Canadian police behaving badly ... - by *Zaccheus*
SubJeff on 28/8/2007 at 22:22
Yes they were causing trouble, trying to stir things up like they always do. Like at the Mayday riots in London when the 5th Armoured Metropolitan Uberdivision smashed that MacDonalds just because the Superintendant was given a strawberry (when everyone knows he only likes chocolate) milkshake. I heard that it took PC Tom 2 years to grow those dreads and on the bbc ((
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/6270036.stm) here) he was just thankful that he'd been able to conceal it for so long in the traditional English coppers hat.
SD on 28/8/2007 at 22:59
Quote Posted by Subjective Effect
Yes they were causing trouble, trying to stir things up like they always do. Like at the Mayday riots in London
That's right: Mayday rioters weren't undercover cops, so these ones can't have been either. What staggering logic you're using there.
SubJeff on 28/8/2007 at 23:50
1+1=4 logical mofo. Analyze that you inferring so and so.
Gestalt on 29/8/2007 at 00:05
It's already been established that the men in question were undercover officers. When I see a guy with a bandanna over his face hefting a rock, I assume he's out to cause trouble. I'm not going to grant an exception to that rule for the police.
*Zaccheus* on 29/8/2007 at 13:09
Quote Posted by Subjective Effect
Like at the Mayday riots in London when the 5th Armoured Metropolitan Uberdivision smashed that MacDonalds
Oh come on, there was nothing suspicious about that Mayday policing:
Having blocked off
all other exits from Parliament Square the cops
had to allow the anti-capitalists down Whitehall without any police in sight. It's not as if they had purposly left that McDonalds undefended, is it? I mean who could have forseen a bunch of anti-capitalists taking a
McDonalds apart when that street was the
only part of the demo devoid of any law enforcement?
BEAR on 29/8/2007 at 13:41
Quote:
Police-issued boots identified fake protesters
Have the police learned nothing from the past?
Lets face it, as much as we like to think the police are on our side (alot of times they are I guess), but when it comes down to it its them vs us, they are a fraternity and will protect eachother over us 90% of the time wether or not they've done something wrong.
This seems pretty badly blatent. Although I gotta admit their riot police suits look freaking awesome, I cant really blame them for wanting to beat some ass when they get all dressed up like that. Why does it seem like there is no positive side to riot police? It never seems like they are beating the shit out of criminals, its always peaceful protests, like its cop anger management or something.
jay pettitt on 29/8/2007 at 13:56
I reckon what really gave them away was that, though they looked like thugs they were actually incredibly polite and courteous; though the riding boots couldn't have helped.
SubJeff on 29/8/2007 at 18:31
Quote Posted by *Zaccheus*
Oh come on, there was nothing suspicious about that Mayday policing:
That's right! Just because they were there doesn't mean they did anything wrong. Pretty good infiltration tactics, no? It hasn't been shown that they caused or incited any violence has it?
Quote:
It never seems like they are beating the shit out of criminals, its always peaceful protests, like its cop anger management or something.
I know an ex-policeman who was on riot patrol during the London Mayday riots. He told me a few things about police standard procedure.
It's worth knowing that UK police have an all or nothing order on baton usage - if they decide to use it they will use it with full force. They are instructed not to use the baton at all unless they intend to fully commit to an attack. The two main targets are the clavicle, because it breaks easily (and tbh most clavicle breaks mend pretty easy. Unless it's really bad you only need a sling), and the thigh because shock to the large muscle mass is usually completely debilitating. Neither targets are likely to cause a fatal wound nor lasting damage/disability but they hurt like a mofo.
Spitting is considered an assault due to disease vectors. If an officer's eyes, nose and/or mouth are not protected and you spit you will likely be attacked. You probably will be anyway.
Use of water pistols is grounds for counterattack. Police cannot tell what the liquid is (urine, poison, infected water etc) and they take this VERY seriously. Use a waterpistol and you will be attacked.
He told me that many times on TV police when seem to suddenly lash out without any visible reason it's spitting or water squirting that's hard to capture on camera. And that seems fair enough to me.
*Zaccheus* on 29/8/2007 at 19:31
Quote Posted by Subjective Effect
That's right! Just because they were there doesn't mean they did anything wrong. Pretty good infiltration tactics, no? It hasn't been shown that they caused or incited any violence has it?
Do undercover cops always walk around with a rock in their hand?
:laff:
Quote Posted by Subjective Effect
I know an ex-policeman who was on riot patrol during the London Mayday riots.
Can you please ask him why the police left Whitehall completely unprotected even though the other exits from Parliament Square were blocked off by a line of riot police?
Also, why was there a batton charge (backed up by police vans) after one of the 2003 anti-war demos when a few hundred peaceful protesters were having a sitdown on Oxford Street?
I'd really like to know.
