OMG Protester Shot Point Blank!! ... or was she?

Another great example of misleading info being bounced around as 'proof'.

The video is titled "G20 Toronto - Police shoot at protestors point blank"

Here's the video.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pw2TokwsmKQ&feature=player_embedded

Chilling. Wicked. Point-blank, how can anyone survive that?

Until you see the after-shot picture from the reverse angle that shows the woman standing, open arms, far to the left of the shooter's weapon axis:

I'd like to know from the woman in grey whether she was shot (at).

Till then, nice disinfo by the video uploader, and shame on those pushing this video as 'proof'.

As usual, this post is about BS propaganda and disinformation. I'm well aware of other legitimate wrongs.

How about a little truth in advertising?

In response to http://www.globalresearch.ca/PrintArticle.php?articleId=20110

The webpage cited has the title "G20 Toronto Riots perpetrated by Agents Provocateurs of the Police". That suggests there's proof, some evidence.

Yet in the body of the essay we read, "It is hopeful that in the days, weeks and months to come government and police will be forced to admit (under similar circumstances as in Montebello, Quebec in 2007) that much of the vandalism and fire-setting was undertaken by those encouraged, directly or indirectly, by agents provocateurs."

The author is presuming guilt before innocence (riots perpetrated by police), and guilt by association (Quebec cops did it, so Toronto must have also).

Seems that a lot of people will parrot URLs without critical thought:




1520 RT @Teradoll @CynthiaBuroughs @mparent77772: G20 agent provocs Opinions are like buttholes, everyone's got one. Proof? #g20

1545 @PPKA2 the article provides sources, check them.

1555 @Teradoll I've read every one of those URLs before. Disingenuous to label the page "G20 Toronto Riots perpetrated by ... Police"

1556 @teradoll "It is hopeful that in the days, weeks and months to come government and police will be forced to admit " is not proof.

1601 @PPKA2 there´s a lot more evidence that the police did something wrong in all the photos and videos than any of the people arrested

1604 @PPKA2 so you can say there´s no proof, fine...but there´s enough to make a legitimate allegation worth investigating.

1604 @PPKA2 especially considering they admitted to using provocateurs in the past.

1604 @PPKA2 well if we don´t say anything in twitter all the malformed pablum they will get is from the MSM

1605 @Teradoll oh hell yes. But I thought we lived in an innocent before guilty society. Turns out not so much, on all accounts.

1606 @Teradoll Basically I'm sick of seeing lame grade-school 'proof' that cops broke windows. Let cars get burned, maybe. Where's the admission?

1606 @PPKA2 if we don´t make accusations the police behavior will never be investigated properly

1608 @Teradoll Then accuse through non-hysterical channels. Most of Twitter is happy to eat whatever malformed pablum they're given as 'proof'

1609 @PPKA2 well if we don´t say anything in twitter all the malformed pablum they will get is from the MSM

1609 @Teradoll btw, one time a black haired spanish woman committed a crime. By your logic, that makes you suspect also. C'mon.

1610 @PPKA2 showing abandonded cop cars burning and windows being smashed w/ no police in sight and trying to link it to the arrests the next day

1611 @PPKA2 the boots were enough to make the police admit to using provocateurs in 2007...it´s not that far out.

1611 @Teradoll then call it 'potential' or 'possible' not 'proof'.

1613 @Teradoll ah yes. Only cops wear black boots. Proof, debunked: http://bit.ly/aFvZNi because 2007 QC is 2010 ON and guilt by assoc rules.

1616 @PPKA2 besides it´s more than the boots...there are videos of the cars being abandoned and the window smashers acting with no police nearby

1616 @PPKA2 1 billion dollars spent on security and there were no police on the streets where windows were being smashed?

1617 @PPKA2 1 billion dollars spent on security and they leave lone police cars in the middle of the crowd and walk away?

1617 @PPKA2 it´s more than a little suspicious

1617 @PPKA2 I know that´s not proof, but it´s enough to be suspicious

1618 @PPKA2 anyway I´m done arguing with you, but I´ll bet doughnuts to dollars we´ll get an admission in the near future.


1621 @Teradoll proof -> more than suspicious -> not proof. Nice. Guilt before innocence. Let's hear the admission.

1626 @PPKA2 on the other hand there is plenty of proof on video that the police violated several sections of the charter of rights and freedoms

1629 @Teradoll I'm not arguing other vids. Seeking proof that cops broke stuff. There was 'proof' you said. Oh wait. That got retracted.

1630 @PPKA2 and all you´re doing is nitpicking the terms I used to try and shield the police from scrutiny.

1631 @Teradoll I heard 'proof'. Shall we debate that word in legal terms? Or is fuzzy wuzzy OK for conviction these days?

1633 @PPKA2 I´m not making a conviction I´m making an allegation...there is a difference.

1634 @Teradoll You're happy to retweet convictions. The original article said "G20 Toronto Riots perpetrated by [Police]". Nice disinformation.

1636 @PPKA2 I didn´t write the article, and I didn´t ever say I agree 100% with every word written in it...nice putting words in my mouth

1638 @Teradoll sorry where's the bit where you disagreed? Just going by your tweets. You seemed OK retweeting verbatim...

1641 @PPKA2 everyone knows the headline is just an attention grabber...I hope.

1642 @Teradoll So you're OK propagating exaggerated headlines that purport 'proof'. Tell me how this helps.

1644 @Teradoll Hope away. High-school 'proof' gets seconded by in other blogs, gets raised more entrenched; the agenda-pushers win.

1645 @PPKA2 fine you don´t like the wording of the article I get it, I´m not changing your mind.

1646 @Teradoll Question 'proof'. Isn't that what we're all taught? Check primary sources. Nice thread. Godspeed.

Big Brother ' r ' us

With the rise of picture/video cell phones and social media, the citizens are also Big Brother.

'potential ERT Member' based on what evidence? Short hair?

Karen Brodie photographed a violent protester seen trashing a police car
http://www.flickr.com/photos/mollymotmot/4741238382/in/photostream/. (btw, check the rest of her uploads, she does really great work)

At 2010-07-02 there are a few comments posted to the Flickr picture. Is critical thinking being used?




Here are the comments left on Flickr:

1) S.2010 (18 hours ago)
Arcteryx (upper left arm sleeve )
The Arc'teryx LEAF ( Law Enforcement and Armed Forces) product line of equipment IS Composed Targeted To The Military and law enforcement markets . Although some item are Simply Their Counterparts in design to Civilian models, except items Arc'teryx Have Sucha ' s Tango and Charlie packs are made in camouflage patterns and Constructed to Military Specifications , Including Numerous PALS - type attachment loops and fabric featuring neutral and camouflage coloring. Due to dissatisfaction with the MOLLE gear , the United States Marine Corps thing Arc'teryx ' s Tango Design for Their new backpack , the ILBE .

2) tone balone (18 hours ago)
Wow, looks like a cop to me!

3) trinityofrtruth (6 hours ago)
potential ERT Member -task division as yet unclear



Here are my comments on these comments:

1) Arcteryx
1.1) True that Arcteryx makes a tactical product line. You can see it here: http://leaf.arcteryx.com/Product.aspx?Mens
1.2) the jacket the man is wearing is not part of that product line. You can see it is the Sidewinder SV jacket, that costs $650, here:
http://arcteryx.com/Product.aspx?Mens/Jackets/Sidewinder-SV-Jacket
$650
1.3) Most non-critical thinkers will accept S.2010's implication that the man is wearing law enforcement gear.


2) Looks like a cop
2.1) I see a man with short hair. Lots of cops have short hair. So do other people.
2.2) I see a man with a black backpack. Lots of cops have black backpacks. So do other people.
2.3) I see a man with a black hiking jacket. Cops wear black. So do goths and funeral directors.


3) Potential ERT member.
3.1) Here's a great shot of real ERT: http://www.specialunits.eu/images/Canada/Toronto%20ETF%20(22jan09).jpg
3.2) So based on a black coat, black backpack, short hair, and possibly physique, the poster has decided the man's career (cop) and specialty (ERT).
3.3) Applying the same level of critical thinking, I would suggest trinityofrtruth is a potential dyslexic Catholic priest.


Now in Montebello 2007, undercover cops were busted posing as potentially violent protesters.

However, in Toronto 2010, I find the common level of critical thinking demonstrated by these Flickr comments and elsewhere disheartening. So much for conclusive 'proof'.

Abandoned at King/Bay?

Allegations have been made that police left two cruisers at King/Bay to be torched by protesters.

Check this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WjOMYlsVNCo&feature=channel

At 0:44 the camera faces south and you can see a line of vehicles across the street -- marked cruisers and unmarked vans -- a sort of loose barricade.

You can see no more than 30-50 cops were at that intersection initially. Plain uniforms with helmets, no riot gear.

At 1:08 you can hear "Let's get some help here"

At 2:22 you can see a small defensive cluster guarding east on King.

At 5:11 you can see the size of the mob; probably 1000s strong.

Police understand the power of a mob, of a riot. The cops mentioned above were overrun, overwhelmed and knew full well how vulnerable they were.

Just like these ones: check 0:40 at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WjOMYlsVNCo&feature=channel

No wonder the line of vehicles were abandoned. What were they going to do, start shooting people?

I call bullshit

Many have suggested that 2010 G20 Black Bloc violence was initiated by police.

This note is not so much about that, as the lack of sophistication demonstrated by the protestor community about a limp webpage being touted as 'proof' that police committed acts of vandalism while dressed as Black Bloc protesters:
"The Toronto G20 Riot Fraud: Undercover Police engaged in Purposeful Provocation at Tax Payers' Expense" by Terry Burrows.

If the webpage in question is what passes for proof amongst the protester community, have fun with that and I pray that you are never given jury duty.

As added by @robertg366, I shouldn't tar 99% of people for the 1% that might endorse Burrows' article. However, for my one blog countering it, I've seen more webpages quoting it as gospel.

What I find disgusting is how easily people swallow the weak evidence presented as conclusive proof that police led the Black Bloc incidents, then turn it around and announce it online as incontrovertible. Show me the video of a verified undercover cop dressed as a Black Bloc smashing windows or stomping cars, and I'll retract all.

Agent Provocateur
Per Wikipedia, "Traditionally, an agent provocateur (plural: agents provocateurs, French for "inciting agent(s)") is a person employed by the police or other entity to act undercover to entice or provoke another person to commit an illegal act. More generally, the term may refer to a person or group that seeks to discredit or harm another by provoking them to commit a wrong or rash action."

Undercover police
Also per Wikipedia, "Being undercover is disguising one's own identity or using an assumed identity for the purposes of gaining the trust of an individual or organization to learn secret information or to gain the trust of targeted individuals in order to gain information or evidence. Traditionally it is a technique employed by law enforcement agencies around the world and a person who works in such a role is commonly referred to as an undercover agent."

1) These points refer to an argument presented here: http://globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=19928 entitled "The Toronto G20 Riot Fraud: Undercover Police engaged in Purposeful Provocation at Tax Payers' Expense" by Terry Burrows.


1.1) That undercover police were exposed at the Montebello 2007 Security and Prosperity Partnership meetings is conclusive. Damning photos and video forced authorities to admit this.
1.2) Burrows then suggests that he has convincing evidence that undercover police were vandalising a Starbucks and destroying a police car at the 2010 G20 Toronto riot.

1.2.1) Burrows describes one protester as having the 'fit strong body of a trained soldier ... who puts in a lot of time at the gym'. This Black Bloc person is also 'wearing ... specialized equipment on his forearm and possibly his hip'. Burrows also is disappointed the protester's footwear cannot be seen as this supports his subsequent argument.
Here is another photo I found (not Burrows) of the same protester (Globe and Mail, http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/g20-day-of-protest/article1619712/). So much for the fit, strong, soldier's physique. The 'specialized equipment'? Looks like a shin guard and water bottle to me. Footwear appears to be black running shoes or low tactical boots.

1.2.2) Burrows moves to a new picture, focusing on the footwear of a protester destroying a Starbucks window.

1.2.2.1) He describes a 'very distinctive deep black colour combat boot'. I see a black work shoe. Black is not particularly distinctive. Note that combat boots typically have 8 or 10 laces and rise over the ankle; this shoe is below the ankle. Work shoes and tactical boots can both have rugged soles. I see no evidence of 'some reinforcement of the upper forefoot area', but that's a matter of opinion.

1.2.2.2) He describes 'mismatched socks', and wonders if this is a recognition code for other police. My son mismatches his socks too, so he might be a cop, but at 5 he's a bit short. If this is a code, we surely should see other mismatched sock combinations.

1.2.2.3) He describes a 'nice heavy shiny new belt' as also part of the uniform. I see nothing remarkable about this plain black possibly leather belt. Here's a link to 'police belt' on Google, by the way: http://www.google.ca/images?um=1&hl=en&rlz=1I7GGIE_en&tbs=isch%3A1&sa=1&q=police+belt&aq=f&aqi=g-sx1&aql=&oq=&gs_rfai=

1.2.2.4) Not particularly convincing in my opinion. I certainly wouldn't convict anyone if I was in a jury faced with this sort of proof.

1.2.3) Burrows moves to a new picture of a man stopping a police car roof.

1.2.3.1) He suggests the stomper is using the 'same brand new distinctive black combat boots' as the protester above. The stomper's boots are described as having 'deep corrugations visible in an enlargement as a scalloping of the front bottom outer edge'. These appear not to be boots, but rather shoes that do not rise above the ankles. The back of the heel is different on both. Note that most shoes with a heavy hiking tread present a broken outer edge.

1.2.4) incidentally, it's been suggested elsewhere by Humberto da Silva from Sindicalista TV (http://www.boingboing.net/2010/06/28/canadian-cops-histor.html?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter) that the pack "looks remarkably like a tactical backpack, all strapped up". Sure, if you're into Gucci-cam and your idea of toughing it is carrying your school books to college. Go to http://www.google.ca/images?um=1&hl=en&rlz=1I7GGIE_en&tbs=isch%3A1&sa=1&q=molle+pack&aq=f&aqi=g1&aql=&oq=&gs_rfai= to see what real tactical bags look like.

1.2.5) Burrows moves then to link black tactical boots to these two protester pictures and concludes the ''black bloc' provocs and the uniformed armoured police are wearing in Toronto ... the identical government issued combat boots'

1.2.5.1) The proof: 'thick heavy corrugated soles and deep black colour' that are 'brand new and shiny'.

1.2.5.2) here are some riot boots:http://www.flickr.com/photos/martinreis/4743549632; there are lots of boot pictures here http://www.flickr.com/groups/1418026@N24/pool/show.

Riot boots look very different.

1.2.5.4) Check http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/g20-day-of-protest/article1619712/ for lots of other full body pics of Black Bloc protesters. None of the protesters appear to be wearing riot boots; some appear to be wearing tactical boots (that can be purchased from any Marks Work Warehouse, online dealer, or surplus store).

2)a video of an undercover cop running behind a police line on College http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u6XgEI5dCrE&feature=youtu.be may prove police used undercover cops, but does not prove police damaged property or incited violence. Wearing a disguise doesn't necessarily mean you're leading the charge.

So where's the conclusive proof showing a verified undercover Black Bloc cop bashing a window?

Nowhere I've seen yet...

In any case, this note isn't about Che backpacks, police admission of infiltration of protest groups, or Montebello, unlawful searches or detainment, left or rightwing politics, or larger issues. This is about a weak essay with limp proof being used as evidence of police wrongdoing, and I'm calling bullshit on that essay.