Oakland Police Officer Responds to Video of him being a OWS Police Infiltrator

October 28th 2001 Fred Shavies being accused as a police Infiltrator


What Fred Shavies has to say about the video

This is Oakland Police Officer Fred Shavies responding to a recent Copwatch video produced about police infiltration at Occupy Oakland. The Copwatch video was produced by Jacob Crawford with assistance from Ali Winston and Josh Wolf. Justin Warren interviewed Officer Fred Shavies separate and independently

Don't believe everything you see. This is just one example of how a video can easily trick a persons mind. I'm not saying their are not police infiltrators in ows, just don't assume the worst.

I admit, I fell for it and I'm pretty sure I'm not the only one.

You know what Charlie Sheen would have to say about this guy...

WINNING!

reply to post by Blundo


he said at the begining .. he wasn't an 'exclusive resident' of Oakland.. but then said .. "he's a resident of Oakland".......hmmmmmmm....RIGHT!!!

either your ARE or you are NOT.. that simple

reply to post by Blundo


At the 3 minute mark he states

"My objective wasn't to infiltrate the movement, my objective was to point out any agitators"

So, he was on active duty, dressed as a protester along with his other co workers, and looking for OWS members that may cause problems for the establishment, and this isn't infiltration ?


*infiltrate definitions

: to pass (troops) singly or in small groups through gaps in the enemy line

: to enter or become established in gradually or unobtrusively usually for subversive purpose


"I'm just here to look for agitators"

Its exactly like the above pic, if Captain America was disguising himself in a SS uniform.
Think about it.....

reply to post by Blundo


this video of the police man explaining his actions infiltrating the protest movement undercover.. white background, no background noise, calm setting, calm voice and tone, slow casual talk in a 'relating to the audience manner'

if no one catches on with what this video is trying to accomplish for the police state then there is NO HOPE!

and BTW these guys were not just watching the protest from undercover, they were infiltrating the movement to incite violence within the movement itself so that police forces could end the protest once and for all

reply to post by indigothefish


Thanks for posting up that vid, I just dont know how to stomach it.

I don't think anyone here on ATS actually thinks, police officers pretending to be protesters is illegal. Right?

Undercover police work is a staple of every department in the country.

And of course entirely LEGAL.

Originally posted by Areyoupeopleinsane
I don't think anyone here on ATS actually thinks, police officers pretending to be protesters is illegal. Right?

Undercover police work is a staple of every department in the country.

And of course entirely LEGAL.

I thought your name was the insulting title "are you people insane" not "captain obvious"

Is it still legal when they turn into agent provocateurs ?



If you take a second you can clearly see the same baseball cap, backpack, camo pants, and bandana over the face, that is being worn by the "agitator seekers" cop buddies in the ops video.
Just saying .....

Originally posted by Komodo
reply to post by Blundo

 

he said at the begining .. he wasn't an 'exclusive resident' of Oakland.. but then said .. "he's a resident of Oakland".......hmmmmmmm....RIGHT!!!

either your ARE or you are NOT.. that simple

Congratulations, you have successfuly pulled something out of context, and then tried to present it in such a light in which does not represent the truth of the matter.

He said that he was no 'exclusiveLY not a reseident of Oakland', he's trying to say, that he's not to be defined just only by those things that he listed. It's in a way, making a mockery of generalizing statements made about him. He's more than just what lables you want to put on him.

Some true colors coming out in this thread.

Originally posted by Areyoupeopleinsane
I don't think anyone here on ATS actually thinks, police officers pretending to be protesters is illegal. Right?

Undercover police work is a staple of every department in the country.

And of course entirely LEGAL.

What is "entirely LEGAL" does not make the action entirely LAWFUL. If what is LEGAL is UNLAWFUL then CONSTITUTIONALLY speaking it is generally ILLEGAL as well.

Infiltrating a peaceful assembly in order to agitate a crowd to become violent is not LAWFUL nor is it LEGAL. Infiltrating a peaceful assembly to quietly remove agitators to maintain and protect the Peoples right to peaceable assembly would be LAWFUL and LEGAL.

What happened in Oakland? Was this infiltration police work or was it criminal? LEO's do not command full immunity and must be operating within the bounds of their LAWFUL and LEGAL jurisdiction in order to claim immunity. Undercover infiltration that led to violent consequences does not bode well for undercover infiltrators at all, and if they acted UNLAWFULLY, they cannot rely upon any statutory claims of immunity. This is the law. It is that simple.

Originally posted by DrunkNinja
reply to post by Blundo

 

At the 3 minute mark he states

"My objective wasn't to infiltrate the movement, my objective was to point out any agitators"

So, he was on active duty, dressed as a protester along with his other co workers, and looking for OWS members that may cause problems for the establishment, and this isn't infiltration ?


*infiltrate definitions

: to pass (troops) singly or in small groups through gaps in the enemy line

: to enter or become established in gradually or unobtrusively usually for subversive purpose

Think about it.....

edit on 1-12-2011 by DrunkNinja because: (no reason given)

Did he say that he was 'on active duty'? I can't double check, becaue the video is having an 'error' and wont play for me... But, if my memory serves me correctly, he did not say that he was on duty.

What subversive purpose that opposes OWS was he fulfilling when he was 'pointing out agitators'? Isn't OWS supposed to be non-violent, and wouldn't that mean that he is actually helping the movement?

reply to post by Areyoupeopleinsane


the problem itself is not that police should not ever conduct undercover work. i'm personally under the impression that undercover work can save lives.

however, if you watch the video.. some tactics of undercover work are actually just guises to 'infiltrate' groups and thus 'commandeer the group from the inside' into whatever control or action the infiltrator desires. the example here would be that we have a perfectly legal and nonviolent protest that 'the powers that be' see as a threat to their seats of control, thus - not being able to openly use violence against nonviolent protesters - they infiltrate the group and start causing violence, enough so to be caught on news or fool the police in uniform to take violent actions.

hope that's clear enough wording, sometimes i extrapolate too much or are unclear in my english.

Originally posted by indigothefish
reply to post by Blundo

 

this video of the police man explaining his actions infiltrating the protest movement undercover.. white background, no background noise, calm setting, calm voice and tone, slow casual talk in a 'relating to the audience manner'

if no one catches on with what this video is trying to accomplish for the police state then there is NO HOPE!

edit on 12/1/2011 by indigothefish because: (no reason given)

What, would you have rather they did this interview in a crowded street?

There's really no use for me to try and combate this one, because there is no argument that can battle paranoia, something that is most definitely prevalent on ATS.

'relating to the audience manner', yes, that's exactly what he's trying to do. Why? Well even telling you why, any rebuttle you give will just bring forth more conspiritorial nonsense.

In the end of the day, his face and name is on camera, he's not hiding his intentions. He even told you straight up what they were... sometimes that's never enough for some people.

Awww, the nice policeman made a video. I like how he tries to play it off as he was only doing his job and trying to weed out the instigators. Only one problem there Mr. Policeman. That's the thousands of people that watched you on livestream ride your bike up to the police barricade and start trash talking the cops behind it. When other protesters walked up to the barricade to talk to the cops like you were doing Mr. Policeman they were threatened, but you weren't being threatened. When the crowd called you out for what you are you hightailed it out of there on your bike.

reply to post by MESSAGEFROMTHESTARS

Did he say that he was 'on active duty'?

Yes he did,

In response to that comment, Mr. Shavies was asked by Josh Wolf, one of the activists who helped make the video, whether he had attended Occupy Oakland protests as a civilian or as an officer. “Both,” Mr. Shavies wrote. “I have worked there and attended the protest,” he said.

Also, at the 2:55 mark in the ops video, he says he was there in plainclothes, not exactly what you would say as a civilian. Now of course someone should have asked for specifics, but to me the answer of "both" doesn't seem like the answer that would have been given if he had been there in uniform as a police officer, and had attended the protests in his regular wear as a citizen. It's more of a quasi answer, meant to resolve without actually answering the root of the question.

To your second statement about helping by pointing out agitators, I only need look at the pictures, and video of police pepper spraying defenceless, peaceful, and law abiding "agitators" to remind myself that this mans help in pointing out "agitators" is in no way wanted by, or helpful to anyone.

Do you think he was pointing out "agitators" to the attendees or to the people acting in an illegal manner below ?


it puts the lotion on its skin or it gets the spray



the classic tactic of countering vicious criminals by pulling their hair ?

My second question is who you would classify as attendees, and who you would say was acting illegally, in an "agitator" sort of way ....... It kind of goes to show who this man, and his co workers would define as "agitators", and they sure don't look violent to me.

reply to post by DrunkNinja


Both? And you don't understand this? Hmm...

OBVIOUSLY FOR THIS TOPIC WOULD HAVE NEVER SURFACED

It does not imply that he is trying to 'infiltrate' OWS.

It simply means:
HE WAS DOING HIS JOB(he is a police officer, doh!)
HE SUPPORTS OWS(he is of the 99%)

You want to talk about pointing out agitators, and then you throw out that random ****.

Are you truly that convinced that every single person who goes to these protests is 100% innocent, in having any intentions of not being an 'agitator;? honestly....

----------------What kinda of generalization is that?--------------------

Please respond with ignorance, for I have a whole list of actions that have taken place by the hands of those that have attended OWS protests that even OWS orginizers have deamonized.

man ATS sure does harbor some professional spin doctors, I sometimes would swear that this is the O'Reily Factor sometimes.

Believe what you want, create your own truths, we'll see which is more conducive to the outcome in which we all desire...

reply to post by MESSAGEFROMTHESTARS


Your original stance of him being in attendance as a civilian didn't pan out, and now you want to call me bill o'reilly because I think an undercover officer entering into the ows movement to identify agitators fits the definition below,

*infiltrate definitions
: to pass (troops) singly or in small groups through gaps in the enemy line
: to enter or become established in gradually or unobtrusively usually for subversive purpose
: enter a group or organization in order to spy on the members

and, I'm the spin doctor ? That's laughable to anyone that has common sense, and a grasp of the English language. It's also laughable to anyone that has read the content of your posts in this thread, you have responded to everyone here in a less than polite manner, have vehemently defended your position, regardless that your initial assumptions have been shown false, and now resort to name calling, and are on the verge of derailing this thread, its kind of making me sad.

Read the definitions, and then try to tell me how it doesn't fit Fred Shavies actions, I mean his actions define the word infiltrate, yet somehow he wasn't infiltrating. Your right I don't understand, as that makes no sense.

"I was merely monitoring a group of people subvertly to identify members within that may be "agitators" while on police payroll, the same police force that wishes to remove this group from their location, I in no way was infiltrating the movement, In fact I am the 99 percent, I just happen to work for the 1 percent, full support and love for ows".

Jeff Shavies - commenting on his inabilty to understand the definition of infiltrate

Oakland is pretty well known as a rather rough town. That being said, there is no question that the police were extremely worried that the protest would get out of control. Honestly, it would have been almost irresponsible of them had they not had someone go in and take a look around.