Video: The purported military “arrest” at the G-20 protest; Update: Confirmed: police force arrest, not military
posted at 10:55 am on September 25, 2009 by Ed Morrissey
Drudge has this highlighted in red, and I’m pretty sure that the color choice will be appropriate, because this tape of a supposed military arrest at the G-20 protests has every indication of being a hoax — or more accurately, a piece of performance art. We’re getting several e-mails about it now, wondering if this is an indication that the Pentagon or the Department of Homeland Security is about to open the FEMA political-dissent camps. Take a look:
First, let’s break down what we see here. Three men drive up in a sedan, dressed in fatigues, grab someone off the street, and stuffs him in their car. An unmarked sedan? And why pull the one protester out of the crowd? What possible good would that have done? Had the authorities wanted to start arresting people, there are hundreds of regular police officers on the streets available to “grab” people committing actual violent acts, not just yelling on the street.
This looks to me like a staged piece of performance art. Fatigues can be bought easily, as can combat boots. This scene only makes sense as a way to inflame the protesters by attempting to heighten their paranoia, which (given the usual suspects who show up for these anti-globalization protests) requires a rather significant effort to cross their normal paranoia threshold.
I have a request for comment from the White House, and I’ll let you know what I hear. Until then, Drudge red-headline or no, you can color me very skeptical.
Update: Read through the comments, where Hot Air readers are picking apart the poor staging. Note that the three men have two different kinds of fatigues, including a type no longer in use. One of them has tan work boots rather than combat boots. None of them have duty belts or sidearms, and they make no attempt to handcuff the protester before putting him in the back of the car. Oh, and that unmarked car has Pennsylvania plates, not DC or government plates.
It’s a hoax. Comment of the day (so far) comes from MikeinBA:
The same people that think 9/11 WAS staged, think this WASN’T staged.
Update II: Bob Owens believes this was an arrest by police officers and that it wasn’t staged, but is also not military. The orange tip on the weapon held by a police officer in the background indicates a load of non-lethal ammunition. Bob may well be right, but wouldn’t police have handcuffed the guy before throwing him into the back seat — especially if he was resisting? I’m still skeptical.
Update III: Further evidence supporting Bob’s contention that it’s neither a hoax nor a military intrusion on civilian matters (via HA reader Dan):
Click on the image to see the full picture. Notice both the brown shoes on the camo-dressed cop to the left and the unmarked sedans in the background. Not sure if this is the same unit with the same suspect detained, but it does appear to match the earlier scene. I’m thinking that Bob’s got it right.
Update IV: Stephen Gutowski gets confirmation from the G-20 Joint Information Center that the men clad in camouflage fatigues are police officers, and that the man was arrested for vandalism.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: « Previous 1 … 4 5 6 7 Next »
Good point.
anuts on September 25, 2009 at 2:40 PM
BTW. Good job SilverStar830.
exception on September 25, 2009 at 2:41 PM
Sorry Ed. Whoever Bob is, he’s wrong. First, why would the police wear a military uniform, and outdated one at that? Doesn’t make sense.
Second, WHICH ONE OF THEM HAS A COVER (HAT) OUTSIDE? Everyone in the military knows that you wear your cover (hat) outside. None of them are.
Their boots aren’t bloused (pants are rolled up with boot band in top of boot). Multiple uniforms, no standard uniform. What is on their arm band?
They may be prior service. Or another military other than US?
Poseurs for sure.
conservative pilgrim on September 25, 2009 at 2:44 PM
@ Dusty
It IS against the law for normal people to wear fatigues, IF they are reasonably assumed to be military personel based on their dress. That means, if someone were to wear a full set of BDU’s and have their pants bloused correctly and their headcover, haircut, facial hair, and mannerisms so close to the military as to have no distinction between them, then it could be contended that they were ‘impersonating’ a soldier. And that IS against the law.
B3 on September 25, 2009 at 2:44 PM
Well that was a very odd arrest procedure. It was so amateurish that everyone should be surprised that it was quite real.
csdeven on September 25, 2009 at 2:47 PM
More than a ‘few people’ you know would attend and participate in a G20 Summit protest, where world leaders are gathered, packing loaded firearms? And they’re just oh-so violent.
Yeah, right.
Great. Another trolltastic internet tough guy.
You should just go watch more cartoons, Sparky.
This place is for grown-ups.
SilverStar830 on September 25, 2009 at 2:49 PM
Or it could be that the individual was a military member and was being arrested by military police. Not that many years ago we used to have joint patrols in our malls with military and civilian cops for the duel purpose of catching offending military members and to also enforce uniform requirements. I know because I used to be a military cop at that time. It didn’t violate posse commitatus because we were not being used to enforce civilian police.
SGinNC on September 25, 2009 at 2:50 PM
[B3 on September 25, 2009 at 2:44 PM]
Agreed, I realize that. Just as I said wearing fatigues in the common manner — unbloused, no standard boots, irregular, unidentifiable patches or armbands — and driving unmarked, unlighted, unsirened cars, just like these Pittsburgh Police did.
Dusty on September 25, 2009 at 2:52 PM
Thank you amigo.
You too ;)
SilverStar830 on September 25, 2009 at 2:52 PM
Unusual procedure is unusual.
It worked very well. A vandelism arrest didn’t escalate into a serious disturbance, suspect seems okay. All in what, 15-20 seconds? Slightly awesome. It would have been perfect if they hadn’t dressed like they were on the way to the deer lease.
exception on September 25, 2009 at 2:53 PM
Yeah Yeah Yeah, yadda yadda yadda….now about the sedan. Isn’t that a tad hypocritical to be driving that, amidst a G 20 summit? ROFL!!!!
Sorry. The smart a$$ in me couldn’t help it. :D
capejasmine on September 25, 2009 at 2:53 PM
@ csdeven
It actually wasnt that amateurish. They had a follow officer to stop the subject if they ran to the right, and a second tier officer to the left if the subject broke the primary officers control. There was a control officer inside the back seat to ‘assist’ in getting the subject into it and temporarily secure hands and feet. The driver opened their door to provide cover if the mob moved in quickly. There was a smoke screen so the car could leave without the mob following. As humans dont tend to run into smoke, for the most part.
Seemed pretty textbook actually.
B3 on September 25, 2009 at 2:56 PM
I just didn’t want those that are not familiar with the military to think these guys are actually military. Why give the military a bad rap for something they are not involved in? I am glad that’s it’s cleared up here. I hope others will find out it’s not a military operation.
Brat4life on September 25, 2009 at 2:56 PM
So, basically, everyone who dismissed this as a hoax should have to eat their words.
I like mine rare!
JohnJ on September 25, 2009 at 2:56 PM
The Gutowski article indicates that the men were a joint task force from several police departments, and they observed the apprehended suspect in the act of vandalism. The article indicates that due to the unfriendly demeanor of the crowd, they performed the action the way they did.
Takes a few to grab a guy surrounded by his peers. Gone In 10 Seconds.
unclesmrgol on September 25, 2009 at 2:57 PM
Claiming they are U.S. military when they aren’t would be a hoax (malicious deception) genius.
conservative pilgrim on September 25, 2009 at 2:59 PM
It IS against the law for normal people to wear fatigues, IF they are reasonably assumed to be military personel based on their dress. That means, if someone were to wear a full set of BDU’s and have their pants bloused correctly and their headcover, haircut, facial hair, and mannerisms so close to the military as to have no distinction between them, then it could be contended that they were ‘impersonating’ a soldier. And that IS against the law.
B3 on September 25, 2009 at 2:44 PM
Sheesh, where do you come up with this stuff? It’s not impersonating a soldier if there are no rank insignia, unit, or service patches on the uniform. Without those it’s just a goofy set of pajamas. Plenty of people wear fatigues all the time and it’s not illegal to do so.
James on September 25, 2009 at 2:59 PM
I’m working on this but if someone else can do it with better equipment: Save the photo above and blow it up.
The camo officers are wearing ID TAGS (on the sleeve).
Blow them up and see what they say. There is also an emblem but can’t just yet, make it out.
IndieDogg on September 25, 2009 at 3:00 PM
Saw that too. Would like to know what it says.
conservative pilgrim on September 25, 2009 at 3:02 PM
@ James
10 USC, Sections 771 and 772
Army Regualtion 670-1, paragraph 1-4 states:
d. In accordance with chapter 45, section 771, title 10, United States Code (10 USC 771), no person except a member of the U.S. Army may wear the uniform, or a distinctive part of the uniform of the U.S. Army unless otherwise authorized by law. Additionally, no person except a member of the U.S. Army may wear a uniform, any part of which is similar to a distinctive part of the U.S. Army uniform. This includes the distinctive uniforms and uniform items listed in paragraph 1–12 of this regulation. Paragraph 1–12 goes on to define “Distinctive uniforms and uniform items:”
a. The following uniform items are distinctive and will not be sold to or worn by unauthorized personnel:
•(1) All Army headgear, when worn with insignia.
•(2) Badges and tabs (identification, marksmanship, combat, and special skill).
•(3) Uniform buttons (U.S. Army or Corps of Engineers).
•(4) Decorations, service medals, service and training ribbons, and other awards and their appurtenances.
•(5) Insignia of any design or color that the Army has adopted.
This indicates that the Army would not be very happy if they learned that a civilian was wearing one of the items listed above.
B3 on September 25, 2009 at 3:10 PM
@ James
There are 12 paragraphs on what is Distinctive uniforms and uniform items. Those were just a few…
B3 on September 25, 2009 at 3:16 PM
So are the Mechanix gloves on the guy in the front standard issue? lol.
brainy435 on September 25, 2009 at 3:20 PM
People who have lived, were born, grown-up, and worked overseas know the consequences of being plucked off the streets by unknown persons wearing no visible identification of law enforcement or legitimate authority is usually a one way trip. (Being grabbed by government personnel didn’t always turn out well either.)
No they wouldn’t be at G-20 event, they avoid crowds where there is potential for clashes between radicals and government forces. Another lessons learned growing up in the 3rd World.
Grown ups who have lived in dangerous places react differently the events seen in the video. Most people here immediately ASSUME it was either the cops or the military and would probably not resist. The people I am familiar with who grew up in Colombian, El Salvardor, would fight without hesitation.
thmsmgnm on September 25, 2009 at 3:20 PM
Maybe these so called military or police types are a vanguard of the new national security force being planned by the Won’s handlers. Hmmmm
Kissmygrits on September 25, 2009 at 3:20 PM
I don’t think AR 670-1 would matter outside the Army, but 10 USC 771 is a different story.
Yhis is weird. A bit more since all day I’ve been wearing some of my old BDU trousers I’ve cut-off. My cement mixing shorts. Man, I just can’t keep track of my federal crimes anymore.
exception on September 25, 2009 at 3:22 PM
@ exception
I know, but it was applicable to the argument, even if in a round about sort of way. If the Army itself considers it distinctive, the US Code would also. And while the US Code has a ton of information, the fact the Army has 12 paragraphs on what IT considers special about the uniform… I figured I would share for the whole class. :)
B3 on September 25, 2009 at 3:27 PM
The ID tags had Pittsburgh Department of Public Safety on them and a long ID #.
While downtown I saw:
Philadelphia Police in uniform, Allegheny County Police with ACU pants and green shirts, State Police in uniform (w/riot helmets), PA National Guard in ACU, Secret Service (w/windbreaker), FBI (suits), State Police Bike Patrol, State Police Motorcycle Patrol. Snipers on top of the William Penn Hotel. Montgomery County SERT team in full gear. City of Pittsburgh Police in uniform. Let’s just say there were a lot and from many agencies.
reddevil on September 25, 2009 at 3:28 PM
I stand corrected on the hoax part. But, we were right up front. Not military.
ted c on September 25, 2009 at 3:29 PM
You’re right; I’m just backing you up.
Selective enforcement of this could be wicked. And they aren’t getting my boots back!
exception on September 25, 2009 at 3:30 PM
Blue Police State. I wonder what Arlen Spectacle and Fat-Ass Murtha will say of this in the Golden Age of Obama.
RobCon on September 25, 2009 at 3:30 PM
Yeah, those were all the things I mentioned, missing from those BD/ACUs in the video, that make it a uniform and not fancy pajamas.
James on September 25, 2009 at 3:33 PM
Heh.
When I got out, I used to wear my field jacket with civilian clothes when it seemed appropriate for the weather… which I’m sure put me in violation, especially since I didn’t cut off any of the patches.
malclave on September 25, 2009 at 3:35 PM
10 U.S.C. § 771a says when you’re discharged the military keeps all issued clothes, excecpt one uniform you can wear home. But, if the discharge is less than honorable, you can’t wear it. You get $30 for a new suit and overcoat.
This appears to still be current law. I’ll take my chances.
exception on September 25, 2009 at 3:35 PM
The public is not easily fooled, a font not used when GW was in service, zip codes on the Kennedy notes instead of the word “Zone” There are people out here that can identify the multiple names of apples.
mixplix on September 25, 2009 at 3:37 PM
If that is their rational, I can see why they did it that way. Usually the police would want to subdue the subject immediately to prevent him from harming himself or others. Police are generally identified by their uniforms. And it could be argued that the tactics used could have come across as gestapo type tactics that could lead a loon to try and take matters into his own hands.
But maybe they’re too chick$hit to confront a unidentified person whereas attacking a police officer, well, why the hell not?
csdeven on September 25, 2009 at 3:38 PM
@ exception
Thanks for the backup. :)
‘Selective Enforcement’ nothing more sweeping then the ‘or any part of…’ as being in the law. That could go, if you REALLY wanted it, to mean the same colors. As they are ‘special’ colors and have their own Pantone numbers specifically labeled military and the Marpat colors are even copyrighted and part of their patent on it.
@ csdeven
You got a point there, if the mob thought it was military, they would be MUCH MUCH less likely to pull any shiesty crap and just let it happen. Maybe the police counted on that response as an extra edge for them..
But, I gotta run. I check back later.
B3 on September 25, 2009 at 3:44 PM
Learn something new everyday. Wish so many of them weren’t federal crimes. The bad on wearing uniform items has been upheld by the Supreme Court, with some exceptions:
Schacht_v._United_States
At least it’s only a misdemenor. I like to save my felonies for something special.
exception on September 25, 2009 at 3:45 PM
Update more photos from the G20 Protest in Pittsburgh.
Dr Evil on September 25, 2009 at 3:55 PM
Hah! Best part, prolly been said before, is when the rioting hippie screams out “WTF is wrong with you?!” to the cops arresting the other rioting hippie.
Alden Pyle on September 25, 2009 at 3:57 PM
Funny how the left support anarchists’ bad behavior (or turn a blind eye at least) despite their limitless efforts for installing binding authoritarian rule. Of course, the worse the anarchists behave, the more impetus to impose authoritarianism on us.
Orange Doorhinge on September 25, 2009 at 4:16 PM
2 of those uniforms are Marine Digitals with desert boots. While, the big guy has on old school forest camouflage with black combat boots (which were replaced by the desert boots).
These 3 officers are probably detectives and are part of a plain clothes division. However, because of the situation they are wearing fatigues so the other police know who they are.
If you’ve ever been to some of the bad parts of Philly, the cops will drive around in unmarked cars in civilian clothing looking for people illegally carrying guns. I think it’s obvious why they didn’t throw on handcuffs. It’s 3 cops who are very concerned about getting beat up by protesters are the do an extraction. The black guy is huge, I’m pretty sure he sat on top of that little white kid in the back of that car.
They probably had a weapon underneath their tops. Also, that’s bad information about trousers being bloused. While it’s normally uniform regulation to have them bloused, under a commanders discretion it can be un-bloused. While doing boat and air operations it’s normal policy to require boots being un-bloused and all headgear to be removed.
I stand by those guys being plain clothes detectives.
LordJack on September 25, 2009 at 4:20 PM
So then, as per Update IV:
.
“The same people that think 9/11 WAS staged, think this
WASN’T staged“ was performance art, when apparently it wasn’t?.
Arbalest on September 25, 2009 at 4:21 PM
@B3
Hey, you might miss the fact that, that is an Army regulation… and just because the army says someone isn’t allowed to wear it doesn’t mean they can’t. Civilians aren’t subject to Army Regulation… so that AR is kind of worthless. Coming from a SSG that is in public affairs and studies law.
LordJack on September 25, 2009 at 4:23 PM
In an effort to be tactical, the officer involved rolled in dressed in various cammo pattern with little id in unmarked cars and drug someone of into a car and took off.It looked something like a military prisoner snatch (kinds sorta looked like).
The same officers in PD uniforms with badges, in a marked car could have used the same technique and very people would have thought twice about the incident.
AS for the crowd attacking the police, few people will knowingly attack a cop. That is one of the big taboos, that still survives. Some of the same people will smack John Doe nobody upside the head with a brick for no real reason.
thmsmgnm on September 25, 2009 at 4:24 PM
The video isn’t fake. The idea that it was our fine military involved is untrue. That is why everyone pegged it with the fake tag. I have repeatedly sent Drudge e-mails asking him to change the link. He must be at the doctors office.
fbcmusicman on September 25, 2009 at 4:33 PM
People beat on cops all the time. Many violent people make poor choices. Give a worse crowd time and reason to build and rocks and bottles and poop can start flying. Goos chance the police could control the crowd, but who want’s an unneeded crowd control problem.
And why bother to do it differently? They took the guy away with so little trouble that people thought it was a gag he was in on.
exception on September 25, 2009 at 4:38 PM
Okay, I’ll eat my previous posts; this is NOT a fake. I don’t agree with the protestors message or their use of vandalism, but it is wrong on so many levels for police officers to be wearing camo, driving a car through a crowd, and snatching people off the street like that.
bitsy on September 25, 2009 at 4:49 PM
thmsmgnm on September 25, 2009 at 4:24 PM
… made the arrest look like it was part of the staged and dramatized victimhood and manufactured rage of the protest.
there would’ve been a riot, at least that’s how it works in San Francisco
One-on-one, you’re right. BUT in a demonstration, it’s the thing to do.
That’s the Left for you, and in groups of, what, 50 or more?
Compare this to the 75,000-250,000 rightwing demonstrators on 9/29; where were the police? How many arrests? Were any car windows broken, or even doors keyed? FTR, I posted these questions on LGF a week or so ago, got a -1 instead of an answer.
Arbalest on September 25, 2009 at 5:01 PM
Why is it wrong for them to be wearing camo not issued by the US military (one was wearing the old Woodland pattern and the other had the civilian Multi cam pattern on). Most SWAT teams issue fatigues to their operators and Pittsburgh’s SWAT team is out in full force. The nutjob they arrested ostensibly had a warrant out for vandalism, and our country is still in favor of the protection of private property, right? These protests are unlawful and the Police and being too catious to dismantle them. They need to be authorized to use lethal force.
Cr4sh Dummy on September 25, 2009 at 5:03 PM
If you blow them up, I doubt if they’ll be able to say anything.
Daggett on September 25, 2009 at 5:07 PM
Maybe they are National Guard people from different states? Does the NG have different uniforms per state?
SouthernGent on September 25, 2009 at 5:10 PM
There’s a sharp juxtaposition between “teabaggers’ and this sorry lot of thugs. The police need to use lethal force to send a message.
On a side, some of these people may inadvertently be racist. Check out the nut jobs in the Indian garb on slide 4.
Cr4sh Dummy on September 25, 2009 at 5:12 PM
Tan (light brown) boots are current desert wear and are worn with the new digital battle dress uniform (BDU). The old style green camo two of the officers? are wearing are the old style (I have several >10years old in the closet). Army surplus and hunting catalogs are full of old BDU and similar style clothing available for hunters. Illegal for civilians for wear, I doubt it. If it is, it’s enforced worse that speed limits.
Croy_P on September 25, 2009 at 5:13 PM
Negative, they’re all issued the same fatigues (Army Combat Uniform).
Cr4sh Dummy on September 25, 2009 at 5:14 PM
Yes, of course I am in favor of protecting private property, but lethal force in response to vandalism seems to be a slight over reaction to me.
bitsy on September 25, 2009 at 5:22 PM
Oh, does this mean I packed my FEMA bag for nothing?
And combined with the d*ck POTUS interrupting Beck’s show with all the wonderful Moms in the audience, this is turning into a downer day.
I got to shoot something. (Slips “Fallout 3″ DVD into drive.)
OT: Congrats to the beautiful (both inside and out) Megyn Kelly and her new baby boy.
Sapwolf on September 25, 2009 at 5:25 PM
This sounds like an Anarchist planning and seeded Mission!
Maybe this was a video set-up for a Alex Jones,it can be
anything at this point,but this doesn’t smell right,and
I don’t believe police,or the Military for that matter,
are snatching people off the streets,unless somehow,Pre
sident Obama put together his Civilian National Security
Forces without anybody knowing,but I doubt that one either!!
canopfor on September 25, 2009 at 5:30 PM
This happens all the time. These malcontents are always out of control. Essentially, there are domestic terrorists and should be treated as such.
Their numbers are barely in the hundreds. Most of them are a bunch of impetuous and indignant youths. Lethal force would not result in a blood bath.
Cr4sh Dummy on September 25, 2009 at 5:33 PM
Or, the police could put them in the back of police cars and take them to jail.
exception on September 25, 2009 at 5:38 PM
This protest goon operation is De Javu,
Battle in Seattle Part Duex!!
canopfor on September 25, 2009 at 5:39 PM
Can’t be. Their uniforms are going to be sweet.
exception on September 25, 2009 at 5:40 PM
SGinNC, MP (military cops)don’t look like that, their uniforms are quite distinct and they always wear guns in sight, real ones and with real ammo, it goes without saying. also, they have dark colour, differently shaped caps. And they normally have jursidiction only on the military bases, very raraley and only in exceptional circumstances they would leave the bases. It is certainly different when they are deployed in peacekeeping operations, or Iraq, Afghanistan-type of missions. If they were after a military guy who was hiding in that crowd for some reasons, or who was a protester in his spare time :-) (which is a possibility after all) they would have probably simply worn civilian clothes. most likely…my husband is in the Air Force and I’ve seen a lot of MPs on the bases he works on, those guys in the video are not MPs. There is a group of the military who go incognito (civilian dress too) and infiltrate the young military guys when they go out, mainly to get them if they do drugs and stuff… but that happens especially in Europe…in Amsterdam this is quite common, coz the young Am military boys are silly enough to think that when in Rome…do what the Romans…:-)or well, when in Amsterdam. :-)…but these guys belong to special investigation military units (OSI, in the Air Force case), and they defintiely don’t wear uniforms in these missions…
jimver on September 25, 2009 at 5:45 PM
So the police faked a military-looking operation?
Not a clever move.
P.R.-wise.
Paranoids do not need to be fed camouflaged meat.
Either plainclothes or police uniforms.
Skip the paramilitary nonsense.
It plays badly.
profitsbeard on September 25, 2009 at 5:46 PM
Since when do the arrest vandals like this?? Just drive up and grab people and throw them into a sedan???
It’s like a display of raw power. Yet they run away after they get their guy. Why not just get out, read the guy his rights and then take him away?? What kind of stunt is this???
JellyToast on September 25, 2009 at 5:50 PM
Are these guys hiding in the woods? There’s no need at all for camo, didn’t go over too well in the Randy Weaver trial. It’s almost as if they wanted to get people even more worked up at these things, usually when you got cops with camo they like to try their new toys as well. Cops playing soldiers is not a good idea.
LevStrauss on September 25, 2009 at 5:52 PM
All Points Bulletin:
Cops in camo. Anyone in the Pittsburgh area with dogs please keep them indoors until the threat passes. Cops in camo usually kill all family pets. Please keep them indoors.
LevStrauss on September 25, 2009 at 5:55 PM
Not trying to get off point but was all set to watch Beck special at 5 today. Then true to form here comes old rat face with his no news look at me dog and pony show at 505pm that was supposed to start at 430 and Fox breaks away for this so called news alert.Then after 30 mins they come back to beck after they run 5 mins of ads.Beck pulls over 3 million viewers to his show and obama does this all the time to beck.If i was beck i would tell fox unless it was a real news alert the next time they did this i would walk.
thmcbb on September 25, 2009 at 5:58 PM
Exactly. Which is why I’m advocating lethal force. This always happens at these events. I’ve heard that the Police have been using the Long Range Acoustic Device, for crowd-control. That is obviously not working. I don’t know if something like the Active Denial System would be any better (I can’t wait until). But the point is, less-lethal weapons don’t work and it only emboldens protesters.
Cr4sh Dummy on September 25, 2009 at 6:01 PM
Worse than fake.
Stupid.
profitsbeard on September 25, 2009 at 6:06 PM
profitsbeard, I totally agree. it’s quite stupid of them to do the military uniform thing…and bad PR ….it only feeds on the (already heightened) paranoia that is charcateristic of these people who participate in these protests…I simply don’t get it why they did it this way…they probably singled out the guy as some sort of a ‘leader’ of the protesters or so, or as a particularly belligerent, annoying one, and they targeted him and went after him… I am assuming they wore those uniforms to confuse and surprise the crowd and the guy in question, and they probably decided that it’s better to look like some law enforcement of sorts when they go after the guy and ‘extract’ him from the crowd, than simply wear civilian clothes and feed the obligatory ‘CIA kidnapping’ conspiracy…it’s all I can think of…
jimver on September 25, 2009 at 6:10 PM
Mercenaries. They called in Blackwater?
Socmodfiscon on September 25, 2009 at 6:20 PM
Battle in Seattle Part Duex!!
canopfor on September 25, 2009 at 5:39 PM
Exactly. Which is why I’m advocating lethal force. This always happens at these events. I’ve heard that the Police have been using the Long Range Acoustic Device, for crowd-control. That is obviously not working. I don’t know if something like the Active Denial System would be any better (I can’t wait until). But the point is, less-lethal weapons don’t work and it only emboldens protesters.
Cr4sh Dummy on September 25, 2009 at 6:01 PM
Cr4sh Dummy: I heard on AM radio,top of the News hour spot,
last night,that a professed Anarchist,that vio
lence is thee only solution to get their point
across,so I agree,if they want to use force,tha
n force against them is merited!!:)
canopfor on September 25, 2009 at 6:29 PM
Doesn’t surprise me, those people self-loathing losers.
Cr4sh Dummy on September 25, 2009 at 6:37 PM
Y’all are missing the point. This happened in Obama’s America.
SO much had changed in the past 9 months. I had such high expectations that accompany the President as he moves throughout the world. I’ve been so discontented with a status quo that increasingly allows us to be defined by our difference. For the first time in my adult life I’ve been proud of my country. Then– this fascist, militaristic thuggery against someone whose crime was having the audacity to speak truth to power.
I’m so disenchanted. How can we ever have hope in change again?
Excuse me while I drown my sorrow in a nice meritage.
obladioblada on September 25, 2009 at 6:55 PM
As opposed to what?
The cookie cutter individualism of the Anarchist?
DSchoen on September 25, 2009 at 7:12 PM
If we count “malware” as vandalism I’m all for lethal force, just before you try to arrest them.
Bang! “You have the right to remain silent, which shouldn’t be much of a problem”.
DSchoen on September 25, 2009 at 7:27 PM
canopfor on September 25, 2009 at 6:29 PM
Doesn’t surprise me, those people self-loathing losers.
Cr4sh Dummy on September 25, 2009 at 6:37 PM
Cr4sh Dummy: Yup!:)
canopfor on September 25, 2009 at 7:35 PM
Continued militarization of our police force.
the rights of the citizens second to the safety of our police force.
no worries it’s just an isolated incident.
These tactics will never be applied to the lawful citizens.
when the come for you there maybe no left to speak out.
The enemy of my enemy is my friend
WichoFawkes on September 25, 2009 at 7:58 PM
A nonlethal device best known for beating back pirates off the coast of Somalia was deployed by local police in San Diego at political gatherings. “The [Long Range Acoustic Device] was stationed by San Diego County Sheriff deputies at a recent town hall forum hosted by Congresswoman Susan Davis (D-San Diego) in Spring Valley and at a subsequent town hall with Congressman Darrell Issa (R-San Diego),”
Good thing they are not Tea Party protesters.
BDU-33 on September 25, 2009 at 8:03 PM
I don’t like the looks of local police dressed in camo military. Our constitution doesn’t allow a federal police force the last I heard — except in case of a national emergency when the National Guard is called out. This ain’t Mexico, or is it?
TBenton on September 25, 2009 at 8:08 PM
Exit… stage left…even the civilian vehicle exited left…lol !!!
Ed PLEASE…no more of this drivel…
jerrytbg on September 25, 2009 at 8:49 PM
Actually… it’s called the militia of the several states…every able bodied man between the ages of, what, 16 an 60? Read the papers of the Founding Fathers if you can’t understand the boiled down version of what the gave us….it’s known as the Constitution …
jerrytbg on September 25, 2009 at 8:57 PM
I have got one question. Why are the policemen wearing camo fatigues?
Johan Klaus on September 25, 2009 at 9:29 PM
Yes, I have same question.
If those four guys tried to kidnap me, a person may be attempted to resist arrest.
How were they even supposed to know they were police. It looks like 4 dudes in camo jumping out of a small car.
Spathi on September 25, 2009 at 9:35 PM
They caught another one praying in public. Straight to the showers with him!
ronsfi on September 25, 2009 at 9:55 PM
Having laundered my son’s uniforms during the very few and far between leaves he had from the Army, and having ordered boots for said uniform, and in the process become very familiar with style and details, I KNOW these guys are fakes.
This is definitely a trumped up photo op trying to make our military and the police look bad.
These were neither soldiers nor police. Period.
Mommynator on September 25, 2009 at 9:57 PM
…he said while rocking back and forth, with his elbows to his knees, clutching a well worn copy of The Turner Diaries.
ac1 on September 25, 2009 at 10:43 PM
Allegheny County SWAT work in rural areas, and countryside they probably all have BDU’s like that especially the old timers like the big black dude. As for cops playing soldier, easy to say its a bad thing, when you’re playing World of Warcraft.
ac1 on September 25, 2009 at 10:46 PM
Allegheny County PD also wear their name tags on their left sleeves, like the guys in the vid
ac1 on September 25, 2009 at 10:49 PM
I had it this pegged in a few minutes. I noticed the boots, clothes and guns and figured they were SWAT or a tactical unit being used in the enforcement end.
Also, I did this for years for my department. Units like ours used to be called the “jump out boys” for our sneaking up on suspects in the middle of the night and grabbing them up. They are probably a street crimes tactical unit. Usually good serious cops with a intense desire to catch bad guys.
Sucks to be an anarchists in PA.
archer52 on September 25, 2009 at 10:56 PM
I see what you did there. Yes because anyone who expresses concerns about the current state of law enforcement in this country is paranoid white nationalist, or hippy anarchist.
Your simplification for the thuggish behavior gains no traction
Crime rate is typically quite low in totalitarian states, one of the benifits of state control.
Still its not the direction I think we should stay on.
But its ok I suppose playing GI JOE should prepare them well for our future.
WichoFawkes on September 25, 2009 at 11:51 PM
This was on confederateyankee. PA State Police wears woodland BDUs. See how sneaky is makes them?
Easton’s where the crayon factory is. That’s pretty awesome.
exception on September 26, 2009 at 12:19 AM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 … 4 5 6 7 Next »