Police provoking violence?

[margrace]

Refering to police dirty tricks, some years ago when our area was prmoting the use of blue boxes to save garbage we all signed petitions to that effect. Some months later the office containing these records were raided by the police and the documents siezed.

I was also told by a newpaper reporter of police video taping reporters and camera men covering a peaceful protest in a small city in the north. She was quite upset by this.

Oh yes our police are to be completly trusted, yeah right!!!

[buffycat]

Kuzadd, IMO those who don't want to admit that police could ever instigate - or wish to insitgate - a riot or an outcome beneficial for their own agenda are those whose belief systems would be turned upside down, and for many that is terrifying to admit to, or go through. IOW - it's a little too scary to admit that the old PR about Cops being everyone's friends, above reproach and there to 'serve' is not necessarily always the case.

[Black Dog]

I don't neccessarily disagree with many of your points, BD. I just don't think that the police would intentionally start a riot. This was a big group of people, this could definitely have got out of hand. I could see the police doing what you said in small protests, but not something this big. They knew they were outnumbered and could have been easily overwelmed. They weren't interested in starting a riot here, I really don't think they were.

I don't think cops care too much about being outnumbered when they pretty much have amonopoly on force. We're talking about heavily armed and armoured men from a quasi-military force (with all kinds of back up) agasint what would amount to a handful of rock-throwing punks amid a crowd of mainly peaceful protesters. I don't think the riot squad has much to fear from the Raging Grannies, despite the ferocity of their moniker.

[M.Dancer]

And the raging grannies have nothing to fear from the police, as a matter of fact, unless you are a rock throwing punk, or stupid enough to stand near rock throwing punks no one has to fear the police.

I have been a participant to dozens of protests over the years, from student protests over bill 101 and MUTC fare increase, cruise missile and nuclear protests and to support for OKA and I have never once seen the police provoke a violent response. On the other hand I have been a bystander at a few anti poverty protests and have seen the police show remarkable restraint as they were pelted with eggs and set upon by well organized and armed goons.

[AndrewL]

I have been a participant to dozens of protests over the years, from student protests over bill 101 and MUTC fare increase, cruise missile and nuclear protests and to support for OKA and I have never once seen the police provoke a violent response.

It does not matter one whit if it has ever happened before from you own personal experience or anyone elses. The fact is it did happen this time and whoever is responsible should be held to account. What those cops did was totally unacceptable.

Andrew

[M.Dancer]

It does not matter one whit if it has ever happened before from you own personal experience or anyone elses. The fact is it did happen this time and whoever is responsible should be held to account. What those cops did was totally unacceptable.

Andrew

If it doesn't matter with anyones elses experiance, then I guess it doesn't matter, period.

Personally, I think undercover cops at demo where international leaders are attending is a normal thing. Unlkess of course endagering the lives of politicians is somehow a new right......

The undercover cops broke no laws and infringed on no ones right to peacefully protest. But this issue certainly deflects attention from those whose intention was to disrupts and cause violence at the demo. If anyone should be singled out and asked robustly to leave the demo it should be the rioters.

I can't help wondering why Cole and his video camera weren't on and to ask the rioters to leave.....

[M.Dancer]

The fact is it did happen this time and whoever is responsible should be held to account.

Andrew

What happened? Exactly what happened and what is the proof that something happened that needs an accounting?

Here, I will help.

Nothing happened.

[AndrewL]

What happened? Exactly what happened and what is the proof that something happened that needs an accounting?

Here, I will help.

Nothing happened.

Police offers attempted to incite other protestors to violence so that there would be an excuse for police violence. That is beyond dispute. Only the pathetic and mentally challenged would defend their conduct. But hey, look who im talking to.

Andrew

[AndrewL]

If it doesn't matter with anyones elses experiance, then I guess it doesn't matter, period.

I said before smarty pants. Learn how to read.

Andrew

Edited August 28, 2007 by AndrewL

[M.Dancer]

Police offers attempted to incite other protestors to violence so that there would be an excuse for police violence. That is beyond dispute. Only the pathetic and mentally challenged would defend their conduct. But hey, look who im talking to.

Andrew

There is only one fact beyond dispute. Rioters were arrested. Surely there aren't people stupid enough to believe these rioters were gullible.....

and surely you don't expect those flaccid insults to be a stand in for proof? Where is the proof they attempted to incite anyone?

Another hint, being there in itself is not proof of incitement, anymore than a secuity gaurd at a bank incites armed robbers.

Now either come back with non effeminate insults or proof, but my money is on you doing neither.

[M.Dancer]

I said before smarty pants. Learn how to read.

Andrew

Logic is beyond your experience then, no matter......no matter that other posters have tried to smear this event with tales of alledged police no nos in the past.....that was before, this event.....where no proof has been tabled......

[Black Dog]

Personally, I think undercover cops at demo where international leaders are attending is a normal thing. Unlkess of course endagering the lives of politicians is somehow a new right......

Undercover cops aren't the issue. Agents provocateurs are.

The undercover cops broke no laws and infringed on no ones right to peacefully protest. But this issue certainly deflects attention from those whose intention was to disrupts and cause violence at the demo. If anyone should be singled out and asked robustly to leave the demo it should be the rioters.

Please present the evidence indicating that there were "rioters" at that particular demo.

I can't help wondering why Cole and his video camera weren't on and to ask the rioters to leave.....

As I understand it, this all started with Cole asking the Black Bloc members to leave the demonstration because he saw a couple toting rocks. It was then that the Black Bloc pointe dout that the chaps toting rocks were, in fact, cops.

Again, I must ask, since no one seems able to answer, why, if the cops were there as undercover observers, they were dressed like the stereotypical "violent" protester and toting rocks around instead of going in regualr civilian garb.

[margrace]

There is only one fact beyond dispute. Rioters were arrested. Surely there aren't people stupid enough to believe these rioters were gullible.....

and surely you don't expect those flaccid insults to be a stand in for proof? Where is the proof they attempted to incite anyone?

Another hint, being there in itself is not proof of incitement, anymore than a secuity gaurd at a bank incites armed robbers.

Now either come back with non effeminate insults or proof, but my money is on you doing neither.

So you believe apparently that these protests are not acceptable, so do the War lords of Afghanistan

[Keepitsimple]

Again, I must ask, since no one seems able to answer, why, if the cops were there as undercover observers, they were dressed like the stereotypical "violent" protester and toting rocks around instead of going in regualr civilian garb.

It was quoted several times in news releases and in this thread that the cops were only identified because they would not throw rocks after being encouraged to do so. So......one of them happened to be carrying a rock to blend in with the other yahoos and somehow, that makes the three of them "agents provocateurs".

It happens that there were quite a few stereotypical violent protestors - look at the video where the hooligan gets hit with a rubber bullet - it's only a few seconds of the clip but he and his masked pals don't look too peaceful to me.

[Black Dog]

It was quoted several times in news releases and in this thread that the cops were only identified because they would not throw rocks after being encouraged to do so. So......one of them happened to be carrying a rock to blend in with the other yahoos and somehow, that makes the three of them "agents provocateurs".

The police were quoted several times as saying that. Of course, the police also said that the trio weren't cops before finally fessing up, so their credibility on this is rather suspect. What's more is there's video footage of one of the three being told to "put the rock down, man" and refusing. There's also no evidence (that I've seen, anyway) of any rocks being thrown at that particular demonstration, so basically it's the cops' (at this point tarnished) word against the visual evidence.

Oh and finally, union leader Dave Coles went on the CBC Wednesday to give his account, which also differs from the cop's latest version.

"I didn't know they were police right away but I knew they were agitators because earlier they had been trying to get the young kids down on the road to cause trouble."

But hey, let's say that the cops are telling the truth this time: one has to wonder (again) why they dressed up like the kind of protesters known for chucking rocks if they didn't want to be put into a situation where they might have to chuck rocks.

It happens that there were quite a few stereotypical violent protestors - look at the video where the hooligan gets hit with a rubber bullet - it's only a few seconds of the clip but he and his masked pals don't look too peaceful to me.

Which video? There's no bullets flying or rocks being thrown in the video of the three undercover cops being outed. stay focused!

[Keepitsimple]

Which video? There's no bullets flying or rocks being thrown in the video of the three undercover cops being outed. stay focused!

Here's the video that was posted earlier in the thread. At about one minute and 10 seconds you'll get a fairly good look at some of the yahoos that the police had to put up with. Your smart-aleck comment of "stay focused" is not required.

[Black Dog]

Here's the video that was posted earlier in the thread. At about one minute and 10 seconds you'll get a fairly good look at some of the yahoos that the police had to put up with. Your smart-aleck comment of "stay focused" is not required.

Things I saw in the video:

Cops and protesters jostling

Cops pepper spraying the crowd

Cops shooting rubber bullets into the crowd

Cops throwing tear gas grenades into the crowd

Things I didn’t see:

Protesters throwing rocks.

Protesters attacking police

“Yahoos”

Nor did I see any footage from the specific demonstration where the three cops were outed showing any rocks being thrown.

Now, I'm reasonable and smart enough to acknowledge the possibility that someone tossed rocks at the cops. But then, maybe they were cops too. It's certainly as plausible a theory as the prima facie ridiculous one that the cops were outed for not throwing rocks.

[scribblet]

If I asked M. Dancer, Scriblett , Mr. Harper, Mr Bush and a few of the War lords of Afghanistan and a few others on here what their thoughts on life were and how it should be run, I would get exactly the same answers. That is why it is funny to listen to your ideas on here.

Funny you seem to have an obsession with Afghan War Lords, you know the ones who are similar to union bosses and native chiefs. But then, it's funny to listen to the same old socialist refrain when demanding more and more handouts when feeding at that taxpayer trough.

[scribblet]

With or without frothing spittle and rage?

as long as she doesn't get any on my screen

[Keepitsimple]

Which video? There's no bullets flying or rocks being thrown in the video of the three undercover cops being outed. stay focused!

Sorry Balck Dog - I forgot to include the link.

Here's the video that was posted earlier in the thread. At about one minute and 10 seconds you'll get a fairly good look at some of the yahoos that the police had to put up with. Your smart-aleck comment of "stay focused" is not required.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ILTtIGVRS9k

[geoffrey]

I'm so sick of these protestors whining after they get gased and what not. It's not like they weren't warned. Getting in the face of the police and walking into them thinking your tough shit will definitely last all of a few seconds. Back off, don't assault the officers and keep your protest peaceful and no one will actually have any problem with you.

It's outrageous that people have sympathy for these people.

Keeping pushing the limits of the law and eventually someone will push back.

Bunch of hooligans.

[Black Dog]

I'm so sick of these protestors whining after they get gased and what not. It's not like they weren't warned. Getting in the face of the police and walking into them thinking your tough shit will definitely last all of a few seconds. Back off, don't assault the officers and keep your protest peaceful and no one will actually have any problem with you.

IOW: remember you only have as much free speech as we say you do.

It's outrageous that people have sympathy for these people.

That's funny because I think it's outrageous that people have sympathy for the heavily armed and armoured goons whose primary purpose is to keep teh wealthy and powerful insulated from the great unwashed (and I don't just mean at events like this).

Keeping pushing the limits of the law and eventually someone will push back.

"Pushing the limits"? Either a person is breaking the law-in which case they are subjct to arresst and charge- or they are not, in which case the cops can't so much as lift a finger. The implicit idea that the cops have the right to arbitrarily and preemptively enforce the law is profoundly anti-democratic.

[geoffrey]

IOW: remember you only have as much free speech as we say you do.

IOW: follow the rule of law and no one cares what you say.

Do you rather have violent protests and riots go unmonitored risking that someone might be told to shut their mouth?

That's funny because I think it's outrageous that people have sympathy for the heavily armed and armoured goons whose primary purpose is to keep teh wealthy and powerful insulated from the great unwashed (and I don't just mean at events like this).

You sound like you should be at a Leninist rally.

The police were protecting law abiding people at the conference from a band of trashy professional agitators.

"Pushing the limits"? Either a person is breaking the law-in which case they are subjct to arresst and charge- or they are not, in which case the cops can't so much as lift a finger. The implicit idea that the cops have the right to arbitrarily and preemptively enforce the law is profoundly anti-democratic.

They were breaking the law, they touched an officer which is battery and assaulting a peace officer. Fortunately, the police are lenient and don't press charges against everyone that is reckless enough to do that.

If I got into your face like these guys did on the street, you'd have legal recourse against me. Chances are none of these hooligans will ever have to face responsibility for their actions.

[Black Dog]

IOW: follow the rule of law and no one cares what you say.

Do you rather have violent protests and riots go unmonitored risking that someone might be told to shut their mouth?

Nice false dichotomy you got there.

You sound like you should be at a Leninist rally.

I wouldn't know: I'm not familiar with Mr. Lenin's works.

The police were protecting law abiding people at the conference from a band of trashy professional agitators.

How: by dressing up as professional agitators and stirring shit up? Also: what evidence is there that the "law-abiders" needed protection from the protestors?

They were breaking the law, they touched an officer which is battery and assaulting a peace officer.

I'd like to see a legal cite for that claim.

Fortunately, the police are lenient and don't press charges against everyone that is reckless enough to do that.

Real "lenient" with their truncheons, rubbber bullets, tear gas and pepper spray.

I got into your face like these guys did on the street, you'd have legal recourse against me.

Can you spot me the shield, club body armour and weapons too?

Chances are none of these hooligans will ever have to face responsibility for their actions.

It's interesting that you put the blame instantly on the protestors, yet have no basis upon which to makle that claim. It's pretty hard to tell who got into who's face first. Riot cops certainly aren't known as being models of restraint y'know.

[margrace]

As long as they have secret meetings, hiding things from the public, they will have protesters. It is my idea of Democracy, free speech, what is yours. Now if you want to go and question the War Lords they probably would completely agree with what the police did. So what does that make you?