Stupid Canadian Cops Busted Trying To Incite Protest Riot

[Flubber]

Originally posted by Kidicious


I'm sure you would say MAYBE he was going to throw that rock.

If you had a rock in a protest I could think

1. maybe he intended to throw it
2. maybe he took it from someone that did intend to throw it
3. maybe he picked it up since there were not many around and he didn't want some violent person to have a weapon of opportunity
4. maybe Kid needed something to drive the pegs in for his tent in a planned longer protest

But if the only eveidence against you on some charge of malicious intent or intention to start a riot-- was that you hade a rock-- sorry thats simply not enough

[CrONoS]

Originally posted by Lul Thyme
This story was in "La Presse" (biggest newspaper in Quebec) this morning.
SQ (Surete du Quebec), the provincial police, has confirmed that the 3 guys were agents.

http://www.cyberpresse.ca/article/20070824/CPOPINIONS05/708240461/6730/CPACTUALITES

See here for a bit more about whether any of this was illegal:

http://blogues.cyberpresse.ca/lagace/?p=70720300

I enjoy reading Patrick Lagace blog and chronics in La Presse. Sometimes when he wrote in La Presse, he remind me of Pierre Foglia.

[Flubber]

Originally posted by Kidicious


O MY ****ing GOD! This is the crap I'm talking about. You think they were on patrol? Flubber you are ****ing stupid!

Thank you for again demonstrating the level of your debating skills

and NO I did not just call you "lazy"

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Lul Thyme
This story was in "La Presse" (biggest newspaper in Quebec) this morning.
SQ (Surete du Quebec), the provincial police, has confirmed that the 3 guys were agents.

http://www.cyberpresse.ca/article/20070824/CPOPINIONS05/708240461/6730/CPACTUALITES

See here for a bit more about whether any of this was illegal:

http://blogues.cyberpresse.ca/lagace/?p=70720300

Do you know that it's in French?

[Wezil]

Originally posted by Flubber


So you think its the authorities simply wanting to show those people that have the "audacity to protest" their power?

Could be. My thinking is different in that I think a true show of power is dismiss people as irrelevant. I would have thought that violence would have raised the profile of the protest and would have been the opposite of what the authorities would want.

The authorities (and media - this is a deeper issue) always dismiss these particular protestors as "anti-establishment", "anarchists", "troublemakers" (pick your slur). I think they would love to have some violent video to point to so they could say "See. We told you so. Now, about our budgets..."

BUt perhaps some think that violence tends to get blamed on protesters and therefore tends to discredit them with the general public a bit.

Yes.

I don't know. I still don't see any reason why higher authorities would want any form of violence. I would have thought that they would get the most plaudits for arranging things such that all demonstrations were peaceful.

"Keeping the peace" is only a plus with approved protestors. I presume you have heard of Caledonia?


edit - BTW, I understand the innocent till proven guilty bit (I hope ) but come on, surely we can speculate in the absence of ALL the facts. What would ACS be if we didn't? I'll let the appropriate Commission deal with the evidence in this case. Like that will ever happen.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Flubber


Thank you for again demonstrating the level of your debating skills

and NO I did not just call you "lazy"

I don't know if debate will help you think clearly. Yes police can go undercover. They can not infiltrate a political organization unless they have some legitimite purpose. Did you know that?

[Wezil]

Originally posted by Kidicious


I don't know if debate will help you think clearly. Yes police can go undercover. They can not infiltrate a political organization unless they have some legitimite purpose. Did you know that?

I'm not sure I would call what they did "infiltrating". It's not as if they were attending meetings.

I'm concerned with the carrying of illegal weapons and the fact they (the police) seemed to be the trendsetters in this regard.

[Flubber]

Originally posted by Kidicious


I don't know if debate will help you think clearly. Yes police can go undercover. They can not infiltrate a political organization unless they have some legitimite purpose. Did you know that?

Assuming your statement is true in Canada for the moment, do you have any evidence they "infiltrated' anyone? What does infiltration mean in your mind?

I saw three guys, poorly disguised, in a public place.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Wezil


I'm not sure I would call what they did "infiltrating". It's not as if they were attending meetings.

We'll see what the lawyers say about that. I don't know if the broke the letter of the law, but they certainly violated the spirit of the law. They should have a specified legal right to do what they are doing, otherwise it's certainly immoral.

[Tingkai]

Originally posted by Flubber
If you had a rock in a protest I could think

1. maybe he intended to throw it
2. maybe he took it from someone that did intend to throw it
3. maybe he picked it up since there were not many around and he didn't want some violent person to have a weapon of opportunity
4. maybe Kid needed something to drive the pegs in for his tent in a planned longer protest

But if the only eveidence against you on some charge of malicious intent or intention to start a riot-- was that you hade a rock-- sorry thats simply not enough

Given the video evidence, do you really believe point 2 and 3?

Do you believe that 9 times out of ten a jury would not convict that person.

And do you believe that if that had been a civilian then that person would not have at least been charge and faced a trial?

[Flubber]

Originally posted by Wezil


I'm concerned with the carrying of illegal weapons and the fact they (the police) seemed to be the trendsetters in this regard.

Just curious what were the illegal weapons? Was it something other than the rock and bottle ( neither of which was ever brandished in any way in the video that I saw)

Trendsetters?? How so ? Did they cause others to pick up rocks intended to be weapons?

[Wezil]

Originally posted by Flubber


Just curious what were the illegal weapons? Was it something other than the rock and bottle ( neither of which was ever brandished in any way in the video that I saw)

I wonder what the police would have considered rocks and bottles had ALL the protestors been carrying them? Use your sense.

Trendsetters?? How so ? Did they cause others to pick up rocks intended to be weapons?

Perhaps I should have said "wannabe" trendsetters. Sadly for them, the rabble wasn't buying.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Flubber


Assuming your statement is true in Canada for the moment, do you have any evidence they "infiltrated' anyone? What does infiltration mean in your mind?

I saw three guys, poorly disguised, in a public place.

What do you think they were doing there? On patrol?

[Flubber]

Originally posted by Tingkai


Given the video evidence, do you really believe point 2 and 3?

Do you believe that 9 times out of ten a jury would not convict that person.

And do you believe that if that had been a civilian then that person would not have at least been charge and faced a trial?

Actually I would almost bet that if masked police guy would have dropped his rock, the instinct of that union guy would have been to pick it up-- maybe even put it in his pocket. I don't for a second think union guy intended violence but he could have ended up with a rock that way.


Oh and if we are back to the police guys instead of my virews if kid were holding a rock . . . I dealt with that a few posts back-- I don't know what to believe but I can come up with probable scenarios that support either innocent or violent intent-- Maybe he carried it to start a riot or maybe he carried it in the hopes that others with violent intentions would see it and take them into their plans so that they could be identified more quickly and prevent a riot

[Flubber]

Originally posted by Wezil


I wonder what the police would have considered rocks and bottles had ALL the protestors been carrying them? Use your sense.

I do-- If I see a masked guy with a rock I do fear trouble. If I had seen union guy and his group all holding bottles and drinking from them, I would think someone did a run for some cola.

I couldn't tell in the video-- One police was accosted for carrying a rock-- did the others have rocks?