Violent occupy protester 'it' assaults police officer!

[Signals.Cpl]

You explicitly advocated for the police to "bend the rules."

That is euphemism--directly and always--for "breaking the law."

Which you think is always wrong, without exception....

....except when authorities do it. Then it's ok, and those who criticize them are "safely typing away on their computers,"...sort of precisely what you are doing, by the way.

See, here is the thing, there are times where breaking the rules is a necessity. There are plenty of times where there is a grey area for a person as well, where the judicial system views all of the factors and then deals with the person based on the facts.

And yes, you are criticizing the police for doing a job, when you don't have a clear alternate plan of action where this riot could have been avoided. It is easy to criticize now, but at the point in time the local police CO was working with the information on hand which might or might not be complete. If you have a plan where this could be avoided in the future, be my guest write it up nicely and pass it off to the public relations staff of the TPS, I am sure they would appreciate the input of an armchair general. And yes I am safely typing away behind my keyboard, but see, when I go to work I always tend to meet nut cases like you, who judge me and the uniform I wear without knowing a thing about either. People that are mis informed or uninformed tend to make the loudest critics.

[eyeball]

Well if you take it out of context sure.

You put pedophilia into a thread about protesting and I'm taking things out of context. Okay.

So If I am a protestor during say the G20, and I was holding my placard and doing my chant with no reason for an officer tho suspect me, then I would not expect an officer to come and try to push me to commit violence.

So next time there's a protest and the state tells the protesters that entrapment is illegal and unjustified but does it anyways and law abiding people are on the sidelines cheering on the state...

What was that you babbled about anarchy is anarchy is anarchy again?

[g_bambino]

You put pedophilia into a thread about protesting and I'm taking things out of context. Okay.

He used police posing online as young children as one of a couple of examples of actions the cops take to catch criminals in a way that's similar to when police disguise themselves and infiltrate gangs of anarchist protesters and attempt to motivate people in the crowd to commit violence. It's not that hard to figure out.

[ed.: +]

Edited April 3, 2012 by g_bambino

[g_bambino]

I was talking about the larger issue of police involvement in mob violence, not that particular situation.

I you say so.

[eyeball]

He used police posing online as young children as one of a couple of examples of actions the cops take to catch criminals in a way that's similar to when police disguise themselves and infiltrate gangs of anarchist protesters and attempt to motivate people in the crowd to commit violence. It's not that hard to figure out.

[ed.: +]

No, it's not hard to figure out at all. The cops weren't there to bust an organized gang, they were there to do what the gang was allegedly doing which is provoke the legitimate protesters in the crowd into committing violence. There are worse things than entrapment that state authorities are just as likely to commit these days.

Edited April 3, 2012 by eyeball

[g_bambino]

The cops... were there to... provoke the legitimate protesters in the crowd into committing violence.

I'll assume by "legitimate protesters" you mean people who weren't dressed in the anarchist uniform. If so: proof, please.

[eyeball]

I'll assume by "legitimate protesters" you mean people who weren't dressed in the anarchist uniform. If so: proof, please.

We'd need to infiltrate the police, and more importantly the circles their political masters occupy to get that sort of proof. As I recall, you're vehemently opposed to the public penetrating the state's secrecy to the extent it would take to do that.

[Signals.Cpl]

No, it's not hard to figure out at all. The cops weren't there to bust an organized gang, they were there to do what the gang was allegedly doing which is provoke the legitimate protesters in the crowd into committing violence. There are worse things than entrapment that state authorities are just as likely to commit these days.

You cannot say it is perfectly fine to use this tactic on some people yet not on others. At this point you are saying that if a pedophile, drug dealer, gang banger or any other criminal has less rights then a rioter?

Are any of these cases different?

Case 1:

http://m.winnipegsun.com/2011/12/02/jail-time-for-mother-daughter-murder-plotters

http://www.thepeterboroughexaminer.com/ArticleDisplay.aspx?e=2618836&archive=true

Case 2:

http://www.ctvbc.ctv.ca/servlet/an/local/CTVNews/20100806/bc_online_child_sex_100806?hub=BritishColumbiaHome

http://www.vancouversun.com/news/Court+upholds+Craigslist+lure+seeking/6213003/story.html

If you notice both cases have officers involved, the first one the officer pretended to be a hit man, while in the second one the officers were looking child predators, if you read the second one, entrapment was brought up and subsequently dismissed because there was none.

There are worse things than entrapment that state authorities are just as likely to commit these days.

Please elaborate, with evidence.

Edited April 3, 2012 by Signals.Cpl

[g_bambino]

We'd need to infiltrate the police...

Thanks for ignoring my request.

[Signals.Cpl]

We'd need to infiltrate the police, and more importantly the circles their political masters occupy to get that sort of proof. As I recall, you're vehemently opposed to the public penetrating the state's secrecy to the extent it would take to do that.

You mean the political masters that were democratically elected?

[eyeball]

Thanks for ignoring my request.

Try a realistic one perhaps.

[eyeball]

You mean the political masters that were democratically elected?

Nope, I mean the one's that were bought and paid for by the special moneyed interests that today's state governments serve first.

[Signals.Cpl]

Nope, I mean the one's that were bought and paid for by the special moneyed interests that today's state governments serve first.

And who exactly are they?

[eyeball]

You cannot say it is perfectly fine to use this tactic on some people yet not on others. At this point you are saying that if a pedophile, drug dealer, gang banger or any other criminal has less rights then a rioter?

Are any of these cases different?

Vastly different. Protesters represent a political threat to the state and the others represent a criminal threat to society.

Please elaborate, with evidence.

You give me the power to penetrate the state's secrecy and you're on.

In the meantime and for all we know, the cops started the rioting. Personally I'd trust a protester before I'd trust a cop any day of the week.

[eyeball]

And who exactly are they?

It's a secret.

[Signals.Cpl]

Vastly different. Protesters represent a political threat to the state and the others represent a criminal threat to society.

You give me the power to penetrate the state's secrecy and you're on.

In the meantime and for all we know, the cops started the rioting. Personally I'd trust a protester before I'd trust a cop any day of the week.

They are the exactly the same, In one the police throw out some bait and see who bites it, and in the other the police throw out some bait and see who bites it. No one forced the guy in BC to go and try to have sex with an underage girl, the story itself says when most men heard it was about an underage girl they turned it down. Likewise if the police say, umm lets light this car on fire, if you have no interest in doing that, you will turn around and walk away, if you do it, you would have done it with or without police prompt and you are guilty.

You now what, you are entitled to your opinion no matter how stupid it is.

[Signals.Cpl]

It's a secret.

In other words, you are making this up. Wow the value of your posts went down even further, I did not think it was possible but damn you are talented.

[eyeball]

In other words, you are making this up.

No, it's pretty clear that almost all governments policies are heavily influenced if not guided by the same corporate interests that are often as much the focus of protesters as the state. I'm certainly no more privy to the meetings between their lobbyists and our representatives than the protesters are, and I'm not making that up at all.

[Signals.Cpl]

No, it's pretty clear that almost all governments policies are heavily influenced if not guided by the same corporate interests that are often as much the focus of protesters as the state. I'm certainly no more privy to the meetings between their lobbyists and our representatives than the protesters are, and I'm not making that up at all.

There is a book out, that describes in more detail what you are thinking of, but the idea is less sinister.

Republic Lost by Lawrence Lessig. although it is about the US congress it has certain application to Canada as well.

[g_bambino]

Try a realistic one perhaps.

Ah. Well, thanks for admitting your claim was bullshit.

[eyeball]

There is a book out, that describes in more detail what you are thinking of, but the idea is less sinister.

Republic Lost by Lawrence Lessig. although it is about the US congress it has certain application to Canada as well.

Thinking human beings don't need a book to recognize an application that has been serving power and wealth pretty since we climbed down from the trees.

As for officials outright engineering a violent provocation to produce the political spectacle that segues to their theatrical security measures, I think it happens all the time. I certainly wouldn't put it past our own officials but that said I would expect their effort to turn to shit like just about everything else they touch.

[eyeball]

Ah. Well, thanks for admitting your claim was bullshit.

That you're vehemently opposed to the public penetrating the state's secrecy?

That's a well known fact.

[Signals.Cpl]

Thinking human beings don't need a book to recognize an application that has been serving power and wealth pretty since we climbed down from the trees.

As for officials outright engineering a violent provocation to produce the political spectacle that segues to their theatrical security measures, I think it happens all the time. I certainly wouldn't put it past our own officials but that said I would expect their effort to turn to shit like just about everything else they touch.

What do you smoke again?

[eyeball]

What do you smoke again?

I took a drag from the same pipe you just passed me.

You've got no business calling other people an idiot.

[g_bambino]

That's a well known fact.

As much as your penchant for leprechauns in drag.