Sunday, October 17, 2010

No Tears For This Guy, Either

There's no question that police acted unacceptably in the wake of the G20 riots in Toronto.

The weak response to the initial riot was followed by a strong-arm response that was in no way, shape or form acceptable. Moreover, provoking that response was the actual goal of the Black Bloc rioters themselves. In effect, police simply gave the rioters what they wanted: a reason for the public to distrust the police.

That being said, some self-lionizing crusaders have also taken the controversy as an opportunity to take their attention-seeking behaviour to a whole new level.

Take, for example, Toronto's Derek Soberal. In a video being passed around the Canadian blogosphere, Soberal is trying to pass himself off as a victim of police brutality -- but there's reason to doubt his story.

The video begins with Soberal being confronted by police during the G20 Summit, demanding to see his ID. The video does not show any event precipitating the demand. Soberal showboats while he refuses to produce identification for police.

Not wanting to be arbitarily singled out by police is one thing. But Soberal's showboating becomes thematic as the video continues, as he recounts a story about randomly approaching a police car. He announces to the officer inside that he's been appearing on television and radio, then asks him a question about police activities during the G20 Summit.

He then insists that the police officer in question assaults him while arbitrarily demanding to see his ID. He offers security camera footage as evidence of this. But there's a problem. At approximately the 5:23 mark of the video, the security camera footage that will allegedly show him being assaulted skips. The security footage has clearly been edited at the exact time of the alleged assault.


It's a question the creator of the video doesn't seem to want asked, let alone do they want to answer:
At first Soberal insists he was "pushed" by the officer in question. He later insists that he was "hit". His story is changing.

He shows himself making a show of the incident to anyone who will listen, including bystanders on the street.

All the video actually demonstrates is that Soberal ran from the police. It doesn't demonstrate that Soberal was assaulted in any way, shape or form. The security evidence is doctored to eliminate any evidence one way or the other, so all the viewer has is Soberal's word.

There's a simple word for what Soberal is doing in the video: it's called shit disturbing. He seems to go to some rather spectacular lengths, including running from the police, in order to accomplish this end.

It seems fair to ask why the security camera footage has been edited. It seems fair to ask if the creators of this video are hiding something, and it seems puzzling until one looks a little deeper into the creators of the video -- in particular Press For Truth, and Infowars, both groups involved in the 9/11 "truth" movement.

As anyone whose paid any passing amount of attention to the 9/11 "truth" movements comical "Building 7" claims knows, the primary tactics of these groups is to present the illusion of evidence. In the case of World Trade Centre Building 7, they use dark, blurry and grainy YouTube videos to attempt to refute the eyewitness testimony of Firefighters, Police and EMTs who were on the scene.

They claim that Building 7 was a controlled demolition, and that the damage to the building was not catastrophic. Firefighters, Police and EMTs who were on the scene testify to the existence of a massive hole in the building, directly below a penthouse on the building which eyewitness accounts hold to have fallen first.

The illusion of evidence seems to be at play with the Soberal video as well. Soberal says he has video evidence of the alleged assault. The video doesn't seem to ever actually provide it.

In order to shed tears for Derek Soberal, one would have to assume -- simply assume -- that he's telling the truth, even despite him changing his story. It would be easier to believe him if he weren't being demonstrably evasive; but evasive he's been.


  1. Rodney King was brutalized captured on video, this person has not provided any evidence of any wrongdoing.

    He ignores "filming, taking pictures" of the security perimeter may be viewed by the security as a valid issue to be investigated by peace officers.

    He confirms in his video those other people "walking by" were not being stopped or asked to provide identification.

    If the peace officers stopped EVERYONE than it would be an ISSUE. They simply asked him to provide identification and context why he was "filming the security fence" that he admits to doing.

    His residence? How does the peace officer determine that without viewing identification?

    How long was the "Hi, I see you, you see me stunt?" we don't know.
    We don't know if the person interrupted his break, drew unwanted attention to the peace officer, affected completion of paperwork before ending his shift. Was the officer was parked across the street to monitor for illegal activity (drug, prostitution, stakeout for person living there?)

    (Undetermined amount of time from Hi look at me to questioning by the single officer asking for ID)

    He was asked why he was standing outside at 1:57 am outside his residence and the peace officer used his discretion in asking for identification to determine his residency?

    The editing and narrative reminds me of a typical Michael Moore video. Way too much extraneous information in personal opinion.

    He runs away from a single officer, alleging an assault and violation of his rights without any proof or expertise other than his opinion.

    He is shocked additional peace officers are called in to locate him after he runs away during questioning?

    I can see why officers would question him. It was inconsistent to run away after providing ID confirming your live here. The camera was the impartial witness and he abandoned it to play "catch me if you can".

  2. This guy very clearly took every pain to draw as much attention to himself as he could get. And it's very typical of folks like Soberal.

    It seems that Soberal himself is the owner of the SecretStore YouTube page, which also features 9/11 "truth" propaganda.

    One of the obnoxious themes in the 9/11 "truth" movement is that they demand attention from anyone and everyone. They'll show up to nearly any public event and engage in this precise kind of attention-seeking behaviour.

    Derek Soberal sought the attention of the police, and he got it. He's also very clearly hiding evidence about what really took place at the 2:00:08 timemark of the security camera footage taken on 9/16/2010.

    Simply put: what is Derek Soberal hiding?

  3. In order to shed tears for Derek Soberal, one would have to assume -- simply assume -- that he's telling the truth, even despite him changing his story.

    Sadly, the problem is that with people like Derek, they WANT you to assume that the police are always bad and the citizen is always good. Personally, I was taught the reverse of this - that the police will generally act "good" unless there is evidence to prove otherwise. Naive I know, but less so than assuming the police are always going to do bad things.

  4. I would certainly like to know why Soberal edited the security camera footage.

    You can see his reaction to such a question here. Perhaps one of you would like to ask him the same?

  5. Before you try and defame Derek, you need to get your facts straight, out of the multiple times that Derek recounted the story of the first police officer assaulting him, he only used the word "hit" once, the other times he distinctly says he was "pushed" which he probably said 5 times, to the 1 time he said hit. He never says that he was punched. So I don't think Derek is trying to demonize the Police with no cause to do so. The Police clearly violated his rights as a Canadian.

  6. The police didn't "clearly" do any such thing.

    He went looking for trouble, and he found it.

    What I really want to know is what's in the full, unedited security camera footage. What really happened at the 2:00:08 time mark?


Post your comments, and join the discussion!

Be aware that spam posts and purile nonsense will not be tolerated, although purility within constructive commentary is encouraged.

All comments made by Kevron are deleted without being read. Also, if you begin your comment by saying "I know you'll just delete this", it will be deleted. Guaranteed. So don't be a dumbass.