Police state part 2

[myata]

A POLICE STATE - exists when certain individuals or group of the same minded...get so damned rich and powerful..that money is no longer an issue..but domination of the citizenry and that power pleasure surge is what they only enjoy. Behind every society governend under a police force..there is a person probably snorting coke and having sex with under age girls...All tyrants were spoiled brats as kids...all they are now is an enlarged version of that brat...and those old brats...love to own their own banks...have their own standing army (police)......take the G 20 summit....the brats said...Lets show the young idealists who is boss...take that WHACK goes the trudgeon!

Indeed... it's all about who is in control (real one). A dusty sheet of paper, or a guy with a baton (checkmark), rubber bullet (checkmark), real bullet (not there yet... but coming, eventually.. if we firmly stay on the same path of complacency and apathy and fail to bring every single one who is complicit, regardless of position, to full responsibility).

Edited March 2, 2011 by myata

[Saipan]

Good lord. What is it with you and guns?

I would MUCH rather talk scuba diving and sailing. But they still don't confiscate those.

And you?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_they_came%E2%80%A6

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/They_Thought_They_Were_Free

[GostHacked]

I would MUCH rather talk scuba diving and sailing. But they still don't confiscate those.

And you?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_they_came%E2%80%A6

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/They_Thought_They_Were_Free

Then go make a thread in the Sports and Leisure section, or .. perhaps find another forum while the adults are talking.

[Saipan]

Then go make a thread in the Sports and Leisure section, or .. perhaps find another forum while the adults are talking.

Don't let me hold you back. Go ahead and start new thread "Problem With Other Posters". You may enjoy it. This one is about Police State.

[DrGreenthumb]

Don't let me hold you back. Go ahead and start new thread "Problem With Other Posters". You may enjoy it. This one is about Police State.

The very fact that a loony tune like you is currently allowed to own anything more dangerous than a pea-shooter would actually be evidence against us being in a police state, Cledus.

[Saipan]

That's why you don't have a firearm licence. Anger managment course will help.

[Scotty]

Don't let me hold you back. Go ahead and start new thread "Problem With Other Posters". You may enjoy it. This one is about Police State.

This one is about the violent and criminal behaviour of the police during the G 20 meetings.

[GostHacked]

Speculation.

It's not speculation. It is what it is. Welcome to the new world disorder.

[g_bambino]

It's not speculation.

Of course it is. The claim guesses only at what could have been.

[GostHacked]

Of course it is. The claim guesses only at what could have been.

Would you rather it come to the point where the police violate our rights before you stand up and say anything?

Would you notice when that point has actually been passed?

[DrGreenthumb]

That's why you don't have a firearm licence. Anger managment course will help.

Actually I do have a liscence and several registered long-guns. It was pretty easy to get too. I took my hunter's safety couse when I was 15 or 16, and my FAC when I was 18. I got my first gun when I was 8. I live in the boonies on an acreage so I need weapons to protect my livestock from coyotes and timber wolves. I also like to hunt sharptails in the fall, and sometimes geese and ducks. Then I have a couple of old 303 British that each of my grandfathers brought back from the war. So yeah, I'm familiar with guns, just not fanatical. I live in a popular hunting area, and there is no shortage of guns, nor has one person I know ever been hassled about their guns. The only time I have ever seen it made an issue is when the cops raid someone's house looking for pot, or responding to disturbance and discover an unregistered rifle in plain view. And even then the cops only lay the gun charge so they can use it as an aggravating factor in the drug charges.

edited to add: I do NOT support the gun regitry BTW, I think it is a stupid waste of money. Users should be liscensed, people are dangerous, weapons are tools, dangerous only in the hands of the foolish or evil. I'm just not as concerned about a stupid waste of money as I am about an evil authoritarian government.

Edited March 3, 2011 by DrGreenthumb

[g_bambino]

Would you rather it come to the point where the police violate our rights before you stand up and say anything?

I would rather that happen before I accuse them of doing it.

[GostHacked]

I would rather that happen before I accuse them of doing it.

Would you rather be illegally detained under special powers that were acted upon that were never granted in the first place? Which means your rights have been violated.

All for security... right?

What's that line, people who give up rights for security deserve neither?

Edited March 3, 2011 by GostHacked

[Shakeyhands]

I would rather that happen before I accuse them of doing it.

Which incident are you referring to specifically here?

[Saipan]

This one is about the violent and criminal behaviour of the police during the G 20 meetings.

Elewhere you are allowed to debate both sides. Including APEC meeting. And anything else related to "Police State". Democratic Forum.

http://www.freecbc.ca/cgi-bin/backtalk/backtalk.cgi/abalone/read?conf=general&csel=&isel=716,717-$&rsel=all&noskip=1

http://www.freecbc.ca/cgi-bin/backtalk/backtalk.cgi/abalone/confhome?conf=general

[Saipan]

Actually I do have a liscence and several registered long-guns.

So how would you like to have ALL your lawfully bought and registered pump and selfloading hunting firearms confiscated - as a first step??

What kind of licence you have NOW?

[GostHacked]

So how would you like to have ALL your lawfully bought and registered pump and selfloading hunting firearms confiscated - as a first step??

What kind of licence you have NOW?

He has one that allows him to hunt saipans.

[Shakeyhands]

So how would you like to have ALL your lawfully bought and registered pump and selfloading hunting firearms confiscated - as a first step??

What kind of licence you have NOW?

Who cares, this isn't about gun control. There is another thread devoted specifically to that. Please hold your circle jerk there.

[g_bambino]

Would you rather be illegally detained under special powers that were acted upon that were never granted in the first place? Which means your rights have been violated.

All for security... right?

What's that line, people who give up rights for security deserve neither?

None of those questions are relevant to what I said. I don't level accusations on people without solid proof behind them.

[g_bambino]

Which incident are you referring to specifically here?

Any.

[Saipan]

He has one that allows him to hunt saipans.

You are confusing hunting licence with firearm licence. Not surprisingly.

And also empty rant with debate.

[Saipan]

Who cares, this isn't about gun control.

Apparently you do - as his secretary.

And yes, this has everything to do with POLICE STATE. Whether you like it or not.

Please hold your circle jerk there.

I leave that to liberals.

[cybercoma]

Of course it is. The claim guesses only at what could have been.

I appreciate where you're coming from, but I respectfully disagree with you.

Firstly, the police admitted they were undercover. That much we agree upon.

Now, there cover is the part where we diverge. You think this was an acceptable form of surveillance in this situation. The problem I and others have is the type of cover the police chose. Dressing in black and wearing a bandana covering your face would not even remotely be an issue had the other protesters been dressed in black and wearing black bandanas over their faces. However, this was a bunch of working-class unionites assembled in peaceful protest. The undercover cops in this case chose the poorest cover imaginable, since they not only stood out like a sore thumb, but these unionites stopped their protest long enough to single them out.

So where is the proof that they were inciting violence? How does this undercover cop become a provocateur? He's carrying a rock. While he's not even dressed to blend in, he's also upping the level of aggression by holding a rock which suggests a level of violence. That they were an utterly laughable failure at their attempts to incite violence is quite aside from the point. The fact of the matter is these undercovers became provocateurs by carrying a rock which has the connotes a larger threat than the peaceful protest up to that point. The only purpose for this cop to be acting in such a manner is to encourage the other protestors to do something illegal, giving the police the pretext to break up the demonstration.

Now think about the G20. Nobody knows whether the police used provocateurs at the G20 Summit. Moreover, no one knows for sure if or when police forces around the nation have used these tactics before then or since then. Given the stakes of the G20 and the amount of security enlisted for the task, I would find it hardly surprising if it came out that they did. It is absolutely circumstantial, but it seems pretty convenient that the cops stood back and allowed the destruction of property to take place without busting skulls. They allowed the windows to be smashed and the cop cars to be set on fire (5 in total, it turns out). Only one person has been charged and is on trial for the burning of a cop car. The cops stood back and watched it all go down. A day later that was used as a pretext for them to act as though civil rights no longer existed.

Was all of that damage solely the act of protestors violently lashing out against a political agenda they fiercely disagree with or was the crowd incited into that behaviour by undercover provocateurs? Much has been written on "mob mentality" and the social psychology of crowds. It is so powerful that otherwise rational people can be caught up in the moment. There's no evidence for provocateurs at the G20, but if it turns out that the police used them then I would lay the blame for the entire amount of damage and violence that occurred in Toronto squarely on the decision-makers shoulders.

The use of provocateurs ought to be outlawed by parliament because it is nothing more than a form of psychological warfare against the average citizen and an affront to democracy. Inciting people to violence, fully aware of the psychological and behavioural influence of crowds is just that--psychological warfare. Encouraging people that may otherwise not be prone to violence to do violent things when they are in a crowd, then using that as a pretext to strip away people's rights is absolutely disgusting. It's the opposite of the Ludovico Technique from A Clockwork Orange. It also raises similar questions. If someone is committing a crime because they were programmed to do so are they personally responsible? Are they really doing bad if they were incited into this through psychological manipulation by the police provocateurs?

At the end of the day, you can say that there is no evidence that the police were trying to incite violence in Montebello. If that were the case though, the cops ought to have done a better job blending in with the crowd and especially should not have been toting around a stone, which connotes violence, when no one else was. The evidence is the admission by the police that those were their officers, coupled with the absolutely ridiculous outfits and behaviours shown in the video. If that doesn't point to an attempt to incite violence for you, I'm afraid the only thing that will do is the crowd actually erupting in violence. I have to say that would be convenient for your argument as well though. In that case, you could claim the crowd was prone to violence to begin with and the behaviours of the cops were not the actual cause of the crowd being incited to violence. You've set yourself up with a nice "heads I win, tails you lose" situation here.

[Saipan]

The undercover cops in this case chose the poorest cover imaginable

Like an undercover police car

All to do with poor training and "equal opportunity employment". Almost any moron can be a cop nowadays.

Still, they didn't break shopping windows or burn their own cars.

[Shakeyhands]

I appreciate where you're coming from, but I respectfully disagree with you.

Firstly, the police admitted they were undercover. That much we agree upon.

........ (snipped)

At the end of the day, you can say that there is no evidence that the police were trying to incite violence in Montebello. If that were the case though, the cops ought to have done a better job blending in with the crowd and especially should not have been toting around a stone, which connotes violence, when no one else was. The evidence is the admission by the police that those were their officers, coupled with the absolutely ridiculous outfits and behaviours shown in the video. If that doesn't point to an attempt to incite violence for you, I'm afraid the only thing that will do is the crowd actually erupting in violence. I have to say that would be convenient for your argument as well though. In that case, you could claim the crowd was prone to violence to begin with and the behaviours of the cops were not the actual cause of the crowd being incited to violence. You've set yourself up with a nice "heads I win, tails you lose" situation here.

Bang on, great post.