Violent occupy protester 'it' assaults police officer!

[GostHacked]

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.

The cops had the perfect opportunity to catch those who committed the crimes right there and then. While the cop cars burned the cops actually backed off and allowed it to happen. Why was back up not called and detain and arrest and charge those individuals right there on the spot? In several shots of that incident you can see the line of riot cops some distance off watching the whole spectacle.

And why were the ones surrounded at the intersection of Spedina corralled and arrested one by one the day after the cars where burned and the stores trashed?

[GostHacked]

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

I stick by the opinion. What you are advocating for is dangerous and against the principals of a so called democratic society.

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?

Yes they where. Is there a dress code for protesting?

Where the cops aka agent provocateurs dressed as peaceful protesters? If the rioters start the violence, then great crack heads. But if the cops incite others into violence then they themselves are the sole reason the riot starts. Without them, there would not have been a riot.

The cops were outed, and there is no way anyone here can apologize for their actions of inciting violence.

[g_bambino]

What you are advocating for is dangerous and against the principals of a so called democratic society.

I've neither championed it nor denigrated it. I merely pointed out your error. Again, if you object to the use of undercover police, tell your MP.

Yes they where [sic].

Then you're a very naive individual.

[ed.: c/e]

Edited April 3, 2012 by g_bambino

[GostHacked]

I've neither championed it nor denigrated it. I merely pointed out your error. Again, if you object to the use of undercover police, tell your MP.

Undercover police is not the issue. Using undercover police to incite others into violence for the sole purpose of inciting a riot so the police can start cracking heads. That was their purpose. They failed because the protesters , especially that union leader who called them out on it right there on the spot.

Then you're a very naive individual.

[ed.: c/e]

Don't be ignorant.

[bleeding heart]

Bleeding Heart, lets go rob a bank.

You go ahead.

You're the only one supporting criminal behaviour in this thread.

I'm opposing it wholesale.

[bleeding heart]

ame='bleeding heart' date='03 April 2012 - 12:44 PM' timestamp='1333475075' post='781260']

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.

Then you had trouble discerning my meaning. This is your fault.

I wasn't seriously suggesting instigating an officer to attack me.

I was applying a reductio ad absurdum to your argument.

Hell, tough guy, you're the one calling yourself a "big scary internet guy," not me.

[bleeding heart]

Once again: No, it's not.

Well, you're living within a different argument, not the one I am having with Signals.

Because our argument evolved (or devolved) into the hypothetical, I was informing him that instigating violence from someone who was not necessarily planning anything and for which there was no reasonable suspicion that he was planning anything, is, in fact, illegal.

To clarify, you have just offered the appropriate caveat, which is precisely the idea to which I was referring:

(a) the authorities provide a person with an opportunity to commit an offence without acting on a reasonable suspicion that this person is already engaged in criminal activity or pursuant to a bona fide inquiry;

Edited April 3, 2012 by bleeding heart

[Black Dog]

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

Nope. I'm saying in this case, it was absolutely a reactionary 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.

Correlation /= causation.

[g_bambino]

How about citing a law quote or something...

[T]he proper approach to the doctrine of entrapment is that which was articulated by Estey J. in Amato, supra, and elaborated upon in these reasons. As mentioned and explained earlier there is entrapment when,

(a) the authorities provide a person with an opportunity to commit an offence without acting on a reasonable suspicion that this person is already engaged in criminal activity or pursuant to a bona fide inquiry;

( although having such a reasonable suspicion or acting in the course of a bona fide inquiry, they go beyond providing an opportunity and induce the commission of an offence.

132. Since I am of the view that the doctrine of entrapment is not dependant upon culpability, the focus should not be on the effect of the police conduct on the accused's state of mind. Instead, it is my opinion that as far as possible an objective assessment of the conduct of the police and their agents is required. The predisposition, or the past, present or suspected criminal activity of the accused, is relevant only as a part of the determination of whether the provision of an opportunity by the authorities to the accused to commit the offence was justifiable. Further, there must be sufficient connection between the past conduct of the accused and the provision of an opportunity, since otherwise the police suspicion will not be reasonable. While predisposition of the accused is, though not conclusive, of some relevance in assessing the initial approach by the police of a person with the offer of an opportunity to commit an offence, it is never relevant as regards whether they went beyond an offer, since that is to be assessed with regard to what the average non‑predisposed person would have done.

133. The absence of a reasonable suspicion or a bona fide inquiry is significant in assessing the police conduct because of the risk that the police will attract people who would not otherwise have any involvement in a crime and because it is not a proper use of the police power to simply go out and test the virtue of people on a random basis. The presence of reasonable suspicion or the mere existence of a bona fide inquiry will, however, never justify entrapment techniques: the police may not go beyond providing an opportunity regardless of their perception of the accused's character and regardless of the existence of an honest inquiry...

Regina v. Mack

[ed.: rm emoticons]

Edited April 3, 2012 by g_bambino

[g_bambino]

Nope. I'm saying in this case, it was absolutely a reactionary measure.

You couldn't have said that since you were lamenting the lack of heavy-handedness in stopping violent protesters.

Correlation /= causation.

Correlation does not necessarily equal causation. Nothing I said indicated otherwise.

[g_bambino]

Well, you're living within a different argument, not the one I am having with Signals.

Because our argument evolved (or devolved) into the hypothetical, I was informing him that instigating violence from someone who was not necessarily planning anything and for which there was no reasonable suspicion that he was planning anything, is, in fact, illegal.

Actually, I'm interpreting your last words on the matter as the end of a thread that begins withyour first claim that the police infiltrators at Montebello were acting illegally.

[bleeding heart]

Actually, I'm interpreting your last words on the matter as the end of a thread that begins withyour first claim that the police infiltrators at Montebello were acting illegally.

I wasn't talking about the Montebello situation; I was responding to Signals' post, which was less about the incident than about his views of "granting leeway to police" (ie infinite leeway, evidently).

Again, you didn't read our conversation. Nor need you...unless you're going to respond to it.

Your own link,

[T]he proper approach to the doctrine of entrapment is that which was articulated by Estey J. in Amato, supra, and elaborated upon in these reasons. As mentioned and explained earlier there is entrapment when,

(a) the authorities provide a person with an opportunity to commit an offence without acting on a reasonable suspicion that this person is already engaged in criminal activity or pursuant to a bona fide inquiry;

( although having such a reasonable suspicion or acting in the course of a bona fide inquiry, they go beyond providing an opportunity and induce the commission of an offence.

132. Since I am of the view that the doctrine of entrapment is not dependant upon culpability, the focus should not be on the effect of the police conduct on the accused's state of mind. Instead, it is my opinion that as far as possible an objective assessment of the conduct of the police and their agents is required. The predisposition, or the past, present or suspected criminal activity of the accused, is relevant only as a part of the determination of whether the provision of an opportunity by the authorities to the accused to commit the offence was justifiable. Further, there must be sufficient connection between the past conduct of the accused and the provision of an opportunity, since otherwise the police suspicion will not be reasonable. While predisposition of the accused is, though not conclusive, of some relevance in assessing the initial approach by the police of a person with the offer of an opportunity to commit an offence, it is never relevant as regards whether they went beyond an offer, since that is to be assessed with regard to what the average non‑predisposed person would have done.

133. The absence of a reasonable suspicion or a bona fide inquiry is significant in assessing the police conduct because of the risk that the police will attract people who would not otherwise have any involvement in a crime and because it is not a proper use of the police power to simply go out and test the virtue of people on a random basis. The presence of reasonable suspicion or the mere existence of a bona fide inquiry will, however, never justify entrapment techniques: the police may not go beyond providing an opportunity regardless of their perception of the accused's character and regardless of the existence of an honest inquiry...

....is exactly what I've been saying all along.

If you disagree with it, why post it as evidence of your position?

Siganls very plainly believes that the "proper use of the police power to simply go out and test the virtue of people on a random basis" is acceptable, based on the fact that some people might indeed be incited, thus exposing their own character.

Obviously, you disagree with him, and agree with me, given your citation here.

Oddly, you seem unaware of this little fact.

Edited April 3, 2012 by bleeding heart

[g_bambino]

I wasn't talking about the Montebello situation; I was responding to Signals' post, which was less about the incident than about his views of "granting leeway to police" (ie infinite leeway, evidently).

I have indeed been reading your back and forth. Signals.Cpl was very clearly talking specifically about Montebello.

Here's the summation of the particular point in the conversation, in sequence:

Montebello is but one case where the agent provocateurs end up being cops. It's a more common tactic than you think.

And the poor innocent protestors had no choice but to act on this? It does make sense to a degree, push for some violence, whoever seems too eager you simply remove them and let the other protestors do their thing.

The police inciting violence makes sense?

It's illegal.

Whether or not Signals.Cpl is trying to make some wider point about entrapment being acceptable, what we're assuming the undercover police were doing at Montebello - attempting to incite, or goad, the protesters around them into acting violently (rather like the same kind of protesters do to identifiable police officers, come to think of it) - wasn't illegal.

[ed.: c/e]

Edited April 3, 2012 by g_bambino

[eyeball]

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.

You keep on suggesting entrapment despite it being unlawful while maintaining that nothing excuses lawlessness.

No doubt your world is filled with idiots.

[g_bambino]

You keep on suggesting entrapment...

What he describes is not entrapment.

[bleeding heart]

I have indeed been reading your back and forth. Signals.Cpl was very clearly talking specifically about Montebello.

Here's the summation of the particular point in the conversation, in sequence:

Whether or not Signals.Cpl is trying to make some wider point about entrapment being acceptable, what we're assuming the undercover police were doing at Montebello - attempting to incite, or goad, the protesters around them into acting violently (rather like the same kind of protesters do to identifiable police officers, come to think of it) - wasn't illegal.

[ed.: c/e]

I have no opinion on montebello whatsoever, and have offered none.

I have been responding to this sort of comment:

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.

Again, you have not been following the conversation.

Because, I hope, you don't agree with Signal's remark here (and similar ones elsewhere throughout this thread).

On the other hand, you keep insisting he isn't saying the actual words that he is posting.

For one thing, that cute little reactionary-fuelled passage is fear-mongering nonsense about protesters killing people; second, he is explicitly defending illegal behaviour.

Edited April 3, 2012 by bleeding heart

[eyeball]

What he describes is not entrapment.

What's being described keeps changing, so it's more like trolling now.

[bleeding heart]

What's being described keeps changing, so it's more like trolling now.

Exactly. We went from Montebello, to protests generally, to police vigilance, to protesters carrying molotov cocktails, to "bending the rules" to--wait for it--save innocent lives from murderous protesters.....

I think the dissent-hating far-right has managed to instill its fear-mongering Talking Points into these debates generally.

Edited April 3, 2012 by bleeding heart

[g_bambino]

I have no opinion on montebello whatsoever, and have offered none.

You offered the opinion that what we assume the undercover police were doing there was illegal.

[Signals.Cpl]

I wasn't talking about the Montebello situation; I was responding to Signals' post, which was less about the incident than about his views of "granting leeway to police" (ie infinite leeway, evidently).

Again, you didn't read our conversation. Nor need you...unless you're going to respond to it.

Your own link,

....is exactly what I've been saying all along.

If you disagree with it, why post it as evidence of your position?

Siganls very plainly believes that the "proper use of the police power to simply go out and test the virtue of people on a random basis" is acceptable, based on the fact that some people might indeed be incited, thus exposing their own character.

Obviously, you disagree with him, and agree with me, given your citation here.

Oddly, you seem unaware of this little fact.

Please quote exactly where I said at random?

Its simple, just like police officers do an operation where they pretend to be a young teen or preteen and lie and attempt to get a meeting with a pedophile, or having undercover officers arranging a drug deal hint hint the most likely person in the most likely location. You wouldn't have police trying to go on a random street corner and try to persuade someone to import drugs they investigate and place themselves in the most likely location to be in proximity with the most likely people to commit the crime. Just like there won't be an undercover officer on this boards pretending to be a 14 year old girl in an attempt to flush out pedophiles having started from an arbitrary location. My entire argument states finding the most likely persons to commit the actions and using police officers to push them in to action, and consequently stoping the action immediately before they can spread and cause harm. It might not be the preferred tactic, but it needs to be used when the alternative is to wait until someone throws the first punch and then use riot police to quell everyone weather they are involved or not.

[eyeball]

Its simple, just like police officers do an operation where they pretend to be a young teen or preteen and lie and attempt to get a meeting with a pedophile

Protesting against the government is just like pedophilia?

[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.

Have you seen the attire the police officers were wearing? I am assuming that the attire was worn by many of the protestors and the reason police were dressed like that was to fit in. Now seeing as the explanation was that police were wearing issued boots and thus they were caught the way they were dressed was normal for that protest. Now lets be fair, if you saw 10,100 or 1000 people dressed like criminal, would you assume that this was going to be a peaceful protest or would you assume that something was going down.

If the majority of the protestors are dressed like they are on their way to rob a bank I think you need to rethink your main argument.

[bleeding heart]

You offered the opinion that what we assume the undercover police were doing there was illegal.

No. I jumped in the conversation at a time opportune for you to make that assumption, granted, but I was talking about the larger issue of police involvement in mob violence, not that particular situation.

[bleeding heart]

Please quote exactly where I said at random?

Its simple, just like police officers do an operation where they pretend to be a young teen or preteen and lie and attempt to get a meeting with a pedophile, or having undercover officers arranging a drug deal hint hint the most likely person in the most likely location. You wouldn't have police trying to go on a random street corner and try to persuade someone to import drugs they investigate and place themselves in the most likely location to be in proximity with the most likely people to commit the crime. Just like there won't be an undercover officer on this boards pretending to be a 14 year old girl in an attempt to flush out pedophiles having started from an arbitrary location. My entire argument states finding the most likely persons to commit the actions and using police officers to push them in to action, and consequently stoping the action immediately before they can spread and cause harm. It might not be the preferred tactic, but it needs to be used when the alternative is to wait until someone throws the first punch and then use riot police to quell everyone weather they are involved or not.

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.

Edited April 3, 2012 by bleeding heart

[Signals.Cpl]

Protesting against the government is just like pedophilia?

Well if you take it out of context sure. I stated that the police use the tactic on many occasions to catch unsavoury people who are bent on doing harm one way or another. I was comparing that just like in any other crime, police will not likely start at an arbitrary place and start probing the leaders for violent intent. Just like they will not go to a random forum/chat room that has had no issues nor is there no evidence of illegal activity and try and catch pedophile. And once again bringing down drug dealers and the like. They find the likely place, and the people that are most likely to commit the violence and go from there. A police officer will not come to my house and try and push me to get in the drug trade just so he can arrest me, an officer will find someone who already is a drug dealer and engage them in a deal in order to catch them.

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.