zlacker

I clicked this. It contains a apparently completely baseless claim that a masked looter is an "undercover cop". The claim also has been denied by the St. Paul police department.

Is it your intention to discredit claims of police brutality by repeating apparently false ones?

replies(3): >>latchk+B4 >>komali+D4 >>arkadi+S8

>>nullc+y3
Ah yes, cops telling you that they didn't do it.

At first I said to myself "he didn't do it, he isn't a cop..." and then I started to think about the source of the information.

I'm not taking sides here. I don't know if he did it or not. I just like to question all sources at this point. Just because they say they didn't do it, doesn't mean they didn't do it.

replies(1): >>nullc+h5

>>nullc+y3
This just in, serial arsonist denies ever committing arson!

>>erentz+U2
I didn't check all of them, but the ones about "Police slashing tires", are just someone saying "It was police".

They should not be included in your list. You know as well as I do that people are going to lie about it. It does no one any good to include things like that.

>>latchk+B4
I'd totally buy you argument if there was evidence of it being a cop to begin with. But there isn't, as far as I'm able to determine.

replies(1): >>latchk+Kd

>>nullc+y3
> I clicked this. It contains a apparently completely baseless claim that a masked looter is an "undercover cop". The claim also has been denied by the St. Paul police department.

That is only one of the reports in that lengthy tweet thread. And it's not baseless, here is the evidence for it: https://twitter.com/dyllyp/status/1266166402521522176

Here's the tweet where the St. Paul police department denied it: https://twitter.com/sppdmn/status/1266202225677910022

Posted 2.5 hours after the original claim - fast investigation for the police to clear themselves of all wrongdoing.

> Is it your intention to discredit claims of police brutality by repeating apparently false ones?

Lol.

replies(2): >>SpicyL+z9 >>nullc+Hc

>>arkadi+S8
It seems entirely possible for the department to verify the whereabouts of one of their officers in 2.5 hours, especially if malicious lies which will put him in danger are spreading.

>>arkadi+S8
> And it's not baseless, here is the evidence for it

Thanks-- I didn't find that from the original link. But I don't really think it supports your argument.

It's pretty hard to identify a person from just the eyes, but to the extent that shows anything it seems to contradict the claim to me: the face on the left appears to me to have a much more prominent brow ridge compared to the face on the right-- like a shelf above his eyes on the left, while the right dips in near the nose.

As far as the officer's ex-wife saying 'that's my mask' -- the thread shows a bunch of other pictures of protesters with the same mask.

This also explains how they could investigate the claim quickly-- they only needed to identify the location of a single officer.

>>nullc+h5
I'm not arguing he was a cop or not.

I'm saying that cops telling you he didn't do it, seems like a questionable source to base your opinion on.

replies(1): >>nullc+Ee

>>latchk+Kd
My opinion was based on the claim being apparently baseless. Someone saying "are you a cop?" to a masked person does not make them likely to be a cop-- in fact, it demonstrates that the cop-ness of this person wasn't readily apparent to the people who were actually there.

That they denied it is just additional (weak, sure) evidence.