Armed Polite Society
Main Forums => The Roundtable => Topic started by: Seenterman on October 27, 2011, 02:20:26 PM
-
Scott Olsen a Marine, and two tour Iraq veteran was critically injured at the Occupy Oakland protest on Tuesday. It appears he was hit in the face with a 40mm tear gas canister fired by police. Scott was standing roughly 10 feet away from one of the police lines which was on his right side but it appears the gas canister that hit him was fired from directly in front of from an indeterminate distance away. In the video you can see Scott fall between the 10 second mark and the 12 second mark. Its very hard to tell but it appears that a tear gas canister goes off right before he falls.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OZLyUK0t0vQ&feature=player_embedded
It was my understanding that tear gas canisters fired from a launcher are supposed to be aimed at the feet of protesters to avoid this type of situation entirely. Any LEO's here that can confirm this?
But wait it gets worse!
Scott is clearly seriously injured, was unconscious, not moving, and laying prone on the street 10 feet away from about 30 cops who offer no assistance. So other protesters run over to assist a downed man and some sadistic cop decided to throw a flash bang into a group of protesters assisting an injured person. Watch from the 45 second mark on the youtube video, its very clear that a flash bang or some other explosive device ( I've heard it referred to as a one-banger by supposedly a member of the military on another forum) is thrown at protesters assisting an injured man while not a single officer steps up to offer any assistance. Which is actually a violation of dept. policy
e. Any person struck by a round shall be transported to a hospital for observation and any necessary treatment. Ambulance service, if required, shall be ordered per General Order I-4. First aid, when necessary, shall be administered per Training Bulletin III-K.
Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/the-oakland-police-absolutely-violated-their-own-crowd-control-policy-2011-10#ixzz1c0VyBMFV
And yet around 30 officers just stand there after a man is knocked unconscious by one of their projectiles and yet does nothing to assist. In fact one of them attempts to delay his treatment and possibly worsen his injuries by throwing a flashbang at him and the people attempting to help him.
What makes this even more outrageous is the Oakland PD has denied using flashbangs or rubber bullets in there press release that night and instead attempted to blame it on the protesters themselves!
Q.Did the Police deploy rubber bullets,flash-bag grenades?
A. No, the loud noises that were heard originated from M-80 explosives thrown at Police by protesters. In addition, Police fired approximately four bean bag rounds at protesters to stop them from throwing dangerous objects at the officers.
http://www.kgoam810.com/Article.asp?id=2319255&spid=
Bull. We have it on multiple videos police using multiple flash bang style grenades.
http://www.businessinsider.com/occupy-oakland-protester-says-this-video-prooves-the-oakland-police-used-illegal-flash-bangs-2011-10
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j7r2ETi5C1A
That officer who got his jolly's off by throwing an explosive devise at people trying to help an injured man needs to be prosecuted an thrown off the police force. Anything less is a travesty. Your take on this guys?
-
Scott is clearly seriously injured, was unconscious, not moving, and laying prone on the street 10 feet away from about 30 cops who offer no assistance. So other protesters run over to assist a downed man and some sadistic cop decided to throw a flash bang into a group of protesters assisting an injured person. Watch from the 45 second mark on the youtube video, its very clear that a flash bang or some other explosive device ( I've heard it referred to as a one-banger by supposedly a member of the military on another forum) is thrown at protesters assisting an injured man while not a single officer steps up to offer any assistance. Which is actually a violation of dept. policy
I would hope that someone could find a subsection of CA's Good Samaritan Law that protects a 1st Aid Renderer, and that interference with a 1st responder in an obvious emergency situation is tantamount to assaulting the victim himself (which happened anyways).
Nail the cop for assault and battery, or assault with a deadly weapon, or attempted homicide. Use the Good Sam section to demonstrate exactly how malicious the Enforcer Intent was, and to avoid allowing "years of service" to be exculpatory during sentencing.
-
"The police are not here to create disorder, they are here to maintain disorder" --Richard Daley, 1968
I can't post in a public forum what I wish would happen. Use your imagination. It involves an organized group like The Teamsters with bulletproof vests.
-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j7r2ETi5C1A
THAT is a flash-bang. 25 seconds in.
-
Nope. That's M-80's thrown by protesters from behind police lines at the protesters.
-Oakland PD
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j7r2ETi5C1A
At least 8 are thrown in the first minute. :facepalm:
-
they are these i believe or a similar product
http://combinedsystems.com/csi_mil/TearBallMultiEffect.aspx
-
it was reported earlier that he got nailed with a baton round, has that changed?
-
CS grenade =! Flashbang
Looks like they were tossing CS grenades to me.
Still a REALLY shitty thing to do to folks rendering aid.
-
CS grenade =! Flashbang
Looks like they were tossing CS grenades to me.
Still a REALLY *expletive deleted*ty thing to do to folks rendering aid.
ironic ain't it to see the gunnie equivalent of "that shoulder thingy that goes up"
-
The question is, why was he there in the first place? Just because he is a Marine vet, doesn't mean he is not taking part in the demonstration, and if he was, he deserves what he got.....chris3
-
Hold up. I don't feel like watching all those videos so I need some explaination.
Man is injured by police using unsafe tactics on the crowd. When the injured man is down, some protesters attempt to offer aid but are prevented by something that appears to be flash bangs that are thrown by other protesters from behind the cops so it looks like the cops did it.
Do I have that right?
What the hell is wrong with people?
-
Know the difference between that Marine and the Cop?
If the Marine had done that while he was in Iraq (fired at someone rendering medical aid to an injured person) he'd be charged with a war crime.
...some protesters attempt to offer aid but are prevented by something that appears to be flash bangs that are thrown by other protesters from behind the cops so it looks like the cops did it.
Do I have that right?
Watch the video linked in the OP. You actually see a gas masked riot cop toss the device into the assisting people at 0:35 with a soft underhand throw.
-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QqNOPZLw03Q&feature=related
Footage of actual injury in question.
Marine shot in face by some sort of riot appliance.
Crowd responds by attempting to render aid.
Flash-bang or CS applicance tossed in midst of crowd around downed man, crowd blatantly assisting injured (folks kneeling around him, entire crowd focus is around downed man).
-
The question is, why was he there in the first place? Just because he is a Marine vet, doesn't mean he is not taking part in the demonstration, and if he was, he deserves what he got.....chris3
I agree that his being a marine has nothing to do with the price of tea in china.
I do not agree with officiers using tools inappropriatly or persons preventing aid to someone who is injuried.
-
I gotta say, I lurvs me a good cop bashing, but if the cop in question hadn't seen the guy go down, by the time he flipped the grenade in there all *I* could see on the video was a large yelling crowd. Th folks rendering aid did so with such gusto as to hide the folks kneeling and the injured guy.
Situational awareness and peripheral vision is often severely hindered by pro masks. I could actually buy that he was watching the other way (where more pyro was going off) and looked over in time to see a large crowd yelling when he had been ordered to disperse crowds so he tossed some CS over.
Must be my inner CSD coming out.
Also, as other's have said, those are NOT flash bangs.
ETA: $10 says the initial canister skipped. I've skipped full on grenades by firing them at too low of an angle, the weapon launched canisters are pretty easy to have that happen with. remember- Less Lethal, not Non Lethal.
-
I gotta say, I lurvs me a good cop bashing, but if the cop in question hadn't seen the guy go down, by the time he flipped the grenade in there all *I* could see on the video was a large yelling crowd. Th folks rendering aid did so with such gusto as to hide the folks kneeling and the injured guy.
Situational awareness and peripheral vision is often severely hindered by pro masks. I could actually buy that he was watching the other way (where more pyro was going off) and looked over in time to see a large crowd yelling when he had been ordered to disperse crowds so he tossed some CS over.
Must be my inner CSD coming out.
Also, as other's have said, those are NOT flash bangs.
So it's okay to huck ordnance without knowing your target or backstop around it, but only if you have a blue uniform?
-
The question is, why was he there in the first place? Just because he is a Marine vet, doesn't mean he is not taking part in the demonstration, and if he was, he deserves what he got.....chris3
Apparently, he would not be the only vet supporting the anti-freedom fighters. If either of these guys actually served.
http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2011/10/unreal-neo-nazis-patrol-occupy-phonix-with-ar-15s-media-silent/
-
Yeah redhawk. That's exactly what I said. it conforms to my pages of arguments about holding cops to standards on this board. ;/
No, I read an inflammatory post, watched a video, and saw something that with just a smidge of perspective looked like a bad call in combat. I didn't say the dude was blameless, I just offered another scenario besides:
some sadistic cop decided to throw a flash bang into a group of protesters assisting an injured person.
-
OK. I watched two videos and, well...
I saw stuff flying from BEHIND the police officers.
I will also say that the idots throwing the smoke canasters back at the cops need a serious brain readjustment.
-
The question is, why was he there in the first place? Just because he is a Marine vet, doesn't mean he is not taking part in the demonstration, and if he was, he deserves what he got.....chris3
What? Are you serious? Join the military to "defend our freedoms" get injured by police officers for exercising those rights at a non violent protest and he deserves it? Do you support critically injuring people for exercising other Constitutional rights or just people you disagree with?
Man is injured by police using unsafe tactics on the crowd. When the injured man is down, some protesters attempt to offer aid but are prevented by something that appears to be flash bangs that are thrown by other protesters from behind the cops so it looks like the cops did it.
Do I have that right?
Umm. . . I was being sarcastic. Watch this video its only 1:08 minutes long.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OZLyUK0t0vQ&feature=player_embedded
Man is injured by a police projectile, is on the ground unconscious for a few seconds before a few protesters run over to render aid (even though there are 30 police officers standing 10 feet away who do nothing violating dept. policy), officer looks over the situation and decides throwing a flash bang CS grenade at the group rendering aid to the downed man is a good idea. Seems like a calculated move by sadistic person who has no place in a police dept.
ironic ain't it to see the gunnie equivalent of "that shoulder thingy that goes up"
Well we can't all be as well versed with every new piece of ordnance the police has, but it doesn't change anything. Its still an explosive device thrown at an injured man and the people trying to assist him for no reason.
-
I will also say that the idots throwing the smoke canasters back at the cops need a serious brain readjustment.
Hold on just a second. You start handing out serious brain readjustments to these hippies, and the whole movement will collapse.
Now if you had said they had a problem with their brains being missing, I'm sure we could all agree on that.
-
Its still an explosive device thrown at an injured man and the people trying to assist him for no reason.
Are you calling a CS "grenade" an explosive device, or are you talking about something else?
-
Dogmush, curious as to your potential scenario, I went back and slowly backed up the video from the throwing of the device to see if the cop tossing said device had been looking away. I found that he was standing at the line, facing the guy who was pegged in the face while he was sprawled out on the ground with no one around him. The cop continued to remain facing towards the injured person as the first folks converged and kneeled down by the injured person and then the rest of the crowd formed around them. I do not believe there to be any veracity to the hypothesis that the police officer was unaware of the injured person and the intent of the crowd (who at that point could be classified as first-responders) to render assistance.
-
Hold on just a second. You start handing out serious brain readjustments to these hippies, and the whole movement will collapse.
Now if you had said they had a problem with their brains being missing, I'm sure we could all agree on that.
I wish their brains were just missing. Then we could go out and find them and give them back. Then they would be able to actually be funtional and work rather then sitting around singing kumbayah and getting in everyones way.
-
Yeah redhawk. That's exactly what I said. it conforms to my pages of arguments about holding cops to standards on this board. ;/
No, I read an inflammatory post, watched a video, and saw something that with just a smidge of perspective looked like a bad call in combat. I didn't say the dude was blameless, I just offered another scenario besides:
Watch this vid:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QqNOPZLw03Q&feature=related
Footage of actual marine injured, from the ground, ~50 feet away.
Watch the slow-mo highlights.
Marine is down and out on the ground for 10-20 seconds, motionless. Cops do zilch. Crowd asks for cops to do something. Cops do nothing. Crowd moves in. Gentle lob of CS/FB/whatever from front row of cops, 15-20 feet away.
but if the cop in question hadn't seen the guy go down, by the time he flipped the grenade in there all *I* could see on the video was a large yelling crowd. Th folks rendering aid did so with such gusto as to hide the folks kneeling and the injured guy.
Situational awareness and peripheral vision is often severely hindered by pro masks. I could actually buy that he was watching the other way (where more pyro was going off) and looked over in time to see a large crowd yelling when he had been ordered to disperse crowds so he tossed some CS over.
Theory doesn't jive with on the ground footage.
In fact, you can see the guy with grenade launcher raised to eye level aim, continue to scan the crowd with eye-level aim. That's probably our "shooter." Another guy tosses a CS/FB grenade when the crowd is congregated and focused around the down man.
-
KGB, Possibly. I can't see everything from that video. I did watch it several times, and in slow motion and couldn't tell. I do know from experience that pro-masks make it very difficult to see everything around you. I won't claim to know exactly what happened, especially from the one video. But the tone of both the video narrator and Seenterman's OP raise my BS flag. Anytime someone feels the need to lead me to their conclusion so blatantly I have to wonder why.
Oakland PD does have a bit of a rep for being hands on. (remember the BART thing?) But I didn't really see it in that video. I saw protesters acting the fool, and cops standing a cordon line and some tear gas. Beyond that it's all speculation.
Note to Self, however. When the PD gives you an order of dispersal and 5 min, be somewhere else in 5 min.
Hope the guy get's better though. Occupy stupid crap is a *expletive deleted*ty thing to get killed over.
ETA: While I watch yet another vid. From a tactics standpoint, if you're standing a cordon line (Using bodies to block a route or area) you don't break it for downed bad guys. If you do, then you lose line integrity and the ability to deny the route/area. from a purely riot control standpoint the LEO's did the right thing by not going over. Anyone got the radio logs to see if they called for a medic for the downed protester?
-
No, I read an inflammatory post, watched a video, and saw something that with just a smidge of perspective looked like a bad call in combat.
I rewatched the video a few times and here's my take on it.
Scott goes down between the :20 - :22 second mark.
The cop who tosses the CS grenade looks directly at Scott at the :30 mark while 2 - 3 people are near him.
The cop then steps back to blend it with the line of other officers.
The grenade is then tossed at the :34 second mark.
My take: The cop knew exactly what he was doing and knew he was wrong to do so which is why he backed up, to blend in with the sea of uniforms. Can't complain charge someone with police brutality if you can identify them. I hesitate to call that "combat" not a single one of the other 30 or so officers appeared scared or threatened. They where all just standing there watching, not a single one of them reacts in any offensive way. Why does this one cop feel the need to use a CS grenade?
-
Why does this one cop feel the need to use a CS grenade?
Why does a dog lick himself?
-
Are you calling a CS "grenade" an explosive device, or are you talking about something else?
Are we really going to quibble about this?
Yes I'm calling the CS grenade an explosive device. I don't know why you put "quotes" around the word grenade because that's what their called. You can check the link CSD provided.
http://combinedsystems.com/csi_mil/TearBallMultiEffect.aspx
Bottle rockets are considered explosives and from the video whatever when off had a much bigger explosion that a bottle rocket, so yes explosive device.
-
Ok. Watched the slowmo vid.
Yes, the cops threw the whatever.
Which was a bad call IMHO.
However, Scott had some aid Before the crowd arrived. And a lot of that crowd looked like looky loos instead of actually offering aid.
So, my latest conjecture of a possibilty, which I should note is possibly the stupidest thing one could do and, yet, entirely plausable in a stress induced state, because lets face it, such causes stupidity.
Did the cop through the whatever to get rid of the crowd so that scott could actually reseave some aid?
Could he have though the crowd presented danger to the injured man?
Note that the whatever was thrown very carefully and thrown several feet beyond the injured man.
-
I'm "quibbling," because I thought we were talking about something more like a smoke "grenade," which, regardless what you call it, is not an explosive device. It just releases smoke. That is the sort of CS "grenades" that have been used on me, so that is what I'm familiar with.I was unaware that any grenade on the market mixed explosives with gas.
But like you said, we can't all be up to date with the latest stuff. Thanks for explaining.
I don't feel the need to quibble about my use of quotation marks. I thought perhaps you were confused by the term, and that is why you called it explosive.
-
I'm "quibbling," because I thought we were talking about something more like a smoke "grenade," which, regardless what you call it, is not an explosive device. It just releases smoke. That is the sort of CS "grenades" that have been used on me, so that is what I'm familiar with.I was unaware that any grenade on the market mixed explosives with gas.
But like you said, we can't all be up to date with the latest stuff. Thanks for explaining.
I don't feel the need to quibble about my use of quotation marks. I thought perhaps you were confused by the term, and that is why you called it explosive.
As an aside, did you notice the reporter on the aireal video say it was tear gas?
-
Coulda been worse. They could've used Fentanyl.
-
Coulda been worse. They could've used Fentanyl.
I wish they'd used Propafal.
-
play stupid games
win tragic prizes
if he'd been hit from that range with a direct shot from a grenade launcher he'd be drt. i suspect something else got him. he was no further than 10 foot from the barricade assuming he dropped right away. bad choice of where to be
-
CSD, the current theory is that the initial shot came not from the barrier right there, but from what is approx straight away from the camera. so 50 yds or so.
So as not to be misconstrued. A CS canister to the face from 50yds would HURT and likely cause a pretty bad injury.
-
I don't agree with why they are protesting, but it's their right. I think the police were out of line with their tactics here.
<whine> "But we are the poe-leece! We had to protect ourselves!" </whine>. Those M-80s are are dangerous to armored folks, doncha know.
-
I have to say I'm disappointed in the "He's part of a political movement I disagree with, therefore he deserves what happened to him" attitude I'm seeing from some. He was exercising his first amendment rights, wasn't hurting anybody, and what appears to have happened is inexcusable. Hell, I find his views less objectionable than those of Randy Weaver, Aryan Scumbag (tm), and what happened to him is just as inexcusable. This guy deserves at least that much benefit of the doubt.
-
CSD, the current theory is that the initial shot came not from the barrier right there, but from what is approx straight away from the camera. so 50 yds or so.
So as not to be misconstrued. A CS canister to the face from 50yds would HURT and likely cause a pretty bad injury.
gotcha from 10 foot it woulda damn near ripped his head off. i've seen em punch holes n drywall
-
As an aside, did you notice the reporter on the aireal video say it was tear gas?
AKA Crowd Suppression (CS) gas.
-
AKA Crowd Suppression (CS) gas.
2-chlorobenzalmalononitrile, discovered by Ben Corson and Roger Stoughton.
-
2-chlorobenzalmalononitrile, discovered by Ben Corson and Roger Stoughton.
Hrm. Wikipedia agrees with you, so you must be right. I'm not sure where I heard the other explanation from; probably from my Drill Sergeants.
-
Oakland PD does have a bit of a rep for being hands on. (remember the BART thing?)
Minor nitpick: if you're referring to the Oscar Grant incident, that was BART Police, not Oakland P.D.
-
No quibbling! :police:
-
Hrm. Wikipedia agrees with you, so you must be right. I'm not sure where I heard the other explanation from; probably from my Drill Sergeants.
There's also CR (dibenzoxazepine) and CN (phenacyl chloride) riot agents, one of which is also issued to military/paramilitary units. "Crowd Suppression" sounds likely to be a backronym. Without looking I would have been tempted to consider the group of them to be "C-agents," C being the designator for non-lethal riot control chemicals, similar to the G and V series of chemical weapon agents. But that train of thought is obstructed by the existence of CK (cyanogen chloride,) a lethal blood agent, and OC (oleoresin capsicum), neither of which conform to such a C-agent nomenclature.
Also, to Fistful, a smoke grenade would properly be called an incendiary device. The smoke is generated by the burning of a fuel/oxidizer/dye mixture and they have been known to cause burn injuries and/or start fires.
Now how's that for pedantic? New APS record maybe?
-
*casually tosses a flashbangCSDgrenadewrappedindetcordandbacon into the thread-drift* :police:
:laugh:
-
I'm "quibbling," because I thought we were talking about something more like a smoke "grenade," which, regardless what you call it, is not an explosive device. It just releases smoke. That is the sort of CS "grenades" that have been used on me, so that is what I'm familiar with.I was unaware that any grenade on the market mixed explosives with gas.
But like you said, we can't all be up to date with the latest stuff. Thanks for explaining.
I don't feel the need to quibble about my use of quotation marks. I thought perhaps you were confused by the term, and that is why you called it explosive.
Yea sorry I think we misunderstood each other. I think you though that I was claiming that the CS canister was an explosive device; but I was referring to the device that was thrown into the crowd around Scott after he was injured.
And I though you where saying that the device that goes off @ :36 wasn't an explosive device.
But yea this is a bit confusing. He gets hit in the face with a CS canister @ :21 and then a CS grenade @ :35, which I previously referred to as a flash bang because I didn't know about explosive CS grenades either.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OZLyUK0t0vQ&feature=player_embedded
-
I gotta say, I lurvs me a good cop bashing, but if the cop in question hadn't seen the guy go down, by the time he flipped the grenade in there all *I* could see on the video was a large yelling crowd. Th folks rendering aid did so with such gusto as to hide the folks kneeling and the injured guy.
Situational awareness and peripheral vision is often severely hindered by pro masks. I could actually buy that he was watching the other way (where more pyro was going off) and looked over in time to see a large crowd yelling when he had been ordered to disperse crowds so he tossed some CS over.
Must be my inner CSD coming out.
Also, as other's have said, those are NOT flash bangs.
ETA: $10 says the initial canister skipped. I've skipped full on grenades by firing them at too low of an angle, the weapon launched canisters are pretty easy to have that happen with. remember- Less Lethal, not Non Lethal.
Is it not part of a cop's job description to have a clue? Would I be considered liable and negligent if i did the same thing, even if I were wearing a pro-mask?
Upon further research, it looks like there are combo FB/CS grenades...somewhat like those combo cold/allergy meds. Why bring up OTC meds? Well, have you ever bought one of them in the past for 2+ symptoms, gotten better, and then gotten a cold later with only one symptom? Did you then take the meds, knowing the second drug was superfluous? Same thing here, except the FB part was the WRONG ANSWER. I can see FB/CS being just the ticket for a barricaded suspect. Not for a crowd, though, where straight CS would be a better choice as both more effective (more CS, which is persistent) and less dangerous (FB explosion). I can see some bean counter log weenie at the PD getting a chubby over buying just one sort of grenade.
So it's okay to huck ordnance without knowing your target or backstop around it, but only if you have a blue uniform?
Looks like.
Shooting a 37/40mm projectile of that mass & velocity at someone is deadly force. Period.
Are you calling a CS "grenade" an explosive device, or are you talking about something else?
Were I caught with one in flagrante delicto, I bet ATF would charge me with such, so yes.
-
Everyone is assuming the police know there is an injured man down.
I've now watched that video multiple times. I would not be able to tell that is a person had I not had multiple voice-overs and circles of the clump of clothes.
Is it not also possible the officer saw a group of people seemingly charging back into an area without any CS gas and thought it best to toss the grenade to clear them without noticing the rather inconspicuous clump on the ground?
Why is malice automatically assumed?
-
Everyone is assuming the police know there is an injured man down.
I've now watched that video multiple times. I would not be able to tell that is a person had I not had multiple voice-overs and circles of the clump of clothes.
Is it not also possible the officer saw a group of people seemingly charging back into an area without any CS gas and thought it best to toss the grenade to clear them without noticing the rather inconspicuous clump on the ground?
Why is malice automatically assumed?
Because it is the Oakland PD. Their track record is not one of non-malice.
-
Because it is the Oakland PD. Their track record is not one of non-malice.
It is more than that. The assumption that the cops are wrong is common. You can see that in the OP.
Honestly, from what I have heard of the protests in some places, I am surprised the police have been as restrained as they are.
-
Am I the only person who noticed the smoking object in the foreground of the video, skipping toward the police from behind camera left?
It makes a brief appearance a few seconds after the gernade goes off.
-
Am I the only person who noticed the smoking object in the foreground of the video, skipping toward the police from behind camera left?
It makes a brief appearance a few seconds after the gernade goes off.
A protestor skipping about and smoking a doob? Par for the course, idn't it?
-
It is more than that. The assumption that the cops are wrong is common. You can see that in the OP.
Honestly, from what I have heard of the protests in some places, I am surprised the police have been as restrained as they are.
They are there to protect and serve. I get that its difficult sometimes but being restrained is part of their job. They are the professionals, which they point out all the time....
-
I just wish to clarify, for the sake of Seenterman or anyone else who cared to know. I do support the first amendment rights to free speech and assembly. I hope, for that Marine's sake, that he is not a supporter of the foreign Occupation, but he does have the right to join them in tearing down the nation he served while in uniform.
-
I wish they'd used Propafal.
I wonder if they could develop an inhalable drug similar to naloxone. Could be entertaining as hell...in a lot of places.
-
Scott Olsen a Marine, and two tour Iraq veteran was critically injured at the Occupy Oakland protest on Tuesday. It appears he was hit in the face with a 40mm tear gas canister fired by police. Scott was standing roughly 10 feet away from one of the police lines which was on his right side but it appears the gas canister that hit him was fired from directly in front of from an indeterminate distance away. In the video you can see Scott fall between the 10 second mark and the 12 second mark. Its very hard to tell but it appears that a tear gas canister goes off right before he falls.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OZLyUK0t0vQ&feature=player_embedded
It was my understanding that tear gas canisters fired from a launcher are supposed to be aimed at the feet of protesters to avoid this type of situation entirely. Any LEO's here that can confirm this?
But wait it gets worse!
Scott is clearly seriously injured, was unconscious, not moving, and laying prone on the street 10 feet away from about 30 cops who offer no assistance. So other protesters run over to assist a downed man and some sadistic cop decided to throw a flash bang into a group of protesters assisting an injured person. Watch from the 45 second mark on the youtube video, its very clear that a flash bang or some other explosive device ( I've heard it referred to as a one-banger by supposedly a member of the military on another forum) is thrown at protesters assisting an injured man while not a single officer steps up to offer any assistance. Which is actually a violation of dept. policy
And yet around 30 officers just stand there after a man is knocked unconscious by one of their projectiles and yet does nothing to assist. In fact one of them attempts to delay his treatment and possibly worsen his injuries by throwing a flashbang at him and the people attempting to help him.
What makes this even more outrageous is the Oakland PD has denied using flashbangs or rubber bullets in there press release that night and instead attempted to blame it on the protesters themselves!
http://www.kgoam810.com/Article.asp?id=2319255&spid=
Bull. We have it on multiple videos police using multiple flash bang style grenades.
http://www.businessinsider.com/occupy-oakland-protester-says-this-video-prooves-the-oakland-police-used-illegal-flash-bangs-2011-10
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j7r2ETi5C1A
That officer who got his jolly's off by throwing an explosive devise at people trying to help an injured man needs to be prosecuted an thrown off the police force. Anything less is a travesty. Your take on this guys?
one of the beloved chants of the radlibs is "this is what democracy looks like" & well-it is! that's why I prefer a Republic.
People are saying OPD attacked But from what I see its the public sector union attacking, they cant have it both ways. The radlibs all supported the public sector unions-it should be an honor to have them blow you up.
-
What I see:
A U.S. service member, who has thrown in his lot with people essentially agitating for various forms of communism. Someone who took an oath to defend what is probably the most non-communist document in history, the U.S. Constitution.
And police brutality.
No winners here. I'm moving along now.
-
http://www.verumserum.com/?p=31617
Interesting.
As argued above, it shouldn't matter if the guy who took the less-lethal to the noggin was the registrant/owner of "www.ihatethemarinesandwishtheydalldie.com".
But it does re-affirm my "No winners here" stance for sure.
-
Shhh. This is a huge windfall for OWS. Don't ruin this for them.
-
http://www.verumserum.com/?p=31617
Interesting.
As argued above, it shouldn't matter if the guy who took the less-lethal to the noggin was the registrant/owner of "www.ihatethemarinesandwishtheydalldie.com".
But it does re-affirm my "No winners here" stance for sure.
Nevermind the situation he's currently in.
What a F'ed up jerk.
-
Honestly, there is something like a lit firework skipping across the ground heading toward the police from the protestors.
Does no one else see it?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OZLyUK0t0vQ at 40 seconds and 57 seconds, JUST before the scene changes
-
Nevermind the situation he's currently in.
What a F'ed up jerk.
It gets better.
Apparently he's also a Juggalo*. :laugh:
*The teens and twenty-somethings that like to paint their faces like the Insane Clown Posse rappers.
-
oh, good, i thought this was a decent citizen we were talking about. now i feel much better. =|
-
Being a juggalo makes it okay if someone shoots you in the face? The bar is being set low.
-
oh, good, i thought this was a decent citizen we were talking about. now i feel much better. =|
Being a juggalo makes it okay if someone shoots you in the face? The bar is being set low.
Intentionally misinterpreting what people say?! Awesome!
AJ, et al, please don't take the bait. Disingenuous comments don't deserve a sincere reply. Let's just hope the perpetrators of same feel more liberty-er than the rest of us, since they seem to need that.
-
I had some juggaloes in my cab once, they were concerned about negative press and tipped me pretty good. However, I can see why some folks don't like them
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Juggalo&defid=3818650
-
Intentionally misinterpreting what people say?! Awesome!
AJ, et al, please don't take the bait. Disingenuous comments don't deserve a sincere reply. Let's just hope the perpetrators of same feel more liberty-er than the rest of us, since they seem to need that.
bait? i asked for no reply.
-
I almost posted something snarky without double checking myself but I stopped in time and just want to establish a base-line for this thread before I go stomping on toes with my size 12EEE's.
The impression I'm getting from several posters here is that if a person's politics differs significantly enough from one's own it is thus entirely tolerable that this person to be physically harmed, specifically in this case to be struck in the face with a rifle launched tear gas canister, and then his first responders be driven away by an explosively dispersed tear gas grenade, without any regard for any particular laws, policies, or constitutional rights.
Is this a correct impression?
-
in my ever expanding quest for fairness and accuracy, ICP whom the "juggaloes"
worship seem like nice young men with a sense of humor, not much musical talent though. It could be that the director had the sense of humor though, meaning that ICP lack musical talent and humor. You'll have to decide for yourselves because I'm not looking at any other ICP videos...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fe8jJBoEmuY
-
The impression I'm getting from several posters here is that any criticism of an occupier quisling who got jacked up by the police is to be read as approval of the cops' measures.
-
I almost posted something snarky without double checking myself but I stopped in time and just want to establish a base-line for this thread before I go stomping on toes with my size 12EEE's.
The impression I'm getting from several posters here is that if a person's politics differs significantly enough from one's own it is thus entirely tolerable that this person to be physically harmed, specifically in this case to be struck in the face with a rifle launched tear gas canister, and then his first responders be driven away by an explosively dispersed tear gas grenade, without any regard for any particular laws, policies, or constitutional rights.
Is this a correct impression?
IDK, not from me. I do however think if radlibs tell me over and over how great the public sector union is ( like they did during the Gov Walker dust up this past summer ) then when the public sector shoots them in the face they should say "thank you" after all unions are sacred.
-
The impression I'm getting from several posters here is that any criticism of an occupier quisling who got jacked up by the police is to be read as approval of the cops' measures.
Reasonably fair to say that aside from De Selby, everyone here on this forum doesn't much care for the Occupy crowd.
But I'm with kgbsquirrel here... sounds like a lot of folks here are okay with the results of this, and justifying that acceptance based upon the political leanings of this person and not based upon his actions (i.e. if he were charging the police line and got shot in the face that's one thing, but from what I can see he was standing still when shot in the face). The impression is that it's okay for people to get shot in the face while standing still, as long as they have dirty-hippy-beliefs.
Shooting hippies is not a moral activity that you can suspend, just because the world's all blown up and whatnot. It's the moral and ethical duty of ALL Americans, religious or not, to do so on a regular basis. Preferably with Slayer on in the background.
Not pointing fingers at Rev here, just at the idea that his joke-post above seems to be materializing into sincerity in others.
-
For what it's worth, mine was a serious question. I was hoping for either an affirmation that my impression was correct or a clarification, such as "despite not stating it explicitly I do acknowledge what the cops did was wrong and do not condone it, however, I still feel no empathy for the injured party due to the significant disparity between our political views."
-
yet the dirty smelly hippies would have us all in concentration camps if they could, fortunately they're not armed well enough.
Alas, the Oakland PD is run for and by progressives & liberals That's simply how they operate - attacking people who are unarmed and simply disagreeing with them.
I've had a few friends in SF Bay area police agencies, they're typical liberal union members. Love Obama & gun control. Hard to feel really really bad for the victim, or any of the OWS folks, they're all Obama voters and support public sector unions ... fine. ... deal with the repercussions - you wanted a strong progressive police state and you got one.
-
Just out of curiousity... does everyone realize this was very shortly after several police were hit with rocks and other hard objects?
I don't object to the use of tear gas if crowds start throwing rocks. That said, if the cop intentionally hit this kid, he deserves to be fired, possibly prosecuted.
But what really agitates me is the friggin insinuation that the cops shouldn't have been using the gas in the first place.
*expletive deleted*ck that.
You throw rocks at the cops, you have some discomfort coming your way. No sympathy.
-
But what really agitates me is the friggin insinuation that the cops shouldn't have been using the gas in the first place.
Since I've asked others to clarify their positions I suppose it's only right that I do so as well: I hold no sympathy for the protesters and acknowledge that injured-dude could well have caught a canister that bounced off the pavement or was just the unlucky sod who was in the way of one fired high overhead. That aside, what has me agitated is the use of a crowd control device to disperse first responders to a medical emergency. I find that to be an unconscionably immoral act.
Edit: First responder in this instance is being used as a generic term for first people on the scene rendering medical assistance. Thought I should toss that in following the conversation with my ex-paramedic friend.
-
The flash bang was too far, I agree, and the *expletive deleted* responsible will probably not escape punishment, with the huge preponderance of video evidence and the outrage over it.
But I don't have a problem with the police putting some hurt on these folks.
However, to throw a flash bang into a crowd trying to rescue an injured person... yeah. that's terrible
-
its quite possible the cop throwing the flash bang had no idea they were first responders - it was other OWS folks not uniformed EMT's trying to carry the guy
-
I guess i COULD believe that, but it's pretty unlikely.
Bleeding guy on the ground, very small crowd of people moving towards the bleeding guy, etc.
Possible he made a mistake. Highly unlikely
-
To denounce the police for violating this Quisling's right to peaceably demonstrate (assuming they did so), while pointing out the Occupiers' attacks on the rights of
the 1% those of us who earn enough money to pay taxes, is to be consistent.
I thought we all agreed that it wasn't a flash bang? ???
-
To denounce the police for violating this Quisling's right to peaceably demonstrate (assuming they did so), while pointing out the Occupiers' attacks on the rights of the 1% those of us who earn enough money to pay taxes, is to be consistent.
I thought we all agreed that it wasn't a flash bang? ???
Yeah, I see it now that i'm watching a better quality vid.
Plain CS, it looks like
So, Crowd gets gassed by cops after throwing a bunch of rocks and paint. One ex marine gets injured in the process. People try to rescue them, Officer Friendly throws a CS grenade into em.
Yeah. Officer friendly is a *expletive deleted*che. throwing gas at a downed person is bad juju. Also bad juju to gas the people attempting to rescue him
-
But what really agitates me is the friggin insinuation that the cops shouldn't have been using the gas in the first place.
I don't think anyone has said that in this thread. I'm pissed that Scott got hit in the face with a tear gas canister; granted as kgb said its possible the canister was shot at the ground and ricocheted into his face. What I'm outraged at is the officer who throws a CS grenade at Scott after he is down and the group of people attempting to help him.
-
I don't think anyone has said that in this thread. I'm pissed that Scott got hit in the face with a tear gas canister; granted as kgb said its possible the canister was shot at the ground and ricocheted into his face. What I'm outraged at is the officer who throws a CS grenade at Scott after he is down and the group of people attempting to help him.
Bah, i wasn't speaking of anyone in this thread. It's the general outrage all over the interwebz about "ZOMG THE COPS USING GAS ON PEACEFUL PROTESTORS OH NOEZ!" that pisses me off
THe protestors in oakland, even before this incident, were anything but peaceful
-
For some reason I am disregarding all the other voices in my head and responding to this thread.
I put in a lot of time at various riots/demonstrations during the late '60s with the 2nd MarDiv Civil Response Battalion, including Battalion point on several occasions. If it was west of the Atlantic Ocean and east of the Missisippi River I was probably there. I then was tasked with putting that experience to use advising the Dept. of Corrections on crowd control/riot control involving non-adjudicated detainees. Those are my bone fides.
As best I can understand the situation the task of the police at this location at the time of this incident were to maintain a secure perimeter. In other words, keep the riffraff on their side of some arbitrary line. There was no assignment to push the crowd back or to clear a way through the crowd from their barricade line to some other spot on the earth.
If this assessment is correct, everything that happened with those cops at that location was just plain wrong.
Again, as best as I can understand things some other cops were tasked with clearing the crowd out of the square, and to that end they used some sort of gas to make the crowd want to leave of their own, albeit reluctant, volition. That was all the gas being tossed into the area. The cops at the point of our interest seem to have been aware of and prepared for the use of gas as they already had their masks on. (If you have ever hung around inside a mask you know why it is described as not being the most comfortable thing to do. It's hot, sweaty, limits your vision and screws with your hearing because of the Darth Vader sound of your own breathing.)
As best I can observe some of the crowd moved towards the location of "our" cops but made no overt attempt to breach the barricade. Thus they are just milling around looking for a place with the least amount of gas to be breathed in. "Our" cops should be doing nothing but maintaining their barricade's integrity. If folks behind them are lobbing objects in their direction they should either peel off a contingent or preferably have their reserve (they did have a reserve, didn't they?) go deal with the lobbers. Maintain the integrity of the barricade - non passaran and all that.
So, why did that one cop decide he just had to use his gas grenade? How did that advance the mission of his unit?
You all know I have no answers. But I'm not paid to give answers, just ask the questions.
stay safe.
-
Being a juggalo makes it okay if someone shoots you in the face? The bar is being set low.
:laugh:
Absolutely not.
Not worth the price of ammo. Nor can we do that "bill the family" thing that China does.
You hand them kitchen magnets, and nature takes it's course, and they die of brain hemorrhaging, thinking too hard about "miracles".
Although seriously Micro, the notions of "sympathy" for someone, and determining moral/legal/ethical right and wrong are severable. At least in my mind.
His stance on U.S. Marines, having been one himself, and a Juggalo, allows me the luxury of having 0.00 on the sympathy meter for the man, while still recognizing that the actions of the police officer who most likely fired a tear gas canister at him at close range intentionally, hoping to "thump" him, and not considering it was potentially very lethal force, were wrong, and illegal.
Hence my no winners here stance, from a "sympathy" standpoint, but that agreeing what the cop did was wrong legally and ethically.
-
The question is, why was he there in the first place? Just because he is a Marine vet, doesn't mean he is not taking part in the demonstration, and if he was, he deserves what he got.....chris3
Because he has the right to be anywhere he damn pleases. He also has the expectation of not being hit in the face with a projectile fired by rioting cops. He further has the expectation of assistance from the police per their OWN DEPARTMENT'S policy. Whether or not you agree with the protesters, they are exercising their first amendment rights to free association, political utterances and redress.
Russ
-
And I'm still reading people assuming the police officer who threw the CS grenade had ill intent.
Allow me to juxtapose a few quotes for perspective:
What I'm outraged at is the officer who throws a CS grenade at Scott after he is down and the group of people attempting to help him.
So, Crowd gets gassed by cops after throwing a bunch of rocks and paint. One ex marine gets injured in the process. People try to rescue them, Officer Friendly throws a CS grenade into em.
Yeah. Officer friendly is a *expletive deleted*che. throwing gas at a downed person is bad juju. Also bad juju to gas the people attempting to rescue him
(If you have ever hung around inside a mask you know why it is described as not being the most comfortable thing to do. It's hot, sweaty, limits your vision and screws with your hearing because of the Darth Vader sound of your own breathing.)
I guess i COULD believe that, but it's pretty unlikely.
Bleeding guy on the ground, very small crowd of people moving towards the bleeding guy, etc.
Possible he made a mistake. Highly unlikely
And, as I already pointed out:
I've now watched that video multiple times. I would not be able to tell that is a person had I not had multiple voice-overs and circles of the clump of clothes.
This, to me, is simply an unfortunate combination of events. The ex-marine was injured (as we don't know how, I will not assign blame. It could have been the cops or the violent "protestors", intentionally or accidentally.) While he is down, the police have obscured vision with their masks, in the dark, with a rather inconspicuous clump of clothes. A group of protestors, without obscured vision see the man and charge towards the police to aid the ex-marine. The police officer responds to what appears to be a group moving towards the barricade and attempts to clear the area.
I don't see anything wrong in this video, I see an unfortunate circumstance for all involved. It sucks to get injured at a protest, but when members of your protest decide to turn it into a riot, that is what can happen.
-
Eyewitness testimony:
http://reason.com/archives/2011/10/28/what-happened-at-occupy-oaklan
-
Because he has the right to be anywhere he damn pleases. He also has the expectation of not being hit in the face with a projectile fired by rioting cops. He further has the expectation of assistance from the police per their OWN DEPARTMENT'S policy. Whether or not you agree with the protesters, they are exercising their first amendment rights to free association, political utterances and redress.
Russ
not even close. didn't the cops give em 5 mins to leave?
bad decision making by the folks that stayed
-
And I'm still reading people assuming the police officer who threw the CS grenade had ill intent.
That is the assumption because that is most likely what occurred, given the video and the time line. Yes, I have spent more than my share of time in a p-mask.
I agree that the tears of a hippie are both sweet and satisfying, but I am less sanguine about hippie blood and malicious acts by agents of the state.
-
That is the assumption because that is most likely what occurred, given the video and the time line. Yes, I have spent more than my share of time in a p-mask.
I agree that the tears of a hippie are both sweet and satisfying, but I am less sanguine about hippie blood and malicious acts by agents of the state.
Not necessarily the most likely, just the first opinion posted and everyone seems to have started from that point. IMO, it is most likely that it is a series of mistakes/unfortunate events with little or no evil intent.
-
Because he has the right to be anywhere he damn pleases. He also has the expectation of not being hit in the face with a projectile fired by rioting cops. He further has the expectation of assistance from the police per their OWN DEPARTMENT'S policy. Whether or not you agree with the protesters, they are exercising their first amendment rights to free association, political utterances and redress.
Russ
If it were a purely peaceful protest, sure. However, I think it has been shown that it wasn't. If you stand with a violent group, you are going to catch any backlash coming their way.
-
this ^^^^ in spades
-
Not necessarily the most likely, just the first opinion posted and everyone seems to have started from that point. IMO, it is most likely that it is a series of mistakes/unfortunate events with little or no evil intent.
Actually, given the poster (Seenterman) and the target (CSI Occupy Wherever), my first reaction was "I love the smell of CS and patchouli in the evening. Smells like...hilarity."
Plainly: I despise the Occupy* crowd to the point that I was hoping to see a righteous thumping of stinky indebted liberal arts majors. That would please me on many levels.
Well, there was a thumping, but it wasn't so righteous. Frankly, if CS-ing the turd burglars isn't satisfying enough for the cop to the point he needs to pull Stupid LEO Tricks, he needs to move on career-wise or catch a round in the melon for the sake of us all.
To make it even more plain, for the slow readers: I had no problem getting the mob to disperse with CS. If they got violent with the cops, I had no problem with the cops contributing to their education via a stout piece of hickory over the head.
What we got, instead, was:
1. Some fool needlessly shot a firearm into a crowd [37/40mm bloop gun with CS (maybe CS/FB) rounds]. Hand-tossed were obviously available would have been as effective, but didn't give Officer Friendly a chubby.
2. Another fool watching the mess and seeing a downed man, maliciously tosses a grenade at the folks trying to render aid. Never mind the focus and body language of the first responders.
So, yeah, we deserve better. Especially those of us who wanted a certain fellow as the GOP nominee in 2008 and were hoping Seenterman was wrong & hyperventilating(1):
(https://armedpolitesociety.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fphilelmore.us%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2011%2F01%2Fthompson_punch_the_hippies.jpg&hash=2269507a49eb0d80c1f17dd0113c722ab19a2215)
(1) Well, he was a bit overwrought what it it being a MARINE GULF WAR VETERAN!!!11. Like an ex-serviceman can't be an oxygen thief. Especially a jarhead. (I kid because I love...)
-
This, to me, is simply an unfortunate combination of events. The ex-marine was injured (as we don't know how, I will not assign blame. It could have been the cops or the violent "protestors", intentionally or accidentally.) While he is down, the police have obscured vision with their masks, in the dark, with a rather inconspicuous clump of clothes. A group of protestors, without obscured vision see the man and charge towards the police to aid the ex-marine. The police officer responds to what appears to be a group moving towards the barricade and attempts to clear the area.
Even if he did see the downed guy, that area needed to be cleared before anybody could cross the line to remove him and render proper aid. It's interesting that the videos never seem to include what happened between the lobbing of the grenade and the hippies bouncing the injured guy away like a sack of potatoes. The cops may have been waiting for the crowd to back off enough so that they (or EMS) could advance their line and retrieve him properly with a backboard, but since the crowd kept pushing back in, they never got that opportunity.
-
Registrant:
Scott Olsen
1, Illinois 61264
United States
Registered through: GoDaddy.com, Inc. (http://www.godaddy.com)
Domain Name: IHATETHEMARINECORPS.COM
Created on: 28-Jan-09
Expires on: 28-Jan-12
Last Updated on: 29-Jan-11
-
Lame that the "movement" plays up his service when he clearly was a disgruntled poopsickle.
THAT SAID...
still doesn't have relevance to the situation. Even if he was a gigantic turd, if he was truly intentionally *expletive deleted*ed with, that's wrong
Registrant:
Scott Olsen
1, Illinois 61264
United States
Registered through: GoDaddy.com, Inc. (http://www.godaddy.com)
Domain Name: IHATETHEMARINECORPS.COM
Created on: 28-Jan-09
Expires on: 28-Jan-12
Last Updated on: 29-Jan-11