Stupid Canadian Cops Busted Trying To Incite Protest Riot

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Flubber
Agathon

Your rhetoric aside what the video clearly shows is three guys that approach the police line from a position up against the building and they do so in the slowest and least threatening manner possible. By going along the edge there they interact with almost none of the protesters and they take no threatening actions except for the fact that they do possess weapons.

What are they doing holding weapons?

My view is that they dressed similarly to the most violent type of protesters in the hopes of mingling and conversing with them and either brought or acquired weaposn because that would suit the disguise.

Makes no sense. The Black Blockers tend to know each other as part of tightly organized groups. Dressing like regular protesters would make mingling and conversing with them easier than pretending to be part of the Bloc. I've talked to them myself, and I tend to wear pretty conservative clothing.

Whether they did this to incite something as you think or if they did this since they thought it was the best method to mingle and acquire information ( which I merely assert as a real possibility without concluding anything) is the question.

Again, why are they carrying weapons? Your previous attempts to give alternative explanations required belief in absurdities. Why are they carrying weapons, when none of the others are? This is what is bothering people. If they needed it for a disguise, then it's a ridiculous disguise, since it made them stand out like sore thumbs.

As for why they went through the lines? By then their cover was blown so the safest route I saw was to the police -- a mere few feet-- With the position I saw it seemed the only other ways were back through the masked guys ( who you say are known to be frequently violent) or into the crowd)

In his actual physical actions , I can hardly conceive of a less threatening way to approach a police line.

I agree with the last part. Once it is evident to them that their cover is completely blown, they just move off.

But again the big problem is the rock and the bottle. I simply cannot think of any good reason why an undercover police officer has any business carrying either in this situation. Particularly, since no-one else appears to be doing the same. And it makes no sense for them not to drop them, when this protest is clearly non-violent and the weapon is just attracting even more attention.

Confiscation makes no sense, since it would blow their cover. Being given them by other protesters makes no sense, since everyone there is in peacenik mode. Picking them up to stop others doing so doesn't make much sense either, because the world is replete with improvisational weaponry.

The protesters story: that the undercover cops were trying to get them to be more aggressive fits with the fact of their weapon bearing much better than any alternative explanation.

If the guy had dropped the rock when pressured, I would tend to place higher value on your alternative version. But he didn't, and that is weird.

[Flubber]

Originally posted by Agathon


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.

And thats the reason I have never rejected thats what they might be doing. But disgusing yourself to look exactly like your opponent so that you might gain information on them is also one of the oldest tricks going.

Originally posted by Agathon


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.

I agree the setup was a smart one by organizers wanting a peaceful protest. The approach by the 3 police though was against a building and in a spot where there were no seniors at all.

Originally posted by Agathon






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.

I already discussed crowd groupthink-- Try it sometime-- go to a large demonstration and create a huge but believable falsehood like and assult or an arrest or something with some bloody details. Find out how many of you friends then hear the story. Also questions about starting violence may be taken as trying to start violence.

I looked again at the video. The three police very slowly made their way against a building and in fact could have made their way to the police without anyone actually in their way except that the union fellow intervened. Mght they have charged the line -- I don't know-- BUT what they actually did was very slow-- less agressive than the old guy intervening and not hostile at all.

Originally posted by Agathon



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.

Hmmm-- assume for the moment they were trying to gather information from and ascertain the intentions of the most violent protesters. Would not their clothing and their actions have been similar? You hope learn about violence so looking like a non-violent sort like the seniors makes no sense. Do you think they would share an attack plan with the seniors?

Oh and I am just saying it is impossible to prove the negative. I can't say they did not try to incite something. There's just nothing inciteful in the video

Originally posted by Agathon
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.


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".

.

Make up you mind -- a second ago you said that a person trying to masquerade as a Black BLocker should drop his rock on demand. Now you are saying a Black Blocker would never give one up. Make up your mind.

Originally posted by Agathon


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.

Where do you live dude? I walked outside for 6 blocks lunchtime assessing what could be used as weapons

-- bus benches-- unwieldy but a group could use effectively
garbage cans-- ditto
street and bus signs-- a bit unwieldy but possible
newspaper boxes
Rocks-- numerous but none larger than a quarter
Bricks and cobblestones-- if someone had a pry bar they might get a large number but it looked like it would take some doing

So overall not much stuff you could pick up and throw-- The trash here never has bottles since the homeless pick it over so requently

I don't know the protest location but there may not have been that many ready weapons

[Kidlicious]

It's like Wiglaf giving the lady he hit his credit card. No credibility. If you believe him you are so naive that's it's hard to imagine that you can take care of yourself.

[Agathon]

This guy was there. He claims that the undercover cops were outed well before this by anarchists before they reached the main protest. They then went off to the second protest line, which was the one for old people.

If he's right, then their contention that they were given rocks to throw is a complete fabrication. What on earth were they doing carrying rocks to the old people's protest line?

http://paulmalouf.blogspot.com/

[Kidlicious]

at how Flubber thinks undercover police conducting surveliance will act.

[Flubber]

Originally posted by Agathon




Again, why are they carrying weapons? Your previous attempts to give alternative explanations required belief in absurdities. Why are they carrying weapons, when none of the others are? This is what is bothering people. If they needed it for a disguise, then it's a ridiculous disguise, since it made them stand out like sore thumbs.

And thats why I have a problem with your theory. If you wanted to do what you claim, you would have 3-10 rocks each that you would keep hidden until you launched them and it would be better to launch several at once from a distance so the police would be "justified" to push quickly through the seniors at the attackers. They did not need to approach the line closesly to incite things. IT seems to me that the most inciteful thing would have been attacks from a distance in a few different spots. This would be witnessed by the most people and police and would call for the largest response across a wide front. If there were any likeminded individuals with hidden weapons that action maximizes the chance they would join in.

Given the other problems with their disguises others have cited I don't discount police stupidity here. perhaps they thought to look like a Black Blocker you better have a weapon.

Originally posted by Agathon


But again the big problem is the rock and the bottle. I simply cannot think of any good reason why an undercover police officer has any business carrying either in this situation. Particularly, since no-one else appears to be doing the same. And it makes no sense for them not to drop them, when this protest is clearly non-violent and the weapon is just attracting even more attention.

Since if he wanted to actually carry out an attack it makes more sense to keep weapons hidden until you actually attack my only possible innocent explanation is that they hoped that the obvious display of weapons would cause others with malicious intent to at least talk to them. The guilty explanation is that they intended to use them

Originally posted by Agathon


If the guy had dropped the rock when pressured, I would tend to place higher value on your alternative version. But he didn't, and that is weird.

Maybe he panicked, but I agree its weird. He could have dropped it or he could have thrown it or threatened with it or used it to punch the union guy. Instead he mostly peaceably edged away to safety.

[Flubber]

Originally posted by Kidicious
at how Flubber thinks undercover police conducting surveliance will act.

Enlighten me.

Would they not try to dress and act like they think the crowd will?

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Flubber


Enlighten me.

Would they not try to dress and act like they think the crowd will?

Yes. So why did they have rocks? You already answered that of course. It's how you answered that is humorous.

[Flubber]

Originally posted by Kidicious
It's like Wiglaf giving the lady he hit his credit card. No credibility. If you believe him you are so naive that's it's hard to imagine that you can take care of yourself.

huh

Since at the moment I disbelieve both the protesters and the police I don't think this can be aimed at me but since I have no idea what you are trying to say -- I repeat

huh??

[Agathon]

Make up you mind -- a second ago you said that a person trying to masquerade as a Black BLocker should drop his rock on demand. Now you are saying a Black Blocker would never give one up. Make up your mind.

OK. So there's no difference between some random person asking me to give them my weapon for no apparent reason, and the whole crowd at a peaceful protest telling you to drop it in order to prevent a riot. The Bloc respected the right of the Union leaders and the Council of Canadians to have a peaceful protest. That's why most of them were elsewhere.

bus benches-- unwieldy but a group could use effectively
garbage cans-- ditto
street and bus signs-- a bit unwieldy but possible
newspaper boxes
Rocks-- numerous but none larger than a quarter
Bricks and cobblestones-- if someone had a pry bar they might get a large number but it looked like it would take some doing

All of these, with the possible exception of bus benches are commonly used in riots.

[Flubber]

Originally posted by Kidicious


Yes. So why did they have rocks? You already answered that of course. It's how you answered that is humorous.

Upon looking at the video again I see one rock. I never see the other cops hands-- Were there more? Source??

Oh and kid since your entire worldview amuses me, I am happy to amuse you from time to time. Fair is fair after all.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Flubber
Given the other problems with their disguises others have cited I don't discount police stupidity here. perhaps they thought to look like a Black Blocker you better have a weapon.

When someone looks stupid they are actually guilty. That's why I refer to the Wiglaf thread. Some people say he was stupid for giving his credit card to someone he crashed into. I think that more likely it means he's guilty.

[Flubber]

What I just love is the dogmatic absolutism of you guys. While your conclusion is certainly a reasonable possibility, you folks jump to it as if it were an absolute certainty.


Mentioning possibilities which are also not that far-fetched -- they are consistent with a misguided and poorly executed surveillance mission and I have been the target of numerous slurs and very little reasoned debate

IN either event this was a botched mission. IT could be a botched riot attempt or it could be a botched surveillance mission. FRankly for either the police would have been doing it somewhat badly

[Flubber]

Originally posted by Kidicious


When someone looks stupid they are actually guilty. That's why I refer to the Wiglaf thread. Some people say he was stupid for giving his credit card to someone he crashed into. I think that more likely it means he's guilty.

I did not read that thread. I think you would be silly to give a credit card to pretty much anyone and even hate the thought of the ease at which something nefarious could happen even in person at a reputable retailer. Thats why I have one card only and check my balance frequently. I can lessen fraud even if I can't prevent it

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Flubber


Upon looking at the video again I see one rock. I never see the other cops hands-- Were there more? Source??

Oh and kid since your entire worldview amuses me, I am happy to amuse you from time to time. Fair is fair after all.

I'm not sure how significant it is, but in the video one of them appears to have his rock in his left pocket. Either that or MAYBE it's a baseball. MAYBE they were going to play catch.