Stupid Canadian Cops Busted Trying To Incite Protest Riot

[Flubber]

Originally posted by Kidicious


What do you think they were doing there? On patrol?

I think the police will say they were there to gather information on the crowd's intentions and plans. Three together lets them support each other a bit. Why were they really there? See my post with all the 'maybe's"


If the intent was to start something, it would have been smarter for there to have been a couple more of them and for them not to be so obviously together. But then again, given some of the obvious gaffes in their attire-- I probably shouldn't expect a well-thought out plan.

Then again, maybe all those other masked guys were police too-- Quebec, RCMP amd maybe CSIS all tripping over each other

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Flubber



I think the police will say they were there to gather information on the crowd's intentions and plans.

There you go. Honest answer.

That is infiltration. The pretended to be a part of the group, crossed their lines, and spied on them.

[Wezil]

Perhaps a tire iron would have been all right? After all, he might have to fix a flat in the next little while. I think you are being obtuse.

If you are asking can I prove guilt (or even intention) to a legal standard, on the evidence I have (two written articles and one short YouTube video), the answer is no.

From what I HAVE seen, the actions of the police involved lead to serious questions for their superiors. Sadly, I have no expectations of ever getting honest answers to any of those questions. The recent incident of our former Commissioner of RCMP outright lying to his political overseers in Ottawa has shown me how likely that is.

[Shrapnel12]

Agathon,

I think you'd have enough for an indictment, but not enough to get past reasonable doubt. The cops in question deserve chastisement for their handling of things at the very least whether they were trying to incite a riot or not. I comend your sense of fairness to the three infiltrators though. If they were trying to incite a riot, I would not go as easy on them. "Just following orders" didn't work for concentration camp guards and it wouldn't work for me in this case either.

To the usual nuts in this thread, I'm equally offended both by the portrayal of protestors as thugs just dying for a chance to cause violence and the portrayal of the cops as "Just waiting for a chance to show the riffraff who is in charge". Such bigoted comments are uncalled for.

[Flubber]

Originally posted by Kidicious


There you go. Honest answer.

That is infiltration. The pretended to be a part of the group, crossed their lines, and spied on them.

OK then-- I just don't see where walking around in a public place is illegal in any way

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Flubber


OK then-- I just don't see where walking around in a public place is illegal in any way

It's not. Domestic spying is however. I don't know if this meets the definition for illegal domestic spying, but it's close enough to question the morality of these men. They had no business there. They belong on the otherside of the line.

[Lul Thyme]

Originally posted by Kidicious


Do you know that it's in French?

[Wezil]

Originally posted by Shrapnel12

To the usual nuts in this thread, I'm equally offended both by the portrayal of protestors as thugs just dying for a chance to cause violence and the portrayal of the cops as "Just waiting for a chance to show the riffraff who is in charge". Such bigoted comments are uncalled for.

Obviously I am one of the "bigots" being called out.

If you had any knowledge of the past handling of protests in this country perhaps you might think differently.

The police HAVE pepper sprayed peaceful protesters in this country in order to prevent a foreign dictator (our "guest") from having to even SEE them. Clear enough?

[Flubber]

Originally posted by Wezil
Perhaps a tire iron would have been all right? After all, he might have to fix a flat in the next little while. I think you are being obtuse.

How about a long stick? THat looks like a weapon but if you have two of them and have some fabric or paper attached in between, its a banner.

My belief, if the police was not actually intending violence, was that he had the rock and bottle to appear like someone that did intend violence-- so that he might be befriended or brought into the confidence of such people and perhaps prevent the violence

Note my qualifier-- I don't know which way this went. BUt if I want to "infiltrate" hell's Angels I probably bring a motorcycle and drugs-- a militia-- I might need an automatic weapon-- If you want to mix and mingle with those that intend violence, it is probably the best disguise to look like someone intending violence

Thats all I am saying-- I don't think its obtuse or stretches credibility at all-- If I want to find and be befriended by those that have weapons, I might want to be noticed to have a weapon myself.


All that said-- maybe they wanted to start a riot

[Flubber]

Originally posted by Kidicious


It's not. Domestic spying is however. I don't know if this meets the definition for illegal domestic spying, but it's close enough to question the morality of these men. They had no business there. They belong on the otherside of the line.

If they were actually just trying to gather information about potential violence they had every right and reason to be there.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Flubber

If they were actually just trying to gather information about potential
violence they had every right and reason to be there.

Yes.

Frankly, protesters should ask for plainclothes cops to join the protest as observers. I doubt the cops would got for this, however.

[Wezil]

Originally posted by Flubber


How about a long stick? THat looks like a weapon but if you have two of them and have some fabric or paper attached in between, its a banner.

Of course the context matters. If these guys had not been cops I suspect the uniformed cops present would have been quite concerned with a rock being carried by a protestor.

My belief, if the police was not actually intending violence, was that he had the rock and bottle to appear like someone that did intend violence-- so that he might be befriended or brought into the confidence of such people and perhaps prevent the violence

Note my qualifier-- I don't know which way this went. BUt if I want to "infiltrate" hell's Angels I probably bring a motorcycle and drugs-- a militia-- I might need an automatic weapon-- If you want to mix and mingle with those that intend violence, it is probably the best disguise to look like someone intending violence

I don't think they intended to start a riot (at least I hope not), but I think they fully expected one (police mindset) and came prepared to not only act but be prepared to justify their actions if necessary. I want more answers before drawing any firm conclusions in this regard (the answers we won't get - like who ordered the 3 to be present - and why).

Thats all I am saying-- I don't think its obtuse or stretches credibility at all-- If I want to find and be befriended by those that have weapons, I might want to be noticed to have a weapon myself.


All that said-- maybe they wanted to start a riot

I found it obtuse that you would imply a rock in hand in these circumstances is anything other than a "weapon".

[Flubber]

Originally posted by Shrapnel12
Agathon,

I think you'd have enough for an indictment, but not enough to get past reasonable doubt.

Indictment ?? What for? If you had a couple of protesters that could say that one of the three "gave me a rock and said lets throw it" that would be one thing but so far all we have is that they apparently had one rock, one bottle ( has anyone seen or do the stories talk about any more) and the more damning statements by hooded guy that the police guys were trying to stir things up. Without knowing more about hooded guy, it is impossible to assess his credibility.

He might hold telling the truth as a matter of personal honor OR he might be a guy that would have no qualms whatsoever about lying about the police to advance his cause ( ends justify the means). he could even be telling the truth but what the police intended as inquiries to find out about violence were taken to be attempts to start some.

[Wezil]

I think he's on that "can indict a ham sandwich" bit. I say just plead the 5th.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Flubber


If they were actually just trying to gather information about potential violence they had every right and reason to be there.

Should they come to your house and gather information about you? These were peacefull protests.