# "Officer Bubbles" Sues...



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

*
This guy - A. Josephs - gives all law enforcement a bad name. Oversized ego, ridiculously full of himself (and full of something else). Now he's suing YouTube as part of his defamation suit against people who made cartoons depicting his idiocy...*

'Officer Bubbles' launches suit against YouTube - The Globe and Mail



> A Toronto police officer whose stiff upper lip made him an inadvertent YouTube sensation and a symbol of police heavy-handedness at the G20 protests has launched a $1.2-million defamation lawsuit against the website.
> 
> Constable Adam Josephs was nicknamed “Officer Bubbles” after a video surfaced of him online admonishing a young protester during the summit for blowing bubbles.


Here's the video of his blatant stupidity:





+
YouTube Video









ERROR: If you can see this, then YouTube is down or you don't have Flash installed.






*And links to the YouTube cartoons:*

Secret Five Metre Law (Obama)

Black Block (Santa Claus)

Touched By Love (Media abuse) 

Weapons on Display (Ridicules the fake weapons displayed by Toronto cops after the G20 summit arrests)

Seriously, what is it with people? You put a uniform and a badge on 'em, give 'em a gun, and they lose all sense of being a human being. Wasn't like this when my uncle was an RCMP officer (though the red serge in recent years hasn't exactly fared too well in the P.R. department either).

(Globe & Mail)


----------



## John Clay (Jun 25, 2006)

I have no issue with either his actions towards the protestor or suing for defamation.

If I had that job to do, and some idiot was harassing me, I'd have no hesitation at throwing them in jail for the day. Having bubbles blown in your face isn't pleasant, and it's not like he could walk away and do something else. The protestor's right to free speech and freedom of assembly does not include harassing the police and being a general nuisance.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

John Clay said:


> I have no issue with either his actions towards the protestor or suing for defamation.
> 
> If I had that job to do, and some idiot was harassing me, I'd have no hesitation at throwing them in jail for the day. Having bubbles blown in your face isn't pleasant, and it's not like he could walk away and do something else. The protestor's right to free speech and freedom of assembly does not include harassing the police and being a general nuisance.


+1

All is as it should be.


----------



## The Doug (Jun 14, 2003)

^^ Ditto.


----------



## monokitty (Jan 26, 2002)

John Clay said:


> I have no issue with either his actions towards the protestor or suing for defamation.
> 
> If I had that job to do, and some idiot was harassing me, I'd have no hesitation at throwing them in jail for the day. Having bubbles blown in your face isn't pleasant, and it's not like he could walk away and do something else. The protestor's right to free speech and freedom of assembly does not include harassing the police and being a general nuisance.


+3; well said.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

CubaMark said:


> Wasn't like this when my uncle was an RCMP officer ...


That's right. People would have respected him as an officer of the law and not harassed him while on duty.


----------



## eMacMan (Nov 27, 2006)

John Clay said:


> I have no issue with either his actions towards the protestor or suing for defamation.
> 
> If I had that job to do, and some idiot was harassing me, I'd have no hesitation at throwing them in jail for the day. Having bubbles blown in your face isn't pleasant, and it's not like he could walk away and do something else. The protestor's right to free speech and freedom of assembly does not include harassing the police and being a general nuisance.


Is only true if brains and good judgment are not considered essential requirements to being a policeman.

Still if you all feel safe in TO land knowing this Loonie Toons character is protecting you, who am I to criticize?


----------



## John Clay (Jun 25, 2006)

eMacMan said:


> Is only true if brains and good judgment are not considered essential requirements to being a policeman.
> 
> Still if you all feel safe in TO land knowing this Loonie Toons character is protecting you, who am I to criticize?


Can you actually list what he did that was so wrong, or are you just outraged that a police officer would do their job, and stand up to a protestor?

I've always felt safe in Toronto, and never more so than in the weeks leading up to G20 with the increased police presence.


----------



## MannyP Design (Jun 8, 2000)

CubaMark said:


> +
> YouTube Video
> 
> 
> ...


Fixed it.


----------



## i-rui (Sep 13, 2006)

if you actually WATCH the video, he asks her to stop, AND SHE DOES.

He was WAY out of line. He acted like a giant douchebag, and the internet called him out on it, and now he's acting like a giant pussy.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

i-rui said:


> if you actually WATCH the video, he asks her to stop, AND SHE DOES.
> 
> He was WAY out of line. He acted like a giant douchebag, and the internet called him out on it, and now he's acting like a giant pussy.


yup.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

i-rui said:


> if you actually WATCH the video, he asks her to stop, AND SHE DOES.
> 
> He was WAY out of line. He acted like a giant douchebag, and the internet called him out on it, and now he's acting like a giant pussy.


Well the video was edited twice with black screens saying "moments later"... I would like to know what happened in those intervening "moments". This is hardly definitive evidence of the totality of what occurred. Why those black screens where we see nothing? Is is easy to believe that it was edited to hide further confrontational behaviour of the young woman so as to make her seem totally innocent. 

I think the officer was being obviously provoked and disrespected, he let her know in no uncertain terms what the consequences of her continued actions would be. Had he been jovial about it she would not have taken him seriously. 

She was being a smart ass little snot just like little kids do to each other, waving there finger in each other's faces... "I'm not touching you.... I'm not touching you... Am I bothering you yet?.... I'm not touching you..."


----------



## MLeh (Dec 23, 2005)

I certainly think that the officer in question isn't going to make his life any easier by pursuing this avenue. Looks like a lose/lose situation for everyone but the lawyers.

But, isn't it sad that people in our society have so little respect for one another? A little respect goes a long way towards _civil_ization.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

MLeh said:


> *I certainly think that the officer in question isn't going to make his life any easier by pursuing this avenue.* Looks like a lose/lose situation for everyone but the lawyers.
> 
> But, isn't it sad that people in our society have so little respect for one another? A little respect goes a long way towards _civil_ization.


I agree... just best to leave it alone and it will go away on it's own. He is certainly just prolonging his own "suffering" in the media by doing this.


----------



## eMacMan (Nov 27, 2006)

screature said:


> I agree... just best to leave it alone and it will go away on it's own. He is certainly just prolonging his own "suffering" in the media buy doing this.


I suspect his real suffering is coming from the lips of his fellow officers. I would guess that he will be known in the locker room as "Officer Bubbles" for a very long time. I would also guess the lawsuits will make this worse and not better.


----------



## BigDL (Apr 16, 2003)

I have always felt there was a je ne c'est quoi or a certain something I don't know what, wrong with Toronto, thank you Torontonians for pointing it out for me


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

BigDL said:


> I have always felt there was a je ne c'est quoi or a certain something I don't know what, wrong with Toronto, thank you Torontonians for pointing it out for me


:lmao: I have felt that since I was in my early teens visiting relatives there. I come from the east coast as well... maybe it has to do with different sensibilities... I have always loved Montreal and always felt right at home there though.


----------



## MannyP Design (Jun 8, 2000)

I'd like to see an unedited version of the video that shows everything that leads up to the arrest.


----------



## hayesk (Mar 5, 2000)

John Clay said:


> If I had that job to do, and some idiot was harassing me, I'd have no hesitation at throwing them in jail for the day. Having bubbles blown in your face isn't pleasant, and it's not like he could walk away and do something else.


My three year old blew bubbles in my face a few days ago. It was great fun. Bubble soap is harmless. And the protester stopped when told.


----------



## hayesk (Mar 5, 2000)

Macfury said:


> That's right. People would have respected him as an officer of the law and not harassed him while on duty.


Respect goes both ways. The police showed very little respect for peaceful protestors during this summit. Multiple arrests without cause, driving protestors out of their designated protest areas, multiple groups of officers surrounding peaceful protestors and then arresting them for "not backing off" (which way should they have gone?), etc. As the girl said, she was just trying to lighten the mood.

As the guy said in the video, a billion dollars should have paid for a better attitude.

This is quite the contrast when the G7 was in Halifax - officers were friendly, courteous, and even let us inside the "secure zone" because we had dinner reservations. (They checked us for weapons, etc. of course) Their comments to us: "Enjoy your dinner."


----------



## hayesk (Mar 5, 2000)

Macfury said:


> +1
> 
> All is as it should be.


Hmm...

You guys were up in arms about being threatened with jail time for not filling in your census form, which the law clearly states you have to fill out.

But yet if someone blows harmless bubbles that may or may not float into contact with an officer, you are all completely ok with threatening and actually being hauled off to jail?


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

hayesk said:


> Hmm...
> 
> You guys were up in arms about being threatened with jail time for not filling in your census form, which the law clearly states you have to fill out.
> 
> But yet if someone blows harmless bubbles that may or may not float into contact with an officer, you are all completely ok with threatening and actually being hauled off to jail?


The census law outlines a jail sentence for refusing to allow the government to invade one's privacy. The officer cannot sentence the woman to jail.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

Macfury said:


> The census law outlines a jail sentence for refusing to allow the government to invade one's privacy. The officer cannot sentence the woman to jail.


weak. Really weak macfury. Even for you.


----------



## BigDL (Apr 16, 2003)

Macfury said:


> The census law outlines a jail sentence for refusing to allow the government to invade one's privacy. The officer cannot sentence the woman to jail.


My guess is "yeah he can!" for 24 hours anyway, anytime, with no charge and no consequences for the officer. It's the law.


----------



## John Clay (Jun 25, 2006)

BigDL said:


> My guess is "yeah he can!" for 24 hours anyway, anytime, with no charge and no consequences for the officer. It's the law.


24 hours in lockup for intentionally baiting a police officer? Not nearly long enough.


----------



## John Clay (Jun 25, 2006)

hayesk said:


> My three year old blew bubbles in my face a few days ago. It was great fun. Bubble soap is harmless. And the protester stopped when told.


I don't like bubbles being blown in my face. Obviously the officer didn't, either. It's not up to you to decide what someone else is comfortable with.

As for the protestor stopping - we don't know what happened in the two cut outs. She may well have started again, or done something equally stupid.


----------



## hayesk (Mar 5, 2000)

Macfury said:


> The census law outlines a jail sentence for refusing to allow the government to invade one's privacy. The officer cannot sentence the woman to jail.


The census law outlines the agreed upon (in Parliament) penalty for breaking a law.

The officer can, and several officers did during this summit, hold people in jail for several days, most without even being charged with a crime.

Sorry, I just don't understand why you are saying ok to remind people of the consequences for their actions in one case, but not in the other.


----------



## hayesk (Mar 5, 2000)

John Clay said:


> I don't like bubbles being blown in my face. Obviously the officer didn't, either. It's not up to you to decide what someone else is comfortable with.


Hey, you brought it up, not me.



John Clay said:


> Having bubbles blown in your face isn't pleasant, and it's not like he could walk away and do something else.


Well, he could have done something else. It's not like she was chasing him with bubbles. The female officer who was standing directly in front of the girl didn't seem to mind. So, yes, he could have done something else, like go confront a protestor that was actually causing trouble.


----------



## i-rui (Sep 13, 2006)

MannyP Design said:


> I'd like to see an unedited version of the video that shows everything that leads up to the arrest.


I was following this since it aired in the summer.

That youtube vid was just a promo piece for this longer report :





+
YouTube Video









ERROR: If you can see this, then YouTube is down or you don't have Flash installed.






The girl wasn't arrested for assault (in reality the officer was lying because there is no way you can arrest someone for assault for blowing bubbles). She was arrested along with many others for "conspiracy to commit mischief".

The officer bubbles clip does serve as a microcosm of what the G20 was truly about. A properly trained officer dealing with protesters would try to DIFFUSE the confrontation into a manageable & peaceful situation.

The police during the G20 had no intention of this. They went in and tried to intimidate and escalate situations to bait protesters into violence. When this didn't happen they simply kettled crowds into small areas and proceeded to do mass arrests. They did this to drive up arrest numbers to try and justify the $1.2 billion dollars wasted on their paychecks for the weekend to the public.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

i-rui said:


> The girl wasn't arrested for assault (in reality the officer was lying because there is no way you can arrest someone for assault for blowing bubbles). She was arrested along with many others for "conspiracy to commit mischief".
> 
> The officer bubbles clip does serve as a microcosm of what the G20 was truly about. A properly trained officer dealing with protesters would try to DIFFUSE the confrontation into a manageable & peaceful situation.
> 
> The police during the G20 had no intention of this. They went in and tried to intimidate and escalate situations to bait protesters into violence. When this didn't happen they simply kettled crowds into small areas and proceeded to do mass arrests. They did this to drive up arrest numbers to try and justify the $1.2 billion dollars wasted on their paychecks for the weekend to the public.


The rest of what happened at the G20 is up for debate. Stick to the main question regarding the officer.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

hayesk said:


> The census law outlines the agreed upon (in Parliament) penalty for breaking a law.
> 
> The officer can, and several officers did during this summit, hold people in jail for several days, most without even being charged with a crime.
> 
> Sorry, I just don't understand why you are saying ok to remind people of the consequences for their actions in one case, but not in the other.


In the case of the census, one of the posters in that thread indicated that nobody had ever been threatened with jail time for failing to hand in a long form. I posted to say it had happened to me. I blame the law, not the drooling idiot they hired to intimidate me. That law I want to see changed.

The officer I saw in the video was polite and professional. Whether bubbles constitute mischief is for a court to decide. Perhaps you would like mischief laws overturned. That's your prerogative, but I'm OK with them.


----------



## i-rui (Sep 13, 2006)

Macfury said:


> The rest of what happened at the G20 is up for debate. Stick to the main question regarding the officer.


I already stated what i thought of the officer. 

Others previously have already brought the larger debate of the G20 police action into this thread. (see quotes below) Simply tying it altogether.

If it makes you feel better you can bring Obama into the discussion (since that seems to be your M.O. in pretty much every other thread.) and i won't complain. 



John Clay said:


> I've always felt safe in Toronto, and never more so than in the weeks leading up to G20 with the increased police presence.





hayesk said:


> Respect goes both ways. The police showed very little respect for peaceful protestors during this summit. Multiple arrests without cause, driving protestors out of their designated protest areas, multiple groups of officers surrounding peaceful protestors and then arresting them for "not backing off" (which way should they have gone?), etc. As the girl said, she was just trying to lighten the mood.
> 
> As the guy said in the video, a billion dollars should have paid for a better attitude.
> 
> This is quite the contrast when the G7 was in Halifax - officers were friendly, courteous, and even let us inside the "secure zone" because we had dinner reservations. (They checked us for weapons, etc. of course) Their comments to us: "Enjoy your dinner."


----------



## fellfromtree (May 18, 2005)

If you followed the story when it happened, I recall the girl was blowing bubbles in the opposite direction, Officer Bubbles came over to where she was- she was not blowing bubbles at the police, she was not invading the space of Officer Bubbles. I believe she (or someone in that crowd) responded to many of the questions about what happened leading up to and in between the YouTube clip in the first boingboing posting of the story.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

fellfromtree said:


> If you followed the story when it happened, I recall the girl was blowing bubbles in the opposite direction, Officer Bubbles came over to where she was- she was not blowing bubbles at the police, she was not invading the space of Officer Bubbles. I believe she (or someone in that crowd) responded to many of the questions about what happened leading up to and in between the YouTube clip in the first boingboing posting of the story.


Looks like this is a case where we aren't seeing the entire story. I stand by my opinion based on CubaMark's original post, but the story now appears too fluid to form an opinion on.


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

i-rui said:


> A properly trained officer dealing with protesters would try to DIFFUSE the confrontation


i-rui: Agree with your post. One bit of grammar-policing: it's "DEFUSE" (as in bomb) as opposed to "DIFFUSE" (as in scattering light).


M


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

Courtney Winkels was a volunteer medic among with the protesters at the G20. We've covered the G20 story in other threads (such as this one). The call for a public inquiry into the police actions at the G20 summit continue. See G20inquiry.com

As for this thread... I can't wait to see how this plays out in court.... and I disagree with MacFury's assessment of the cop as being "polite and professional." His manner was entirely hostile and threatening. Language is more than words, dude.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

CubaMark said:


> Language is more than words, dude.


Nobody calls me a dude, dude...


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

Macfury said:


> Nobody calls me a dude, dude...



errm.... uhmmm..... _dudette_? With the avatar and all, I just thought....


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

CubaMark said:


> errm.... uhmmm..... _dudette_? With the avatar and all, I just thought....


Ha. Made you look!


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

What a man keeps under his kilt is his own business...

.


----------



## eMacMan (Nov 27, 2006)

Macfury said:


> ..The officer I saw in the video was polite and professional. ...


Hate to say it but I think that it would be impossible to sell that as either polite or professional any where in Canada except the black hole that is TO.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

It always makes me chuckle when people try to make Toronto as some kind of microcosm of elitism.


----------



## jwootton (Dec 4, 2009)

I'm not a lawyer, but I thought we had a right to peaceful protest. I'm not sure how you can categorize blowing bubbles as anything but peaceful.


----------



## eMacMan (Nov 27, 2006)

jwootton said:


> I'm not a lawyer, but I thought we had a right to peaceful protest. I'm not sure how you can categorize blowing bubbles as anything but peaceful.


Beyond that: If something is wrong we depend on people having the courage to stand up and say this is wrong. The inevitable result will be some degree of civil unrest. This is the very essence of democracy. 

When the emphasis is on intimidating those who do have the courage to stand up for their beliefs, then we are heading towards the path blazed by Adolf Hitler not away from it.

When we fear others views to the point of suppression it is usually because we don't want to admit that they may just be right.


----------



## monokitty (Jan 26, 2002)

jwootton said:


> I'm not a lawyer, but I thought we had a right to peaceful protest. I'm not sure how you can categorize blowing bubbles as anything but peaceful.


When you provoke and bait someone, regardless of that person being an officer or regular civilian, the end result may not be a positive one. Could she have not blown bubbles in a direction that wasn't toward the officer? (Or anyone else for that matter?) Like John Clay has already repeatably said - what constitutes as being annoying to someone else isn't up for you to decide - and neither that officer or myself personally want anyone blowing bubbles in our faces, no matter how harmless it is.

I think it's clear she's deliberately being provocative and for that very reason, I simply can't side with her on this matter.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

Lars said:


> When you provoke and bait someone, regardless of that person being an officer or regular civilian, the end result may not be a positive one. Could she have not blown bubbles in a direction that wasn't toward the officer? (Or anyone else for that matter?) Like John Clay has already repeatably said - what constitutes as being annoying to someone else isn't up for you to decide - and neither that officer or myself personally want anyone blowing bubbles in our faces, no matter how harmless it is.
> 
> *I think it's clear she's deliberately being provocative and for that very reason, I simply can't side with her on this matter*.


Absolutely. +1 Not only provocative, rude, disrespectful and childish are other words that come to mind.


----------



## jwootton (Dec 4, 2009)

Can we at least agree that both parties could have acted better.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

jwootton said:


> Can we at least agree that both parties could have acted better.


Well the officer could have been less gruff, but I suspect that had he been she wouldn't have taken him seriously.


----------



## BigDL (Apr 16, 2003)

I would have to say the actions and reactions I viewed are disturbing. I saw a female police officer with a reasonable reaction to being accosted by bubbles. I saw a male police officer with an unreasonable reaction to bubbles in his general area.

I saw a female citizen (presumably) with a reaction of what I would interpret as genuine fear, in reaction to the verbal attack, from the male police officer.

If Torontonians are comfortable with a person who is, licensed to carry a 9 mm automatic pistol in public and given special rights to stop, detain and arrest citizens and this person, who IMO demonstrates poor judgement and who seems to me to be on the verge of losing control because of the atrocious act of a citizen blowing bubbles in his general direction, well who am I to criticize. Note to self DON'T travel to Toronto.


----------



## eMacMan (Nov 27, 2006)

BigDL said:


> I would have to say the actions and reactions I viewed are disturbing. I saw a female police officer with a reasonable reaction to being accosted by bubbles. I saw a male police officer with an unreasonable reaction to bubbles in his general area.
> 
> I saw a female citizen (presumably) with a reaction of what I would interpret as genuine fear, in reaction to the verbal attack, from the male police officer.
> 
> If Torontonians are comfortable with a person who is, licensed to carry a 9 mm automatic pistol in public and given special rights to stop, detain and arrest citizens and this person, who IMO demonstrates poor judgement and who seems to me to be on the verge of losing control because of the atrocious act of a citizen blowing bubbles in his general direction, well who am I to criticize. *Note to self DON'T travel to Toronto.*


Yep it is TO's tourism types who should be suing and Officer Bubbles should be the target of the suit.


----------



## John Clay (Jun 25, 2006)

BigDL said:


> I would have to say the actions and reactions I viewed are disturbing. I saw a female police officer with a reasonable reaction to being accosted by bubbles. I saw a male police officer with an unreasonable reaction to bubbles in his general area.
> 
> I saw a female citizen (presumably) with a reaction of what I would interpret as genuine fear, in reaction to the verbal attack, from the male police officer.
> 
> If Torontonians are comfortable with a person who is, licensed to carry a 9 mm automatic pistol in public and given special rights to stop, detain and arrest citizens and this person, who IMO demonstrates poor judgement and who seems to me to be on the verge of losing control because of the atrocious act of a citizen blowing bubbles in his general direction, well who am I to criticize. Note to self DON'T travel to Toronto.


For the record, it's a semi-automatic Glock 17 .40 - not a 9mm. Regular officers don't get automatic weapons.

If you're of that mindset, then please DON'T visit Toronto. We don't want you here. Take your bubble-blowing troublemakers with you, too.


----------



## BigDL (Apr 16, 2003)

John Clay said:


> For the record, it's a semi-automatic Glock 17 .40 - not a 9mm. Regular officers don't get automatic weapons.
> 
> If you're of that mindset, then please DON'T visit Toronto. We don't want you here. Take your bubble-blowing troublemakers with you, too.


My bad, I stand corrected.

While I don't visit Toronto, I will try to miss you.


----------



## i-rui (Sep 13, 2006)

Lars said:


> Could she have not blown bubbles in a direction that wasn't toward the officer?


you presume she walked right up to the officers and started blowing bubbles in their faces, but it was actually the other way around.

could the police not have detained her for no reason? they set up a line, and wouldn't allow them to leave. maybe she wanted to blow bubbles on the other side of the officers, but couldn't because she couldn't get past them?



screature said:


> Absolutely. +1 Not only provocative, rude, disrespectful and childish are other words that come to mind.


watch it again. officer bubbles is the one who acts that way. the girl co-operates immediately, and is actually very polite.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

i-rui said:


> watch it again. officer bubbles is the one who acts that way. the girl co-operates immediately, and is actually very polite.


Her action of blowing the bubbles in the first place are all 3 three things that I mentioned.


----------



## MACenstein'sMonster (Aug 21, 2008)

Maybe, and this is just a BIG maybe, the officer was having a bad day. 

I know, I know. If you're getting paid a fabulous wage you're not supposed to have a bad day but then we must consider that alas he is human.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

BigDL said:


> My bad, I stand corrected.
> 
> While I don't visit Toronto, I will try to miss you.


Yes and do try to remember this. Toronto, we'll have the army patrolling the streets here soon enough.

wait...


----------



## BigDL (Apr 16, 2003)

groovetube said:


> Yes and do try to remember this. Toronto, we'll have the army patrolling the streets here soon enough.
> 
> wait...


Expecting snow soon?


----------



## John Clay (Jun 25, 2006)

BigDL said:


> Expecting snow soon?


:lmao:


We're never going to live that one down...

Thank you, Mayor Lastman.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

oh I think the army/snow thing is merely a chuckle.

I doubt the G20 thing will ever be, a chuckle.


----------



## fellfromtree (May 18, 2005)

Lars said:


> When you provoke and bait someone, regardless of that person being an officer or regular civilian, the end result may not be a positive one. Could she have not blown bubbles in a direction that wasn't toward the officer? (Or anyone else for that matter?) Like John Clay has already repeatably said - what constitutes as being annoying to someone else isn't up for you to decide - and neither that officer or myself personally want anyone blowing bubbles in our faces, no matter how harmless it is.
> 
> I think it's clear she's deliberately being provocative and for that very reason, I simply can't side with her on this matter.


She was blowing bubbles *in the other direction, and in open space, there were children in that crowd playing with the bubbles*- Officer Bubbles approached her, and moved into the space. She had previously asked the female officer if there was a problem with the bubbles, the female officer said not a problem.


She was not arrested for blowing bubbles. She was arrested in a sweep, and picked because the contents of her backpack (eyewash, she was a medic) was deemed to be a possible harm if thrown in someones face- she had been previously searched, and told the contents of her pack were ok.

Just look at the female officer. She looks so supportive of Officer Bubbles, doesn't she? Or does she look uncomfortably embarrassed by him? Why wasn't the female officer being aggressive? 
It's all out there on the internet folks.


----------



## i-rui (Sep 13, 2006)

The cartoons are back up. TBH they're not very good. I was dissappointed that they didn't use a voice actor, since the obvious aspect to lampoon is the tone he takes while power tripping. 

Here's a link that has all the cartoons (scroll down) :

Toronto Cop Sues YouTube Because He Doesn’t Like Animation | Cartoon Brew: Leading the Animation Conversation


----------



## kps (May 4, 2003)

Although he had a perfectly legit reason to ask her to stop, it's clear to me this testosterone laden cop was power tripping. I've met these kind before, they become cops for all the wrong reasons.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

fellfromtree said:


> She was blowing bubbles *in the other direction, and in open space, there were children in that crowd playing with the bubbles*- Officer Bubbles approached her, and moved into the space. She had previously asked the female officer if there was a problem with the bubbles, the female officer said not a problem...


Where do you get this from? It sure isn't in the videos posted here.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

i-rui said:


> I was following this since it aired in the summer.
> 
> That youtube vid was just a promo piece for this longer report :
> 
> ...



This video shows even less of what happened... it is basically all an opinion piece from the point of view of one activist lawyer. Oooh... "I'm a lawyer... I know what is right and wrong...." like they aren't a dime a dozen and have as many varying opinions on the law as the rest of practically. "Oh I also grew up in cop family look at me with my Dad's policeman's cap on... see I am pro cop... just not these ones..."  

What a bunch of whooey... like the cops care about the numbers arrested relative to the $1.2 billion. I think you are reading too many conspiracy theory web sites.


----------



## MannyP Design (Jun 8, 2000)

There is nothing in that video that shows the bubble incident in it's entirety. Cameras were there. I want to see how the whole thing went down, unedited with no editorial.



i-rui said:


> I was following this since it aired in the summer.
> 
> That youtube vid was just a promo piece for this longer report :
> 
> ...


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

^^^ +1


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

screature said:


> ^^^ +1


+1. The story keeps changing to favour the bubble blower whenever anyone supports the police officer.

If all I get is that the unedited video is unavailable, I'm putting all my support behind the cop.


----------



## ertman (Jan 15, 2008)

As for the incident.... I really don't care. I think that people blow these things out of proportion. 

Should she have been arrested? Sure, but only because we are not privy to any of the "incidents" relating to their arrest.

Was the officer being rude? The officer was kind enough. Sure he could have been kinder, but people's reaction to how "kind" he was is quite sad.

Should the officer be suing? No, not really. I find this to be another frivolous lawsuit coming from the G20.


----------



## eMacMan (Nov 27, 2006)

Seems to me the video in no way distorts Officer Bubble's actions. If he feels it was appropriate to try to provoke the young lady so he could arrest her, then why is he upset that it was captured on video for the world to see?

As to cartoons parodying his actions that is indeed a risk of the job. He may have a complaint that the parodies are rather lame but you gotta take the material into account.

In any event; I see the lawsuit as frivolous and am sure it will serve mainly to prolong his agony.beejacon


----------



## MannyP Design (Jun 8, 2000)

eMacMan said:


> Seems to me the video in no way distorts Officer Bubble's actions. If he feels it was appropriate to try to provoke the young lady so he could arrest her, then why is he upset that it was captured on video for the world to see?


Sure it does. For all we know, she could have said something inflammatory—there's no footage leading up to her arrest. It gives the viewer the impression she just stood there in shock for 5-10 minutes and then was arrested.

People tend to fill in the gaps by themselves. Context helps and you won't gain any sympathy cutting out the important bits of information.


----------



## eMacMan (Nov 27, 2006)

MannyP Design said:


> Sure it does. For all we know, she could have said something inflammatory—there's no footage leading up to her arrest. It gives the viewer the impression she just stood there in shock for 5-10 minutes and then was arrested.
> 
> People tend to fill in the gaps by themselves. Context helps and you won't gain any sympathy cutting out the important bits of information.


Somewhat irrelevant. As I said at the beginning brains and good judgment should be an essential part of any policeman. Lacking them he attempts to provoke an arrest for blowing bubbles. There is no way he can emerge from such a situation looking anything but foolish. If he had used whatever brains he does have he could have figured this out long before it reached youtube, and would not find himself an object of ridicule. 

The female officer clearly recognized where this was headed and was prepared to just ignore it. Probably he is also upset that the lady officer was smarter than he was.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

MannyP Design said:


> Sure it does. For all we know, she could have said something inflammatory—there's no footage leading up to her arrest. It gives the viewer the impression she just stood there in shock for 5-10 minutes and then was arrested.
> 
> People tend to fill in the gaps by themselves. Context helps and you won't gain any sympathy cutting out the important bits of information.


Agree 100%.


----------



## kps (May 4, 2003)

I'd agree that it's important to see the whole un-cut footage, but it's not difficult to discern the cop's attitude or personality. My opinion of him has not changed, that however does not mean I defend Winkle either.

Bubbles and Winkle...sure has a ring to it.


----------



## MannyP Design (Jun 8, 2000)

eMacMan said:


> Somewhat irrelevant. As I said at the beginning brains and good judgment should be an essential part of any policeman. Lacking them he attempts to provoke an arrest for blowing bubbles. There is no way he can emerge from such a situation looking anything but foolish. If he had used whatever brains he does have he could have figured this out long before it reached youtube, and would not find himself an object of ridicule.
> 
> The female officer clearly recognized where this was headed and was prepared to just ignore it. Probably he is also upset that the lady officer was smarter than he was.


COMPLETELY relevant—especially to the discussion at hand. You're completely making stuff up, now. You have NO clue what the female officer recognized, nor do you know what she was thinking. At least if we saw the rest of the footage we'd actually know what precipitated the arrest, not just make assumptions.

Filling in gaps. I rest my case.


----------



## i-rui (Sep 13, 2006)

screature said:


> This video shows even less of what happened... it is basically all an opinion piece from the point of view of one activist lawyer. Oooh... "I'm a lawyer... I know what is right and wrong...." like they aren't a dime a dozen and have as many varying opinions on the law as the rest of practically. "Oh I also grew up in cop family look at me with my Dad's policeman's cap on... see I am pro cop... just not these ones..."
> 
> What a bunch of whooey... like the cops care about the numbers arrested relative to the $1.2 billion. I think you are reading too many conspiracy theory web sites.


The video shows that she wasn't arrested for blowing bubbles. She (along with many others) was arrested for nothing. other then they fitted some loose description of a police profile of "protester". 

If the police didn't care about the arrest #'s why did they needlessly arrest over a 1000 people without probable cause? The numbers are there. They're indisputable. 



MannyP Design said:


> Sure it does. For all we know, she could have said something inflammatory—there's no footage leading up to her arrest. It gives the viewer the impression she just stood there in shock for 5-10 minutes and then was arrested.
> 
> People tend to fill in the gaps by themselves. Context helps and you won't gain any sympathy cutting out the important bits of information.


So the lack of evidence is now proof of guilt? what a wonderful country canada is becoming.


----------



## MannyP Design (Jun 8, 2000)

i-rui said:


> The video shows that she wasn't arrested for blowing bubbles. She (along with many others) was arrested for nothing. other then they fitted some loose description of a police profile of "protester".


If the truth is on her side, why haven't REALNEWS come forward and post uncut footage? If she was truly arrested for nothing, then why don't we have the uncut footage of her doing nothing and getting arrested?



> So the lack of evidence is now proof of guilt? what a wonderful country canada is becoming.


I guess so. Apparently you guys are completely fine with that idea; it's enough to condemn an officer based on 15 seconds of EDITED video just because he was curt to a little blonde girl blowing bubbles. Unlike some people I prefer to see if for myself rather than filling in the blanks with what may or may not be the truth. I put as much faith in the so-called "RealNews" as I do mainstream news.

Sue me.


----------



## i-rui (Sep 13, 2006)

MannyP Design said:


> If the truth is on her side, why haven't REALNEWS come forward and post uncut footage? If she was truly arrested for nothing, then why don't we have the uncut footage of her doing nothing and getting arrested?


probably because the standoff lasted hours, and the cameraman wouldn't have been following around the girl for that full amount of time (there was other things going on that day). Even if he did it would be mind numbingly boring to watch the girl stand around for hours because she was refused to be allowed to leave the area.

I do agree that the "busted for bubbles" promo piece is misleading because it's edited to suggest that she was arrested for blowing bubbles, but that was because they were using it to try to get people to watch the full piece. Taken as a stand alone news item instead of a promo it fails.



MannyP Design said:


> I guess so. Apparently you guys are completely fine with that idea; it's enough to condemn an officer based on 15 seconds of EDITED video just because he was curt to a little blonde girl blowing bubbles. Unlike some people I prefer to see if for myself rather than filling in the blanks with what may or may not be the truth. I put as much faith in the so-called "RealNews" as I do mainstream news.
> 
> Sue me.


I have no problem condemning him as a douchebag because it's painfully obvious that's what he is. He asked the girl to put the bubbles away and she complied and he continued to go on and on about it to escalate the situation like a tough guy. 

was the officer arrested? no. was he reprimanded? no. I have zero sympathy for him.

What happened AFTER the clip won't change the above. The girl could have punched a newborn baby in the balls and it wouldn't change the fact that the officer was a rude jerk who lied about being able to arrest someone for assault because they were blowing bubbles. any actions or evidence AFTER the fact won't excuse or justify his behaviour shown in the clip.


----------



## fellfromtree (May 18, 2005)

The video was not edited to present a certain point if view, it was interrupted by events on the scene.

The woman has posted comments to the video, stating her story, and eyewitness account over and over.

I think her comments are around page 10, and go further back. 
courtneyxx89

YouTube - Broadcast Yourself.

Others who were there have commented in the boingboing original posting.


----------



## MannyP Design (Jun 8, 2000)

fellfromtree said:


> The video was not edited to present a certain point if view, it was interrupted by events on the scene.
> 
> The woman has posted comments to the video, stating her story, and eyewitness account over and over.
> 
> ...


It's irrelevant if it's edited from a point of view, it's still edited—information is missing. Most of the people who are making judgements, do so based on what they seen in the video. The reporter narrates that "*minutes later*" (not hours) the girl was arrested— it is such a simplified narration of the bubble incident. A person's accounts are subject to bias, hearsay or outright lies. It's the internet, take everything with a grain of salt.

We've all heard plenty of anecdotes where a person conveys that they are victimized, regardless as to whether or not it is true, unintentional, or completely a lie.


----------



## hayesk (Mar 5, 2000)

The missing part of the video is *after* we see the attitude of the officer. So, while something else may have provoked arrest, we know the officer had a poor and disrespectful attitude. Missing footage after he presented his attitude is irrelevant.


----------



## fellfromtree (May 18, 2005)

MannyP Design said:


> We've all heard plenty of anecdotes where a person conveys that they are victimized, regardless as to whether or not it is true, unintentional, or completely a lie.


What's obvious here is that people aren't interested in what happened, they are interested in promoting their own opinion/agenda, and are using the information (or disregarding information) available to suite their own use.


----------

