Bubble Bust: Toronto Officer Claims Assault When Bubble Touches Him

We have seen police charge everything from flatulence to a hug to a pillow attack as assault. However, this Toronto officer tells a young woman that if one of her bubbles touches his uniform, he will arrest her for assault. She is later shown being arrested.

What is most striking is that there is no report of this officer being suspended for such adolescent and unprofessional conduct. Toronto police appear to agree that bubble assault is a valid charge.

We have seen a man arrested for blowing a bubble in court but not as an act of assault.

148 thoughts on “Bubble Bust: Toronto Officer Claims Assault When Bubble Touches Him

  1. “The Real News” (which this clip is from) did a lot of good coverage of this story. They are partly based in Toronto.

    It seems to be generally the case that cops in North America feel they can do anything they want to protestors these days, especially at big events like the summits, politcal conventions, and so on. It can be pretty scary.

  2. Incidents similar to this occurred with some frequency between me and my little sisters in the back seat of the family car. Of course, we were all under seven years old at the time. I had no idea that I could have had the little twits arrested.

  3. Any way we could find out that officer’s full name and his department address? I would like to send my bubble containers to him and I will start a campaign to remove all dangerous bubble items off our street. Once the kids start using them,they’ll move up to throwing sticks and stones then ultimately, they’ll start shooting real bullets. Can’t have that happen!

  4. I’m with ChaZ get the guys name & badge # and file a report on the guy.

    We don’t need or want idiots/abusers like him on ANY type of police force.

  5. After doing a little investigative research, it would appear that the officer (who can best be described as “a dick”) is one Adam Josephs, ID # 731, Division 41 of the Toronto Police.

    If you watch the video closely (in full screen), you will eventually be able to make out the number “731” on his shoulder.

    Searching this document, http://www.docstoc.com/docs/39768970/August227_erie-insurance
    reveals that his nametag “A. Josephs” is a match.

  6. Elaine, the twits are no longer little. The twins live in Minnesota. My youngest sister lives here in Orlando and has been teaching school for the past 35 years or so.

  7. What people here fail to grasp is this bubble was the work of Dr. Evil. Anyway, that was what was in the mind of the officer and I double dog dare anyone to disprove that was the case.


    I agree, Mike’s post was hilarious and CONGRATULATIONS!

  8. If he wasn’t so serious it would be joke. But, again, what’s up with the people who are trained to protect us from the worst, are so scared of bubbles or old ladies or old men with prosthetic legs? It has nothing to do with bubbles but with contempt of cop, which is legal. So they’ll “find” something that’s somehow illegal. Some cops only want to be obeyed not challenged or disagreed with. In other words, they’re dicks.

    It might be noted that a lot of Toronto’s Police force has a number of Afghanistan vets working for it, so going from combat to this, you might over react.

    Also, if kids aged 3-5 can handle it, I’m sure a huge hulking jerk can handle it. But it is Canada.

  9. I think we should all start an internet appeal and buy a few cartons of hubble bubble and send them to the Toronto Police. For defensive purposes only.

  10. Bubbles? Bubbles!

    And here I thought Bubbles was safe with Michael Jackson being dead and all.

    What’s that? Attacked by bubbles? Was he high?

    Well then why not dig up the corpse of the worlds greatest bubble criminal known to man –

  11. Good one Buddha. That burnt orange suit is a crime against the eyes–as was most of Welk’s wardrobe.

    I must admit to liking his program. My grandma got me starting when we visited her during 50s Saturday nights. Those Welk girls were very easy on the eyes for a young lad…Ralna English was my favorite.

    Law Dawg Adam Josephs needs a bubble machine to train him to be more polite in public.


  12. Buddha, I ditto FFLEO’s comments. Welk was a virtual bubbles brigade. Also, I had a crush on one of the Lennon Sisters when I was ten, but I don’t remember which one.

  13. Mike Appleton

    Buddha, I ditto FFLEO’s comments. Welk was a virtual bubbles brigade. Also, I had a crush on one of the Lennon Sisters when I was ten, but I don’t remember which one.


    Speaking for all female vocalist everywhere … you are a fickle fan;)

  14. Bubbles the cop, public Facebook profile says:

    Officer Adam Josephs, Badge #731
    Employers: The City of Toronto, 2007 – Present

    “I collect Human garbage” Adam Josephs, Toronto Police

  15. “Human Garbage” Oh my. Does Toronto have psychological screenings before they give someone a badge? This guy is a sociopath.

  16. Incredible. I am doubly ashamed because Toronto is where most of my cousins live. I’ll have to email them all about this “bubble tantamount to Anthrax” curiosity.

    In Chicago, all of the cops with whom I’ve come into contact act like Nazis. They’re threatening, humorless, and often will not allow you to even open your mouth to politely explain something, which is very dangerous, I think. In contrast, cops in Gary, Indiana (ones I’ve met in Miller Beach) are incredibly nice; kind of like Andy Taylor: “Well, just be careful next time, and have a good day.”

  17. Why are you even covering this as it happened in a foreign country which has different laws than we do?

  18. Megyn,
    Can you say BIO-Hazard? My I spit on you in the form of a “bubble” and contaminate you with various diseases? TB, hepatitis and others are easly transmitted. He warned her numerous times and she chose her own path. Just because she was a free spirit, jumping around without a care in the world, the cop has to worry about not only himself but his family. KUDOS to the cop.

  19. cops can take a bullet but they can take a bubble? how horrible that this girl has to go trough the legal trouble and money? she never touched the cop wind could have carried it to the cop. this should have never have happened. everyone loves firefighters not everyone likes cops.

  20. The cop was totally within his right. After being warned, and herself promising not to do it again, she went and blew bubbles on another cop. She was adamant to be obnoxious and disrespectful. She learned a quick lesson. Lets hope that lesson stays with her. Too many kids these days have no respect for authority, and this starts with them disrespecting their parents, and parents not putting their foot down, because they can’t or won’t punish an unruly or rude child!

  21. Those must have been the infamous “Cop Killer Bubbles” we’ve heard so much about.

    This cop says he “Collects Human Garbage”, and is obviously the Centerpiece of his own “Human Garbage Collection.”

    I spent 20 years in service to others and never once did the idea that the people I served were Human Garbage. Maybe this servant of the public should be confined to refuse collection only and his dealings with people he serves be reduced to picking up their refuse.

  22. If the bubble liquid was only detergent with water, one may assume it is harmless. WHAT IF the solution had a toxic element in it like acid and it burst on the human flesh?

  23. Sensitivity training is in order for this child. The Officer is always right.

    Just ask the local sheriff’s department…..

    Forest Co. Sheriff’s Department Investigation
    Submitted: 07/13/2010

    CRANDON – Unanswered questions tonight into why drunken driving tickets were voided at a local sheriff’s department.


  24. Let me get this straight. (To be read in the voice of Ren Hoek)

    Bio-hazard. Acid Bubbles. Respect for Authority.

    As to the first two, neither of you nitwits 1) have ever blown bubbles apparently or know 2) know jackshit about weaponized bio-agents or 3) the physics of blowing a bubble.


    There’s a reason troops aren’t armed with bubble guns. They suck as a delivery mechanism for anything not likely to kill the user as well.

    And Hank, Hank, Hank . . . respect for authority is not OWED. It’s EARNED, Silly Rabbit. Just like any respect. And it’s not earned by being an oversensitive controlling dick to a young woman who has done no actual harm. But you keep on blindly respectin’ away there, Capt. Authoritarian! You’re just the kind of followers Nazis love and need. Now do as you’re told.

  25. By the way Hank, I suppose that in that famous picture from 1967 of a young woman protester at the Pentagon putting a daisy in the gun barrel of a cop it constituted assault and merited her being shot instead of tolerated.

    Hmmm? Just how far are you willing to go to enforce that “respect” you so clearly crave, jackboot?

  26. To extend the theoretical debate, how does the officer know it was JUST Bubbles? Could be mixed in with obnoxious bodily substances or even worse!

  27. A little something called “common sense”. If she’s placing the wand to her mouth, there’s no toxins unless she’s suicidal. If this was an effective way to attack, we’d be seeing a lot more “suicide bubblers” as everyone looks for bombs but no one looks for bubbles. As to her bodily fluids? Unless he was eating the bubbles (like I’m sure he does in the bathtub) or getting them in his eyes (as the mouth and eyes have the most permeable membranes), the prospect of transference is literally astronomical. Too much spittle would disrupt the bubble’s surface tension and if she had something that was communicable in an aerosol manner, all she’d have to do is breathe on him, bypassing the bubbly middle man altogether.

    If this guy had apprehension? It certainly wasn’t reasonable. Which shows he’s a moron in addition to being a jackass.

  28. She is not placing it in her mouth; she is blowing on it like any 4 year old knows how to do! She could urinate in it, spit in it, or accidentally infect it with her own viruses. Things you should know if you had any common sense.

  29. Again, you know nothing about blowing bubbles. Using a wand, she would inevitably be getting some on her. I covered the spit angle and last time I checked, there are no urine borne diseases. Don’t get mad because your argument sucked. Or do get mad. See if I care.

  30. I wouldn’t let some agitator/protestor blow bubbles on me if I didn’t know for sure what was in the bottle. Notwithstanding your explanation of spit-physics!

  31. That protestor knew that if she spit in this face, or sneezed in his face purposefully that they would carry her away. So maybe she could blow bubbles in his face and get away with it? Just another way to agitate!

  32. A peaceful way to agitate. Peaceful agitation and demonstration are how one affects change with using the French Revolution method. See, there were these two guys, Gandhi and Martin Luther King, Jr.? Perhaps you should read up on civil disobedience as a tactic for influencing political change. She could have just skipped to the chase and shot him or kicked him in the groin. That’s considerably more agitating than bubbles.

  33. “affects change without using the French Revolution method.”

    A little speedy on the “submit” button there.

  34. This was much better than a kick in the shin! Her civil disobedience was brilliant! She got on TV, made the cop look like a jerk, and got her badge of honor by riding in the paddy-wagon with the cuffs!

  35. Beth Hunter:

    We won’t have the pleasure of running into Chicago Police Officer Thor Soderberg. He was slain on the job, last week.

    “I want people to know that he’s a great man and gave the Chicago police a great name,” said Mazen Istanbouli, a DePaul University professor and close friend of the officer. “He was a giver. He never thought of himself and always thought of others.”

    Istanbouli, who is blind, said he and Soderberg had known each other for about three years and met because they shared a love of running. He said the officer helped him train and competed by his side in triathlons in New York and Chicago, running, biking and swimming alongside him and serving as his guide.


    In Chicago, all of the cops with whom I’ve come into contact act like Nazis. — Beth Hunter

    That’s an insightful statement. Were you impaired due to self medicating libation sessions during these conversations?

  36. Factual ignorance is a charming trait, Russell. Were you repeatedly dropped on your head as a baby?

    AIDS – First of all, AIDS is a complex of diseases one gets from having an HIV infection. No one gets “AIDS” in the manner you suggest. HIV is a viral blood borne and venereal fluid transmitted disease. You can’t get HIV from drinking after someone with either and HIV infection or AIDS – UNLESS THERE IS BLOOD IN IT. Again, showing you are completely ignorant. Blood in any sufficient quantity to pose a risk would screw up the bubble solutions viscosity and ergo its surface tension in addition to requiring that the idiot officer either eat the bubbles or catch them with his eyes and even that wouldn’t guarantee infection. She’d have done better if that was her plan to stick him with a dirty needle.

    TB – An aerosol transmitted bacteria, she could have simply sneezed and infected everyone within 15 feet of her. No bubbles required.

    You’re a real genius. And by genius, I don’t really mean genius, genius.

  37. No one scientifically analyzes if they are going to get aids or TB or H1N1 if someone wants to spit, sneeze or blow unknown substance into their face. They just wouldn’t want the other person to do it. So, in the age of Aids, why would anyone want to take the word of a self appointed buffoon like you, who thinks he has the answers, when their health is at risk? Most people just wouldn’t want the exposure to the risk. Including the officer!

  38. Please. Display some more ignorance about medical science, Russell. Yell some more.

    “why would anyone want to take the word of a self appointed buffoon like you”

    Because if they looked into it they’d find out I’m factually scientifically correct. Because I both read and understand the words. Unlike you, Russell Noid.

  39. Maybe the officer just wasn’t as “brilliant” as you about spit-physics, HIV, TB and H1N1 transmission

  40. Well you certainly aren’t.

    By the way, most cops these days receive training on how to deal with bodily fluids which usually covers the transmission vectors for things like flu and HIV and TB, so you don’t get to take home any consolation prizes.

    Thanks for playing!

    I suggest a brain upgrade before trying again. This is a very smart blog filled with people smarter than me. I just happen to sport fangs. So run along now, ‘lil Russell. Before your obviously fragile ego and subservient nature are bruised again.

  41. While patting yourself on the back you have provided nothing more than a distraction thrown up to mask failed reason! It is buffoonery to suggest that there is “scientific reason” for no danger of disease or contamination from the bubbles when anyone including the officer would simply want to avoid the risk. Your logical fallacy of attacking others rather than the argument is typical of those debating on the Left

  42. 1) I destroyed your argument (such as it was) because it was apologist crap and factually in error about epidemiology, physics and use of bodily fluids as a weapon.

    2) I make fun of you simply because I can. It has nothing to do with politics.

    But please.

    Continue to defend an irrational belief against science.

    It’s a hoot.

  43. Do you even know what an encyclopedia is?

    This is from Wikipedia’s HIV entry and it conforms to the all medical literature I’ve read:

    “Three main transmission routes for HIV have been identified. HIV-2 is transmitted much less frequently by the mother-to-child and sexual route than HIV-1.


    The majority of HIV infections are acquired through unprotected sexual relations. Complacency about HIV plays a key role in HIV risk. Sexual transmission can occur when infected sexual secretions of one partner come into contact with the genital, oral, or rectal mucous membranes of another. In high-income countries, the risk of female-to-male transmission is 0.04% per act and male-to-female transmission is 0.08% per act. For various reasons, these rates are 4 to 10 times higher in low-income countries.[29] The rate for receptive anal intercourse is much higher, 1.7% per act.

    The correct and consistent use of latex condoms reduces the risk of sexual transmission of HIV by about 85%. However, spermicide may actually increase the transmission rate.

    Randomized, controlled trials in which uncircumcised men were randomly assigned to be medically circumcised in sterile conditions and given counseling and other men were not circumcised, have been conducted in South Africa, Kenya, and Uganda[46] showing reductions in female-to-male sexual HIV transmission of 60%, 53%, and 51% respectively. As a result, a panel of experts convened by WHO and the UNAIDS Secretariat has “recommended that male circumcision now be recognized as an additional important intervention to reduce the risk of heterosexually acquired HIV infection in men.” Among men who have sex with men, there is insufficient evidence that male circumcision protects against HIV infection or other Sexually Transmitted Infections.

    Studies of HIV among women who have undergone female genital cutting (FGC) have reported mixed results; for details see Female genital cutting#HIV.
    [edit] Blood or blood product

    In general, if infected blood comes into contact with any open wound, HIV may be transmitted. This transmission route can account for infections in intravenous drug users, hemophiliacs, and recipients of blood transfusions (though most transfusions are checked for HIV in the developed world) and blood products. It is also of concern for persons receiving medical care in regions where there is prevalent substandard hygiene in the use of injection equipment, such as the reuse of needles in Third World countries. Health care workers such as nurses, laboratory workers, and doctors have also been infected, although this occurs more rarely. Since transmission of HIV by blood became known medical personnel are required to protect themselves from contact with blood by the use of universal precautions. People who give and receive tattoos, piercings, and scarification procedures can also be at risk of infection.

    HIV has been found at low concentrations in the saliva, tears and urine of infected individuals, but there are no recorded cases of infection by these secretions and the potential risk of transmission is negligible. It is not possible for mosquitoes to transmit HIV.”

    The third vector listed is Mother to Child and since she was arrested for blowing bubble’s on Mr. Dim and not breast feeding or giving birth to him, that’s a moot vector.

    You can do the rest of the homework regarding transmission of TB and the flu yourself.

    Or apparently not.

    But please.

    Tell us again how I didn’t destroy your argument with science.

  44. Did you catch that part about “HIV has been found at low concentrations in the saliva, tears and urine of infected individuals, but there are no recorded cases of infection by these secretions and the potential risk of transmission is negligible.”?

    I just wanted to make sure you did so I can laugh all that much harder at your next feeble attack, Bubble Boy.

  45. You know the local council changed the laws regarding demonstrations right before this one and it only included this one…includes I am guessing bubble girls…and bubbles…

  46. How could you destroy my argument, you don’t even get my argument! My argument is that the science is irrelevant. That it is not unreasonable for the officer to be concerned about some unknown substance that is about to be blown in his face. So what if the HIV found in urine and tears, as your article says, is not dangerous. The officer has the personal right to not want “stuff” blown in his face! Morons abound who think differently! Obviously you are one of them!

  47. Oh I get it, Vapor Lock.

    Shouting also makes you more correct too. (Pst! That’s sarcasm, son! The fast ones go right over your head! You’re built too low to the ground! You got a hole in your glove!)

    Your argument based on incorrect facts. Any reasonable apprehension is based upon reason. An apprehension based on incorrect facts is a merely an unreasoned belief. Since reasonable is in fact part of the definition of “reasonable apprehension”, again your argument fails by definition.

    But you keep trying. There’s nothing on TV and you’re doing a good imitation of “The Gong Show”.

  48. There is a difference between “rational” and “rationale”. While you possess an abundance of the later, the former seems to slip from your grasp. Like a bubble.

  49. Or you can keep trying to move that goal post, Mr. “Unknown Substance”.

    The cop even said, “It’s a detergent.”

    Come on.

    Make some more suppositions.

  50. Be sure to wipe the spittle off your keyboard as you foam at the mouth working up your next attack. It’ll gum up your keys or possibly give them HIV.

  51. “Morons abound who think differently! Obviously you are one of them!”

    See if you can guess what I am now?

  52. In case you didn’t get the reference, Mr. Samsonite, I did a little more homework for you.

    “Moving the goalposts, also known as raising the bar, is an informal logically fallacious argument in which evidence presented in response to a specific claim is dismissed and some other (often greater) evidence is demanded. In other words, after an attempt has been made to score a goal, the goalposts are moved to exclude the attempt. This attempts to leave the impression that an argument had a fair hearing while actually reaching a preordained conclusion. Moving the goalposts can also take the form of reverse feature creep, in which features are eliminated from a product, and the goal of the project is redefined in such a way as to exclude the eliminated features.”


    You did realize this was a legal blog and as such people trained to argue and do other dialectic and logical magic tricks might frequent it, right? I certainly hope so because otherwise you’re simply a masochist.

  53. Buddha is engaging your silly arguments head on but you should also know that at least one of the observers of your exchange with him recognizes the deep dishonesty that is inherent in your claim that the officer had any reasonable belief that he was in danger of exposure to ANY disease upon contact with those bubbles. The officer states his actual motives on the video, “You’re baiting the police!” he says through clenched teeth with a barely suppressed rage. This confrontation is about “contempt of cop” which is not a crime or offense of any kind. It is about how this little man’s self esteem/worth and feelings of superiority over the “human garbage” (read here, “citizens”) he is forced to tolerate on a daily basis is entirely dependent on the authority given to him by the State. This hippy girl didn’t acknowledge that superiority and it made his blood boil. That is reality. Those are the facts. The fact that you feel it necessary to concoct some other rationale for his conduct demonstrates how indefensible his behavior really was and reveals more about you than I think you realize.

  54. Wait, do cops in Canada carry guns?

    This shit would have not happened in the US, you know a few nagas would open fire on the cop.

    Cops like him and the people who support him, should be put to death like every other terrorist on the planet.

    Fuck Death to America chants, Lets see some Death to Canada rising up

  55. Well Tom, as I said when I started: let’s extend the “Theoretical” debate!

    The point is I wouldn’t let some agitator in a crowd blow some unknown substance into my face, and the cop should have that right also.

    But it is nice to have your mind reading skills to clarify the subject for us.

  56. TomMil,

    For the sake of clarity, that would be “actual” jerking off and not “theoretical” jerking off, correct?

  57. Sorry Tom, The jerking off is the mental process that says we should ask cops to stand there and let people blow bubbles in their face.

  58. authoritarian \ȯ-ˌthär-ə-ˈter-ē-ən, ə-, -ˌthȯr-\, adj.,

    1 : of, relating to, or favoring blind submission to authority (had authoritarian parents)
    2 : of, relating to, or favoring a concentration of power in a leader or an elite not constitutionally responsible to the people (an authoritarian regime)

    illogical \ill-la-ji-kəl\, adj.,

    1 : not observing the principles of logic (an illogical argument)
    2 : devoid of logic : senseless (illogical policies)

    nitwit \ˈnit-ˌwit\, n.,

    : a scatterbrained or stupid person

  59. Buddha, from the “Farting videos” you are sending me, I can see what you mean about how intelligent this board is!

  60. The median IQ level has dropped considerably since you started posting, Mr. Factually Ignorant and Logically Deficient.

    One gets the rebuttals their arguments merit.

    In your case, that’s degenerated to outright mockery.


    I know I will as will the other regular readers who have enjoyed the verbal shredding trolls and the weak minded take in this forum when they cannot factually or logically back up their beliefs and/or assertions.

  61. People are really arguing that Bubbles can be made of acid? Or alternately that they can be used to transmit the HIV virus?

    Or, alternately, people really are arguing that the police are so poorly educated as to think that bubbles could be made of acid, or transmit the HIV virus?

    And people think the woman blowing the bubbles had no respect for the police.

  62. Buddha,

    Because you believe that it is not “scientifically possible” for HIV, TB, spit, urine, H1N1, Hepatitis, etc to be transmitted through bubbles that the officer should allow crowd agitators to blow them in his face. Does that make logical sense to you? Apparently it does! I rest my case!

  63. Buddha,

    Forgive my poaching.


    Actually, the fact that it’s impossible for any of your terrible 1970s super-villain scenarios to happen, combined with Buddha’s aversion to displays of authority for authorities sake makes him say that the officer should allow bubbles to be blown in his face.

    I agree.

    But you know what? That’s all entirely beside the point, the officer in question doesn’t seem all that concerned over the safety issue. He’s concerned with the respect for his authority issue.

    So the question is instead, should the protester cower before the mighty Ozymandias in his uniform?

  64. You use of ad hominem attacks do not support your case nor are they entertaining, unlike mine which are used for humorous effect as reductio ad absurdum is a valid strategy that can use humor in application. One should not attempt to use the tools of either logic or acerbic humor if one does not understand them but not understanding hasn’t stopped you so far. Making fools dance like a trained monkey is always entertaining but the monkey usually doesn’t get why people are laughing at them.

    But back to your “case” such as it is, Empty Luggage:

    I provided proof and logic.

    You provided conjecture, illogic and no facts to back your assertions. Just indignation that some “agitator” was not respectful enough to the cops for your liking.

    An argument without proof and/or is merely an opinion and/or unfounded belief.

    To make a case, one must win the argument.

    You rest your case?

    You never made one.

    You are again and have been consistently both factually and logically deficient.

    I rest my case.

  65. As Clarification:

    I meant Shelley’s Ozymandias, not the Moore’s Ozymandias.

    There’s just enough geeks that might have gotten that confused.

  66. “An argument without proof and/or logic

    Just call me “Quick Sumbit McGraw”.

    Wait. No.

    That’s not quite it . . . no internal rhythm to the moniker.

  67. Buddha, You cinch your case with your own evidence, a buffoon pretending to be a scientific expert. Logic is wasted on you. It is like playing a violin to a buffalo. I did make the case; you just didn’t “get it”.

    There is no doubt that the issues of defiance came into play. But only a self-important pompous ass would make the assertion that with absolutely certainly there could be no health risk from the bubbles. And it is not reasonable to expect officers to stand there and let people blow bubbles in their face.

    The Officer got no public support because the public saw an officer with the hair up on the back of his neck against a poor girl with bubbles. He was rope-a-doped by a cleaver girl.
    But he had the right to not want the bubbles blown in his face. His mistake was he should have tapped down the up-against-the-wall assume the position attitude! Then he would have been more effective.

    Buddha you have already demonstrated that you are immune to the argument I am making. But it is not because my argument lacks sound reason and logic.

  68. “Buddha, You cinch your case with your own evidence”

    I most certainly did.

    Evidence I provided, not evidence I made up, you see, because that’s what lawyers do, ‘lil Russell. They gather evidence and present arguments based on fact, logic and law. I’m not immune to the “argument” you made. I destroyed it. Because it sucked for the aforementioned reasons of factual and logical deficiency. The only thing you’ve demonstrated is that you couldn’t beat me in an argument if you used a stick.

    But you keep foaming at the authoritarian boot licking mouth, sport.

    It’s not helping your germophobic fantasy “case” and quite frankly by continuing to blather you’re making a bigger fool of yourself than anyone here could. Which is often what happens when somebody has borderline personality disorder – your own feelings of inadequacy become your own worst enemy. Which in itself is mildly entertaining but just as irrelevant as your “argument”.

  69. Buddha,

    Think one of us should explain that he needs to provide evidence for his claim other than “well someone could think that it could happen?”

  70. It did not seem like the squeal of delight, but more like the squeal of a stuck pig that just got slaughtered.

    And Buddha, it doesn’t sound like you are laughing anymore!

  71. Gyges,

    Why bother? This guy reminds me of the old joke about coonasses.

    “You can tell a coonass from a mile away, but up close you can’t tell ’em nothin’.”

  72. If you are suggesting ignorance and blind stupidity, you don’t have to look a mile away. Look inward!

  73. Oh I’m not suggesting anything in your case, ‘lil Russell Wayne.

    I’m explicitly stating it.

    Ignorance (factual deficiency) and blind stupidity (logical deficiency) describe how you “argue” quite well.

    Like I said, your own feelings of inadequacy become your own worst enemy. Which in itself is mildly entertaining with the emphasis on mildly since it put me to sleep.

    Call back once the foaming spittle on your keyboard gives it HIV.

    I’d pay a dollar to see that. So would a few of the doctors at the NIH.

  74. Your mind operates in fantasy land. You create the elements you need in an argument. Factual deficiency, personality disorder, all unfounded, all made up as needed. You become a scientist, a lawyer or psychologist as needed. Probably most of what you say is cut and pasted from somewhere else.

    I feel sorry for your kids and wife if you have any. I can walk away. They have to put up with this all the time! My advice, which I am sure you won’t take but I will give it to you anyway. Get on medication. Seek help! Don’t act on too many of your conclusions.

    The Left wing is filled with morons like you, stay there.

  75. Shouldn’t there be some grounds on the reasonable or average man basis.
    Cops, because they have the power, arrest anybody who looks at them and that is abuse of power.

    But, back to the reasonable man. If a reasonable man is struck by an uninvited and unwanted bubble, whould they charge the bubble attacker with assault and or battery?

    If a reasonable man wouldn’t that what does that make the cop? Plus the fact the most cops now wear at least a flack jacket and often more, plus helmet and heavy belt, and those lovely surgical gloves etc.

  76. “They that have grown old in a single state are generally found to be morose, fretful and captious; tenacious of their own practices and maxims; soon offended by contradiction; and impatient of any association but with those that will watch their nod, and submit themselves to unlimited authority.”

    ~Samuel Johnson


    These words came immediately to mind after reading the ramblings of Russell West. Sorry, Russ, you picked the wrong Buddha!

  77. It is no different than getting a few feet from someone’s face and blowing smoke in it. It is an offense. In the case of the bubbles, if it was done with the same intentional arrogance as blowing smoke in someone’s face, a reasonable man might want to press charges if he knew there was a law against it.

  78. Russell West

    Your mind operates in fantasy land. You create the elements you need in an argument. Factual deficiency, personality disorder, all unfounded, all made up as needed. You become a scientist, a lawyer or psychologist as needed. Probably most of what you say is cut and pasted from somewhere else.

    I feel sorry for your kids and wife if you have any. I can walk away. They have to put up with this all the time! My advice, which I am sure you won’t take but I will give it to you anyway. Get on medication. Seek help! Don’t act on too many of your conclusions.

    The Left wing is filled with morons like you, stay there.


    There ya go … self-righteous indignation … transference of self-guilt (wife/kids remark)… deep sincerity of hate … the only thing missing is a reference to Jesus saves … sounds like a really pissed off cop.

  79. pssst … Russ. Debate Tip #1: When you’re forced into taking silly positions by an adversary during a debate, you are said to have lost miserably.

  80. Look, there is no self-righteous indignation … transference of self-guilt.. deep sincerity of hate.

    It is simple, the cop had the right to not get the bubbles blow in his face.

  81. Personally, I think the young lady should be enjoined from breathing in the officer’s general direction or, in any event, within 500 feet of his person. Holding your breath is not too bad.

  82. Russell, your inability to actually leave is only further illustrating that BPD is indeed one of your likely (multiple) afflictions. You have very poor impulse control and wildly fluctuations of emotional states in addition to disordered thought and delusional beliefs which constitute distortions in cognition.

    “Borderline personality disorder (BPD) is a serious mental illness characterized by pervasive instability in moods, interpersonal relationships, self-image, and behavior. This instability often disrupts family and work life, long-term planning, and the individual’s sense of self-identity. Originally thought to be at the “borderline” of psychosis, people with BPD suffer from a disorder of emotion regulation. While less well known than schizophrenia or bipolar disorder (manic-depressive illness), BPD is more common, affecting 2 percent of adults, mostly young women. There is a high rate of self-injury without suicide intent, as well as a significant rate of suicide attempts and completed suicide in severe cases. Patients often need extensive mental health services, and account for 20 percent of psychiatric hospitalizations. Yet, with help, many improve over time and are eventually able to lead productive lives.


    While a person with depression or bipolar disorder typically endures the same mood for weeks, a person with BPD may experience intense bouts of anger, depression, and anxiety that may last only hours, or at most a day. These may be associated with episodes of impulsive aggression, self-injury, and drug or alcohol abuse. Distortions in cognition and sense of self can lead to frequent changes in long-term goals, career plans, jobs, friendships, gender identity, and values. Sometimes people with BPD view themselves as fundamentally bad, or unworthy. They may feel unfairly misunderstood or mistreated, bored, empty, and have little idea who they are. Such symptoms are most acute when people with BPD feel isolated and lacking in social support, and may result in frantic efforts to avoid being alone.

    People with BPD often have highly unstable patterns of social relationships. While they can develop intense but stormy attachments, their attitudes towards family, friends, and loved ones may suddenly shift from idealization (great admiration and love) to devaluation (intense anger and dislike). Thus, they may form an immediate attachment and idealize the other person, but when a slight separation or conflict occurs, they switch unexpectedly to the other extreme and angrily accuse the other person of not caring for them at all. Even with family members, individuals with BPD are highly sensitive to rejection, reacting with anger and distress to such mild separations as a vacation, a business trip, or a sudden change in plans. These fears of abandonment seem to be related to difficulties feeling emotionally connected to important persons when they are physically absent, leaving the individual with BPD feeling lost and perhaps worthless. Suicide threats and attempts may occur along with anger at perceived abandonment and disappointments.

    People with BPD exhibit other impulsive behaviors, such as excessive spending, binge eating and risky sex. BPD often occurs together with other psychiatric problems, particularly bipolar disorder, depression, anxiety disorders, substance abuse, and other personality disorders.”

    Learn more about this illness and its treatment at: http://www.nimh.nih.gov/health/publications/borderline-personality-disorder-fact-sheet/index.shtml

    Follow your own advice and seek help.

  83. all I can say is damn….now when the fascist corporate american new order is unveiled and the cop machine starts doing the bidding of….there’s no Canada to run away to…sheesh, and I’m at the end of my adaptations….

  84. Look, there is no self-righteous indignation … transference of self-guilt.. deep sincerity of hate, or BPD.

    It is simple, the cop had the right to not get the bubbles blow in his face.

  85. Russell West

    Look, there is no self-righteous indignation … transference of self-guilt.. deep sincerity of hate.


    heh, heh (live by the sword …..)

  86. The pattern here seems to be personal attack when logic doesn’t carry the argument. Your qualifications to evaluate my personality and the information that you have to base it on are about as groundless and hollow as your arguments.

    It is simple; the cop had the right to not get the bubbles blow in his face.

  87. You mean those arguments, with evidence, that destroyed your earlier argument that you now keep restating in the form of opinion as if it were fact?


    You still don’t move on to Final Jeopardy, ‘lil Russell Anosognosia.

  88. Drop the unsubstantiated general charges, and continue to be specific in your claims that I am non-factual, and you will lose every time.

    Battery is defined at common law as “any unlawful touching of the person of another by the aggressor himself, or by a substance put in motion by him.”

  89. Russell West

    The pattern here seems to be personal attack when logic doesn’t carry the argument. Your qualifications to evaluate my personality and the information that you have to base it on are about as groundless and hollow as your arguments.

    It is simple; the cop had the right to not get the bubbles blow in his face.


    Russell, Russell … the first personal attack was rendered by yourself as follows: (emphasis added for clarification)

    Russell West

    She is not placing it in her mouth; she is blowing on it like any 4 year old knows how to do! She could urinate in it, spit in it, or accidentally infect it with her own viruses. Things you should know if you had any common sense.

    Don’t whine about getting back what you gave … it’s, what’s the word I’m looking for? … soooo hypocritical ( A hypocrite thinks that what he or she usually professes does not somehow apply to him or her.)

    You chose to defend an LEO’s action that the rest of the world is laughing at. Now I can be reasonably certain that when the big man decided to go after the little bubbleblower, he had no idea he would become a world renown laughingstock … but that sometimes happens to bullies … even ones who carry badges. And sometimes all it takes is a bubble.

  90. Blouise – It was just a retort to Buddha’s comment about my need for common sense. What I said factually correct. If Buddha had any common sense he would have know you don’t stick it your mouth to blow it. You put in front of your lips and then blow like any 4 year old would know.

    And Buddha – You touted your legal sophistication when describing how you argue when you said ““. . . because that’s what lawyers do,,”. Is that what lawyers do – not know anything about the law? I decided to stay around long enough to show that you were actually a dumb-shit pretending to be a smart guy! This pretty much does it!

    Notwithstanding the sympathy for buddle girl, it is simple; the cop had the right to not get the bubbles blow in his face.

  91. Prove it then.

    Oh, that’s right. You can’t.

    Battery is both a tort and a crime. Its essential element, harmful or offensive contact, is the same in both areas of the law. You almost got the definition of the elements correct. The “substance put into motion by him”? Cite the specific code for the jurisdiction in question or you’re simply making shit up again.

    In order to prove the common law defined offense of battery, you must prove (1) an act by a defendant made with (2) an intent to cause harmful or offensive contact on the part of the defendant and actual (3) harmful or offensive contact to the plaintiff.

    Your “harmful” argument was crap and has been dispatched. I will not address it further. This leaves you with the “offensive” argument of which I address elements one and two leading into element three.

    Bubbles were blown by the defendant. Thus the stipulation that element one is met.

    As to element two, her intent is as subjective as his offense, so unless you’re psychic, if she says she wasn’t trying to be offensive? That is that. She was outdoors in a public place conducting a legal act – blowing bubbles. The contact was not harmful, she says it was not intended to be offensive and an action indirect at best being wind borne and beyond the foreseeable control of the woman and thus arguably accidental contact and absent any motive. Element two – her intent – is rendered moot.

    Look at the tape. She was complying with his rudely made demand and she put the bubbles away when the officer got threatening. The woman asked for respect when he was speaking to her and he mocked her. Then a gentleman in a gray t-shirt was even more confrontational about the “officer’s” bad attitude – which angered the cop even further. You can see the officer visibly clench up. He can say he was offended, but that’s just as subjective as her motive and carries just as much weight.

    This is where you’ve got a problem with element three – proving his state of mind as being offended at the touch of bubbles. The above is evidence to the contrary.

    Had he truly been offended? He would have and could have simply arrested her upon the touch without opening his mouth other than to tell her she was under arrest. That is the natural reaction to being offended – to act immediately – and well within his legal powers.

    However, he did not arrest her immediately.

    He arrested her remotely in time from the alleged “offensive touch”. Instead of affecting immediate arrest, he opted to act like was “the badass” in the scenario and threaten a girl half his size, engaged in legal activities, over something patently ridiculous and probably accidental and beyond her control (unless she can control the winds!) – battery by soap bubble. When others in the crowd took him to task for his attitude, he visibly smoldered, still not affecting her immediate arrest for the alleged offense.

    Then after making a fool of himself in front of a crowd and because he couldn’t or wouldn’t escalate enough to arrest the other guy for challenging his bad attitude without really doing something to loose his badge, he arrested her remotely in time after she had complied thus indicating his actual motive was not his subjective offense for which he could have (and should have) affected an immediate arrest. He can claim he was subjectively offended but that carries the same weight as her subjective intent.

    Except for the evidence of his actions – his visible and demonstrable anger and/or embarrassment, emotional reactions with physical cues that visibly show on the records and are evidenced by his tense and hostile bearing and snide condescending speech toward the woman.

    Thus element three fails due to his failure to take immediate action in arresting her for battery and further evidenced that his true reaction was not offense but probably something else judging by both his subsequent speech and actions to the alleged offensive contact and remote in time actions incident to affecting arrest.

    Awww. Someone had a case of the “grumpies” in addition to being a general douche bag.

    Filed as a tort case? A judge would accept a summary motion to dismiss and dismissed with prejudice.

    Filed as a criminal case? Case dismissed. End of story. Or maybe there was another reason altogether he arrested her?

    Again, you are both factually and logically deficient in your claim both to the harmful aspect of the charge and the offensive contact aspect of the charge.

    Now run along, ‘lil Russell the Deficient.

    Not just because you couldn’t prove battery.

    Because her actual charge wasn’t battery at all.

    Not that you could argue that any better than you argue battery.

  92. Russell West

    Blouise – It was just a retort to Buddha’s comment about my need for common sense.

    Your first post: (emphasis added for clarification)

    Russell West
    1, July 14, 2010 at 3:58 pm
    To extend the theoretical debate, how does the officer know it was JUST Bubbles? Could be mixed in with obnoxious bodily substances or even worse!

    Buddha’s response to your question about “the officer”:
    “A little something called “common sense”.” … and Buddha continues in the post to refer to the officer as … he … him. Never once during that initial post does he refer to you as being the one lacking common sense or to you, personally, at all.

    Thus your claim that you were merely responding to his comment about your need for common sense is completely false.

    Unless, of course, you are the officer who arrested the bubbleblower posting here under a different name … then, yes he inferred you lacked common sense.

    Though I do find it interesting that you characterize your comment as a “retort” but others comments as “personal attacks”.

  93. That is typical of your twisted dumb-shit arguments. This has nothing to do with my ability to “prove battery” or even what charge was filed. I said that the Officer had the tight to not have a substance blown in his face. He is given that right by the Battery laws which prohibit it. Take your bull-shit and go try and con it someone else!

  94. From the link CCD provided:

    “In a statement to the Sun, Winkels stressed she wasn’t arrested for blowing bubbles.

    “The fact is that the bubbles had nothing to do with my arrest,” she said. “The reason I was arrested is because I was wearing a backpack and had a lawyer’s phone number written on my arm. This number was given out by lawyers, and they advised us to have it written somewhere on our bodies.”

    The 20-year-old was a volunteer street medic at the G20 and said she “wasn’t even protesting.”

    “My medical supplies were taken and suggested they could be used as evidence for my charge,” she said.

    Court records show she is charged with one count of conspiracy to commit mischief over $5,000.

    Winkels said she was talking to another officer when “Officer Bubbles” came over and angrily told her to put her bubbles away.

    “I was having a conversation with the female officer,” she said. “She asked me my name, and I preferred not to give it. If she had asked me to identify myself to the police, I would have shown them my ID which I was carrying in my pocket, however, she was talking to me person to person, not officer to civilian.”

    Winkels asked the female officer if her bubbles were bothering her.

    “She laughed and shrugged her shoulders, which I perceived as a ‘No big deal!’” she said. “After this point, Officer Bubbles stormed over and said what he said on the video.”

    Winkels said she put the bubbles away and the officer went away.

    She was later swept up with others when arrests were made at Queen St. W. and Noble St. in Parkdale.

    “I was not ‘blowing them in his face’ or being rude, I was simply trying to keep the mood of the crowd light, as I figure happy people are less likely to start a violent outbreak,” Winkels said. “There was no way I could have blown them in his face because, as I said, he was nowhere near me when I was blowing them, until he came over to talk to me. He was standing roughly 20 or 30 feet away, and nowhere near the range of the bubbles.”

    Winkels said she feels she was not treated fairly during the G20.

    “I was denied many of my civil and human rights, and this whole situation has been blown out of proportion, no pun intended,” she said.”

    Oh yeah! There’s some dangerous intent to harm and/or offend in that gal! roflol

    This makes Officer Bubbles look like even more of a dick. I was kind of wondering why the female officer is chuckling in the video. She was laughing at his ridiculous machismo.

  95. Face it, Russ. You’re the one who wanted to argue battery. When it comes to skills, you brought a pointed stick to a thermonuclear war. I’m about done feeding your psychosis though, Dancing Monkey. Your ranting and irrational behavior is growing tiresome.

  96. Because I don’t have to. I was on this playground long before you and I’ll be here long after you. I come and go as I please.

    I’ll keep pissing you off until I get ready to go to bed if it amuses me, Troll. You can count on that.

    Really. It’s no problem. You’ll continue to make yourself look disturbed and unable to accept being beaten. And I’ll keep on laughing.

    Seriously. You couldn’t beat me with a stick, in an argument or otherwise. I have clothes smarter (and saner) than you.

  97. Has your keyboard contracted that HIV yet? Curious minds want to know. The Vegas money is on rabies infection before HIV infection, but I’m not much for gambling.

  98. Was that a squeal?

    It did not seem like the squeal of delight, but more like the squeal of a stuck pig that just got slaughtered.

    And Buddha, it doesn’t sound like you are laughing anymore!

  99. I was in line at the grocery store the other evening and I was hit in the back by a plastic bottle thrown by a baby.

    What are the chances that I might have contracted AIDS?

    Could I have made a citizens arrest on the couple’s baby?


  100. Again with the repetition.

    See, Russell Wayne? THAT’S what gets boring about dealing with the psychotic.

    They have such limited material. The voices in their head are often stuck in a loop.

  101. BIL –

    Another amusing thrashing enjoyed by moi.

    Man, I need to come check out these threads more often. The case of the infectious bubbles has been legendary!

    One more thing Homeland Security needs to take more seriously …

  102. Mojo,

    Glad you enjoyed. One lives to be of service.

    And stop giving Homeland Security ideas!😉

  103. raff –

    Good to see you around as well. I’m going to hit the hay (and once I’ve tired of that I’ll probably go to bed). Good to see that the regulars are still doing it …

  104. if there was a problem with the girl blowing bubbles then why didn’t the female officer across from the girl say something about it. the female officer seems amused by the bubbles untill officer goosestep makes an issue of it.

Comments are closed.