Stupid Canadian Cops Busted Trying To Incite Protest Riot

[Flubber]

Originally posted by Agathon


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.

I never said that -- I am curious where he got the rock though--Maybe he say a guy with three or four and asked for one and asked "where do we go?"-- IF he got it from someone that planned violence do you think they would have only one?

Oh and I never mentioned "confiscation " or "littering" either.

Your assumption that holding a rock made him stick out is based on facts I don't have. There might have been numerous weapons out there not shown in the video

Again Agathon , you were quite clear that these guys are frequently violent so having weapons would not strike me as unusual even if they choose not to use them on a given time

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Flubber
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

If you didn't have any other details would you think a person who gave his credit card to someone after getting into an accident with them is at fault or not at fault?

[Flubber]

Originally posted by Kidicious


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.

At what time was that? and which guy?

I am curious though since a number of weapons makes it more likely they could have effectively started something

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by 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.

Agathon made it clear that he thinks it is most likely that they intended to start a riot. I don't know if I have, but I agree.

[Flubber]

Originally posted by Kidicious


If you didn't have any other details would you think a person who gave his credit card to someone after getting into an accident with them is at fault or not at fault?

I would think that they were an idiot.

If I had to make a call on an either or basis I would say "at fault' since I can conceive of no reason for an innocent party to do so since giving a credit card implies paying for something.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Flubber


I never said that -- I am curious where he got the rock though--Maybe he say a guy with three or four and asked for one and asked "where do we go?"-- IF he got it from someone that planned violence do you think they would have only one?

Oh and I never mentioned "confiscation " or "littering" either.

Your assumption that holding a rock made him stick out is based on facts I don't have. There might have been numerous weapons out there not shown in the video

Again Agathon , you were quite clear that these guys are frequently violent so having weapons would not strike me as unusual even if they choose not to use them on a given time

But your assumptions are contradicted by the QPP. They are now claiming that the Black Bloc gave the undercover cops the rocks.

But we now know that the cops tried to get to the Bloc protest (which is separate, as usual) and were intercepted before they could get there, outed and subjected to whatever the French version of "**** off" is. They then decided to walk around the other side to the Council of Canadians protest (the peaceful one) where they were again outed.

So apparently, if they are being honest (!) the undercover cops were kindly given missiles by Black Bloc protesters who outed them and told them to **** off long before they reached the site of the main Bloc protest, whereupon they schlepped their sorry asses to the old people's protest site all the while holding the rock that the Black Bloc had so kindly given them, as if it were a gift of great sentimental value.

This is a completely ridiculous story. The QPP have lied once, and they now appear to be lying again.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Flubber


At what time was that? and which guy?

I am curious though since a number of weapons makes it more likely they could have effectively started something

The tall one has his hand in his pocket. It looks like he's trying to hide it. That's around 1 min. Then he takes his hand out of his pocket. Maybe he realizes it's too obvious. Then around 2 min you see the bulge (lack of a better word).

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Flubber


I would think that they were an idiot.

If I had to make a call on an either or basis I would say "at fault' since I can conceive of no reason for an innocent party to do so since giving a credit card implies paying for something.

Well yea, but wouldn't the fact that he's just doing something that you wouldn't expect someone to do normally make you think he was at fault?

[Flubber]

Originally posted by Kidicious


Agathon made it clear that he thinks it is most likely that they intended to start a riot. I don't know if I have, but I agree.

Well d'uh

On police versus protesters its almost a certainty which side you will be on

There are others that will almost certainly be on the police side

Then there are others, like myself that know that there is enough fault and lying from both sides . IT may well turn out they tried to start a riot. That would surprise me not a bit and be inconsistent with nothing I have said

I simply contend that the available facts are also consistent with a botched surveillance/ infiltration attempt. The most troubling fact against that is the rock/bottle.


I struggle with that one since it makes no sense as an undercover tool if there were no armed protestors there or if the bulk of the bad guys stayed away in respect of this particular protest.

But if that is true, why the heck would the police wnat a riot here. Does anyone think an event with the inevitable footage of those seniors facing police advance would have been good for the upper tiers of the police?

Were the bad guys that the police might want a crack at ( you know the types that might have weapons) there or not?

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Agathon
The QPP have lied once, and they now appear to be lying again.

Now there's another good point.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by 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.

No. You are making an error in reasoning here.

I've said that it is likely that they were involved in some sort of provocation. I've never said it is certain.

But only a lunatic believes only that which he can prove with certainty. Imagine if you lived your life that way.

It's always reasonable to believe that which the balance of probabilities favours, even if that is in fact false. My claim is that it is reasonable to believe, given the evidence, that these cops were engaged in some form of provocation. The evidence given here is certainly better than what you would find on the evening news, yet people have no problem believing that.

Again, when this first came out, people were claiming they weren't cops. Now we know they lied about that. Now they are claiming that the cops were given the rock by the Bloc, but that doesn't fit with the facts either, since the Bloc outed them at first sight and told them to **** off before they got within a bull's roar of the Bloc Line.

Unless you can come up with some explanation as to why these cops deliberately held onto a weapon while they walked all the way to the peaceful protest area, then the good cop case seems to fail. I can accept that they might want rocks to blend in at the main protest site, but that's not where they were going: instead they were attempting to go somewhere where having weapons would make them stick out like a sore thumb, and some of the people at that second site claim to have been asked to participate in aggressive protest.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Flubber
Well d'uh

On police versus protesters its almost a certainty which side you will be on

You said that we believe with absolute certainty. We do not.

Then there are others, like myself that know that there is enough fault and lying from both sides .

Maybe there's lying on both sides. But we know with certainty that the police lied. That's the sort of things you should take into consideration with making a decision for yourself. That way you don't have to just go with your bias.

But if that is true, why the heck would the police wnat a riot here. Does anyone think an event with the inevitable footage of those seniors facing police advance would have been good for the upper tiers of the police?

This isn't the first time something like this has happened. Police have tried to get peacefull protesters to use violence many times. It's just something that happens.

[Flubber]

Originally posted by Agathon


But your assumptions are contradicted by the QPP. They are now claiming that the Black Bloc gave the undercover cops the rocks.

While I don't know that I believe much from the QPP, getting rocks from armed protesters was one of the many possibilities I floated.

Originally posted by Agathon

But we now know that the cops tried to get to the Bloc protest (which is separate, as usual) and were intercepted before they could get there, outed and subjected to whatever the French version of "**** off" is. They then decided to walk around the other side to the Council of Canadians protest (the peaceful one) where they were again outed.

So apparently, if they are being honest (!) the undercover cops were kindly given missiles by Black Bloc protesters who outed them and told them to **** off long before they reached the site of the main Bloc protest, whereupon they schlepped their sorry asses to the old people's protest site all the while holding the rock that the Black Bloc had so kindly given them, as if it were a gift of great sentimental value.

So who were all those hooded and masked dudes near the police guys at the beginning of the video? At the start the old guy seemed to be yelling at all of them to stay away ( although we don't know what had just) preceded the video start

BUt lets assume that the cops were busted earlier but after being handed a rock-- For them to try to then do surveillance on another group of hooded folks seems consistent-- it wasn't just seniors there.

Why hold the rock -- darned if I know-- perhaps he was an idiot?

But answer me this. If my sole purpose is to start a riot, why would I even join groups that are 1000 feet from the police-- I don't need their weapons since presumably I have my own (or can pick them up anywhere) and I don't care about their plans since I am not reporting back anyway. Wouldn't you just say little, minimize contact until the group was close enough to the police to swing the plan into action?

From the way agathon has portrayed this group, its not a large leap to think that a few rocks thrown could get a police reaction and that enough of the hooded guys would join in to get it going

[Kidlicious]

How do you know if the protesters had rocks or not?

[Flubber]

Originally posted by Agathon


No. You are making an error in reasoning here.

I've said that it is likely that they were involved in some sort of provocation. I've never said it is certain.

MY bad-- You so completely mocked any other possibilities that were raised that I missed your uncertainty on the point

Originally posted by Agathon




It's always reasonable to believe that which the balance of probabilities favours, even if that is in fact false. My claim is that it is reasonable to believe, given the evidence, that these cops were engaged in some form of provocation. The evidence given here is certainly better than what you would find on the evening news, yet people have no problem believing that.
.

I have never doubted the reasonableness of your belief. I also can think of reasonable explanations that are more innocent. If pushed to a choice right now, on the balance of probabilities right now I would favor your explantion over my hypotheticals.

BUt my problem is that this was overall, an idiotic way to start a riot . You do not walk slowly with a rock in your hand toward a group of very very respectable looking seniors who have an energetic leader and who has been loudly proclaiming that all the hooded guys should get back because it is "our line' and he wants to avoid violence. If he wanted a confrontation with that guy, there was ample opportunity to start one yet he avoided confrontation while essentially retreating to the police lines

Does approaching that group in that way strike you as a way to start a riot? Does that make ANY sense?