Not necessarily. This seems to be a gray area in Canada, as stated in the body of the article.
No, it doesn't.
Particularly in this situation.
The article you linked is pretty clear.
From the article:
What you must do
Whether you have to show the police your ID or
answer any questions depends on the situation.
In most cases, if the police stop you on the street, you do not have to show the police your ID or answer any questions.
If the police stop you while you are driving or cycling, you do have to show the police your ID or tell them who you are when asked. This is required by the Highway Traffic Act and municipal bylaws.
The guy was driving a motor vehicle and was stopped, so he needed to
comply.
No gray area.
You can interpret it any way you like. Compare it to the tactics of the gestapo, Stalin's NKVD or Mao's Red Guard - all exaggerations of course.
Yeah ... pretty much a completely
unhinged exaggeration.
You know, there are some folks who have actually lost
family members to either Gestapo. Stalin's NKVD, or Mao's Red Guard that might find such
trivializations - in service to scoring what one thinks are "political points" - rather offensive in the extreme.
Might even be some of those folks hanging around here.
In reality it was police brutality, totally unnecessary.
Totally incorrect - the driver refused to
comply with the officer's orders to provide ID which he was legally required to do.
Then the driver escalated further by
attempting to flee ... and finally
resisting when he was told he was being placed under arrest.
All the while failing to COMPLY with a
lawful order from an duly sworn officer of the law.
Interestingly enough, the video embedded in the Daily Wire article you posted is missing key context of what happened leading up to the altercation. I suspect that is entirely
purposeful ... because the video in the article is designed to inflame passions and stoke outrage.
It is misleading. And I'd have to say that's intentional ... because the Daily Wire could have found the more complete video as easily as I did (second time around it took me all of about a minute)
I'm not sure whether the original video I saw - which was more complete - was linked on the Daily Wire website or I found it independently of that.
Could be that the Daily Wire (or the individual that Tweeted it) took down the Tweet containing the video I saw and replaced it with a more edited version which left out key context ... but I can't honestly accuse them of that because I'm not certain.
What I can say is that the video on the Tweet that's embedded in the Daily Wire's article is extremely misleading ... because it leaves out what happened before Gramps was manhandled (that he failed to comply, attempted to flee, and resisted ... and then was
subsequently was arrested)
The full video I watched is still out there though, and here it is - just be forewarned that it contains
extreme language which some folks might find
offensive (not on the part of law enforcement though) - so don't click the link if you're easily offended:
Ottawa Freedom Convoy: elderly man arrested for honking his horn in support.
The video certainly gives some real insight into the nature of the folks engaged in these kind of stunts.
I seem to recall someone once - a long time ago - describing these sort of folks as
misfits and malcontents.
I should also note that the written narrative in the Daily Wire's article is also misleading - because it leaves out key context of what happened prior to the altercation.
According to news updates from Canada the old guy was given a $118 ticket for violating the temporary "honking" restriction (NOT failure to ID), which could have been easily carried out without the physical manhandling and handcuffs since he was not a threat to the cops 1/3 his age and twice his size.
Sounds like you're basically lobbying that he should have additional charges then ?
Some additional charges certainly work from where I'm sitting.
Thanks for clearing that up !
stepstojustice.ca
