Undercover cops at Berkely protests

[Genx87]

lol, "infiltrate?!" What is this, some top secret organization? How about, if the crowd didn't push the cops and start surrounding them like they were about to attack them, this wouldn't have happened. Again the deflection from the real problem. Why can't a cop walk among them? They weren't doing anything wrong.

What do you call putting undercover cops into a protest?

Why cant a cop walk among a protest against oppressive cops? Really? You dont see how that would instigate a situation?

The answer is, most likely not. If a citizen with a concealed carry pulled his gun on a threatening mob surrounding him, I'm sure no charges would have been filed. What, would you have preferred one of the mod members jump the cop while others join in and THEN have the cop pull his weapon and actually have to discharge it? And then you'd have another BS story about a cop shooting another "innocent" unarmed black person. Give me a freakin' break.

How about this for a solution, quit fvcking committing crimes, talking sh!t to cops, and instigating cops and I'm sure the issues would DRASTICALLY decrease. But I guess that's too difficult to do, so let's deflect and blame the problem on the cops.

Actually you would most likely be charged with a crime. I don't know the laws in California but I cant imagine them being more lax than MN. In MN it is a crime to brandish a weapon in a threatening manner, even if you have a permit to carry. The weapon is to be used in a life threatening situation. And if you think it is a life threatening situation then it must be used.

What I would prefer is cops keep the peace. Infiltrating a protest against abusive cops as proven in this article did not keep the peace. It ended with a potential assault on one protester and one cop. While causing another cop to brandish his weapon in a threatening way at a crowd. Would that be too much to ask from our police?

 

[Jaskalas]

They got caught out in the middle of a angry crowd that was beginning to assault them. They're lucky to be alive.

Pretty dumb of the undercover cop - had there been an unknowing police officer with the same 'bravado', he would have been gunned down.

Quite true.

 

[TechBoyJK]

yea, read the story. Cop was in the right, and all the pics that are clear, you can see he doesn't have his finger on the trigger. Probably never even took the safety off.

But he was in the right. Look at his face. That was a hostile moment. That's not an uncontrolled angry man face, that's a concerned im about to be attacked face.

 

[TechBoyJK]

What do you call putting undercover cops into a protest?

Why cant a cop walk among a protest against oppressive cops? Really? You dont see how that would instigate a situation?




Actually you would most likely be charged with a crime. I don't know the laws in California but I cant imagine them being more lax than MN. In MN it is a crime to brandish a weapon in a threatening manner, even if you have a permit to carry. The weapon is to be used in a life threatening situation. And if you think it is a life threatening situation then it must be used.

What I would prefer is cops keep the peace. Infiltrating a protest against abusive cops as proven in this article did not keep the peace. It ended with a potential assault on one protester and one cop. While causing another cop to brandish his weapon in a threatening way at a crowd. Would that be too much to ask from our police?

You don't have to use your gun, once pulled, in a life threatening situation. If you pull your gun, and the person backs off, and you still shoot, then you might ACTUALLY be charged with a crime.

I may have misread your comment, but it appears you're suggesting someone commit a crime once they pull their gun even if simply pulling it defuses the situation.

 

[SMOGZINN]

No evidence the cops are agent provocateurs at all.

The whole point of the protests are that people do not trust the cops, so the police's response is to put undercover cops in the protesters? What exactly was these undercover cops supposed to do? Learn secret information about the crowd of people walking down the street chanting their slogan, while being filmed?

No, the only reason to have undercover cops in that crowd was so they could instigate a reason to arrest them if needed.

 

[boomerang]

No, the only reason to have undercover cops in that crowd was so they could instigate a reason to arrest them if needed.

Yeah, no way they'd be there so that a potentially fast moving mob that in prior days had shown a propensity for destructive behavior could be monitored in order to call in uniformed officers if the crowd got out of control. No way, Jose. :facepalm:

 

[Jerem]

Pulling his weapon and having it at low ready is fine and dandy, but he is aiming it at someone that is filming him and not a threat. Photographer is lucky he didn't make 'furtive movements' and wind up dead.

 

[z1ggy]

Yeah, I can see why he pulled it, but:

A) It's kind of shitty for them to even be there in the first place. Putting cops undercover in a mob that's protesting said cops??? That'll go well.

B) Finger wasn't on the trigger, but it's still aimed at somebody. Only aim it at a thing you are ready to kill. Therefore, I can really only conclude he was ready to kill protestors that most likely weren't the ones who attacked his partner. He should have held in a less lethal direction at least. But, I wasn't there so I'd like to assume this guy was legitimately fearful for his life...

 

[SMOGZINN]

Yeah, no way they'd be there so that a potentially fast moving mob that in prior days had shown a propensity for destructive behavior could be monitored in order to call in uniformed officers if the crowd got out of control. No way, Jose. :facepalm:

You are right. It must be hard for the police to keep track of a groups of 50 chanting individuals without having secret police infiltrate them.

Why not just have uniformed cops follow them?

 

[Blanky]

You are right. It must be hard for the police to keep track of a groups of 50 chanting individuals without having secret police infiltrate them.

Why not just have uniformed cops follow them?

You don't get the merits of undercover police work?

These cops can go anywhere in public they choose. They are not there to foment riots or stop protesters. They were likely there to keep a close eye on troublemakers and it seems they did quite a good job of it, too, hanging with a group that included somebody who would commit assault.

There is no way in hell they were helping to hit windows and things.

 

[Linux23]

cop is lucky that they didn't bumrush his scared punk ass and pump a couple slugs in him for trying to be so sneaky.

 

[zinfamous]

I'm perfectly fine with undercover cops in those protests, and they have been needed around here, frankly.

The only alarming thing is that cop with the sideways grip. very, very sad.

 

[Linux23]

Pulling his weapon and having it at low ready is fine and dandy, but he is aiming it at someone that is filming him and not a threat. Photographer is lucky he wasn't black and wind up dead.

fixed for ya

 

[zinfamous]

You are right. It must be hard for the police to keep track of a groups of 50 chanting individuals without having secret police infiltrate them.

Why not just have uniformed cops follow them?

Are you serious? The crowd hit 1500 two nights ago. Last two were down a bit due to the tropical storm tearing shit up.

 

[maddogchen]

totally justified. I don't see anything wrong with it. They were there to try to identify some arsonists who were hiding in the protest. They got ratted out, they got jumped, he pulled a gun to ward off people attacking his partner who tackled the guy who jumped them.

 

[WackyDan]

this isn't new.

cops are always placed in protest to stir up the shit and then laugh when everyone they riled up gets arrested.

classic false flag.

They are also placed there to observe and covertly identify people getting out of hand to uniformed officers.

 

[WackyDan]

I'm perfectly fine with undercover cops in those protests, and they have been needed around here, frankly.

The only alarming thing is that cop with the sideways grip. very, very sad.

The other photo shows a different perspective. I think what you are seeing is not a side ways or "gangsta" grip but an officer who with one hand on his partner to help him up can only use his free hand with the gun to motion/gesture while giving the crowd commands to back off.

No outrage here.

 

[zanejohnson]

They are also placed there to observe and covertly identify people getting out of hand to uniformed officers.

no.

you see, it's called "doublespeak."

the cops were there FOR THE SOLE PURPOSE OF PROVOKING VIOLENCE.

i mean, don't we have to say that is the case, if they are in this group of rioters/protesters undercover?

think about it for a second... there is a group of violent rioters/protesters, this cop went undercover/infiltrated this group. correct? therefore he was becoming, one of the rioters/protesters, that's the point of being undercover/unknown/anonymous isn't it?

you could also say, "hey are also placed there to observe and covertly identify people getting out of hand "

but isn't that exactly the same thing, with different spin?


it's like the illegal drug sting operations they used to use frequently... where the police post up on a corner in a ghetto and sell drugs to potential drug seekers...and then arrest the buyer for soliciting drugs....

or reverse prostitution stings...

if you dont see how that is actually provoking crime, i can't help you... i guess some people aren't capable of thinking from multiple perspectives.

and yes, brandishing a weapon is illegal as hell. that by itself is a crime, and a felony crime at that.

 

[cabri]

no.

you see, it's called "doublespeak."

the cops were there FOR THE SOLE PURPOSE OF PROVOKING VIOLENCE.

i mean, don't we have to say that is the case, if they are in this group of rioters/protesters undercover?

think about it for a second... there is a group of violent rioters/protesters, this cop went undercover/infiltrated this group. correct? therefore he was becoming, one of the rioters/protesters, that's the point of being undercover/unknown/anonymous isn't it?

you could also say, "hey are also placed there to observe and covertly identify people getting out of hand "

but isn't that exactly the same thing, with different spin?

Do you have any proof of such or is this your un-informed opniion based on experiences and your past.

 

[shortylickens]

I would like to think undercover is better than calling the national guard.

But apparently they cant even go undercover without starting problems.

 

[zanejohnson]

Do you have any proof of such or is this your un-informed opniion based on experiences and your past.

Yeah i have proof, so does every person who saw the pictures or read the article.

It's an undercover law enforcement officer, who was undercover in the ongoing protests. At the same time, there is a line of police using riot control tactics on the other side of the police line.

protesters + undercover police are the "I"s, barricade ="!", line of riot police+uniformed officers="\"
IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII ! \\\\\\\\\\\\\\




have you watched any of the live streams of the tactics the line of riot police and uniformed officers use.. there's an obvious barricade, and the riot police stand on the other side.. they are not mixed in with the protesters..... these undercovers WERE.

 

[zanejohnson]

I would like to think undercover is better than calling the national guard.

But apparently they cant even go undercover without starting problems.

you go undercover by infiltrating the groups of people organizing the protests, you do NOT GO UNDERCOVER DRESSED AS A PROTESTER AND ACTIVELY PROTEST/RIOT WITH THEM.

that's not undercover, that's provocation. why do you think they turned on them when they found out they were AGENT PROVOCATEURS?

 

[Blanky]

no.

you see, it's called "doublespeak."

the cops were there FOR THE SOLE PURPOSE OF PROVOKING VIOLENCE.

Of course this is not true. I have read no evidence of it.

Yeah i have proof, so does every person who saw the pictures or read the article.

It's an undercover law enforcement officer, who was undercover in the ongoing protests. At the same time, there is a line of police using riot control tactics on the other side of the police line.

This is not proof or evidence. It also isn't true. If uniformed cops were just across the street from these two who were undercover and supposedly hitting windows with the crowd, why weren't they arrested? That's right, because they weren't across the street provoking violence, more likely who knows where else keeping an eye on certain protesters.

 

[Pipeline 1010]

There is no way in hell they were helping to hit windows and things.

I'm not saying the cops were doing that in this instance (although many of the crowd are saying so). However, I don't think we should be so 100% dismissive that this could have possibly happened. Especially since there have been numerous documented cases (and even video) of cops agitating the crowd and inciting violence. It's the easiest way to get a peaceful protest declared an illegal gathering and disperse their asses.

 

[MongGrel]

Yeah, no way they'd be there so that a potentially fast moving mob that in prior days had shown a propensity for destructive behavior could be monitored in order to call in uniformed officers if the crowd got out of control. No way, Jose. :facepalm:

This.