Police staged confrontation amid convention
RolandTD20Kdrummer
Posts: 13,066
Ask yourself why this keeps happening. Ask yourself why they would repeatedly want to provoke riots in public gatherings.
"DENVER (AP) - The American Civil Liberties Union says undercover
police officers posing as protesters staged a violent confrontation
with another officer during the Democratic convention in Denver.
The ACLU said it obtained a police document
showing the undercover officers pretended to struggle with a police
commander so they could be removed from the crowd without blowing
their cover.
The ACLU says another officer thought the commander was being
attacked and pepper-sprayed the undercover officers.
It's not clear how many officers were involved or how they were
affected by the spray.
Denver police spokesman Sonny Jackson told The Associated Press
he was unaware of the report and couldn't comment. The ACLU didn't
immediately return a message."
"DENVER (AP) - The American Civil Liberties Union says undercover
police officers posing as protesters staged a violent confrontation
with another officer during the Democratic convention in Denver.
The ACLU said it obtained a police document
showing the undercover officers pretended to struggle with a police
commander so they could be removed from the crowd without blowing
their cover.
The ACLU says another officer thought the commander was being
attacked and pepper-sprayed the undercover officers.
It's not clear how many officers were involved or how they were
affected by the spray.
Denver police spokesman Sonny Jackson told The Associated Press
he was unaware of the report and couldn't comment. The ACLU didn't
immediately return a message."
Progress is not made by everyone joining some new fad,
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
Post edited by Unknown User on
0
Comments
Their efforts largely thwart civil liberties, not protect them.
What civil liberties do they thwart?
Agree. I would like to as well. There was one here near me in Montebello. The police admitted it.
I'm still trying to figure out if it's just a game they play because they're stupid/bored, or it's classified as "secure" undercover "security", or it's a social engineering attempt at creating mistrust and paranoia within the various protest groups. Perhaps all three. It's from times past (Agent Provocateur so I imagine all the various psychological effects have been well observed.
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
for starters....
This is relevant to Canada, I don't think it gives us proof that this is going on here. I'm not saying I won't believe it, it's just that we have to consider the source.
Show us seomthing to support that argument, and I'll gladly condemn the action. That's all I'm saying. Convenient that the so-called document referenced is not available for review.
Civil Liberties, indeed.
That doesnt explain which civil liberties are thwarted by the ACLU. I mean, a supposed agenda of being out to destroy the Boy Scouts isnt exactly thwarting civil liberties. That list is pretty weak to be truthful.
Go ahead and avoid critical thinking if you wish, these nit-picky arguments are a distortion, and there's so much more out there about the destructive agenda of the ACLU. Open your mind or not, it's up to you.
thanks for admitting you have no factual basis for supporting the ACLU agenda. My point exactly.
I urge you to go to the website referenced above, and then go to the ACLU's website, and make up your own mind. Personally, I feel the ACLU is a national treasure. They often take up unpopular issues but their commitment to preserving the liberty of each and every one of us is unflagging.
About the undercover officers, sure I would like to see the document, and I assume it will come out in due process. If true, it seems strange that they would need to be removed from the crowd but didn't want to "blow their cover". This isn't the CIA here. And staging a confrontation just seems silly. However we should wait and hear what the police say.
Definition : Civil liberties are freedoms that protect the individual from the government. Civil liberties set limits for government so that it cannot abuse its power and interfere with the lives of its citizens.
Common civil liberties include freedom of association, freedom of assembly, freedom of religion, and freedom of speech, and additionally, the right to due process, to a fair trial, to own property, and to privacy.
Hey, I can't force your to read well, or think critically. That's your job.
But go ahead and trust the heap of lawyers and commies that is the ACLU. Ignore who it is, what the say, and why they say it. That'll go far.
OK, obviously you cannot list any civil liberties that are being thwarted. Thanks for playing.
All I can say to that is wow.
I like this forum because of the overall intellect of the folks, with some glaring exceptions. Sheesh. Donewitchoonow.
"Probe requested
On Thursday, the ACLU of Colorado sent a letter to Denver's Independent Monitor, Richard Rosenthal, asking for the Internal Affairs Bureau to conduct an investigation of the pepper-spraying incident.
"The actions of the undercover detectives on August 25, 2008, may have had the effect of exacerbating an already 'tense situation,' as their feigned struggle led nearby officers and the public to believe that a commanding officer was being attacked by protestors and that the situation necessitated the use of chemical agents," says the letter, written by ACLU staff attorney Taylor Pendergrass.
"Such actions may have escalated the overall situation by causing officers on the scene to fear that the protestors threatened their safety, when in fact the struggle was only between uniformed officers and undercover officers," he wrote.
Denver Police Chief Gerald Whitman did not return a call seeking comment about the pepper-spray incident and whether the officers followed protocol by staging a disturbance with the commander.
Rosenthal said he had received the ACLU's letter about the pepper-spray incident.
He also received a letter from the ACLU last week requesting a probe into possible conflicting or false statements by police about the riot and whether the department withheld evidence in some of the protesters' criminal trials.
The ACLU contends videos show that protesters, as well as otherwise uninvolved onlookers, were never ordered or given a chance to disperse before they were surrounded and detained by police.
"The letters have been received, and I am in the process of reviewing and evaluating them," Rosenthal said Thursday.
As many as 60 protest suspects declined to accept plea deals after their arrests. Some cases have been dismissed and some suspects acquitted after a judge cited a lack of evidence. "
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
"They attacked their free speech right to exclude gays"
"Not only have the ACLU opposed the Minute Men, a group who are simply exercizing their freedom of speech"
"They have told Gitmo detainees they have the right to remain silent, as in not talking to interrogators"
The person who wrote all this doesn't really understand rights, does he?
naděje umírá poslední
what exactly are you talking about? As of now, Gitmo detainees do not have Miranda rights, they do have Habeus Corpus, which is the right to challenge their detention and to a speedy trial. So maybe it is you who are confused. I'm not sure what you're getting at with the rest of your argument.
This is kinda saying that cops deliberatley put themselves at risk for the sake of cracking down on protests, which is pretty hard to believe.
No cop I know wants to put themselves in danger, especially for a political stunt like this (and I know quite a few personally, My wife and I had a sheriff and his wife/kids over last night, great conversation). They're not fucking around with peoples lives, especially their own. I need a little more than ACLU bitching and moaning. If anything, it may be an isolated incident, individual error, cops do make mistakes. but most protesters who get arrested are begging for it just to provoke situations. I need more info.
You're right.
As for the rest, excluding homosexuals is not "free speech".
naděje umírá poslední
I think you are trying to project your trust and admiration for your friends influence your opinion. Just because you know a few good cops, doesn't mean there aren't corrupt ones willing to do 'bad' things. I don't get why you're jumping to their defense. you're not judge and jury here, we're just stating opinions, right? I'm seein bias. The montebello incident followed the exact same scenario. The officers started a confrontation as soon as their cover was blown, and were 'taken into custody'. Unless you're of the opinion that American police are less corrupt than Canadian police, it is a precedent that's relative to the US as well.
examples of allegedly similar incidents in the US and UK:
http://www.infowars.net/articles/june2008/260608Provocateurs.htm
(I found that article while trying to follow up on the internal investigation into montebello, but I can't find a single news story from 08 in google searches. Anyone know if one was even conducted? not that it would do any good. )
Not at all. We should watchdog all power structures. The officers I know are good guys, and my dealings on both sides of the law (i was a retard kid at times) has overall been positive, I earned every penalty I received, and I've never been dealt with harshly, having been in some sketchy situations myself.
That's not to say police do not commit civil rights abuses, and I appreciate the skepticism about this particular power structure. What I'm saying is:
1. Cases of civil rights abuses by cops are extrmely rare, and few are planned from the top down. In this case, they would have to have met prior to hitting the streets and coordinated an effort like this, and that scenario seems highly unlikely (again, in this case).
2. When it comes to the ACLU, I'll believe it when I see it. They suck in many ways.
I think we should give law enforcement the benefit of the doubt before we give it to Constitution attackers like the ACLU. One puts their ass on the line everyday for our safety, and one is a bunch of hopped up lawyers. That's all. My opinion.
good points you made.