[QUOTE=Bent Wookie;3351369]Actually what he did is cite circumstantial, unsubstantiated, wikipedia articles (footnoted to newspapers that clarify the flimsy accusations).
So I wouldn't call those "examples" because if that's all one has, its pretty weak at best.
I would suggest, most major police forces do send undercover operators into demonstrations, peaceful protest or even riots. There are several reasons for this, but I would think what you suggest isn't even or is rarely on the list.[QUOTE]
Now of course the police denied they were there to instigate violence, except they were filmed at the protest with rocks in their hands.
You know COINTELPRO was a real program right?
Alot of times, the agent provocateurs will be filmed on camera trying to sneak behind police lines during the protest. It doesn't get any more obvious than that.
You're naive to believe that the police are only there to monitor the groups "just in case" violence breaks out.....but these undercover agents can never seem to prevent violence....
[QUOTE=mikey_the_redneck;3351497][QUOTE=Bent Wookie;3351369]Actually what he did is cite circumstantial, unsubstantiated, wikipedia articles (footnoted to newspapers that clarify the flimsy accusations).
So I wouldn't call those "examples" because if that's all one has, its pretty weak at best.
I would suggest, most major police forces do send undercover operators into demonstrations, peaceful protest or even riots. There are several reasons for this, but I would think what you suggest isn't even or is rarely on the list.
Now of course the police denied they were there to instigate violence, except they were filmed at the protest with rocks in their hands.
You know COINTELPRO was a real program right?
Alot of times, the agent provocateurs will be filmed on camera trying to sneak behind police lines during the protest. It doesn't get any more obvious than that.
You're naive to believe that the police are only there to monitor the groups "just in case" violence breaks out.....but these undercover agents can never seem to prevent violence....
As I said, all police agencies will use undercover operators during protests, riots and where they expect issues.
They were holding rocks in their hands with other bonafide rioters. So, if you were an undercover operator and your target group all wore purple hats, would you wear a pink one? To suggest the police instigated a riots because they were holding rocks, speaks to the lowest common denominator.
Ya, COINTELPRO was around in the 50's, 60's and 70's. Have a look at the political and social environmet of the US during that time period. Apples and oranges.
Let's just try and stick in the here and now and ACTUAL real accounts of the police or other government groups inciting riots. You won't find any.
Last edited by Bent Wookie; 10-28-2011 at 03:21 PM.
Actually what he did is cite circumstantial, unsubstantiated, wikipedia articles (footnoted to newspapers that clarify the flimsy accusations).
So I wouldn't call those "examples" because if that's all one has, its pretty weak at best.
I would suggest, most major police forces do send undercover operators into demonstrations, peaceful protest or even riots. There are several reasons for this, but I would think what you suggest isn't even or is rarely on the list.
As I said, all police agencies will use undercover operators during protests, riots and where they expect issues.
They were holding rocks in their hands with other bonafide rioters. So, if you were an undercover operator and your target group all wore purple hats, would you wear a pink one? To suggest the police instigated a riots because they were holding rocks, speaks to the lowest common denominator.
Ya, COINTELPRO was around in the 50's, 60's and 70's. Have a look at the political and social environmet of the US during that time period. Apples and oranges.
Let's just try and stick in the here and now and ACTUAL real accounts of the police or other government groups inciting riots. You won't find any.
As you can see, the agents were the only ones holding rocks in their hands. The protest was entirely peaceful and these guys got called out for their actions by the other protestors. Are you denying that throwing large stones at police or private property would not provocate a police response?
It is true that agent provocateurs are not always there to turn a protest violent to dis-credit it, but it happens.
Apples and oranges? I don't know if you noticed, but we live in interesting times here, ....politically tense times with the wars, the world economy on the verge of collapse and all of this globalization that is ending sovereignty.
Who is to say that the FBI COINTELPRO is not still in use today?
That's actually pretty interesting. The news story in the links to the side has the actual admission.
Thanks.
Important to note:
The law enforcement agencies in Quebec involved in this adamantly, and in the terms of some people, aggressively asserted that there was no undercover involvement. A 'How dare accuse us of something so vile!"
They bleeted this until it became so painful obvious to all who saw the news story that law enforcement was behind the violence at what was an otherwise peaceful labour protest that they had to come clean; sort of.
Now it was vehement denial that they were there to cause trouble.
So, which is the truth here? The first one? The second story that is made under duress of public opinion? If they were obviously and adamantly lying the first time, why on earth wouldn't they do it again?
Interesting when the story changes so much from the people charged with upholding the law and keeping the story straight, and I"m glad to see you're open to the new information.
The police in Quebec are so ridiculously corrupt that hearing about them doing this on a regular basis and then lying through their teeth about it is the least surprising thing I've ever heard.
I've been with friends in Gatineau who have gotten assaulted (when they wandered away from the group), and when they ask for help from the police they get a response "come back and ask in french and maybe we'll help you. Until then you belong in Ontario." Quite frankly that is disgusting and as someone who usually has a great deal of respect for police, I certainly wouldn't put the police in that province above doing things like that.
The police in Quebec are so ridiculously corrupt that hearing about them doing this on a regular basis and then lying through their teeth about it is the least surprising thing I've ever heard.
I've been with friends in Gatineau who have gotten assaulted (when they wandered away from the group), and when they ask for help from the police they get a response "come back and ask in french and maybe we'll help you. Until then you belong in Ontario." Quite frankly that is disgusting and as someone who usually has a great deal of respect for police, I certainly wouldn't put the police in that province above doing things like that.
This is also the national police force, RCMP, being implicated in this.
I am going to just speak generally when it comes to how police handle protesters:
I always find it amusing that police apologists or the police themselves always play the "mob mentality" card when referring to these protesters, forgetting that the police in these situations create their own mob withtheir own special mob mentality.
The Following User Says Thank You to JimmytheT For This Useful Post:
The law enforcement agencies in Quebec involved in this adamantly, and in the terms of some people, aggressively asserted that there was no undercover involvement. A 'How dare accuse us of something so vile!"
They bleeted this until it became so painful obvious to all who saw the news story that law enforcement was behind the violence at what was an otherwise peaceful labour protest that they had to come clean; sort of.
Now it was vehement denial that they were there to cause trouble.
So, which is the truth here? The first one? The second story that is made under duress of public opinion? If they were obviously and adamantly lying the first time, why on earth wouldn't they do it again?
Interesting when the story changes so much from the people charged with upholding the law and keeping the story straight, and I"m glad to see you're open to the new information.
There is such a difference between police agencies from municipality to municipality, province to province, etc, etc.
I think to lump them all together is the biggest mistake. Training methods, deployment, policing ideologies/theories are all different from agency to agency. Heck there's probably a large disparity from unit to unit.
In the end, the police probably keep a tonne of secrets from the general public. Some justified, maybe some not. Either way, there damned if they do, damned if they don't.
That's an old excuse, and it's never really been true.
Handled properly, it's quite possible for both the police and the protestors to be satisfied with the proceedings. It happens quite a lot. People just don't pay attention to something going right, even if they notice the protests.
Just because someone can't do his job without offending anyone doesn't mean it can't be done. More often than not it just means someone is incompetent.
That's an old excuse, and it's never really been true.
Handled properly, it's quite possible for both the police and the protestors to be satisfied with the proceedings. It happens quite a lot. People just don't pay attention to something going right, even if they notice the protests.
Just because someone can't do his job without offending anyone doesn't mean it can't be done. More often than not it just means someone is incompetent.
Spoken like someone with clear policing experience.
Back in the nineties I was playing card with my brother at an old abandoned warehouse/factory that had been occupied as a protest.
(I'm not going to go into all the details of 90's Helsinki politics, but basicly people took issue that places like this were kept empty despite there being a perceived shortage and there being other people willing and wanting to use it and others for what they considered to be public good.)
An older policeman walks in, explains that he's been put in charge of emptying this building. Then he starts telling everybody that if you people would kindly pick some volunteers, the police will firmly carry those people out of the building for the TV cameras, and they can shout any slogans they like. No charges will be pressed, and the rest of you can just walk out of here on your own.
And that's basicly what happened. The media, the protesters and the police all got what they wanted (something for the evening news for the media and protesters, and easy and safe emptying of the building for the police). In the end that particular building was given to the Helsinki Theatre Academy, which has AFAIK been quite happy with it.
Now, this is a bit of an extreme (and quite well known in Finland, for reasons completely unrelated to how the building was emptied) case of happy endings, but taking this sort of approach can work.
That particular policeman is now retired, but he holds courses for security training. (I think he might have also taught this stuff at the police academy.) I was at his course much later on and it was pretty interesting to hear him talk about various ways of turning potentially violent situations into peaceful solutions. My brother (who was one of the central characters in that and many other protests) also remembered that guy fondly, because with him in charge people didn't get hurt. (This was not the only time they'd met under similar circumstances.)
(I wasn't really at his course because I wanted to become a guard but because I was interested in the subject. Let's just say I'm from a political family and thus I have funny interests and hobbies.)
It's pretty simple really. Usually the people organizing protests are smarter than average people who can both talk and listen. (Without those qualities it's hard to organize anything.) If the police concentrates on their job, they really shouldn't care at all whether or not the protesters get their message through. The police and the protesters more often than not can reach a common ground, because they have interests that are mutual (no-one getting hurt) and interests that are not in conflict with the other side. (The protesters want attention, the police want to look efficient.)
Hardliners leading the police force usually leads to trouble. Politicians meddling is also a common reason for trouble. (Politics can also be within the police, which can lead to some of the worst cases.)
As a comparison; I also used to drive a cab, which some people consider a dangerous profession. You also heard quite a few stories of trouble in that job. However, it's mostly always the same cabbies who "have to" get physical, and others who have done it for decades never had that kind of trouble. Basicly every time I had trouble, in retrospect I played a part in starting it. Stupid, but human. (I didn't have much though.)
Now, cabbies don't get much in the way of training, but the police do, and they can choose who they put in charge (theoretically at least). That means they, unlike me, don't IMO have an excuse for failing. Controlling these things and seeing that no-one gets hurt is their job.
If stuff like this happens, the police has failed. You don't really need to know much more than "it happened" to know the police somehow did a bad job.
The reasons of course can be various, but in the end, the police should be the ones looking into it. And because the police should be the ones getting into details, I think exactly the correct reaction from the side of the public is that "this shouldn't have happened, and the police are to blame". There's no need to get any more complicated than that, because it serves no real purpose.
As long as you remember that even if as a collective "the police" was in the wrong or failed, it doesn't mean that every individual police officer was in the wrong or somehow a bad person or incompetent. (Some of them might be, most of them will not be.)
The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to Itse For This Useful Post:
Oakland police will no longer indiscriminately use wooden or rubber bullets, Taser stun guns, pepper spray and motorcycles to break up crowds, under an agreement announced Friday.
The changes followed criticism and lawsuits against police for their tactics at a large demonstration against the Iraq war outside the Port of Oakland on April 7, 2003.
The new policy settles part of a federal class-action lawsuit filed by 52 people who claimed their First Amendment rights to freedom of speech and assembly were violated as they targeted two shipping companies with contracts tied to the war in Iraq.
"What we've done is create a comprehensive policy that really provides a much more sensible, reasoned approach to managing demonstrations and crowds," said Rachel Lederman of the National Lawyers Guild in San Francisco.
...
"Overall, it's a good policy, and I think it will benefit the whole community," said Michael Haddad, an Oakland attorney representing Louise and five other plaintiffs in a separate federal lawsuit.
John Burris, another plaintiffs' attorney in Oakland, agreed, saying the crowd-control measures are "a positive step toward evenhandedness."
Oakland police spokeswoman Danielle Ashford said Friday that the department's new policy was the result of an "ongoing learning process" that seeks to "ensure the safety of our officers as well as the community that we serve."
Haddad said police are "supposed to respect protesters' First Amendment activity" under the new policy. If laws are broken, police will try to negotiate with leaders and give audible orders to the crowd to disperse before making arrests.
If demonstrators still refuse to comply, police are allowed to deploy tear gas "on the edge of the crowd," form a skirmish line and push back protesters with batons but not strike them, Haddad said.
Alan Schlosser, legal director of the American Civil Liberties Union in San Francisco, said the policy is timely because of the re-election of President Bush.
"I would guess that there's probably going to be lots of demonstrations and lots of difference of opinions," Schlosser said.
Lederman said, "These projectile weapons are very dangerous. It was only a matter of luck that someone wasn't killed on April 7, 2003, in Oakland. That's what we're trying to prevent."
The Following User Says Thank You to Flash Walken For This Useful Post:
Here in the "People's Republic of Portland" the Occupy protests have been (I think) very well handled by city government and the police. They've been fully willing to let the occupiers camp in the two park blocks across the street from city hall. It also happens to be across the street from the main police station, which means that there is the appearance of a heavy police presence, but mostly it's just cops coming and going from work. They patrol pretty thoroughly, and all the arrests at the main camp so far have been for public drinking, urination, and the like. Things you're going to get arrested for doing in any park on any day. There were a bunch of arrests made the other day when a group decided to occupy another park, but they were pretty much the same sort of thing as Itse described. And on the whole the protests have been very good about keeping the major transit routes clear, so there's really no disruption of anything downtown, so they're not really angering the citizens at large.
This has not always been the case, though, and after a few bad incidents in the late 90s the police have been very careful not to instigate an escalation. The worst case I remember was a May Day parade that ended in a big rally and at some point the cops decided they needed to move it along. So they started pushing everyone down to the waterfront, which is generally a very large open space, and could easily have held the crowd and allowed it to wind down peacefully. However, that day they happened to be setting up for the Cinco de Mayo festival in the same place and the whole waterfront was fenced off. A couple hundred cops herding a few thousand people into a dead end of 8-foot chainlink fence. When no one could go anywhere anymore, the cops seemed to think that the crowd were pushing back against them, not realizing that they really had nowhere to go, and they started getting pretty violent and tear gassed us. Which in turn meant tear gassing all the people at the Cinco de Mayo festival. It was a fiasco, all caused because someone giving orders didn't think ahead.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Stumptown For This Useful Post:
