(London, Ontario) Another SIU investigation has ended the same way many of them do: serious injuries, unanswered questions, and no charges.
According to the report, the man suffered serious facial fractures during his arrest, injuries serious enough to trigger the Special Investigations Unit’s mandate. Yet the officer whose actions caused the injuries refused to cooperate with investigators — and still walked away cleared.
The report openly states that the subject officer declined to be interviewed and refused to provide notes, something the law allows officers to do when they are under investigation.
Think about that.
The very officer whose conduct caused a broken orbital bone and nose simply declined to explain what happened — and the investigation continued without his testimony.
A System Where the Suspect Doesn’t Have to Talk
Under Ontario law, subject officers cannot be compelled to cooperate with SIU investigations. They can refuse interviews and withhold notes if they choose.
Meanwhile, other officers designated as witnesses are required to cooperate and provide statements, highlighting the stark difference in obligations.
In any other criminal investigation, the suspect refusing to speak would raise serious red flags.
In police investigations?
It’s treated as routine.
Broken Bones — Still “No Crime”
The SIU acknowledged the man’s injuries occurred during a violent struggle while officers attempted to arrest him. The officer reportedly responded with punches during the altercation and deployed a Taser during the fight, after which the man was eventually handcuffed.
The injuries were severe enough that hospital staff diagnosed fractures to the orbital bone and nose.
Yet the SIU ultimately concluded there were “no reasonable grounds” to believe a criminal offence occurred.
That conclusion rests heavily on a familiar legal shield: section 25 of the Criminal Code, which allows police to use force if it is considered reasonably necessary while performing their duties.
In practice, that standard often means that once police say a suspect resisted arrest, almost any level of force can be justified.
The Accountability Gap
The real problem is structural.
Police can:
Use significant force
Leave a suspect with serious injuries
Refuse to cooperate with investigators
And the system still concludes there are no grounds for charges.
The SIU’s mandate requires proof of a criminal offence before charges can be laid — a high legal threshold that many critics say virtually guarantees police will be cleared unless the misconduct is undeniable.
The Bottom Line
A man walked away from this encounter with multiple facial fractures.
The officer whose actions caused those injuries declined to explain himself to investigators.
And once again, the final result is the same conclusion Ontarians see again and again in SIU reports:
No charges. Case closed.
For many critics, cases like this raise a troubling question:
If police can seriously injure someone and then refuse to cooperate with the investigation, is there any real accountability at all?
(Toronto, Ontario) The Special Investigations Unit (SIU) has once again concluded that police officers who used extreme levels of force during an arrest committed no crime. According to the SIU’s own summary, the man was Tasered, pepper-sprayed, punched, kicked and kneed by officers before ending up with facial fractures. Yet the agency still determined there were “no reasonable grounds” to charge any officer.
If that sounds familiar, it should. It follows the same pattern seen in countless SIU decisions: a civilian is seriously injured, the force used is described as “significant,” but the officers walk away without consequence.
The Force Used Was Extreme — Even By SIU’s Own Admission
The SIU itself acknowledged that the amount of force used was “significant and subject to legitimate scrutiny.”
That phrase is doing a lot of work.
When a person is Tasered, sprayed with pepper spray, punched, kicked and kneed, the situation has already escalated far beyond basic arrest tactics. Those are multiple levels of force stacked on top of each other — electrical weapon, chemical weapon, and physical strikes — all deployed against the same individual.
And the result?
A man left with broken facial bones.
Yet the conclusion was essentially:
The force looked bad, but we can’t prove it was criminal.
This is the accountability loophole that shields officers in nearly every SIU investigation.
“We Were Scared” — The Universal Justification
The entire structure of use-of-force law heavily favors police testimony. Officers only need to convince investigators that they perceived a threat.
Once that claim is made, almost any level of force can be justified.
In practice, the standard becomes:
If officers say they feared for their safety
And the suspect resisted or tried to flee
Then almost any force becomes legally acceptable
This creates a dangerous dynamic where the officer’s subjective fear becomes the legal shield for whatever happened next.
As long as the officer claims fear, the system often calls it “reasonable.”
The Cooperation Problem — Police Can Refuse to Participate
Another structural flaw rarely discussed is that officers do not have to fully cooperate with SIU investigations.
Under the SIU Act:
Officers designated as subject officials cannot be compelled to provide interviews.
They also do not have to submit their notes.
Think about that for a moment.
The very people being investigated for potential crimes are legally allowed to decline to explain their actions.
Imagine a civilian under investigation for assault being told:
“You don’t have to talk to investigators or provide notes.”
That’s exactly the privilege officers receive.
This alone undermines the entire concept of independent oversight.
The SIU’s Impossible Standard
The SIU Director must decide whether there are reasonable grounds to believe a criminal offence occurred.
That is a criminal prosecution standard, not an accountability standard.
In reality, that means officers are only charged when the evidence is overwhelming — usually involving video that makes the conduct impossible to defend.
Anything less, and the default outcome becomes:
Case closed. No charges.
A System That Almost Never Charges Police
The SIU was created in 1990 to restore public confidence in police oversight. But the numbers tell a different story.
Across thousands of investigations involving deaths, shootings and serious injuries, only a small fraction result in charges.
The pattern has become predictable:
Someone is seriously injured or killed.
The SIU launches an investigation.
Months later, a report acknowledges troubling force.
The conclusion: no criminal charges.
The Real Problem: Structural Immunity
The issue isn’t just this case.
It’s the system.
Police are being investigated by an agency that:
Cannot force officers to talk
Cannot compel officers to provide notes
Must meet a high criminal threshold to lay charges
Often relies heavily on police testimony about perceived threats
In other words, the system is designed to avoid charges unless the misconduct is undeniable.
Bottom Line
A man suffered serious facial fractures after officers used multiple forms of force — Tasers, pepper spray, punches, kicks and knees.
The SIU itself admits the force was “significant.”
Yet once again, the conclusion is the same one Ontarians have heard for decades:
No charges.
Because when police say they were afraid, the system almost always believes them.
And that’s why public confidence in police oversight continues to erode.
It’s about power, and North Huron CAO Nelson Santos’ abuse of it.
At recent North Huron council meetings, members of the public were confronted, removed, and physically interfered with for doing something completely lawful: recording a public meeting.
Let that sink in.
An Ontario Provincial Police officer — Murray Foxton — claimed “there is no constitution,” forcibly interfered with cameras, and refused to recognize the Charter-protected right to record police and your own arrest.
This is Canada.
The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms absolutely exists. Section 2 guarantees freedom of expression. Courts have repeatedly affirmed the public’s right to record police in public spaces.
Public meetings are not private clubs. Council chambers are not ego sanctuaries. Police are not personal security for municipal administrators.
Tonight, the OPP have a choice:
Stand with the Charter and the law… or enforce the ego and power trip of a CAO who doesn’t like being questioned.
Using police presence to chill speech, suppress questions, or intimidate residents is government overreach — full stop.
If officers interfere with cameras again, the public response is simple:
Film The Police.
Film calmly. Film legally. Film respectfully. Film everything.
Sunlight is accountability.
This is not about chaos. It is not about disruption. It is about documentation. Peaceful assembly. Transparency. The rule of law.
If there is nothing to hide, there should be nothing to fear from a camera.
17 February 6:00 PM 271 Frances St., Wingham
Bring your phone. Bring your composure. Bring your Charter.
(SMITHS FALLS, ON) – Once again, the Ontario Provincial Police have embarrassed themselves on video — this time, caught refusing to enforce Ontario’s own Trespass to Property Act and treating the complainant with hostility instead of professionalism.
This was not a split-second street encounter or a complex legal dispute. It was a basic matter of property rights — the kind of scenario every officer in Ontario should be able to handle blindfolded. Yet here we are again: another OPP officer who either doesn’t know the law or simply refuses to apply it.
Dereliction of Duty — or Ignorance of the Law?
The Trespass to Property Act is not obscure. It’s one of the simplest and most commonly applied laws in the province. It clearly states that property owners — or those in charge of a property — have the right to ask anyone to leave if they are engaging in prohibited conduct. Refusal to do so becomes trespassing, and it is the police’s duty to enforce that law.
Instead, the Smiths Falls officer in this latest video turned the law on its head — defending the trespasser and belittling the rightful complainant. That’s not just unprofessional; it’s a betrayal of the public trust. The badge is not a suggestion — it comes with the responsibility to know, understand, and apply the law. Ignorance is no excuse, especially when it leaves citizens defenseless on their own property.
Citizen “Journalists” Are Not Above the Law
Let’s be clear: so-called citizen journalists have rights — but not special rights. The moment they walk into a private business, their rights stop where the owner’s begin. The restaurant, store, or café controls that space. If the owner says filming is prohibited and the person refuses to stop or leave, that’s trespassing. Period. Children are taught this is high school, there is no excuse for not knowing “leave means leave”.
This “citizen journalist” in Smiths Falls wasn’t defending free speech — they were testing how much they could get away with. And thanks to an untrained or unwilling OPP officer, they got away with far too much. That person should face the same charges anyone else would under the Trespass Act.
Cameras Keep Everyone Honest
Ironically, it’s only because someone filmed the police that this failure came to light. Filming police interactions is not just a right — it’s a public duty. Without the video, the officer’s dereliction of duty would have been swept under the rug. Recording protects both citizens and good officers from false claims — but when the footage reveals ignorance and arrogance from the uniformed side, it exposes a deeper rot: a police culture too comfortable with being wrong.
Training Isn’t Optional — It’s Urgent
This is not the first time OPP have had to issue a statement admitting one of their own “did not align with the provisions of the Trespass to Property Act.” And if this keeps happening, it won’t be the last unless leadership takes responsibility.
The people of Ontario deserve better than officers who shrug off the law. If you wear the badge, you must know the law. If you don’t — resign, or be retrained until you do.
Accountability Must Start Now
The Ontario Provincial Police leadership can no longer hide behind hollow press statements and “internal reviews.” The people deserve visible, public accountability.
Here’s what needs to happen immediately:
Public Identification: The officer in question should be named, not shielded behind bureaucracy.
Disciplinary Review: A full review by the OPP Professional Standards Branch, with consequences made public.
Mandatory Retraining: Every officer in the province should receive refresher training on the Trespass to Property Act and basic property rights.
Public Apology: The OPP Commissioner should issue a formal apology to the complainant and to the citizens of Smiths Falls for this failure.
Until those steps are taken, the OPP’s credibility on “professionalism and respect” means nothing. The uniform represents authority — but it must also represent accountability.
📰 Editor’s Note
Video evidence of the Smiths Falls OPP incident is publicly available on social media platforms, including X (formerly Twitter). The OPP has acknowledged that the officer’s response “did not align with the provisions of the Trespass to Property Act” and stated that the matter is under internal review. The original incident has also been referred to the Canada Border Services Agency.
🎥 Editorial Summary: Smiths Falls OPP at Tim Hortons
The video opens outside a Tim Hortons in Smiths Falls, where a visibly frustrated man — apparently the complainant — is speaking with an Ontario Provincial Police officer. The man explains that someone inside the restaurant was filming customers and staff without permission, and that staff had asked for police assistance to remove the person under the Trespass to Property Act.
From the very first seconds, the officer’s body language is dismissive — one hand on their hip, a condescending smirk forming as the complainant explains the situation. Instead of taking notes or clarifying the facts, the officer interrupts repeatedly, shifting posture and tone to one of irritation rather than inquiry.
The complainant’s voice is calm but firm. He tries to cite the property owner’s rights, referencing the Trespass to Property Act and emphasizing that filming was not permitted inside the restaurant. The officer, however, refuses to acknowledge the legal basis, replying with curt and patronizing remarks — effectively arguing the law with the citizen instead of enforcing it.
As the conversation continues, the officer becomes visibly impatient. They lean back, cross their arms, and even scoff at one point. When the complainant presses the point that the business had clearly asked for assistance removing the person filming, the officer responds with a sarcastic tone — implying that it’s “not a police matter” and suggesting that the complainant “deal with it yourself.”
The camera angle captures the tension clearly: the officer radiates disdain and authority without accountability, while the complainant stands powerless — effectively abandoned by the very agency sworn to uphold the law.
At one point, the officer waves dismissively toward the restaurant, muttering that the “person filming isn’t breaking any laws.” That statement — incorrect under the Trespass to Property Act — is delivered with the casual arrogance of someone who either doesn’t know or doesn’t care what the statute actually says.
The complainant tries to reason, citing that private property rules apply once inside the restaurant. The officer cuts him off mid-sentence and walks toward their cruiser, leaving the man standing there mid-conversation — the ultimate visual of dereliction and disrespect.
The clip ends abruptly, with the complainant’s voice audible, exasperated and disbelieving, as the officer drives away — refusing to enforce a law that even the OPP later admitted was mishandled.
(FilmThePolice.ca) The Special Investigation Unit of FTP has concluded our investigatioin of the Smith Falls (Tim Hortons) incident. The video shows OPP officers aiding and abetting a trespasser. The officers actions could net them 15 years in prision if/when charged and convicted.
The video opens in a Tim Hortons in Smiths Falls, where a visibly frustrated man — apparently the complainant — is speaking with an Ontario Provincial Police officer. The man explains that someone inside the restaurant was filming customers and staff without permission, and that staff had asked for police assistance to remove the person under the Trespass to Property Act.
From the very first seconds, the officer’s body language is dismissive — one hand on their hip, a condescending smirk forming as the complainant explains the situation. Instead of taking notes or clarifying the facts, the officer interrupts repeatedly, shifting posture and tone to one of irritation rather than inquiry.
The complainant’s voice is calm but firm. He tries to cite the property owner’s rights, referencing the Trespass to Property Act and emphasizing that filming was not permitted inside the restaurant. The officer, however, refuses to acknowledge the legal basis, replying with curt and patronizing remarks — effectively arguing the law with the citizen instead of enforcing it.
As the conversation continues, the officer becomes visibly impatient. They lean back, cross their arms, and even scoff at one point. When the complainant presses the point that the business had clearly asked for assistance removing the person filming, the officer responds with a sarcastic tone — implying that it’s “not a police matter” and suggesting that the complainant “deal with it yourself.”
The camera angle captures the tension clearly: the officer radiates disdain and authority without accountability, while the complainant stands powerless — effectively abandoned by the very agency sworn to uphold the law.
At one point, the officer waves dismissively toward the restaurant, muttering that the “person filming isn’t breaking any laws.” That statement — incorrect under the Trespass to Property Act — is delivered with the casual arrogance of someone who either doesn’t know or doesn’t care what the statute actually says.
The complainant tries to reason, citing that private property rules apply once inside the restaurant. The officer cuts him off mid-sentence and walks toward their cruiser, leaving the man standing there mid-conversation — the ultimate visual of dereliction and disrespect.
The clip ends abruptly, with the complainant’s voice audible, exasperated and disbelieving, as the officer drives away — refusing to enforce a law that even the OPP later admitted was mishandled.
Tone and Takeaway
The video perfectly captures the imbalance of power between citizen and state. The complainant is correct, polite, and factual. The officer is rude, dismissive, and uninformed.
Rather than protecting property rights, the OPP representative dismisses them entirely — leaving the business owner unprotected and the trespasser unchallenged.
SIU Conclusions Recommended Charges.
⚖️ 1. For the “Citizen Journalist” (Person Filming Inside the Restaurant)
Trespass to Property Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. T.21
Sections 2(1)(a), 2(1)(b), 2(1)(c):
“Every person who, without the express permission of the occupier, enters premises when entry is prohibited, or engages in activity when such activity is prohibited, or remains on the premises after being directed to leave by the occupier or an authorized person, is guilty of an offence.”
Possible charge:
Trespass to Property (Provincial Offence)
Fine: up to $10,000 (s. 2(1), s. 4(1))
Arrest without warrant possible under s. 9(1) when offender refuses to leave or identification is refused.
If the person continued filming after being told to stop, or refused to leave, they committed a complete trespass offence. The right to film does not override property rights inside private businesses.
⚖️ 2. For the OPP Officer(s)
Police officers are not immune from accountability when they refuse to enforce a valid law or act in bad faith. Several possible legal and professional implications arise.
A. Dereliction of Duty / Neglect of Duty
Under the Police Services Act (now Community Safety and Policing Act, 2019), misconduct includes:
“Neglect of duty” — failing to promptly and properly perform a duty as required by law.
Possible outcome:
Disciplinary charge, not criminal.
Sanctions can include suspension, demotion, or dismissal.
Examples of misconduct:
Refusing to act on a lawful request for enforcement.
Demonstrating ignorance of basic statutes such as the Trespass to Property Act.
Being discourteous or hostile toward a complainant.
B. Obstruction of Justice (Criminal Code s. 139)
“Every one who wilfully attempts in any manner to obstruct, pervert or defeat the course of justice is guilty of an indictable offence…”
If an officer knowingly refuses to act, misleads a complainant, or protects a trespasser, this could theoretically constitute obstruction of justice — though prosecutors rarely charge it unless intent is clear.
Possible charge:
Obstruction of Justice, indictable or summary offence
Penalty: up to 10 years imprisonment (if indictable).
C. Breach of Public Trust (Common Law / Criminal Code s. 122)
“Every official who, in connection with the duties of their office, commits fraud or a breach of trust is guilty of an indictable offence…”
If the officer’s inaction was deliberate, motivated by bias, or intended to protect the trespasser, it could be seen as Breach of Trust by a Public Officer.
Possible charge:
Criminal Breach of Trust (s. 122)
Maximum: 5 years imprisonment
D. Aiding and Abetting (Criminal Code s. 21)
If the officer’s conduct encouraged or enabled the trespass to continue (for instance, by telling the trespasser they could stay), that constitutes aiding or abetting an offence.
“Every one is a party to an offence who aids or abets another person in committing it.”
Possible charge:
Party to Trespass to Property Act offence
Penalty: same as principal offender (fine up to $10,000)
Although aiding and abetting is rarely laid against police in such cases, it is legally possible if evidence shows active encouragement or knowing facilitation.
⚖️ 3. For the Complainant / Victim
No legal exposure here. The complainant acted properly:
Reported the violation.
Requested police assistance lawfully.
Cited the correct statute (Trespass to Property Act).
Attempted to de-escalate through legal means.
If anything, the complainant may have civil recourse for:
Negligence or dereliction of statutory duty by the OPP.
Loss of business or emotional distress due to the officer’s inaction (in rare cases).
⚖️ 4. Civil & Administrative Avenues
Office of the Independent Police Review Director (OIPRD)
File a complaint for Neglect of Duty, Discreditable Conduct, or Unlawful/Unnecessary Exercise of Authority.
Can lead to an internal disciplinary hearing or retraining order.
Civil Liability
If damages occurred (loss of customers, reputational harm, intimidation), the complainant could pursue:
Civil claim for negligence or breach of statutory duty against the OPP.
Human rights complaint if the officer’s behaviour indicated bias or discrimination.
(Seaforth, Ontario) Huron OPP are now facing attempted murder allegations after an apparent botched execution attempt in Seaforth.
NOTE: Traditional media have used a cropped photo to help cover-up the unjustified shooting. The image below is from the SIU report, and contains one of the bullet holes proving it was an unjustified shooting. All other media outlets have chosen to edit out or omit the bullet hole.
The SIU evidence and investigation shows that Huron OPP repeatedly failed to use standard and appropriate methods to stop a vehicle, and instead tried to execute unarmed civilians in an extrajudicial punitive measure. The telltale bullet holes in the vehicle clearly show the officer lied in his notes, and then they refused to be interviewed. All residents of Huron County are encouraged to lockdown their property and video record ALL police interactions until this officer’s name is released.
The SIU’s decision to exonerate the officer in Case #23-PFI-424 is a grotesque miscarriage of justice. The evidence overwhelmingly suggests that the officer’s gunfire was not defensive but retaliatory, targeting the passenger (Complainant #1) after the vehicle had already passed him. The SIU’s conclusion that this shooting was “reasonable” is a disgrace—it rewards reckless violence and sends a clear message: police can shoot first, fabricate a threat later, and walk away unscathed.
1. The Shooting Was Not Defensive – It Was Punitive
A. The Officer Was No Longer in Danger When He Fired
The SIU admits there is conflicting evidence on whether the SUV was moving when shots were fired.
Video footage (from residential cameras) suggests the vehicle was already turning away when the officer discharged his firearm.
Forensic evidence shows bullets struck the passenger-side windshield and door—areas that would not be in the officer’s direct line of fire if he were truly defending himself from an oncoming vehicle.
Conclusion: The officer was not firing to stop an imminent threat—he was firing to punish the occupants for fleeing.
B. The Third Shot Was Especially Suspicious
Witnesses and audio recordings confirm two rapid shots, followed by a delayed third shot.
This pause suggests the officer reassessed and chose to fire again—not in panic, but in retaliation.
The bullet that struck Complainant #1 in the chest came from this third shot, proving the officer adjusted his aim to ensure a hit.
Conclusion: This was not “self-defense.” This was an execution attempt.
2. The SIU’s Flawed Justification Relies on Police Privilege
The SIU’s reasoning is a textbook example of cop logic:
“He feared for his life”—despite no evidence the civilians were armed.
“The SUV was a weapon”—ignoring that the officer stepped in front of it instead of retreating.
“The shooting was proportional”—even though three bullets into a fleeing car is excessive by any standard.
The SIU’s decision is not based on facts—it’s based on deference to police.
3. This Was Retaliation, Not Protection
The officer’s actions fit a well-documented pattern of police using lethal force as punishment:
Complainant #1 had just evaded arrest—a “sin” that often triggers police rage.
The officer shot at the passenger side, where Complainant #1 was seated, despite the driver being the alleged threat.
No attempt was made to disable the vehicle (tires, engine block)—the officer chose to shoot at human targets.
This was not about stopping a threat. It was about sending a message: “You don’t run from us.”
4. The SIU’s Decision Encourages More Police Violence
By rubber-stamping this shooting, the SIU has: ✅ Legitimized retaliatory gunfire against unarmed civilians. ✅ Reinforced that police can lie, exaggerate threats, and face no consequences. ✅ Sent a clear signal to officers: If you’re angry, you can shoot.
This is not oversight—it’s complicity.
Final Verdict: A Criminal Act Whitewashed as “Self-Defense”
The evidence proves this shooting was unjustified and retaliatory. The SIU’s decision to clear the officer is a betrayal of justice and a green light for further police violence.
If this is “reasonable,” then the law is broken.
Demand:
An independent review of the SIU’s decision.
Charges against the officer for aggravated assault.
Legislative reform to strip police of their “shoot first, justify later” immunity.
(Huron, Ontario) A contractor fighting cancer who had his bulldozer stolen while going through cancer treatments went to the OPP a month and a half ago for help. The OPP stated that since he didn’t have an “ownership” for it like road licensed road vehicles, there is nothing they will do about it.
The OPP erroneously believe that construction equipment has the same type of ownership as an automobile. The OPP are asking for something that doesn’t exist, and are refusing to do their job until this fictional non-existent document is produced.
The Contractor rented the equipment to the accused for 2 weeks. The accused took the bulldozer to his property, posted no trespassing signs up and refused to allow the Contractor to get his property.
Brent Mills, the contractor, reached out for help. Below is a portion of the video proving the OPP’s ignorance regarding “ownerships”.
Below is part of what transpired on Monday.
OPP Refuse to do anything regarding theft of construction equipment.
Don’t leave witnesses and don’t talk to the police. That’s how you get away with murder.
A one year old was shot and killed by OPP officers 26Nov2020. The only civilian witness was also shot to death by the police. The OPP claim they were trying to protect the child by firing uncontrollably at him. Sounds like a typical “wellness check” by the police you see on the news every week or so.
The OPP officers that slaughtered the baby & witness are refusing to be interviewed by the SIU. Once again the police are literally getting away with murder. Their only punishment is sent home with full pay. A bonus vacation for killing a baby & witness.
We all know “wellness check” means beat and/or kill the target. We all know what is going to happen if you get the high school bullies to pay a visit to someone. The problem now is the high school bullies are armed and are believed in court over any Civilian/victim. It’s amazing anyone survives an OPP “wellness check”.
An out of control Hamilton police officer disrespecting and bullying an unarmed Citizen was caught on video. The hyper-rude officer talks over the Citizen and threatens her with arrest. The woman stood up to the officer and stated “Enjoy your bullying of a position”. The officer responded like a psycho schoolyard bully and lunges at the woman in an attempt to intimidate her as she shuts the door. The officers laughed to each other as they walked away thinking they put another taxpayer in their place.
This is #HamOnt. This is why we say @DefundHPS. Notice how she never raises her voice, yet he accuses her of being "unreasonable" and not listening, while repeatedly talking over her and threatening her with arrest for property damage that never happened. Then he lunges at her pic.twitter.com/rm3qtPlenm
A Citizen has created a website to help hold the Barrie police officer that smashed the head of a Citizen on the curb repeatedly because the officer was irate his victim was not terrified of the police.
Mandatory Credit: Photo by Stefan Jeremiah/Shutterstock (10546001o)
A crowd of protestors march up and down Fulton Street in Crown Heights, Brooklyn
Metropolitan Transportation Authority protest, New York, USA – 31 Jan 2020
A mass demonstration was organized by a group known as FTP, ‘Fuck The Police’ who are protesting the increased police presence on the subway system among other demands.
