Category: police brutality

Categories
London Police police brutality SIU

Officer Refuses SIU Interview After Breaking Face — Cleared #FilmThePolice #FTP #25-OCI-470

(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.

Source: https://siu.on.ca/en/directors_report_details.php?drid=4967

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?

Categories
police brutality SIU Toronto Police

Police Brutally Beat Man Then Refuse to Cooperate With SIU “Cleared” #FilmThePolice #FTP #25-OCI-446

(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.

Source: https://siu.on.ca/en/directors_report_details.php?drid=4978

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.

Broken bones?
Tasers?
Pepper spray?
Repeated strikes?

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:

  1. Someone is seriously injured or killed.
  2. The SIU launches an investigation.
  3. Months later, a report acknowledges troubling force.
  4. 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.

Categories
I don't answer questions OPP police brutality

Film The Police (FTP) 17Feb2026, 271 Frances St. Wingham – Stand-up to Nelson Santos

Tonight is not about politics.

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.

Because democracy is not defended by silence.

It is defended by citizens who show up.

FTP.

Categories
dereliction of duty police brutality

Shooter At Large – Huron Residents To Lockdown After Seaforth Shooting & Cover-up #CamerasUp

(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.
Categories
dereliction of duty police brutality

1 Year Old Executed By OPP – Only Witness Shot & Killed By Police #OPPBabyKillers #FTP #FlimThePolice

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”.

SIU press release.

Categories
dereliction of duty police brutality

Psycho Cop Lunges At Unarmed Citizen – Video Released – #FTP #FilmThePolice

Bully Cop lunges at citizen

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.

Categories
police brutality

Citizen Creates Website To Hold Barrie Police Officer To Account

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.

Visit JasonStamp.ca to view the website.

https://youtu.be/XI_ppSlBlSc
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.
Categories
dereliction of duty police brutality pull overs

Public Outrage After Barrie Police Attempt Murder Of Citizen – #FTP #FilmThePolice

Screams of terror by horrified onlookers with video cameras likely saved a man’s life from Barrie police officers. The officers that stood by or joined in are just as responsible as the out of control officer. 

A 20 year old nearly lost his life after making a flippant remark to a police officer in Barrie, Ontario. The officer loses all self control and attempts to crack open the skull of the 20 year old like a coconut, by repeatedly smashing his restrained victim’s head into the concrete. More officers joined in the fun instead of protecting the unarmed restrained civilian from the out of control cop.

The officer did not need to respond to the remark. Responding with violence and trying to kill the man is an act of terrorism. This was a clear message from the police to the Public that they must show 100% respect and fear of the Barrie police or you may not survive.

Gary Grisdale, who identified himself in messages to CBC News as the man’s brother, said the incident happened after his brother “went through a red light on his longboard after looking both ways to make sure the coast was clear.” Grisdale declined to give his brother’s full name.

Grisdale said the officer ticketed his brother and detained him for about 30 minutes. Afterwards, his brother went back onto the road with his longboard and “lipped the officer off a bit,” he said. The officer “got furious,” Grisdale said, and that is when the video starts.

Until all Barrie police officers wear and use body cameras, and these officers are held to account, FTP considers the Barrie police and those that support them blindly to be terrorists.

https://youtu.be/XI_ppSlBlSc
Categories
police brutality

14 Year Old Brutalized By RCMP

Categories
police brutality Uncategorized

Seniors Dragged Down Stairs By Cruel Cops #FTP # FilmThePolice

Video shows child screaming as police officers forcefully arrest an elderly couple in B.C. WARNING: Video contains disturbing images and sounds.