Undercover cops at Berkely protests

[MongGrel]

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?

No, that is undercover.

 

[zanejohnson]

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.

This, exactly.

Many people who were in the protest are saying that the undercover police WERE IN FACT the ones destroying property, and when the protesters tried to stop them (tried to protect the property,) is when the crowd turned on them, AND THEN, that's when the undercover law enforcement officer brandished the weapon.

i don't understand why it's so hard for some users on this forum to believe the police could act criminally.

We see evidence of this type of behavior on a DAILY basis nowadays.


It also makes sense like the user above me noted, to turn a peaceful protest into a violent riot, thus, allowing the police to break up the protest.... It's only logical from an LEO perspective.

they are spending so much money on labor by having to have these riot police on duty when they usually would not be. It would save the department ALOT of money spent on labor if they didn't have to these riot police out there. A means to an end, is to incite/create violence in the protest, crack down, and cut it short.

 

[zinfamous]

no.

you see, it's called "doublespeak."

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

No they weren't. In fact, the local police departments here: Berkeley, Oakland, Richmond, Albany, have all supported the protests in public. Shit, the Richmond Chief even marched with them and chanted one night. (OK, well, maybe not Oakland, lol)

You're talking out of your ass.

 

[zinfamous]

This, exactly.

Many people who were in the protest are saying that the undercover police WERE IN FACT the ones destroying property, and when the protesters tried to stop them (tried to protect the property,) is when the crowd turned on them, AND THEN, that's when the undercover law enforcement officer brandished the weapon.

Huh? who are these people and what is their credibility? Were you on the streets that night?

i don't understand why it's so hard for some users on this forum to believe the police could act criminally.

We see evidence of this type of behavior on a DAILY basis nowadays.

I would wager that everyone on this forum believe that this is certainly possible. Not only possible, but a near certainty in the majority of precincts.
Hell, I'd wager my first 3 kids on this being true (...if I ever have any)

Point is, you're making wild-ass unfounded assumptions in your first claim, based on the belief in your second claim. Your interpretation of this specific incident is inherently biased and completely inaccurate because of it.

 

[JEDIYoda]

Point is, you're making wild-ass unfounded assumptions in your first claim, based on the belief in your second claim. Your interpretation of this specific incident is inherently biased and completely inaccurate because of it.
__________________

actually Zane is being truthful. If you took the time to read many of the articles written on the incident you would find that often the sole goal of infiltrating a peaceful march is to get people riled up so the march can ne called a violent march and the Police can arrest those involved.....it really is a vicious circle!

There are even retired cops who will tell you that they were told to infiltrate and cause trouble......

In todays age of Police corruption It would not surprise me at all if those cops were the ones causing trouble and the other marchers turned on them....

 

[WackyDan]

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.

Holy fuck. Really?

Were the undercover cos in the crowd inciting them to break windows and riot? NO. There is no fucking evidence of that. Show us the video of the officers. Certainly someone was filming.

By the way, when confronted with a hostile crowd and one that has already used violence on his fellow officer, you can be damn certain he was well within his right as a police officer to draw his weapon.

 

[Jaskalas]

actually Zane is being truthful. If you took the time to read many of the articles written on the incident you would find that often the sole goal of infiltrating a peaceful march is to get people riled up so the march can ne called a violent march and the Police can arrest those involved.....it really is a vicious circle!

There are even retired cops who will tell you that they were told to infiltrate and cause trouble......

In todays age of Police corruption It would not surprise me at all if those cops were the ones causing trouble and the other marchers turned on them....

So that's how you take a tame and uninteresting story of officers being caught by a crowd, of no one getting hurt... and turn into a tale of police conspiracy and criminal activity.

Not sure what's worse... that it could be real or that I'm not sure it isn't.

 

[JEDIYoda]

So that's how you take a tame and uninteresting story of officers being caught by a crowd, of no one getting hurt... and turn into a tale of police conspiracy and criminal activity.

Not sure what's worse... that it could be real or that I'm not sure it isn't.

truth hurts huh???

 

[Pipeline 1010]

No they weren't. In fact, the local police departments here: Berkeley, Oakland, Richmond, Albany, have all supported the protests in public. Shit, the Richmond Chief even marched with them and chanted one night. (OK, well, maybe not Oakland, lol)

You're talking out of your ass.

Cops SUPPORT the protests? Go to any cop forum and see what they have to say about the protesters and specifically the Richmond Chief. They are rage-frothing at the mouth over this chief's behavior.

 

[OutHouse]

So when it comes to owning a gun, don't they teach you not to point it at stuff until you're ready to shoot?

Fail

 

[Blanky]

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.

It's possible, but consider the source: people who were part of a crowd who were hitting windows and also swarming some police, so without video evidence it's unlikely.

Many people who were in the protest are saying that the undercover police WERE IN FACT the ones destroying property, and when the protesters tried to stop them (tried to protect the property,) is when the crowd turned on them, AND THEN, that's when the undercover law enforcement officer brandished the weapon.

Honestly, that's a fucking load of nonsense if the crowd is truly saying that. I don't believe that for a damn second. With all the pictures of the cop from a thousand angles now pointing a gun none of these people were filming them inciting a riot? It's rubbish.

i don't understand why it's so hard for some users on this forum to believe the police could act criminally.

Only the most sycophantic of cop fellators think they cannot act criminally. They do all the time, but in this case I've not seen evidence these particular cops did.

 

[Blanky]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...d-knocked-partner-ground-threatened-them.html

Short, 38, who freelances for the San Francisco Chronicle, told NBC News: 'It was an appropriate response.
'I would have been scared if I saw my partner get knocked to the ground.
'He was justified. I felt threatened by the protesters, too.'