A Minnesota protestor made the following claim:

"Media, you need to cover the undercover cops who have been breaking these windows and breaking into businesses. We have evidence of buildings that have been burnt on fire by specific triangles cut out. These kids are not equipped to do those types of things."

Assuming that what she said was true, it seems more likely that these were state actors (either U.S. or foreign), and not "undercover cops".

Is there any evidence to back this up?

  • 3
    The so-called "Umbrella Man" is one of the main subjects of speculation, but no, there is no specific evidence at this time.
    – Brian Z
    May 29, 2020 at 20:12
  • 3
    Is this claim falsifiable? What would serve as evidence that the perpetrators are not undercover police? A proponent of the claim can always argue that they are so deep undercover that all proofs of their involvement with the police have been suppressed. May 29, 2020 at 23:11
  • 5
    Snopes is on the case, current status "unproven".
    – Brian Z
    May 29, 2020 at 23:34
  • 8
    @ReinstateMonica I'm gonna be extra pedantic here and point out that not all state actors are necessarily undercover cops, although all undercover cops are state actors. Thus, the two terms aren't technically synonymous.
    – Gryphon
    May 30, 2020 at 1:13
  • 1
    Why off-topic? The claim isn't technically falsifiable, by @NateEldredge, but it is verifiable, and really, it's falsifiable to the degree of pretty much anything else on the site. It's notable and many people think it's true(I'll exclude myself quickly). So why close it? - I'm asking specifically because I hope to edit and re-open, because I would genuinely appreciate researched responses to this.
    – TCooper
    Jun 1, 2020 at 22:46


Browse other questions tagged .