Stupid Canadian Cops Busted Trying To Incite Protest Riot

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Donegeal
No Aggie. What they are trying to say is that they did nothing illegal. Carrying a rock is not illegal. Having an empty bottle in your back pocket is not illegal.

But attempting to incite a riot is illegal. No other explanation fits the evidence.

Imagine if the situation turned out to be they were protesters. Would you still be attacking them and accusing them of trying to start a fight? I think you'd be screaming about how the police attacked them when all they did was have a rock in hand and an empty bottle in the back pocket.

If I approached a police line with a rock like that in my hand, I would expect to be arrested.

BTW... very glad to hear it wasn't RCMP ( ), yet still VERY disturbed that it was cops at all. I wonder if they were acting on orders or if it was their own idea. If they were acting on their own, it would absolve the department of any wrong doing (but the officers should get fired for conduct unbecoming an officer... If their intentions can be proved).

I don't think they should get fired. It's not their fault. They were ordered to do this, and it was obviously planned by their superiors, and regarded as normal by the police there. And I know it's been done before.

By themselves, the police have absolutely no reason to do this. Why on earth would the police want to start a riot? It makes them look bad, creates bitterness, and exposes officers and the public to unnecessary injury.

The only reasons for doing things like this are political reasons: to make the protesters look bad and marginalize them in the public eye. What we need to know is who in the police made that decision and on what political basis and under what political pressure.

But I suppose we will never find out.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Gibsie
You're just a tin-foil anarchist nutbag Agathon. Can you prove to me that the police officer hadn't confiscated the rock (and empty glass bottle) in case any of the other doubtlessly violent protesters had picked them up and used them to assault the police officers? No, you can't, therefore I'm right and you're wrong.

What would be the point in confiscating a rock? It's not like the earth isn't littered with replacements. And how would they confiscate it without a fight if they didn't identify themselves as police officers? Why didn't the cops just give the rock to the Union Leader, because he didn't look to be the rock throwing type...

It makes far more sense to arrest the person, rather than confiscate an easily replaceable missile. Your suggestion makes absolutely no sense.

In any case, it is the protesters who are the ones trying to preserve the peaceful protest. Any other protester approaching the line of seniors and middle aged folks would have also been told to get lost and drop any missiles they had been carrying.

[Gibsie]

Originally posted by Agathon
Your suggestion makes absolutely no sense.

Yes, and? You're debating with people who will choose the "makes no sense" option every time over accepting that the police were not acting in the best interests of all involved here. Any less would be to side with the terrorchists

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Gibsie

Yes, and? You're debating with people who will choose the "makes no sense" option every time over accepting that the police were not acting in the best interests of all involved here. Any less would be to side with the terrorchists

You need to come up with a reason for the police to be holding weapons and being mass accused by everyone else there of trying to start a riot. It's not like this was a planned exposure. You can clearly see from the video that these men were moving towards the police line, and were confronted by the leaders of the protest, after being confronted by the younger people behind them.

You obviously didn't watch the video.

They were breaking the law.

from digg.

acting in contravention of s.63 of the Criminal Code of Canada against unlawful assembly.

S.63states: (1) An unlawful assembly is an assembly of three or more persons who, with intent to carry out any common purpose, assemble in such a manner or so conduct themselves when they are assembled as to cause persons in the neighbourhood of the assembly to fear, on reasonable grounds, that they (a) will disturb the peace tumultuously; or (b) will by that assembly needlessly and without reasonable cause provoke other persons to disturb the peace tumultuously.

These same actions would appear to suggest that these men also contravened s.464(a) of the Criminal Code, which states:

Except where otherwise expressly provided by law, the following provisions apply in respect of persons who counsel other persons to commit offences, namely, (a) every one who counsels another person to commit an indictable offence is, if the offence is not committed, guilty of an indictable offence and liable to the same punishment to which a person who attempts to commit that offence is liable;

Furthermore, the fact that the SP has now admitted that these three individuals were, in fact, members of the force, acting within the line of site of the tactical squad, and were taken into custody by the tactical squad, would suggest that at least some of the members within the chain of command of the squad were acting in violation of s.465(c) of the Criminal Code which states:

every one who conspires with any one to commit an indictable offence not provided for in paragraph (a) or (b) is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to the same punishment as that to which an accused who is guilty of that offence would, on conviction, be liable.

[Agathon]

In any case, the police have already lied about this. There is no reason to believe their latest line of bull****. Yesterday, they "categorically denied" that these three were cops.

[Flubber]

Originally posted by Agathon
In any case, the police have already lied about this. There is no reason to believe their latest line of bull****. Yesterday, they "categorically denied" that these three were cops.

Big shock-- I would think that it would be standard practice to deny undercover operations. I see that as standard and completely acceptable. They only moved from that denial when it was clear the cover was totallty blown anyway and because this was becoming an issue

Or do you think the police should announce their undercover operations?

[Gibsie]

Originally posted by Agathon


You need to come up with a reason for the police to be holding weapons and being mass accused by everyone else there of trying to start a riot. It's not like this was a planned exposure. You can clearly see from the video that these men were moving towards the police line, and were confronted by the leaders of the protest, after being confronted by the younger people behind them.

You obviously didn't watch the video.

Oh, but I did, and now I'm just coming up with the most absurd arguments possible and finding it slightly bizarre that you're taking the arguments this seriously. But then I suppose the quality of my argument isn't that far off the others who are arguing in favour of the police...

[Flubber]

Agathon

Oh and I just watched the video again and its inconclusive

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

BUT

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

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.

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.

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. Maybe the other hooded folks thought about stirring stuff up and were handing them out-- Maybe one idiot had a rock and he took it from him-- maybe he was trying to fit in with what he thought the masked protestors might bring since they expected violence-- Maybe maybe maybe-- All I can tell from the video is he does not throw the rock

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

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

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

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. heck even trying to ask a few questions about plans to rush the police of the buildings could easily be construed as a suggestion to do those things.


All that said, perhaps they did try to incite something. I don't know and neither do you. ON one side the police say they had no such intention and we have one dude I don't know making claims they did. I give no credibility to the police on this issue ( of course they would deny criminal actions-- duh) and very little to any individual among a group of masked protesters

Again nothing conclusive

[Gibsie]

See, just preparing you for all the "maybes" from people like Flubber

[Kidlicious]

Flubber is a maybeaholic I think. No one can be prepared for that.

[Patroklos]

I still don't see anyone instigating riots.

In fact, I don't see any violent behaviour at all.

[Wezil]

Originally posted by Donegeal
Up till now I held the RCMP in the highest regard. I hope this clears up or it will be a HUGE stain on them.

Not much room for yet another stain. I'm surprised you seem to trust this bunch. I've seen a lifetime of screwups and incompetence to know better. Don't be surprised to hear of their involvemnet in the coming days.

BTW, Aggie, making this claim 'sole'ly on the widely used boots is still ridiculouse.

This is why cops are so much fun on the witness stand. He had more.

[Flubber]

Originally posted by Gibsie
See, just preparing you for all the "maybes" from people like Flubber

The difference is there is nothing absurd in anything I say.

I simply require more evidence than the fact that a guy had a rock and a bottle (when trying to mingle and fit in with possibly violent masked protesters) as proof of intent to start a riot

If you see police misconduct in the video kindly provide the time of the misconduct.

Otherwise, assuming or taking it a proven that the police tried to start a riot is every bit as bad as assuming or taking it as proven that the police did everything correctly here. Either is possible on the available facts without having to stretch too far

[Flubber]

Originally posted by Kidicious
Flubber is a maybeaholic I think. No one can be prepared for that.

Ya-- that darn Flubber-- always wanting evidence of stuff before assuming it and assessing the video for what it actually shows and not taking the word of some unknown individual as to what happened off the video


How annoying !!!

[Flubber]

OK a general question to those that think that the police wanted to instigate a riot

Do you just think that some front-line folks enjoy breaking heads and beating people up? ( I know a couple of police guys that would enjoy such a thing but most police I know are just normal folks that are just doing a job and want to just end every shift safely)

Or do you folks think that some higher authority would want there to be a riot?

If higher authority is your thought, could you enlighten me as to what the advantage of such an event is to the authorities.