Police provoking violence?

[M.Dancer]

Most protesters look like regular college kids, scruffy hippies and middle aged folks. That the cops would "camoflage" themeslves as Black Bloc members is telling.

What is it telling? That Black Flag/Bloc are known rioters? Do you think Police have any interest infiltating so called college kids? Or are black flag types more likely to need a closer eye.....

Would you also argue that the police, when they infiltrate biker gangs, should dress like ivy league preppies?

[M.Dancer]

Er, except the multiple statements from eyewitnesses (including one I quoted above) indicating the cops were, in fact, provoking people, the fact that one of the cops was carrying a rock and refused to put it down when asked, yeah, there's no evidence.

If I missed that, please be so kind as to repost it. But so far all I have seen is some hysterical ranting that they were cops and later saying they were provocatuers.....no one claiming thatbthey were provoked or urged to committ a crime.

....but I hear that protesters are gullible.

[Black Dog]

Is that sucking and blowing at the same time? Or are you merely parsing? Are you trying to differentiate between Montebello where the wrtr rock throwers and Montebello, a few hours/minutes/metres where there were no rock throwing?

If that's the case, that pretty specious.

Again: the claim was made by the cops that they were outed for not throwing rocks. Yet there's no evidence of rock throwing at the demo where they were outed, which, obviously, undermines their cover story. Really, sometimes I wonder if your contrarianism is reflexive. You should really give your brain the opportunity to get into gear before posting.

[M.Dancer]

"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."

Surely you didn't mean that

That is heresay evidence.....why can't this omni present fellow find the "kids" to speak?

[M.Dancer]

Again: the claim was made by the cops that they were outed for not throwing rocks. Yet there's no evidence of rock throwing at the demo where they were outed, which, obviously, undermines their cover story. Really, sometimes I wonder if your contrarianism is reflexive. You should really give your brain the opportunity to get into gear before posting.

I'm not sure if I'm wading through that. Are you claiming there was no rock throwing at the Montebello protests, period? Or are you just being a smart ass and claiming there was no rock throwing when the cops were outted?

[M.Dancer]

Again: the claim was made by the cops that they were outed for not throwing rocks. Yet there's no evidence of rock throwing at the demo where they were outed, which, obviously, undermines their cover story

Officers used pepper spray and tear gas to hold off the protesters, who responded by flinging rocks and branches. Two people were hauled away in handcuffs.

http://www.cjob.com/news/index.aspx?dir=na..../n0820119A.xml

Chanting youths from the so-called Black Bloc told Mr. Coles that the three had been trying to get them to act more aggressively against the police.

Wait....aren't these the scruffy college kids....no these are the rock throwing types the Police were dressed like.....

Mr. Day also said that the three officers were identified because they were not throwing rocks like other protesters — although reporters at the scene said they did not see extensive rock-throwing until long after the incident with the undercover officers.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/sto...y/National/home

You can deny it all you want, but there is evidence of rock throwing at the protests.

[White Doors]

It has been explained how free speech and the right to protest (part of freedom of expression) has been oppressed many times on this thread already - did you bother to read?

By instigating violence, the police deter future protests to either a. occur or b. by drastically reducing the number of people assembling. This is done by instilling 'fear' on many levels. As I have already stated, I know many 'professionals' who agree with the protests but do not go themselves - not because they don't want to take a day off work (a 'sick' day) but because they are concerned about the event turning violent, as well as being photographed an on record with the various police forces. Hence - they allowed themselves to have thier rights and voice silenced out of fear. That is by definition oppressive.

It also furthers the militarised police forces' aganda = more power, control and of course cash (for all those great new toys!).

Oh and btw White Doors do you ever add anything to a convo or simply insult others?

How did the police infringe on a peaceful protest?

[old_bold&cold]

Still we can all specualte on this and that, and none of it will matter to the opposing views of the other side. Those on the police side seem to think that to not try and infiltrate the protesters would be wrong, and there is absolutely nothing wrong with being dressed like the more violent protesting group and wearing masks, and holding rocks is ok. They do not know anything about the laws that say things about wearing a disguise while committing an offense is another law they are breaking. Also the fact that rocks can be considered weapons in some circumstances. They were outed because they did not fit in, and that in itself should say alot. But to those who think this is ok and normal, will never see what lurks behind such things.

The otherside who are more rigorous in their views, see that the police have broken the law with their disguises and holding rocks etc., and would like to have a complete accounting of such actions. It is their right to do so and since justice is to be balanced it is also in the realm of justice that it be so. The police are resisting, which only makes matters worse. For them to have to be accounted for by the laws that govern all of us who are not police, are just too much for the police to follow.

The police were there in sufficient numbers to be able to quell far larger crowds, and were equipped in full riot gear, so no real harm could have befell them and they still had the need to infiltrate and possibly cause trouble. Kind of sad is it not. If the protesters really were serious about getting violent they would have needed much larger numbers present, as it would have only took a small contigent of the officers there to round up and arrest all those who may have been there to cause trouble. It is a sad fact that there were really too few protesters there. Iy is even more sad that even those peaceful protesters, had to ask the undercover officers to put down the rocks they were carrying and they would not do so. Why was it so important that the rocks go with them? Also why is this so important for the police to not allow public inquirey to. It would seem to me that this could all be settled in just a few hours of allowing each side to investigate and have full access to all events.

So far I have seen quite a few people on this board try to marginalise others, in an attempt to shut them up. To me that is wrong. I have started to see name calling a bit and that too is wrong. I know I have very strong reasons and feelings for my position in this, but to force these on other is wrong as well. The whole issue i guess is not that the police broke the law when they took on the disguises. That they did. It seems that what bothers everyone the most is did they provoke people into actions they would not have done otherwise. That can only be answered truthfully by the protesters themselves, and it seems that there has been reports that the police did provoke others. Now of course the polic deny all of this.

I am not sure that any inquirey would have the blessings of both sides. I know why I am on the side I feel safer trusting. Can the rest of you really trust the police so much. has there not been enough occassions proven even in the courts, that the police break laws almost daily, been enough to make you question them and their actions. Do not get me wrong, I am not really for the protesters, as I do not agree with a lot of what they say. But when it comes to believeing them over a few police who I feel are hiding something, then I go with the protesters even though they too have an agenda.

[Keepitsimple]

I've posted this CTV video twice before but I don't think some of our more opinionated posters have viewed it. Please take a look if you haven't. There is no doubt that the Police form a threatening barrier and because the protesters turnout was so small, it ended up to appear as undue force......but based on other anarchist-inspired protests around the world, there was always the potential for some nasty violence. Putting aside the show of force, if you watch the entire video and listen to Lloyd Roberts, you'll see that the issue of the three undercover cops is a separate issue and doesn't really relate to what went on. Their presence was irrelevant. It's difficult to pick out the real nasty troublemakers but you'll get a peek at a few of them about a minute and 10 seconds into the video - one of the black-clad, masked yahoos gets hit with a rubber bullet and the camera quickly pans to a few of his cohorts. People who were there say there were quite a few more of these bozos.

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

[Black Dog]

What is it telling? That Black Flag/Bloc are known rioters? Do you think Police have any interest infiltating so called college kids? Or are black flag types more likely to need a closer eye.....

Would you also argue that the police, when they infiltrate biker gangs, should dress like ivy league preppies?

Well, obviously, they did a lousy job since the BB spotted them right away. They temd to be prety close-knit. And, given the diversity of people at the protest, thee's no reason the cops needed to dres up as BB members to observe their activities.

There's a big difference between going undecover as a biker or something and joining in a mass protest.

That is heresay evidence.....why can't this omni present fellow find the "kids" to speak?

It's evidence. Anyway I highly dobut that any eyewitness with first hand information on the cops' activities would be regarded by you as credible.

I'm not sure if I'm wading through that. Are you claiming there was no rock throwing at the Montebello protests, period?

Do..you...read...English?

Or are you just being a smart ass and claiming there was no rock throwing when the cops were outted?

Are you just being a dumb ass? Look, once more: the cops' cover story was that the undercover cops were given rocks to throw, but were outed when they didn't throw them. Now, in the video where the cops are "arrested," there's no rock throwing going on, so the cover story doesn't stand up ('cause if no one was throwing rocks at that protest, why would they be given rocks to throw?). Yet the one cop is holding on to a rock and refusing to drop it despite being asked to do so repeatedly. Which raises the question of what a cop is doing toting a rock at a protest far away from the action.

Officers used pepper spray and tear gas to hold off the protesters, who responded by flinging rocks and branches. Two people were hauled away in handcuffs.

First I never said there was no rock throwing whatsoever. Second, you don't find the sequence of event detailed above a bit interesting? Here's a hint:

Officers used pepper spray and tear gas to hold off the protesters, who responded by flinging rocks and branches. Two people were hauled away in handcuffs

Wait....aren't these the scruffy college kids....no these are the rock throwing types the Police were dressed like.....

Good, your starting to get it! You don't find the fact that the cops wold dress up as the one element known in activist circles as being shit disturbers to be at all relevant? Again there's no compeling reason for the cops to go undercover as Black Block members versus going in regular civilian dress. Unless they wanted to start shit.

You can deny it all you want, but there is evidence of rock throwing at the protests.

Where did I deny it? I said there was no evidence of rock throwing at the protest where the cops were outed. Which, given the cops' story about why they were toting rocks, is a not inconsequntial detail.

[Black Dog]

keepitsimple

. Putting aside the show of force, if you watch the entire video and listen to Lloyd Roberts, you'll see that the issue of the three undercover cops is a separate issue and doesn't really relate to what went on. Their presence was irrelevant

Actually the three cops is very significant. If (as some, including yours truly, are alleging) the cops are sending in agents provoceteur to start trouble (which is strongly implied by the outing of the three undercover bozos), then the unrest takes on a whole new dimension.

[M.Dancer]

They temd to be prety close-knit. They temd to be prety close-knit. And, given the diversity of people at the protest, thee's no reason the cops needed to dres up as BB members to observe their activities.

Do you, write in english?

Edited August 29, 2007 by M.Dancer

[M.Dancer]

Do..you...read...English?

Why yes. But generally I am more familiar with its coherent form rather than the sucking and blowing technique you seem to prefer.

[M.Dancer]

There's a big difference between going undecover as a biker or something and joining in a mass protest.

It's evidence. Anyway I highly dobut that any eyewitness with first hand information on the cops' activities would be regarded by you as credible.

They are both trying to root out crime. Being a thug is being a thug. Being a thug at a protest does not give the thug immunity.

Anyway I highly dobut that any eyewitness with first hand information on the cops' activities would be regarded by you as credible

Heresay evidence is unadmissable. And what is it with the pro rock throwing block and your penchant for making ridiculous assumptions? True while you and professed psychics are both wrong, is there any reason to try and be one?

[M.Dancer]

First I never said there was no rock throwing whatsoever.

QUOTE(Black Dog @ Aug 29 2007, 12:11 PM)

Things I didn’t see:

Protesters throwing rocks.

Protesters attacking police

“Yahoos”

The claim was there were rocks being thrown at the particular protest where the cops were outed. I've seen no evidence of that. Nor have I denied that rocks were thrown, but the allegation was amde that there were rocks being thrown at the protest where the three amigos were outed is unsupported.

That's some claim of agnostism. You say there is no evidence (sucking) but you say you aren't going to claimn it didn't happen (blowing). First there is evidenc of rock throwing and secondly the time line is irrelevant. Just becasue there are no news cameras doesn't mean it didn't happen.

[margrace]

M. Dancer, on the news of the Truscott case they are saying that Robert Harris who later became head of the Ontario Povincial Police hid evidence that might have helped Truscott. So what is your interest in this. For someone to post this much you must have some vested interest, it would be interesting to know what that is.

Evidently Mr. Harris rode his fame to his top position and refused to allow the case to be reopened. He is now dead and it comes to light. He must have been at least a bit uncomfortable about what he appently did,

Edited August 29, 2007 by margrace

[Black Dog]

Do you, write in english?

A spelling flame? From you? Bitch, please.

They are both trying to root out crime. Being a thug is being a thug. Being a thug at a protest does not give the thug immunity.

What has that to do with anything? I see we've reached the typical point in the proceedings where you start flailing about.

For the record, infiltrating a protest is as easy as walking into the crowd. It's not like it requires one grow a beard of wear a facemask to fit in. It's a crowd ferchrissakes.

Heresay evidence is unadmissable.

Ah and now the "moving goalposts" trick. You asked for evidence. I wrote that Coles told the CBC he was told that the cops were trying to start trouble. Now all of a sudden we're in a court of law?

And what is it with the pro rock throwing block and your penchant for making ridiculous assumptions?

I don't know: what is it? (I realy have no idea what this silliness is about.)

QUOTE(Black Dog @ Aug 29 2007, 04:37 PM)

First I never said there was no rock throwing whatsoever.

QUOTE

QUOTE(Black Dog @ Aug 29 2007, 12:11 PM)

Things I didn’t see:

Protesters throwing rocks.

Protesters attacking police

“Yahoos”

Yeah? And? Again: I never said there was no rock throwing whatsoever. I said didn't see any in the video keepitsimple posted. That's pretty clear.

That's some claim of agnostism. You say there is no evidence (sucking) but you say you aren't going to claimn it didn't happen (blowing). First there is evidenc of rock throwing and secondly the time line is irrelevant.

My goodness, it must take real effort to be as obtuse as you are. First: bravo. Second, I'm sorry your brain cannot grasp the fact that rock throwing at one part of the protest does not automatically mean there was rock throwing at another part (that is: the part where the cops were outed).

Another thing: if the cops were outed for refusing to throw rocks, why did the cop in the video refuse to put down his rock when confronted?

Just becasue there are no news cameras doesn't mean it didn't happen.

So where is the evidence that there was rock throwing at the demo where the cops were outed? It's not aparent from the video (that line of riot copsaren't acting like riot cops do when pelted wih rocks).

Also are you aware that the line of reasoning you use here ("just becasue there are no news cameras doesn't mean it didn't happen") works both ways? Are you sure you want to go there?

[jennie]

... rock throwing at one part of the protest does not automatically mean there was rock throwing at another part (that is: the part where the cops were outed).

Another thing: if the cops were outed for refusing to throw rocks, why did the cop in the video refuse to put down his rock when confronted?

So where is the evidence that there was rock throwing at the demo where the cops were outed? It's not aparent from the video (that line of riot copsaren't acting like riot cops do when pelted wih rocks).

Also are you aware that the line of reasoning you use here ("just becasue there are no news cameras doesn't mean it didn't happen") works both ways? Are you sure you want to go there?

Ya it was pretty pathetic that both the spokesperson for the SQ and STOCKWELL DAY told this lie. Day even looked like he knew he was lying. (Sick smile)

Outed for NOT throwing stones, my ***!! Stockwell Day and the SQ need to get with the youtube generation and at least watch the video so they can make up lies to fit the facts!! It was obvious that they were outed because they were a) being aggressive and refusing to back away from the line when asked by the protestors at that line, and being aggressive and refusing to drop the rocks they were carrying. When outed, they ran to safety behind the police line.

Agents provocateurs are much more common than we would like to think. Heck, even the Hamilton police planted one among protestors at the Red Hill Expressway protest. He started yelling and throwing things and taunting others to do the same WHILE THE MEDIA WAS THERE, in order to discredit the protest. The media reported it as if he was one violent protestor among many. Later, they outed him and discredited the police.

Way more common than we want to think. Canada is not the kindly and democratic place it pretends to be, unfortunately.

[Keepitsimple]

A spelling flame? From you? Bitch, please.

This forum has rules. I suggest you watch your language and show some respect. There's a line that differentiates strong opinion, belligerence, and gutter-talk. Your insult to Dancer speaks volumes about your character and the credibility of your postings.

[capricorn]

This forum has rules. I suggest you watch your language and show some respect. There's a line that differentiates strong opinion, belligerence, and gutter-talk.

The anonymity of the internet seems to lead some people to sling personal insults and make outrageous statements they would not dare say face to face in conversation. In my case, I hold my tongue, er, my keyboard.

[M.Dancer]

M. Dancer, on the news of the Truscott case they are saying that Robert Harris who later became head of the Ontario Povincial Police hid evidence that might have helped Truscott. So what is your interest in this. For someone to post this much you must have some vested interest, it would be interesting to know what that is.

Evidently Mr. Harris rode his fame to his top position and refused to allow the case to be reopened. He is now dead and it comes to light. He must have been at least a bit uncomfortable about what he appently did,

Have I posted here on Truscott? Are you by anyway related to the teapot mouse from Alice in Wonderland, you know, just popping up for no apparent reason and spouting of whatever non sequitur is currently rattling around in your head?

[M.Dancer]

This forum has rules. I suggest you watch your language and show some respect. There's a line that differentiates strong opinion, belligerence, and gutter-talk. Your insult to Dancer speaks volumes about your character and the credibility of your postings.

I don't know where the moderation is but it seems his string of insults slip under the radar.

[Black Dog]

This forum has rules. I suggest you watch your language and show some respect. There's a line that differentiates strong opinion, belligerence, and gutter-talk. Your insult to Dancer speaks volumes about your character and the credibility of your postings.

You want to report it, report it. Go ahead, that's the procedure. But spare me the schoolmarm scolding.

I don't know where the moderation is but it seems his string of insults slip under the radar.

Diddums.