Camouflaged Cops (Dressed as US Military) "Snatch" G20 Protester

by TheCameraObscura | September 25, 2009 at 02:10 pm

553 views | 38 Recommendations | 10 comments

During the 9/12 protests earlier this month, there were numerous claims by right wing teabagger protesters that the U.S. government was restricting their freedom, even though there were no actual documented events of such activity.

However, this week in Pittsburg, a G20 left wing protester was grabbed by men dressed in military camouflage outfits who shoved the protester into an unmarked passenger car and drove off. Apparently they were not members of the U.S. military, but rather police dressed as military personnel.

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.

A video shows onlookers calling out “what the fuck” and “what the fuck is wrong with you?” as people in Camouflaged uniforms haul a protester along by his collar, shove him into the back seat of a car, and rapidly drive off.

Officials with G20 security released the following statement:

Military members supporting the G20 Summit work with local law enforcement authorities do not have the authority to make arrests. The individuals involved in the 9/24/09 arrest are law enforcement officers from a multi-agency tactical response team assigned to the security operations for the G20. It is not unusual for tactical team members to wear camouflaged fatigues. The type of fatigues the officers wear designates their unit affiliation.

Prior to the arrest, the officers observed this subject vandalizing a local business. Due to the hostile nature of the crowd, officer safety and the safety of the person under arrest, the subject was immediately removed from the area.”

0 See all footage | View Slideshow

Share: email story | add to any | | facebook | stumbleupon

recommend Add a comment

Babel-Fish

at 14:48 on September 25th, 2009

So someones got to do a dirty job to protect the innocent and private property and many of these so called activist are there to have fun by injuring others and destroying property. The security forces are just doing a job that needs to be done.

Lets face it if your property was burnt such as a house or a car by a bunch of hooligans and the authorities where doing nothing to stop such an event happening. You would be pissed off with the authorities.

Of course people will call the authorities Fascist's, Nazi's etc when their lives, lively hood or property is not under threat.

So what are you selling here?

That's it wrong for police to wear military camouflage or that the military are involved? If you lived in the area of the riot you would be glad the military was involved even if they should not of been.

Putting the boot on the other foot is sometimes good food for thought. Having been involved in protecting civilians and their property and knowing I was not part of a Nazi regime and just doing a job I was paid for and did it with all the patriotic gusto as I cared for innocent people and my fellow law abiding citizen. I can understand how the guys that are doing the job that I used to do feel and the utter frustration of being called something one is not. Having been hit by many a stone and even being hit by half a paving stone my view of protesters is a pretty low one. Scum comes into mind.

TheCameraObscura

at 15:29 on September 25th, 2009

If they're police, as they apparently are, why not wear police uniforms? Surely the law-abiding police should have no reservations identifying who they are and wearing the appropriate uniform?

You actually claim that I would be glad if the "military was involved," which would be be violating the Posse Comitatus Act?

No, actually I wouldn't. See, i actually believe in the rule of the law, not violations of the law by the state. Hope that clears it up for you.

The_Cynic

at 20:21 on September 25th, 2009

Google Ian Tomlinson about what happens if you protest too much - even if you were not a protester but a person walking home.

Rory Cripps

at 17:00 on September 25th, 2009

This is a tough call. Many (if not most) of the protesters are bonafide anarchists. And they'd obviously like nothing better than for all hell to break loose simply for dramatic effect. But as an American, I'm a little uncomfortable with "multi-agency tactical response" teams, as opposed to the local law enforcement agencies, when it comes to crowd and/or riot control.

On the other hand, many of the protesters are highly experienced and trained in wreaking all sorts of havoc. As a result, this situation probably requires the services of those that have extensive training in handling this particular type of protester . . .training that the local police probably don't have. I've been in a number of protests in my younger day, and I know, first hand, how nasty things can get. Another consideration would be that if the protesters got out of hand and started torching businesses, etc., the good citizens of Pittsburgh would probably lock and load and start popping caps off into the protester's heads and a blood bath would ensue. After all, law abiding American citizens still have the right to defend their homes and property.

The G-20 protesters are by no means similar to the 9/12 protesters. And any comparison is absurd. The facts bear that assertion out. The 9/12 protesters were a loose coalition of like-minded individuals that simply exercised their first amendment rights. During that protest, there were no reported incidents of violence or vandalism and the streets were not littered with garbage and debris. In the case of the G-20 protesters, it's obvious that their intention is to incite law enforcement personnel into a violent confrontation and cause as much damage to the city of Pittsburgh as they possibly can. I don't believe that any one of them gives a crap about the first amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Indeed, they are fringe ideologues. And like all fringe ideologues, they are blinded by their ideology and delusional to the point of self-destruction.

stevehjgj (not verified)

at 10:41 on September 27th, 2009

who are these so called security officials. u just expected me to believe you with no source

TheCameraObscura

at 11:30 on September 28th, 2009

Funny I cited a source, youre actually claiming I didnt? Got any more straw, man?

stevehjgj (not verified)

at 10:53 on September 27th, 2009

oh wait.. it must be newsvideoclip.tv hmmm... whos there source?? oh. rite. rawstory.com..yet they claim they were directly given this statement, once again by "g20 security officials"WAKE UP PEOPLE

TheCameraObscura

at 11:29 on September 28th, 2009

Oh wait, the story appears on NewsVideoClip.TV, RawStory.com, DrudgeReport.com, HuffingtonPost.com, It , MUST BE A CONSPIRACY! ALL THOS WEB SITES ARE WORKING TOGETHER! WAKE UP PEOPLE! (smirk)

michael sisemore (not verified)

at 08:02 on September 28th, 2009

welcome to the new world order!these people need to really unite & prevent their brothers & sisters in the field from being captured! plenty of people standing around with hands in the air. remember they used force first! it then became acceptable to return that force. remember dissent is patriotic!

m sisemore (not verified)

at 08:08 on September 28th, 2009

welcome to the new world order! if these people were really united they wouldn't stand by while their brothers & sisters were abducted! plenty of people in the field to put up a resistance! but instead they put up their hands. they used force first! that made it acceptable to return force! remember dissent is patriotic!