Stupid Canadian Cops Busted Trying To Incite Protest Riot

[Agathon]

Originally posted by GePap

Now, that is not to say that the officers never intended to be provocative, just that the video in and of itself, is not sufficient evidence to show that at the time the cops were outed due to their suspicious actions, that they meant to provoke the officres in that line into action.

Who's talking about just the video. There is plenty of reportage from people who were there, and only the police have been caught out lying so far. There's no explanation for them holding weapons, including their own, which holds water.

Frankly, the next time cops are caught impersonating protesters they should have the living **** kicked out of them.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Flubber



huh??? it seems to me he is saying politicians should stay out of police matters. Were you commenting on some other part of what he said since your comment bears little relation to what you quoted

They better the hell not stay out of police matters when police are preventing people from participating in a democracy.

[Kidlicious]

"Savard acknowledged that one of the officers was given a rock by protesters but did not use it."

Another statement that we can be pretty sure looking at the video. The tall officer had a rock in his pocket. that's at least two officers with rocks.

These guys are idiots and liars. Some people need to be replaced.

[Wezil]

Originally posted by notyoueither


Although Day is not the brightest bulb, I don't think he is saying what you think he is saying.

Care to comment on his other musings (about undercover cops standing out b/c they weren't being violent)? Or was that part of the "not the brightest bulb" bit?

[Wezil]

Originally posted by Kidicious

These guys are idiots and liars. Some people need to be replaced.

That is not the Canadian way. We will promote them. This would be hilarious if it weren't true (look to the Arar affair for precedent).

I can't wait for my big ****up so I can get my corner office.

[Tingkai]

Originally posted by notyoueither
He is saying that politicians should not directly control police operations.

Except that's not what he said.

He wasn't talking about politicians dictating which tactics should be used in one drug investigation versus another drug investigation.


He specifically said politicians should not decide whether police can use tactics "in this drug operation over here, but you can't use them" against people exercising their constitutional right of free speech.

In fact, the minister job is to decide what tactics can be used in situation A vs situation B. It's called deciding policy.

This is not a question of interpretation a vague comment. It is quite clear what he said.

[notyoueither]

I agree that the government should have some input on what the police consider to be of interest in very broad terms. Threats to public order and safety are certainly police business though.

People wearing masks at a demonstration can reasonably be of interest for the police, in my opinion.

Actually, I've read that it is standard police practice to put officers out of uniform in any large gathering with potential for violence. It has been for some time IIRC.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by notyoueither
Actually, I've read that it is standard police practice to put officers out of uniform in any large gathering with potential for violence. It has been for some time IIRC.

I'd like to read it. I don't see the benefit of having undercover police participating in a protest unless it is to get information on individuals for future use. If a protest becomes violent I don't know what an undercover officer is going to do.

[notyoueither]

That is the benefit.

People in the protest know that some of the people around them may be cops. The possibility that they will be charged at a later date moderates their behaviour.

[notyoueither]

The bolded bit near the end re procedure. The former cop, and expert, seems somewhat upset by the rock and the other shenanigans.

http://www.macleans.ca/article.jsp?content=20070824_141541_6060

The Macleans.ca Interview: Doug Kirkland
The top security consultant on faux protesters at Montebello, the politics of crowd control and how best to mix in with the "malnourished" Black Bloc

Kady O'Malley | Aug 24, 2007 | 2:16 pm EST

During his 29-year career as a police officer, Doug Kirkland specialized in crowd control, from making sure that Ottawa's annual Canada Day festivities went off without a hitch to keeping the peace on various picket lines.

Macleans.ca: You were one of the security experts who analysed the Youtube footage before yesterday's confirmation by the Sûreté du Québec. What was your reaction when you found out that the three rock-toting protesters were actually police?

DK: I was disappointed. I had thought they might have been police, or maybe private security. But the question was whether they were sanctioned by the chain of command to do what they did, and who in the chain of command did so. I don't think a person experienced in these things would have permitted people looking like that to have mixed with the Black Bloc; I think it was probably a low level commander. We might get more information about that later, but they do have a way of stonewalling on this kind of thing - the SQ almost more than anyone else.

M: What is the difference between police agents who mingle with the crowd to monitor the situation, and an "agent provocateur"?

DK: You're never supposed to lead an action - never, never. If there's an inquest, God forbid, how does it look if it was the police agency leading the charge? There are clear guidelines against that. It seems possible that the guy may have innocently - or ignorantly - picked up the rock, thinking that it would be a good prop. But in speaking with [Dave Coles, president of the Communications, Energy, and Paperworkers Union] yesterday, he really filled in a bit more of what happened before the tape started to roll. The Black Bloc guys had already identified them as probable police, and that's part of the reason why they were on the move back to the police line. But of all the groups, the CEP - a very savvy union - happened to be in the way. If it could go wrong, it did.

But the real worry for me is not the the impact on the SQ, but what it does to every other police service in the country. When it comes to protests, there's a whole dynamic at play, and understanding that dynamic and being able to work with it is huge. This spoils years of good work with good people on both sides.

M: What are the chances that this will spark a public inquiry?

DK: I doubt it. I expect that the CEP will try to bring a complaint, but you have to look at the history of the SQ in these confrontations. I'm sure that internally, some heads have already rolled, but the question is how many and how high. They might go public with that - if they were getting smart, they would - but I don't think they will. They're still pretty strong within their own borders.

If this were any other police force in Canada, we wouldn't be having this conversation, because this wouldn't have happened. This is, quite honestly off the scale. It goes beyond anything I've ever seen from any other police service, either reported or that I've been involved in.

M: Do you believe the RCMP should face questions as well, as the lead agency responsible for organizing the security?

DK: It would be unfair to suggest the RCMP had more of a role in this. Their responsibility was inside the wire and the rest was a joint operation. This looks almost like a bandit operation within the SQ's main plan. It just doesn't feel right that these guys would have been let loose to do what they did - at the very least put them in sneakers, and have them look as malnourished as the rest of the Black Bloc.

M: As a former senior officer with the OPP, what would your response have been if one of your officers had come to you with a plan like this one?

DK: "I've got these people trusting me, and you're going to turn around and do that?"
I have, in a situation where there is a risk of violence, told protesters to understand that there will be people in plain clothes there - for your safety, our safety and the safety of the public - and I've had great cooperation. But that was very rare. There's also a difference between plain clothes and undercover. I have difficulty seeing those three as undercover except in biker groups. And if that was the case, that's blown now since everyone in the country has seen them.

I can't believe that a senior commander had knowledge of this, and allowed it to go ahead. Think about it - a plan like this, it's like moving an army with all the little bits that have to go into it, and one rogue group goes off and does this, and destroys all the work you've done. Now all around the world, they see the SQ in this situation. No commander would ever want that. This really was a policing anomaly. I'm hoping it was an isolated thing - and whoever made the decision to allow it should be gone, immediately.

[Kidlicious]

Yea, plain clothes police makes sense. Undercover does not.

[Flubber]

Originally posted by Agathon




Frankly, the next time cops are caught impersonating protesters they should have the living **** kicked out of them.

Why?

[Flubber]

Originally posted by Kidicious

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

I don't believe I ever said that. I believe I said that you would almost certainly be on the side of the protesters.

Think about this-- there have been many protests that had some violence. Sometimes I fault mainly the police and sometimes I fault mainly the protesters. I would be willing to bet that my fault attribution would be much more balanced than yours. BUt I could be wrong.

Originally posted by Kidicious



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.

WE know that the police initially denied an undercover operation so yes they lied about that.

Originally posted by Kidicious

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.

No dispute that it has happened and no dispute that the police ( or those 3 officers on their own initiative) MIGHT have been trying to start something here

But my problem is that it just doesn't make sense. While fighting with those masked guys might have made some kind of warped sense to somebody, it doesn't make sense at all that anyone would want to be beating on grandmas. While a struggle with masked youth may play ok on tv, you cannot tell me that anyone is so stupic as to think images of well dressed 60 year olds falling before the police would be in any way good for the police. And the police KNOW there will be videos and pictures since half the crowd will have those camera phones plus it seemed the media was among the protesters

POlice are people too and the reality is that if it were there day off, some of the police could very well be on the other side of some protests. Or do you believe police to unthinking brutes, incapable of political protest?

Other things that do not make sense to me

1. If we believe the protesters and the police were discovered before they even met with the first group, isn't it a bit stupid to think you could succeed elsewhere? If I was disguised and am found out in seconds, isn't it idiotic to think my disguise is good? Its more rational to think that you will be followed and observed by those that discovered you.

2. The police line in that area seemed pretty casual. If this was a planned "provocation" one would think they would be much more formed up and agressive to approaching Bloccers ( unless you think a casual appearence is part of the deception). This could argue in favor of a "3 idiots" theory instead of a larger planned action.

3. The weapons--Either they had them going in or they acquired them from the protesters of the protest site-- Either way, once their cover is blown, there seems to be no purpose at all to keep them.

4. Their actual behavior on the video-- Regardless of their earlier intent, by the time they are on video, they move slowly and are mostly non-confrontational. They enter the police lines against a building and encounter none of the seniors except the leader that makes a point of intercepting them. Since they take no hostile action, it makes no sense that he doesn't drop the rock. But frankly I don't think if at that point he HAD dropped the rock, it would have changed anything in the way people assess their presence.

So the idea that the police wanted to stir things up by the seniors line has a lot of ifs and buts. WE have to believe that : Police with their covers blown already wanted to covertly incite violence in an area guarded by senior citizens who had an express mandate to prevent such violence. WE have to assume that this intent existed despite the lack of any actual violence on the part of police. WE have to take the word of an unknow individual on video or the unattributed statements as to what all the protesters knew ( Oh and I find unanimity in what people say to be a bit suspicious in itself--)


I would find it much more believable if people were saying the police tried to stir up the first group they met. BUt with covers blown so easily (so early that the BLoccers deny giving a rock), only a true idiot would continue with such a plan. Maybe these were such idiots . Failing to drop the rock and exit the area seems to indicate they were not the brightest lights

[Tingkai]

[SIZE=1] Originally posted by notyoueither
People in the protest know that some of the people around them may be cops. The possibility that they will be charged at a later date moderates their behaviour.

Yeah, that's the theory, but it gives too much credit to the idiots who turn up at protests looking for a fight. These guys are none too bright. And we have video cameras which are far more effective at identifying the idiots, so what's the point of plainclothes.

Still, I've got no problem with plainclothes police, I just don't think they are useful. And when the cops start wearing masks and holding rocks, that's a problem.

But the best way to prevent violence at any demonstration is to have cops in uniform in the crowd. It reduces the us vs. them mentality. I've been in protests where this has happened and it can make a big difference.

[Tingkai]

Originally posted by Flubber
4. Their actual behavior on the video-- Regardless of their earlier intent, by the time they are on video, they move slowly and are mostly non-confrontational. They enter the police lines against a building and encounter none of the seniors except the leader that makes a point of intercepting them. Since they take no hostile action..

They do take hostile action. You can see the masked cops hitting Cole and the other union guys three or four times. At one point, the one cop takes a couple of step towards Cole and hits him with a shove, obviously trying to start fight.

Initially Cole is trying to keep the guy with the rock from the police line, (probably thinking the guy is a protester and he doesn't want the cops to have an excuse to charge) and later, Cole tries to keep the real protesters from the cops. In other words, Cole is trying to defuse the situation by preventing direct conflict between the cops and the masked cops (who Cole initially thinks are protesters).