Violent occupy protester 'it' assaults police officer!

[Signals.Cpl]

The police inciting violence makes sense?

It's illegal.

Also, disgusting.

Also, only ever committed by authoritarian, shivering little moral weaklings.

I do believe it is distasteful but when all is said and done, it is in my mind a legitimate tactic to out potential violent protestors. If a cop walks in to a protest under cover and starts prompting people to commit violence, do you think that the officer hold blame for those actions? It may be a great tactic that is successful or it may be extremely unsuccessful but that is to be determined by people with much more experience in this matters then me. I personally support the police in their fight to defend every citizen from the few violent criminals in a protest. Sometimes the end justifies the means. And again if I go to a protest with the intention of being peaceful there would be virtually nothing that anyone can say to me to make me commit violent acts, people who fall for those actions should be arrested because they a. intended to commit violence anyway b. or they are just so exceptionally stupid and taking them out of the protest might just be a good deed for the protestors in general. I for one prefer if police goad someone intend on destruction so that they can be arrested in a safe and controlled environment before they commit the actions they already intended to commit. If I was at the protest with a molotov cocktail, and a police officer suggested I do something, well, once I pull it out and the cop arrests me in a quick and safe manner so as to allow the protest to continue without the destruction and potential bloodshed that could have resulted.

To me there is a line, if the line has not been crossed then the action is legitimate, albeit distasteful. If the police suggest violence to arrest the violent protestors, great, but the line is when the police provide intellectual and/or material support in the commission of the violent act and then stop it. By this I mean if police suggest "lets burn the car" and then proposes how to do it, after which providing the fuel and matches, I believe it is too much.

[Black Dog]

Now where there abuses by the police during the G20? Sure, there were some, but shifting the blame and going to the automatic reply of "Blame the Police" infuriates me as it seems that many people treat violent hooligans as the victims whenever anything pops up about protesters and police. I think to avoid anything like the G20 in the future, there needs to be a more clear definition of undesirable intolerable behaviour, and clear and immediate punishments. The idea would be give the media attention to the rightful protesters and avoid making it a circus.

All of your arguments on the thread would make sense if the police heavy-handedness during the G20 was in any way tied to stopping violent protesters. But it wasn't.

[GostHacked]

I do believe it is distasteful but when all is said and done, it is in my mind a legitimate tactic to out potential violent protestors. If a cop walks in to a protest under cover and starts prompting people to commit violence, do you think that the officer hold blame for those actions?

100% yes. Cops are there to make sure the peace is kept, not to incite violence so they have a reason to crack down on people. This is called entrapment and is illegal. Your willfull ignorance is astounding. One more time, the Montebello police and the Quebec provincial police BOTH had to admit that the agent provocateurs were indeed cops. Even when the police they use this tactic to start some kind of trouble, people like you just brush it off, not quite understanding what is taking place here.

It may be a great tactic that is successful or it may be extremely unsuccessful but that is to be determined by people with much more experience in this matters then me. I personally support the police in their fight to defend every citizen from the few violent criminals in a protest.

And yet you defend the cops starting the violence in the first place. That is not defending citizens, that is setting them up.

Sometimes the end justifies the means. And again if I go to a protest with the intention of being peaceful there would be virtually nothing that anyone can say to me to make me commit violent acts, people who fall for those actions should be arrested because they a. intended to commit violence anyway b. or they are just so exceptionally stupid and taking them out of the protest might just be a good deed for the protestors in general.

A good deed would be protecting the protestors from the leaders screwing us over. These cops don't realize once the powers that be screw us over through the cops, these same people will screw the cops over. We need them on our side. Since they are on the other side, they will use criminal tactics to 'the end justifies the means'. And guess who gets screwed in the end? You do.

The leaders don't want protest,they don't want dissent, they don't want smart people taking to the streets and calling them out for their criminal actions.

I for one prefer if police goad someone intend on destruction so that they can be arrested in a safe and controlled environment before they commit the actions they already intended to commit. If I was at the protest with a molotov cocktail, and a police officer suggested I do something, well, once I pull it out and the cop arrests me in a quick and safe manner so as to allow the protest to continue without the destruction and potential bloodshed that could have resulted.

Entrapment if the person was not goaded into violence from an undercover cop, the person may have never done anything in the first place. The cop is ilegally inciting violence to take place. That is NOT the role of a cop. If those orders came from above, both the cops carrying out those orders and the cops giving the orders should all be fired and possibly jailed for their crimes.

To me there is a line, if the line has not been crossed then the action is legitimate, albeit distasteful.

If it's distasteful to you, then you should question the legitimacy of these entrapment tactics by the police.

If the police suggest violence to arrest the violent protestors, great,

Even when the cops start the violence? Do you understand what you are advocating here?

but the line is when the police provide intellectual and/or material support in the commission of the violent act and then stop it. By this I mean if police suggest "lets burn the car" and then proposes how to do it, after which providing the fuel and matches, I believe it is too much.

Yes it is too much, but the rest of your post indicated you support these kinds of tactics.

[eyeball]

I do believe it is distasteful but when all is said and done, it is in my mind a legitimate tactic to out potential violent protestors.

It doesn't matter how you feel, it's against the law and just 20 odd minutes ago you said;

Anarchy is anarchy is anarchy. Neither race nor color nor frustration is an excuse for either lawlessness or anarchy.”

You're completely full of crap, it's just that simple.

Edited April 3, 2012 by eyeball

[Signals.Cpl]

100% yes. Cops are there to make sure the peace is kept, not to incite violence so they have a reason to crack down on people. This is called entrapment and is illegal. Your willfull ignorance is astounding. One more time, the Montebello police and the Quebec provincial police BOTH had to admit that the agent provocateurs were indeed cops. Even when the police they use this tactic to start some kind of trouble, people like you just brush it off, not quite understanding what is taking place here.

And yet you defend the cops starting the violence in the first place. That is not defending citizens, that is setting them up.

A good deed would be protecting the protestors from the leaders screwing us over. These cops don't realize once the powers that be screw us over through the cops, these same people will screw the cops over. We need them on our side. Since they are on the other side, they will use criminal tactics to 'the end justifies the means'. And guess who gets screwed in the end? You do.

The leaders don't want protest,they don't want dissent, they don't want smart people taking to the streets and calling them out for their criminal actions.

Entrapment if the person was not goaded into violence from an undercover cop, the person may have never done anything in the first place. The cop is ilegally inciting violence to take place. That is NOT the role of a cop. If those orders came from above, both the cops carrying out those orders and the cops giving the orders should all be fired and possibly jailed for their crimes.

If it's distasteful to you, then you should question the legitimacy of these entrapment tactics by the police.

Even when the cops start the violence? Do you understand what you are advocating here?

Yes it is too much, but the rest of your post indicated you support these kinds of tactics.

I agree with you, protestors are idiots, so we should ban all protests from now on since they themselves cannot restraint themselves when someone suggests violence. But then again, I should probably stop talking to you, because you might take one of my comments as suggestion and then go and cry to someone that the big scary guy online suggested you do something or other. I have the intelligence to know when something is right or wrong, and thus no amount of suggestion can prompt me to do something illegal unless I had already planned to do said illegal action.

And yes, I support a wide verity of tactics because police are responsible to the government and the government is responsible to the people. The police is not responsible to take orders from a small segment of society that happen to disagree with the mainstream choices. What this boils down to is that people who cannot take responsibility for their actions blame the police on any and every occasion in order to escape blame.

A good deed would be protecting the protestors from the leaders screwing us over. These cops don't realize once the powers that be screw us over through the cops, these same people will screw the cops over. We need them on our side. Since they are on the other side, they will use criminal tactics to 'the end justifies the means'. And guess who gets screwed in the end? You do.

That is officially the most idiotic thing I have EVER heard.

I don't know if you are aware of this, but the Police like the military have a rank structure and a chain of command. Individual officers might or might not agree with you but they are not supposed to express their personal beliefs about certain things while in uniform.

Orders are passed down from the top, police officers joining the protesters would mean that the government would simply bring in the RCMP, and the military under the Emergencies Act as this would be a national emergency. Police in a democratic nation have the power and responsibility to uphold the laws of the nations weather they support or oppose the standing DEMOCRATICALLY elected government. If every body believes that the Conservative government was and is screwing them over, Why did the Conservatives get a majority?

[bleeding heart]

I do believe it is distasteful but when all is said and done, it is in my mind a legitimate tactic to out potential violent protestors. If a cop walks in to a protest under cover and starts prompting people to commit violence, do you think that the officer hold blame for those actions? It may be a great tactic that is successful or it may be extremely unsuccessful but that is to be determined by people with much more experience in this matters then me.

Yes, well, to your credit, you probably do have no experience at all in the performance of illegal entrapment....but at least some of those whom you're defending decidedly do. It's odd that you'd advocate for it (or defend it in any way).

Entrapment is an issue because it causes crime that might not otherwise occur.

Just think about it; what you're really saying is thta if somebody would commit a crime, in the right circumstances, then there's nothing wrong with, well, helping it along, so to speak.

That's in opposition to our principles of justice. We don't try to get people to commit crimes...and then arrest them for it!

It's lunacy.

And yes, I certainly hold blame for the officer in question.

So does the law itself.

I for one prefer if police goad someone intend on destruction so that they can be arrested in a safe and controlled environment before they commit the actions they already intended to commit.

but we wouldn't know if they already intended to commit destruction. It might well be that they wouldn't have, if it weren't for the professional instigator.

To me there is a line, if the line has not been crossed then the action is legitimate, albeit distasteful.

It isn't legitimate. It's illegal.

You're supporting and defending crime.

I guess that makes you one of the very people you here rail against.

[Signals.Cpl]

It doesn't matter how you feel, it's against the law and just 20 odd minutes ago you said;

You're completely full of crap, it's just that simple.

I think that you are an idiot, I never suggested to carry out the violent acts, but to prompt people who are bent on committing violent crimes to do said crime and be stopped in time. If someone is incapable of resisting any suggestion or provocation, maybe they should not be a part of a Civilized society Violence is wrong and to be avoided as much as possible, but when a minority defies to disrupt the majority then I would suggest tat violence is needed.

Being peaceful in the face of animals bent on violence solves nothing and would actually embolden them. Thats precisely why peacekeeping never works by itself. When one side wants violence the answer is violence.

Just because you are frustrated by the government you should not take it to the streets with violence, go to the polls, if the party you support does not win, maybe it is a statement that democracy works and your fellow citizens do not agree with your idiotic support for a bunch of animals that destroyed property that was owned by people who had nothing to do with the protests.

[Signals.Cpl]

Yes, well, to your credit, you probably do have no experience at all in the performance of illegal entrapment....but at least some of those whom you're defending decidedly do. It's odd that you'd advocate for it (or defend it in any way).

Entrapment is an issue because it causes crime that might not otherwise occur.

Just think about it; what you're really saying is thta if somebody would commit a crime, in the right circumstances, then there's nothing wrong with, well, helping it along, so to speak.

That's in opposition to our principles of justice. We don't try to get people to commit crimes...and then arrest them for it!

It's lunacy.

And yes, I certainly hold blame for the officer in question.

So does the law itself.

but we wouldn't know if they already intended to commit destruction. It might well be that they wouldn't have, if it weren't for the professional instigator.

It isn't legitimate. It's illegal.

You're supporting and defending crime.

I guess that makes you one of the very people you here rail against.

You are right, I come to a protest with any home made weapon, I am going for peaceful reasons. If the protestors can police themselves and assist police in identifying the troublemakers then there would be no problem at all. But when Police face a wall of silence at every turn then they have to resort to some tactics that are controversial in order to do their job, I agree with them. I am not a police officer and I assume neither are you, therefore I do not have the experience nor knowledge to be able to tell them how they do their job. As long as the result is positive and they catch people who are bent on violence before they commit the violence I am satisfied. There are legal tactics and illegal tactics, but also there is a grey area, as long as the public is protected and the offenders are apprehended or the violence in prevented I am satisfied.

[bleeding heart]

You are right, I come to a protest with any home made weapon, I am going for peaceful reasons.

Please. You can't just invent scenarios to add to the original hypothetical in order to score points.

But when Police face a wall of silence at every turn then they have to resort to some tactics that are controversial in order to do their job, I agree with them.

Illegal, Signals.Cpl. Not controversial; illegal. You're supporting a crime in your argument.

Fine, go ahead, but don't dishonestly pretend you haven't yet been educated about this uncomfortable fact.

Or that it stinks of hypocrisy: no one should ever commit crimes...except the noble police, who are inherently heroic and justified.

I am not a police officer and I assume neither are you, therefore I do not have the experience nor knowledge to be able to tell them how they do their job.

Both you and I have every right to demand that they follow the law.

And they have zero right to break the law.

[g_bambino]

Really?

Yeah. Really.

And of course this...

http://rabble.ca/

That tells me a lot about where you're coming from, jacee.

[Signals.Cpl]

Please. You can't just invent scenarios to add to the original hypothetical in order to score points.

Illegal, Signals.Cpl. Not controversial; illegal. You're supporting a crime in your argument.

Fine, go ahead, but don't dishonestly pretend you haven't yet been educated about this uncomfortable fact.

Or that it stinks of hypocrisy: no one should ever commit crimes...except the noble police, who are inherently heroic and justified.

Both you and I have every right to demand that they follow the law.

And they have zero right to break the law.

I'm sorry, I was repeating something I had said previously with different example. The basic concept is if you go prepared for violence, the police will not be prompting you to do anything you weren't already ready,willing and prepared to do.

They have zero right to break the law, I agree, but I see the act in question as protecting my family, and the other 5million Toronto Citizens. I have nothing but the upmost respect for the police as when its weapons free, everyone starts running AWAY from the gunfire, while police run towards it thats precisely why I believe they deserve the benefit of the doubt and the grey area. They risk their lives to protect us, so why not give them leeway to remove dangerous UNPRODUCTIVE people from a potentially explosive situation thus saving lives. I prefer they bend the rules and keep people alive then have them look my parents in the eyes and inform them that I was killed by a protestor and it was "illegal" to stop them. And to be fair, I will give you your argument, because it is easy to argue from the safety of your home, two years after the events in question, the police did the best they could in a bad situation. If they needed to use a dirty trick or two to keep those useless pieces of garbage from doing worse then by all means I applause them and would by each officer involved a coffee if given a chance.

[g_bambino]

All of your arguments on the thread would make sense if the police heavy-handedness during the G20 was in any way tied to stopping violent protesters. But it wasn't.

You're assuming heavy-handedness must always be used in a reactionary fashion. It can legally be used as a preventative measure.

There was a failure to prevent violence on the Saturday. The police's tactics seemed to have changed by Sunday. There was no further widespread damage.

[g_bambino]

Entrapment if the person was not goaded into violence from an undercover cop, the person may have never done anything in the first place.

It's not entrapment if the target was willing and intending to break the law and an officer merely provides what seems to the target to be a favourable opportunity to commit the crime. The Supreme Court has stated that police may present an opportunity to commit a crime if they have reasonable suspicion that either the target or the place where the target is located is associated with criminal activity, though the police's persistence is limited.

Do you think the group of people around the undercover cops at Montebello are dressed and equipped in a way that's indicative of a planned peaceful protest?

A good deed would be protecting the protestors from the leaders screwing us over. These cops don't realize once the powers that be screw us over through the cops, these same people will screw the cops over. Since they are on the other side, they will use criminal tactics to 'the end justifies the means'. And guess who gets screwed in the end? You do.

The leaders don't want protest,they don't want dissent, they don't want smart people taking to the streets and calling them out for their criminal actions.

A conspiracy hatched at rabble.ca if I ever heard one!

[ed.: +]

Edited April 3, 2012 by g_bambino

[DogOnPorch]

A conspiracy hatched at rabble.ca if I ever heard one!

[ed.: +]

His open display of Prison Planet in his sig was my first clue.

[GostHacked]

It's not entrapment if the target was willing and intending to break the law and an officer merely provides what seems to the target to be a favourable opportunity to commit the crime.

Then technically that is the cop aiding and abetting.

The Supreme Court has stated that police may present an opportunity to commit a crime if they have reasonable suspicion that either the target or the place where the target is located is associated with criminal activity, though the police's persistence is limited.

So they light the match instead of diffusing and trying to actually avoid the whole problem. The cops are actually starting the violence. That is disgusting.

Do you think the group of people around the undercover cops at Montebello are dressed and equipped in a way that's indicative of a planned peaceful protest?

The only ones carrying any kind of weapon were the cops acting as agent provocateurs. The video clearly shows that. Open your eyes.

It's no conspiracy. It actually happened.

[GostHacked]

His open display of Prison Planet in his sig was my first clue.

So tell me, am I wrong about Montebello? I don't need Alex to show me that the cops were the ones trying to incite the violence at Montebello.

[g_bambino]

That is disgusting.

Whatever your opinion is, the action you're opining on cannot be classified as entrapment.

The only ones carrying any kind of weapon were the cops acting as agent provocateurs. The video clearly shows that.

No, it doesn't.

Regardless, you didn't answer my question. For your convenience: Do you think the group of people around the undercover cops at Montebello are dressed and equipped in a way that's indicative of a planned peaceful protest?

[ed.: +]

Edited April 3, 2012 by g_bambino

[bleeding heart]

I'm sorry, I was repeating something I had said previously with different example. The basic concept is if you go prepared for violence, the police will not be prompting you to do anything you weren't already ready,willing and prepared to do.

I'm not sure that's true. Clearly they're prompting you to do something you're willing to do...but not that you'd necessarily do it. There's a difference, and a big one, between someone who is willing to break the law but isn't breaking it, and someone who is breaking it.

Don't instigate potential criminals. That's ridiculous (and, yet again I should point out, it is illegal...and obviously the police know it is illegal).

Meeting trouble halfway in this manner is irresponsible.

You know what police are called when they commit crimes? Criminals. By definition, uncontroversially.

They're criminals, and that's the way they should be treated.

They have zero right to break the law, I agree, but I see the act in question as protecting my family, and the other 5million Toronto Citizens. I have nothing but the upmost respect for the police as when its weapons free, everyone starts running AWAY from the gunfire, while police run towards it thats precisely why I believe they deserve the benefit of the doubt and the grey area.

I too believe they deserve some benefit of the doubt, in certain situations. Similarly, when soldiers do awful things, including illegal, unsanctioned things in the heat of battle, I think circumstances should be taken into account. (Though I believe those not in the heat of battle--whether military brass or the civilian leadership--should not be viewed this way in light of criminal activity, and should be given no more leeway than anyone else.)

They risk their lives to protect us, so why not give them leeway to remove dangerous UNPRODUCTIVE people from a potentially explosive situation thus saving lives. I prefer they bend the rules and keep people alive then have them look my parents in the eyes and inform them that I was killed by a protestor and it was "illegal" to stop them.

First of all, the number of people who have been actually killed by protesters is vanishingly small. I can't think of any, but even if it has happened on occasion, it's not statistically relevant enough to warrant illegal behaviour on the part of the police. So I don't buy that particular argument.

And as for leeway--they've already got it, Signals. They are allowed the use of force that the rest of us simply are not; and I have little problem with that.

I'm talking about them abusing their power, and abusing the leeway they already possess.

And to be fair, I will give you your argument, because it is easy to argue from the safety of your home, two years after the events in question

What, only those involved have any right to speak of the situation?

Or, more specifically, only the authorities' view on such matters is what counts?

Not in this type of society, thankfully; only in dictatorships and police states.

the police did the best they could in a bad situation.

How in the world could you possibly know that? That they "did the best they could"? That's idle speculation, and faith-based at that.

If they needed to use a dirty trick or two to keep those useless pieces of garbage from doing worse then by all means I applause them and would by each officer involved a coffee if given a chance.

And I would mock him, and try to "instigate" violence on his part, and then have him charged with assault if he committed it against me.

All with your support and applause, of course.

Edited April 3, 2012 by bleeding heart

[Signals.Cpl]

Bleeding Heart, lets go rob a bank.

Edited April 3, 2012 by Signals.Cpl

[Signals.Cpl]

I'm not sure that's true. Clearly they're prompting you to do something you're willing to do...but not that you'd necessarily do it. There's a difference, and a big one, between someone who is willing to break the law but isn't breaking it, and someone who is breaking it.

Don't instigate potential criminals. That's ridiculous (and, yet again I should point out, it is illegal...and obviously the police know it is illegal).

Meeting trouble halfway in this manner is irresponsible.

You know what police are called when they commit crimes? Criminals. By definition, uncontroversially.

They're criminals, and that's the way they should be treated.

I too believe they deserve some benefit of the doubt, in certain situations. Similarly, when soldiers do awful things, including illegal, unsanctioned things in the heat of battle, I think circumstances should be taken into account. (Though I believe those not in the heat of battle--whether military brass or the civilian leadership--should not be viewed this way in light of criminal activity, and should be given no more leeway than anyone else.)

First of all, the number of people who have been actually killed by protesters is vanishingly small. I can't think of any, but even if it has happened on occasion, it's not statistically relevant enough to warrant illegal behaviour on the part of the police. So I don't buy that particular argument.

And as for leeway--they've already got it, Signals. They are allowed the use of force that the rest of us simply are not; and I have little problem with that.

I'm talking about them abusing their power, and abusing the leeway they already possess.

And to be fair, I will give you your argument, because it is easy to argue from the safety of your home, two years after the events in question

What, only those involved have any right to speak of the situation?

Or, more specifically, only the authorities' view on such matters is what counts?

Not in this type of society, thankfully; only in dictatorships and police states.

the police did the best they could in a bad situation.

How in the world could you possibly know that? That they "did the best they could"? That's idle speculation, and faith-based at that.

If they needed to use a dirty trick or two to keep those useless pieces of garbage from doing worse then by all means I applause them and would by each officer involved a coffee if given a chance.

And I would mock him, and try to "instigate" violence on his part, and then have him charged with assault if he committed it against me.

All with your support and applause, of course.

All I have to say is, internet tough guys, generally don't have the nerve to go and say anything to a police officer. You seem really naive and ignorant, and I guess you are one of the people who tend to complain about their crappy life and blame everyone around them. I have seen the tough guys like yourself, mock and instigate from afar, but when the person is close not a peep is heard.

[g_bambino]

Don't instigate potential criminals. That's ridiculous (and, yet again I should point out, it is illegal...).

Once again: No, it's not.

[GostHacked]

Whatever your opinion is, the action you're opining on cannot be classified as entrapment.

Whatever your opinion is on cops inciting violence to justify the means is absolutely wrong as well.

Regardless, you didn't answer my question. For your convenience: Do you think the group of people around the undercover cops at Montebello are dressed and equipped in a way that's indicative of a planned peaceful protest?

Considering they were the ones who outed the cops, then yes.

[GostHacked]

Once again: No, it's not.

How about citing a law quote or something instead of quoting me which goes against your argument.

[Signals.Cpl]

Whatever your opinion is on cops inciting violence to justify the means is absolutely wrong as well.

Considering they were the ones who outed the cops, then yes.

Since you are an expert, please outline a detailed plan on how to prevent the events during G20, without taking anyone's right. But I guess you cannot come up with anything mainly because its a lot easier and safer sitting behind a keyboard and criticizing while someone else does the heavy lifting.

[g_bambino]

Whatever your opinion is on cops inciting violence to justify the means is absolutely wrong as well.

Again, that's your opinion. Express it to your MP.

Considering they were the ones who outed the cops, then yes.

That's a non sequitur response; I asked about the way the protesters are dressed and equipped, which they decided upon, organised, and carried out before arriving at the site, before realising there were police amongst them. So, for the third time: Do you think the group of people around the undercover cops at Montebello are dressed and equipped in a way that's indicative of a planned peaceful protest?

[ed.: +]

Edited April 3, 2012 by g_bambino