Undercover cop aims gun at photographer at Oakland protest of police killings


1 Like

Agent Provocateur laying in wait but outed instead?


1- Thankful no one got killed
2- Gangsta style? Really?
3- If they were plain clothed and under cover, how/why did they get “attacked”? Once again, we are not getting the whole story.


Learn to hold a gun you feckless fool.


Cops are gangsters.


Some good pics and from the Berkeley Daily Planet…

1 Like

I live in Oak Cliff (Dallas). Our gangsters know how to hold and operate a firearm. Even the guys working in the book depository know how to shoot. This guy watches too many movies.


So, um, do they teach ‘gangsta style’ firearms handling at academy these days?

I’m pretty sure that the world is full of pimply CS deagle n00bs who would look more sure of themselves under the circumstances.


I fail to see the law enforcement value of infiltrating a group of protesters.

In their LEO wet-dreams, do they imagine they will be able to break up a riot by being in exactly the right place at the right time?

Do they not understand how terribly provocative it is for them to infiltrate?

As a primate species that depends on group co-operation, we are hard-wired to hate social betrayal, and their methodology proves they consider the protesters to be “other.”


That’s the type of person who is drawn to be a cop, these days.


On the bright side, at least his finger’s not on the trigger.

Pretty amazing that these shots are in a position where it’s actually easy to see that.


To provide an excuse for uniform to steam in mob-handed and break it up should the protest turn out to be more peaceful than they expected?


If someone is bringing a gun to a protest, they’re probably there to cause trouble. Wearing a uniform while carrying a gun, is supposed to let people know you’re there to keep the peace rather than to cause trouble. (though it often doesn’t work out that way.)

Carrying a gun to a protest while dressed like that? You’re there to cause trouble. Doesn’t matter who you work for. Unless he was flashing his badge when he was pushed, it’s entrapment. The department would have to be more tone deaf than usual to prosecute these arrests.


Is anyone here willing to try to make a case for civic good served for undercover police taking part in public demonstrations?

Provocateurs are undeniable, un-spinnable evidence of the cancerous evil permeating the police.

There are always more plain-clothes officers hanging around nearby, not directly committing any crimes, ready to step in when the provocateurs are unmasked/revealed and whisk them away from the cameras and legal consequences.

The only way to really catch them would be to get a good picture of their faces and match them to a public database of police officers.

I’m sure the police would be grateful for the opportunity to weed out the troublemakers in their midst.


This, from the OP, is promising:

This may be someone’s “unilateral wet dream” and if it is, I hope they get crucified for it.


Questions from someone who has never handled a real firearm:

  • Is that faddish way of holding a handgun something that started in Hollywood and then spread to real life, or vice versa? I associate it with Tarantino, but I don’t watch a whole lot of cop/crime movies.

  • What are its practical effects (other than making the sight unusable)? Are there any positive ones?

1 Like

I might posit that the militarization of police training is cultivating a terrified force that feels and behaves like it’s in a war zone surrounded by the enemy, but then, this gentleman appears to have received the majority of his training from childhood bullying and Netflix.


Who was arrested and what are the charges and what is the jurisdiction? Have the arrestee(s) been released? Why did Oakland PD swoop in? Were arrestees at any time in the care of Oakland PD? This is reminiscent of what happened to Darryl Cherney and Judi Bari. If you haven’t seen the documentary, “Who Bombed Judi Bari” is a must see.


I was going to comment on this anyway and I thought I’d reply to you to answer your questions.

  1. I don’t know which came first, Hollywood or the streets, but it is a popular way to hold a gun by someone who has never been taught how to do it correctly. Of course once Hollywood makes something popular it starts to perpetuate itself in the real world, which Hollywood copies, creating a feedback loop.

  2. I can’t think of any practical reason to hold a gun like that. If it made any sense what-so-ever it would be used at least in shooting sports. I think it probably originated from the streets. I have seen surveillance videos of gang type shooting and they usually have a one handed, un-aimed shot. I’ve even seen people thrust their arm, like they are throwing the bullets. I don’t know if it is ignorance or perhaps part of it is bravado and showmanship. I think some times these types of shootings are to scare off and show dominance vs actually trying to kill someone.

So yeah - seriously, a trained cop shouldn’t have a canted pistol, and even though he has a baton in the left hand, he should be supporting it with the second hand if possible. Maybe this is just a couple of photos where it captures it mid-movement to produce something weird looking. Like when you get a pic of you right as you start to smile and it looks horrible. Or maybe an adrenaline dump made him forget all his training. I dunno. Bad form. At least he had his finger off the trigger.