NAU Protest Foul Play

[d'Anconia]

http://digg.com/politics/CAUGHT_Poli...mmit_in_Quebec

I guess it's not 100% definite that they were police BUT for some reason I hadn't thought about governments and big corporations pulling off this sort of stuff. Makes sense but it is pretty messed up...

[Isaac Wilkins]

I definitely thought this thread was about Naughty American University.

[d'Anconia]

It can be if you want it to

[Jorge Sanchez]

I heard about that. I'm a little skeptical, but who knows. I went to school with a girl that organized one of those protests and she is a bit of a self-righteous tool - I could definitely see her making something like that up.

[bjohnso]

So those guys in masks were actually cops just trying to stir up trouble?

[d'Anconia]

Yeah because the government realized it could discredit anti-government types by infiltrating the ranks and agitating the protest. Kinda messed up considering if they had been successful all those people would have gotten damned near clubbed to death.

The guy who called them out is a hero in my view and deserves an award. This, of course, is assuming the claims are true.

[Brawl]

It is a set up by the protesters acting like those guys are undercover cops . The protesters put on police boots and masks to look like they were police plants in the demonstration .

Buncha wierdos anyway .

[d'Anconia]

LOL I suppose that is possible too Brawl.

[Jorge Sanchez]

I think the most suspicious thing about this is that there is no record of arrest.

[Jorge Sanchez]

Le Sûreté du Québec have admitted to placing those agents in the crowd.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servl.../National/home

[d'Anconia]

Yeah and they didn't unmask him when they took him away too.

Edit: LOL they did admit to it, that's pretty messed up. Police state if I have ever seen one.

[Jorge Sanchez]

Even if they had incited a riot, wouldn't it have been entrapment anyways? It seems to me like they (the powers that be) would have been in a lot more trouble had they actually succeeded in causing a riot.

There seems to be some (albeit a small amount) of pressure from some Canadian politicians to get to the bottom of this. Hopefully someone will be held accountable for it.

[Relentless]

Personally I think that it's pretty smart to place undercover police into a group of protesters. As I understand it, it's a pretty routine procedure. The undercover guys can identify ringleaders (should things get ugly) and provide location/activity information that will help the police to contain any problems that might arise.

I watched the Youtube video. The 'evidence' that they were assigned as agents provocateurs is 100% circumstantial. The fact that these 3 guys were so obvious and clumsy is a strong indicator (to me) that they were not supposed to be agents, let alone provocateurs. One almost gets the idea that these guys were assigned in error or at the last minute or something. Hell, maybe they were off duty and had an axe to grind or something. They did NOTHING overt that can be construed as violence other than holding a rock. I have also seen reports that they were marked by other protestors because they REFUSED to throw things.

Plainclothes officers get training on how to blend in and these guys did very little blending.

People need to get over the idea that police might use deception and undercover operatives to contain and observe things like this. It's not about being all Orwellian. It's about using smart tactics to protect the public.

If they DID actually take action to incite the demonstrators into violence? Well that would clearly be wrong. But they didn't, did they?

[Jorge Sanchez]

Have you seen the video?

I would usually agree with you, but it definitely looked to me like these guys were trying to instigate something - whether or not those were their instructions is another matter.

Simply sending in undercover police officers to monitor the situation is one thing. But why would said police officers need to cover their faces, hold rocks, move towards police, and fight with protesters? That seems kind of counter-intuitive if they are simply trying to the observe the situation.

Regardless of the police force's intentions, the situation was handled poorly and I feel like I deserve some answers for this. In case you haven't noticed, the RCMP has not been particularly well-functioning of late, and this just adds to their long list of mistakes.

[Jorge Sanchez]

I might add that staging a confrontation with police - even a relatively non-violent confrontation with only three people - would serve to discredit the protesters. So while it might not be 1984, that's certainly some powerful propoganda, particularly given the media's favour for confrontation.

[Relentless]

Have you seen the video?

I would usually agree with you, but it definitely looked to me like these guys were trying to instigate something - whether or not those were their instructions is another matter.

Simply sending in undercover police officers to monitor the situation is one thing. But why would said police officers need to cover their faces, hold rocks, move towards police, and fight with protesters? That seems kind of counter-intuitive if they are simply trying to the observe the situation.

Regardless of the police force's intentions, the situation was handled poorly and I feel like I deserve some answers for this. In case you haven't noticed, the RCMP has not been particularly well-functioning of late, and this just adds to their long list of mistakes.

The video I watched showed that they were milling around like anyone else and made the mistake of mingling with the old people on "their line" (of protestor-protecting well-meaning folks). When the camera panned over to the right side more, you could see other younger-looking people with masks and hoods and stuff on. I am forced to assume that the younger people with sunglasses and masks and such were the ones that "did not acccept" the police officers due to their alleged refusal to throw things. I can easily imagine that the one guy held onto the rock in his hand as a halfassed attempt at 'camouflage' especially if other protesters had thrown stuff earlier.

[Relentless]

I might add that staging a confrontation with police - even a relatively non-violent confrontation with only three people - would serve to discredit the protesters. So while it might not be 1984, that's certainly some powerful propoganda, particularly given the media's favour for confrontation.

To me the most compelling fact is that _I_ could have done a better job of being a provocateur than those guys did. It was laughable how obviously inept they were.

That's why I don't think it's a big deal... as I said... I predict these guys were either misassigned, were some sort of unfortunately last-minute replacements, or were perhaps even off duty and being stupid.

[d'Anconia]

Well just remember if something were to happen those union members, as much as I despise unions, were not young 25 year old dudes... they were people who could have been my grandma and grandpa's.

And the Canadian government already admitted they were agents but denied that they were provocateurs.

[jdeity]

It is a set up by the protesters acting like those guys are undercover cops . The protesters put on police boots and masks to look like they were police plants in the demonstration .

Buncha wierdos anyway .

We've been discussing this on a non-bodybuilding board. I'm guessing they were plants. They definitely had the same boot treads as the cops though, I don't think there's any way to be sure. I'm leaning towards provacateurs, but wouldn't rule out unruly protesters.