Voidwar

Your claim that is was a "prop" is transparent as hell.

You will side with a cop no matter what the cop does and that fact is all to apparent to anyone who serches your posts.

Here, you stick to your ludicrous claim that it was a "prop" even though none of the protestors had rocks. His "prop" is what gave him away to the real protestors.

The fact that this dirtbag got caught before he could finish his scummy actions doesn't excuse them one whit.

The rest of your ad hominem on me is irrelevant, I am perfectly satisfied to watch you squirm and lie to defend your fellow badge.

CaptainCourtesy

Moderator's Warning:

Only 21 posts old and this thread is already starting to get littered with personal attacks. Please cease this behavior.

__________________
"Never fear. Him is here" - Captain Chaos (Dom DeLuise), Cannonball Run

====||:-D

Lerxst

As I thought. Nothing. Not only are you lying about me again, but you are lying about the cops involved. You did this in other threads and were caught red handed. Search any of my posts and show me where I defended a cop that was guilty of abusing power or committing crimes. I most certainly have defended innocent cops. Go dig up your evidence against me and post it in the Basement. That's where the garbage you are slinging belongs.

Now, I have challenged you to substantiate the accusations against these cops. You have chosen not to or you simply can't. Par for the course as far as your historical conduct. If you would like to answer my challenge that would be great.

__________________
Obama/Biden in 2008!

Voidwar

Yawn. Lot of ad hominem about me, lot of avoiding the fact that the cop was holding a rock.

Did you conveniently forget that the thread is about police inciting violence ?

Actually in this instance, the dirtbag cop got caught before he could incite the violence. You seem to think this makes it ok. I disagree.

Lerxst

Who avoided anything, I addressed the issue of the rock. You just didn't like my comment, and you posted a bunch of speculation and called it your argument. I posted facts. The cop never used the rock, the cop never acted like he was gonna use the rock. He simply carried it in his hand. Cops infiltrate protest groups in major cities all the time by dressing like protesters, getting in among them, and even carry props. They have carried signs, paint cans, etc. This is not a new tactic. These cops were just very bad at fitting in because they took their costumes a bit too extreme and didn't think it out to well...such as wearing their police issue tactical boots...the same boots the actual riot police were wearing.
And are you conveniently avoiding the fact that the police didn't incite any violence.
And here we go again, where you speculate and insinuate in place of arguing facts. The argument goes both ways. He had plenty of time to use that rock, and yet he didn't. They just mulled among the crowd. NOT inciting violence. They just stood around looking like what they thought protesters should look like.

Please, respond with some more speculation and innuendo. Maybe throw a lie or two in.

Voidwar

Doesn't look like it on the video I watched.

Seemed to me, the dirtbag was still very near his cop buddies, attempted to infiltrate with his rock, got spotted by the protestors and retreated right back into his cop buddies. On the video I watched, he never got a "stone's throw" away from his police buddies. The dishonest cops then staged "his arrest" (exposing their matching footgear) , but the department later admitted it was a cop.

Lerxst

Did he incite violence. Yes or no?

Did he try to incite violence? Yes or no?

Did he use the rock in any way? Yes or no?

Is there any evidence these cops had any plan to incite violence? Yes or no?

Voidwar

Why yes, his staged deception resulted in a physical takedown and arrest, I watched the violence on the video.

Yes, he brought a rock and wore deceptive clothes for a reason.

He was caught by protestors before he could use it.

What do you think it was for, some quick repairs to a nearby rock wall ?

Loads, but it is circumstantial. Good thing we are not in court, so circumstantial evidence is plenty relevant in determining their motives.

Explain the clothes and the rock in a way that isn't "agent provocatuer".

As citizens, discussing these dirtbags and whether we want our cops to engage in this underhanded practice, we do not have to meet the same levels of proof required in a court of law. I am condemning, not convicting.

jamesrage

You thread is in the wrong forum section.This is the forum section where your thread belongs-> Conspiracy Theories - Debate Politics Forums

__________________

Lerxst

Bull****. Try again, you are lying. There was no take down and arrest, it was staged to extricate them and protect their identity. That's one point you've lost.

You have not proven what the reason was. You have only insinuated what the reason was based upon your speculation. The video offered no evidence as to what that cops specific reason was. Law enforcement infiltration of protest groups at public gatherings is a very common practice across the U.S., specifically in larger areas. Canada is no different. Given the historical practice and complete lack of evidence from your side, you lose this point. That's two.


You have presented not a single shred of evidence to prove that he was going to use it. Again, nothing more than insinuations and speculation from you. You lose this point. That three.


You have yet to present ONE single piece of evidence, let alone loads, to substantiate your claim. You would get steam rolled in court. You lose again. That's four.

Already been done. Try to follow along. None of those men incited one single instance of violence. There is no evidence of any provocative acts. If it is there, post it.

In this debate forum you have to at least substantiate your claims if you are to have any credibility. You have failed miserably to do so and as such your credibility is non-existent. I didn't ask you for proof beyond a reasonable doubt. I asked you for some very basic examples of evidence to support your assertions. You have not presented one.