Police state part 2

Saipan · March 1, 2011

I've seen the video. Some guy claimig the mask huligans are police. One of them was actually captured by police and taken down as he tried to ram through.

Anything is possible, but where is the evidence? What is your point?

cybercoma · March 1, 2011

I've seen the video. Some guy claimig the mask huligans are police. One of them was actually captured by police and taken down as he tried to ram through.

Anything is possible, but where is the evidence? What is your point?

The evidence is the Quebec Provincial Police admitting that they were undercover cops. <_<

g_bambino · March 1, 2011

The evidence is the Quebec Provincial Police admitting that they were undercover cops.

But the claim was that police incite violence. The video didn't prove that; it only proved something that's been known for a long time: police go undercover.

Shakeyhands · March 1, 2011

But the claim was that police incite violence. The video didn't prove that; it only proved something that's been known for a long time: police go undercover.

Thats right, that "undercover" officer was also a part time landscaper, and that rock in his hand would have just looked better over there...

g_bambino · March 1, 2011

Thats right, that "undercover" officer was also a part time landscaper, and that rock in his hand would have just looked better over there...

Part of his disguise, to better blend in? That's just speculation, of course. And so are your insinuations.

GostHacked · March 1, 2011

But the claim was that police incite violence. The video didn't prove that; it only proved something that's been known for a long time: police go undercover.

I am sure shoving other protesters (once called out to be cops) and carrying a rock and hiding your face is for good intentions. Yes indeed these are our boys in blue who are trying to start violence.

And ya gotta love the way the one cop tapped the shield of the other cop. Compare that take down with other real take downs. Huge difference.

Saipan · March 1, 2011

Doesn't look like anything to do with G20. Something out of a frogland.

Btw, when we send spies to any country they HAVE to be pretty believable.

No different than infiltrating biker gangs. But I can see some people have problem with that. They'd prefer to have psychic cops. Keep us safe from behind the desk.

GostHacked · March 1, 2011

Doesn't look like anything to do with G20. Something out of a frogland.

Btw, when we send spies to any country they HAVE to be pretty believable.

No different than infiltrating biker gangs. But I can see some people have problem with that. They'd prefer to have psychic cops. Keep us safe from behind the desk.

Infiltrating a known criminal organization with a loooooong history of violence is quite different from infiltrating peaceful protesters who want to have their voice heard in an open and free democratic society.

Troll harder Sapian.

Saipan · March 1, 2011

Infiltrating a known criminal organization with a loooooong history of violence is quite different from infiltrating peaceful protesters who want to have their voice heard in an open and free democratic society.

So you claim cops were breaking shopping windows, burning their own cars etc.

Where is the evidence?

GostHacked · March 1, 2011

So you claim cops were breaking shopping windows, burning their own cars etc.

Where is the evidence?

No, I made the claim that I suspected they were cops. We do not know for certain, unlike the Montebello incident, we DO know they were cops. It was admitted by the Montebello Police Department.

Read and comprehend before your next post. It might do you some good.

Saipan · March 1, 2011

Good advice. Take it.

Saipan · March 1, 2011

It's almost entertaining to hear the same people who see cops as the devil incarnate quoting police on how useful the gun registration is.

Not all police of course, just their favorite.

But then again, in all fairness, similar works both ways

Shakeyhands · March 1, 2011

Part of his disguise, to better blend in? That's just speculation, of course. And so are your insinuations.

I didn't see any of the other people holding rocks. What do you think his intentions where in having it? To better fit in?

Shakeyhands · March 1, 2011

Good advice. Take it.

I think you meant to say "Good advice. I'll take it. "

g_bambino · March 1, 2011

I didn't see any of the other people holding rocks.

So what? I can't even entirely convince myself that it's a rock he's holding; I saw something in his hand and I heard a fat man telling him to "drop the rock". Together, that would indicate he's holding a stone; but it's impossible to be totally sure with just this video as evidence. But, as I said, even if he were, that doesn't prove in itself he was there to incite violence. Also, most shoving done by the undercover cop seems to be in reaction to said fat man pushing the cop or grabbing at his mask; otherwise, the three of them just stand there, not saying anything.

But, what do observations like these matter to you or GhostHacked? You've both made up your minds, regardless of the lack of a full picture. Cops bad and violent, protesters good and peaceful (though, why peaceful protesters feel the need to cover their faces with bandanas or balaclavas is yet to be explained). Apparently the concept of innocent until proven guilty applies only to those who share your ideologies.

[c/e]

Edited March 1, 2011 by g_bambino

Saipan · March 1, 2011

What do you think his intentions where in having it?

Collecting minerals of course

Unless you seen him doing something else.

DrGreenthumb · March 1, 2011

Collecting minerals of course

Unless you seen him doing something else.

You sir, are a disgusting traitor to your fellow citizen. You are exactly the type of person who would be supporting Mbarak in Egypt or Ghadaffi in Libya. You simply worship authority. Except when the government wants you to have a record of what guns you own of course. Nut jobs like you shouldn't even be able to own a gun in the first place.

cybercoma · March 1, 2011

It was admitted by the Montebello Police Department.

It was admitted, but it wasn't the local PD. It was the provincial police force.

cybercoma · March 1, 2011

So what? I can't even entirely convince myself that it's a rock he's holding; I saw something in his hand and I heard a fat man telling him to "drop the rock". Together, that would indicate he's holding a stone; but it's impossible to be totally sure with just this video as evidence. But, as I said, even if he were, that doesn't prove in itself he was there to incite violence. Also, most shoving done by the undercover cop seems to be in reaction to said fat man pushing the cop or grabbing at his mask; otherwise, the three of them just stand there, not saying anything.

But, what do observations like these matter to you or GhostHacked? You've both made up your minds, regardless of the lack of a full picture. Cops bad and violent, protesters good and peaceful (though, why peaceful protesters feel the need to cover their faces with bandanas or balaclavas is yet to be explained). Apparently the concept of innocent until proven guilty applies only to those who share your ideologies.

[c/e]

Your blind ignorance is amazing. Quite clearly the guy is holding a rock and equally as clear is it that he's out of place with his black bandana and aggressive behaviour. That you can't even admit that this was completely inappropriate, so much so that you claim you don't even know if it's a rock that he's holding, shows that is you who have come to a preconceived conclusion that all cops are good, regardless of what they do. No one else has claimed that ALL cops are bad, just the ones that abuse innocent civilians and incite violence. However, you're the one that can't even take the "all cops are good" blinders off for half a second to see the reality before your eyes.

GostHacked · March 1, 2011

It was admitted, but it wasn't the local PD. It was the provincial police force.

Well now, that's pretty interesting as well. Where else have the QPP done this? I would bet it's not an isolated incident.

GostHacked · March 1, 2011

So what? I can't even entirely convince myself that it's a rock he's holding; I saw something in his hand and I heard a fat man telling him to "drop the rock". Together, that would indicate he's holding a stone; but it's impossible to be totally sure with just this video as evidence. But, as I said, even if he were, that doesn't prove in itself he was there to incite violence. Also, most shoving done by the undercover cop seems to be in reaction to said fat man pushing the cop or grabbing at his mask; otherwise, the three of them just stand there, not saying anything.

But, what do observations like these matter to you or GhostHacked? You've both made up your minds, regardless of the lack of a full picture. Cops bad and violent, protesters good and peaceful (though, why peaceful protesters feel the need to cover their faces with bandanas or balaclavas is yet to be explained). Apparently the concept of innocent until proven guilty applies only to those who share your ideologies.

[c/e]

They matter because it's a case of the cops trying to initiate violence. Get mixed in with a heated crowd and light that tinder box. Cops should be there to diffuse the situation, not create it for the sole purpose of putting the boots to the peaceful protesters who would not initiate violence in the first place.

It's a psychological operation.

The thing is, and again you are missing the big point about the cops using special powers of arrest that were never granted to them. And we only found out that fact AFTER the summit was over.

So we have two huge things.

Cops abused their roles by illegal arrests under special powers that were never granted.

Citizens rights were blatantly violated.

And my ideologies include you having the freedom to spew all the garbage out of your mouth , regardless of my disagreements with them. I am standing up for both our rights. To bad you can't see that.

Shakeyhands · March 1, 2011

That you can't even admit that this was completely inappropriate, so much so that you claim you don't even know if it's a rock that he's holding,

To be fair, it could be one of these....

For communication?

cybercoma · March 1, 2011

To be fair, it could be one of these....

For communication?

Fair enough. He was just wandering around looking aggressive because he was trying to find an iPod. I stand corrected.

myata · March 1, 2011

Excellent direction myata, but I am having a hard time as seeing the G20 as any more important to human rights than Trudeau calling up the War Measures Act during the October Crisis in 1970. That was significant, the G20 was unfortunate, but currently under investigation.

Thanks... I never claimed that one was more important than the other. Rather both are the steps on rather worrying path.

Was the government competent to shut down peaceful democratic dissent when windows were being smashed and cars burned? Was the government authorized to prevent any further occurances of such acts. What concerns me the most - about the smashing windows and burning cars was whether there was some baiting going here to allow for the justification of ramping up the police forcefulness.

g_bambino answers this correctly in my mind. We can argue over due dilligence with regard to handling crowds that could potentially turn violent and cause property damage. However, the idea that damage or violence could happen at a G20 conference didn't materialize out of thin air. There was prededence.

What bambino, Toronto police chief and a bunch of politicians busily trying to swipe the affair under the carpet are failing to understand - or wouldn't want you to understand; or remember from picture books read in the school is that in a real democracy, the duty of the government is to protect both public order AND democratic rights of citizens including cornerstone in a democracy right to peaceful dissent.

They want you to start believing that the relationship is rather that of OR. You can have order, but at the expense of overreaching powers of police. That possibility, potential, virtual reality of disorder in the future can justify suppression of rights, police brutality in the real world now.

And that is Algeria.

No, I don't think so. Society is displaying those actions in our media and in government investigations and inquiries. That is the way it should be. Also, we are discussing this on an open forum and I am sure the Toronto G20 is getting lots of play in the public.

What investigations though? Who's seeing them? What do they investigate?

According to reports, police ignores these investigation, preferring the good old Algerian way of investigating themselves.

Yes the police chief may admit possibility of some wrongs. Yes it may have been unwise to club unarmed protester breaking his arm.. and so on. But overall, on the grand scale of things, the security and order had to be maintained, ne c'est pas? And so, on the grand scale of things, whatever the government did, or its agents, the police did must have been justified, wouldn't?

So, in the context of these "investigations", would we ever know the answers to questions like:

- Was there a gross mass violation of democratic right of citizens to peaceful protest? Who gave the order, who is responsible, and what sanction will they carry?

- Who gave the order to "corell" demonstrators, to invade and arrest without warrant, to use excessive force and to mistreat prisoners? How will they be held responsible?

- Who gave the order to allow small group of thugs to break order (amounting to dereliction of duty, for a public security service) and instead use excessive brutal force against peaceful demonstrators?

Good luck with finding answers. Because they, not the picture book, would tell us, eventually, if we are still a working democracy, or already somewhat of an Algeria.

This is your key point I think and well taken. No, we shouldn't "stay home" or, in the case of hundreds if not thousands of employees and workers, find someplace else to sit and do your job. I agree that the police situation was way over the top, the money spent was way over the top and the actions of a few ought to be brought to justice. However, not ALL of it is worthy of condemnation.

No, not all. But some specific acts are worthy not only of condemnation, but a real, meaningful sanction, or we couldn't call ourselves a free and democratic society, not in the full sense, not anymore.

The kicker is, from my point of view, that window smashing and car burning should not constitute permission for the denial of protest and should not constitute permission to bring violence against people. But are we in a minority over that? And where does one draw the line from propery damage to violence against persons?

But in the real democracy, there isn't, and there should be no line. The police should stop violent thug AND protect and defend peaceful protester. Anything less is the path to Algeria. Slow but steady.

Edited March 1, 2011 by myata

g_bambino · March 2, 2011

They matter because it's a case of the cops trying to initiate violence.

There you go again: absolute judgement without irrefutable evidence. Cops are guilty until proven innocent, protesters are innocent until proven guilty. Nice double standard; the G20 "special powers" red herring did nothing to disguise it.

[+]

Edited March 2, 2011 by g_bambino