Jump to content
Political Discussion Forums
myata

Police state part 2

Recommended Posts

If someone is committing a crime because they were programmed to do so are they personally responsible?

No, if they act like Pavlov's dogs they should be on a leash or in a pen.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So where is the proof that they were inciting violence? How does this undercover cop become a provocateur? He's carrying a rock. While he's not even dressed to blend in, he's also upping the level of aggression by holding a rock which suggests a level of violence.

I haven't mentioned a word about Montebello or the G20; you keep bringing them up and I'm not entirely sure why; they're not related to the posted videos at all. In the first video is a person the second video tells us was a police officer. He's holding what appears to be, and what another individual in the video calls a rock. The cop may have intended to throw that rock to get the violence started; he may have been carrying it in the same way he's wearing a black shirt and a bandana over his face: to blend in with the crowd of black clothed, masked protesters we see at the right of the screen so that, if they began assaulting people, the police would be there as first hand witnesses. I know you don't want to accept it because it doesn't help your crusade against rights violating police, but, in this case, there's simply no way to tell either way from the evidence provided.

[+]

Edited by g_bambino

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I haven't mentioned a word about Montebello or the G20; you keep bringing them up and I'm not entirely sure why; they're not related to the posted videos at all. In the first video is a person the second video tells us was a police officer. He's holding what appears to be, and what another individual in the video calls a rock. The cop may have intended to throw that rock to get the violence started; he may have been carrying it in the same way he's wearing a black shirt and a bandana over his face: to blend in with the crowd of black clothed, masked protesters we see at the right of the screen so that, if they began assaulting people, the police would be there as first hand witnesses. I know you don't want to accept it because it doesn't help your crusade against rights violating police, but, in this case, there's simply no way to tell either way from the evidence provided.

[+]

You seem to be alone here with this line of thinking. Ever play connect the dots when you were a kid? Try it out.

And why do we bring up the G20 and Montebello? Because they are relevant to the title of this thread.

Edited by GostHacked

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

None of those questions are relevant to what I said. I don't level accusations on people without solid proof behind them.

The solid proof is there. The solid proof is the Quebec Provincial Police's statement saying they were cops. Try trolling harder.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I haven't mentioned a word about Montebello or the G20; you keep bringing them up and I'm not entirely sure why; they're not related to the posted videos at all.

:huh:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry, gambino. I guess this is all just one big misunderstanding. You don't see the evidence because you don't have the slightest clue what the hell you're watching.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sorry, gambino. I guess this is all just one big misunderstanding.

No need to apologise. It must be difficult enough for you to go through life being unable to distinguish between your delusions and reality. My condolences.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No need to apologise. It must be difficult enough for you to go through life being unable to distinguish between your delusions and reality. My condolences.

As long as you are comfortable with a police state, then sure, keep up that line of thinking.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As long as you are comfortable with a police state, then sure, keep up that line of thinking.

The reality here must be The Government telling you when to go out and when stay home, and showing you baton, rubber bullet, strip search, night in a cold cage, and other such niceties (no exaggeration!), paid for by your own tax dollars, if you try to exercise your constitutional right to go.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Liberals went one step further and told you what property you may keep.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Liberals went one step further and told you what property you may keep.

Did you really just compare people to property?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Did you really just compare people to property?

Don't bother, he has a one track mind and rarely makes sense.

Rarely... perhaps that is too strong a word.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Did you really just compare people to property?

YES.

What do YOU think? Should property have more right than people to be defended with guns???

(think Brinks guards)

Edited by Saipan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Don't bother, he has a one track mind and rarely makes sense.

Rarely... perhaps that is too strong a word.

That also belongs to a thread "Problem with other posters" :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That also belongs to a thread "Problem with other posters" :)

Perhaps we need one. Nice to see your previous post to this one centers around gun control too. Consistent if nothing else.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

YES.

What do YOU think? Should property have more right than people to be defended with guns???

(think Brinks guards)

Not that this even remotely has to do with anything, but aren't people defended with guns too?

(think police and military)

Of course, when Brinks guards turn their guns on the property they're protecting... it doesn't quite carry the same problems.

Edited by cybercoma

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not that this even remotely has to do with anything, but aren't people defended with guns too?

NO. That is the biggest myth.

How many homicide victims were protected?

http://www.amazon.ca/Dial-911-Die-Richard-Stevens/dp/0964230445

Police have guns to protect themself.

Of course, when Brinks guards turn their guns on the property they're protecting... it doesn't quite carry the same problems.

What does "turn their guns on the property" really mean??

Do you have the same right to protect your money as the bank has??

Edited by Saipan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Go start a gun control thread.

So you admit POLICE is not protecting anyone but themself. In fact they are not legally required to do so.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

NO. That is the biggest myth.

How many homicide victims were protected?

http://www.amazon.ca/Dial-911-Die-Richard-Stevens/dp/0964230445

Police have guns to protect themself.

What does "turn their guns on the property" really mean??

Do you have the same right to protect your money as the bank has??

We should.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So you admit POLICE is not protecting anyone but themself. In fact they are not legally required to do so.

Nothing gets past you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...