Provocateur Cops Caught Disguised As Anarchists At G20

page: 4
78
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join

posted on Sep, 28 2009 @ 11:14 PM
link   
That's 20.000$ worth of broken windows??? What the heck. Also is there any pictures of the perps actually doing this?




posted on Sep, 28 2009 @ 11:16 PM
link   
I loved the chant! 'THIS GUY HERE IS A COP! THIS GUY HERE IS A COP"

HAHAHA. Busted. And they arent gonna let you forget it.

Did you check the very beginning of your video ugie? when the angle is at the side? You might have a better shot of him there.. then again IDK.

[edit on 28-9-2009 by titorite]



posted on Sep, 28 2009 @ 11:18 PM
link   
reply to post by ugie1028
 


No, they weren't there to start problems. The undercover police were there to arrest anyone who was causing trouble. There were plenty of MORONS in Oakland destroying property...and most of them weren't sure what the G-20 summit was even about.

The only ones that caused trouble:
Punk ass kids who wanted to vandalize
"Anarchists"
Riot Police who assaulted and arrested anyone.



posted on Sep, 28 2009 @ 11:22 PM
link   
reply to post by GorehoundLarry
 


were you there, or did you hear this from the MSM?

IF THE POLICE had not done anything to the crowd, there would of been NO vandalism.

Just think, if you were shot, or shot at, wouldn't you want to defend yourself, or let out some kind of frustration because your rights were infringed upon?

im not supporting what they did, but its expected to happen.

I was there, i talked to a lot of them. they were nice people, and all they wanted was their voice to be heard, not to be victimized by the authorities.



posted on Sep, 28 2009 @ 11:23 PM
link   
i was running less then 20 feet from them while i was running away from those bullets. I was too startled to record that, but i got boston market gettin thrashed though.

(BTW my thigh is still hurting from one bouncing off the ground)

I was running from them through the parking lot of that bank. I witnessed them breaking those windows. and it was only those windows. the Drive through window was undamaged.


(click to open player in new window)



posted on Sep, 29 2009 @ 12:11 AM
link   
It is just three good old boys downtown watching the sideshow.

Heck it is PITTSBURG for gosh sake.

They have not seen so many tree huggers or what ever they're protesting for in one place.

Probably won a bet at the bar when they got back.

Had a few laughs, drank some beer and shot some pool.

[edit on 29-9-2009 by calcoastseeker]



posted on Sep, 29 2009 @ 12:11 AM
link   
reply to post by ugie1028
 


Yes, I go to school here, thanks.

You seem pretty convinced with your own theories, so there is no breaking you down...but I just want everyone to know that there were plenty of kids who destroyed property because they could. Pittsburgh loves to riot. Look at the Superbowl....I was confused if we won or lost!

The kids at Pitt University didn't deserve what they got. The police came onto their campus and terrorized students. What was the point?

A lot of people got their voices heard through PEACEFUL protests in downtown on Liberty Ave.

Morons and Cops are to blame for the chaos that took place in Oakland and Lawrenceville. What voices were heard? A mom and pop diner got it's windows busted, but of course, the Starbucks down the street was quite fine.

The vandalism was mostly done by idiots. The "anarchists" had their share in it but it was mainly done by kids who wanted to wreak some havoc.

[edit on 29-9-2009 by GorehoundLarry]



posted on Sep, 29 2009 @ 12:41 AM
link   
Some notes from a person who believes situational awareness and discreet observation of those around you is paramount in any situation. Plus, my wife and I both carry concealed and like to see if we can spot others CC'ing when we're out and about, kindof a game we play:

Guy with the black hat on backwards and blue/white bandana has his left hand in pocket ALWAYS. Not just in his pocket with his hand open flat like most folks casually do but in his pocket grasping something. He also has something heavy in his right cargo pants pocket that flops back and forth across his leg when he walks.

When I carry concealed, cargo pocket is where my spare magazine(s) go, or collapsible baton if I'm carrying one. Who knows though, could be a cell phone just as easily -- except he has what appears to be a cell phone on his belt, in front of his right hip.

The guy with the khaki pants also has something heavy in his cargo pocket. Also pretty sure I saw a bulge under the shirt at about 4 o'clock on the guy in khakis.

The guy in all black has his hands in pockets frequently as well, or clasped in front of him, maybe holding something?

Hard to tell on the guy with black pants because it's dark, and a little iffy because of the film quality, but I'm about 90% sure those are not just Wal-Mart cargo pants, but 5.11 Tactical pants, available at most police supply stores and typically used by SWAT and other police units.

Demeanor and body language in general tells me these guys are up to no good. When they walk it's practically like they're in formation. When standing they're scanning the crowd constantly.



posted on Sep, 29 2009 @ 12:54 AM
link   
reply to post by Mortimer452
 


Yes, they're undercover police officers. Their job was to arrest anyone who gets too rowdy. I'm not sure what else undercover cops are suppose to carry....

In fact, I'm not entirely too sure what the problem here is....

I'm disgusted by the fact this was the biggest disgrace to the police force in a long time....but this little segment of undercovers is common and not a big deal. Oh and they weren't there to "provoke."



posted on Sep, 29 2009 @ 02:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by GorehoundLarry
reply to post by Mortimer452
 


Yes, they're undercover police officers. Their job was to arrest anyone who gets too rowdy. I'm not sure what else undercover cops are suppose to carry....

In fact, I'm not entirely too sure what the problem here is....

I'm disgusted by the fact this was the biggest disgrace to the police force in a long time....but this little segment of undercovers is common and not a big deal. Oh and they weren't there to "provoke."


I am a little confused as to how exactly you know what the motive for the presence of these officers was? If observation was the sole reason for their presence, they could easily have done so without the masks. In addition, the only reason a person will wear a mask at all would be to conceal their identity to avoid being caught.

I have no doubt that if the situation were to occur where the moment could be escalated by a carefully thrown stone or some other act that these officers would have provided cause for the riot control group to intervene.

Several times within this thread you have professed your intimate knowledge of the motivation of these officers. Several times you have discounted others opinions based on the lack of evidence of any wrongdoing in the 30 second clip of these officers. It seems to me that you are taking this opportunity to shill the party line as it were, in defense of the system trampling on the rights your country was supposed to be founded on.

There is really more proof in that 30 second video clip, that these officers were there to trigger an action simply by their attire and demeanor than there is of them being passive observers.

For the record, most of the protesters were not wearing masks, and the actual group of passive observing students were trapped in the hall being gassed by those entrusted to protect them for no reason other than simply being there.

The direction your country is taking truly makes me sick. Fortunately I am Canadian and I can watch from a distance as the last remnants of your FREE country burns to the ground.

..Ex



posted on Sep, 29 2009 @ 02:39 AM
link   
If it looks like a pig, smells like a pig, and is dressed like an anarchist, you can bet your bottom dollar that they're there to try and stir it up. I've seen it many times before. When they get called out, they usually scamper back behind the saftey of the police line. Like the cowardly little freaks they are. These boys knew that the crowd wasn't troublesome, otherwise when they got cornered, they would have been rescued. You know with "people" like them around, trouble isn't far away.



posted on Sep, 29 2009 @ 02:51 AM
link   
Well... a review of the recordings between 1600 and 1700 EST for the 25th show that a B&E was being worked, People with guns were approaching an unspecified site at the "Penitentiary" and that no one could find any one with guns plus there was an admonishment about "cameras are allowed" two times.

One officer makes a snide comment about telling some "peaceful protesters" where they can meet their "peaceful cohorts" after they get out of jail, and where they can stand to be out of the way.

media.abovetopsecret.com...

One lady got pissed at her caregiver and police went to reset her alarm. (BTFOOM)

And, a shooting occured at ~ 1704 involving a "5 yo" and a 19 yo who was shot in the leg... "bleeding pretty badly"

Also, twice it was mentioned that the "National Guard" was manning the checkpoints.

Nothing that indicates an infiltration attempt during the time in question.

CAVEAT: The City of Pittsburgh spent $ 861,597 on radio equipment for this event. That and National Guard involvement means that not all traffic was availible for the viewing public... if not encrypted. So... there is a good chance that specific comms about this may have been missed.

legistar.city.pittsburgh.pa.us...





[edit on 29-9-2009 by RoofMonkey]

[edit on 29-9-2009 by RoofMonkey]



posted on Sep, 29 2009 @ 02:55 AM
link   
yes i agree but where could this all be coming from?



posted on Sep, 29 2009 @ 03:04 AM
link   
We had them at G20 in London, they were actually spotted by a Liberal democratic Mp who was on the demonstration. They were seen throwing bottles at the police. later they were caught being allowed through the police lines.

www.guardian.co.uk...

It's frickin diabolical that this stuff goes down. I will never understand those who always rush to the Polices's defence. In my opinion it makes you just as bad as the Police you seek to defend.



posted on Sep, 29 2009 @ 03:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by posha72
yes i agree but where could this all be coming from?


You have posted that question in 25 threads already.

That is called spamming, even with the question mark.

*It appears to be your first day here; I thought I'd let ya know



posted on Sep, 29 2009 @ 04:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by woodwardjnr
We had them at G20 in London, they were actually spotted by a Liberal democratic Mp who was on the demonstration. They were seen throwing bottles at the police. later they were caught being allowed through the police lines.

www.guardian.co.uk...

It's frickin diabolical that this stuff goes down. I will never understand those who always rush to the Polices's defence. In my opinion it makes you just as bad as the Police you seek to defend.


This is exactly the point. We're told to trust the Police, that they're in their position to help the public.
How are people supposed to trust these people when their colleagues are caught doing this?

To the poster suggesting that they are in the group to prevent crime...

The job of the riot police in this instance was to prevent access to the G20 area, walking along the streets amongst the crowds dressed in black with scarves covering their faces is not in line with this role.

You are simply delusional if you think they were there to prevent crime. They were clearly there with the intention of either gathering intel on a peaceful protest group, or they were there to deliberately cause violence against their colleagues so that they could justify a crackdown.

And why would they do that? So they can arrest as many as possible, add them to watch lists and later beef up justification for more draconian police-state laws.

I can guarantee you that any of those detained on that day simply for being there are now on lists labelling them as potential domestic terrorists. And what is more worrying, is that Nazi Germany had the same systems prior to the rounding up of homosexuals, Jews, journalists and academics.

This is not a coincidence. This is the inevitable result of a government growing in size and initiating ever-increasing control of its people. Now that lists are in place, those people compiling and watching such have to justify their roles. It becomes an industry in and of itself. America has created an entire employment sector based on the fear of their own people. Because of this, funding has to be justified, and because of this, the threat has to be perpetually increased.

Trust me when I say this, because history DOES repeat itself:
If the people do not force change in one way or another, you will have an incident in the next five years where your so-called police open fire with live rounds on protesters. It is inevitable.
Why is it inevitable? Because the majority of the people are blind to the risks having lived in naive bubbles of media induced comfort for decades, while the police and authorities have been indoctrinated into believing any argument against power is a threat.
You'll have innocent protesters wishing to have their voices heard, nothing more, and you'll have riot-police with a mindset that any dissent is an attack by domestic terrorists. They will shoot them.

Laws are introduced on the back of necessity, and then they are abused by those in positions of power to make their control of the people more effective, make their job easier, and gather income through fines. We've seen it in the UK with the spying laws.
National and local government proclaimed that they would only be used for the policing and prevention of terrorism. Within weeks they were being used on regular citizens for mixing recycled rubbish with regular. Covert cameras were put up all over the place to catch people being fruity in public at night. Our own local council formed an entire department dedicated to gathering intelligence on citizens, for everything, including urging people to report those with "more than one mobile phone" and those who "act suspiciously".

Lets face facts here, America is the next Fascist nation already. It's now up to the people to use the rights they have left to peacefully force an explanation from leadership and to seek a change in the laws passed. First off, you need to be asking the Pittsburgh Police exactly why they thought it was acceptable to completely disregard the constitution.



posted on Sep, 29 2009 @ 04:07 AM
link   
Kristallnacht anyone ? , seams kind a funnie that the more one looks at the measures they use the more they resemble that of nazi germany pre wwII.



posted on Sep, 29 2009 @ 04:15 AM
link   
reply to post by woodwardjnr
 


Interesting article, thanks for posting it.


"The MP said that given only a few people were allowed out of the corralled crowd for the five hours he was held inside it, there should be no problem in investigating the allegation by examining video footage."

What do you bet that the video footage will be mysteriously blank?



posted on Sep, 29 2009 @ 04:16 AM
link   
Umm.. Isn't the point of being undercover to blend in? It seems like these 3 were doing just the opposite. Cops come in all shapes and sizes. It seems kind of odd that these 3 guys would get chosen for this assignment. Can some link the video of these guys provoking the protesters please? Maybe that'll shed more light on what's really going on here..

[edit on 29-9-2009 by zephyrs]



posted on Sep, 29 2009 @ 04:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by GorehoundLarry
reply to post by Mortimer452
 


Yes, they're undercover police officers. Their job was to arrest anyone who gets too rowdy. I'm not sure what else undercover cops are suppose to carry....

In fact, I'm not entirely too sure what the problem here is....

I'm disgusted by the fact this was the biggest disgrace to the police force in a long time....but this little segment of undercovers is common and not a big deal. Oh and they weren't there to "provoke."


Police officers likely . . . undercover maybe by their own choice. Not there to "provoke?" Only because they got made.

No police force in their right mind would send three plainclothes officers into a crowd of protesters if there was even the slightest chance that things might get "rowdy." Seriously, how did they a group of people protesting police brutality would react when suddenly three "protesters" started slamming cuffs on people? They're lucky the mob didn't turn on them.

Police give themselves leverage in an angry protest with large numbers and riot gear, not with sneaky undercover agents to "infiltrate" the group. It's just plain stupid to think three guys wearing bandanas could do anything to control an unruly crowd.

Oh yeah forgot to mention all three are wearing body armor -- note the little bump on the above the left pectoral on all three of them, that's where the velcro straps come together

If they were "undercover" it wasn't at the request of their supervisors.

[edit on 9/29/2009 by Mortimer452]





new topics

top topics



 
78
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join