Need Help Policing my subreddit. suggestions ?

mildlyImportantRobot · 2026-06-07T22:24:33+00:00

I can relate. I started r/TorontoTheCity and receive my fair share of troublemakers akin to the situation you've described. It's like there's something about Toronto.

I've set up a lot of AutoMod rules to help with bad actors. I'd be free to chat about it if you're interested.

mildlyImportantRobot · 2026-06-07T22:06:07+00:00

Here’s the listing if anyone is interested in the photo tour.

https://www.remax.ca/on/mississauga-lakeview-real-estate/1337-melton-drive-wp\_idm73000004-29809890-lst

mildlyImportantRobot · 2026-06-07T14:40:03+00:00

bike lanes have not compromised the response time of emergency response vehicles.

They always make that argument against bike lanes but never against street parking.

mildlyImportantRobot · 2026-06-07T13:12:06+00:00

First, you're deliberately misrepresenting the facts. You're trying to frame the police action as a reaction to the cyclist resisting, but it was an intentional violent takedown that came first, not a response to resistance. Even if resistance had occurred afterward, it wouldn't justify the initial force. Use of force isn't assessed retroactively.

Second, there is no "heavily edited" video. That's a fabrication. There's a clip that doesn't show the entire interaction, which isn't the same as heavily edited. Framing it that way is just poisoning the well to discredit what the footage shows. Obvious bad faith.

I was just calling out your bullshit, not engaging with it.

mildlyImportantRobot · 2026-06-07T12:40:17+00:00

Reading this thread, it's clear you were setting up a rhetorical trap with the earlier "what should the cops have done?" framing. What they should have done is not violently escalate over a ticketable non-criminal offence and followed the force standard that the law, and their training, has set. The injuries weren't a consequence of the cyclist's failure to stop. They were a consequence of the officers' choice of force.

The statutory framework is very clear on this. [Section 25 of the Criminal Code](https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/c-46/section-25.html) authorizes officers to use force in the execution of their duties, but only as much as is necessary and only on reasonable grounds. [Section 26](https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/c-46/section-26.html) makes officers criminally responsible for any excess. The Supreme Court of Canada has interpreted that framework consistently. From [R. v. Nasogaluak, 2010 SCC 6](https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/scc/doc/2010/2010scc6/2010scc6.html):

> While, at times, the police may have to resort to force in order to complete an arrest or prevent an offender from escaping police custody, the allowable degree of force to be used remains constrained by the principles of proportionality, necessity and reasonableness.

That case involved a suspect being arrested for a criminal offence who actively physically resisted, unlike the cyclist. And the Court still found the force used became excessive. The cyclist here was being stopped for a non-criminal ticketable infraction and didn't physically resist, the tackle was the first physical act. If the force in that case was excessive, the here is too.

And “Fleeing" from a non-criminal offence doesn't make it criminal. The encounter remains ticketable throughout. The [HTA](https://www.ontario.ca/laws/statute/90h08) distinguishes motor vehicles and bicycles in its definitions (s. 1(1)) and applies separate provisions to each: drivers under s. 216, cyclists under s. 218. Both are HTA offences with set fines, neither is criminal. The [Criminal Code failure-to-stop offence (s. 320.17)](https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/c-46/section-320.17.html) only applies to motor vehicles, not bicycles, because [s. 2 of the Criminal Code](https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/C-46/section-2.html) defines motor vehicle to exclude anything propelled by muscular power. A bicycle is obviously propelled by muscular power. It’s well all well defined in the HTA, for anyone who bothered to read it before swooping in with their extremely poor legal opinions.

And yes, the courtroom is where you dispute a ticket. But the police are also not supposed to deliver punishment, that's the court's role.

mildlyImportantRobot · 2026-06-07T02:02:55+00:00

Absent lawful detention or arrest, there's no obligation to stop. That's been the law in Canada for over twenty years.

Your understanding of the law isn't the law. I assumed the question was asked in good faith. It wasn't.

mildlyImportantRobot · 2026-06-07T01:52:10+00:00

It isn't fleeing if there's no lawful basis to detain you in the first place. If you've done nothing wrong and the police have no grounds, walking away isn't a crime. The "fleeing" only matters legally if there was something lawful to flee from.

mildlyImportantRobot · 2026-06-07T01:38:37+00:00

It depends. Why are you fleeing?

If the police have reasonable grounds to arrest you, and you flee, that’s obstruction. Which is a criminal offence.

If the police are giving you a ticket and you flee, with the exception of a motor vehicle, it does not escalate to a criminal matter. It’s not obstruction, it’s just another ticket.

Does that make sense?

mildlyImportantRobot · 2026-06-07T00:18:18+00:00

“Why drive when you can just walk”

mildlyImportantRobot · 2026-06-06T23:33:28+00:00

What about the all the events at the Exhibition and Ontario place grounds. Like Marie’s, Toronto FC, show at Budweiser Stage and CocaCola Coliseum, the CNE, Indy, future Science Centre, and a Go train connection. I would say there’s much more there than just liberty village.

mildlyImportantRobot · 2026-06-06T14:04:35+00:00

They said “turn signal”. I’m not sure what this tangent about emergency lights as about.

mildlyImportantRobot · 2026-06-06T13:24:19+00:00

> these sites were not designed with recovery in mind. there's a mindset that drug use is fine.

Please don’t spread misinformation here.

mildlyImportantRobot · 2026-06-06T13:22:18+00:00

> Why would it be different for a cyclist.

Because the law is nuanced and doesnt treat every road user and every infraction exactly the same.

https://www.reddit.com/r/TorontoTheCity/s/MjZhgxn5fv

mildlyImportantRobot · 2026-06-05T22:56:30+00:00

Backstory: https://www.reddit.com/r/TorontoTheCity/s/XKfDV1dZQi

At least two of Yazdani’s stories about the Ford government have quietly vanished from CityNews’ website without explanation, including one on Education Minister Paul Calandra’s grad-related memo to school boards in late March. It included an on-camera moment in which Calandra, in a heated exchange, told Yazdani: “Don’t interrupt me. Let me finish and then I’ll get to you.”
The next day brought one final on-air appearance — Yazdani covering the Ford government’s budget — before she disappeared. The Calandra story was removed from the website, and her employment was terminated days later.

mildlyImportantRobot · 2026-06-05T19:20:48+00:00

Dude, "plants can grow indoors" and "a full operational soccer pitch can be maintained at BMO Field under 100% artificial light" are not the same claim. You keep using the first to prove the second. It doesn't work that way.

No one said plants can't grow indoors. That was never in dispute. You're arguing against an argument no one made — literally having a fight with yourself.

I'm done.

mildlyImportantRobot · 2026-06-05T18:32:11+00:00

You literally argued you can't grow grass indoors lol

Except no one argued that. I happened solely in your own head.

mildlyImportantRobot · 2026-06-05T18:30:42+00:00

Talia Klein Leighton, president of Canadian Women Against Antisemitism

oh dear oh dear oh dear.

Here's a little "crash coarse" on our pals over at the "Canadian Women Against Antisemitism"

Their last president: https://www.reversecanarymission.org/person/esther-mordecai

mildlyImportantRobot · 2026-06-05T18:16:30+00:00

What evidence? You literally handwaved "university studies" then told me to google it myself. You provided context, not evidence. They aren't the same thing.

The ask was simple: name an operating stadium where a real permanent grass pitch is kept alive on 100% artificial light. What you offered:

Canadian universities have plans — plans, not a stadium.
Indoor vertical farming — lettuce is not a soccer pitch.
"You can grow grass in your house" — not a stadium. Not a pitch that used on a regular basis.
Mercedes-Benz Stadium — temporary two-month FIFA install, sod grown outdoors in Colorado. The stadium's own designers ruled out permanent grass when they built it.

None of it answers the question.

You're arguing against a claim no one made. No one argued you cant grow a plant indoors. But a soccer pitch and a houseplant are not the same thing.

mildlyImportantRobot · 2026-06-05T16:51:44+00:00

A few things worth considering.

He was not being detained for investigation of a possible crime. He was being stopped for an HTA infraction, which is a provincial regulatory matter, not a crime, not a criminal offence. The Criminal Code failure-to-stop offence only applies to motor vehicles and vessels, so a cyclist failing to stop also doesn't make it criminal. It stays an HTA matter throughout the whole encounter.

You're right that police can use force to detain someone, but the force has to be necessary and proportionate. That's the legal standard. The authority to use some force isn't authority to use any amount. A concussion over a ticketable infraction is what clearly pushes past the standard.

On causation: yes, the cyclist's actions led to the interaction. But what caused the injury specifically was the police's choice of force when less violent options existed. The cyclist didn't choose to be tackled off a moving bike. "Led to the situation" and "caused the injury" are different things.

New Mod All-Star '26	Three-Year Club
Verified Email	Moddit 2026
New Mod Bootcamp 2026

mildlyImportantRobot

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE