G20 Cops Dressed In Camo 'Snatch' Protester!

G20 Cops Dressed In Camo 'Snatch' Protester!

rawstory.com

G20 security officials took responsibility Friday afternoon for a video that seemed to depict US troops ‘kidnapping’ a protester.

The military was not involved in the incident, but G20 security did acknowledge that “law enforcement officers from a multi-agency tactical response team” had detained a protester they said was believed to be vandalizing a store.

Video posted at YouTube shows onlookers calling out “what the bleep” and “what the bleep is wrong with you?” as people in camo uniform

(visit the link for the full news article)

Military members supporting the G20 Summit that work with local law enforcement authorities but do not have the authority to make arrests?

Humm...but they can physically "snatch" or "kidnap" or "detain"?

I have read comments that this was a faked video, now it is proven to be a real event.

This video was featured on The Drudge Report, gaining much attention on the national front.

Officials with G20 security released the following statement to Raw Story and other media outlets:

Read thefull sotry at the link...

rawstory.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

So this does not need to remain a "conspiracy" any longer.

ATS member warrenb posted this with the original videos here:
www.abovetopsecret.com...

and this report has been controversial ongoing. Many have said this was a fake incident, staged. Now it is admitted as fact by officials that this abduction was executed by G20 "Cops".

This is for all of the ATS community that will not "believe" it untill they see it in the mainstream media.

Considering that there is a news blackout on this whole event, I found this article, from xinhuanet. Nothing from MSNBC or CNBC or any other talking head outlet.
.

PITTSBURGH, the United States, Sept. 24 (Xinhua) -- Traffic slowed down in downtown Pittsburgh, Penn., Thursday morning as the city began fully unfolding a comprehensive security plan for the Group of 20 (G20) summit which will begin in the evening.

In the surroundings of the futuristic David L. Lawrence Convention Center, the venue of the meeting, concrete barriers were erected and several roads were closed.

National Guard members, policemen and other law enforcement personnel are patrolling on every corner of the downtown area that includes the convention center.

"I have to confess that the traffic restrictions will be sort of disturbing to us, but it's a great honor for us to host such a huge international event," Jacob Bacharach, who works at the Benedum Center theater several blocks from the convention center, told Xinhua.

news.xinhuanet.com...

Edit to add here is another article on the protests at the G20 Pittsburg. U.S.

G20 protests turn violent in Pittsburgh:

Protests at the G20 economic summit turned violent at times Thursday with demonstrators throwing rocks and police firing rubber bullets, Pittsburgh police said.

www.upi.com...



[edit on 26-9-2009 by burntheships]

Heres one.
www.abovetopsecret.com...
Heres another.
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Its been talked about a few times.

reply to post by DrumsRfun


Yes, I understand. This is posted in the breaking news forum, as I have encountered so many here on ATS that refuse to acknowledge any report unless it is in the mainstream media. I know is that the most ridiculous thing....but I could post 20 threads that show that unless a topic is verified by MSM, well maybe it is not real or "reliable".



[edit on 26-9-2009 by burntheships]

The guys in the camo are actually police officer with Pennsylvania ERT though there was national guard there those particular officers are an Emergency Response Team... kinda like 1 step under swat Police

reply to post by conspiracyrus


Interesting take there, how is it you come to that conclusion?
I am not disagreeeing or even doubting what you say is true, I just wonder what your source is.

Another article I read said that the police outnumbered the civilians,
and there were many different citys that supplied officers to the event.

It looks disappointingly unprofessional. They should either have been in plain clothes or in full riot gear.

reply to post by eradown


Yes, I would say that this story has caused a raucus for sure.
I am still looing for a complete story on why they "snatched" this young man.

Has anyone got that information?

This video is just one of many that caused utter disgust with me. I showed it to another co worker, and he called fake, despite being shown other proofs (pic of the arrested individual on the ground, with two riot cops in the foreground, so on).

This is shocking, and un-American. It looked almost like a video taken in another country, a different era, but it wasn't.

You watch this, then you watch the videos of the Students (non protesters) being corner off in a stair well and shot with tear gas and you begin to realize what is happening, and what has happened.

The problem I see occurring is non violent protest is being handled like a violent riot.

The problem is two fold.

A) We've lost our rights of free speech and peacefully assembling.

B) They are making it so the only recourse is Violent Protest. They want it. They want the protesters to go violent.

This is bad, but it's going to get worse. And they want it that way.... I mean what's the recourse, if we can not peacefully protest, then what other ways are there?

[edit on 26-9-2009 by squidboy]

reply to post by squidboy


If they want peaceful demonstrations, when they refuse to allow peaceful assembly, then they have denied a basic human right of freedom of expression. They deny permits to assemble, and use tax dollars to create a condition of police presence that is intimidating and threatening to that basic right. They handled the situation poorly.

I do not fault the individual officers following orders; although, I do wonder when or if they will ever have their own internal expression of what we did was not American. This whole situation could have been overcome with just a permit issued to allow assembly within a certain area. They didn't want that. They didn't want the people to express their opinions. In essence, they wanted a confrontation.

reply to post by burntheships


I saw several videos of this story yesterday and I have to say it is disturbing.

I wonder where the footage is from before he was actually yanked off the streets.

Timing, information, and a full view of the story from both sides is required before anyone will truly know what the Hell happened in this weird set of circumstances.

I saw the footage where he was yanked off, but without actually seeing what led up to it, it is difficult to know exactly what happened, because having worked as Security before I know that they usually, and I say usually, do not overreact like this, unless provoked, or unless fear of further public endangerment was obvious, but then again I worked with Security Officer's who did provoke people into violence, just to get the kudos of "saving the day".

Not all Security, nor are all Law Enforcement Officers like that however, I stood against that type of activity, and utilized verbal de-escalation to the best of my abilities.

reply to post by SpartanKingLeonidas


Thanks for you reply and honesty.

I believe that some of this type of provocation as you speak of is done with far greater goals in mind than what shows at the moment.

I too was wanting to see the events before this, however so far nothing has turned up. Not even in the MSM, only that he was suspected of some activity beforehand. Maybe true, I jsut find that the men dressed as "military" without identification to be hightly distrubing!

Was it Patriot act 1 or 2 that had provisions for arrest without proof?

reply to post by Clearskies


Neither, but I take it you haven't read either one.

reply to post by stevegmu


I asked a question,
NOT BECAUSE I haven't read them, but couldn't make sense of it because of the 'legaleze'.
gimme a break, plz

reply to post by Clearskies


I do not think that there is language in The Patriot Act specifically
allowing this...I will do some checking, although clearly this young man was detained without an arrest, and was no read his rights before he was snatched.

reply to post by burntheships

en.wikipedia.org...

Prohibition of any public disclosure of the names of alleged terrorists including those who have been arrested.

Automatic denial of bail for persons accused of terrorism-related crimes, reversing the ordinary common law burden of proof principle. Persons charged with terrorists would be required to demonstrate why they should be released on bail rather than the government being required to demonstrate why they should be held.

THERE YOU GO, SIR.


Also, you might want to wade through the mire, and search for the definition of US 'terrorist' rofl.

[edit on 26-9-2009 by Clearskies]

reply to post by Clearskies


This relates to bail, not arrest without proof. Which section states one can be arrested without proof? I have no trouble reading 'legalize.'

Sorry for being way of topic, other than written headlines the UK has not reported the protests. If I didn't come on here, watch 4am news or France 24 I would have been led to belive that these gas guzzlers with their entourage were in the land of milk and honey where disenters did not exist. Yet you in the USA saw first hand the protests in London.

It is getting more and more difficult for the man in the street tp protest, remember Vietnam, protests abounded your countries powers that be the same as mine in the UK use terrorism as an excuse Why? and that is what it is, an excuse to shut the majority up. Maybe it is because of NWO although unless they have the elixir life and longlifity what is their aim?