Police Infiltrators MUST Be BUSTED!

[The Doctor.]

It is absolutely imperative that OWS not merely stop the infiltrators/provocateurs from committing acts of violence, but that we get their faces on video!

There is absolutely no reason to allow these people to commit vandalism. ANY person vandalizing property is simply not part of OWS and deserves to be prosecuted. Should anyone attempt violence or vandalism, OWS demonstrators are obligated to not only stop them, but get their unmasked faces on video and attempt a citizen's arrest.

If a COP is captured on video committing violence or vandalism while posing as a protestor, their attempts to infiltrate OWS will cease.

They MUST be stopped, or eventually they will succeed quashing the movement by giving the media the excuse to accuse OWS of being violent. Many people are already convinced that OWS protestors are violent despite the fact that OWS, by definition, is non-violent.

I do not live anywhere near the hot spots of police infiltration. All I can do is entreat those in Oakland, NYC, or anywhere else police are infiltrating the movement to be vigilant and take proactive steps to apprehend and most importantly catch them red-handed on video committing these acts.

If that happens, a massive blow will have been dealt to the tactic, the propaganda, and to corporate parasites we must eventually overthrow.

Please.

In Solidarity,

TD

[NNN0LHI]

1. Good luck with that one

We used to have no problem spotting the police infiltrators during the 60's.

They always had the best dynamite.

Don

[The Doctor.]

2. Bwhaahahahaa! Funny thing-

The same holds true today!

The agents provocateur these days tend to carry police-issue equipment still. That's the best part about fascists;

No Imagination.

[hvn_nbr_2]

10. Another "tell" from the '60s:

The cops were the ones who wore long hair, blue jeans, and wingtips.

[socialindependocrat]

3. Seems easy to me...

If the OWS groups stay loyal to the non-violence message

then, anyone trying to insight violence becomes suspect, right?

THEN, if people take pictures and turn them in to the police
it shows cooperation and the conviction to stay non-violent.

Where's the rub??

[The Doctor.]

5. Unfortunately, it's not nearly so easy.

First; The perpetrators wear masks. So any 'show of cooperation' will result in exactly *zero* arrests or prosecutions.

Second; The media has not gone out of their way to show the protestors trying to stop the vandals. In fact, the media has been deliberately representing the acts of vandalism and violence as being committed by OWS protestors.

Third; Since the police infiltrators are the ones responsible for some of the vandalism, I shouldn't have to explain how silly it is to think that the police will in any way 'appreciate' the efforts to stop the perps and bring them to justice. In fact, it is very much in the interest of the police to NOT acknowledge that the protestors are 'peaceful' since it is the police that are trying to make them appear otherwise.


That means that the ONLY way to prove to the media and the world that OWS is peaceful is to catch one of these agents provocateur red-handed and identify them in viral media.


Do you understand?

[ProgressiveProfessor]

8. So the entire black block are police?

Not true in the past, nothing to show it is true now.

OWS lets anyone speak at the GA etc. Each encampment is open. There are any number of versions of non-violence means. This is far from black and white, and any attempt to unmask people is by definition violence, not to mention battery.

Check out these links as examples of non-violent OWS participants, doing IMO the movement some harm:

http://www.pixiq.com/article/occupy-portland-protester-turns

http://www.pixiq.com/article/occupy-san-diego-activists-attack-woman-recording-them

Carlos, Wired, and other media have generally portrayed OWS as non-violent. However, there are the fringe few, some of whom may be police infiltrators, many of whom clearly are not, are also a problem.

Come to an encampment and stay a while. Then maybe YOU might understand the realities on the ground.

[The Doctor.]

12. Huh? Where the hell did I say that?

The ability to read what is not there seems to run rampant around here.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

15. Your cluelessness and calls for actions are amusing

The encampments are already handling this in ways much better that your nonsense.

[The Doctor.]

16. Okay, great. I'm very glad they've managed to solve the problem of the agents provocateur.

Ummm... how exactly have they done that?

[ProgressiveProfessor]

19. Check out the Wired article on Oakland

It was a good example of how to handle black blocks. I am sure you can find it from your computer

[The Doctor.]

22. I didn't ask about the Black Blocs (no 'K' btw). I asked how they solved the police problem.

So how have they managed to stop the police from posing as protestors and committing acts of violence or vandalism?

If you could just explain that, that would be great. Thanks!

:hi:

[socialindependocrat]

9. Thanks for the feedback.

Yes, I see your points

So then, what can they do to catch these people?

Can they make citizen's arrests? (to avoid charges of kidnapping)
Can they defrock them and take their picture?
Can they finger print these people and send the prints to the FBI?

You just can't say "There's nothing that can be done"

I'll send a note to MSNBC as a suggestion that they look into
the reported violence and how other stations are trying to
attribute it to the OWS.

It needs to be reported and the truth brought out.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

17. Are you an infiltrator or provocateur? Everything you suggested is illegal and violent

1) Citizens Arrest requires that a crime be committed and has to be done by the numbers or it is kidnapping. No competent lawyer supports OWS or anyone else using it.

2) Removing masks is BATTERY and is considered a violent felony. Doing it to black block members is bound to get your ass whooped if nothing else. A surprising number of people are concealing

3) Fingerprints? Are you farking nuts? Hold still while I take you prints? At minimum BATTERY (again).

Most the media is not calling OWS violent, and is recognizing it as outliers. However, some of it is getting pretty bizarre. One of the challenges of a non-structured movement where the largest functional entity is an encampment is keeping order and keeping on message. There are mixed results at best.


Its pretty clear that you and the other bubba pushing this nonsense have not ever been to an encampment. Go there, actually participate from something other than a keyboard and see what the realities are. It will dramatically change your perspective.

[The Doctor.]

20. Those are called "Questions", not "Suggestions".

The clue is that funny little mark at the end of the sentence that looks like this; "?"

[The Doctor.]

25. It's an excellent question.

'What can be done?'

That's precisely the problem here. It's difficult to get the IDs of people who want to get away with violence without using some form of force. My suggestion to get them on camera and go ahead and remove their masks is based on something like a 'pinning' tactic in chess. If they're just a punk, they can try to press assault charges, but they'll be exposed to the vandalism charges with possible money damages. On the other hand, if it's a cop, pressing charges is a lot like exposing their most powerful piece. Doing so would fully expose their operation, and take away any perceived credibility of accusations that OWS is violent.

Naturally, this tactic only works with significant video footage.

As for the above, good questions, but I figure just go straight for the mask and get their visage recorded. If they don't like it, maybe they shouldn't be causing the problem.

[socialindependocrat]

11. I SENT A NOTE TO MSNBC

There is some violence at some of the OWS locations. The OWS people are trying to find a way to stop violence and the perps may be police who are trying to make the OWS look bad. Some of the news stations are trying to make it look like the OWS people are responsible and the OWS is getting out of control. this needs to be brought out to the American people. If we can't trust our police and they are being used to make the OWS look bad this is outrageous. Here is a link to one post on the Democratic Underground site http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x2276973
Thanks for your help!! My favorites= Dylan and Ed !!!!! Keep up the good work!!!

[The Doctor.]

36. Ummm... this is *Probably* not the best post to refer them to.

Not that it's such a big deal, but there are many, many other posts on DU that would be much more informative. But hey, they're a new org. I still wouldn't hold out hope that they'll look into the provocateurs.

[socialindependocrat]

43. I figure this way

It's better to start to make some waves and
add to the effort later than it is to sit
around muttering that you can't fight city hall.

Secondly, it may incite others to send comments to MSNBC
and add some new ideas to their programming.

Thanks for your support Doc!

[The Doctor.]

47. Hahaha! Yes.

You sit on a hill of wisdom. Thanks for sharing.

:toast:

[The Doctor.]

4. Oh, and let me add;

There must be clear tactics and protocols to do this so that no one gets hurt. Any cop that is committing vandalism is going to have a retinue of other cops standing by and ready to fend off attempts to stop or unmask the perpetrator.

But I can't say this enough; They MUST be BUSTED!

[ProgressiveProfessor]

18. Who sets the tactics, protocols, and who is going to risk jail when things are unclear at best?

There is a lot of things going on at any of the encampments. Cluelessness like yours does not do well there.

[Name removed]

32. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

6. Have you actually been to an encampment?

I can not believe that you have based on your simplistic screed.

OWS is wide open. We get all sorts of people coming through. It makes for interesting times at the GA. It is not so nearly black and white.

Black block bubbas showed up at Oakland and some OWS members actively intervened to stop the destruction. The prevention mechanism is organic all ready there and working.

A while back a couple of people here advocated batter against those hiding their identity. Battery and violence is not the right answer.

[Name removed]

13. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[The Doctor.]

34. That's not relevant. Please read the OP.

You apparently do not understand that right now, large segments of the media have millions of people convinced that OWS has resulted in violence. They are not carefully drawing distinctions and informing their audience that the protestors are peaceful and the violence is coming from outside groups. Even when they do mention it, in the minds of low-information Americans, it's all the same 'group of people' because they are all protesting.

Only one thing will shock people into making the distinctions and realizing the tactics the state is using: The revelation that the police are committing the violence.

Nothing else is doing it right now, and right now, so long as that revelation does not occur, every violent act will give police an excuse to break up and ultimately quash the protests. Mark my words, they have a plan to do so and they will use police infiltrators to do it.

I asked you whether they've been able to stop the infiltration, you've admitted that they have not. Only one thing will significantly curtail or end the practice, and it is the solution outlined in the OP.

I'm very amused that you seem to think that 'Occupy Buffalo' has the same dynamic as Oakland or NYC. I know, because I've been there, and I'm also a member. To suggest that they are all the same is just naïve. Once again, you've made an ignorant assumption. Very amusing indeed.

You certainly did not bother to understand what I wrote, because I was very clear on one point; Video recording. You either don't play chess or aren't particularly good at it. Tell me, once on video, who is likely to lose more?

The cop who committed vandalism or violence while dressed as a civilian along with his department and the entirety of the anti-OWS forces?

-OR-

The person charged with assault for which video evidence shows no person or property was harmed?

If you would actually THINK instead of barging into a thread, waving a sabre, and making ridiculous and false accusations, then maybe you could actually address the point of the OP instead of your own poor interpretation of it.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

38. Already done...

You apparently do not understand that right now, large segments of the media have millions of people convinced that OWS has resulted in violence. They are not carefully drawing distinctions and informing their audience that the protestors are peaceful and the violence is coming from outside groups. Even when they do mention it, in the minds of low-information Americans, it's all the same 'group of people' because they are all protesting.

A number of us disagree that the movement is considered violent. If it were, would it have the popular support that it does? Many media outlets are making the distinction between the core OWS participants and the flakes, blaming the latter for the violence. You are assuming a catastrophe exists, while many disagree.

Only one thing will shock people into making the distinctions and realizing the tactics the state is using: The revelation that the police are committing the violence.

You assert facts not in evidence. Much of the violence and other idiocy being reported is being done by outliers who do not seem to be police, provocateurs, or other malevolent actors, mostly flakes. While there has been one documented example of a cop being part of an encampment, he claims it was on his own time vice an infiltration attempt. http://www.pixiq.com/article/oakland-cop-accused-of-infiltrator-occupy-camp-responds However he also as some other history that makes me question him http://www.pixiq.com/article/oakland-cop-suspected-of-infiltrating-attacked-cameraman-in-2009

Nothing else is doing it right now, and right now, so long as that revelation does not occur, every violent act will give police an excuse to break up and ultimately quash the protests. Mark my words, they have a plan to do so and they will use police infiltrators to do it.

The OWS movement is already heavily infiltrated. However, it doesn't really matter. The non-structured, GA based approach to running things, really stops their effectiveness. If you actually went to a good sized encampment you would see how that works in real life.

I asked you whether they've been able to stop the infiltration, you've admitted that they have not. Only one thing will significantly curtail or end the practice, and it is the solution outlined in the OP.

Your so called solution is nonsensical problematic solution to a limited (at most) problem. In your OP you argue in case of violence to have any masks ripped off from those believed to be participating, attempting citizens arrests, with everything caught on video. If its that good an approach, lets see you do it. I doubt the GA will support your bail. Its that dumb.

I'm very amused that you seem to think that 'Occupy Buffalo' has the same dynamic as Oakland or NYC. I know, because I've been there, and I'm also a member. To suggest that they are all the same is just naïve. Once again, you've made an ignorant assumption. Very amusing indeed. That you are at an encampment is a very convenient change in tune for you. BTW, it is well understood that every encampment has dramatically different vibe and issues.

You certainly did not bother to understand what I wrote, because I was very clear on one point; Video recording. You either don't play chess or aren't particularly good at it. Tell me, once on video, who is likely to lose more? I fully understood your point and perspective. Its a fail since you are beating the drum for a minor issue and advocating violence and excessive legal risk as well.

How about this:

1) At which sites is agent provocateur/police infiltrator lead violence occurring and considered a real issue?

2) If the OWS movement is widely considered violent, why is it so popular in polls.

[The Doctor.]

40. Wow. So first you tell me to learn about the dynamics of OWS in Oakland or whatever hotspot

by going to a local one. But then when I tell you they're different and I do go to a local one, you respond with;

"That you are at an encampment is a very convenient change in tune for you. BTW, it is well understood that every encampment has dramatically different vibe and issues."

Since I never 'changed my tune' about anything, and you were actually the one to go from suggesting that I could learn "the realities on the ground" from a local OWS to 'every encampment has dramatically different vibe and issues', the only conclusion I can reach is that everything I've said about you so far has been dead on the money. Couple that with the wild accusations and inability to distinguish statements from questions, and we have a drunken threesome of ignorance, belligerence, and self-delusion.

I wouldn't mind trying to get through the thicket of bats you've substituted for reason if I thought a constructive dialogue might emerge. Since I always give the BotD, I'm going to give you a chance to roll back your deliberate ignorance of the first couple questions I asked you after you stormed into the thread swinging away at everyone. After you answer those, I'll be happy to answer your subsequent questions.

They will be the only response you get from me in this thread until you;

a) Answer the questions you so impolitely ignored from the outset (along with nearly all the rest of them).

b) Leave.


They were as follows;

1) You said that I somehow suggested that "the entire Black Bloc are police". My keen senses determined that was your suggestion by meticulously piecing together the elements of this question that you asked me; So the entire black block are police?"

I asked you where I said or suggested any such thing. I would like an answer please, and do include my exact words to that effect.

2) You seemed to be of the opinion that my suggested approach is 'unnecessary' and even 'horribly flawed'. I am certainly willing to entertain such notions if, in fact, the OWS protestors in the 'hot spots' have indeed managed to prevent police from infiltrating the movement and committing acts of violence or vandalism.

I asked you this exact question; "So how have they managed to stop the police from posing as protestors and committing acts of violence or vandalism?". If they have actually done so, I would be grateful if you would please answer this question. More than that, I would be thrilled to help spread the message of how to do so.


After you answer those, there are bonus points for the other question I asked that you also ignored in your above response;

*) Tell me, once on video, who is likely to lose more?

The cop who committed vandalism or violence while dressed as a civilian along with his department and the entirety of the anti-OWS forces?

-OR-

The person charged with assault for which video evidence shows no person or property was harmed?


But if that's a tough one, we can put it off until we've answered the others. Starting with the ones I asked you first.

Don't run off now. :hi:

[ProgressiveProfessor]

41. Somehow I don't think you will keep your word

They will be the only response you get from me in this thread until you;

First of all, I do not believe you have been any closer to an encampment than a drive by. I base that opinion on the cluelessness of your posts. I do not believe you have ever been to one since your concerns are clearly not relevant to what any encampment is reporting.

You overly dramatized concern that the violence is being done by police infiltrators is not supported by facts on the ground. The satirical question about if the black bloc(k) were completely made up of police related directly to the organized violence at Oakland. Even gave you a citation, but yet you persist in your drama queen like folly.

You are pitching an irresponsible solution to a problem not in evidence that is more risk than any potential again. Your assumptions and questions are both unrealistic and hyperbole, nothing more.

The relevant questions remain:

1) At which sites is agent provocateur/police infiltrator lead violence occurring and considered a real issue? Has it been seen at Occupy Buffalo?

2) If the OWS movement is widely considered violent, why is it so popular in polls.

Both of those questions undercut your assumptions and lemmas, which I believe are clearly flawed.



Now let us see if you are a person of your word

[The Doctor.]

42. I absolutely will. But again we're running into your reading comprehension issue.

Let's try again;

Since I always give the BotD, I'm going to give you a chance to roll back your deliberate ignorance of the first couple questions I asked you after you stormed into the thread swinging away at everyone. After you answer those, I'll be happy to answer your subsequent questions.

They will be the only response you get from me in this thread until you;

a) Answer the questions you so impolitely ignored from the outset (along with nearly all the rest of them).

b) Leave.


They were as follows;

1) You said that I somehow suggested that "the entire Black Bloc are police". My keen senses determined that was your suggestion by meticulously piecing together the elements of this question that you asked me; So the entire black block are police?"

I asked you where I said or suggested any such thing. I would like an answer please, and do include my exact words to that effect.

2) You seemed to be of the opinion that my suggested approach is 'unnecessary' and even 'horribly flawed'. I am certainly willing to entertain such notions if, in fact, the OWS protestors in the 'hot spots' have indeed managed to prevent police from infiltrating the movement and committing acts of violence or vandalism.

I asked you this exact question; "So how have they managed to stop the police from posing as protestors and committing acts of violence or vandalism?". If they have actually done so, I would be grateful if you would please answer this question. More than that, I would be thrilled to help spread the message of how to do so.


After you answer those, there are bonus points for the other question I asked that you also ignored in your above response;

*) Tell me, once on video, who is likely to lose more?

The cop who committed vandalism or violence while dressed as a civilian along with his department and the entirety of the anti-OWS forces?

-OR-

The person charged with assault for which video evidence shows no person or property was harmed?


But if that's a tough one, we can put it off until we've answered the others. Starting with the ones I asked you first.

Don't run off now. :hi:

[ProgressiveProfessor]

49. Clearly you did not keep your word and most likely never intended to

hoist on his own petard he is...

[The Doctor.]

51. What in the hell are you talking about? Is this how you plan on avoiding the questions?

I asked you those questions from the beginning. Now post my exact quote where I 'gave my word' over whatever and if it occurred before those questions I'll meet whatever the requirement is. If it occurred after, then I will meet the requirements after you have answered the questions.

They were as follows;

1) You said that I somehow suggested that "the entire Black Bloc are police". My keen senses determined that was your suggestion by meticulously piecing together the elements of this question that you asked me; "So the entire black block are police?"

I asked you where I said or suggested any such thing. I would like an answer please, and do include my exact words to that effect.

2) You seemed to be of the opinion that my suggested approach is 'unnecessary' and even 'horribly flawed'. I am certainly willing to entertain such notions if, in fact, the OWS protestors in the 'hot spots' have indeed managed to prevent police from infiltrating the movement and committing acts of violence or vandalism.

I asked you this exact question; "So how have they managed to stop the police from posing as protestors and committing acts of violence or vandalism?". If they have actually done so, I would be grateful if you would please answer this question. More than that, I would be thrilled to help spread the message of how to do so.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

53. You really are not a man of your world and showing it off for all to see

[The Doctor.]

56. I doubt anyone knows what the hell you're talking about. Care to tell us what this 'word' was?

The only promise I made was that you would keep facing the questions you very rudely and deliberately ignored. The only thing people are noticing is that you're acting very childishly.

Again, as promised;

They were as follows;

1) You said that I somehow suggested that "the entire Black Bloc are police". My keen senses determined that was your suggestion by meticulously piecing together the elements of this question that you asked me; "So the entire black block are police?"

I asked you where I said or suggested any such thing. I would like an answer please, and do include my exact words to that effect.

2) You seemed to be of the opinion that my suggested approach is 'unnecessary' and even 'horribly flawed'. I am certainly willing to entertain such notions if, in fact, the OWS protestors in the 'hot spots' have indeed managed to prevent police from infiltrating the movement and committing acts of violence or vandalism.

I asked you this exact question; "So how have they managed to stop the police from posing as protestors and committing acts of violence or vandalism?". If they have actually done so, I would be grateful if you would please answer this question. More than that, I would be thrilled to help spread the message of how to do so.

[The Doctor.]

46. Also, suggesting I am a liar about my participation in the local OWS is not only insulting,

it is against the rules.

But I'd like your post to stay where it is so that others might recognize your 'disposition'.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

50. I said I did not believe your statement and I don't

I also said why. That is not normally considered a personal attack. You have posted some though in this thread.

Clearly you do not keep your word either

[The Doctor.]

52. And you are obviously not any part of OWS either. As you've proven by your inability to answer

simple questions.

I also have a great difficulty believing you have ever been any kind of professor given how irrational your responses are.

The questions were as follows;

1) You said that I somehow suggested that "the entire Black Bloc are police". My keen senses determined that was your suggestion by meticulously piecing together the elements of this question that you asked me; "So the entire black block are police?"

I asked you where I said or suggested any such thing. I would like an answer please, and do include my exact words to that effect.

2) You seemed to be of the opinion that my suggested approach is 'unnecessary' and even 'horribly flawed'. I am certainly willing to entertain such notions if, in fact, the OWS protestors in the 'hot spots' have indeed managed to prevent police from infiltrating the movement and committing acts of violence or vandalism.

I asked you this exact question; "So how have they managed to stop the police from posing as protestors and committing acts of violence or vandalism?". If they have actually done so, I would be grateful if you would please answer this question. More than that, I would be thrilled to help spread the message of how to do so.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

54. Keep showing how you are not a man of your word

Your changes in direction and field combined with 'convenient' claims are not helping

[The Doctor.]

55. You're deluded. Why don't you keep the promise you made?

Huh? Why won't you follow up on your promise.

As I promised, here are the questions again;


They were as follows;

1) You said that I somehow suggested that "the entire Black Bloc are police". My keen senses determined that was your suggestion by meticulously piecing together the elements of this question that you asked me; "So the entire black block are police?"

I asked you where I said or suggested any such thing. I would like an answer please, and do include my exact words to that effect.

2) You seemed to be of the opinion that my suggested approach is 'unnecessary' and even 'horribly flawed'. I am certainly willing to entertain such notions if, in fact, the OWS protestors in the 'hot spots' have indeed managed to prevent police from infiltrating the movement and committing acts of violence or vandalism.

I asked you this exact question; "So how have they managed to stop the police from posing as protestors and committing acts of violence or vandalism?". If they have actually done so, I would be grateful if you would please answer this question. More than that, I would be thrilled to help spread the message of how to do so.

[happyslug]

7. Remember, victims of crime can still file PRIVATE CRIMINAL COMPLAINTS

How far you can go with a Private Criminal Complaint varies by state and regions within the state, but to my knowledge are still permitted for Summary offences in every state of the union. Restrictions as to Misdemeanors and Felonies do exist (Most require permission from the Local District Attorney OR a refusal by the District Attorney to file the charge, another set of restrictions may require the VICTIM to be the prosecutor instead of giving the Victim the right to hire an attorney to do the prosecution).

While, restrictions exists for Private Criminal Complaints, they are still permitted. In most states (You will have to check your local laws to see what your state permits) all you have to do is go to the Local Justice of the Peace (or whatever they call such local JPs in your state are called, in Pennsylvania they are known as "Magistrate District Judges", they used to be called "District Justice's" some state still call then Justices of the Peace, by other names are used) and file the complaint with him or her and then the Justice of the Peace (or whatever they are called) will set a hearing date OR send a letter to the Defendant to post a bond and enter a plea.

Be careful, you can NOT make a Citizen Arrest except if you see an actual Felony being committed (Thus you must see the actual act of violence AND it must be a Felony). My advice is NOT to make a Citizen's arrest.

The filing of Private Criminal Complaint you need a name and an address. One way to do this is to have everyone carry their name and address on them, thus when they commit a crime, you can provide the name and address to the victim and the victim can file the private Criminal Complaint. Now, you say people want they privacy, but you are in a protest situation where that desire for privacy also protects the infiltrators. You can NOT have it both ways, privacy for yourself and the name and address of infiltrators.

The best way is to have everyone registered and given a number in a plastic envelope. Tell people these can be checked by ANYONE at ANYTIME. Thus if someone in your group commits a crime, you can report him or her immediately. If someone says he or she does NOT want to be so tagged, assume they are a police infiltrators and stay away from him or her. Do NOT leave them talk to you AND advise everyone else NOT to talk to them and to stay away from them AND to report EVERYTHING they do or propose to do NOT only to whoever you think is leading the protest BUT also the Police. This protects YOU, in that you told the Police of the proposed criminal act that you refused to be part of AND it reveals to the Police that the infiltrator has failed to infiltrate.

In many ways the Occupy Wall Street is fighting an information war with the Police. Knowledge is power. The knowledge of everyone's name and address is a powerful tool for both good and evil. By making sure we are ONLY dealing with people we know, that empowers us, and defeats outside infiltrators whose plans are to make the movement look evil.

Yes, people can lie about their Name and Address, but demand to look at their Driver's License or other ID. If they have none ask to be taken to their home to make they live at that address. If they have no home, mark them "Homeless" and tell them you can NOT afford to give them the run of the protest. They can participate in any peaceful protests BUT can never be in the front but have to stay in some supportive position. Other people have to be told that this person can NOT prove who he or she is nor give an address. This would be a perfect cover for an infiltrator and as such should NEVER be out into a position where they can do any act of provocation. You may want to assign someone to be with him or her at all times during a protest AND such people can NOT be permitted to meet together UNLESS other people are present (To prevent an internal meeting of infiltrators).

Now, many of the rules I state for homeless people without ID, should also be done to the group as a whole. i,e. all meetings are open to anyone. Remember you are in an information war with the 1% and as such you have to make EVERY EFFORT to make sure any provocateurs are subject to some sort of criminal action, even if it is only a summary offence held in front of a JP.

[The Doctor.]

14. Thanks for the info.

It's always good to know.

The OP's intent was to take into account the anonymity of the perpetrators and solve that issue. Thus the 'get their face on video' part. They are not likely to give up or even have available their ID. So the only hope of identifying them is get the video, put their face all over the internet, and hope they are identified.

If it's a cop caught committing vandalism, it'll be a massive boost for OWS.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

21. No encampment is taking the "show us your papers" approach you advocate

It might work, but it does seem a little fascist doesn't it?

OWS is non-structured. No one is passing out membership cards or checking IDs as best I can tell

[unionworks]

24. and OWS is correct

For not doing so. Besides, any "security system" is a joke to real experts with unlimited funding. Do people really think these folks can't have fake I.d.s made?

[The Doctor.]

27. Precisely. There are very few options for stopping this practice.

Exposure is the best possible chance.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

31. Who needs unlimited funds

Fake IDs are readily available for cheap on the streets.

[happyslug]

33. My point was the need to be able to get a NAME and an ADDRESS

If it is fake, you can investigate later, once the charges are brought. The sole purpose of my thread was to get more the "White Male, John Doe". If the ID is fake, you still have a name. Often that is enough to find out WHO is the person with the Fake ID. Police do this all the time, through they have the additional power of arrest which can solve much of the problem of someone using a fake ID.

If the Police are the people who issued the Fake ID, there is generally some record of who was given the fake ID. Then you just change the name on the Private Criminal Complaint to the correct name.

Remember we are in an Information war, if someone is using fake ID, that is an indication they are losing the war. Furthermore the main purpose of the ID I propose people carry is that when a picture is taken of them, the ID would appear and its number or other information can then be used to ID the person doing the crime. My position is these should be LARGE (Tablet size) with LARGE letters spelling out NAME AND ADDRESS which can be used to ID whoever is doing the crime. Could someone fake them? Yes, but if carried would still have a name and some address that will show up in a photo. Remember the purpose of the ID is to AID in identification of whoever is doing a crime NOT for any other purpose AND to show that the people doing the harm are NOT member of OWS.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

35. Your point was clear, it just runs counter to what OWS stands for

Demanding papers to participate in a rally, march, or demonstration would be a first in the US. Also remember that OWS does not control the places where the encampments are held. They are public property, mostly parks. Those that claim they do control access are part of the problem crowd. See http://www.kgw.com/home/Video-shows-KGW-crew-harassed-at-Occupy-Portland-133496118.html for an example of that.

[happyslug]

37. No, I am NOT demanding papers, but it is a way to make sure you can ID people

The difference is simple, I want to be able to say "X" did something, not that I saw someone whose name I do not know, do something. The Army does this all the time, that is why the have their soldier's name on their uniforms. Numbers would be another way, but name is the most conventional. Just have people write their name on their shirts, like the army does, may be more then sufficient for what I would want the "ID" for. a person's "Correct name" is NOT important, what is important is the ability to ID that person, connect a face with a name even if the name is false, IF the name is what he or she is known as.

Yes, in many ways false names would be as good as correct name as long as the name is used constantly. I started this sub-thread by pointing out the best way to control any infiltrators who do illegal acts is to file (or help the victim) file a Private Criminal Complaint against the person who did the crime. It is just easier if you have someone's name and address (and one of the reason Police officers are to have their badges on at all times, so you can remember the number and file a charge against "Officer 714" even if you do NOT know his name is "Joe Friday" (Homage to the old Dragnet Series).

Yes, such ID can be faked, but the key is the CONSTANT USE, for if someone is using the name on the FAKE ID, that name can still be used in any Private Criminal Complaint. Thus the only point for the ID is so everyone is known by a name, even if it is false. That name can then be used to track him or her down, along with other information, to serve and prosecute the Criminal, even if he or she is a Police Officer or works for the Police.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

39. Yes you are...

Here is an example of that from your earlier post:
Yes, people can lie about their Name and Address, but demand to look at their Driver's License or other ID. If they have none ask to be taken to their home to make they live at that address. If they have no home, mark them "Homeless" and tell them you can NOT afford to give them the run of the protest. They can participate in any peaceful protests BUT can never be in the front but have to stay in some supportive position. Other people have to be told that this person can NOT prove who he or she is nor give an address.

Clearly your approach includes

1) Demands to see participants' drivers license
2) Restrict access/actions to those who do not have them
3) Sanctions participants if they do not comply with your rules

Your intent is clear but your methods suck.

OWS is not the Army nor do we have internal police. We don't wear uniforms nor name tags. We are an open and inclusive movement based on consensus, not restricted to those who have their photo IDs with them. It is not going to change any time soon. Your vision is clearly far removed from the OWS vision and is much more akin to what was seen in the Axis nations in WWII. Hopefully you can do better than that, I know the rest of us can.

[unionworks]

23. the main purpose

Of infiltration and provocation has been achieved, unfortunately. To create suspicion and distrust witin the movement.

[The Doctor.]

29. Actually, ProgressiveProfessor illustrated fairly well how that result has been avoided.

They have a community. They have a very good sense of who is what. The problem lies in the fact that it doesn't matter whether they know someone's a cop. Once the infiltrator achieves violence/vandalism, it still appears to come from the protestors.

The solution is simple; expose a cop in the act, get it on video, spread it far and wide.

[alittlelark]

26. OWS needs 'air marshalls' - ppl who carry squirt bottles

of orange paint (kindergarten type, washes out, non-toxic) which they can use to mark definite or suspected police plants.

[The Doctor.]

28. I like it, but it won't be terribly effective.

Sure, it'll expose them temporarily. But it won't prove anything or identify anyone. Once they wash it off, it'll be as though it never happened.

Any brainstorming is good though. No reason not to go with the paint idea. (except that you'll get an earful from the 'morally superior' folks around here)

[ProgressiveProfessor]

30. Using that would be considered assault & battery

And place them at risk for an ass whooping as well. Also what standards would be used to determine if they should be marked? What stops "infiltrators" from signing up to be the "marshals".

Consider that most of the fringe participants are not plants but the flakes. OWS encampments all have a goodly share of them.

[bluestateguy]

44. There outta be a law

If you are asked if you are a police infiltrator or undercover, you must answer and answer truthfully.

[socialindependocrat]

45. I have to say...

Dear Blue,

I am an idealist but you really take the cake.

I'm sorry but I had to say this:

We have found that we can't trust

the clergy
the congress
the banks
our business leaders
insurance companies
(you continue the list)
And now you ask that the police be honest when we ask...

Hang in there. I know what you're saying but I think that
honor and nobility went out with the 50s.

I'm sorry for you and for me.
Maybe OWS will start to turn things around.
Have a great day!!!

[The Doctor.]

48. Har har!

Nah! Instead there should be a law about the deliberate sabotage of Constitutional rights by those with authority.

But that'll never happen.