Stupid Canadian Cops Busted Trying To Incite Protest Riot

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Flubber



NO clearly not.

I just think in any public gathering a police presence is allowed . If the gathering might be hostile to police, it seems safer to be undercover.

I don't know if you are aware of the survelliance that law enforcement is doing here in the US against clearly peacefull groups. I don't know enough about this protest or the people there, but my first thought is that the police were there to get information, as you said, with no real reason to suspect violence from this group except the fact that they are protestors. If that's the case then their actions are unethical. If it's not the case then, and there's a legitimate reason to think that the people were planning violence then ok.

[Flubber]

Originally posted by Agathon




It's not just one or two things. There is such a large amount of circumstantial evidence that it is vastly improbable that what the protesters have been saying all along is untrue.

Here's the evidence I see

1. Among the police they had one rock (I never saw it but accept it was there) and one bottle in a back pocket. Do you have evidence of more ?

2. One identifiable individual clearly and some other masked or otherwise unidentified individuals less clearly are saying the police guys tried to incite something.

3. The 3 police guys quietly ( I never heard them speak) make their way back into the police lines-- they pretty much back in-- it was about as gentle an entry into the police lines as is possible

4. They never react much (one shove back) to the union guy's attempt to snatch off the face coverings-- If they wanted to start something, a few more pushes there might have been enough-- a fight in the crowd would probably have been sufficient to get the riot squad moving if thats all they wanted

Agathon could you please amend my evidentiary points and add any others you see since I am still at a loss to see much proof here.

Could they have wanted to start something? That can never be disproven unless the 3 police were all miked or something. Might you be right-- sure -- its not even that unlikely-- that why I have a tough time when you claim I am in denial.

[Flubber]

Originally posted by Kidicious


I don't know if you are aware of the survelliance that law enforcement is doing here in the US against clearly peacefull groups. I don't know enough about this protest or the people there, but my first thought is that the police were there to get information, as you said, with no real reason to suspect violence from this group except the fact that they are protestors. If that's the case then their actions are unethical. If it's not the case then, and there's a legitimate reason to think that the people were planning violence then ok.

I think any time there are masked protesters, the police think the chances of violence go up

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Wezil
Now if I were to be attending a protest I think my activities might be a little more interesting to them...

Indeed they should be interested. And they should be there at the protests. Don't you think that they could control the situation better with riot gear on though? What are they going to do undercover? The only thing they can do is spy.

These cops were not "infiltrating" in the sense they were trying to get on the inside of this movement. Indeed, the inside of this movement had no knowledge of who they even were. They were present at the event with the debatable intention of stirring up trouble "agent provocateur"

Well, yes, they can, and probably were, provacating a situation. I'm just saying it doesn't look good either way. They look to me to be up to no good regardless.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Flubber



I think any time there are masked protesters, the police think the chances of violence go up

In my opinion you always need a mask to protest. Your identity is no ones business.

I'll ask you the same question. Don't you think they would have been better prepared to control a situation with riot gear on? What were they going to do in a situation that became violent?

[Flubber]

I still like the way they did the G-8 in Calgary about 5 years back

All the leaders were in a country resort that had such limited access that police blocked the road about 30 kilometres away. That was a protest site but the officers simply put a handful of officers there since their main defense was distance.

In Calgary there were numerous protests and marches but the police let them be and I think there were very very few incidents. MOst police presence was at the marches where maybe two or three bicycle cops were at each intersection with a single traffic barricade, mainly so the marches would not end up going where the traffic had not been diverted

[Flubber]

Originally posted by Kidicious


In my opinion you always need a mask to protest. Your identity is no ones business.

I'll ask you the same question. Don't you think they would have been better prepared to control a situation with riot gear on? What were they going to do in a situation that became violent?

NO-- I think their purpose was to blend in and gather information-- Three more officers with batons would help the police less than 3 individuals that can let them know that no one plans to rush the line-- Or that there's 4 guys with a bag of rocks but no one wants to go along with them

[Wezil]

Kidicious - I'm not defending what the police did in this situation. You are right in that they screwed up by any one's standard and this could/should have been done better. Whether this was 3 officers in over their head or if it goes deeper is not known. I quibble with your definition of "infiltrate" more than anything else. Surveillance and infiltration are clearly different and both are permissible under certain conditions in a free society.

I'll let Flubber deal with the mask issue since that post was directed at him.

[Flubber]

Originally posted by Kidicious


In my opinion you always need a mask to protest. Your identity is no ones business.

Oh and if thats opinion -- I guess thats fair for you.

I would never protest anything I wasn't willing to stand up as ME and say "I'm against this"

Frankly I would not care who knows-- BUt thats probably because I do not support the violent overthrow of democratically elected governments because they happen to support capitalist economies.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Flubber


NO-- I think their purpose was to blend in and gather information-- Three more officers with batons would help the police less than 3 individuals that can let them know that no one plans to rush the line-- Or that there's 4 guys with a bag of rocks but no one wants to go along with them

There's a reason for riot gear. It's to protect the police in the event that things turn badly. You really expect them to communicate with the uniformed police during the protest? That seems pretty dangerous to me. I don't see good justification for that. Police are generally will protected during these things. I think it's much more dangerous to have undercover police out there in the middle of protestors communicating with the uniformed officers. I think that's making things more dangerous, not less dangerous.

No. They were either there to provoke violence or spy on people for a different reason than controling the protest at the present time.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Flubber


Oh and if thats opinion -- I guess thats fair for you.

I would never protest anything I wasn't willing to stand up as ME and say "I'm against this"

Frankly I would not care who knows-- BUt thats probably because I do not support the violent overthrow of democratically elected governments because they happen to support capitalist economies.

I bet if your employer had a different opinion than you you wouldn't even be there. If you were there, I'm positive that you would be worried about your identity.

[Wezil]

A protestor wearing a mask automatically loses credibility/respect from the outset. Peaceful citizens engaged in legal protest have no reason to conceal their identities. Those that do raise suspicions of "What have they done?" or "What will they do if they don't get their way?" Not good if your desire is to persuade a wider audience.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Flubber
Agathon

Oh and I just watched the video again and its inconclusive

Only if you are one of those people who believes that the WTC was demolished.

Maybe everything is exactly as you say and the police wanted to incite something--maybe these police were spoiling for a fight or something-- But I never understand the logic where you think the higher authorities want a violent confrontation-- Perhaps its true but that doesn't mean it makes much sense/

The logic is simple. They want to discredit the legitimate protesters by making them all look like violent hoodlums. The US authorities used to try to pull this crap with the civil rights movement. It's one of the oldest tricks in the book.

BUT

In the video itself, the three police themself do NOTHING that would incite anything.

Utter bull****. They try to approach, merge with or pass through the line of seniors which has been set up by the protesters with the specific purpose of defusing violent confrontation. That's why the union guy is telling them to leave. The protesters had intelligently set things up so as to give the police line no reason to feel threatened, and the only people seriously trying to disrupt that fragile equilibrium are the three undercover cops. That itself is an inciteful action.

That older union guy apart from asking one guy to drop a rock, also physically blocked the short police guy a few times and was grabbing at the face coverings of two of them. In return the short police guy shoved him away once.

And if you ignore the context, that makes it look rather even. Except that the context is that all the other protesters have agreed to let the old people hold a line in front of the police line in order to prevent violence. The three undercover cops are attempting to **** that up. The union guy's actions are those of someone who is trying to defuse a tense situation to preserve the non-violent character of the protest. The actions of the undercover police are inflammatory and disruptive.

I did not hear the police guys voices at all and their behavior once they were outed as police was to edge away and very slowly and without any violence whatsoever go into the police lines. There is absolutely zero police misconduct in that video (except perhaps that one shove and that was understandable given how the union guy was crowding him) If you disagree, give me the precise time in the 5:23 of the video that the misconduct occurred and I will look again.

Oh dear.

The undercover cops are not being accused of successfully inciting violence, but of unsuccessfully inciting violence (which is still a crime). But at the beginning of the video, they are attempting to compromise the peace line. That is an inciteful act. You also have other people claiming, both in the video and in newspaper reports, that the undercover police were trying to get them to be more aggressive. Of course a bunch of random people could all be colluding in a giant lie, but that is somewhat improbable.

Could the police have actually tried to start something? The only way to PROVE they didn't would be to have video of every second of their time among the protestors.

That's not the question at hand. You are asking for a ridiculous standard of proof, which no professional video news report could aspire to. The question at hand is this: "Is it rational to believe, given the evidence, that the police were acting as provocateurs?". The buildup of evidence (in their clothing, their actions, and the reactions of the other protesters) makes it much more probable that they were. It's called Ockham's Razor.

There seems to be three pieces of "evidence" that supports your contention they tried to incite something

1. He has a rock-- My question was where did he get it.

Your question is absolutely irrelevant. It does not matter where he got it. What matters is that he is approaching the police line with it, despite being yelled at by the other protesters to put it down. A normal person would not do that. Even if someone did that, if they were non-violent, they would put it down when asked. Ask yourself what you would do.

Maybe the other hooded folks thought about stirring stuff up and were handing them out--

Who knows? As I said, it is irrelevant to the behaviour in question.

Maybe one idiot had a rock and he took it from him

Utter bull****. Why on earth would a Black Blocker bent on violence allow someone else to confiscate his rock. If some random citizen came up to you and demanded your walking stick while you needed it to walk, would you give it to him? Remember, these guys did not make it known that they were cops. The answer of any normal person would be "No".

-- maybe he was trying to fit in with what he thought the masked protestors might bring since they expected violence--

Except only a chimpanzee would believe that holding on to a rock that everyone else is telling them to drop would be "fitting in". If they'd wanted to fit in, they could have stayed away from the front line, and not picked up weapons.

Maybe maybe maybe-- All I can tell from the video is he does not throw the rock

No one is disputing that, so it's irrelevant.

2. Bottle in the back pocket-- Ditto most of the rock comments-- Is it a beer bottle like Corona or something?-- Maybe he was having a beer to try to fit in with the masked dudes

How many times have you carried around an empty glass beer bottle in the back pocket of your jeans? I have never seen anyone carry a glass bottle in that pocket, because it's dangerous and stupid to do so. Normal people find a trash can, or litter, or put it in a bag. Normal people carry water in plastic bottles anyway. The only conceivable reason to have it in your back pocket is if you want easy access to it. And why would someone want easy access to an empty glass bottle? Perhaps if they wanted to to throw it or wield it.

In both cases-- If this is a paved or grassy area with not a lot of loose objects around to throw, maybe he thought it best to keep the things rather than to leave them around

So your theory is that the undercover police are litter collectors. This is completely absurd. In any normal street, there are going to be dozens and dozens of objects that could be thrown or wielded as weapons. You'd need more police than protesters to have a hope of removing them all. I'd really love to see the police manual that states: "In any area of protest, there will be a great many objects that can be used as improvised weapons. It would greatly reduce the possibility of violence if you picked up and carried one or two of them."

3. Claims by a hooded guy that they were trying to incite something and the union guys claims that they were provacateurs. Well the union guy couldn't know. he obviously didn't want any of the masked people among his line-- His initial comments seemed aimed at all of them before focusing on the three that came closer-- So I don't think he had had any conversations with the police 3. So that leaves the comments of one youth on the video. Perhaps the truth perhaps not-- I don't know

And the rest of the young people. Do you see any people defending the police, and shouting this kid down? No. Do you see newspapers reporting that witnesses thought they weren't doing this? Every time you turn on CBC news and see someone say something on camera, are you usually this sceptical? Of course not, unless you have reason to be. The obvious reason this guy said that, and the others were backing him up is that it was true. Ockham's Razor again.

Even if he had said nothing, the behaviour of the undercover cops incriminates them. They are carrying missiles and refuse to relinquish them when asked by the protesters, despite any idiot being able to see that carrying weapons up to a police line is an inflammatory gesture. If they'd wanted to avoid inflaming the situation, the guy could simply have dropped the rock. If anyone else had picked it up and tried the same thing, the anger of the mob would have been directed to that person. The idea that he was holding on to the rock to prevent a bunch of protesters who were all telling him to drop it and be non-violent, from picking it up and hurling it at the police is the stupidest thing I have heard this week.

All I do know is that I can think of several scenarios that would fit with everything we actually SEE in that video that would be totally consistent with an undercover scouting mission to try to ascertain the crowd's intentions.

Utter baloney. Such scenarios require attributing the intellect of a chimp to the police, or the attribution of patently absurd beliefs to them.

And you ignore the obvious.

If the police had wanted to infiltrate the protest, then why did they dress as Black Blockers, the most militant and violent protesters who are the most notorious for getting into fights with the police? What was to stop them from dressing like the other protesters, with hoodies and scarves. That is standard garb at protests, where there is the possibility of tear gas. They could disguise themselves quite easily, without dressing up as the ultra militant hooligans of the protest movement. They don't even need to disguise their faces, as other undercover police at protests often don't.

It's not as if they had to dress this way to fit in, since the video shows all sorts of people, including Black Blockers mixing freely. And it's not like the Black Blockers aren't the most noticeable protesters (apart from the people who dress like giant animals). Why on earth would people who didn't want to call attention to themselves dress in the uniform of the most noticeable and provocative faction among the protesters? It's not like the anarchists don't talk to anyone else. I've been on protests, and I've talked to loads of them. Just wearing the same clothes as them is not going to make them tell you their plans. These people are organized and come in large groups who know each other. Outsiders are easy to spot (as happened here).

The obvious answer is that you dress as Black Bloc if you want to start a fight, because then the video that is played on the news will show Black Blockers throwing stuff at the cops, which is what everyone expects.

The costume of the undercover cops makes more sense as the garb of a provocateur than it does as the garb of an undercover observer.

And why did they refuse to stop their threatening behaviour? In the video the one thing you cannot say is that the undercover cops try to minimize the threat they pose. Any sane person would drop their weapons. Yet those guys continue to act in a threatening fashion. And they caused the whole thing by moving on the peaceful line at the front of the protest and attempting to disrupt it, weapons in hand. When it was obvious that they were rumbled, they forced their way through, and had themselves arrested.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Wezil
A protestor wearing a mask automatically loses credibility/respect from the outset. Peaceful citizens engaged in legal protest have no reason to conceal their identities. Those that do raise suspicions of "What have they done?" or "What will they do if they don't get their way?" Not good if your desire is to persuade a wider audience.

People need to understand the consequences of protesting without a mask. If people don't then they really won't understand your message anyway. We live in a society that condems you for your political beliefs. That's a fact. Share your political beliefs, and allow your enemies to identify you at your own risk.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Flubber

Ya the list was things like

-- a prop-- ie look like a weapon
-- taking it from someone else-- ie eliminating a weapon
-- picking it up-- eliminating an available weapon

Only a ****** would say something like this.

It's like those idiots who get busted with drugs and claim that they found it on the side of the road and didn't know what it was.