Canada RIOTS!

[Coito ergo sum]

Only, I criticized it, stating that they made an unwarranted conclusion, essentially stating that the Vancouver Sun hadn't produced any proof of what they were suggesting

selective memory you've got there coito

How so? I said that the presence of molotov cocktails and hammers suggested that there was preplanning, but that, of course, did not mean that anarchists were involved.

Really - what is wrong with you?

They're not very specific on what proof they have. The only thing I can glean from the article is that the presence of hammers and molotov cocktails is being seen as an indication that some folks had the intent to riot beforehand. That does stand to reason.

It only stands to reason if it were true. Which I have yet to see any proof of.

No, it stands to reason that people wouldn't bring molotov cocktails to a hockey game if they didn't plan to burn things with them. I mean, Jesus fucking christ, dude. What else is a molotov cocktail for?

bwahahaha check this one out

http://www.cbc.ca/sports/hockey/story/2 ... -riot.html

Canucks insist fans not to blame for Vancouver riot

The Vancouver Canucks insisted Friday that their fans are not to blame for the violent, destructive riot that broke out following the team's Stanley Cup loss to the Boston Bruins, and called for swift justice for those responsible.

Not their fans? Funny how almost everyone involved had a cancks jersey.

Obviously, their fans were to blame, since many of them were rioting. The rioters were to blame. If they were hockey fans, as it appears many of them were by all objective evidence. Then surely they are to blame.

The idea of deflecting blame from them is just the usual thing people do these days. There's always some reason that renders people not responsible for their own actions. Like the Nation said, according to them, the fans weren't to blame either - capitalism and restaurant owners earning "criminal profits" are to blame.

[sandinista]

No, it stands to reason that people wouldn't bring molotov cocktails to a hockey game if they didn't plan to burn things with them. I mean, Jesus fucking christ, dude. What else is a molotov cocktail for?

so, who brought molotov cocktails to the game?

The idea of deflecting blame from them is just the usual thing people do these days. There's always some reason that renders people not responsible for their own actions. Like the Nation said, according to them, the fans weren't to blame either - capitalism and restaurant owners earning "criminal profits" are to blame.

and where did you read that?

[Coito ergo sum]

No, it stands to reason that people wouldn't bring molotov cocktails to a hockey game if they didn't plan to burn things with them. I mean, Jesus fucking christ, dude. What else is a molotov cocktail for?

so, who brought molotov cocktails to the game?

I don't know. But, there were some there. I saw images and videos of them being used, and also hammers being used to smash things. Those images are out there.

I don't know who brought them, and as far as I can tell, nobody else knows either, yet.

The idea of deflecting blame from them is just the usual thing people do these days. There's always some reason that renders people not responsible for their own actions. Like the Nation said, according to them, the fans weren't to blame either - capitalism and restaurant owners earning "criminal profits" are to blame.

and where did you read that?

In the Nation article, where the writer wrote words to that effect. See my original post responding to the Nation article.

[sandinista]

In the Nation article, where the writer wrote words to that effect. See my original post responding to the Nation article.

you mean this?

HOWEVER, the Nation, while resounding calling such speculations "irresponsible" goes right out and pulls their own "cause" right out of the air...or more properly, their ass. The Nation says, "A deliberately created media circus of sports fervor, millions of alcohol advertising dollars, and City-sanctioned street party zones all over downtown will unsurprisingly lead to a massive street brawl."

How does that equate to "Like the Nation said, according to them, the fans weren't to blame either - capitalism and restaurant owners earning "criminal profits" are to blame."

Stretch much? There is nothing in the original quote to suggest anything other than the ingredients for a riot were set in place, especially considering there was a similar situation in '94. Sports fervor (hocky/fights/violence which are all encouraged in hockey), alcohol advertising and availability and street filled with party zones will lead to violence. Alcohol and large amounts of drunken young male sports fans equals trouble. That's all that is being said in that quote.

And, to suggest that "advertising dollars" and "sports fervor" and "party zones" downtown are UNSURPRSINGLY to lead to massive street brawls is just downright fucking stupid. If that was the case then it would have happened in Detroit - and it didn't. It would have happened in many other cities around the US and Canada whenever there was a sports final. Yet, this kind of thing is a rarity.

I wouldn't call it a rarity. Especially a home team in game 7 of the championship. The Superbowl, for instance, also the Grey Cup in canaduh are played in random cities. The home team is rarely in the final. Not all hockey finals go to game 7 either. I really have no clue about baseball, too boring to cause riots I think. Which is the other aspect, hockey is a sport that encourages violence. If there is a fight in, football, for instance, the player is likely ejected for the game, fined, and possibly suspended. What you're saying is actually downright fucking stupid.

or this,

Well, which is it, Nation? Massive? Or, miniscule?

oh yah, already covered that.

[Coito ergo sum]

In the Nation article, where the writer wrote words to that effect. See my original post responding to the Nation article.

you mean this?

HOWEVER, the Nation, while resounding calling such speculations "irresponsible" goes right out and pulls their own "cause" right out of the air...or more properly, their ass. The Nation says, "A deliberately created media circus of sports fervor, millions of alcohol advertising dollars, and City-sanctioned street party zones all over downtown will unsurprisingly lead to a massive street brawl."

How does that equate to "Like the Nation said, according to them, the fans weren't to blame either - capitalism and restaurant owners earning "criminal profits" are to blame."

You'll have to read the rest of the article to know.

Stretch much?

No. The article was much longer than that one blurb. I covered it already. I'm not doing it again. Read to the part about "criminal profits," etc.

There is nothing in the original quote to suggest anything other than the ingredients for a riot were set in place, especially considering there was a similar situation in '94.

....it's the "by whom" that I take issue with, and the fact that those same ingredients are present at all professional sporting events.

Sports fervor (hocky/fights/violence which are all encouraged in hockey),

You haven't followed hockey much. They took the fighting out of it, for the most part, and very much discourage it. It's a big complaint among hockey purists.

alcohol advertising and availability and street filled with party zones will lead to violence. Alcohol and large amounts of drunken young male sports fans equals trouble. That's all that is being said in that quote.

And, to suggest that "advertising dollars" and "sports fervor" and "party zones" downtown are UNSURPRSINGLY to lead to massive street brawls is just downright fucking stupid. If that was the case then it would have happened in Detroit - and it didn't. It would have happened in many other cities around the US and Canada whenever there was a sports final. Yet, this kind of thing is a rarity.

I wouldn't call it a rarity. Especially a home team in game 7 of the championship.

What happened in Vancouver was very much a rarity.

The Superbowl, for instance, also the Grey Cup in canaduh are played in random cities. The home team is rarely in the final.

True, but all the "ingredients" supposedly created in vancouver exist in the Superbowl, and football is far more popular in the US - far more people from the competitors' cities travel to where the superbowl is that the population of drunken sports fans is far higher.

Also - we can look to baseball and basketball, and such events are a rarity. I think basketball has had an odd instance. But, it is odd.

Not all hockey finals go to game 7 either. I really have no clue about baseball, too boring to cause riots I think. Which is the other aspect, hockey is a sport that encourages violence. If there is a fight in, football, for instance, the player is likely ejected for the game, fined, and possibly suspended. What you're saying is actually downright fucking stupid.

Interesting - you attribute it to the sport, and that hockey is inherently violent and therefore the fans are more violent. Fine theory. Not one, of course, that the Nation espoused.

or this,

Well, which is it, Nation? Massive? Or, miniscule?

oh yah, already covered that.

The Nation article says what it says. Anyone can read it, and compare it to my critique. I'll leave it to the good offices of other interested readers to determine the quality of the analysis, since I don't want to keep repeating myself.

[sandinista]

You'll have to read the rest of the article to know.

I think you may have to read it.

No. The article was much longer than that one blurb. I covered it already. I'm not doing it again. Read to the part about "criminal profits," etc.

Yes, longer, no, there was no "blaming of capitalism" as you put it.

....it's the "by whom" that I take issue with, and the fact that those same ingredients are present at all professional sporting events.

and like I already said...no I'll repeat myself, not all sporting events are the same.

You haven't followed hockey much. They took the fighting out of it, for the most part, and very much discourage it. It's a big complaint among hockey purists.

bullshit. Ever heard Don Cherry? hockey's premier spokesman. Apparently not.

True, but all the "ingredients" supposedly created in vancouver exist in the Superbowl, and football is far more popular in the US - far more people from the competitors' cities travel to where the superbowl is that the population of drunken sports fans is far higher.

again, not all events are the same. Do you read? Can you?

[sandinista]

Vancouver police shift blame for riot

ohhh big surprise there

Vancouver police are no longer focusing blame on just a core group of people who came prepared to cause trouble for the riot that swept through the city last week.
On Monday, police said their investigation has revealed more details about the background of the rioters that police were not aware of immediately following the riot. "Based on the best information we had the following morning, we stated that the instigators among the mob were 'criminals, anarchists and thugs who came to town bent on destruction and mayhem' regardless of the outcome of the game," said police Chief Jim Chu. "While we are still standing by that observation about the instigators, we are learning that most of the people that joined in the riot and that have now been charged represent a wider spectrum of young people, many of whom do not have criminal records."

Still standing by that observation Won't be when all the arrests are sifted through.

Violence was predictable: poll

Meanwhile, a new survey of 906 British Columbians by AngusReid found 90 per cent of those polled said they felt disgust about the riot.

According to the poll, which was conducted last Thursday and Friday, 73 per cent of British Columbians disagreed with statements by officials that there was no way to know that the crowd assembled in downtown Vancouver would become violent.

The poll found 79 per cent of British Columbians agreed that the riot was caused by a small group of people and 66 per cent of British Columbians agreed with the way Vancouver police handled the riots.

However 94 per cent said there needs to be a larger police presence for crowd control in the future. The poll concludes alcohol sales should be banned on the day of a sporting event.

About 60 per cent of those surveyed supported the creation of a single police force that would oversee the entire Lower Mainland.

Pollster Mario Canseco said the online survey of a representative group has a margin of error of plus or minus 3.3 per cent.

Of course predictable, booze, hockey, larger crowd, game 7 AT home.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-c ... -riot.html

[Robert_S]

Vancouver police shift blame for riot

ohhh big surprise there

Vancouver police are no longer focusing blame on just a core group of people who came prepared to cause trouble for the riot that swept through the city last week.
On Monday, police said their investigation has revealed more details about the background of the rioters that police were not aware of immediately following the riot. "Based on the best information we had the following morning, we stated that the instigators among the mob were 'criminals, anarchists and thugs who came to town bent on destruction and mayhem' regardless of the outcome of the game," said police Chief Jim Chu. "While we are still standing by that observation about the instigators, we are learning that most of the people that joined in the riot and that have now been charged represent a wider spectrum of young people, many of whom do not have criminal records."

Still standing by that observation Won't be when all the arrests are sifted through.

Violence was predictable: poll

Meanwhile, a new survey of 906 British Columbians by AngusReid found 90 per cent of those polled said they felt disgust about the riot.

According to the poll, which was conducted last Thursday and Friday, 73 per cent of British Columbians disagreed with statements by officials that there was no way to know that the crowd assembled in downtown Vancouver would become violent.

The poll found 79 per cent of British Columbians agreed that the riot was caused by a small group of people and 66 per cent of British Columbians agreed with the way Vancouver police handled the riots.

However 94 per cent said there needs to be a larger police presence for crowd control in the future. The poll concludes alcohol sales should be banned on the day of a sporting event.

About 60 per cent of those surveyed supported the creation of a single police force that would oversee the entire Lower Mainland.

Pollster Mario Canseco said the online survey of a representative group has a margin of error of plus or minus 3.3 per cent.

Of course predictable, booze, hockey, larger crowd, game 7 AT home.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-c ... -riot.html

I'd be looking at the police dept. for instigator suspects. Looks like they just got public approval for an expansion of power.

[sandinista]

the cops here in canaduh don't need public approval for anything. That was already proven at the G20 in TO last year.

[Coito ergo sum]

You haven't followed hockey much. They took the fighting out of it, for the most part, and very much discourage it. It's a big complaint among hockey purists.

bullshit.

You're the one who said you didn't like hockey. Were you lying?

Ever heard Don Cherry? hockey's premier spokesman. Apparently not.

Sure - hockey night in Canada. I used to watch that all the time when I lived up north and got CBC. I don't anymore, because we don't get Canadian government run television here.. Funny collars, bombastic attitude and constant lectures to the children on proper hockey technique.

Don Cherry is a strong advocate of a tough "Canadian" type of hockey which emphasizes physical play and a "code" of conduct among the players. He believes that fighting is an integral part of the game as it enforces respect between teams and players, as well as being popular with the public. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Don_Cherry ... _on_Hockey

Cherry has been very critical of the league's direction in recent years as it has been trying to reduce fighting and emphasize speed and skill. Specific rules that he criticizes include the current rules for icing the puck and the instigator rule.

He was also against the use of protective visors in hockey because in his view they reduce respect for player safety.

As I said - the reduction in fighting in hockey is subject to many objections by hockey purists. It's not bullshit. And, your citation of Don Cherry shows you don't know a damn thing about it. If you ever listened to Don Cherry talk about the game you'd know he thought fighting is important and beneficial to the game.

He was a big supporter of the Afghan and Iraq War efforts. He'd also regard you as a "pinko lefty kook."

True, but all the "ingredients" supposedly created in vancouver exist in the Superbowl, and football is far more popular in the US - far more people from the competitors' cities travel to where the superbowl is that the population of drunken sports fans is far higher.

again, not all events are the same. Do you read? Can you?

Of course they're not "all the same", but the "ingredients" - especially those listed by the Nation, are all present in any sport's main event. "Entertainment Zones" are the norm around stadiums, people sell food and alcohol and make the same "criminal profits," and advertising dollars pour in by the billions, etc.

Please - by all means - regale us with all the material, relevant, significant differences between the final game in Vancouver, and the last 5 or 10 NHL finals? What? no Entertainment Zones? Profit taking among restauranteurs were not so "criminal?"