And while police can do their own internal discipline, externally there are mounting questions on whether the commander on the scene of the Tower Hill uproar should have read the riot act before using physical force and tear gas to disperse the crowd. Yesterday, Broaster told us that the gathering did not meet the definition of a riot:..
ACP Edward Broaster, Operations Commander
"It didn't meet the threshold."
Jules Vasquez, reporter
"What would that threshold be?"
ACP Edward Broaster, Operations Commander
"Threshold would have been riotous act where they were throwing missiles and committing other crimes."
But, we checked the law and it doesn't say anything about missiles being thrown. Here's how section 245-(1) of the criminal code defines a riot: "If five or more persons together in any public or private place commence or attempt to do any...of the following things...". and then it lists three things. We'll skip the first since that doesn't apply. The second says, if those five or more persons "execute a common purpose of obstructing or resisting the execution of any legal process or authority." Well, the PUP did resist the exception of police trying to clear the road, so that right there is a riot.
And then the third definition of a riot is even more clear. It says, "to facilitate by force or by show of force or of numbers the commission of any crime." It was a crime to block the road, and the PUP used force and numbers to do it so, again, by that definition there's also a riot.
When those things happen, police by law are required to read the riot proclamation before clearing the rioters. That proclamation was not read on Wednesday - and there are reports that the PUP plan to bring suit on this.
Email
Print