Agents Provocateur?

So, this video from an anti-spp(The Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America) protest outside the North American Leader's summit in Montreal appeared on youtube a couple days ago.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=St1-WTc1kow

At first, I wasn't sure. However, some evidence that they actually were cops appeared on the internet. Specifically, a -really- good photo of the "arrest" appeared. The picture showed that all these "masked protesters" and the cops were all wearing the same boots. Also, the police had announced only 4 arrests were made at the demonstration, and the protestors managed to account for all 4 of them. These 3 guys weren't arrested among those 4.

Today, the Quebec police were forced to admit that the "protesters" really were undercover cops.

http://www.thestar.com/News/article/249291

Now, they claim that the undercover cops weren't trying to start anything. That's possible. However, why was one of them carrying a rock? Sure, it might help the disguise, but it still seems like a pretty fucking dangerous thing to do.

Either way, Youtube is really starting to show how valuable free internet media is to us.

Yeah, Youtube is great. Some of the provocateurs we dealt with in the past successfully ruined some young leftists lives. One young girl who must have been about 17 or 18 at the time, ended up in jail for a few years after an agent fucked with her.

I don't expect that the police will ever stop using them, but it will be nice to have some sort of recourse.

I don't think I feel sorry for anyone sucked in by a provocateur, personally. If I am in a crowd and someone starts to antagonize police forces, I make a point to make sure I'm not associated with them in any way.

If you choose to protest or picket and police in full riot gear say, "okay.. No one past this point". Better damn well listen. I'm boggled by the notion that pushing or taunting peace officers simply doing their job makes your 'protest' any more poignant. Hell, some of them may even agree with the protestors.

Make signs, chant, whatever. Don't touch the police. Don't threaten violence.

The undercover provocateurs are a safety measure, imo. If a crowd is WILLING to escalate to violence, they'll follow the provacation and the riot squad will be anticipating the escalation. If they are truly peaceful, then the undercovers get 'arrested' and all is well.


I am more annoyed when the opposite occurs. Protestors with lawyer in tow provoke police to respond to threats or taunts and promtly have camera or halfass 'witnesses' in place to sue.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Wrent
I am more annoyed when the opposite occurs. Protestors with lawyer in tow provoke police to respond to threats or taunts and promtly have camera or halfass 'witnesses' in place to sue.

---

Wait, what? When the cops provoke protesters into violence it's the protesters fault. When the protesters provoke the cops into violence, it's also the protester's fault. How the heck does that work? Cops are above the law now? They can beat people because they were taunting them?

http://store.theworstpageintheuniver...#CIVILBLACKRED

Quote:

---

Originally posted by leira
Wait, what? When the cops provoke protesters into violence it's the protesters fault. When the protesters provoke the cops into violence, it's also the protester's fault. How the heck does that work? Cops are above the law now? They can beat people because they were taunting them?

---

In most cases I have seen or read, yes it is usually the protesters fault. Cops are not above the law, however they enforce it. When you break it or threaten breaking it, you -FORCE- a response. When you endanger or attempt to endanger or harm whatever they are there protecting, you just lost your right to protest and likely your ability walk upright for the day. Obey peace officers and avoid being intimate with the ground.


Peaceful and righteous demonstrations rarely have problems with police. It is typically the crowds which feel swarming and harassing some poor 'enemy' or think throwing rocks at some poor nurse leaving an abortion clinic where she words which get their ass kicked.

Intentionally placing agents within an organization for the purposes of inciting violence just so you can arrest that group seems rather bad to me.

It's like the principal telling a kid "Hey, go tell that bully that Jonny called his mom a bad name so when he punches Jonny I can put him in detention".

Large gatherings can often be swayed by a single voice calling for action. If that action is violence, you might end up with a lynch mob where an otherwise peaceful people would have been. It seems that voice is intentionally being placed there just so the police could arrest people.

Quote:

---

Intentionally placing agents within an organization for the purposes of inciting violence just so you can arrest that group seems rather bad to me.

---

It also seems rather bad to the judicial branch - I believe they call it entrapment.

I don't generally mind that the police place officers undercover at protests, but the intentional inciting of violence by such an officer is a massive problem. That, and apparently the standard-issue police boots made it painfully obvious what was going on. I am generally permissive toward the actions of police officers so long as they appear to have even a shred of good intent buried in there somewhere, but I personally believe that the officer with the rock should be fired on the spot. It probably won't happen, blue wall of silence and all that.

Quote:

---

The undercover provocateurs are a safety measure, imo. If a crowd is WILLING to escalate to violence, they'll follow the provacation and the riot squad will be anticipating the escalation. If they are truly peaceful, then the undercovers get 'arrested' and all is well.

---

This is a terrible argument. If you put enough people in a room, the intents of the crowd are not relevant to their actions if something should happen. This is akin to poking an animal with a stick and shooting it when it bites you - it didn't intend to bite you when it started wandering around your lawn. All it takes is one person to throw one rock in a crowd and a demonstration can get ugly very quickly.

Quote:

---

I don't think I feel sorry for anyone sucked in by a provocateur, personally. If I am in a crowd and someone starts to antagonize police forces, I make a point to make sure I'm not associated with them in any way.

---

This is also a terrible argument. You are in the crowd - you are associated with the crowd. If the crowd begins to violently antagonize the police, you have a big problem and very little recourse if you wind up injured.

146 Police Injured in Germany G8 Protest

More Attacking police at Protest : Hamburg



Sure there are cases when, perhaps, violence would not have ensued save for provocateurs 'lead'. But with so many ridiculous and violent attacks against police, I really can't blame them for wanting to be SURE a protest will remain peaceful.

So many cases where a demonstration is peaceful for hours when suddenly from nowhere it turns violent makes me very unsympathetic to protesters in general.

Ok, I don't think I was clear. My fault.

Your argument is a very flawed one because you are essentially stating that it is permissible for police to attempt to extract a violent reaction from a protesting group to ascertain whether or not their intentions were "peaceful". You are completely discounting mob mentality (or whatever you'd like to call it). You can turn a peaceful protest bad easily enough, as long as there are enough people so that mass confusion can come about as a result of an isolated act of violence, someone yelling "He's got a gun!", throwing a rock, punching a stranger, etc etc. The "intents of the crowd" are not relevant. The crowd is not an entity that has a single motive.

I sympathize with the police. They have a job that is thankless and are generally paid below average for risking their lives every time they pull someone over for speeding. That having been said, it is not the function of the police to instigate crime much like I do not believe it is the function of reporters to instigate news.