BDU Guys in Protest Video Weren’t A Hoax

A few days back I posted a YouTube of a Pittsburgh protester being snatch and grabbed by some clowns in BDUs and dismissed it as a poorly-produced hoax:

httpv://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G8CNa_viKg0

I’d had a few comments and emails claiming it was for real, but I hadn’t been able to find anything derfinitive online until a reader sent Murdoc a heads up:

Statement from G-20 Joint Information Center to College Politico: The individuals involved in the 9/24/2009 arrest which has appeared online 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.

So these are guys from a G-20 “tactical response team.” Personally, given the shennanigans that these anarchists pull at every G-20 and WTO meeting, maybe they really do need a “tactical response team.” But to arrest a vandal by nabbing him in broad daylight? They just recruited a thousand more protesters for the next meeting.

Suddenly, everyone who should be dismissing these protesters as the anarchist goons that they are has reason to despise the authorities the goons are fighting.

But it wasn’t the military or even the local PD.

I’d be curious to know who mans this “tactical response team.” Guys that couldn’t get in at Blackwater and DynCorp?

Comments

  1. From what I understood, we watched the arrest of a guy who caused $20k of the total $50k of property damage produced by the protesters. They only removed him quickly because of the hostile hippies everywhere.

  2. I am tired to death of seeing cops in military clothing and equipment. I am sick to my soul of the thousands of “SWAT” teams this country has. there is NO justification for these things. If the cops want to be soldiers, then they should enlist. otherwise,. they need to wear POLICE uniforms and carry well-marked POLICE equipment.

    We need a Federal law that prohibits the use of military clothing and equipment by those not in the military, or veterans thereof.

    respects,

  3. And that extends to weapons as well: Carry a handgun. If you need more firepower, then carry a shotgun, but leave the M-16’s, the M-4’s and the HK’s to the military. Everytime a cop misses with one of those weapons, it endangers a civilian’s life. There is simply no excuse for a police officer to carry anything more than a handgun and/or a shotgun.

  4. But it wasn’t the military or even the local PD.

    Per the press release the team members are ‘law enforcement officers from a multi-agency tactical response team’.

    The key there, I think, is ‘law enforcement officers’. I believe that for these deals jurisdictions from around the area staff these teams: town cops, deputies, park and game cops, feds.

    I’ll bet the overtime rocks.

    I am tired to death of seeing cops in military clothing and equipment.

    Amen. The tactical gear has it’s uses – I’ll it sucks to crawl around like the tactical guys must while wearing a dress shirt and slacks. But it’s uses oughta be limited to when it’s actually needed.

    We need a Federal law that prohibits the use of military clothing and equipment by those not in the military, or veterans thereof.

    How about not? The last thing we need is Yet Another Law.

    As you outlined it, that law would be used only to hassle kids, punks and ne’er do wells who are wearing combat boots and uniform blouses.

    “Hey. Bob: see those kids idling down Main Street? Go roust ’em.”

    “They ain’t doing nothing.”

    “The one kid – he’s got on combat boots.”

  5. They were cops … that task force consisted of members of several different SWAT teams in the region, hence the variety of different BDUs worn.

    They were doing their job … arresting an identified instigator out of a group of “professional” anarchist protesters ( i.e., trust kiddies living of inheritances, who go from riot to riot to fuck things up in the name of smashing the State ).

    These people will attack riot police during arrest attempts, which means the police have to decide between using deadly force on a crowd, or letting the perp go, if they make a normal type of arrest.

    Snatch and grab worked. The perp was not disappeared, he did get his call to a lawyer.

    I am also not happy about the militarization of the police … SWAT can wear plain blue BDUs with big yellow “POLICE” logos, and still do their job.

  6. But it wasn’t the military or even the local PD.

    Per the press release the team members are ‘law enforcement officers from a multi-agency tactical response team’.

    The key there, I think, is ‘law enforcement officers’. I believe that for these deals jurisdictions from around the area staff these teams: town cops, deputies, park and game cops, feds.

    Hmm. You’re probably right. Not sure what I was thinking.

    Which would possibly explain the different uniforms, but why virtually no ID/markings/etc? The whole thing just reeks of sloppiness, then, doesn’t it? Or am I still missing something?

  7. I agree. It looked all ad-hoc.

    Reassuring in a way.

    I don’t want to live in a country with a permanent federal protester suppression task force.

  8. Grunt level security was a combination of National Guard (2500) and cops from around the country (3000+). There were quite a few (hundreds probably) FED specialists (FBI & Secret Service mostly) The SS did the planning and training, and ran the show.

    The oddball uniforms were a cheap and easy way to identify various squads with different roles and responsibilities, and to identify friend from foe. One of their biggest fears was to have protestors dressed as cops, and then break lines and/or committ fake violence. So they try to alternate uniforms on a regular basis to keep the protesters guessing.

    Some local cops from my part of PA assisted there, and I’ve talked to one of them about it a bit. Most of the 3000 cops were just patrol officers, but some cities sent entire teams of specialists.

    A couple links:

    http://www.ldnews.com/news/ci_13396275

    http://www.policeone.com/federal-law-enforcement/articles/1877926-More-than-3K-officers-to-help-at-Pittsburgh-G-20-summit/

  9. Brian,

    Poor wording on my part. I’ve always wondered about why so many anti-war types see the need to wear surplus clothing. 🙂 “Hell hath no fury like a pacifist!”

    But I was referring to cops wearing military clothing. I have no problem with cops using tactical gear when the situation calls for it.

    They should, however, be wearing nice blue uniforms, and ditch the “Judge Dredd” look.

    Respects,

  10. LOGIC TIME!

    I served for over six years in NG and/or Active Army Reserve units, during this time, I attended Advanced NCO School at Ft. Benning, Ga. I also served for over three years in the Active Army most of which was as a paratrooper in the 101st Airborne. So I think I can qualify as a “VET”

    1. Cops should have what ever damn weapons they need to OVER POWER the bad guys!

    2. The clothes cops wear MAKE NO DAMN DIFFERENCE!

    3. I DO want to live in a country where low life SCUM who cover their faces, take weapons and who fully intend to NOT protest in a PEACEFUL manner are arrested for causing damage, stealing and injuring others.

    4. And CHILDREN, being a “Hippy” does NOT mean you cause damage to others property, or steal or do bad things. FYI, anyone who thinks “pot” should be illegal is too lazy to get off their butts and do the research to get the facts OR they are just too stupid
    to be able to comprehend what the facts mean.

    5. It seems Murdoc does not know of the massive amount of advanced military training and experience (most in the military never come close to getting) it took to be hired by Blackwater in the first place.
    Last, anyone who believes the crap about Blackwater and the many the other things OUR MSM LIES ABOUT is an NAIVE Fool!

  11. jaymaster: Thanks for the info. I knew that the NG was involved, but I guess I didn’t think there were nearly that many out-of-town LEOs involved. I guess that makes sense.

    Neil: Thanks for weighing in. It’s always nice to hear from commenters who know it all and call other people lazy and stupid and make statements about bloggers without knowing what they’re talking about.

  12. My mistake on my last post. I thought at first it was some kind of provocation, it looked so unprofessional.

  13. 1. Anyone who says I think I even come within a cosmos of “Knowing It All” needs to get their heads out of theri butts!

    2. We who actually do know a litle, fully realize how little we know.

    3. Instead of attacking me, like all those who can not best me by using either logic or facts, why don’t you PROVE I am wrong?

  14. As a retired Air Force Master Sergeant, Security Forces, and now a deputy sheriff and SWAT team member, I would like to shed some light on tactics and tactical teams.

    The team of officers in the video was what we call a “snatch team”, we used this concept at RAF Greenham-Common when I was a 19 year old security specialist back in 1983. We had CNDers at the front gate, and at smaller camps around the 9 1/2 mile fencline. When there was a protest, we went into the crowd, along with the MOD police to grab the crowd agitators and those who were doing the most damage. We’d make a flying wedge, get the principal, let MOD bag them, and retreat back to our lines.

    If you watch the video closely, you can see the cammied officers belt holsters under their blouses. You can also see the riot clad officer with a less lethal shotgun set-up (notice the orange tip on the shotgun and the orange foregrip and stock. The snatch team used a car instead of being on foot as it was a field expedient way to remove the agitator from the area and preclude getting the rest of the crowd more riled up. The officers also had ID holders strapped to their left biceps, it is seen in other photos on the web after the perps arrest, in a safe area.

    I do not agree with completely sanitized uniforms, it might’ve been detailed in their ROEs and UOF briefing. Our SWAT team wears Multicam, instead of ACU or Woodlands as, 1) It WORKS, and 2) It is not a common military issue item (yet), and we do not want to be mistaken for military.

    I am still arguing with my SWAT commander to make everyone wear nametapes and sheriff’s ID on our cammies. he thinks it’s a bad idea, I think it’s Constitutionally required. we’re not all jack booted thugs.

  15. Good post AFSarge,

    I think this thread has turned into a flamming contest and your concise info has helped to bring it back to reality.

    I figured it was a tactical snatch and said so in Murdoc’s first post.

    As far as “uniforms” and “weapons” go we can all be arm-chair quarterbacks, but the main thing is to put the bad guys out of action rapidly and efficiently.

    I think the SWAT team pulled off the snatch perfectly…and,

    Another spoiled radical brat who has nothing better to do but destroy property bit the dust!

  16. Instead of attacking me, like all those who can not best me by using either logic or facts, why don’t you PROVE I am wrong?

    That would be a difficult. A brief resume aside, your wee screed was a spew of emotion, prejudice, and fat-headed opinion.

  17. I think this thread has turned into a flamming contest and your concise info has helped to bring it back to reality.

    Yeah. I got sucked in for a second myself. My apologies.

    I am still arguing with my SWAT commander to make everyone wear nametapes and sheriff’s ID on our cammies. he thinks it’s a bad idea, I think it’s Constitutionally required. we’re not all jack booted thugs.

    This sort of thing bothers me. I’m all for the officers to be able to do what they need to do. I don’t see how wearing clear ID makes their job more difficult. In fact, I think it would help in a lot of cases where no ID could be a hindrance. Say, if a guy in blank BDUs came onto my yard and looked like he was about to enter the house during unrest. I’d likely as not shoot the guy and ask questions later.

    A commenter above noted that there was fear that the protesters would mimic the unis, so they vary them. That’s a good point, too.

  18. Calm down Brian Dunbar,

    I think I can speak for Murdoc and the other “regulars” here when I say:

    No one is attacking you.

    This is a civil blog where numerous people, who have different ideas and comments, contribute to the subject at hand.

    This certainly isn’t a confrontational arena. Hostility isn’t encouraged and for that matter it is rarely encountered. That’s why I enjoy visiting Murdoc on a daily basis.

    What is condoned is up to Murdoc.

  19. I believe Brian Dunbar was responding to a previous commenter who seemed a bit out in left field.

    This is, IMHO, a pretty decent place to discuss, and a wide range of commenters with a wide range of knowledge and experience make it an informative discussion. Sometimes people get a little out of line (Murdoc included) but by and large it’s relatively flame-free.

    As for what’s condoned, I’ve probably deleted about eight comments in six and a half years and banned only one commenter (not counting a few who just copied and spammed the same rant/comment on tons of posts). So obviously I’m not very heavy-handed very often.

  20. Calm down Brian Dunbar … No one is attacking you.

    I did not think anyone was. My intended tone was gentle and well-meaning, and I was responding to Mr. Reinhardt who, I felt, was being a butt-head.

Comments are closed