Protests, police provocateurs, masks, etc

[GostHacked]

Not solely, jacee.

One word : hoodies.

[GostHacked]

I am taking the OP warning on freedom of assembly to heart. I was going to meet a friend for lunch at Timmys but I'm afraid I'll be shot on sight. WE won't be able to get the piles of corpses off the streets until after dark, I hope Harpers brownshirts allow us to break curfew long enough to bring in the dead.

Well, at least I had a good laugh at this one, thank you good sir!

[g_bambino]

Perhaps you are right ... but only because the cops have never managed to 'entrap' anybody.

They wouldn't try to entrap anybody, since entrapment is illegal.

[g_bambino]

One word : hoodies.

And......?

[GostHacked]

And......?

I think you asked where they are targeting people who are wearing something specific.

[guyser]

You do realize police in Ontario are policed by a Civilian agency?

While true, you do realize how bad that oversight is , lost evidence, ignoring orders , investigators are all over 50 white males who wear Police rings and ties , in other words ...not to be trusted.

[g_bambino]

I think you asked where they are targeting people who are wearing something specific.

No, I didn't ask anything at all like that.

The last thing I asked was: "[W]hen it comes to the violence and the riots that break out whenever there's a major political meeting, how is it that those who cause such havoc are almost always dressed?" I haven't seen an answer yet.

[GostHacked]

No, I didn't ask anything at all like that.

The last thing I asked was: "[W]hen it comes to the violence and the riots that break out whenever there's a major political meeting, how is it that those who cause such havoc are almost always dressed?" I haven't seen an answer yet.

Good questions. I'll say that they don't always dress like that. But it must be a concern if new laws are being passed that tell you what you can and cannot wear to a protest (aka masks) ... I have to dress 'Protest Chic' I guess.

[jacee]

Your hatred for Harper seems to know no bounds. The "police" as you say are under the direction of Toronto and to some degree, McGuinty. If Harper has ANY control, it's over the RCMP (and he doesn't, really). So what you're saying is that Harper's RCMP arrested some Toronto policemen for illegal acts. And you have a problem with that?

Yes I have a problem with police committing illegal acts with no consequences.

[g_bambino]

I'll say that they don't always dress like that.

But it's certainly a uniform of sorts, which makes it likely that the police weren't trying to "sting" the group seen in the Montebello video because it was known to protest via drum circle and satirical pantomime.

[jacee]

They wouldn't try to entrap anybody, since entrapment is illegal.

Two of them got arrested for doing SOMEthing illegal.

Think they might have been trying to entrap someone?

Or did they just get caught up in the spirit of things?

[g_bambino]

Two of them got arrested for doing SOMEthing illegal.

There's many possible reasons why they were taken in along with the other protesters, including a desire on the part of the arresting police not to blow the others' cover in front of the group they'd infiltrated, or the arresting police detained the whole bunch (not knowing there were undercover officers within it) in order to prevent violence and/or a riot. You're also drawing broad assumptions about the undercover officers' intentions; it's entirely possible they were just making observations from the inside.

From half a sentence in an article, you jump to the conclusion you have proof of police "provocateurs" acting illegally as part of a Harper-run plot to subvert free speech. It says something that you don't find that to be in the least bit incredible.

[ed.: +]

Edited May 15, 2012 by g_bambino

[Guest American Woman]

There's many possible reasons why they were taken in along with the other protesters, including a desire on the part of the arresting police not to blow the others' cover in front of the group they'd infiltrated, or the arresting police detained the whole bunch (not knowing there were undercover officers within it) in order to prevent violence and/or a riot. You're also drawing broad assumptions about the undercover officers' intentions; it's entirely possible they were just making observations from the inside.

From what I can see of video footage that was cited as evidence, the police were doing nothing but being part of the crowd until Coles approaches them and gets in their face. They still don't do much until he doesn't back off and people try to pull their masks off. They have no right to do that. By now a scuffle is taking place, that could turn ugly - but I've seen no evidence prior to Coles' outburst that would substantiate the claims. The video footage starts with Coles' yelling, demands, and things get heated up from there - and that's when several protesters, including the police, are taken away.

I've read where some in the protest crowd were saying that they were police officers and were trying to pull their masks off. They had no right to do that. That's their mentality coming out, not the cops'. All we can go by is what we can see, and what we can see does not substantiate the claims. Even in the video, I could mostly just hear accusations being thrown at them. Stir things up, shout accusations loud enough, and hope that together it can be passed off as evidence of what they claim - quite different from proof; yet we've seen footage from other incidents presented this way, too.

To me it seems highly unlikely that there would be no footage captured by anyone if the police were engaging in/inciting a riot and/or engaging in illegal activity - yet someone took the camera out to shoot Coles' confrontation with them - which as far as the viewer can see, is the beginning of the scuffle.

Edited May 15, 2012 by American Woman

[Signals.Cpl]

From what I can see of video footage that was cited as evidence, the police were doing nothing but being part of the crowd until Coles approaches them and gets in their face. They still don't do much until he doesn't back off and people try to pull their masks off. They have no right to do that. By now a scuffle is taking place, that could turn ugly - but I've seen no evidence prior to Coles' outburst that would substantiate the claims. The video footage starts with Coles' yelling, demands, and things get heated up from there - and that's when several protesters, including the police, are taken away.

I've read where some in the protest crowd were saying that they were police officers and were trying to pull their masks off. They had no right to do that. That's their mentality coming out, not the cops'. All we can go by is what we can see, and what we can see does not substantiate the claims. Even in the video, I could mostly just hear accusations being thrown at them. Stir things up, shout accusations loud enough, and hope that together it can be passed off as evidence of what they claim - quite different from proof; yet we've seen footage from other incidents presented this way, too.

To me it seems highly unlikely that there would be no footage captured by anyone if the police were engaging in/inciting a riot and/or engaging in illegal activity - yet someone took the camera out to shoot Coles' confrontation with them - which as far as the viewer can see, is the beginning of the scuffle.

Thats the same old song and dance, if a riot starts in Chicago during the summit then it is because of police provoking it, without any evidence to back up the accusation they will present Montebello as the proof.

[jacee]

No, I didn't ask anything at all like that.

The last thing I asked was: "[W]hen it comes to the violence and the riots that break out whenever there's a major political meeting, how is it that those who cause such havoc are almost always dressed?" I haven't seen an answer yet.

I have the answer.

The ones causing havoc are almost always dressed in uniform.

[Signals.Cpl]

I have the answer.

The ones causing havoc are almost always dressed in uniform.

Thats why the police have to go undercover and stop them...Their silly uniforms makes it easy for the good guys(the police) to stop them doesn't it?

[Rick]

In related news....

Police reviewing 'inappropriate' response to 911 call

Inappropriate?? FN criminal the way the cops handled that and I'll bet you...the cops all get off with nothing more than a verbal 'bad boy' don't do it again :wink: :wink: from their superiors...

In other related news...

Wrongfully charged and accused terrorist, Byron Sonne was acquitted today of all charges

http://www.cp24.com/servlet/an/local/CTVNews/20120515/120515_sonne_trial/20120515/?hub=CP24Home

"I'm not going to stop," a trembling Sonne, 39, said after his exoneration.

"It's more important than ever that we fight against the slippery slope of what's being done with our rights, against our ability to participate how we see fit."

Sonne was arrested in the days before the June 2010 summit. Although police found no bombs, he was charged with four counts of possessing explosives and one of counselling mischief.

Police alleged he planned to combine the myriad neatly labelled legal chemicals he had at his upscale home into explosives, and that he incited others to scale or tear down the three-metre security fence erected around the main downtown summit site.

"You guys are making me look like some kind of terrorist or something," he told police after his arrest.

In her 87-page judgment that took almost two hours to read, Ontario Superior Court Justice Nancy Spies accepted Sonne's claims the chemicals police seized could have been used in pursuit of his rocketry hobby, for camping or for gardening.

[g_bambino]

The ones causing havoc are almost always dressed in uniform.

A uniform of sorts, yes. I just said that.

[Tilter]

No, I didn't ask anything at all like that.

The last thing I asked was: "[W]hen it comes to the violence and the riots that break out whenever there's a major political meeting, how is it that those who cause such havoc are almost always dressed?" I haven't seen an answer yet.

easy explanation to your query---

In normal society, most people are

almost always dressed

Where were you raised not to know that?

Edited May 16, 2012 by Tilter

[g_bambino]

easy explanation to your query---

No, that's a lame response to words taken entirely out of context.

[GostHacked]

No, that's a lame response to words taken entirely out of context.

That seems to be half the battle, the context. It's easily misconstrued and twisted to fit another narrative in order to detract from the original argument.

[Rick]

Breaking news...

G20 report details mass violation of rights by police

TORONTO - In a 300 page report on police actions during the G20 summit in Toronto, the Independent Police Review Director says police officers ignored basic rights of citizens and in some cases used excessive force.

http://www.globalnews.ca/g20+report+details+mass+violation+of+rights+by+police/6442642071/story.html

[GostHacked]

Thanks for the link Rick.

Anyone who has followed this story for some time knows that is for the most part, exactly what happened.

Here is another link ... http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/story/2012/05/16/g20-policing-report.html

Edited May 16, 2012 by GostHacked

[g_bambino]

Breaking news...

The article doesn't seem to disclose much that wasn't already commonly known; though, it's a little murky in places, leaving specifics unclear.

[Rick]

The article doesn't seem to disclose much that wasn't already commonly known; though, it's a little murky in places, leaving specifics unclear.

You're right but Gost Hacked's link to the article on the cbc website does have a few more details about the report.

Although, I do agree with you, it was already well known to anyone with a brain, that the rights of citizens were trampled on and that the police abused their powers significantly.

Only idiots would defend the police's actions...