Meanwhile, in Vancouver, city sets up giant screens downtown for people to watch the game

The Vancouver Sun reports:

Vancouver city crews are working to set up the massive viewing screens on Georgia, Homer and Hamilton, as devoted fans are already beginning to gather for Game 7 of the Stanley Cup Final. ...

Fans are expected in the tens of thousands, but numbers could double if the game goes well. One hundred thousand people flooded the area during Friday's game.



Free tagging: 



By on

boston will be flipped upside down by 11:30, win or lose. i hope im wrong but i would not want to be a cop tonight. stay classy boston. go bruins.

Boston has done before what Vancouver is doing now - What gives?

By on

I was going to write a post about how maybe we (that would be the Boston-area population at large, not those reading this post, all of whom are great upstanding citizens, I'm sure) did this to ourselves by past behavior, etc., and that this is not an issue in Vancouver because, well, they're Canadian, and everyone knows that Canadians are just the most likeable and friendliest people on Earth.

I was also going to write a post that the Danes must be a close second, because I remember being in a square in Copenhagen with tens of thousands of other people watching the World Cup in 2002 without incident.

But then I remembered being in Government Center with several thousand people just a few years ago watching the Italy-France final of the World Cup without incident - in an event that was arguably organized by the City.

So what gives with these measures? Is it because it will be nighttime? Because it's hockey? What the hell is going on?

Its the bruins

Its been 40 years, its game 7, lunar eclipses, there is a tension in the air tonight.......things are bruin.......

Expect a riot

By on

Canadian teams rarely even appear in the Stanley Cup playoffs, let alone win, people are expecting a RIOT tonight. Check tomorrow.

I don't think . . .

. . . much is going to happen if they win. I don't remember the town burning to the ground in 04- and I don't think it will be mayhem if they win tonight.

I think it is because Canada

By on

I think it is because Canada is not communist like Massachusetts is.

^ winner

People keep electing Mumbles, why the shocked faces?

Black Bloc

No. There ain't no burgeoning communist/anarchist homeless youth community in Vancouver. Or Canada. Certainly not one with a long history of rioting, mayhem and looting attached to major local news events. Oh Nooooo ...


By on

You know "Black Bloc" isn't an actual group, right? You know you could put on some black clothes and just join a Black Bloc protest in just about any city on the globe. You realize that while anarchist street kids are sometimes involved in Black Bloc protest, not every Black Bloc protester is an anarchist street kid.

Of course you do, because that whole cup of coffee you had in the Pacific Northwest was enough to give you not only complete omnipotence about the area, but a great handle on the "culture" and "movements" there.

American expats are annoying, but American expat cultural tourists are infinitely worse.

Why cant Boston residents

By on

Why cant Boston residents have nice things?

I dont need to relive my childhood where I was grounded by daddy.

On WBUR this afternoon

By on

Sacha Pfeiffer was interviewing the Vancouver constable of mounties or whatever, and he was basically saying they aren't worried about anything, they have their cops interact with the crowd and high-five fans and stuff so everyone is aware of their presence, and pretty much no one starts anything.

Time for me to eat crow?

I was as anti-Menino as everyone else here, but ... maybe he was more right than wrong about crowd control this time.

My thoughts

By on

Here's the flaw in this logic: it's self-fulfilling for Menino to be right.

Did you see what they did at Causeway last night? They basically kept 16,000 people from even being in The Garden to get let out on Causeway. They setup barricades after the game started that kept anyone in the bar area across the street in their separate roads and not able to use Causeway to gather or intercollate leaving only an exit towards Haymarket or the Greenway. Then whenever they didn't like what they saw, they pushed that street back out of the area towards Haymarket. The Faneuil Hall/Quincy Market area wasn't allowed to join the crowd via Haymarket either. Congrats...we live in a world where we're not free to assemble on a public street beyond what they'll allow us.

It's academic at this point, but the question should remain: Would the Boston crowd have devolved into a riot if allowed to amass on Causeway together? I say no, not likely. I use Kenmore as my example. Kenmore was where a LOT of insanity around the 2004 Red Sox went down (fires, car flips, etc)...and yet it was even more mild-mannered from all reports I've seen. There were nowhere near the number of barriers and cops in Kenmore as previous celebrations. Sure, it's not exactly Bruins Central, there are other mitigating factors, but I just don't think Boston was quite a powder-keg for this win as the city expected, because of how the cops have been burned in recent past.

There's also a totally different attitude here when we won than how Vancouver had pre-annointed itself the winners (because Canada = hockey)...just to get shoved down hard in Game 7 and go crazy about it.

Take it to the other extreme. What if Menino called martial law at 4 PM and said if anyone stepped foot outside would be arrested on sight....and then Vancouver rioted. See, Menino was proven right again! It's a test of necessity versus sufficiency. Sure, by blockading Causeway, refusing to allow a viewing party at the Garden, and bringing every available cop to the streets that night, he took SUFFICIENT measures to prevent a riot from developing...but was it the mininum amount of action NECESSARY? I don't believe so and in the "land of the free", the test should be necessity not sufficiency.

Well like I said before, he is in a lose/lose situation

Or a win/win situation I guess. But I'll Monday morning quarterback a little too.

-No one died or got seriously hurt, so I guess that is the best thing that happend last night. Who do you give credit for that to? Menino for not letting 15,000 possible extra people into an area? The people themselves for behaving like good citizens? The police for not instigating small crime arrests? The crowd control/police planning supervisor for minimalizing the potential damage? The person who made the decision to close the windows to all the bars and for the bars do close at a certain time?

6 arrests for disorderly conduct and trespassing from what I heard. That is either good or bad. Did the police ignore other property crimes? Could they have done more or less? Since no one got hurt, you can say they sacrificed some property damage arrests in order to keep more serious peace?

Since no one got hurt, and the government did restrict areas where the public could gather, could you say the government overeacted?


For starters, the most common group to have partying issues is largely absent from the area.

Then you need to consider that Boston does not have much of a migrant youth population.

If they had permitted the Garden to operate like a proper arena, drinking would have been limited, egress controlled, and it would have been more like game six.

I think the police should be questioned all the time, and expected to justify both their tactics and the expense of their presence versus public need and civil rights as an ongoing review of practices. After all, it is tax money paying for this.

I don't really disagree with you.

But it is a lot easier to say this now.

And these police tactics aren't just made up in a meeting a few days before the event. These tactics are usually uniform across the country and sometimes internationally.

If there was some easy solution for crowd control, why hasn't anyone figured it out yet? It certainly didn't work in Vancouver did it? Or maybe it could have been a lot worse right?

I'm just think it is very hard for a politician to make a decision on something like this. Do you think the Vancouver politicians can use Swirly's argument/excuse and they are going to come out of this think ok? Do you think there will be some "why didn't we do what Boston did?" kind of questions?

I doubt there are easy solutions ...

However, it is easier to determine solutions when you don't have a pervasive attitude of "don't EVER question ANYTHING we do for ANY REASON YOU TERRORIST SYMPATHIZER!!!" inhibiting appropriate and systematic inquiry aimed at learning what does and doesn't work.

Look at what it took to get the BPD to start actually thinking about crowd control: dead kids who either had little to do with anything going on or dared to drink a beer in public.

These things should be automatic, systematic, impartial, and thorough, and quasi-Bayesian.

no one said you couldn't question the government

And I know the government isn't always right or does the right thing.

But crowd control is a thing that the government spends a lot of time and money on to prepare, train, etc. There are national and international conferences, training standards, and all sorts of other professional organizations who specialize in crowd control tecniques. You seem like you have better ideas or know more than what these professionals have done. I am just doubting that. So in the end these things are

automatic, systematic, impartial, and thorough, and quasi-Bayesian.

And the Boston Police hasn't really changed anything about their policies except for getting rid of a pepper ball gun (which many other cities legally use with tazers). The same could happen with a stray tear gas grenade, less than lethal shotgun beanbag, missed baton strike, or in the case of Woodman, a legal arrest with the proper amount of force.

Oh. Right.

Proper amount of force to kill, that is ...

At least the Snellgrove lawsuit (not inquiry ... LAWSUIT) forced them to read the directions on the boxes.


Well that isn't what the doctors said. But I forgot you smarter than doctors when it comes to medicine (and like to tell people about it).

Ever fire a pepperball gun? Not the easiest thing to aim or fire during a riot. I've fired them before (target practice). After the first shot (which can be wild butonce you get your aim) you can get them within 1 foot of your target from 6-8 yards pretty easily. Seeing that someones face is usually 1 foot from their chest, it kind of makes it real hard to minimize mistakes with it. And seeing that these guns are meant to be shot at the chest, it makes it even harder. They now recommend to aim at the ground and legs and not the chest, although the chest offically isn't off limits either. So that wasn't really a case of not reading the directions, it was a case of Boston not wanted to take the risk for an unproven less than lethal option. Then there is the fact that even when hit in the face, the risk of death or serious injury should be very minimal.

But then again, you are an expert armorer and know more than anyone else about weapons too.

On a side note, they do have a lot of softer pepperball guns now, where the Co2 pressure basically only gives you enough power to fire them 10-20 feet and they are specifically meant to be fired at the ground.

Rolls Eyes

Srsly - you think the situations are comparable? You've never been to Vancouver, or seen population studies of the same. My bet is that the Vancouver Police were looking for an excuse to crack down on the homeless/migrant youth population that Vancouver's relatively mild climate attracts, so they sacrificed a few cruisers to the cause.

Can you prove that police force prevents insurrection and doesn't actually fuel it? Really? That's funny, because police forces(worldwide) don't seem to be able to prove that.

Rolls Eyes ... Right Into the Back of My Head

By on

Ok, so yesterday, according to another post on this very thread, "Sacha Pfeiffer was interviewing the Vancouver constable of mounties or whatever, and he was basically saying they aren't worried about anything, they have their cops interact with the crowd and high-five fans and stuff so everyone is aware of their presence, and pretty much no one starts anything."

And when the crowd goes bonkers, you attribute it to a covert conspiracy of malevolent mounties who instigated a gigantic riot to destroy homless and migrant youth and Black Bloc anarchists, who all seem to be disguised as healthy, well-fed, financially-stable sports fans.


Yeah, okay. I can see how that's more believeable.

Google is your friend

There was a big media event in Vancouver a little over a year ago. Can you remember what that was? Hint: lots of people from all over the world were there for two weeks. Similar things were going on during that event - window smashings, some light looting ... JFGI and you can find that all out.

There were going to be riots, regardless of the outcome of the game, because there was media presence. Here's a little sample of why they should have been more prepared - or, at least, knew what was going to happen:

Oh, Of Course, Google

By on

Google me the part where the Vancouver police, earlier described as all laid back, became a fascist army of aggression baiting "homeless/migrant youth" into a gigantic riot that would allow Teh Copz to crack down on them... or the part where police made the decision to sacrifice millions of dollars in property damage and their city's/bosses' own reputation for the chance to instigate a crackdown on top-secret anarchists disguised as college kids.

Can you also JFGI how your suggestion that that people riot because of police presence ("Can you prove that police force prevents insurrection and doesn't actually fuel it? Really? That's funny, because police forces(worldwide) don't seem to be able to prove that.") became your position that people riot because of media presence ("There were going to be riots, regardless of the outcome of the game, because there was media presence.")?

Wrong again, you aging hipster doofus

By on

So now it is the youth and homeless to blame for rioting? If they had any ambition, they wouldn't be homeless.

For those of us who have been to Vancouver (or as it is sometimes known due to its large Asian population, Hongcouver) - it is very nice, very clean, very pretty, and kinda boring (like Toronto but with better views and less third world immigrants) - so I can imagine people are just looking for something to do.

I was out during the 2004 riots in Fenway - and remember watching the footage, and even with police around it was crazy - so I guess fires and smashing windows and swinging from poles is tame?

Then again, I didn't get drunk, break the law and get an eyeful of pepper, oh well.

Your personal freedom to assemble is all well and good, until it destroys my business, endangers my family, or wakes me up early. If you don't like it, go live in Canada. Oh wait...

Can you point that out in the Text of #1?

Your personal freedom to assemble is all well and good, until it destroys my business,endangers my family, or wakes me up early.

I'd be interested to see where those qualifying statements about waking you up are located in the Bill of Rights? I know it says "peacible assembly", but there is some other good stuff in that there legal document explicitly limiting police powers because the founders knew all about bootlicking people like you, you aging Tory wannabe. You can't say "but they were gonna get unpeacible - we just knew that. So we had to stop them from peacibly assembling because ... shut up!"

Then again, you'd probably have shot Revere for waking you up.

It is in the bill of rights

By on

It is in the bill of rights where it says it is your right to take photos of an LNG tanker, but after it says blogging makes you a journalist.

I love Revere - Kelly's roast beef is fantastic. If Paul Revere were alive today, he'd have big hair too.

Did you and Ron have dinner at that Olive Garden in the Assembly square mall, overlooking the Slumerville Ikea? Oh wait!

See you on the Somerville Green Line in 2093.

"My bet is that the Vancouver

"My bet is that the Vancouver Police were looking for an excuse to crack down on the homeless/migrant youth population that Vancouver's relatively mild climate attracts, so they sacrificed a few cruisers to the cause."

You get points for being consistently incorrect on just about every thing you post about. I'm sure its not as easy as it looks.


Doesn't look incorrect to me - or do hockey fans typically roam the streets on the night of a championship game carrying gas masks, gasoline, goggles ... in a city that has already seen rioting whenever cameras are around.

The only thing missing here: Why did the cops NOT expect trouble if they've already had plenty of it IN THE LAST TWO YEARS?

which one is it swirrly?

Did the cops not expect trouble? (According to eekas post), Did they expect too much? (according to you). They were too overbearing? (according to you)

What should they expected and how should they have handled it better?

I mean, lets get something straight here. This was your first comment:

My bet is that the Vancouver Police were looking for an excuse to crack down on the homeless/migrant youth population that Vancouver's relatively mild climate attracts, so they sacrificed a few cruisers to the cause.
Can you prove that police force prevents insurrection and doesn't actually fuel it? Really? That's funny, because police forces(worldwide) don't seem to be able to prove that.

So you are basically saying the police instigated the riots.

I wonder if the people in

By on

I wonder if the people in Boston trying to flip that bus were also homeless/migrant youth or just drunken fans.

Despite the bus rocking, it doesn't look like it was ever close to actually flipping. Since only 7 people were arrested total, it does look like the cops looked the other way at the attempted bus flippers (because there are lot more than 7 of them).

If the bus had flipped and someone was crushed, the opinion of how things went in Boston would be a bit different.

As noted above ...

Boston isn't exactly a magnet for youth like Vancouver is, aside from the college students who mostly aren't here right now.

Portland, Seattle, and Vancouver are magnets for migrant youth. Boston winters kind of discourage that.

Sure, but let's ignore the

By on

Sure, but let's ignore the issue of rioting in the streets.

St Stephens St, Hemenway, fires in Kenmore, Huntington, it was all a complete mess. I witnessed 4 cars get flipped on Hemenway alone in 2004.

But no, let's forget about that. It wouldn't happen in Boston. And certainly not near the Garden.

Give me a break.


Swirly always will find another urban planning/migrant population stat to back her claims.


By on

The census counts mostly people with fixed residences. Derp.

There's migrant and then there's migrant

By "migrant", we're not talking illegal immigrants hiding from the law. We're just talking about wayward youth heading towards the city and hanging out.

Or is this just another way of making a claim that can't be proved?

Double derp. ;-)


By on

What census is counting kids who roam around and don't have anywhere to live? :o)

Excellent strawman, really

By on

Good use of an outdated meme to show your hip, with-it quality as well.

Now explain why just about all the posted photographs of Vancouver rioters show a bunch of privileged middle-class dudebros wearing hockey gear instead of the crusty migrant homeless youth of your fevered imagination.

This ain't the G7 Welcoming Committee, no matter how much you want it to be. The rioters were drunk fratties.

That's not what a strawman is

By on

And I wasn't commenting on the photos or who was doing what. I was commenting on how it doesn't work to use census data to look at populations of people who aren't generally counted in the census.


But that would be true in Boston as well, and I'm talking about the college population.

And for events like this local population stats can only go so far. A lot of people from around the New England region come into Boston during these events and stay with friends, especially the younger generation.

Picture, 1000 words, etc.

By on

So I'm looking through the photos on this here tumblr:

And guess what I'm not seeing?

No crusts
No anarchists
Nary a single migrant homeless youth, unless they're migrant homeless youth with far better than average access to showers, barbers, razors and clothing stores that sell hockey gear

You know what you DO see on these pages?

Buncha dudebros, fratboys, douchebags and other assorted fuckwits who think it's cool to riot 'n' shit.

Once again, the armchair sociologists amongst the Uhub proletariat are talking out their asses. Who rioted in Vancouver? The same stupid fucks who think it's fun to smash side-view mirrors of cars parked on Brighton Ave, only they say "aboot" instead of "about."

Good Article:

Where the experts (not the swirrly kind) questioned why more officers were not on the ground.

Also mentions how the police may have had a false sense of security after what happend during the olympics where there were no riots, and where police actually were high fiving people in the crowd.

Also mentions the "fenced in" areas not being in the best interests of crowd control.

Maybe I misunderstood, but...

By on

I didn't think she was saying that migrant youth are the ones rioting.

Either way, I think you could use some more education about how people outside of your circle live. Most homeless people have access to showers, razors, food stamps, some amount of cashflow, etc. Most are staying in shelters at least some of the time, or have a couch to sleep on at least sometimes, have friends or family who let them keep stuff at their house. The stereotypical folks hanging out in parks with obvious major mental illness are a tiny portion of people who don't have fixed residences. You usually can't pick out whether someone has stable housing by their appearance.

VANCOUVER (AP) — Parked cars

VANCOUVER (AP) — Parked cars were set on fire, others were tipped over and people threw beer bottles at giant television screens following the Vancouver Canucks' 4-0 loss to the Boston Bruins on Wednesday night in Game 7 of the Stanley Cup Final.

Nuff said.

When I think of . . .

. . . Vancouver- I do not think of rioting. And though I hate to comment on things I see just on the TeeVee- I felt double bad for the city of Vancouver last night. Shameful.