Stupid Canadian Cops Busted Trying To Incite Protest Riot

[Flubber]

Originally posted by Wezil

I don't think they intended to start a riot (at least I hope not), but I think they fully expected one (police mindset) and came prepared to not only act but be prepared to justify their actions if necessary. I want more answers before drawing any firm conclusions in this regard (the answers we won't get - like who ordered the 3 to be present - and why).

See here you are sounding exactly like me. I simply don't think there is yet enough evidence to even be close to a conclusion on this.

Originally posted by Wezil


I found it obtuse that you would imply a rock in hand in these circumstances is anything other than a "weapon".

Odd- I thought my many posts were quite clear on the obvious concept that a rock can be a weapon and in the hands of a protester facing a police line, that is the most obvious reason to have one by an overwhelming margin.

My question is whetehr the police ever intended to USE that rock or was it a prop designed to fit in with what they expected to find (ie part of his costume)

[Flubber]

Originally posted by Kidicious


Should they come to your house and gather information about you? These were peacefull protests.

Nope - my house is private property. But they can have undercover officers walk or drive about my neighborhood all they want

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Flubber


Nope - my house is private property. But they can have undercover officers walk or drive about my neighborhood all they want

You should stop being obtuse. Should they spy on you in public then?

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Flubber

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.

Yeah, because old men in suits and walking shoes are clearly intent on battle with the police.

The Black Bloc dress in that particular way because they expect to be tear gassed. In fact, before the Summit Protest in 2001 I remember seeing a leaflet going around telling regular (nonviolent) protesters what to wear and how to minimize your exposure to tear gas.

The fact is that the video shows the police officers being asked repeatedly to put down the rocks. There is complete unanimity on the part of the real protesters in this respect, and for good reason, because armed protesters approaching the police line give the police a good reason to clear the area with a baton charge, and none of the protesters wanted to see those seniors get run over by the cops.

The only people behaving in a violent and threatening manner are the cops. None of the protesters are. That's because the area was set up for peaceful protest, and to prevent any violence, the protesters put up a line of grandpas and grandmas between the police line and the rest of the protest to prevent anyone bent on violence from attacking the police.

So how did the dispute start? By the cops approaching the the police line in an aggressive fashion. The old people at the line aren't sure what's going on, so the young people at the back come up and explain that they believe that they are cops, who had been trying to get them to start something.

Do you appreciate how dangerous this was? If the cops had thrown rocks at the police, there may well have been a baton charge which would have resulted in those old people getting steamrollered. On the other hand, if the cops hadn't charged, the other protesters would have tried to restrain the violent ones (I have seen this happen) and a fight would have developed, and the police would probably have moved forward to break it up. Either way, a lot of innocent people would have had their heads cracked.

Now if I was writing a manual for covert observers of a protest, the very first thing I would say is that they should never engage in any behaviour that could be perceived as provocative or violent, for their own safety as well as that of others (in other protests, these cops might have had their asses kicked if they hadn't dropped the rocks). In fact, the best thing for covert observers to do is simply observe, and not get involved. There will never be enough of them to confiscate weapons, and doing so would ruin their covert status anyway. The idea is simply ludicrous.

There's no rational explanation for the behaviour of the cops in this case other than that they were trying to stir up a fight. That is the only plausible reason they could have for carrying weapons.

[Flubber]

Originally posted by Wezil
I think he's on that "can indict a ham sandwich" bit. I say just plead the 5th.

Well in that case "having enough to indict" is a meaningless statement. The fact again that this was in Canad makes it doubly meaningless

I do like how we keep adopting US terminology for a Canadian event. But I guess "plead the 5th" is easier and more understood than any Canadian reference

[Wezil]

Originally posted by Flubber


See here you are sounding exactly like me. I simply don't think there is yet enough evidence to even be close to a conclusion on this.

To a degree. I don't think they would have minded had a riot occurred.

Odd- I thought my many posts were quite clear on the obvious concept that a rock can be a weapon and in the hands of a protester facing a police line, that is the most obvious reason to have one by an overwhelming margin.

I can't be bothered to go back and look but I recall a list of other things the rock could have been for. While it may be a fine legal avenue it flies in the face of common sense. A protestor holding a rock in the face of many police will be considered by the police to be "armed". Intent is another issue...

My question is whetehr the police ever intended to USE that rock or was it a prop designed to fit in with what they expected to find (ie part of his costume)

Yes, that is key to wether they intended to start a riot themselves. I am a cynical bastard as you know, but I won't go that far on the evidence before us.

[Flubber]

Originally posted by Kidicious


You should stop being obtuse. Should they spy on you in public then?

How do you spy on someone who is acting in public view?


If I had an open personal injury claim I would EXPECT that a private investigator might be able to do this-- legally and without any sanction . . . .


The police should not do this without some reason but let me ask this---

The police think a private location is a chop shop but do not have enough evidence for a warrant-- just a somewhat unreliable tipster. Can they sit outside the place observing only that which is publicly observable-- for a day or two trying to gather the information?

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Flubber

and the more damning statements by hooded guy that the police guys were trying to stir things up. Without knowing more about hooded guy, it is impossible to assess his credibility.

He's hardly on his own. All his friends are yelling the same thing.

There is complete and absolute unanimity on the part of the protesters that those three are inciting violence. How would it be possible for the protesters to organize a mass false accusation on such short notice (the young people rush to tell the old guy who is yelling what had happened)?

So you have all the protesters pointing these guys out as cops and accusing them of trying to start something, and you have none of the protesters disagreeing with the old union guy's actions to preserve the protective line of seniors.

Look, everyone there seems to have agreed that the seniors would stand in front to prevent things getting out of hand, and you have precisely three people trying to **** it up, and all those three are cops.

It's not just one or two things. There is such a large amount of circumstantial evidence that it is vastly improbable that what the protesters have been saying all along is untrue.

If you think these cops weren't trying to start something, you're in denial.

[Flubber]

Originally posted by Wezil






I can't be bothered to go back and look but I recall a list of other things the rock could have been for. While it may be a fine legal avenue it flies in the face of common sense. A protestor holding a rock in the face of many police will be considered by the police to be "armed".

Ya the list was things like

-- a prop-- ie look like a weapon
-- taking it from someone else-- ie eliminating a weapon
-- picking it up-- eliminating an available weapon

I did have a sarcastic one about driving a tent peg but the theme was always one that acknowledged that a rock looks like a weapon

[Wezil]

Originally posted by Flubber


Well in that case "having enough to indict" is a meaningless statement. The fact again that this was in Canad makes it doubly meaningless

I do like how we keep adopting US terminology for a Canadian event. But I guess "plead the 5th" is easier and more understood than any Canadian reference

Law and Order

I think he is USian so he can be forgiven. I abstain from most US legal discussions.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Flubber



How do you spy on someone who is acting in public view?


If I had an open personal injury claim I would EXPECT that a private investigator might be able to do this-- legally and without any sanction . . . .


The police should not do this without some reason but let me ask this---

The police think a private location is a chop shop but do not have enough evidence for a warrant-- just a somewhat unreliable tipster. Can they sit outside the place observing only that which is publicly observable-- for a day or two trying to gather the information?

You are avoiding the issue that I'm bringing up. Suppose the police followed you everywhere. Should they do that? What if you lived in a communist country and they followed you everywere because you were not a communist. Is that the way police should conduct themselves?

[Wezil]

Originally posted by Flubber


Ya the list was things like

-- a prop-- ie look like a weapon
-- taking it from someone else-- ie eliminating a weapon
-- picking it up-- eliminating an available weapon

I did have a sarcastic one about driving a tent peg but the theme was always one that acknowledged that a rock looks like a weapon

Fair enough.


This should be a fun news conference. Will the media be agressive or will "non-answers" be accepted?

I predict an agressive media and very little of substance from the police. Either way, I doubt this will be the end of it.

[Flubber]

Originally posted by Agathon


He's hardly on his own. All his friends are yelling the same thing.

Ya -- becasue a crowd will repeat pretty much anything that gets gossipped around --- It would only take one person to start loudly proclaiming something the crowd is inclined to believe and before you know it, its gospel to a dozen and then you have a thousand repeating it

We had an incident in Calgary recently were a young man was pushed off a C-train platform to his death-- Less than an hour later about two dozen people attacked a young woman they were "certain" was the perpetrator ( and several of the attackers had been present when their friend died )Someone yelled 'thats her" and away the mob went -- The police intervened-- and while she does fit the description-- she was the wrong woman

BUt she came very close to losing her life over what a crowd "knew".

[Flubber]

Originally posted by Kidicious


You are avoiding the issue that I'm bringing up. Suppose the police followed you everywhere. Should they do that? What if you lived in a communist country and they followed you everywere because you were not a communist. Is that the way police should conduct themselves?

NO clearly not.

I just think in any public gathering a police presence is allowed . If the gathering might be hostile to police, it seems safer to be undercover.

[Wezil]

Originally posted by Kidicious


You are avoiding the issue that I'm bringing up. Suppose the police followed you everywhere. Should they do that? What if you lived in a communist country and they followed you everywere because you were not a communist. Is that the way police should conduct themselves?

For how long and for what purpose?

I have no use for communist sytems so let's not go there, but even in a free society I expect the police to have some right to observe without warrant my activities in a public place. If they follow me to work and back every day for a month I might have an issue of harrassment (and they could sue their employer for terminal boredom). Now if I were to be attending a protest I think my activities might be a little more interesting to them...

These cops were not "infiltrating" in the sense they were trying to get on the inside of this movement. Indeed, the inside of this movement had no knowledge of who they even were. They were present at the event with the debatable intention of stirring up trouble "agent provocateur"