talloulou

I almost ALWAYS side with the cops but in this case, if a cop really did dress as a protester with rock in hand, the cops were wrong.

Lerxst

I'm not being obtuse. I'm simply refusing to leap to conclusions. The OP and others here are claiming the police were inciting violence or trying to. The bottom line is that there is evidence of neither. There is however a lot of speculation about the intentions of the cop. Nothing more.

Speculation of intent is not observation of fact. If the cop did nothing with the rock, if he didn't attempt to do something with the rock...then it was a prop. Nothing more. You can't classify it as anything else. It was something he was holding in his hand. He was trying to fit in as a protester and he chose to carry a rock. He didn't throw it did he? He didn't threaten to throw it did he?

__________________
I was so right. And you? Well you were so wrong. You lost. Ha. Ha.

talloulou

I'll take your point of view seriously if you give me one damn good reason WHY a police office undercover dressed to blend in needed a ROCK in hand.

Unless you give me some reason to think differently this will be one of the few times I didn't just lend my support to the cops.

Cops do themselves no favor by dressing as protesters wielding rocks. They only lend legitimacy to the claims of protesters that the police intentionally make trouble so they can justify how they dealt with what they called trouble. It's bad policy and I can't support it.

Lerxst

Well then I'll just take the evidence at hand, which is NO evidence of intent to incite violence, and leave you to your speculation.

We will simply agree that we don't agree.

Our opinions grace this garden with many vibrant colors.

talloulou

See you have no idea why the undercover cop needed a rock in hand either.

As a cop though, would you dress as a protester and wield a rock or a baseball bat? Don't you think just policy wise it's a bad idea?

Voidwar

The rock was a "prop"

That's his story and he's stickin to it.

Anyone with sense knows that the dirtbag cop got caught attempting to act as a "agent provocatuer".

Now, anyone with sense also knows that Certain People will take a cop's side in anything.

Lerxst

The difference is that I am not speculating as to this cops intent. Absent of some evidence of his attempt it can be nothing more than a prop. He was trying to look the part. He never used it, he never tried. Short of judging the man without all the facts, this is as far as I will go.

Dressing up as a protester I have no problem with. The rock was a stupid idea, and I have previously posted that these guys did a lousy job of "fitting in." Bad idea, absolutely.

Lerxst

And until you can prove otherwise you lose. The facts owned you. You should be used to that by now.

Voidwar

Yawn, in your own mind, with you as your biggest cheerleader.

The video owns. The dirtbag cop got caught.

Patrickt

I live in Oaxaca, Mexico, where we suffered through six months of turmoil. It's hard for people to believe that all the acts of violence and property damage were committed by the government. Well, actually by the governor. A teacher who opposed the teachers' strike was assassinated. The government did it to make the teachers look bad. Hundreds of vehicles were stolen and burned. The government did it to make the protestors look bad. Schools for poor kids are closed for six months. The governor did it. People trying to walk to work or to the grocery store were threatened or assaulted but it was really the work of the police.

A drunk shoots a protestor but he has a cousin whose husband used to be a police officer so obviously he's a police plant.

Agent provocateurs rarely ever engage is disruptive behavior directly. They attempt to get others to. They incite, provide materials, and try to get "useful idiots" to do their dirty work. Of course, so do the protestors.

But, of course, anything bad, from burning buildings to the rash on my butt must be the fault of the police.