does not react in the same way that OB does, and I'm puzzled as to what you think shows that her "training kicked in" (meaning that she would react in a similar way to OB since they would have similar training).

Eh despite another poster trying to paint them as robots, they are in fact human beings and will react differently until certain situations start occurring or they realise that others think they are occurring. If it was so distasteful to her why didn't she stop it from happening or interfere in some way? Solidarity? Why do you think police officers in every developed country act the same way in crowd control situations? And they do. Unless you're saying that most police officers are congenitally vicious thugs.

Re:Drinking session

[SmackTheIgnorant]

THANK YOU!

If I had points, I'd mod you up. He may have gone a tad overboard... she was clearly trying to piss them off, to get a response... Police in this situation are not necessarily dealing with sane, rational people. Group mentality can be a dangerous mentality, where it only takes a few to lead a large group into something they ordinarily wouldn't be doing.

As for her being put into a van: One can only guess. I just listened to the first words out of the woman's mouth, and wanted to toss a bucket of water on her... There's no respect towards the officers who are there to do a job, there's only attitude towards "the establishment", trying to be coy and smart for the cameras. With a little luck, she'll grow up before she gets into serious trouble.

Re:Drinking session

[h4rr4r]

No, only simply explain how they behave
They do whatever their training dictates without any thought to if it applies to this situation, which is how a machine works.

They dehumanize themselves, when we read about stuff like this, or police shooting children or beating/tazing the crippled.

Re:Drinking session

[Darkman, Walkin Dude]

Then I guess we have got a serious problem. I'm actually surprised this is news to a lot of people, although I can see why the police wouldn't broadcast it. Once you know what they're doing its not half as intimidating.

Re:Drinking session

[h4rr4r]

You implied it. When you explain someones actions without clearly stating you disagree with them you are implying agreement.

You act as though this is the normal and correct course of action, even when these people are committing what any reasonable person would consider criminal actions.

Re:Drinking session

[Khyber]

Dunno, that 1guy1jar dude might disagree with you, there.

Re:Drinking session

[Darkman, Walkin Dude]

Oh fuck off you zealot. Your inability to deal with reality is not my problem, and the reality is this is the training they receive. Go witchunt somewhere else. And for the record, I don't think its right.

Re:Drinking session

[MozeeToby]

Haha! Did you really just call an attractive 20-something woman blowing bubble's an "ugly mob"? That's... just... I salute you my friend, your logic is astounding. I mean, wow, that mob was so ugly that the other officer at the scene was talking with one of the 'rioters' in question with a smile on her face. That. is. terrifying.

His 'crowd control' tactics are what cause the riots 50% of the time. Take a look at La Cross WI Halloween riots, for years there would be a violent riot every Halloween, until the police finally realized that the rioters were responding to their presence in full riot gear blocking streets. So they changed tactics, got the bars to serve out of plastic bottles, pulled the riot cops, and reassigned them to be fast responders to break up bar fights and whatnot. The result? No riots at all, not even an 'ugly mob' to be found.

Re:Drinking session

[shermo]

Is it too soon to Godwin this thread?

Re:Drinking session

[funkatron]

Can I suggest that you rewatch the videos. Saying that the filth are trained to do that is a pretty nasty accusation.

Re:Drinking session

[Darkman, Walkin Dude]

Haha! Did you really just call an attractive 20-something woman blowing bubble's an "ugly mob"? That's... just... I salute you my friend, your logic is astounding.

Hi there, we call that a generalisation around these parts, as in the general case.

I mean, wow, that mob was so ugly that the other officer at the scene was talking with one of the 'rioters' in question with a smile on her face. That. is. terrifying.

His 'crowd control' tactics are what cause the riots 50% of the time. Take a look at La Cross WI Halloween riots, for years there would be a violent riot every Halloween, until the police finally realized that the rioters were responding to their presence in full riot gear blocking streets. So they changed tactics, got the bars to serve out of plastic bottles, pulled the riot cops, and reassigned them to be fast responders to break up bar fights and whatnot. The result? No riots at all, not even an 'ugly mob' to be found.

Great, maybe you could get yourself elected and mandate that this procedure be used in all crowd control situations, rather than inflicting your diamond sharp responses in between web wanks on the rest of us?

Re:Drinking session

[tsm1mt]

>They should all sit down together and get drunk and forget about the whole thing. Perhaps Obama can reach out across the northern border and have another Beer Summit to smooth things over.

Re:Drinking session

[Darkman, Walkin Dude]

That the rest of the officers didn't rein him in should tell you something. Zone of control...

Re:Drinking session

[crath]

Someone blowing bubbles in your face is considered rude; especially when they continue to do so after you've asked them to stop. Yes, the cop over-reacted; but, the woman blowing bubbles was also behaving in a socially unacceptable manner.

Re:Drinking session

[Anonymous Coward]

This wasn't a bad situation that needed defusing. To prevent anything that needs defusing from happening officers must project authority. If an officer lets a girl blow bubbles on him, his authority is declining fast and then there might be real trouble. He did at first use a friendly tone to inform the girl that even though she might not realize it, she was about to break the law and when that didn't work, he couldn't back off either since then there would once again be the issue with whether others in the crowd perceive him as an authority or not. Considering that that was what he did and now gets ridiculed over it on the Internet, actually makes me feel sorry for him as he is digging himself a deep hole. If e.g. a video of someone doing something stupid in an office is leaked and the person in it gets bullied on a viral scale, he/she can with ease win a lawsuit against whoever leaked it since you have an expectation of privacy there. Police officers have no expectation of privacy since they work in public places and their jobs require the best of interaction with people that usually are at their worst so I sort of understand his desire to sue everyone even if I don't think he will be successful. Maybe against whoever filmed it. Obviously, he could've done something else that would've worked better - maybe "you're acting like a five-year-old, stop it and have your protest" - but we have the benefit of hindsight and before we demand better officers we should ask whether they should get better pay as well to make it a more appealing job.

Re:Drinking session

[gfreeman]

That is ... logical.

Re:Drinking session

[clintp]

She only looked embarrassed for a moment, then you will observe the training kicked in.

Not sure what you mean by "training kicked in", so I watched it again. At first, the female officer is smiling. Then OB threatens the girl with arrest if a bubble hits him. Then it cuts back to the female officer looking embarrassed. Then we cut back to the girl and OB. Then it cuts back to the female officer, and she's smirking. That's the last we see of her in this video, and even if my reading of her facial expression is subjective, the fact that shows no other physical or verbal reaction is not.

I'm with you and I think the grandparent post is full of shit. The female officer's reaction was friendly authority: a uniformed presence, hat back, glasses off, relaxed but observant stance holding her ground, and a pleasant smile on her face. I have no doubt should could easily have turned just as nasty and rude as Officer Bubbles, but did not. Her training was working before to keep the situation calm.

Her embarrassment and subsequent smirk probably more than likely stemmed from the idiotic behavior of her colleague. As if to say, "Oh hell, Bubbles is at it again..." and then "Shit, this is gonna get nasty now...." Knowing that she's obliged to back up Officer Bubbles if it does get out of hand -- even if he caused it. Face it, we all get that same embarrassment and smirk when one of our colleagues goes after a n00b, and there's no way to stop it.

Re:Drinking session

[Anonymous Coward]

I await my lawsuit.

Says the Anonymous Coward

Re:Drinking session

[funkatron]

Zone of control...

I saw an aggro cunt and his friends.

Re:Drinking session

[QRDeNameland]

Eh despite another poster trying to paint them as robots, they are in fact human beings and will react differently until certain situations start occurring or they realise that others think they are occurring.

I can accept that they are human beings that will react differently. It was your assertion that his reaction was based on his training that made me wonder why the female officer did not react in an even remotely similar fashion. Strangely, first you implied she did (her "training kicked in"), but now you seem to admit that she didn't.

If it was so distasteful to her why didn't she stop it from happening or interfere in some way? Solidarity?

I didn't say she found it "so distasteful" as to consider intervening, just embarrassing. However, in my experience, cops often do refrain from intervening against overreacting colleagues precisely because of "thin blue line" solidarity.

Why do you think police officers in every developed country act the same way in crowd control situations? And they do.

Wait, didn't you just get done evading the point about the different response by saying they are human beings who will react differently? You can't have it both ways.

And I will also note as a US native now living in Canada, I don't think what you say is true. In my experience, the behavio(u)r of OB is more of an exception to cops in Canada, but is closer to the rule for US cops.

Unless you're saying that most police officers are congenitally vicious thugs.

No just that, being human beings as you note, *some* are, and I think that the difference between OB reaction and the female officer demonstrates that.

Re:Drinking session

[Darkman, Walkin Dude]

I can accept that they are human beings that will react differently. It was your assertion that his reaction was based on his training that made me wonder why the female officer did not react in an even remotely similar fashion. Strangely, first you implied she did (her "training kicked in"), but now you seem to admit that she didn't.

You can do the strawman thing if you like, but you are still going to see situations like this over and over again, and its not going to be some power tripping dickhead. I've seen it in Ireland, the UK, the US and now Canada I guess. It wouldn't be applied to everyday situations, but intimidation as a technique for crowd control is tried and trusted. It makes no never mind to me if you believe it or not.

Re:Drinking session

[Darkman, Walkin Dude]

Do you think he might buy you dinner first, or is he cheap too?

Re:Drinking session

[QRDeNameland]

And being that you can't even seem to make a consistent argument, it makes no never mind to me what you wrongly think is a "strawman". My point is made.

Re:Drinking session

[Darkman, Walkin Dude]

I'm with you and I think the grandparent post is full of shit.

What, am I ruining your two minutes hate, or would you like to continue the armchair psychoanalysis?

Re:Drinking session

[Darkman, Walkin Dude]

If you say so. It seems to me that you need to get a big hate-on for this officer more than you need to use common sense though.

Re:Drinking session

[RealGrouchy]

If they just act without thinking, why not use machines instead?

Machines can't tell the difference between right and wrong (where "right" = agreeing with the state).

- RG>

Re:Drinking session

[sjames]

From the looks of the video, there were nearly as many cops as there were protesters. The protesters seemed too busy with cameras to do much else.

They weren't even making noise! The female officer next to "Officer Bubbles" even seemed a bit amused with the whole thing until he made an ass of himself. They could use that as a training video with her starring as "Do" and him as "Don't".

If he was really that ticked off with the bubbles, he could probably have gotten her to stop with "Please don't blow those bubbles right at me.".

Re:Drinking session

[QRDeNameland]

And *I* used a strawman? LOL

Re:Drinking session

[Darkman, Walkin Dude]

Pretty much. Did your in-depth situational analysis manage to spot all the high-end cameras pointed at the situation by the way? I found that interesting.

Re:Drinking session

[QRDeNameland]

Considering your penchant for the non sequitur, I'm sure you did.

Re:Drinking session

[jdizzle636]

I await my lawsuit.

It's funny that you posted this as Anonymous Coward so that he would have no possible way to fulfill your request that he sue you.

Re:Drinking session

[cas2000]

> She only looked embarrassed for a moment, then you will observe the training kicked in.

that wasn't training. that was solidarity. cops stick together. always. even when they know the other cop is in the wrong. even when they know the other cop is breaking the law, or taking bribes, or abusing their power, or engaging in serious criminal behaviour.

any cop who breaks ranks for ANY reason will be harassed constantly - even to the point of violent assault and death threats - and will find that their career is destroyed.

some do break ranks, but very few....and very few of those are willing to put themselves on the THEM side of the cops Us-vs-Them mentality and destroy their career over relatively minor incidents.

Re:Drinking session

[Scrameustache]

If they just act without thinking, why not use machines instead?
Seems like it would be cheaper.

Drop the bubble soap. You have fifteen seconds to comply...

You now have ten seconds to comply...

*plop*

Five. Four. Three. Two. One... I am now authorized to use force: *takataktaktaka*

Re:Drinking session

[vadim_t]

If he's going to file a lawsuit, he can get the IP address from slashdot and figure it out from there.

Re:Drinking session

[PhilHibbs]

He was talking to a person who was a member of a crowd and was therefore affected by a crowd mentality, and there were others who doubtless overheard. He was absoulutely talking to a mob.

Re:Drinking session

[Anonymous Coward]

He's not suing anyone related to the video of the actual incident, he's suing people involved in making and commenting on *cartoons* made later depicting him beating people up, etc. Those cartoons are the ones that have been taken down, although they've been reposted in the past few hours, most likely after someone heard about the lawsuit.

Re:Drinking session

[Anonymous Coward]

You did. You just weren't the first.

Re:Drinking session

[Alsee]

Not only could he bust bubbles with his bare hands, I heard he could bust bubbles just by STARING at them! That cop was totally hardcore.

-

Re:Drinking session

[jeff4747]

but, the woman blowing bubbles was also behaving in a socially unacceptable manner.

There is no law against "behaving in a socially unacceptable manner". The fact that you use this to excuse abuse of police power is quite frightening.

Re:Drinking session

[Shark]

You never, ever, ever even so much as disagree with a fellow police officer in front of a civilian. Even if the other cop is wrong, even if the other cop is committing a crime, taking a bribe, raping your sister... It's part of the unspoken code and I assure you that those who stray from that code do not remain employed by the police force very long.

Re:Drinking session

[Anonymous Coward]

you are missing the fact that people, this lawyer included, doesn't understand how the Internet works.

He was probably listening carefully when Ted Stevens explained that the Internet is "a series of tubes".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Series_of_tubes

Re:Drinking session

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, when a large crowd is out protesting folks in power abusing their authority, the right thing for cops around the crowd to do is to start abusing their authority.

A match to kindling. Stupid.

Re:Drinking session

[Roman Coder]

Maybe he has an aversion to being clean. /shrug

Re:Drinking session

[The Wild Norseman]

Maybe he has an aversion to being clean. /shrug

So you're implying he's a dirty cop?

Re:Drinking session

[Roman Coder]

No, just that he may prefer to be bubbled in private.

Re:Drinking session

[metrix007]

A gathering is not a mob, kiddo.

Re:Drinking session

[dgatwood]

He interposed himself into an ongoing, polite conversation between a person who was several feet from any other member of the crowd and another police officer. He was talking to the "crowd" in much the same way as I'm talking to the "Internet" right now.

Re:Drinking session

[multipartmixed]

The funny part is, soap bubbles are made from soap, not detergents.

They are completely different at a chemical level.

Re:Drinking session

[cusco]

intimidation as a technique for crowd control is tried and trusted.

Tried, trusted, and wrong. Attempting to intimidate a crowd when your side is obviously outnumbered, has been conclusively shown to provoke an escalation from that crowd. Cops aren't scientists though, they don't do research or learn from past mistakes or serendipitous successes. They just do what they've been trained to do, over and over, always expecting a different result from the previous failure. If they were doctors they'd still be using leeches and prescribing plasters to combat humours.

Re:Drinking session

[causality]

Are you trying to dehumanise them by constantly referring to machines?

No. They are trying to dehumanize us by constantly referring to us as criminals. So long as they do that, they are machines carrying out a specific function, as any human reasoning process would show them why this is wrong.

Re:Drinking session

[causality]

She only looked embarrassed for a moment, then you will observe the training kicked in.

Not sure what you mean by "training kicked in", so I watched it again. At first, the female officer is smiling. Then OB threatens the girl with arrest if a bubble hits him. Then it cuts back to the female officer looking embarrassed. Then we cut back to the girl and OB. Then it cuts back to the female officer, and she's smirking. That's the last we see of her in this video, and even if my reading of her facial expression is subjective, the fact that shows no other physical or verbal reaction is not.

She obviously does not react in the same way that OB does, and I'm puzzled as to what you think shows that her "training kicked in" (meaning that she would react in a similar way to OB since they would have similar training).

Well, she didn't contradict him, call him out, ask him what the hell he was thinking, or otherwise lift a finger to stop him. So she gave her silent consent to his actions. Sounds like similar training to me. She just has a little more internal conflict then he does about the wrong in it, so she did show some embarassment while he embraced it as normal.

It's really that simple.

Great idea

[Drakkenmensch]

And suing people making sarcastic comments on the internet is going to make everyone respect him... sure, let's go with that.

Re:Great idea

[cgenman]

It's certainly going to erase the bad impression of him from the internet. Especially now that he's on legal record as "officer bubbles."

Re:Great idea

[Anonymous Coward]

This.

Why so many cops are pricks

[JustNiz]

Anyone who actively seeks becoming a cop (or a politician) has already proven they are fundamentally the wrong person for the job.

Re:Why so many cops are pricks

[kevinNCSU]

For elected leaders I can maybe understand that logic, but that doesn't make the least bit of sense for police officers. Would you prefer there to be some sort of draft for police officers? So the cop responding to your 911 intruder call is some scared housewife or accountant who got drafted last month and is liable to shoot the first thing that moves when they come through the door?

Re:Why so many cops are pricks

[zach_the_lizard]

That might be preferrable to the, shall we say, gentlemen who show up at the wrong house and manage to shoot up your dog and charge you with assault and battery. At least your housewife/accountant managed to show up before bodybags were needed...

Re:Why so many cops are pricks

[DigiShaman]

Depends on who's choosing to be a Cop. Personally, I love it when a Cop is ex-military. Case in point: I've had to call 911 at 4am on a thug threatening everyone that walks through my Appartment gate for not giving him money. He stands there like a bouncer.

Cop came and hunted him down in the complex. A second Cop came on-site from dispatch. They cuffed him and placed in the back of the patrol car. As I was watching from my window, I could see him reach for the officer (attempted choke-hold with arm while cuffed??? Not sure, couldn't see well from my angle). The Cop jumped out of the drivers side and tased the guy. After 10 minutes, he was threatening to kill the Cop and his family. NOT GOOD! He got his ass tased again.

So ya, I love it when Cops take out the trash. If you ask me, that thug could have gotten a bullet to the head and I would have looked the other way.

Re:Why so many cops are pricks

[Scrameustache]

For elected leaders I can maybe understand that logic, but that doesn't make the least bit of sense for police officers. Would you prefer there to be some sort of draft for police officers? So the cop responding to your 911 intruder call is some scared housewife or accountant who got drafted last month and is liable to shoot the first thing that moves when they come through the door?

Nah, I'd much prefer to have a thug who got into the job because it comes with a gun, a stick, and the right to use those without consequences.
Do you want me to fetch a bunch of "trained officers shoots up innocent people" links to prove the inanity of your point, or can you manage that yourself?

Re:Why so many cops are pricks

[Anonymous Coward]

You joke about it, but that's how the draft in Germany for the military works: http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Staatsb%C3%BCrger_in_Uniform (sorry, German)

The idea was that the only way to "control the military" was to force civilian participation. And I believe your criticism could be fixed with training. Of course something like that isn't cheap. But then again: When are things cheap when we want to have them done correctly?

Off topic: I believe in Germany soldiers also have the right to question their superiors if they feel it violates ethics while in most other countries that's a court martial. Urm, I don't know what the correct reference is for that -- maybe this: http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Innere_F%C3%BChrung

I hope my quotes are correct, I actually got that info via small talk with a German career soldier.

Also worthwhile to mention: Germany is currently considering to abolish the draft for financial reasons.

Re:Why so many cops are pricks

[mdm-adph]

I don't understand your argument -- scared housewife or accountant, they would still get the same training. Yes, I would rather have a draft.

Re:Why so many cops are pricks

[h4rr4r]

So they tased a person who was cuffed?

Those pigs should be in jail and you are the trash.

Re:Why so many cops are pricks

[rwhamann]

In the American Air Force, we questions superiors routinely. As long as it's done respectfully, it's usually welcome, and often improves accomplishment of the mission.

Re:Why so many cops are pricks

[rwhamann]

Did you read where the individual continued to attempt to assault the officer even after being cuffed?

Re:Why so many cops are pricks

[kevinNCSU]

And you believe unwilling, untrained officers from a draft will shoot less innocent people and act more professionally then trained volunteers?

I didn't realize the only options were thugs who want to shoot people without consequence or only unwilling officers. I figured there might be some people out there who through training and testing could be determined to both want to protect and serve and do so more proficiently and professionally then your average unwilling draftee. I seem to remember our unwilling and drafted army not exactly being shining examples of professionalism and respect towards civilians during Vietnam and I'd rather not inflict the same damage here.

Re:Why so many cops are pricks

[kevinNCSU]

And you could force-give me the same training as a professional flute soloist but since I'm not interested in it, I'm being forced to do it, and apparently people shoot guns at you during these particular flute solos, I'm not exactly going to be interested in doing a good job more then I am in simply getting my solo over with my hide intact.

Re:Why so many cops are pricks

[h4rr4r]

No, but the people who normally seek those jobs are just thugs. They don't want to help they want to crack skuils and be a big tough man.

Re:Why so many cops are pricks

[h4rr4r]

Verbal abuse is not assault. There is no way he strangled anyone with his arms cuffed behind his back.

Re:Why so many cops are pricks

[Anonymous Coward]

So I learned from the Bene Gesserit.

Re:Why so many cops are pricks

[Anonymous Coward]

Thank you, Captain Literal.

Re:Why so many cops are pricks

[mdm-adph]

I don't care how interested in the job they are. Their job is to meet and respond to disturbances, and to occasionally act as the enforcement arm of whatever department of revenue they're currently under the jurisdiction of. I don't *want* agents of the law walking around with the impunity and ability to end a person's life to *be* doing (or thinking) more than that.

Re:Why so many cops are pricks

[Scrameustache]

I seem to remember our unwilling and drafted army not exactly being shining examples of professionalism and respect towards civilians during Vietnam and I'd rather not inflict the same damage here.

Enjoy the fine police work of Toronto, then: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oZeT0FZJRJQ

And about an all volunteer army and professionalism: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-11557235

Re:Why so many cops are pricks

[AK Marc]

And you believe unwilling, untrained officers from a draft will shoot less innocent people and act more professionally then trained volunteers?

Yes.

I didn't realize the only options were thugs who want to shoot people without consequence or only unwilling officers.

That may be a false dichotomy, but they are valid choices. So why not compare them? What's the error rate when a civilian comes to the aid of others with a firearm? From what I've seen, it's less than volunteer cops. And it's the professional cops that have sued for (and won) the right to never enforce a law, ever. That's right. If they are witnessing a crime - murder, rape, jaywalking - they are never required by law to step in and end the crime in progress. When the crime is over, they are not required to arrest the person they know to be responsible. If you call in and say "there has been a threat of my life at 12 main street today ay 3 p.m. by Bob Smith who lives at 22 Oak Lane" the cops are required to respond to the call reporting your death. Cops don't have to do anything, ever, and they worked hard in courts and with laws for such "discretion" they hold higher than the rights of anyone. So yeah, I'd trust my neighbor with a gun before the police. The police have proven themselves to be a danger with them, and my neighbor hasn't yet.

Re:Why so many cops are pricks

[Cwix]

In the US if you dont question illegal orders, then you are just as guilty.

They can only give you an article 15 or other UCMJ action for disobeying a legal order.
You can disobey an illegal order all you want. Will it cause you some short term problems? Yes, but if they try to make it a big issue, then the order will obviously be reviewed for its legality at your trail. (IIRC you can get most if not all legal issues in the military elevated to a trail with a jury.)

Re:Why so many cops are pricks

[interkin3tic]

Would you prefer there to be some sort of draft for police officers?

For some police, it's not like we'd be doing worse, but no. I think the answer is instead to realize that most people going onto the police force have some tendencies that really need to be ironed out. Currently, they seem to be encouraged. If you've ever known someone who was going into the police force, you may have found that they weren't the nicest people before hand, but afterwards they're damn near intolerable. That has been my experience anyway.

Maybe make police repeat 100 times twice a day "I am NOT superior to the other citizens. Citizens do NOT owe me respect because I have a badge and a gun," or something like that.

Re:Why so many cops are pricks

[Anonymous Coward]

So ya, I love it when Cops take out the trash. If you ask me, that thug could have gotten a bullet to the head and I would have looked the other way.

Funny, the way you suck PIG DICK makes me feel kinda the same way about you, you fascist douchebag. Pukes like you are the reason that the Nazis were able to kill millions of people in plain sight.

Re:Why so many cops are pricks

[Anonymous Coward]

is liable to shoot the first thing that moves when they come through the door?

Let's all just look at that for a second and ponder the myriad responses, without having to actually type any of them.

Re:Why so many cops are pricks

[Anonymous Coward]

No, but it would make sense to come up with stressfull (social) scenarios that all cops must complete in satisfactory to earn their badge. You know, like soldiers in the Army do beyond basic training? Just a first thought on the subject.

Re:Why so many cops are pricks

[DavidTC]

I'm with you. They're supposed to be peace officers, and yet not a single fucking one of them appears to know how to respond to 'a large group of people'.

I fail to see how having random people in charge would be worse.

Re:Why so many cops are pricks

[Gunnut1124]

Why not model it on the Judge/Jury arrangement? a core of trained individuals with the ability to remain cool while responding to a 911 call leading a posse of lesser-trained recruited citizens who couldn't give a care about the "fraternal brotherhood" or the "thin blue line" or whatever... makes cover-ups a pain and generally defuses situations like this. If the situation truly calls for a paramilitary force, call in the nat guard... That's keep M-16s out of my face at the World Series and generally calms the public's distrust for those in uniform.

That said, my brother is a cop and not all of them are this way. He doesn't think citizens should be allowed to "interfere" with police actions while they happen (and I somewhat agree), but I have yet to hear a sound explanation for the police's distrust for video surveillance. Anyone else heard something that makes sense and still lets the cops be the good guys?

Re:Why so many cops are pricks

[Clandestine_Blaze]

For elected leaders I can maybe understand that logic, but that doesn't make the least bit of sense for police officers. Would you prefer there to be some sort of draft for police officers? So the cop responding to your 911 intruder call is some scared housewife or accountant who got drafted last month and is liable to shoot the first thing that moves when they come through the door?

Sounds like a promising police academy movie sequel.

Re:Why so many cops are pricks

[DavidTC]

Threatening to kill someone actually is assault. It's battery that's actually hitting someone. Assault is just an immediate credible threat and the ability to pull it off. Aka, someone standing there with a baseball bat who swings it near your head a few times to scare you...just committed assault.

I'm not sure that someone in the back of a police car can be said to do that, though.

However, that doesn't mean there's any justification for tasing someone trapped in the back seat of a police car.

And, of course, thanks to the dash-cam, they had an open and shut case for assault against the police, and hell, probably could have gotten him denied bail (If, after you're arrested, you threaten to kill people, they'll deny your bail pretty automatically.) ...but they fucked up and who knows what happened.

It's rather hilarious how a 'pro-police' idiot managed to describe some police behavior that is blatantly illegal.

Re:Why so many cops are pricks

[DigiShaman]

If someone used martial art or attempted something as simple as a headbutt; yes, they can be subdued with force. Now, I'm not sure what the hell went on in that car. But if it was something along those lines, the tasing could be perfectly legal.

Re:Why so many cops are pricks

[Anonymous Cowpat]

Unless you think the entire war you're being sent to is illegal (and that it follows that the orders to participate in it are illegal). Then they refuse to consider the issue of the legality of the orders by calling it a political issue. Essentially, you can ignore an order which is illegal, but you may not question the legality of an order.

Re:Why so many cops are pricks

[gamecrusader]

time to use my rights free speech
Officer Bubbles, the bubble fucker fucks bubble while on and off duty

Re:Why so many cops are pricks

[Anonymous Coward]

Are you suggesting that those who would be drafted will not receive any training at all? If such a ludicrous proposition as yours was to exist, surely, those in charge of it would still have the modicum of sense to weed out draftees that can't pass basic training.

The reality of the matter is far graver, people like "Officer Bubbles" have proven time and again that they are willing to enforce quotas and be "A Team Player" regardless of the law or rights of Canadian citizens.

Police want and work toward a police state much in the same way that priests want and work toward a priest state. (see the history of Tibet prior to Chinese involvement and after)

Its not surprising and its perfectly understandable albeit despicable, They are human after all.

It doesn't mean that we should accept this from our law enforcement.

There is no doubt on my part that there is room for improvement on theirs.

Re:Why so many cops are pricks

[julesh]

But if it was something along those lines, the tasing could be perfectly legal.

Probably not, no. Assuming US law, the situations in which a taser can be legally used by a police officer are somewhat vague, as there have not been many court cases featuring them outside of the context of prison crowd control. See, for instance, this summary prepared for the Mountain View police department, and which recommends that in absence of any more specific laws, it would be advisable to assume the legal situation of using a taser is similar to that of using potentially lethal force, i.e. it should only be used if it is necessary to apprehend a suspect who is likely to pose a serious risk of harm to the public or if the suspect presents a credible threat to the life of the officer.

It's hard to see how a handcuffed man inside a police car with multiple police officers present can be considered either.

Re:Why so many cops are pricks

[Anonymous Coward]

The problem is that cops rarely have an education and comprehension of the laws they're enforcing (and therefore abusing when they wrongly threaten or arrest or violate people) that even remotely matches their ego.

SHUT UP, SLAVE!

He's wearing glasses.

[Anonymous Coward]

Perhaps he's afraid the bubbles would cause hair loss.

Re:He's wearing glasses.

[PawNtheSandman]

Get arrested for blowing bubbles?
Well he just got of prison and wants your number!

South Park?

[Anonymous Coward]

He is the black Canadian Eric Cartman. "RESPECT MAH AUTHORITAH!"

Re:South Park?

[darth dickinson]

He is the black Canadian Eric Cartman. "RESPECT MAH AUTHORITAH! Eh?"

FTFY

Some people insist on being arrested

[RapmasterT]

I don't think it's all that hard for an adult to understand that blowing soap bubbles into a police officers face is going to get you arrested, and he did give her the courtesy of a warning first. I don't really see the controversy there. Well, not unless people are unable to disentagle the word "bubble" from the "soap" part. Blowing a rather effective eye irritant in a cops direction isn't likely to end well, no matter if it's in bubble or other form.

it does seem like he could have a thicker skin about random internet jackhole comments though. you don't HAVE to read them.

Re:Some people insist on being arrested

[h4rr4r]

Have you ever seen soap bubbles?
They cannot exactly be aimed at the eyes.

Re:Some people insist on being arrested

[Scrameustache]

I don't think it's all that hard for an adult to understand that blowing soap bubbles into a police officers face is going to get you arrested, and he did give her the courtesy of a warning first. I don't really see the controversy there. Well, not unless people are unable to disentagle the word "bubble" from the "soap" part. Blowing a rather effective eye irritant in a cops direction isn't likely to end well, no matter if it's in bubble or other form.

By that logic, allowing children to play with soap bubble is child endangerment.

Re:Some people insist on being arrested

[Anonymous Coward]

  He didn't give her a warning. He gave her a threat.

  She got the freedom to blow bubbles, it is not her fault that an act of God (wind) might send it towards his or another persons eyes. She could had blown the bubbles away from the cops and it could still had hit him in the eye. The wind could even had blown a bubble into her own eyes. I guess she took that risk to "harass" the poor manly cop.

  He was acting like a total power jackass and took the action too to be so by getting the girl arrested. And him suing over some Youtube comments shows more of how big of a crybaby he really is. I don't feel sorry for him at all.

Re:Some people insist on being arrested

[Anonymous Coward]

"In a mature society, “civil servant” is semantically equal to “civil master.”" - Lazarus Long

You do understand that due to the many nanny states we suffer today, bubbles (understand this is a CHILDS TOY) must be formulated to be milder than baby shampoo, right?

So, it won't harm a young child's eyes, we feel they're safe enough to allow kids to use them unattended, but big butch there feels it' an *assault*?

I supose if she stuck a flower in his gun barrel that would be grounds for them to open up on the entire crowd?

Sigh.

Rome is indeed burning..

Re:Some people insist on being arrested

[RapmasterT]

He didn't give her a warning. He gave her a threat.

I guess. He did give her a "threat" of arrest if she continued her behavior. Some might call that a "warning". It seems a pointless exercise in semantics.

But hey, don't listen to me, I'm just some guy on the internet. If anyone wants to act like a jackass to cops, and ignore warning/threats of arrest, go for it. Just don't expect me to cry any tears over the injustice of it all. Apparently there's no shortage of people who WILL, but it won't be me.

Re:Some people insist on being arrested

[TheStatsMan]

So any threat/ by the police is justifiable. That's an interesting view of the law you have there.

Re:Some people insist on being arrested

[zach_the_lizard]

With attitudes like this, it's not hard to see why people are wondering if cops truly are adults, because their power hungry temper tantrums and blaming the victims are more in line with the thinking process of a toddler.

Re:Some people insist on being arrested

[Scrameustache]

So any threat/ by the police is justifiable. That's an interesting view of the law you have there.

To some people, deference to authority is the highest achievement one can strive for.

Re:Some people insist on being arrested

[Myopic]

It's not? I'm an adult and I find it hard to understanding the criminal basis of blowing bubbles. In fact, I think blowing bubbles is a pretty excellent example of a thing that is nearly impossible to consider assault.

Re:Some people insist on being arrested

[dkleinsc]

Maybe GP was thinking there was a law against pissing off a cop. There isn't, and "disorderly conduct", "disturbing the peace" and "assaulting a police officer" are not legitimate legal substitutes (although bad cops will use those sorts of laws like that).

For instance, it's perfectly legal to give a cop the finger.

Re:Some people insist on being arrested

[aevan]

To play devil's advocate: prove that the contents of the container were as stated on the label, and hadn't been something else (say potassium hydroxide spiked). Remember, there were asshats there that were trying to be destructive and not 'peaceably protest'

Re:Some people insist on being arrested

[dward90]

By that logic, allowing children to play with soap bubble is child endangerment.

That's not the case at all, though. The cop was being a dick about it, but the fact is that having soap in your eyes makes it more difficult to do your job.

Re:Some people insist on being arrested

[Anonymous Coward]

By that logic, allowing children to play with soap bubble is child endangerment.

However allowing a child to blow bubbles into the face of a pitbull might be considered child endangerment.

Re:Some people insist on being arrested

[kwandar]

The young lady blowing the bubbles was a street medic, lightening up the crowd. They bubbles were not blown at the officer. Officer Bubbles deserves his moniker.

Re:Some people insist on being arrested

[kaptink]

Blowing a rather effective eye irritant

If you look closely, you can see he's wearing proective glasses. And not small ones either, full cover shades specifically for the purpose of shielding from such things.

Re:Some people insist on being arrested

[ZFox]

Maybe GP was thinking there was a law against pissing off a cop.

It could possibly be"interference with public duties" or "failure to obey a lawful order". Maybe Canada's a different story, though.

Re:Some people insist on being arrested

[Anonymous Coward]

Are you even thinking? What moron modded this "insightful"? A police officer is doing more than playing, and children don't blow bubbles directly into their own eyes. Want to compare this situation to a child endangerment? Compare it to letting a child blow bubbles in your face while you mow the lawn. Doing a difficult and potentially dangerous task while someone blows something in your face that has the potential to temporarily blind you is foolish!

A parent who lets a child blow bubbles at their face while mowing the lawn is endangering themselves and their child. A police officer who allows a spoiled brat to blow bubbles at their face while policing a crowd is endangering themselves and the public safety.

Re:Some people insist on being arrested

[TheStatsMan]

I guess that's why religious people are so easily tricked.

Re:Some people insist on being arrested

[areusche]

I don't think it's all that hard for an adult to understand that blowing soap bubbles into a police officers face is going to get you arrested, and he did give her the courtesy of a warning first. I don't really see the controversy there. Well, not unless people are unable to disentagle the word "bubble" from the "soap" part. Blowing a rather effective eye irritant in a cops direction isn't likely to end well, no matter if it's in bubble or other form. it does seem like he could have a thicker skin about random internet jackhole comments though. you don't HAVE to read them.

He was wearing sunglasses. The man was on a power trip and should have acted like the officer to the right of him. Patiently watching the protesters and making sure they have their right to voice their problem.

Re:Some people insist on being arrested

[Trelane]

She got the freedom to blow bubbles, it is not her fault that an act of God (wind) might send it towards his or another persons eyes.

"I would never harm ye, friend, but please be aware that thou art standing where I'm about to shoot."

Re:Some people insist on being arrested

[Scrameustache]

By that logic, allowing children to play with soap bubble is child endangerment.

That's not the case at all, though. The cop was being a dick about it, but the fact is that having soap in your eyes makes it more difficult to do your job.

If only he had glasses he could have worn to protect himself from that terrible, terrible danger the bubbles were exposing him to.

Hey, is this behavior ok with you? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oZeT0FZJRJQ I mean, this isn't the kind of callous behavior on par with blowing bubbles at a cop, but a cop shooting someone point blank with a smoke cartridge, that's perfectly acceptable behavior, ain't it?

Re:Some people insist on being arrested

[Tarsir]

So any threat/ by the police is justifiable. That's an interesting view of the law you have there.

No. The GP's point is precisely that specific threats, which involve exercising an officer's legal* authority to detain people, are eminently justifiable. The fact that you willfully misconstrued this by reasoning that if any single threat is justified, then all threats are justified demonstrates your unwillingness to participate in reasoned discussion, and general trollishness. I can only hope you will be modded into oblivion.

*I assume it was legal, since I haven't heard anything about there being an unlawful arrest, and given the well known hatred of LEOs evinced by a segment of Slashdot's readership, I know there would have been. (c.f., Scrametache's thoughtful commentary above)

Re:Some people insist on being arrested

[h4rr4r]

What you mean is laws written only to ensure cops can do whatever they want whenever they want.

What we really need is a group willing to convict police officers who abuse their powers.

Re:Some people insist on being arrested

[h4rr4r]

No need, go try that and see how it will not work.

No, the asshats are the cops who escalate situations.

Re:Some people insist on being arrested

[Cwix]

Those people are the ones in power, and they want you to defer to them.

Question ALL authority. (Note I said question, in that I mean if a cop does something you dont automatically assume hes correct.)

Re:Some people insist on being arrested

[FatAlb3rt]

This girl is the same the 8-yr old kid who got in your face hollering "I'm not touching you" over and over, then couldn't believe he got punched.

Why do people get off on playing the victim?

Re:Some people insist on being arrested

[Anonymous Coward]

First they came for....

Re:Some people insist on being arrested

[Scrameustache]

  He didn't give her a warning. He gave her a threat.

I guess. He did give her a "threat" of arrest if she continued her behavior. Some might call that a "warning". It seems a pointless exercise in semantics.

No, he gave her an arbitrary order, followed by "or else". She was doing something perfectly legal, and a cop told her to stop or he would arrest her on a trumped up charge if she did not obey him immediately.

That's abuse of power. That's not something you should defend.

don't expect me to cry any tears over the injustice of it all

Oh, don't worry, I don't expect you to cry over an injustice. I expect you probably get half a hard-on when you witness an injustice, I figure your love for authority (and the limitless exercise thereof) must be conflated with your lust.

Re:Some people insist on being arrested

[R3d M3rcury]

Don't give them any ideas... :^D

Seriously, though, there is a difference. A soap bubble in the eye will cause no permanent harm, but it will certainly affect your ability to do your job while your eyes tear up. While this doesn't make much difference to a kid playing with soap bubbles, it certainly can affect a police officer's ability to do his job.

Re:Some people insist on being arrested

[Anonymous Coward]

If anyone wants to act like a jackass to cops, and ignore warning/threats of arrest, go for it. Just don't expect me to cry any tears over the injustice of it all. Apparently there's no shortage of people who WILL, but it won't be me.

First they came for the bubble-blowers and I did nothing . . . .

Your remarks are indistinguishable from those of an authoritarian douche. Perhaps you have a future in Canadian law enforcement.

Enjoy your tea.

Re:Some people insist on being arrested

[Scrameustache]

This girl is the same the 8-yr old kid who got in your face hollering "I'm not touching you" over and over, then couldn't believe he got punched.

That, I can't contradict. She got off easy, too http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oZeT0FZJRJQ

Re:Some people insist on being arrested

[shutdown -p now]

he did give her the courtesy of a warning first

There was no courtesy in what he did or how he did it. It was very aggressive, threatening, and downright rude, and it is very obvious from the video that he was posturing and rather enjoying himself.

If anything, he did the best he could to provoke an angry (and possibly violent) response from the girl and those around her. After watching this, I can't help but wonder how many of the violence outbreaks during those protests could be similarly provoked by the police.

Re:Some people insist on being arrested

[Vegemeister]

You're right. Capsaicin would work much better. Oh wait...

Re:Some people insist on being arrested

[gfreeman]

Because playground "law" is EXACTLY the same as street law. Not.

As an adult, just try punching someone who was "annoying you" and see how far you get in court.

Re:Some people insist on being arrested

[RapmasterT]

She was doing something perfectly legal, and a cop told her to stop or he would arrest her on a trumped up charge if she did not obey him immediately.

That's abuse of power. That's not something you should defend.

You're entitled to your own opinion, but you're not entitled to your own facts. What she was doing was NOT legal. No charges were "trumped up" beyond the actual offense committed. Contrary to what you obviously believe, baiting and harassing police officers who are on duty is not a protected freedom of expression right. She was given every opportunity to go about her business and NOT be arrested, but that wasn't what was going to make her happy. Why should we stand up in outrage over her getting exactly what she WANTED?

Oh, don't worry, I don't expect you to cry over an injustice. I expect you probably get half a hard-on when you witness an injustice, I figure your love for authority (and the limitless exercise thereof) must be conflated with your lust.

You kind of petered out on the maturity scale on this issue. In the future, it's much easier to take people seriously when they don't close out their arguments with childish name calling.

Re:Some people insist on being arrested

[MisterSchmoo]

Oh yeah he gave her a warning first, that's great logic except for the fact that she did stop when he told her to, and then he had her arrested anyway.

Re:Some people insist on being arrested

[Scrameustache]

You're entitled to your own opinion, but you're not entitled to your own facts. What she was doing was NOT legal. No charges were "trumped up" beyond the actual offense committed.

Facts only? Ok: Linked quotes or STFU.

Re:Some people insist on being arrested

[John Hasler]

Nothing you say can interfere with an officer's duties. Basically, you have to get in his way. And there are very few lawful orders that an officer can give you. Again, it boils down to pretty much "get out of my way" (in the USA, and of course most cops labor under the delusion that they can order you around as they wish).

Re:Some people insist on being arrested

[sjames]

It is certainly NOT an exercise in semantics. It's the difference between "could you please turn down your stereo, it's a bit late" and "TURN IT OFF FUCK FACE". The first is a polite request, the second is spoiling for a fight. Add "BEFORE I JAM IT UP YOUR ASS" and it becomes a threat.

Re:Some people insist on being arrested

[ZFox]

I don't really agree with those laws (and as a plus we don't have the lawful order one in my munipality & state), but I could see situations where things you say can "interfere with an officer's duty." Screaming into bullhorns (not saying anything, just screaming), while officers are attempting to address the public could be one. Instructing people to go into a room with no exit, while officials are dutifully evacuating them from a burning building could be another.

Obviously, I'm stretching it a bit for argument's sake, but really the only situations I could think of, you would have to be a complete asshole to get. ;-)

Does blowing bubbles in someone's face who is forced to stand at that exact spot qualify as being a complete asshole? I don't know, but any sane person should know that it doesn't help their case.

What I would really like to see would be for them to relax assault charges. If someone is doing something so overtly annoying, like blowing bubbles in my face, and won't stop, then it is up to a jury of my peers (or an enforcement decision prior to that) to decide if I was right in punching him in the face (obviously, I had to relax the actual details of the story, since from what I read in the comments it was a cute girl--yeah, yeah rtfa...or is it wtfv on this one).

Re:Some people insist on being arrested

[SeaFox]

By that logic, allowing children to play with soap bubble is child endangerment.

I haven't looked at a bottle of bubble fluid in years, but I seem to remember that the bottle does have a warning that it should only be used with adult supervision.

Re:Some people insist on being arrested

[Anonymous Cowpat]

You should respect all authority like you respect fire: use it while it's useful, and extinguish it as soon as it's not - lest it get out of control.

Re:Some people insist on being arrested

[jeff4747]

I don't think it's all that hard for an adult to understand that blowing soap bubbles into a police officers face is going to get you arrested, and he did give her the courtesy of a warning first

You are the poster child for why we need to bring back "Civics" class.

Re:Some people insist on being arrested

[ClickOnThis]

I agree, I think it's quite possible this woman wanted to be arrested. Often that's the whole point of civil disobedience: provoke the authorities just enough to get arrested, but not enough to trigger a violent confrontation. You look good and you publicize your cause; the authorities look bad.

The cop took the bait. Maybe he shouldn't have, but that doesn't change the fact that it was bait. He said it was "assault" and reluctantly I have to say he might be right. IANAL and I don't have all day to google "what constitutes assault" so do it yourself if you're inclined. But it won't be long before you discover that you don't even have to touch someone to be guilty of assault: verbal abuse may be enough. Also, an act that causes physical contact with another may not cause harm, but still be considered assault. For example, in the state of Tennessee you are guilty of assault if you "[i]ntentionally or knowingly [cause] physical contact with another and a reasonable person would regard the contact as extremely offensive or provocative." Personally, I'd consider the act of someone blowing bubbles in my face to be "extremely offensive or provocative" if I didn't want them to do it.

Re:Some people insist on being arrested

[Shark]

She was given every opportunity to go about her business and NOT be arrested, but that wasn't what was going to make her happy.

I might have watched that video wrong, but I'm pretty sure she stopped blowing bubbles when he asked. Assuming that blowing bubbles at cops is *illegal*, that is. I don't think either of us is a lawyer competent enough in the field to assess that. Her crime more or less amounts to telling him he could have been nicer about it. If people who question grounds for a cop to be rude to them are committing a crime, we're in for a delightful future.

Re:Some people insist on being arrested

[NateTech]

Because the girl wasn't a power-tripping toddler herself, screwing with the cop once she got a rise out of him? Give us a break. They're both ass-hats.

Re:Some people insist on being arrested

[Anonymous Coward]

until someone brings a 300-horsepower industrial bubble-blower, load it with noxious chemicals, and cover a 3-block area with ginormous hazmat bubbles....quit your whining.

Re:Some people insist on being arrested

[osgeek]

Bleah, soap bubbles filled with bad hippie breath is assault, dammit!

Re:Some people insist on being arrested

[Anonymous Coward]

Except that's not what happened. By the official account, she was standing there, blowing bubbles. The female officer walked up to her, and talked pleasantly with her as she continued to blow bubbles. Then Officer Bubbles, the rageaholic, marched up to her and started shouting at her. He continued to shout even after she put the bubbles away.

Incidentally, she was not arrested for the bubbles. She was allegedly arrested for having a lawyer's phone number written on her arm and eyewash in her bag, detained for two days without council, and then released with no charges.

Re:Some people insist on being arrested

[Anthonyli]

[url=http://www.2joygame.com/]Cheap WOW Gold[/url] can be got here.We supply the cheap [url=http://www.storeingame.com/]WOW Gold[/url] to our loyal, reliable and long-time customers.We also provide discounts with large [url=http://www.storeingame.com/]WOW Gold[/url] purchase. If you have questions, please donnot be hesitated to contact us(to [url=http://www.zyy.com/]Buy WOW Gold[/url]) by live chat or emails.

Re:Some people insist on being arrested

[Nemyst]

What the hell was illegal in what she did?

Re:Some people insist on being arrested

[haruchai]

Did you watch the video? Never mind what he said - HE INTERVENED without cause into a situation that another officer had under control.
Go back and look at the expression on the female cop's face when Bubbles opens his mouth and starts spewing.
Also, near the end of the video, he appears to take a full step sideways and half a step back from the forward lean of his Bad(ass) Cop posture.
So, he wasn't in anyway "threatened" by the toxic detergent that the incalcitrant miscreant was using to assault the lawful authorities.

And, he disrespected his fellow officer.

Good luck with that

[pnuema]

If you're Canadian, you might have a problem, but Americans can tell this douche to stuff it.

Re:Good luck with that

[Scrameustache]

If you're Canadian, you might have a problem, but Americans can tell this douche to stuff it.

From the safety of their free speech cage.

Re:Good luck with that

[blair1q]

Not actually.

You have a right to speak as long as you keep it civil. There's no criminal law for verbal abuse (unless it's threatening), but with this much evidence the guy's would have a decent chance of winning most of these cases in a civil court in America.

Re:Good luck with that

[Mashiki]

Tip 1: The right to freedom of speech in Canada is not absolute.
Tip 2: S1, of the Charter limits all freedoms as deemed necessary.
Tip 3: The right to peacefully assemble is valid in Canadian law. However you can be told where you may be assemble with large gatherings.

Re:Good luck with that

[_xeno_]

You seem to forget that in the US, you're not allowed to protest these things at all.

Apparently the right of people to peacefully assemble somehow means that the government is allowed to tell people where they can peacefully assemble, so whenever something like a G20 summit or the Democratic National Convention occurs,US Police set up "free speech zones" where people are allowed to protest without any danger of anyone noticing them.

Protesting anywhere else will get your arrested.

And, yes, I'm calling out the DNC here, not because the Republicans don't do it too (they do), but because the Democrats did it first.

Re:Good luck with that

[blair1q]

You seem to forget that in the US, you're not allowed to protest these things at all.

False. What you mean to say is you know of instances where people have been prevented from protesting.

"free speech zones"

Are unconstitutional, and are currently being proved to be so by the ACLU. But those are not the only instances included in your "at all".

Except for those instances, you are allowed to protest anything, anywhere, as long as your protest doesn't otherwise break the law. You may need to get a permit, as the freedom to assemble and to speak does not entail a freedom to be a spontaneous nuisance, hazard, or expense to the public.

Re:Good luck with that

[Prien715]

In Soviet Russia, Free Speech zones are in Siberia!

There's a lot of people who did it first.

There's some line, like oh, maybe protesting that your son is going to hell at his funeral for dying in Iraqistan, but blowing bubbles doesn't seem to reach that level of depravity.

Re:Good luck with that

[i]

"Except for those instances, you are allowed to protest anything, anywhere, as long as your protest doesn't otherwise break the law. "

This seems to fit in for North Korea also.

Canadians repress speech on a regular basis

[megaskins]

This type of idiocy is common from Canadians. I had a American Professor friend post a not to nice blog about a product made in Canada and the Canadian company sent him a take-down letter. He told the Canadians to fuck off.

Re:Canadians repress speech on a regular basis

[h4rr4r]

So was it hockey equipment or maple syrup?

Re:Canadians repress speech on a regular basis

[onkelonkel]

Back Bacon

Re:Canadians repress speech on a regular basis

[MattSaki]

I do not think overzealous take-down letters is a strictly Canadian trait. Extrapolating these two (probably completely unrelated) incidents to an entire nation is idiocy.

Re:Canadians repress speech on a regular basis

[gfreeman]

This type of idiocy is common from Canadians. I had a American Professor friend post a not to nice blog about a product made in Canada and the Canadian company sent him a take-down letter. He told the Canadians to fuck off.

This type of idiocy is common from Americans. I had a British Popstar use a very nice photo including an astronaut made in America and the American astronaut sent her a take-down letter. I hope she told the Americans to fuck off.

http://science.slashdot.org/story/10/10/07/0157204/Astronaut-Sues-Dido-For-Album-Cover

Re:Canadians repress speech on a regular basis

[guyminuslife]

It was beer.

Let's all go comment

[ktappe]

I'm going to go comment on the video purposely to get included in this. I want to see dear officer try to come after me. I will attempt to educate the Canadian with regard to this thing we Americans call the First Amendment.

Re:Let's all go comment

[Obfuscant]

I will attempt to educate the Canadian with regard to this thing we Americans call the First Amendment.

Despite the common misconceptions about it, the First Amendment does not grant people the right to slander or libel. The standard regarding ridicule used to be whether the person was "a public presence", or something to that effect. E.g., a TV performer who puts himself up in the public view deliberately, or a politician.

Have You Tube and ubiquitous camera video devices removed that protection for the normal person? Is everyone now supposed to be considered open to such attacks? Or is it a deliberate decision that police officers in the performance of their duty have lost protection from this, too?

Re:Let's all go comment

[B1oodAnge1]

Expressing an opinion about someone is neither slander nor libel, no matter how uncomplimentary.

Re:Let's all go comment

[veganboyjosh]

So a police officer, an employee of the government does NOT count as a public presence, then?

Re:Let's all go comment

[DavidTC]

Despite the common misconceptions about it, the First Amendment does not grant people the right to slander or libel.

Correct.

The standard regarding ridicule used to be whether the person was "a public presence", or something to that effect.

And now you're in some damn stupid universe that you just invented. What the fuck is a standard regarding ridicule? Your first sentence didn't say anything about ridicule.

Ridiculing people is entirely legal, and has nothing to do with slander or libel. 'Ridicule' just means to mock, to make fun of, to cause laughter at.

You can ridicule people with lies, which can be slander or libel, you can ridicule people with opinions, you can ridicule people with facts. Here, I will demonstrate by ridiculing you three times:

LIE: You know less about the law than a baboon. (And, you will note, while that's a lie, it's clearly hyperbole, not intended to be believed by others, and hence not libel or slander. Aka, the 'Jerry Falwell is a motherfucker' rule.)
OPINION: You're an idiot.
TRUTH: You have corrected someone who was correct, with a falsehood. Universe 1, You -1,000,000

All those statements ridiculed you, none of them were libelous.

The only thing that's even vaguely relevant is that 'public' people have a lower standard toward repeated 'gossip'.

I.e., if I assert that Tom Cruise is gay, I'm probably safe from a lawsuit. If I assert some random guy is gay, I could get sued. Basically, with public people, you have a duty just to not say thing you know aren't true, whereas with private people, you have to check more, under the theory that a single lie repeated can easily destroy a private person's entire reputation, but public people have the ability to 'push back' against stories, and a megaphone to do it with. So it's harder for public people to sue if you're 'wrong', but thought you were right, whereas private people are still damaged no matter what your intent, and can sue if you're just careless. (Like Richard Jewell did to the AJC after they made him out to be a terrorist.)

That's about the only difference there, and totally irrelevant if someone is being ridiculed or not. It is perfectly legal to mock anyone at all. (Although some 'bullying' laws change that, but usually only include children.)

It's worth pointing out that, under US law, it would be pretty damn amazing if any comment on a video was libelous, because part of libel is that the speaker has to be believed. Even if there were outright falsehoods on the comments that would be very damaging if people believed them, the question then becomes: Who the hell believes 'facts' posted by angry people who everyone knows just watched the video and made up some crap?

But he apparently sued everyone anyway, including people who didn't even claim to have any facts, like the guy that posted 'officer bubbles probably looks at himself in the mirror a lot.' which is pretty clearly a guess, and, duh, not intended to be believed as a 'fact'.

Although who knows what the hell the law is in Canada. If stating guesses about people, clearly labeled as guesses, is illegal, than Canada is broken.

Re:Let's all go comment

[Obfuscant]

The only part of your rant worth responding to is this:

TRUTH: You have corrected someone who was correct, with a falsehood. Universe 1, You -1,000,000

The only "correction" I made was to point out that the First Amendment does not say you may say whatever you wish about someone, which is absolutely true. You: -1,000,000.

As for the rest, the speech leading to ridicule may or may not consist of libel or slander, but can certainly be fodder for lawsuits.

Thanks for the civil discourse. (No, I'm not new here, that was sarcasm.)

Re:Let's all go comment

[DavidTC]

The only "correction" I made was to point out that the First Amendment does not say you may say whatever you wish about someone, which is absolutely true.

And then you went on a totally unrelated comment, and in fact the rest of your post, about laws protecting people from 'ridicule', laws which DO NOT EXIST. There is no law, at all, that protects people from ridicule, and no one can sue because they were ridiculed. People can sue because they were libeled or slandered, which in the US requires lies.

Unless, and this is entirely possible, you're a fool who ran two entirely unrelated sentences together in one paragraph, and saying one sentence about American and then another talking about Canadian law, which the parent post wasn't talking about at all.

Although even if that's what you meant, you're still wrong. The Canadian defamation laws are fairly close to America's, except that the truth isn't a total excuse, which means sometimes people can get sued for true things. The laws have nothing to do with 'ridicule', they, and America's laws also, have to do with harm. It's just that Canada lets people assert they were harmed by someone saying true things about them, whereas the US doesn't.

Re:Let's all go comment

[sabt-pestnu]

No more so than the guy behind the counter at the DMV.

Being an employee of the government does not make one a public presence.

For some references on public figures from Wikipedia, see:

* Time, Inc. v. Firestone (an example case of "not a public figure"; probably a "no, you can't manufacture public figure-dom to get away with it", too)
* Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc. (established standard of 1st amendment vs defamation brought by private individuals; the defamed person was a police officer, court deemed he was not a public figure)
* Curtis Publishing Co. v. Butts (prior to Gertz; media have some protections)
* New York Times Co. v. Sullivan (prior to Butts; actual malice standard for public figures)

Re:Let's all go comment

[sabt-pestnu]

Okay... +1 for information, but -1 for aim. Those links are re libel suits, and in the USA.

While the case in question is defamation (libel), it's in Canada, so the whole "public figures vs libel" is under a whole different set of laws.

Still, the Gertz case does show that "police officer != public figure" (in the USA), in response to the actual question asked.

Re:Let's all go comment

[AmigaHeretic]

http://officerbubbles.com/

Discredit to the Police Force

[Anonymous Coward]

Fortunately in Canada you have to "prove damages", and the damages of a cartoon that many of us didn't see, pale in comparison to the damage this officer (yeah that's my opinion, so sue me!) did to himself, and the discredit he brought to his force. Well, unfortunately the whole of Canada's police forces involved in the G20 were pretty discredited by both their lack of action, and their action that was clearly counter to out constitution.

We're still waiting for a full Federal inquiry, by PM Harper is still running and hiding from it.

We all make mistakes, some of us apologize and move on, some of us just move on, and some of us decide to display even more ignorance to the world.

Frivilous Lawsuit

[digitaldc]

This DEFINES it!

Mr Bubbles, you must be new around here

[feedayeen]

Mr Bubbles, you seem to have a fundamentally wrong idea as to how the Internet works and an understanding of the Streisand Effect will be invaluable in the coming months as you are mocked not only by not only YouTube commenters, but also journalists who will undoubtedly pick up the story and your own friends as they read about it.

Toronto Police Const. Adam Josephs is a fascist

[Scrameustache]

Sue me.

Re:Toronto Police Const. Adam Josephs is a fascist

[Anonymous Coward]

Please mod parent up. Help getting "Adam Josephs" up in the google cache.

Re:Toronto Police Const. Adam Josephs is a fascist

[tenco]

Toronto Police Const. Adam Josephs is a fascist

FullACK.

Re:Toronto Police Const. Adam Josephs is a fascist

[volpe]

Bold statement, Mr. Scrameustache.

Re:Toronto Police Const. Adam Josephs is a fascist

[wunchaliketano]

This is why I logged on.. Thank you Scrameustache. Sue me too Adam Josephs Fascist Pig, and pick up that can....

To play devil's advocate

[Godai]

The initial incident was pretty silly and I don't have much sympathy for the officer being ridiculed for that, but my understanding is it elevated past that quite quickly. From other articles I've read, there were cartoons & posts about him beating people and what not. You can argue that it was for fun but there was a note in one of the articles that libel laws cover comments & such on websites, so if you do it you'd better be careful its not defamatory.

Its a kind of tricky line. Anonymity is a powerful and -- often -- good force on the Internet, but there are clearly times when it can be a detriment. Its not hard to design a thought exercise: imagine that newspapers were printed anonymously or articles within them were written anonymously. Yes, I know sources remain anonymous, but in those cases the author of the piece takes responsibility for any libel (well, them and their publisher). If a paper could just publish blatant nonsense that was incredibly defamatory, I doubt many of us would stick up for them. So why do we stick up for some assholes getting their kicks on a bulletin board? It probably didn't matter that much ten years ago, but with YouTube and Facebook and all the viral crap, stuff that would have limited to a few people having a chuckle can now range unpredictably large. Hell, just look at the whole cyber-bullying phenomenon.

Make fun of the officer for being an idiot with the bubble lady -- he deserves that. I'm not sure he deserves some of the other crap, or even if you think he does, if its defamatory (let the lawyers argue that) and you say it, you can be held accountable. There have always been limits on speech -- American 1st amendment not withstanding -- so I don't know why people think the Internet is somehow a special magical case.

Re:To play devil's advocate

[js3]

what does anonymitiy have to do with it?

Re:To play devil's advocate

[onkelonkel]

Parody. When you purposely exaggerate certain aspects of a situation in order to show how ridiculous it is. The officer Bubbles video is textbook parody. No more no less.

Re:To play devil's advocate

[jonescb]

Successfully suing someone for libel and win is extremely difficult to do. You have to prove that the person said whatever it is they said in order to harm you or your reputation. The accused can merely say "I did it for money", or make up any reason other than "I want to ruin your life", and it's perfectly fine and legal. Even if they did want to ruin your life, how are you going to prove that?

Re:To play devil's advocate

[ZJ AJ]

Not in Canada, apparently. According to everyone's least favorite source of legal advice, it would appear that "[i]ntent is always presumed, and it is not necessary to prove that the defendant intended to defame."

Re:To play devil's advocate

[coolsnowmen]

If a paper could just publish blatant nonsense that was incredibly defamatory

But they can publish blatant nonsense. Fox news went to court to prove as much.

http://www.ceasespin.org/ceasespin_blog/ceasespin_blogger_files/fox_news_gets_okay_to_misinform_public.html

https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Monsanto
"The decision in Akre's favor was then overturned in 2003 by an appeals court because the whistleblower's statute under which the original case had been filed did not actually apply to the case. The court held that Fox News had no obligation to report truthfully, and the First Amendment protects their right to lie.[56] Therefore, the court held that firing a reporter for refusing to lie is not actionable under the whistleblower statute."

Re:To play devil's advocate

[Anonymous Coward]

Anonymous free speech is the speech that is most worth protecting.

There is no free speech without anonymity.

The Internet is not a special case, it is the same case at a larger scale.

Large scale anonymity brings more freedom of speech to more people and this is a good thing.

Re:To play devil's advocate

[cgenman]

Defamation laws vary by country quite a bit, so I can only comment from the perspective of someone from California. But in a place where people openly post cartoons of our president dressed as Hitler, standards of defamation seem to be pretty solidly on the open-dialog side.

Videos in question are here.

Adam Josephs quickly made himself a symbol of the tiny everyday police abuses that build deep resentment in the community. This was not something someone did to him: he did it to himself. It may not be as potent a symbol as the shooting of an unarmed, complying suspect by Oakland officer Johannes Mehserle (and the subsequent attempted coverup). But it nonetheless resonates with people who have had that bad run in with an officer who abused his power and managed to turn an innocuous situation into a terrible one. If you watch the videos above, the officer is parodied arresting a woman for dancing in the street, and other things which all seem on similar lines as arresting a woman for blowing bubbles.

And even suing the makers of the parody would make sense, albeit a messed up sense that should be thrown out of court immediately. But suing the commenters? And then YouTube?

On a side note, I've had my fair share of interactions with the police. And every time they were courteous and professional, even when I was at the other end of their gun. But police abuses do happen, and have happened to people I care very much about. People like Adam Josephs need to be singled out as unacceptable outliers. Last week, I was chatting with an officer about how they were telling stories about bad situations they were in, and were looking for solutions to de-escalate the situations with minimal fuss. One told the story of how he was surrounded as he attempted to leave a bar, and someone blocked his way out with thinly veiled threats to kill him. The officer, being outnumbered, offered to buy his assailant a diet coke. This threw the assailant so much, they sat down, had a drink, chatted a bit, and the officer walked out of there alive.

In the case of a bubble-blowing protester, even a simple "Hey, that's kind of annoying. Would you blow that somewhere else?" would have ended the situation right there. It takes a special kind of talent to start with a bubble-blowing peacenick and elevate it into an arrest. That's what these videos are satirizing, and they do so in a well targeted, irreverent, silly fashion.

Re:To play devil's advocate

[Godai]

Oh man, I remember that. I still can't believe they ruled that. Even still, I'm pretty sure that if they ran 'blatant nonsense' about someone with money, they'd face a lawsuit, regardless of any obligation to the truth (or lack therof).

Re:To play devil's advocate

[Godai]

Parody is a fine line. If I parodied you by drawing a cartoon of you having sex with a dog, you might have a case for defamation :)

I haven't seen the video you're talking about, but that's not what I was referring to. There was a different article yesterday when this first came up that mentioned cartoons and comments as the primary focus of the lawsuit. I don't know if they're libelous (or even libel at all) since as someone else here pointed out, defamation can vary from place to place. Still, assuming that they are for a moment, there's an assumption that "if its on the internet, it doesn't count" in some circles that is quite baffling.

If this ever comes to trial I'd bet you're right, and that parody will be one of the lines of defense. That said, I doubt it will ever come to that so we won't know if it would have worked :)

Re:To play devil's advocate

[Godai]

As I said elsewhere, I wasn't actually talking about the videos because the first article I read about this (a day or so ago because I actually live in Toronto) mentioned cartoons & comments, not videos. It sounded like he might have a decent case on those, though I'm sure someone will argue parody if it comes down to it.

And I also agree, if he'd just not been an ass, he'd have saved himself a boatload of trouble. That said, I've been an ass myself from time to time and I'd hate to think that if someone captured it on film, put it on YouTube and it captured the imagination of bored youth that I would have some recourse if they took it past a certain point. Maybe I wouldn't, I don't know, but I think its worth examining the idea that somehow the Internet "doesn't count", which seems to permeate the culture (could probably lump piracy in here too).

The idea of suing commenters is troubling but at the same time interesting. The interactive nature of the Internet brings a new potential dimension to things like this. If someone posts something libelous, and then people quote it and add to it, tweet it, re-tweet it, etc. -- where is the line of responsibility? Is there any? It feels like there's some, but I don't know how much. I'm not suggesting there is any this time, but I wonder how long it will be before this is decided in court somewhere.

Re:To play devil's advocate

[DavidTC]

Actually, it's hyperbole, not parody. It's exaggeration for emphasis. I must have told people this a million times. ;)

For something to be libelous, at least in the US and probably in Canada, it has to be likely that someone will believe it. See 'Hustler Magazine Inc and Larry C Flynt v Jerry Falwell', where Hustler asserted that Falwell had sex with his mother in an outhouse. The courts said 'While that is a lie, it's a lie that no reasonable person would believe, and hence it's not libel.'

So the question is: Does anyone actually believe uncited claims on a damn YouTube post?

Of course, this officer sued everyone, anyway, including people who clearly didn't state anything but opinions. Like the guy in the linked article, who said 'officer bubbles probably looks at himself in the mirror a lot.', which is quite obviously an opinion.

In fact, one of the claims of the suit was that the comments imply he's a narcissist.

Now, there is something called 'narcissistic personality disorder' that you could plausibly sue someone for claiming you had, as you either have that or don't have it, but 'narcissist', like 'stupid', is an opinion about personality. There is no such thing, objectively, as to whether or not someone is a 'narcissist', and hence if I want to call someone that, I can, period.

At least in the US. Who knows what sort of stupidity is going on in Canada.

Re:To play devil's advocate

[Anonymous Coward]

Negation: If he hadn't done stupid shit he wouldn't be ridiculed.

Anonymity is true social freedom, and its highly likely all your listed examples to the contrary of this stance are instances where no truth claim is made. If there is no truth claim, then libel it isn't.

Re:To play devil's advocate

[Alsee]

If I parodied you by drawing a cartoon of you having sex with a dog, you might have a case for defamation :)

I don't know about Canada, but in the US the answer is no.

The are several requirements that must all be met:

1. Actual malice, intent to cause harm.
2. The statement must said with the knowledge that it was false or with "reckless disregard" for whether it is true or false.
3. The statement must be presented as true, and that reasonable people would interpret it as factual.

About the only way a cartoon drawing might be interpreted as factual by reasonable people is if you were to put it on the evening TV news with the caption "artist recreation of actual events". And even then one would hope reasonable persons would notice the news show itself is less than credible for presenting a cartoon as a reconstructed event.

There was a famous case where Hustler Magazine published an "interview" where Jerry Fallwell describes losing his virginity to his mother, and it proceeds to keep on shoveling more on from there. The lawsuit was thrown out of court because it was not intended for readers to take it as a factual description of events, and reasonable readers would not interpret it as a factual historical account. You can read Huslter's Fallwell "interview" here. It's definitely worth reading :)

If I call Officer Bubbles an idiot, he has no case because that is clearly an opinion. If I draw a cartoon of Officer Bubbles butt-raping puppies, he has no case because the cartoon is clearly satire which no reasonable person would take as a factual historical depiction.

And most of all Officer Bubble would have no case because he would have to establish the use of lies with actual malicious intent to inflict harm upon him personally.

The closest thing I have to "malice" would be harsh criticism against Canadian law if it allows this grotesque abusive case to move forward in court.

-

Re:To play devil's advocate

[Anonymous Coward]

imagine that newspapers were printed anonymously or articles within them were written anonymously.

This is the way The Economist works, and it's the finest newspaper I know.

Re:To play devil's advocate

[coolsnowmen]

Yeah, it seams you you lie to say good things about people/corporations, just not bad things.

Re:To play devil's advocate

[Anonymous Coward]

Unfortunately in Canada, there is no protected right to parody as there is in the U.S.

Need New Laws - citizen rights

[RichMan]

Citizens need the right to record any public police action, and any police action in which the individual citizen is involved.
This needs to be a law now.

The public needs a clear law allowing for the recording of police actions and allowing for the recording to be owned by the citizen and protected from seizure by police officers.
Some police do lie, some police do overstep the bounds, some police protect fellow officers.

Re:Need New Laws - citizen rights

[Heretic2]

Some Police lie? Try 100% of Police lie. It's part of their job, they are legally protected lying to you.

Re:Need New Laws - citizen rights

[blair1q]

And there should be an explicit right to make such recordings public.

But while there's a right to criticize the things seen in the recordings, there's no right to abuse the person who did those things. That would be citizens overstepping the bounds.

Re:Need New Laws - citizen rights

[aztektum]

There is something we can do about this.

Re:Need New Laws - citizen rights

[Anonymous Coward]

Citizens need the right to record any public police action, and any police action in which the individual citizen is involved.

That's all well and good, but has nothing at all to do with this article.

Do yourself a favor, next time try thinking instead of using cookie cutter responses, especially when they're completely offtopic.

"Lets see...a video of officer/civilian interaction...I'll use my 'cops hate being recorded' bit!" If you notice, that video hasn't been threatened.

Re:Need New Laws - citizen rights

[russotto]

But while there's a right to criticize the things seen in the recordings, there's no right to abuse the person who did those things.

Abuse? Does Officer Bubbles have bruises as a result? Broken bones?

Nobody abused him. They just jeered at him and called him names. Suggesting that a cop who would arrest someone for blowing bubbles might abuse his authority in other was is NOT abuse.

Re:Need New Laws - citizen rights

[blair1q]

Calling people names is abuse.

Arresting people for assault is not abuse.

You might want to read less Mother Jones and more law books.

Re:Need New Laws - citizen rights

[russotto]

Arresting people for assault _when the arresting officer knows damn well they haven't committed it_ IS abuse.

Re:Need New Laws - citizen rights

[blair1q]

If you don't think what she did was assault, you lack an understanding of the law. See recommendation in my previous post on the subject. Don't just look it up in Wikipedia.

Re:Need New Laws - citizen rights

[MadUndergrad]

Citizens have the right to record any public police action in the US, whether people are aware of it or not. I'm not sure what the law is in Canada.

Re:Need New Laws - citizen rights

[russotto]

If you don't think what she did was assault, you lack an understanding of the law.

And I'm supposed to accept this on your authority? Or do your homework for you?

Re:Need New Laws - citizen rights

[rhizome]

So you're saying that George W. Bush could have had people charged with..."abuse?" if he really didn't like being called "shrub?" Which "abuse" law are you referring to?

Re:Need New Laws - citizen rights

[blair1q]

I did my homework long ago. You need to get some evidence other than my say-so. You say so yourself.

Re:Need New Laws - citizen rights

[Black Gold Alchemist]

Don't laugh. I've been thinking about setting up a website where groups of people passionate about an issue can hire lobbyists to change it for them. Any issue. You can go on line and hire lobbyists to make abortion a crime deserving the death penalty, while I can go on and hire a lobbyist to make abortion free to all. The issue I have is that the internet does not represent everyone. Perhaps, after the Internet site is big, we'll expand to mail and print. I'll call it the "citizen's bribery organization".

Re:Need New Laws - citizen rights

[julesh]

Citizens need the right to record any public police action, and any police action in which the individual citizen is involved.
This needs to be a law now.

The public needs a clear law allowing for the recording of police actions and allowing for the recording to be owned by the citizen and protected from seizure by police officers.

No country whose laws I've looked at in any detail has any law that prevents filming police actions, except in unusual circumstances (e.g. undercover police whose lives may be threatened by revealing images of them is a common one). All of them have laws that prevent the police from arbitrarily seizing material you have acquired perfectly legally and which are not related to an actual offence. Therefore, no law change seems to be required.

What needs to happen is that police should be disciplined for overstating the reach of the law, and people should stand up for their rights more.

Re:Need New Laws - citizen rights

[jabuzz]

It happened in Canada so might be different from the UK. Waving a knife or other weapon or engaging in threatening behavior without touching someone would constitute assault. Once you touch them, it instantly becomes battery, and if you harm them it becomes bodily harm of various degrees (in the UK that would be actual and grievous). Most people fail to understand that assault does not require touching them.

However you are likely to have some difficulty convincing a judge that blowing bubbles from a small container is threatening behavior. If you cannot make that stick then it is not assault.

It reminds me of the classic Monty Python sketch from the Holy Grail where the castle defender says "I fart in your general direction".

Mr. Bubbles. If you don't want to be mocked...

[Anonymous Coward]

Try not being and idiot for a change. Not everyone respects the pathetic little bit of power you've been given to protect the wealthy. Deal with it.

No kidding he should be sued!

[Anonymous Coward]

For trademark and/or copyright infringement.

Swear words

[Anonymous Coward]

I have had to go and add insulting comments to the videos. Good luck to him not bankrupting himself through this.

"Flowers are better than bullets." ~ A. Krause

[zenwarrior]

This guy must be really pissed-off about missing Kent State where he could have killed a protester for placing a flower in his gun. So in memory of Kent State student Allison Krause who was killed on 4 May 1970 and said, "Flowers are better than bullets", after placing a flower in the barrel of a national guardsman's rifle, 40 years later I remind Officer Bubbles that, "Bubbles are better than bullets."

Cops are out of hand

[Anonymous Coward]

We need to have a peace officer bill of responsibilities.

Tenent #1 all offenses committed by a police officer carry minimum sentencing of 3 times the usual maximum sentence for the crime (this should apply for anybody in a position of power).

Cops have a lot of power, and like to abuse it. Put a few cops away for life, and the rest might think twice about committing murder, assault, etc. using their badge both to facilitate the crimes and as a shield against prosecution.

Re:Cops are out of hand

[Anonymous Coward]

Who would prosecute them? Who would arrest them? Police officers do like to abuse their power. The problem is that ALL of them do it, and they look out for one another. Most cops would turn a blind eye to another cop breaking the law. Good luck finding a cop willing to arrest another cop.

Heck with the cop...

[Anonymous Coward]

She should be lucky she didn't blow them in MY face. I've no love for control freak cops, but he gave her the option. And yeah - hate to say it, but to stand there and blow bubbles in someones face - that shit can sting. And no, if I wanted some detergent in my face I'd be washing it instead of standing there. Dunno which one pisses me off more - control freak cops or piss-ant little jewelry-hole ridden beatnick bitches with attitude. Blow bubbles in my face you little wet-nap greenie protester and I'll just haul off and slap you. They were both acting like douches - but bubble-bitch started it.

Re:Heck with the cop...

[yamfry]

You, sir are the toughest guy on the Internets.

Re:Heck with the cop...

[onkelonkel]

No Way. I am the toughest. I would have shot her in the teeth. With a bazooka. Twice.

ahh barbara

[Anonymous Coward]

I summon forth the power of the Streisand!

You miss the point

[MyLongNickName]

Blowing Bubbles is wrong unless he consents.

Silly Slashdotters.

Though I don't agree with the lawsuits...

[Anonymous Coward]

If someone followed you around blowing bubbles in your face you'd probably react much worse. People seem to choose a side (pro- or anti-police, for example) and run with it without giving rationalization to individual situations. What would you have done? He was almost perfectly professional and he took the right course of action.

If you think police are paid to be walked all over by anyone who chooses to do so, well, you're just part of the problem.

Re:Though I don't agree with the lawsuits...

[yamfry]

So the smiling officer standing right beside him with equal "danger" of getting hit by bubbles was taking the wrong course of action?

Re:Though I don't agree with the lawsuits...

[capnchicken]

I thought the young woman officer was handling herself very well. Either could have easily diffused the situation with a "please put the bubbles away ma'am, I don't want them getting in my/her eyes". And escalating from there, instead it's "If a bubble touches me, I'm going to arrest you for assault! That's a deliberate act! It's a detergent!! You want to bait the police!". He escalated the situation well past where it was, and was being far from professional.

No one was following anyone around blowing bubbles, so your analogy falls flat. I'm guessing by worse you mean that you would shoot someone putting a flower down the barrel of your gun. Cops need to be held to a higher standard then what you or I would do, because they have been entrusted with a certain amount of authority over other people.

You can tell which cops feel that they have adequate control over their own personal lives and which do not.

Cops are there to serve and protect, unfortunately, their unions have all but eliminated that obligation.

I would like to shake the hand...

[bornagainpenguin]

...of the lawyer who convinced "Officer Bubbles" to file this lawsuit. This is taking being a magnificant bastard to all new heights! What better way to mock "Officer Bubbles" than by ensuring the video clip he wants most to disappear gets spread all over the world? How better to screw over the asshole than by racking up legal fees you know will accomplish the very opposite of what was promised?

This is great!

Consequences of the Internet

[sammysheep]

Many will agree that this lawsuit was a poor response. However, it does prompt in my mind the power of the internet to hold in eternity the funniest, nastiest, and unluckiest moments of our lives. Many will say, "Good, he deserves it." But think about what this means generally: your mistakes can be immortalized in such a way that you may pay for them even after a long time has passed and even if you've apologized or repented of your actions. You can even be threatened and abused via e-mail. (Notwithstanding, it looks doubtful this fellow has done the former and purportedly he has received the latter.)

In brief, the internet + video can make the consequences of our actions much larger than they would otherwise be, and perhaps, disproportionately so.

Re:Consequences of the Internet

[capnchicken]

Cops can make the consequences of our actions much larger than they would otherwise be, and perhaps, disproportionately so.

Re:Consequences of the Internet

[Cwix]

Perhaps the consequence of the officers actions deserved to be magnified, because he holds so much power.

Lawsuits are dumb

[vonlogik]

But really.... you expect him to just sit there and take the bubbles to the face? This is just too idiotic to debate any further.

Re:Lawsuits are dumb

[JxcelDolghmQ]

After watching this video, I expect him to take a boot heel or a bullet to the face.

Fuck cops like this. Fuck them all right in the ass.

If you're a cop, and this is the kind of attitude that you have, then this means YOU.

You know the score, pal.

[Anonymous Coward]

You're not cop, you're little people.

Cartoons?

[choongiri]

Well, where are the "mocking" cartoons? Who has a link?

Re:Cartoons?

[choongiri]

Found 'em: http://www.youtube.com/user/MisterOfficerBubbles

In defense of Officer Bubbles...

[chemicaldave]

...that bubble lady was asking for it. Perhaps the officer's response was unnecessary, but I'd be pissed off if someone kept blowing bubbles at me after I asked them to stop. Not to mention the fact that her behavior indicates she's just blowing bubble to incite the officers. She said "my name is a mystery." then seconds later, "I have nothing to hide." Maybe she didn't deserve to be arrested, but she was certainly asking for it.

Re:In defense of Officer Bubbles...

[Scrameustache]

If only everyone obeyed every order the police gives them, huh? If only that chick would understand that once he puts on his uniform, he's the boss of her...

Re:In defense of Officer Bubbles...

[Rumagent]

Well he is getting paid for it. Not only is it her right to be there, the most important part of his job is to make sure she can be there.

Re:In defense of Officer Bubbles...

[chemicaldave]

If only everyone obeyed every order the police gives them, huh? If only that chick would understand that once he puts on his uniform, he's the boss of her...

Well if he's trying to do his job, she's deliberately distracting him, and he tells her to stop? Yes. It's interesting that the video shows no footage immediately prior to the arrest, so we really don't know why she was put into custody.

Re:In defense of Officer Bubbles...

[objekt]

She stopped when asked. Watch the video again. After he says "If the bubble touches me, you're going to be arrested for assault," no more bubbles are seen.

Re:In defense of Officer Bubbles...

[chemicaldave]

Well he is getting paid for it. Not only is it her right to be there, the most important part of his job is to make sure she can be there.

Does that mean I have the right to walk up in public to a public employee and distract them by blowing bubbles at them just because they are being paid? What if she was doing this to a postal worker, or a meter-maid? They could call the police and she'd be told to leave. Sometimes, and in this case, that public employee and the police are the same person.

Re:In defense of Officer Bubbles...

[chemicaldave]

She stopped when asked. Watch the video again. After he says "If the bubble touches me, you're going to be arrested for assault," no more bubbles are seen.

Right. Which is why I pointed out that it's interesting that there is no footage of her immediately prior to her arrest. According to this article, she wasn't even arrested for the bubbles.

However, according to CNews, Winkels [the lady] confirmed that she wasn’t arrested for blowing bubbles but instead detained for wearing a backpack and having a lawyer’s number written on her arm. She was charged with one count of conspiracy to commit mischief over $5,000.

So are people really upset that she was asked to stop or are they just misinformed due to suggestive editing in the video?

Re:In defense of Officer Bubbles...

[Derosian]

Isn't this the same logic some rapist use? "Maybe she didn't deserve to be raped but she sure was asking for it!" I really don't think it works here very well either.

Re:In defense of Officer Bubbles...

[RattFink]

However, according to CNews, Winkels [the lady] confirmed that she wasn’t arrested for blowing bubbles but instead detained for wearing a backpack and having a lawyer’s number written on her arm. She was charged with one count of conspiracy to commit mischief over $5,000.

So are people really upset that she was asked to stop or are they just misinformed due to suggestive editing in the video?

Wow that seems an even more ridiculous reason for arrest then for blowing bubbles.

Re:In defense of Officer Bubbles...

[Anonymous Coward]

Umm, if they get distracted by bubbles - or even just bothered by them - I want to see what happens if there really IS a problem. What are they going to do then? Throw grenades?

This was *WAY* over the top, and puts other people doing that work to shame.

Re:In defense of Officer Bubbles...

[Scrameustache]

It's interesting that the video shows no footage immediately prior to the arrest, so we really don't know why she was put into custody.

Here's context: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GP_LB_ZhcTA&NR=1

She was put in custody because the police were arresting people en masse as part of a concerted effort to suppress free speech. A thousand people were held, their rights trampled, and eventually released. The whole thing is a travesty of democracy and justice, this is just one hilarious instance of abuse of police power amongts a general trend of fascism.

Re:In defense of Officer Bubbles...

[djconrad]

Why is having a backpack a reason to arrest someone? And having a lawyer's number seems like good planning as things turned out.

Re:In defense of Officer Bubbles...

[h4rr4r]

So having a backpack and knowing a lawyer are reasons for arrest?
You think maybe the lawyers number was there because she knew the cops might arrest her for anything?

Re:In defense of Officer Bubbles...

[chemicaldave]

Those are her words. We can't know the real reason for her arrest unless someone wants to spend the time to retrieve the documentation. Anything else is pure speculation.

Re:In defense of Officer Bubbles...

[FatAlb3rt]

Having her lawyer's number sounds as if she had a clearly defined AGENDA. But don't let that get in your way, feel free to continue blindly defending her since you were there and know the entire story.

Re:In defense of Officer Bubbles...

[Scrameustache]

She stopped when asked. Watch the video again. After he says "If the bubble touches me, you're going to be arrested for assault," no more bubbles are seen.

Right. Which is why I pointed out that it's interesting that there is no footage of her immediately prior to her arrest. According to this article, she wasn't even arrested for the bubbles.

However, according to CNews, Winkels [the lady] confirmed that she wasn’t arrested for blowing bubbles but instead detained for wearing a backpack and having a lawyer’s number written on her arm. She was charged with one count of conspiracy to commit mischief over $5,000.

So are people really upset that she was asked to stop or are they just misinformed due to suggestive editing in the video?

detained for wearing a backpack and having a lawyer’s number written on her arm.

How. Can you. Justify. ARRESTING PEOPLE FOR THAT!? What the fuck is wrong with you? What kind of twisted, fucked up upbringing made you so blindly submissive to authority that no matter how obvious it is that they are grossly abusing their power, you will keep saying that they are right to do what they do? You disgust me, you fascist pig, you're really a horrible, horrible person.

Re:In defense of Officer Bubbles...

[Scrameustache]

Well he is getting paid for it. Not only is it her right to be there, the most important part of his job is to make sure she can be there.

Does that mean I have the right to walk up in public to a public employee and distract them by blowing bubbles at them

Yes, sheep, you have the right to do that. We all have the right to blow bubles in public places. It's not a crime.

Re:In defense of Officer Bubbles...

[chemicaldave]

detained for wearing a backpack and having a lawyer’s number written on her arm.

How. Can you. Justify. ARRESTING PEOPLE FOR THAT!? What the fuck is wrong with you? What kind of twisted, fucked up upbringing made you so blindly submissive to authority that no matter how obvious it is that they are grossly abusing their power, you will keep saying that they are right to do what they do? You disgust me, you fascist pig, you're really a horrible, horrible person.

It's too bad that you had to resolve to name calling. Perhaps I should point out that those reasons are her words. I have yet to see the documentation associated with her arrest to know the officer's reason. Or maybe you shouldn't let your emotions take over your ability to reason. There's really nothing to argue about that isn't pure speculation without having documentation.

Re:In defense of Officer Bubbles...

[chemicaldave]

Yes, sheep, you have the right to do that. We all have the right to blow bubles in public places. It's not a crime.

I didn't say blowing them in a public place. I said blow them in a distracting manner. In the US, the 1st amendment protects a person's right to free speech, yet it doesn't protect you from going up to someone and yelling in their face with the intent of distracting or antagonizing them (think racist following a black guy around).

Re:In defense of Officer Bubbles...

[Anonymous Coward]

It's in TFA/supporting link:

11. "arrested later that same day by another police officer on a charge of possesion of a weeapon for a dangerous purpose"

I guess that's the basis for one of the hurtful skits:

20 (4) (Talking to and arresting doctor in his office) ...

Josephs: What's in your bag?
Doctor: Bandages
J: Weapon!
D: Gauze
J Weapon!

Re:In defense of Officer Bubbles...

[Scrameustache]

There's really nothing to argue about that isn't pure speculation without having documentation.

Then look for information and post that instead of speculative apologetics for the authority figure.

You know what they said they were charging her with? Having a weapon: She was equipped with first aid gear and soap bubbles to keep the mood light, and jackbooted thugs arrested her, along with a thousand other peaceful protesters, as part of a systemic abuse of power throughout that weekend.

That is very well documented, just go look for "g20 toronto" and stay away from fox news, the wall street journal, and any other propaganda outlet of the g20, because they obviously won't say "we crush opposition with brute force and drown out their voice with capital investments in media", since that would defeat the purpose of that investment.

It's not illegal to blow bubbles, it's not illegal to carry eye wash, there is no legal nor constitutional reason for her arrest, and I have very negative emotions about people like you who support such flagrant abuses of power.

P.S. They say they're arresting her for that, it's bullshit off course. They have no real reason to arrest her, they'll make up some plausible-sounding charge later, or they'll release her along with the other thousand innocent people who were only acting on their right to protest their government, once they've been detained in order to prevent them from using their right, obviously.
The "don't tase me bro" guy (lemme guess, you also approve of tasering journalism students who wait their turn to asks questions at public question and answer sessions with a presidential-candidate, don't you?), he was told he was "inciting a riot" when he asked why he was being arrested (before you claim those were just his word and I have no information: someone filmed the whole thing), but that's not what they charged him with, because they were just making shit up on the spot, but later the D.A. had time to think of something more plausible. Cops are for applying brute force, attorneys are there for the thinking.

Re:In defense of Officer Bubbles...

[djconrad]

I haven't yest seen a protester without an agenda. Still don't know why that's an arresting offence.

Re:In defense of Officer Bubbles...

[Scrameustache]

A cute young woman, merrily blowing bubbles, calmly answering questions when talked to politely.

For you to equate that with...

going up to someone and yelling in their face with the intent of distracting or antagonizing them

...that, you must have absolutely no honesty in you, none at all. You're a troll made of pure suck.

Re:In defense of Officer Bubbles...

[nosferatu1001]

Or, knowing that the police have a history of overreaching their authority, perhaps it is just a sing that she is interested in protecting herself?

Your bias is telling here.

Re:In defense of Officer Bubbles...

[Anonymous Coward]

Ok, it's now officially been confirmed that lawyers are, indeed, evil. Canadian police arrests people for merely having their phone number written on their arms! Shakespeare had it right, after all.

Re:In defense of Officer Bubbles...

[DavidTC]

Erm, I think a better word would be 'underinformed'.

I mean, they're upset because of something that, somewhere, in some universe, might actually be illegal. There is some gradient of 'battery', and hitting people with, for example, a water balloon is indeed battery. Hitting someone with a very thin film of soap, especially a slow moving and not-under-your-control one, shouldn't be illegal, but I can comprehend some sort of screwy law that makes hitting anyone, with anything, at all, illegal. (I know the same gradient exist for touch, and the police will often used any touch at all as a pretext for arresting people on 'battery'.)

OTOH, I can't comprehend how having a backpack is illegal, nor can I comprehend how having the telephone number of a lawyer is. The second, access to a lawyer, is something that the government must provide people in the first place! (Yes, that's the same in Canada.)

So, yes, people are 'misinformed', and should be fucking livid, instead of just 'ha ha, the cops think bubbles are illegal'.

Re:In defense of Officer Bubbles...

[Anonymous Coward]

However, according to CNews, Winkels [the lady] confirmed that she wasn’t arrested for blowing bubbles but instead detained for wearing a backpack and having a lawyer’s number written on her arm. She was charged with one count of conspiracy to commit mischief over $5,000.

So are people really upset that she was asked to stop or are they just misinformed due to suggestive editing in the video?

Wow that seems an even more ridiculous reason for arrest then for blowing bubbles.

Police in so-called democratic countries are really losing it lately. Screw them.

Re:In defense of Officer Bubbles...

[SleazyRidr]

'Conspiracy to commit mischief'?

What the fuck is this, the third grade?

Re:In defense of Officer Bubbles...

[misexistentialist]

"Documentation" is just someone's words too. It might say "assault" when you were just blowing bubbles. To say that the person charged in a crime can only "speculate" about it is absurd.

Re:In defense of Officer Bubbles...

[Anonymous Coward]

Here are some facts:

The original confrontation occurred at Queen St W and Noble in Toronto's Parkdale neighbourhood at Parkdale Legal Community Services Centre. It was called the "Convergence Centre" where protesters from out of town could meet, share food, get some rest and organize their peaceful marches etc. They were not affiliated with
anyone participating in or condoning "Black Bloc" techniques.

Bubble Girl, (Ms. Winkels), was at the Convergence Centre on the Sunday afternoon when the area was swarmed by police in riot gear who boxed off the area and refused to allow people to leave. The neighbourhood where this happened is approximately 4.1kms (2.5miles) away from the Summit site. It is a high-density residential area in the western side of downtown. Ms. Winkels had been working as a street medic over the course of the weekend. She was not a violent protester.

What you don't see in the original video is - Officer Bubbles injected himself into a conversation between the female officer and Ms. Winkels. He had been 7 metres (20feet) away and chose to confront a situation that was calm and under control. Infer what you will of his character from that. Also, Ms. Winkels was asked to stop blowing bubbles by the Officer and she did cease doing so - the video shows this.

This scene was not a rowdy crowd protesting at a Summit site. Riot squads descended on a residential neighbourhood, blocked off a main street and kettled people walking their dogs or getting coffee and detained them as a bus was searched. A bus filled with Montrealers returning home on the Sunday afternoon because the Summit was over.

After the confrontation with Officer Bubbles, Ms. Winkels was treated with suspicion for having a lawyer's phone number written on her arm and charged with possession of weapons dangerous for having eyewash in her backpack (despite being able to prove her position as a street medic) and arrested.

The lawsuit Officer Bubbles has launched does not take issue with the original video, which you have seen. It is not mentioned in any part of his Statement of Claim. Clearly, he is comfortable or at least aware that there is nothing he can do or say to defend his words, actions or demeanour. His Statement of Claim encompasses the Officer Bubbles cartoons and the possible slanderous nature of those. He also claims that threats have been made to the safety of his family and children.

If someone had made a credible threat to the safety of his family and children, then I feel some sympathy for them. That crosses a line for me.
But a grown man who chose to behave in a completely overbearing and unnecessary manner does not.

As Cst. Josephs so succinctly put it, my heart bleeds.

Re:In defense of Officer Bubbles...

[B1nd3r DunD4t]

Here are some facts:

The original confrontation occurred at Queen St W and Noble in Toronto's Parkdale neighbourhood at Parkdale Legal Community Services Centre. It was called the "Convergence Centre" where protesters from out of town could meet, share food, get some rest and organize their peaceful marches etc. They were not affiliated with anyone participating in or condoning "Black Bloc" techniques.

Bubble Girl, (Ms. Winkels), was at the Convergence Centre on the Sunday afternoon when the area was swarmed by police in riot gear who boxed off the area and refused to allow people to leave. The neighbourhood where this happened is approximately 4.1kms (2.5miles) away from the Summit site. It is a high-density residential area in the western side of downtown. Ms. Winkels had been working as a street medic over the course of the weekend. She was not a violent protester.

What you don't see in the original video is - Officer Bubbles injected himself into a conversation between the female officer and Ms. Winkels. He had been 7 metres (20feet) away and chose to confront a situation that was calm and under control. Infer what you will of his character from that. Also, Ms. Winkels was asked to stop blowing bubbles by the Officer and she did cease doing so - the video shows this.

This scene was not a rowdy crowd protesting at a Summit site. Riot squads descended on a residential neighbourhood, blocked off a main street and kettled people walking their dogs or getting coffee and detained them as a bus was searched. A bus filled with Montrealers returning home on the Sunday afternoon because the Summit was over.

After the confrontation with Officer Bubbles, Ms. Winkels was treated with suspicion for having a lawyer's phone number written on her arm and charged with possession of weapons dangerous for having eyewash in her backpack (despite being able to prove her position as a street medic) and arrested.

The lawsuit Officer Bubbles has launched does not take issue with the original video, which you have seen. It is not mentioned in any part of his Statement of Claim. Clearly, he is comfortable or at least aware that there is nothing he can do or say to defend his words, actions or demeanour. His Statement of Claim encompasses the Officer Bubbles cartoons and the possible slanderous nature of those. He also claims that threats have been made to the safety of his family and children.

If someone had made a credible threat to the safety of his family and children, then I feel some sympathy for them. That crosses a line for me.
But a grown man who chose to behave in a completely overbearing and unnecessary manner does not. As Cst. Josephs so succinctly put it, my heart bleeds.

Re:In defense of Officer Bubbles...

[asdf7890]

Fair point. Though one thing that is well documented, by this video if nothing else, is that Officer Bubbles is a dick, at at least acted like a macho dick on that particular occasion. While she may have caused some meaningful aggravation during the cut in the video that wouldn't excuse Offer Dick Bubbles for being a dick before that point.

Re:In defense of Officer Bubbles...

[cbiltcliffe]

" conspiracy to commit mischief " was the reason

Which means...what, exactly?
That every slashdotter is guilty?

This is pretty much the definition of a general purpose charge that's so vague and broad that anyone is guilty of it at any time.
Then, combine that with selective enforcement, and the entire nation is full of criminals, whenever the police want to cause trouble.

Thanks, Officer bubbles!

[russotto]

I love the fact that the complaint includes transcripts of all the offending cartoons. They're hilarious and it saves me the trouble of tracking them down.

Re:Thanks, Officer bubbles!

[cheros]

Where? Didn't see it, and I would love to now the idiot is on my radar. I mean, I need something to laugh when he sues me for calling him an idiot, which I hereby do as an expression of personal opinion.
In my limited experience with protected personnel I would say that it is reasonable to suspect that Office Bubbles was already under stress. Given that the situation as filmed did not contain elements of danger as far as I could detect, it is IMHO reasonable to assume Office Bubbles is not quite suitable for street duty. Or, alternatively, he's as assumed before.

An idiot.

I used to think...

[Rene S. Hollan]

... that no one deserved to be called a fucktardic pig.

I guess there's a first time for everything.

This Canuck proudly wraps himself in the First Amendment, now that he's a lawful permanent resident of the U.S.

Whatcha gonna do, Officer Bubbles, extradite my ass back across the border?

Dear Bubbles, Fuck You.

[Pezbian]

Sincerely,
Reality

I don't give a shit who you are, you don't bend the principle of the law to get all vindictive on a personal level, especially not like that. This guy is "gonna get raped".

If I acted like that much of a bitch-chump, I'd have to kick my own ass.

It's not defamation of character when it's true.

Is blowing just air at someone assault?

[Anonymous Coward]

What if she just blew at him? Is that assault as well? After all, molecules of air would be hitting him. Seriously, if bubbles are assault then is blowing air at someone assault?

If not, where does cigarette smoke fit in? Assault?

The girl is pretty hot

[Anonymous Coward]

The girl is actually pretty hot... and if she isn't allowed to blow bubbles, I know something else she can blow...

So cops cause riots.

[AnonymousClown]

....which would include things like threatening random passers-by and generally acting like thugs, its standard crowd control tactics, and while very far from acceptable civilised behaviour, it does work.

Oh, so that's why riots break out when the cops are around - the cops are acting like assholes and start it.

I'll remember that if I'm ever called for jury duty and the cops are whining about how the crowd rioted and they had to bash people's skulls in, fired tear gas or used deadly force.

Re:So cops cause riots.

[Cwix]

Define riot.

Are people throwing moltov cocktails at the police, or are they just making some noise. In option A, tear gas and non lethal force may be required, in option B it most certainly is not required, and should not be allowed, as the people are only expressing free speech. Im not up on Canadian law, but I assume they have some form of free speech.

Officer Bubbles Is a Moron -- quote me on that!

[eyenot]

I am not a doctor or a lawyer.

I'm reading the document, and I think some things are clear:

"Josephs is a police officer who abuses his position of authority"

"Josephs mistreats members of the public"

"Josephs is incompetent and unfit to be a police officer"

"Josephs has psychological problems"

"Josephs is a narcissist"

"Josephs bullies members of the public"

"Josephs is egotistical"

Even if they weren't true following the protest event that was publicised on YouTube, they are true now that he's filed the lawsuit.

Hopefully he's forced to actually present evidence of damages and not just to sit their weeping on the stand and crying about how his lack of dignity was publicised resulting in a lack of public respect for him.

If he were to emphasize the statement under Sec.IV.40, ("Damages... Josephs has received threats of physical harm") I'm sure the public would have to remind him that police officers sign onto a job that is not popular with the public, and that threats against their person for so much as taking the job are something to be weathered.

Sec.IV.41 notes that the defendant acted "callously" towards Josephs, and who knows -- in Canada, maybe there isn't really freedom of speech.

What's obvious to me, though, underneath all of this, is that Josephs intends to amass over a million dollars and probably to use it to boost a career in entertainment. That's what people usually do when internet publicity ruins their lives -- they take the internet up on the offer and try to make good of their own charicature.

At any rate, it's boring, I never heard of it before and I'm not likely to hear of it again, since it's Canadian, not America.

Re:Officer Bubbles Is a Moron -- quote me on that!

[Anonymous Coward]

IANAL ... but, even if one does not approve of the officer's behavior in the video, read the complaint.

Many of the published statements for which the officer is brining his case, do not comment on the incident, but directly malign his character.

Read ...

        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slander ... and then decide how you want to construct a defense.

This is a long way clearly being protected free speech, even in the good old USA.

Re:Officer Bubbles Is a Moron -- quote me on that!

[eyenot]

One big problem you'll have? Ridicule. All of it was done in the light of publicly ridiculing someone they didn't even have a realistic expectation of ever coming in contact with. They aren't members of his community. You can't blame the internet for everything, and one thing you can't blame it for ruining is a good time. Griefing aside, since the man's an officer and isn't into self-harm, there's nothing you can really legally do when people decide you're ridiculous. Otherwise half of the entire world of humor is at stake. Things done in a humoristic slant are immediately dismissable and absurd, and that's how it'll be thrown out of court.

Re:Officer Bubbles Is a Moron -- quote me on that!

[Anonymous Coward]

Mr Josephs has proven that he's not capable of performing his duties as a police officer. That much is clear.

Whether he ought to be in jail - that is open to debate. The fact that he is a jerk is NOT open to debate.

Honestly

[zcold]

I hope 4chan gets a hold of him.... I live in Toronto. There are some good cops, but then there are these losers out there that have nothing better to do than to waste our tax dollars.

eeraser

[Anonymous Coward]

Good on the cop!

I would have dropped her and slapped the cuffs on for just being a pain in the ass. "I want to be respected"...he warned you first, he explained why blowing the bubbles at him was unacceptable and gave her the option to continue or cease the bubble blowing. I hope this cop was given a raise for his ability to show such restraint in a situation where he would have been within his rights to drag her away.

Or maybe he didnt want the extra paperwork?

Re:eeraser

[Cwix]

Would have been in his rights to drag him away. I hope to god no one ever gives you a badge. The cop was nothing but a bully with a badge.

Suggestion

[killmenow]

This guy should join forces with Gene Simmons. They're both douchebags trying to hunt down something as amorphous as fog.

Streisand here we come

[srh2o]

Officer Bubbles meet Barbara Streisand. You've just ensured millions of more views of the videos and the cartoons.

Officer Bubbles should be shot.

[Anonymous Coward]

Seriously. People are too fucking afraid of their governments. These kinds of petite Nazis should be killed where they stand.

Antifa's...

[Anonymous Coward]

Antifa's have no respect for no one... they're just criminals playing the role of 'activists'. The officer involved should be commended for his actions and for having such patience. In Europe that Antifa would've been shot on the spot with rubber bullets and arrested. Canadians go too easy on people. SMASH THE REDS!

Your all douche-bags

[Anonymous Coward]

I agree 100% with Officer 'Bubbles' actions in the video. However, he must be crazy if he thinks he sue the commentters and win. On the other hand, I think he knows this. So, more power to him!

Nice Job

[davetucker]

I had never heard of this guy before. Now thanks to this lawsuit, I have. Thanks for bringing this to my attention, officer bubbles.

As much as I hate cops

[future assassin]

The bitch got what she deserved. Look at the stupid smirk on her face, you know shes a bit "special"

If she was standing there and blowing the bubbles away from him or just doing nothing and got arrested then that would be a different story.

So what happened in the video's missing part?

[Anonymous Coward]

Officer Bubbles threatened her with arrest, she put the bubbles away. "A few moments later" she's under arrest.

What happened in those few moments that the video doesn't show? The video is very clear, right there -- so why doesn't it contain what happened?

The missing footage suggests that she did something to push him over the edge. Did she blow more bubbles? Did she hit him over the head with a frying pan? (Yes, I'm being sarcastic.) Either way, the fact that this isn't part of the video suggests that the makers of this video felt that this was worth hiding.

If they were filming something else, fine, show us that rather than just saying "a few moments later" ...

If the cop had decided "You know what, I'm tired of arguing with you, you're under arrest" -- then that would make their point even stronger, and so it would be in the video. I'm guessing she decided to blow more bubbles, and he made good on his threat, but this is just a guess.

(Not that I agree with his threat -- he should have just asked her to stop or sucked it up rather than threatening her -- but once he made it, he can't not abide by it without losing face.)

Going live in... 3... 2... 1...

[automag]

Officer Bubbles is about to get a not-so-subtle introduction to the inner workings of the Streisand Effect. (For those living under a rock: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Streisand_effect)

Anonymous Coward

[Anonymous Coward]

The dumb bitch deserved it. She can protest all she wants, but what was the point of blowing bubbles in someone's face other than to piss them off? Would she have allowed the cop to do the same? She and the White Knight were only acting the way they were to stir up trouble and because they knew if he retaliated, he'd lose his job.

...and we are go with

[quibbler]

operation Barbara Streisand!

Here's the guy's address

[Anonymous Coward]

It's one of these two addresses, assuming he lives in Toronto:

174 John Garland Blvd
Toronto, ON M9V 5G1

15 Pape Ave
Toronto, ON M4M 2V5

Some of our northern brothers want to go take a peek?

Hmm. What is he going to do if someone pulls a gu

[cheros]

I mean, if bubbles mean arrest, I presume he's going to get something like a straight heart attack right there and then. Or call for backup - with a tank..

Sorry, that's just idiotic. The guy needs a psychiatrist.

When it is endangerment

[hellfire]

It is endangerment if you blow it into the child's eyes and get soap in the child's eyes and ignore the child's cries of pain.

Re:When it is endangerment

[Scrameustache]

It is endangerment if you blow it into the child's eyes and get soap in the child's eyes and ignore the child's cries of pain.

Nope, that's full on assault, it's endangerment simply to blow bubbles near a child, since blowing bubbles near a cop is a danger to that fit and trained adult, imagine what a soap bubble could do to small kid! When the bubble pops, it's gonna rip the kid's head right off!

Alert - authoritarian apologist

[microbox]

he did give her the courtesy of a warning first

COURTESY, omfg! The guy totally stepped over the line, and deserves a good slap down for being an overbearing prick. There was no courtesy involved in his "warning". He could have levelly said "We don't appreciate the bubbles, put them away now please." Instead, he humiliated her for no reason.

Exercising authority does not mean acting like a prick. In fact, it works best the other way around: when the officer acts like a gentleman. In Canada at least, even police officers are obliged to mind their manners.

Links to the removed cartoons

[Anonymous Coward]

The removed cartoons are available here:

http://www.youtube.com/user/MisterOfficerBubbles
http://www.youtube.com/user/ConstableBubbles

A fucktardic nigger of a pig

[Rene S. Hollan]

I wasn't going to use the "N-word". Really, I wasn't: it's just too offensive to too many people, blacks (certainly), whites (if they have a clue), and generally every one else with two brain cells to rub together. But, I think it fits here.

My first experience with the "N-word" was in elementary school. I'd hear the occasional person (usually an adult), refer to "stuipid niggers", "damn niggers", or some other type of "nigger". I came to learn that this meant a black person.

That struck me as odd. I had black classmates, of course, but none of them were stupid (well, some were smarter than others, but that was true of everyone else as well, and we were all in the same grade, so no one could really be stupid). As for damned, well I wasn't much of a churchgoer, so I couldn't tell. I reasoned that niggers were some kind of troublemakers or neer'do'wells that just happened to be black.

So, there were the kids we played with: black, white, Asian, whatever, and, somewhere, out there, were "niggers" -- causing trouble in the high schools, perhaps... except, I never met any when I got to high school. It was at this point that I came to understand just how nasty an epithet it was, to have a word that didn't describe an "undesirable" that happened to be of a particular race, but a condemnation solely on the basis of race alone. And, I swore to erase that word from my thinking.

Until this story.

It may have taken close to 50 years of my life, but damn, if someone out there deserves that epithet, Officer Bubbles is it., cause he sure seems stupid, arrogant, narcissistic, a disgrace to the uniform he wears, and conveniently black: the elusive nigger of my ignorant youth.

Your bubbles waste taxpayer's money

[Anonymous Coward]

If you blow bubbles in my face after I repeatedly tell you to stop, you should go to jail. Damn straight. No matter how small the act of aggression is, it was meant to force a response. Turn the tables around for a minute, if Cops were to disperse crowds with huge bubble makers, how angry would that mob get. If I blow bubbles in your eyes for hours would this not upset you? Hell yeah it would, you would probably punch me for this. You guys are a bunch of kids getting angry because somebody won't let you gently mock them. Grow up and stop wasting our taxpayer dollars on your stupid worless passive-aggressive efforts! While you were distracting this officer's attention a serious crime could have been committed and who would have benefitted from all of this?

Re:Your bubbles waste taxpayer's money

[mywhitewolf]

is mocking someone worth deprivation of liberty? which is what an arrest is, its just given the OK because its suppose to be in the public's best interest. is it really in the public best interest to arrest this girl for blowing bubbles? she could have been distracting him while a real crime occurred but he was also on the other side of the fence as well, with no reason not to simply step back.

Wow that video shows every thing...

[NevarMore]

...I mean that "and then moments later" thats just a minor edit. Its not like they were doing a "Meanwhile, in Norway" gag, that missing footage was just when there weren't four or five cameras trained on an officer that was a little agitated and a protester that was pushing the limits. Nothing to see in those gaps at all.

This is the kind of shit that makes it hard to have any real discourse. Everyone edits and cuts, here in the states we saw it with the Ag Secretary being quoted out of context and sacked, we see it in the political ads, hell the "news" networks do it too.

Re:Wow that video shows every thing...

[Scrameustache]

This video shows the broader context of the "Officer Bubbles" confrontation: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bVwXOKZh4Os&feature=channel

So two abuses of authority, not just one

[wanax]

Well, thanks to the extra information, you've brought to light police overstepping their authority twice, rather than once, if "wearing a backpack and having a lawyer's number written on her arm" is cause for arrest.

Re: your post

[Anonymous Coward]

Sorry, however stupid/idiotic/(add your own words here) the guy has been, he doesn't deserve to be called names. All the other things are just opinions (or actually facts judging by the fact that he filed that lawsuit, but I digress :-).

I don't think there's any reason to dig out offensive words to hit someone with their colour of skin. I think we may have managed to leave the racist era behind.

And it's boring too.

Now I'm going to have to hand over my 1st born

[syousef]

Are you for real? Don't you know bubbles are a detergent? A DETERGENT for God's sake! The situation was on the precipice of doom. DOOOM!

The most upsetting part is that now I am going to have to go and wake up my infant son and take him in to the police station. Just the other day he assaulted me with a bubble gun. Did you hear that? A bubble GUN! Yet somehow I had no idea I was being assaulted and thought he was "just playing". Now my son is beyond saving. He will forever be a hoodlum. Do you see how insidious this conspiracy is? Clearly the only solution is to ban all detergent and lock up all the manufacturers. Soap too! It is a little known fact that soap can be used to make bubbles.

Re:Now I'm going to have to hand over my 1st born

[trentblase]

It is a little known fact that soap can be used to make bubbles.

It is completely irresponsible for you to post this information on the public interwebs. I demand that you delete your post at once, or I will be forced to back trace your IP and report you to the cyber police. Don't try to raise any kind of First Amendment defense, because as we all know, national security trumps freedom of speech, and due to your carelessness a terrerist may learn how to make bubbles of doom.

A different take

[cheros]

You know, I think Officer Bubbles is right. This was an offensive weapon, so the next time he has to go out in the field they should take his baton, tear gas and gun if he has it, and just give him a can of bubbles so he can go and kick ass.

Does that put things in perspective?

Proof that cops cause riots

[Scrameustache]

Oh, so that's why riots break out when the cops are around - the cops are acting like assholes and start it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gAfzUOx53Rg
Quebec provincial police admitted Thursday (august 2007) that their officers disguised themselves as demonstrators during the protest at the North American leaders summit in Montebello, Que.

Re: your post

[Rene S. Hollan]

I think you missed my point entirely.

As kids, we have distorted views of what words mean: racist terms make no sense to a child who has not been taught to discriminate on the basis of race. Therefore, children will extrapolate their own definitions: in my case, one who has some purported undesirable quality and also happens to have a particular racial characteristic.

Officer "Bubbles" fits my childhood definition of a mythical person that I never met. I'm sure his behavior will also induce some to extrapolate (incorrectly) that it is due to his race. I though the juxtaposition of a child's distorted understanding, and some adult's prejudices expressed with the same epithet interesting.

don't bubble me bro!

[TheCarp]

Man, didn't you know that bubbles are made of soap! He could have gotten soap in his eye man! Soap in the eye is no laughing matter!

Soap, as we all know, is made with lye! Lye is a caustic chemical that has no place being thrown at people.

So there, see... officer bubbles clearly had reason to consider this assault.

-Steve

Re:don't bubble me bro!

[hesiod]

Soap in the eye is no laughing matter!

"I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"

Must have been the lye!

I beg to differ.

[Das Auge]

How did you know when it was bed time at Michael Jackson's house? The big hand was on the little hand.

What an embarrassment to the police force

[Anonymous Coward]

As a South African, we have the almost yearly occurrence of "protesters" setting alight buses and trains that have arrived too late. We have "protesters" marching through the streets setting cars and tires alight, throwing stones at people and even upturning garbage and rolling around in it.

But oh no! Officer Bubbles had bubbles blown in his general direction! Somebody call the president! It's a national frikkin' crisis!

He thoroughly deserves the harm done to his reputation. He is an embarrassment to police world-wide. Of the multitude of ways he couldn't dealt with the perceived "situation" he decided to antagonise it.

Officer Bubbles, you should be kicked out of the force. You are a joke.

So why isn't Canada part of America?

[Anonymous Coward]

Last I looked, they're both on the North American continent.

A bit frivolous, no?

[grikdog]

As a public figure, the cop in question appears to have no legal standing, just like movie stars and politicians. Since the bubble girl was making a political statement, however mildly expressed, the cop's overreacction looks like either personal unfitness for duty or deliberate oppression. In the case of politicians, SCOTUS held in New York Times vs. Sullivan that, barring actual malice, political discourse was too important to be sullied by public figures who threatened libel. Another, separate, SCOTUS finding the title of which which eludes me at the moment held that criticism of public or notorious figures could not be considered libel, because having wooed the spotlight, they have no grounds to complain of cat calls. It may be a stretch to place the short pants officer in the same playpen with "notorious" figures like John Dillinger or the Cherry Sisters (or Tiny Tim, for that matter), but his continuing lack of restraint certainly seems to be pushing him through the pomposity gate to ridicule, if not professional performance review.

Re:A bit frivolous, no?

[guyminuslife]

Well, unfortunately, SCOTUS precedent doesn't really mean anything in Canada.

Re:A bit frivolous, no?

[grikdog]

Is YouTube in Canada? I didn't know.

What a cock receptacle

[Anonymous Coward]

Officer Bubbles is a power tripping cock receptacle who needs some daddy bear to teach him a lesson.

Dear Officer Bubbles.

[Anonymous Coward]

In my opinion, you are a fucking moron and a bully. You are a disgrace to the uniform and the Queen.

Thank goodness for slashdot

[maliqua]

Thank you for providing a venue where we may continue to openly mock Constable Bubbles. His heroism shall not be forgotten, thank you for making my country safe from free floating spheres of benign liquid

Re:Thank goodness for slashdot

[maliqua]

damn i just got sued

I'd LOVE to Rip This Apart in Court

[pky666]

If you read the "statement of claims", you'll find that some of the assertions are just ludicrous. An example: maskedtruther is named as John Doe #22, and is being sued for a million dollars for posting the following statement "A lot of police today were originally criminals." While this may be a stereotype, it certainly is not equivalent to maskedtruther stating that "Joseph is a criminal." Yet this is exactly what this court document asserts!

P.S. - If you examine the numbering of "John Does", you'll find that both sweeteventhorizon and ecofrog1 are listed as John Doe #12 - guess some lawyer can't count, either.

streisand effect in action

[cas2000]

I'd never heard of Officer Bubbles before.

Now I have.

people like him do not deserve to be entrusted with the powers and authority of the police.

the WTF expression on the female cop's face as he started harassing the girl said it all, before the blank mask of solidarity came over it. she knew he was in the wrong, that he was making an innocuous situation into a bad one.

he ought to be sacked.
and charged with assault, threatening behaviour, and abuse of power.

how do you like them bubbles, Officer?

[Scrameustache]

Do you think he might buy you dinner first, or is he cheap too?

Constable Adam Josephs doesn't look like a date-rapist, he seems more like a man cut from the same cloth as Colonel Russell Williams.

How about a new rule

[Anonymous Coward]

How about you do what a cop tells you or they bash your fucking head with a club? Police have miserable thankless fucking jobs and that girl was intentionally being a bitch to get a reaction out of him, obviously. You also have no idea what happens before this starts, maybe this was the 10th minute of her blowing bubbles into his face. He can't just stand there and have bubbles blown in his face, he has to be respected or he'll lose control of the crowd. Ask any prison guard. The entire system of 1 vs 1,000 is based on respect.

The cop is right

[frozentier]

I think the cop is totally in the right, and most of you don't have any idea what you're talking about. My grandfather died as a result of a stray bubble during the taping of the Lawrence Welk show, and we've been fighting for bubble danger awareness ever since. It's refreshing to see someone who has their priorities straight.

Re:The cop is right

[SiChemist]

You sir, deserve +1 Funny and a video mocking your grandfather's plight :-)

Re:The cop is right

[geekoid]

Yes, bubbles can be a nuisance:

Http://tinyurl.com/2eaculw

Officer Bubbles?

[otis wildflower]

Did someone knock down his kitties' home or something? I guess he must have gotten out of prison before Julian or Ricky..

let's see if this works

[Anonymous Coward]

this comment added as an experiment to see if I'll be sued

Oh. Please.

[aepervius]

Youa re trying to make him blow a bubble , right ? Or maybe a gasket.

Quick question to those bashing the guy

[Anonymous Coward]

The bubble blowers clearly wanted this reaction. So they got it, what's the problem here?

If baiting a cop isn't a crime, it damn well should be. These people are not paid to be your babysitters.

MOD PARENT UP! Re:Cartoons?

[Scrameustache]

Found 'em:

http://www.youtube.com/user/MisterOfficerBubbles

It's an hilarious parody of that news clip! http://www.youtube.com/user/MisterOfficerBubbles#p/a/u/1/CvqEazn9dG8

sue me too please

[Anonymous Coward]

Where do I post my slanderous comment to get in on this lawsuit?

I can't wait to be on the winning side against this guys lame struggle for dignity. Where do I go to call him "a jackass", "a boy disguised as a man with a badge", "legally ignorant" and "a vindictive petty child"??? Because it would be hard not to apply all of this to the bubble headed person in that vid.

Also note: he is bluffing, again... idol threats... because he would lose a class action... in which case a judge could make him responsible for all the legal costs of both parties involved. Since this suit is such an obvious attempt to threaten people out of speaking their minds. Another option is that he can not find a legal firm to assist in this non-suit.

Officer "Play Fair"

[Anonymous Coward]

It's scary to think there's people like that in the police force up here in Canada. Glad I live in Victoria, BC.

Re:Officer "Play Fair"

[cbiltcliffe]

Glad I live in Victoria, BC.

Yeah...then you only have to worry about cops who'll kill you because they're afraid of staplers.....

http://officerbubbles.com/

[AmigaHeretic]

http://officerbubbles.com/

http://officerbubbles.com/

[AmigaHeretic]

I think we need to all start tagging every /. article with http://officerbubbles.com/ for the rest of the year.

Some real whoppers.

[seeker_1us]

I read the Statement. I can't believe he thinks he's going to get away with this.

"While at the investigation site, Joseph's found a female 'protestor' blowing soap bubbles into the face of another female officer..."

The video shows the bubbles clearly did not go into the female officer's face.

"Josephs informed the 'protestor' that if she did not stop blowing bubbles into the face of his fellow officer immediately, he would arrest her for assault"

No. He said "If the bubble touches me, you will be arrested for assault."

I don't know how things work in the Canadian legal system, but I don't think these things will help his credibility.

I wish he loses in court and end up in prison

[gagol]

He could learn the real danger of doap the hard way in the jail showers... Or enjoy it aand discover that he was just a frustrated homosexual inside the closet ;-)

Well I never!

[Anonymous Coward]

They have African-Americans in Canada now?

His girlfriends call him

[geekoid]

'Tiny Bubbles' That's what he get for hanging out with a bunch of Hos.

Re:His girlfriends call him

[Mindcontrolled]

+1 Groan Inducing.

Now excuse me while I go to find my most atrocious Hawaiian shirt.

Sue me if you must

[Cyberllama]

But the guy is clearly an overzealous hothead who has no business holding any position of authority. He should be fired and laughed out of court.

That said, why does the video say "Moments later" when it shows the girl getting arrested? Why on earth would you edit there. If it's truly just "Moments later", then show us those moments. What can it hurt? Now I'm left wondering what transpired in the interim to facilitate his change of heart from "Rawr, I'm a giant asshole" to "Rawr, I'm a giant asshole AND I'm going to arrest you."

Since we are talking about Canuck police...

[florescent_beige]

Let's not forget this gem.

Big deal....

[Anonymous Coward]

Everyone is making a big stink about this video but in reality the officer was not really out of bounds. He was not in any way violent or even raising his voice. He simply issued a very stern warning and followed it with some bitter remarks which were not necessary.

That said, there were many far worse police actions that took place at this event which I sincerely hope will get more attention than this non-event.

ps - that female officer is the cuteness. I'd shower her in bubbles. Love bubbles.

Riot police for the G20 sort of need an attitude

[scourfish]

Something like a protest at the G20 can go really wrong really fast. With people surrounding the talks protesting everything from 9/11 conspiracies to lizard men to capitalism and whatnot, and many of them genuinely enraged for some reason or another, we're not talking about necessarily the most peaceful group. I've worked crowd control at an amusement park to pay for college, I had to be a complete jerk when I worked that job just to keep people in the queue rails from destroying entire rides. I know, it's a terrible analog to riot police at a G20 protest, but the point still stands.

ObGrammarCop

[SecurityGuy]

Blowing Bubble's WHAT?!?

Really, it makes all the difference between an angry mob and a very, very friendly one.

Police State

[Jerry]

I never realized how much of a Police State Canada has become. Cameras everywhere, a Billion dollar budget extension to twist a law against WWII German saboteurs into support for the suppression of the rights of free speech and assembly. How soon will it be before each citizen will be required to have a National ID number permanently tattooed onto their arm?

A Deter-Gent

[Alain Williams]

A DETERGENT for God's sake!

Maybe the young lady was hopeing that her bubbles would Deter Gents from doing her harm. Her mistake was that Officer Bubbles is not a gentleman.

Canadian free speech

[julesh]

in Canada, maybe there isn't really freedom of speech.

For the record, the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (part of Canada's constitution) states:

2. Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms:
[...]
(b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication;

Re:Hmm. What is he going to do if someone pulls a

[Anonymous Coward]

What will Officer Bubbles do if someone pulls a gun on him?

I expect he's probably going to find that 1) his knees suddenly stop working to support him as he turns to run and falls on his ass, 2) when he falls on his ass he'll find that his anus has also stopped working causing the contents of his rectum to shift to his underwear, 3) he'll be confused, humiliated and really scared as he realizes he's not quite the total bad ass, hard ass, motherfucker he thought himself to be.

'Officer Bubbles' Sues YouTube Commenters Over Moc

[joleonard1]

The cop is under no more of an obligation to suffer insult or provocation than you or I. Laws against battery help define legal limits to interpersonal behavior. In a civilized society if you want your rights (and your person) to be respected you generally have to respect the rights of others. Blowing bubbles isn't the crime of the century but she was standing close and facing him. FWIW, when people complain about behavior like this from cops in western countries like Canada and such, I wonder how they would feel if they had police contact in most of the rest of the world.

Quick...

[xiao_haozi]

In before the we're sued.

Real name?

[phorm]

Did it use his real name, or just "officer bubbles?"
It seems to me that there's a pretty good gulf between declaring "Officer John Smith beats people" and drawing cartoons of "Officer Bubbles", foremost that it's not going to make an easy association between his actual name and the actions in question.

I haven't seen the videos in question (since they've for the most part been taken down), but as everyone still seems to refer to the dude as "officer bubble" I'd hazard a fair guess that quite a lot of the material probably isn't actually aimed at his name, and thus it might be pretty hard to prove libel/slander.

The heroes the Internet deserve

[Batman of Earth-2]

Law enforcement officials sleep easier at night knowing that the ever-vigilant Internet Police are watching over them.

Omni Computer Products

[Anonymous Coward]

We currently offer the ED-209 and you may be interested in a cross license agreement we are working on with Cyberdyne systems for future systems development.

Yours truly,
Senior Pres. Dick Jones

Officer Bubbles is Built Like a Typical Cop

[puppetman]

All asshole, no brains.

I guess insecure people need a position of authority to be able to go on a power trip.

Unfort, in Canada we've also had cops that have Tasered immigrants to death (and then lied about it in their official statement), shot unarmed prisoners in the back of the head, beaten up delivery drivers, and beaten people to death in the back of their squad cars.

Re:Officer Bubbles is Built Like a Typical Cop

[ChromeAeonium]

Amen. In no other profession (and I use that term very loosely) can you murder someone and be rewarded with paid vacation for it. Sounds more like a terrorist cell than law enforcement. Brutal, sociopathic, thieving, scumbags who will screw over innocent people just to advance their own petty, meaningless career. Well, fuck them.

Did you blow bubbles when you were a kid?

[Anonymous Coward]

Did you blow bubbles when you were a kid? Well, he's back in town and he wants your number - or else he'll SUE YOU! ;)

Not to excuse the cop's behavior

[GodfatherofSoul]

But, that would be annoying as hell to have someone blowing bubbles in your face from 2 feet away.

'eh?

[ModernGeek]

The girl cop is hot. Mmm.

HNIC

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't mess with Officer Bubbles! He's the head n****r in charge, he is!