Violent occupy protester 'it' assaults police officer!

eyeball · April 4, 2012

As much as your penchant for leprechauns in drag.

That's not fair, you could have fooled anyone.

Signals.Cpl · April 4, 2012

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

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

There is something wrong with you, I don't think you comprehend the concept of not making shit up and presenting it as facts.

Michael Hardner · April 4, 2012

The thread is devolving into insults, and bizarre insults at that. Can we clean it up please ?

cybercoma · April 4, 2012

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.: +]

That's not a very good comparison comparison when you consider the psychological effects of mobs. Inciting a riot itself is a crime because mob mentality can cause people to do things they otherwise wouldn't. Thus, when the police incite a riot, they are not only potentially triggering a well-known psychological effect, but they are committing a crime themselves. When informants commit crimes in other situations, like in the case of the informant against Maurice Boucher of the Hell's Angels, they are arrested and dropped from the payroll. So it ought to be with agents provocateurs in cases of protests and strikes. It's one thing to infiltrate groups and gather information. It's quite another thing for them to commit crimes themselves.

Signals.Cpl · April 4, 2012

That's not a very good comparison comparison when you consider the psychological effects of mobs. Inciting a riot itself is a crime because mob mentality can cause people to do things they otherwise wouldn't. Thus, when the police incite a riot, they are not only potentially triggering a well-known psychological effect, but they are committing a crime themselves. When informants commit crimes in other situations, like in the case of the informant against Maurice Boucher of the Hell's Angels, they are arrested and dropped from the payroll. So it ought to be with agents provocateurs in cases of protests and strikes. It's one thing to infiltrate groups and gather information. It's quite another thing for them to commit crimes themselves.

To me it seems you are trying to justify why you have conflicting opinions as to the tactic in question. You either support it for all or you support it for none, as everyone involved in a crime or the intention of committing a crime has the same rights. And I believe that the whole point of police officers baiting potential rioters is to remove them as soon as they show their intentions and not let it escalate to a riot.

Black Dog · April 4, 2012

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

Huh? In this particular case, a heavy hand would have been appropriate once violence became a reality. I do not think the types of actions we saw on Sunday were appropriate to a situation where there was no violent activity taking place.

As to your earlier assertion that a "heavy hand" can be used legally as a preventative measure, well, you have to get a little more specific as to what type actions you mean because I don't believe that to be necessarily true in all cases.

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

You very much implied the heavy-handed actions of Sunday prevented a repeat of Saturday's violence.

cybercoma · April 4, 2012

To me it seems you are trying to justify why you have conflicting opinions as to the tactic in question. You either support it for all or you support it for none, as everyone involved in a crime or the intention of committing a crime has the same rights. And I believe that the whole point of police officers baiting potential rioters is to remove them as soon as they show their intentions and not let it escalate to a riot.

Intelligent people are capable of understanding complex issues. My opinions are not conflicting for the reasons I stated. Unfortunately, that's not black and white enough for you to understand apparently.

g_bambino · April 4, 2012

Huh?

Your words:

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.

Note the final sentence: But it wasn't. You lamented the lack of heavy-handedness in stopping violent protesters.

You very much implied the heavy-handed actions of Sunday prevented a repeat of Saturday's violence.

No. At best, I suggested that it might have had an effect. I neither said directly nor implied anything definite either way.

Signals.Cpl · April 4, 2012

Intelligent people are capable of understanding complex issues. My opinions are not conflicting for the reasons I stated. Unfortunately, that's not black and white enough for you to understand apparently.

It seems you are holding the police responsible for the actions that would have taken place weather they are or are not present. I find it disgusting that so many people of my generations, many of them I have worked with or gone to school with unable to take responsibility for their actions. If you go to a protest bent on committing crimes, and the police bait you, you would have committed the crimes anyway, one way no adult supervision(police) the other way the adults(police) are there and thus able to minimize or altogether prevent the incident once the criminal presents his/her hand. I don't see the complication, we all agree on the right to protest, we all agree that the rioting paints the whole protest in a negative light when the majority of the protestors are peaceful. The issue is that police suggest some form of action, the person of interest to them commits to the action and thus, is bought.

You could use the argument about the mob mentality in any case whatsoever in an attempt to have people escape responsibility, example would be the Riots in Vancouver, unless you think the police provoked that one as well. Honestly, during a similar event, the police should identify the area where protestors could be, and then promptly read the Riot Act to any other area of the city in question where "protestors" are gathering. Every human being is responsible for their actions, otherwise we can look back in history and start acquitting people who have been held responsible for their crimes because of the "mob mentality"

g_bambino · April 4, 2012

That's not a very good comparison when you consider the psychological effects of mobs. Inciting a riot itself is a crime because mob mentality can cause people to do things they otherwise wouldn't.

You're assuming the police that infiltrate anarchist protests are there to drive the group to do what it otherwise was unlikely to. They're not, since they're there precisely because the group is known to commit crimes or is known to have planned to commit a crime or crimes on the day of the protest. Therein lies the difference between police action that can be defined as entrapment and that which cannot.

That tactic is similar to the police posing online as children in that the cops don't go to sites like this one and try to bait law abiding citizens into arranging a sexual encounter with a minor. They go to where people looking for sex with a minor are known to go. Again, this is precisely because the former would be entrapment, whereas the latter is not. According to the Supreme Court's definition, anyway.

Black Dog · April 4, 2012

Your words:

Note the final sentence: But it wasn't. You lamented the lack of heavy-handedness in stopping violent protesters.

That's an odd interpretation. I wasn't "lamenting" anything, simply stating that a certain amount of force would have been understandable if it was deployed to stop some of the violence that did occur. But the violence that was used was in no way connected to stopping the riots and there's no evidence that police heavy-handedness in Queen's Park had any impact on preventing further violent acts by protesters.

No. At best, I suggested that it might have had an effect. I neither said directly nor implied anything definite either way.

Um, that's what implied means.

Signals.Cpl · April 4, 2012

That's an odd interpretation. I wasn't "lamenting" anything, simply stating that a certain amount of force would have been understandable if it was deployed to stop some of the violence that did occur. But the violence that was used was in no way connected to stopping the riots and there's no evidence that police heavy-handedness in Queen's Park had any impact on preventing further violent acts by protesters.

Um, that's what implied means.

Maybe there is no evidence that they stopped further violence, umm I don't know because they did their jobs?

Black Dog · April 4, 2012

Maybe there is no evidence that they stopped further violence, umm I don't know because they did their jobs?

Kicking the shit out of peaceful protesters is their jobs?

g_bambino · April 4, 2012

[T]he violence that was used was in no way connected to stopping the riots and there's no evidence that police heavy-handedness in Queen's Park had any impact on preventing further violent acts by protesters.

I've said already I've no idea why what happened in Queen's Park happened. Otherwise, how do you know police heavy-handedness (which I'm interpreting as making arrests) didn't have an impact on preventing further riots?

Black Dog · April 4, 2012

I've said already I've no idea why what happened in Queen's Park happened. Otherwise, how do you know police heavy-handedness (which I'm interpreting as making arrests) didn't have an impact on preventing further riots?

I see your trouble.

g_bambino · April 4, 2012

I see your trouble.

Well, how many incidents of police engaging in violence outside of Queen's Park that wasn't related to individuals refusing to comply with police orders or resisting arrest can you cite?

[ed.: +]

Edited April 4, 2012 by g_bambino

Black Dog · April 4, 2012

Well, how many incidents of police engaging in violence outside of Queen's Park that wasn't related to an individual resisting arrest can you cite?

Here's one. No doubt there were othersas well as those who were legitimately resisting arrest.

Edited April 4, 2012 by Black Dog

g_bambino · April 4, 2012

Here's one.

Okay; fair enough. One.

others

A collection of unsubstantiated and possibly (likely?) biased stories recounted by people who may or may not be ignorant of the law and the circumstances around what they perceived to have taken place.

[A]s well as those who were legitimately resisting arrest.

And what qualifies as a "legitimate" resisting of arrest?

Black Dog · April 4, 2012

Okay; fair enough. One.

Oh yeah, I'm sure that's the only one. :rolleyes:

A collection of unsubstantiated and possibly (likely?) biased stories recounted by people who may or may not be ignorant of the law and the circumstances around what they perceived to have taken place.

Cool story bro.

And what qualifies as a "legitimate" resisting of arrest?

If you aren't doing anything wrong or illegal, I have no problem with resisting arrest. At that point, it's self defense.

Signals.Cpl · April 4, 2012

Oh yeah, I'm sure that's the only one.

Cool story bro.

If you aren't doing anything wrong or illegal, I have no problem with resisting arrest. At that point, it's self defense.

The definition of wrong can differ from person to person.

g_bambino · April 4, 2012

Oh yeah, I'm sure that's the only one.

If you say so.

Cool story bro.

I can't say I agree, mostly because it wasn't a story at all.

If you aren't doing anything wrong or illegal, I have no problem with resisting arrest. At that point, it's self defense.

And there you have the reason why there's often confrontation during arrests; one party thinks they weren't doing anything wrong (or knows they were but claim otherwise to deliberately cause more hassle), while the other thinks they were. That doesn't automatically make the police the instigators of the violence. Since it appears you define "heavy-handedness" as "violence committed without reason" (i.e. assault), the instances of it don't seem to have occurred nearly as often as you make out. Unless you can prove otherwise. So far, all you have is a couple of altercations in Queen's Park.

GostHacked · April 4, 2012

I suggest g_bambino and Signals go and watch the documentary INTO THE FIRE .. spend a couple hours and see what really happened.

Again, these two are still apologetic towards the police even when the police admit they were in the wrong (regarding Montelbello)

g_bambino · April 4, 2012

I suggest g_bambino and Signals go and watch the documentary INTO THE FIRE .. spend a couple hours and see what really happened.

Sure, I'll watch it. Doesn't mean I'll take it as The Truth.

Again, these two are still apologetic towards the police even when the police admit they were in the wrong (regarding Montelbello)

When did they make any such admission?

cybercoma · April 4, 2012

It seems you are holding the police responsible for the actions that would have taken place weather they are or are not present.

Is that so? Do you use your crystal ball to figure these things out?

I find it disgusting that so many people of my generations, many of them I have worked with or gone to school with unable to take responsibility for their actions.

You're referring to Bill Blair in the wake of the protests responding to the video evidence of police abuse, right?

If you go to a protest bent on committing crimes, and the police bait you, you would have committed the crimes anyway

You make a great argument. Except, your argument tells me that it's completely unnecessary for the police to bait people.

You could use the argument about the mob mentality in any case whatsoever in an attempt to have people escape responsibility

Any case involving mobs anyway. The important point is that inciting a riot can turn an otherwise peaceful protest violent. Why shouldn't the police be subject to the same laws about inciting riots as everyone else? Do you believe that the police are outside the law?