Stupid Canadian Cops Busted Trying To Incite Protest Riot

[Flubber]

Originally posted by Kidicious
How do you know if the protestors had rocks or not?

I don't

BUt agathon and I were both assuming for the moment that that part of the QPP thing was true. Agathon used it mock them with the sentimental value crack.

Agathon has also stressed what a generally violent group they were. So it is not a stretch to imagine some might have weapons. Even if they don't plan to use them first some might carry them in case the police attacked them. Or would no protester think that way?

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Flubber


I don't

BUt agathon and I were both assuming for the moment that that part of the QPP thing was true. Agathon used it mock them with the sentimental value crack.

Agathon has also stressed what a generally violent group they were. So it is not a stretch to imagine some might have weapons. Even if they don't plan to use them first some might carry them in case the police attacked them. Or would no protester think that way?

But we are asked to believe that someone is passing out rocks. Assume that someone did that. Now is it more likely that some rocks would be thrown or that no rocks would be thrown if someone there was passing out rocks.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Flubber

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.

And it's their obvious next move.

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

Presumably, they were the Blockers who weren't at the main Bloc protest area. Who knows why they were there? Why does it matter?

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.

Fail again.

The undercover cops were first busted a long way from the actual protest, by the very people they are now claiming gave them rocks. Why would the Black Bloc give rocks to people they had identified as cops at first sight? Did they also put an empty glass bottle in the back pocket of the cops? Of course not.

Obviously, the cops got the rocks themselves. So they are lying again. In fact, the response of the police has been a tissue of lies so far.

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

OK. So that's your explanation. The police have the intelligence of chimps. Nice one man...

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--

They didn't. They were walking up the road towards the main Bloc protest and they got busted long before they got there. They didn't join that group -- that group told them to piss off. So they buggered off to the Council of Canadians protest line.

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?

I don't understand what you are trying to claim here.

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

If the police are looking for an excuse to clear out protesters, they'll take whatever excuse they can find. They have in the past.

You're trying to defend a group of people that has now been caught lying twice. Yet you won't believe the protesters on video who claimed that the police were inciting them to be aggressive, and who have been proven right so far.

Your strategy seems to be to believe the proven liars, yet discount those who have so far not been caught out in a lie.

[Kataphraktoi]

Originally posted by Flubber


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?

More like they invented the undercover story to shield their men when it looked like full denial wouldnt do the job.

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?

They could have chickened out after being confronted. Esspecialy if they were doing this solo, not as a undercover operation. This whole thing stinks. Not sure why the police get a free Pass Go card just because they are opposing demonstrators

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Flubber

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?

But they seem to have approached the Blockers at the back of the peaceful protests (the ones you see in the video). These people claim that the undercover cops asked them to be more aggressive. Either they are Blockers who followed the cops down from the other road, or they are people who were already there at the second protest.

So either they are the people the cops claim gave them the rocks, which is absurd, because they seem intent on outing the cops, or they are a bunch of other people who were at the peaceful protest and had no business or interest in using weapons, since they were at the peaceful protest.

But if you believe the people in black in the video, either the cops outed themselves by trying to incite protesters to violence earlier, and then were followed to the peaceful protest side, or they arrived at the peaceful protest and attempted to incite the younger people who were already there.

Whichever it is, they are carrying weapons that cannot have been given to them by protesters. Their story does not make sense.

[Tingkai]

Gotta love the Conservatives take on the provocateurs.

Good old Stockwell Day says people exercising their constitutional right to protest should be treated like criminals.

After a news conference in Vancouver, Day said he would not deter police from using such tactics.

"You can't start getting politicians making the calls, saying, 'It's okay for you to use undercover agents in this drug operation over here, but you can't use them in that over there,'" he said.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Tingkai
Gotta love the Conservatives take on the provocateurs.

Good old Stockwell Day says people exercising their constitutional right to protest should be treated like criminals.

After a news conference in Vancouver, Day said he would not deter police from using such tactics.

"You can't start getting politicians making the calls, saying, 'It's okay for you to use undercover agents in this drug operation over here, but you can't use them in that over there,'" he said.

At least he told us how he really feels.

[Flubber]

Originally posted by Tingkai
Gotta love the Conservatives take on the provocateurs.

Good old Stockwell Day says people exercising their constitutional right to protest should be treated like criminals.

After a news conference in Vancouver, Day said he would not deter police from using such tactics.

"You can't start getting politicians making the calls, saying, 'It's okay for you to use undercover agents in this drug operation over here, but you can't use them in that over there,'" he said.

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

[Flubber]

Originally posted by Agathon








You're trying to defend a group of people that has now been caught lying twice. Yet you won't believe the protesters on video who claimed that the police were inciting them to be aggressive, and who have been proven right so far.

Your strategy seems to be to believe the proven liars, yet discount those who have so far not been caught out in a lie.

I have no strategy . I have said I don't necessarily believe the QPP. I have also said that I see some bad intent as being more likely than some of the alternatives I have raised. How that is "believing police lies" is very difficult for me to see.

I still don't see evil or bad intentions as being in any way proven but perhaps more evidence will come out ( like statements from protesters individually as to details) instead of just the quick statement of one guy and some grop shoutings on a video.

Time may tell

[GePap]

Given my current profession (to investigate police misconduct), I lean a bit more towards Flubber's point that the video in an of itself is not sufficient to prove that these officers intended to incite the crowd.

from what I see in the video, it is clear that the protestors in the area the video is being taken had every intention of being peaceful - the angry insitance of the older gentleman to the officers that he put down the rock is good evidence that they did fear that a protestor with a rock in his hand would give the police reason for action. I find his actions credible. It is also quite understandable, given the higly suspicious actions of the mock protestors (ie cops), that the younger protestors who begin to call them provocateurs would believe that to be their intention. Agathon's point that police have in the past and would have reasons to try to incite crowd in order to allow cops to move in is valid, and would certainly inform the actions of the protestors themselves - the very fact that cops would dress up as violent protestors would make any peaceful protestor wonder why the cops would do that at all.

At least in that video the cops aren;t doing anything provocative with the rock. Given how lax the officers on the line seem about the whole incident (I mean these three masked protestors come right up to the line and they don't do anything for several minutes?), while the protestors had every reason to think the police wanted to be provocative, I could not state that AT THE TIME OF THE VIDEO, that those officers meant to provoke action right then and there.

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.

[Wezil]

Yesterdays press conference by QPP:

MONTREAL (CP) - Quebec provincial police stood by the actions of three officers who were undercover as protesters at the North American Leaders' summit, but say they will conduct an internal investigation to review their practices.

"If there are methods or procedures that need to be changed or adjusted, you can be reassured that will be done," Insp. Marcel Savard said Friday.

Savard defended the three agents and said they were not there to provoke demonstrators in Montebello, Que., where Prime Minister Stephen Harper, U.S. President George W. Bush and Mexican President Felipe Calderon met.

"At no time did the officers in question engage in provocation or incite anyone to commit violent acts," Savard told a news conference.

A video clip of the officers showed up on the popular website, Youtube.com and has been viewed 190,000 times.

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

"One of the extremists gave the rock to one of our police officers and he had a choice to make," Savard said.

"He was asked by extremists to throw the rock at the police, but never had any intention of using it."

Meanwhile, the Canadian Union of Public Employees is demanding an independent, public inquiry into the actions of the Quebec provincial police.

CUPE said the provincial police's waffling on the issue has only further damaged its credibility to answer questions and Canadians have a right to ask whether their governments recognize and protect the right to demonstrate peacefully.

Public Security Minister Stockwell Day continued to brush of questions about a call for a public inquiry, saying in Vancouver that those with complaints can make a formal complaint.

"The thing that was interesting in this particular incident, three people in question were spotted by protesters because were not engaging in violence," Day said.

"They were being encouraged to throw rocks and they were not throwing rocks, it was the protesters who were throwing the rocks. That's the irony of this," Day said.

Day added the actions were substantiated by the video that he has seen of the protests.

"Because they were not engaging in violence, it was noted that they were probably not protesters. I think that's a bit of an indictment against the violent protesters," Day said.

A spokeswoman for Quebec's Public Security Minister Jacques Dupuis said Friday the minister won't comment on the actions of the officers because he doesn't get involved in police operations, leaving it up to the police to explain their actions.

Meanwhile, opposition leaders continued to demand explanations from both the Quebec and Canadian governments.

The QPP statement doesn't pass the sniff test. I don't believe them. At least they will conduct an "internal investigation". Leaves me with that warm fuzzy feeling (like being peed on).

Stockwell Day - Is this man on crack or has he seen video I haven't? Maybe Harper failed to give him his talking points yesterday.

The link: http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Canada/2...443744-cp.html

[Tingkai]

Originally posted by Flubber
huh??? it seems to me he is saying politicians should stay out of police matters.

He's comparing people exercising their freedom of speech with drug dealers, which just shows what Conservatives think of those who disagree with them

More importantly, politicians are elected to look after our rights, to create laws and policies that protect us from police excesses, to guard the guards.

Day claims politicians should not set any limits on the police, that the police should be allowed to act any way that they please. He is either deliberately trying to mislead the public or he doesn't understand what his job entails. Either way he should resign.

[Wezil]

I'm still trying to fibure out what seniors Day claims to have seen "throwing rocks". The man is an idiot.

[Tingkai]

Yeah, and you got to love his theory that the cops were spotted because they refused to become violent, which of course made them stand out in a crowd of peaceful protesters.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Tingkai


He's comparing people exercising their freedom of speech with drug dealers, which just shows what Conservatives think of those who disagree with them

More importantly, politicians are elected to look after our rights, to create laws and policies that protect us from police excesses, to guard the guards.

Day claims politicians should not set any limits on the police, that the police should be allowed to act any way that they please. He is either deliberately trying to mislead the public or he doesn't understand what his job entails. Either way he should resign.

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

He is saying that politicians should not directly control police operations. I think that's a pretty solid position.

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.

Yep.