Saipan Posted March 3, 2011 Report Posted March 3, 2011 If someone is committing a crime because they were programmed to do so are they personally responsible? No, if they act like Pavlov's dogs they should be on a leash or in a pen. Quote
g_bambino Posted March 3, 2011 Report Posted March 3, 2011 (edited) 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. I haven't mentioned a word about Montebello or the G20; you keep bringing them up and I'm not entirely sure why; they're not related to the posted videos at all. In the first video is a person the second video tells us was a police officer. He's holding what appears to be, and what another individual in the video calls a rock. The cop may have intended to throw that rock to get the violence started; he may have been carrying it in the same way he's wearing a black shirt and a bandana over his face: to blend in with the crowd of black clothed, masked protesters we see at the right of the screen so that, if they began assaulting people, the police would be there as first hand witnesses. I know you don't want to accept it because it doesn't help your crusade against rights violating police, but, in this case, there's simply no way to tell either way from the evidence provided. [+] Edited March 3, 2011 by g_bambino Quote
GostHacked Posted March 3, 2011 Report Posted March 3, 2011 Bang on, great post. Agreed, can't win either way with that kind of reasoning/logic. Quote
GostHacked Posted March 3, 2011 Report Posted March 3, 2011 (edited) I haven't mentioned a word about Montebello or the G20; you keep bringing them up and I'm not entirely sure why; they're not related to the posted videos at all. In the first video is a person the second video tells us was a police officer. He's holding what appears to be, and what another individual in the video calls a rock. The cop may have intended to throw that rock to get the violence started; he may have been carrying it in the same way he's wearing a black shirt and a bandana over his face: to blend in with the crowd of black clothed, masked protesters we see at the right of the screen so that, if they began assaulting people, the police would be there as first hand witnesses. I know you don't want to accept it because it doesn't help your crusade against rights violating police, but, in this case, there's simply no way to tell either way from the evidence provided. [+] You seem to be alone here with this line of thinking. Ever play connect the dots when you were a kid? Try it out. And why do we bring up the G20 and Montebello? Because they are relevant to the title of this thread. Edited March 3, 2011 by GostHacked Quote
GostHacked Posted March 3, 2011 Report Posted March 3, 2011 None of those questions are relevant to what I said. I don't level accusations on people without solid proof behind them. The solid proof is there. The solid proof is the Quebec Provincial Police's statement saying they were cops. Try trolling harder. Quote
cybercoma Posted March 3, 2011 Report Posted March 3, 2011 I haven't mentioned a word about Montebello or the G20; you keep bringing them up and I'm not entirely sure why; they're not related to the posted videos at all. Quote
cybercoma Posted March 3, 2011 Report Posted March 3, 2011 Sorry, gambino. I guess this is all just one big misunderstanding. You don't see the evidence because you don't have the slightest clue what the hell you're watching. Quote
g_bambino Posted March 3, 2011 Report Posted March 3, 2011 Sorry, gambino. I guess this is all just one big misunderstanding. No need to apologise. It must be difficult enough for you to go through life being unable to distinguish between your delusions and reality. My condolences. Quote
GostHacked Posted March 3, 2011 Report Posted March 3, 2011 No need to apologise. It must be difficult enough for you to go through life being unable to distinguish between your delusions and reality. My condolences. As long as you are comfortable with a police state, then sure, keep up that line of thinking. Quote
Shakeyhands Posted March 3, 2011 Report Posted March 3, 2011 Indeed. What the hell have we been talking about for the last 13 pages then? Quote "They muddy the water, to make it seem deep." - Friedrich Nietzsche
cybercoma Posted March 3, 2011 Report Posted March 3, 2011 What the hell have we been talking about for the last 13 pages then? I'm still trying to figure that out. Quote
myata Posted March 3, 2011 Author Report Posted March 3, 2011 As long as you are comfortable with a police state, then sure, keep up that line of thinking. The reality here must be The Government telling you when to go out and when stay home, and showing you baton, rubber bullet, strip search, night in a cold cage, and other such niceties (no exaggeration!), paid for by your own tax dollars, if you try to exercise your constitutional right to go. Quote If it's you or them, the truth is equidistant
Saipan Posted March 3, 2011 Report Posted March 3, 2011 Liberals went one step further and told you what property you may keep. Quote
cybercoma Posted March 3, 2011 Report Posted March 3, 2011 Liberals went one step further and told you what property you may keep. Did you really just compare people to property? Quote
Shakeyhands Posted March 3, 2011 Report Posted March 3, 2011 Did you really just compare people to property? Don't bother, he has a one track mind and rarely makes sense. Rarely... perhaps that is too strong a word. Quote "They muddy the water, to make it seem deep." - Friedrich Nietzsche
Saipan Posted March 4, 2011 Report Posted March 4, 2011 (edited) Did you really just compare people to property? YES. What do YOU think? Should property have more right than people to be defended with guns??? (think Brinks guards) Edited March 4, 2011 by Saipan Quote
Saipan Posted March 4, 2011 Report Posted March 4, 2011 Don't bother, he has a one track mind and rarely makes sense. Rarely... perhaps that is too strong a word. That also belongs to a thread "Problem with other posters" Quote
Shakeyhands Posted March 4, 2011 Report Posted March 4, 2011 That also belongs to a thread "Problem with other posters" Perhaps we need one. Nice to see your previous post to this one centers around gun control too. Consistent if nothing else. Quote "They muddy the water, to make it seem deep." - Friedrich Nietzsche
cybercoma Posted March 4, 2011 Report Posted March 4, 2011 (edited) YES. What do YOU think? Should property have more right than people to be defended with guns??? (think Brinks guards) Not that this even remotely has to do with anything, but aren't people defended with guns too? (think police and military) Of course, when Brinks guards turn their guns on the property they're protecting... it doesn't quite carry the same problems. Edited March 4, 2011 by cybercoma Quote
Saipan Posted March 4, 2011 Report Posted March 4, 2011 (edited) Not that this even remotely has to do with anything, but aren't people defended with guns too? NO. That is the biggest myth. How many homicide victims were protected? http://www.amazon.ca/Dial-911-Die-Richard-Stevens/dp/0964230445 Police have guns to protect themself. Of course, when Brinks guards turn their guns on the property they're protecting... it doesn't quite carry the same problems. What does "turn their guns on the property" really mean?? Do you have the same right to protect your money as the bank has?? Edited March 4, 2011 by Saipan Quote
Saipan Posted March 4, 2011 Report Posted March 4, 2011 Go start a gun control thread. So you admit POLICE is not protecting anyone but themself. In fact they are not legally required to do so. Quote
William Ashley Posted March 4, 2011 Report Posted March 4, 2011 NO. That is the biggest myth. How many homicide victims were protected? http://www.amazon.ca/Dial-911-Die-Richard-Stevens/dp/0964230445 Police have guns to protect themself. What does "turn their guns on the property" really mean?? Do you have the same right to protect your money as the bank has?? We should. Quote I was here.
cybercoma Posted March 4, 2011 Report Posted March 4, 2011 So you admit POLICE is not protecting anyone but themself. In fact they are not legally required to do so. Nothing gets past you. Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.