Posted on 04/09/2010 7:17:25 PM PDT by Stoat
(edit)
Because the number of individuals planning on attending the event had skyrocketed from 450 registrants to 900 and knowing full well that the event had the potential to "go wrong", the next obvious line of questioning asked by us was regarding the "screening process" for entrants coming into the hall. What did they have in place? Would they be conducting bag searches, pat downs, wanding the individuals for weapons search? We were looked at with incredulous faces and received the answer “no” to every question asked. We were told that actions such as these would infringe upon the attendees rights (mostly students of the University), and certainly also go against the grain of privacy laws; therefore we were informed that no screening would take place at all.
Even after a careful explanation of our concerns for the safety of the people we were there to protect, they would not be swayed in the decision. They absolutely would not interfere with the rights of their students attending the event. What about the safety of the others who would be attending the event? What about the rights of those who didn’t plan on inciting violent behaviour? Wouldn’t a proactive approach be much better than a reactive one? To make matters worse were told that if any of our people laid a hand on anyone at the event, for any reason, we would be charged and face criminal prosecution.
(edit)
(Excerpt) Read more at network.nationalpost.com ...
They set her up for violence and then refuse to protect her, and then refuse to let her bodyguards protect her.
Unbelievable.
Agreed. I was thunderstruck upon reading this. Hopefully the article and the facts as related by the security team will all find their way into the news and talk radio cycles.
Just astonishing.
If the authorities refuse to do their job of protecting the public, or worse, sides with criminals, vigilantism results.
So if they are demanding a situation in which a person must be attacked, or their very life threatened before the authorities will even notice the attack, then alternative means should be planned.
In this case, using means to provide “plausible deniability”, the security people should have pre-arranged for “mob breakers”. Essentially brawlers hired to just stand around, unless they receive a signal, then without warning they attack given targets before quickly exiting.
For example, when the mob was converging around the vehicles, the toughs would sort of cluster with them. Then, if a hasty exit was needed, the signal would be given, and the toughs would have a limited number of seconds to punch and kick multiple members of the mob before they took off in different directions.
Observing this at a distance, the police would then converge, but the only people left on the scene would be nursing ringing heads and bloody noses. By the time the police tried to pursue, the attackers would be long gone, and departed the scene by vehicle.
Then, with disabled protesters, and police all over the scene, a quick and safe departure could be made. Since the “good guys” didn’t arrive on the scene until *after* the police had arrived, there would be no “cause and effect” for them to be detained.
Of course there would be much hubbub in the local news, but it would remain an unsolved mystery.
I haven’t been to Canada since I found out they don’t allow me to carry. There isn’t anything there interesting enough to risk going unarmed...
Interesting approach! I’m guessing that the magnitude of willful incompetence, political correctness, intentional dereliction of duty and the thinly-veiled interest and approval of causing personal, physical harm to Miss Coulter was all so utterly mind-boggling to the highly-trained and superbly-professional American security team that such an option may not have occurred to them....and such a tactic, if it goes wrong, would likely have disastrous consequences for their company and personal reputations as well.
I agree re the spectre of vigilantism, but it seems that Canadians have ‘largely’ disarmed themselves, and so when the authorities side with the thugs, the honest people have little recourse but to meekly cower in a corner.....
Same here. Quite a few years ago, on a lark, I decided to drive up to Banff to see some northern Nature. I knew about the prohibition against handguns so I thought that they might let me take my fully-legal riot shotgun with me in the stoatmobile. No luck.
Had an interesting chat with the Canadian border agent though, who inferred that my wanting to effectively protect myself made me a violent and dangerous criminal. I turned around and drove down to the Oregon coast instead, where I had a nice time and spent a lot of money.
The risk of hiring such mob busters is actually not great. Their typical organization is cellular, so they don’t really know who hired them, and as individuals, they have no fear of damaged reputation for being put in jail, even if they are caught. They just claim that whoever they hit started it, by saying something offensive and brandishing what they thought was a knife.
Needless to say, they are paid in cash, and the same amount whether they fight or not. They even get a commission for recruiting their buddies. Likewise, if they are busted, they might get a bonus once they get out—like insurance.
Obviously the Canadians are not going to let you run around with a serious firearm shooting up their residential areas, so what can you do?
For one thing you get several suitable firearms, grease them up, and pack them in suitable gun-cases or deer-hide bags, take them around to convenient areas, and then bury them just under the surface.
Provided you haven't placed them in an open area that might become developed in the future, those guns will be there forever for you to use as you need.
When game is plentiful, you go there, dig up your firearm, and use it.
Let's say you are a Meti, the deal is the same. Or, even if you're one of the older French families, you use the same trick.
The Brits themselves probably don't use this trick, and have seemed positively mystified by it. For instance, the Scottish rebellions in the early 1700s found the Scots using firearms they'd buried years before.
Sure...
I am confused as to why she needed so much security. I am from Calgary, and I attend the UofC where she was scheduled to speak. Things are different in Canada and the threat of violence at these events is almost negligible.
Very interesting! You seem to be quite familiar with this approach...any personal experiences you might care to relate? :-)
Perhaps there are some Conservative Canadian organizations and speakers who might want to avail themselves of your expertise. It seems that the Canadian police have taken sides in the culture war, and it does not appear to be the side that favors Conservatives.
Sure...
I have no doubt that the Leftists would have come in Nazi stormtrooper uniforms as well if they could have gotten them as cheaply as their KKK sheets ;-)
Did you happen to see any of the video coverage or still photos of the near-riot outside the Ottawa campus during Miss Coulter's visit? It was extensive, and it was frightening. I would have cancelled too, if I had not been able to be effectively protected.
I saw a video of Miss Coulter's speech at Calgary, and you could hear the 'nonviolent Canadians' outside, beating on the plastic windows as she was speaking.
When you refer to 'these events', Miss Coulter has never spoken in Canada before her tour this year, and I haven't heard of a speaker from the Right with a similar level of notoriety attempting to speak publicly in Canada before, so I question any comparison to previous events.
Well that does it - I’m breaking myself-imposed boycott of Canada to go up there and do a little digging for buried treasure!
The Brits should use this trick.
I learned that in Britian should you find an antiquity and gleefully report it to the newspaper, the government will take it from you. They have rights to antiquities, not the person that found it. Apparently they consider simple things like old coins treasure for their national museums.
If I lived in Britain and found something ancient, I would never tell a soul.
Bury the guns, especially Grandpa’s!
I have to admit that the law enforcement plan sounds like it worked pretty well.
The security guy showed good sense; law enforcement showed good sense; Coulter gave her speech; protesters shouted whatever it was they wanted to shout; good going everybody. What’s the beef?
A provocative speaker doesn’t (or at least shouldn’t) expect to give her speech in a quiet theater. She expects vocal opposition. That’s what she got.
The security guy is used to U.S. lack of trust of every citizen.
If you will think about it, this event sounds a lot like the contentious town meetings that congresscritters held last summer. Contentious and peaceful.
Way to go Canada.
No, things are not different in Canada. Those people are Communists, and they won't respect Canadian customs any more than the 9/11 hijackers respected American ones -- and for the same reason: they're at war with you.
Want to know about Communist street politics? Ask any Frenchman above the age of 65, who was there before Charles DeGaulle came to power in the 50's. I've seen the old newsreel footage, and I'll wager you haven't. So ask our Froggy friend about Communists and their politics of the street. Ask him how those guys play.
btt
To propose such a thing as a hypothetical, even if it has been done before, is just rhetoric. To admit to knowledge about such an event in the past would amount to a criminal confession. So no, I was just speaking rhetorically.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.