Undercover Cops Outed and Pull Gun on Crowd

What interests me is that people in the crowd knew they were undercover.

It's not that I don't believe them, but do you think this reality---that cops are pretending to be undercovers--has gone mainstream? If most people know this, where did they learn it? Not from the MSM, obviously.

If it's alternative media, it would make a good argument that "the truth" is really going viral on so many levels.

Police can become criminals because others are criminals? Unacceptable. It's obviously just a way to generate more crime and carry one as they please with some people backing them due to lack of understanding.

a reply to: MRuss

That's the thing. The protest didn't know they were cops until they started making arrests. They (the protest) didn't call them out for being undercover cops but because they were trying to provoke the protest to violence and looting. Then the cops pulled their guns and started making arrests.

a reply to: CagliostroTheGreat

Yeah, totally peaceful protesters. I guess Saint Michael Browns father yelling for protesters to "burn this m****rf***er down" was also a police plant. All the looting and burning that's gone on recently is the cops fault. You know, the American people aren't responsible for their own actions, if you plant an undercover cop to rile them up.....well it's gonna happen.

More evidence of the infantilization of the urban youth. Just can't ever be expected to be responsible for anything they do.

These protests have caused tens of millions of dollars in property damaged, maybe that's why cops are infiltrating them.

a reply to: hammanderr

Except there was no looting here and the people did exactly what you are suggesting.

originally posted by: sdcigarpig
a reply to: sirhumperdink
...the protesters are not so innocent, with a few aggitaters in the mix what are willing to take things beyond what they should be.

And what if those agitators are undercover police that are causing/leading "taking things beyond what they should be"? This type of action could be intentional in order to undermine the cause, and allow the police to have the excuse to crack down on the protest? And, don't forget to follow the money while you are at it too. The MSN to have to be there to film it and and blast their "riot porn" to bump up their ad revenue.

a reply to: MRuss

When was the first protest against authority of the state/abuse of authority? That's probably the when the first agent provocateur appeared and when protesters of use/abuse of authority realized how far authority was willing to go to cling to power.

TLDR: This isn't anything new.

a reply to: hammanderr

Did you just pull that 10's of millions of dollars in damage out of your arse?

Or do you have some source to back that up.

Yes if you send some one into a group of people to incite the riot then the blame would have to go to the person that incited it.
Personal responsibility you know.

a reply to: CagliostroTheGreat

Isn't it a crime to incite a riot?

originally posted by: CagliostroTheGreat
a reply to: MRuss

That's the thing. The protest didn't know they were cops until they started making arrests. They (the protest) didn't call them out for being undercover cops but because they were trying to provoke the protest to violence and looting. Then the cops pulled their guns and started making arrests.

You don't know exactly what happened. Neither do I.

However, the police apparently did not "just start making arrests". The undercover guys were ATTACKED, and then began making an arrest and called Oakland PD for backup.


If they were making arrests before the attack, then where were the two plain-clothes officers putting the arrested suspects? Into their magical Mary Poppins bag ????

Sorry, your timelime/story doesn't make sense.



Look, I'm the last person to advocate police brutality or escalation of a situation, but it looks like these guys were probably assigned there to observe and report from the inside, and simply responded appropriately when they were attacked. In fact, I would say they used unusually GOOD judgement considering insanity of many of the boys-in-blue recently.

Bravo to the cops, and LOL to the idiot who attacked them after they identified as police....



.

a reply to: 8675309jenny

Okay, you tell me then, why was he attacked?

Where is YOUR proof that he was attacked after he was outed as an undercover cop? All reports suggest that he was assaulted when he brandished a firearm.

You are getting all mixed up here. He was only attacked because he drew his gun and when did I say they were making arrests while still undercover?

originally posted by: dojozen
a reply to: CagliostroTheGreat

Isn't it a crime to incite a riot?

Sure is.

originally posted by: CagliostroTheGreat
a reply to: 8675309jenny

Okay, you tell me then, why was he attacked?

Where is YOUR proof that he was attacked after he was outed as an undercover cop? All reports suggest that he was assaulted when he brandished a firearm.

You are getting all mixed up here. He was only attacked because he drew his gun and when did I say they were making arrests while still undercover?

Last time you said he was attacked because he started arresting people, now it's 'he was attacked because he drew his gun'

Tell me something seriously here, how often have you seen videos of someone pulling a gun and a crowd running TOWARD that person???

Your argument is insane.

The gun came out after the guys partner was attacked.

if the officers never identified themselves and began making arrests (which would obviously seem like illegal actions unless you knew it was a cop) then it's a different story.

As it stands right now, this entire incident is lacking details. One of the photographers apparently backed up the officers account though.

a reply to: sdcigarpig

Are you that naive or is it just an act? I'm leaning towards act. Are you not familiar with the concept of agent provocateurs? Google it. These police are in there not to monitor but to incite. They are black block. They are the ones vandalizing. They are the ones with rocks. It's an easy and cheap way to give a movement a black eye. Please bro, educate yourself or stop being a sock puppet. Sheesh.

a reply to: sdcigarpig

You know there are also people who's job it is to go on forums and comment sections and cause conflict/seed disinformation, too. You did know that Pig, right? You know about that. Our tax dollars hard at work subverting us. Enemies foreign and domestic...

a reply to: ZzurvanN

It really does seem as though some members here are unaware of the concept of agent provocateurs. Which, by now, should be a well established concept, especially on these forums.

Its really something that cannot be argued. It happens at just about every protest. Yet apologists continually insist on pushing the idea that, when a protest turns violent, it is due to the protest itself and not factors influencing it from the outside.

a reply to: CagliostroTheGreat

Indeed. I was protesting back in the pre-911 world (I've given it up since it's futile, but I was young and idealistic then) and we would see the provocateurs at every event. Black Block "anarchists" (who behave the exact opposite of true anarchists) vandalizing, smashing windows with bricks, writing graffiti, and generally giving the bulk of the well meaning and peaceful demonstrators a bad name. It really is a quite simple and quite ancient technique, a form of the false flag, and a way to justify the police and the State. I'm glad to see that more people ARE catching on to this tactic and calling a spade a spade. MSM will never cover this, but it is still breaking through to the mainstream.

originally posted by: clay2 baraka
Apparently they were not Oakland PD, but California Highway Patrol on loan.

Multiple witnesses confirm the two undercover officers of attempting to instigate violence and property damage.

Holding the gun sideways?.. Straight up gangster.

I wonder what wouldve happened if a real protestor, with their concealed carry license and fire arm, opened fire on these undercovers...my bet is that they first pulled their weapons, THEN identified themselves, leaving a split second where, legally, they couldve been shot for threatening the wellbeing of others with their pistols.

My opinion is, that if you arent a uniformed police officer with your badge CLEARLY visible, or a uniformed soldier on an operation - you should not be pointing your gun at anyone, unless theyve got one pointed at you as well.

I hope these asshats get demoted to office work, if not fired.