amazing news, after innocent iraq vet gets hurt by riot police, vet groups vow help

[Jarhead]

The op changed the title from killed to hurt.

There is no real evidence the cops purposefully hurt this person.

True. Even if it was a tear gas canister which hit him in the head, I doubt it was fired intentionally at his head. Nonetheless, I'm sure there will be an investigation and more facts will be presented. The big question in my mind is did the police react with appropriate force or did the mayor overreact in his response?

Anyone who was around for the riots and demonstrations know that whether it's rocks and bottles or tear gas canisters being tossed into the air, there's a chance for serious injury for those on the ground. Police usually have helmets and face shields to protect, but most others do not. Anyone know how many police have been sent to the hospital for cuts and broken bones?

The mayor supports OWS. The crowed was warned LOOOng in advance this was coming. There were even arguments among the OWS crowed about what constituted non-violent and violent protest. The protesters even pointed out trouble makers to the police because they came to fight. And last I heard it was two wounded cops, but not badly hurt.

A wounded cop is not what makes a situation dangerous.

Rocks can be thrown and not wound a cop.
Bottles can be thrown and not wound a cop
Police barracades can be trmapled over and not wound a cop.

But all three of the above will always be deemed dangerous situations as it pertains to the cops, the protesters and the surrounding community.

Cops need to react with force when any of the above begin. Waiting for an injury means the cops did not do what they are paid to do. Protect the safety of the people and their fellow officers.

 

[Mr. Shaman]

Iraq War Vet Hospitalized With Head Injury After Being Shot by Police at Occupy Oakland - YouTube​

 

[G.T.]

Cops do need to disband people throwing bottles and piss.

They don't need to stand and watch as a man is on the ground critically wounded and when a group comes to help, flash bang them again.

 

[earlycuyler]

thats true. Dont forget the M80's and blue paint and piss the cops had thrown on them. What makes me sick is all those who scream "police state" and "Nazi's" about the cops are the first to scream for the cops to come help them when they are in need. They so desperately need a protester to be killed, hell they so desperately want a martyr to rally behind. Sadly for them (but good for Mr Olsen) they did not get one. The proof is in the giddy post of the OP when he said the protester was killed. If there is one city where a protester stands a good chance of getting injured or killed, in my mind its Oakland. The fact there was not any more wounded then this one goofy bastard shows great restraint on the part of Oakland PD.

 

[earlycuyler]

Cops do need to disband people throwing bottles and piss.

They don't need to stand and watch as a man is on the ground critically wounded and when a group comes to help, flash bang them again.

And that looks awful, but we have not heard the PD explain why it was done. when all ten thread about this started all the OP's said the cops just showed up and started busting heads. That was proven to be lies.

 

[Divine Wind]

It is very easy to be a monday morning quarterback and assume it was over reaction.
But in the heat of the moment, split decisions need to be made.

Yes it is easy to MMQB, which is why waiting until more facts come out or, even better, the investigation is complete, will provide better perspective.

My current and past jobs involved life and death split second decisions but mostly they involved the 6 Ps: Prior Planning Prevents Piss Poor Performance.

While the police on the scene had to make decisions, their leadership, also on the scene, should have been monitoring and leading. The city leaders, all the way to the Mayor, also were involved in the decision making on how to handle this situation including the types of force to be used. Military guys know ROE and I'm sure the police have something similar.

A difference between military ROE and a police force is one involves dealing with an enemy and the local civilian population and the other deals with our Constitution and the rights of American citizens.

 

[Jarhead]

Cops do need to disband people throwing bottles and piss.

They don't need to stand and watch as a man is on the ground critically wounded and when a group comes to help, flash bang them again.

You are correct.
But you have made a judgement call on those police based strictly on a video shot and narrated by a blogger with an agenda.

What seems to be, is not always the case.

For example......do you know if someone may have threatened the police if they took a step toward the injured man?

Do you know that the man was definitely injured or perhaps faked the injury and the police saw him do it?

Do you know if the man was holding a weapon such as a broken bottle and they were waiting for the crowd to disburse so they can attend to him?

Sure..it is easy to say ALL of the above are far fetched.....but are they?

Afterall, we saw a man fake getting run over by a scooter.....many were OUTRAGED at the police based on the small film clip that shpowed the man screaming in pain while under the scooter. They were calling for the officers head on a platter.

Yet, when the full clip came out it was found that the protester planted himself under a STOPPED scooter.

There have been police ambushed by those claiming to be in need of help...officers have dies responding to 911 calls...and when they arrive they are shot by snipers on the roof....

So do yourself a favor.....let the investigation pan out before coming to a judgemnent call.

 

[Oldstyle]

Just a word of advice to some of the more "naive" posters here...standing in a crowd that IS throwing rocks and bottles at police is not the brightest move a person can make. The police WILL respond to attacks and they will respond to the CROWD of which you are part of. Yes, you yourself may be completely innocent of throwing things at the police but that will not protect you if you are in a mob that is. Anyone with even a dollop of common sense would realize that the situation has become violent and that the police will not back down from that because it is their JOB not to do so. I don't care what the political stance is of a mob...whether they are skin heads or hippies...once people in that crowd resort to violence, anyone who doesn't want to get hurt needs to get the heck out of Dodge!

Or wear body armor and a helmet to protect oneself from overreactions. Again, the investigation into this matter will be interesting.

I'm sorry, Divine but firing tear gas into a crowd throwing rocks and bottles isn't an "overreacting". It's a proportional response and unless you're extremely naive you KNOW it's coming. I'm curious as to what you think the police response should be to a crowd that is pelting them with rocks and bottles? Stand there?

 

[Jarhead]

Just a word of advice to some of the more "naive" posters here...standing in a crowd that IS throwing rocks and bottles at police is not the brightest move a person can make. The police WILL respond to attacks and they will respond to the CROWD of which you are part of. Yes, you yourself may be completely innocent of throwing things at the police but that will not protect you if you are in a mob that is. Anyone with even a dollop of common sense would realize that the situation has become violent and that the police will not back down from that because it is their JOB not to do so. I don't care what the political stance is of a mob...whether they are skin heads or hippies...once people in that crowd resort to violence, anyone who doesn't want to get hurt needs to get the heck out of Dodge!

Or wear body armor and a helmet to protect oneself from overreactions. Again, the investigation into this matter will be interesting.

I'm sorry, Divine but firing tear gas into a crowd throwing rocks and bottles isn't an "overreacting". It's a proportional response and unless you're extremely naive you KNOW it's coming. I'm curious as to what you think the police response should be to a crowd that is pelting them with rocks and bottles? Stand there?

It seems "stand there" or retreat is the preferred reaction by many on this board.

Wonder what they would say if the cops let the rock throwing continue and a child gets hit by a rock and dies.

Bet those same people would be saying "how could they not have stooped the rock throwing? We pay them to protect us!

 

[earlycuyler]

Just a word of advice to some of the more "naive" posters here...standing in a crowd that IS throwing rocks and bottles at police is not the brightest move a person can make. The police WILL respond to attacks and they will respond to the CROWD of which you are part of. Yes, you yourself may be completely innocent of throwing things at the police but that will not protect you if you are in a mob that is. Anyone with even a dollop of common sense would realize that the situation has become violent and that the police will not back down from that because it is their JOB not to do so. I don't care what the political stance is of a mob...whether they are skin heads or hippies...once people in that crowd resort to violence, anyone who doesn't want to get hurt needs to get the heck out of Dodge!

Or wear body armor and a helmet to protect oneself from overreactions. Again, the investigation into this matter will be interesting.

I'm sorry, Divine but firing tear gas into a crowd throwing rocks and bottles isn't an "overreacting". It's a proportional response and unless you're extremely naive you KNOW it's coming. I'm curious as to what you think the police response should be to a crowd that is pelting them with rocks and bottles? Stand there?

They did just stand there for awhile.

 

[Jarhead]

Or wear body armor and a helmet to protect oneself from overreactions. Again, the investigation into this matter will be interesting.

I'm sorry, Divine but firing tear gas into a crowd throwing rocks and bottles isn't an "overreacting". It's a proportional response and unless you're extremely naive you KNOW it's coming. I'm curious as to what you think the police response should be to a crowd that is pelting them with rocks and bottles? Stand there?

They did just stand there for awhile.

Do you know why?

 

[Divine Wind]

I'm sorry, Divine but firing tear gas into a crowd throwing rocks and bottles isn't an "overreacting". It's a proportional response and unless you're extremely naive you KNOW it's coming. I'm curious as to what you think the police response should be to a crowd that is pelting them with rocks and bottles? Stand there?

Mobs are stupid. If a city government can't outsmart a mob with all the power and facilities available to a city police force, what does that make them?

When I flew for the military, we had a saying, "The definition of a superior pilot is a pilot who uses their superior judgment to avoid those situations requiring use of their superior skills".

This attitude can also be applied to crowd control. The city, from the Mayor on down, should have used superior judgment to avoid allowing a situation where a mob was tossing bottles and rocks resulting in the police having to use tear gas to disperse them (if that was indeed the case). It's naive to think that the police can only react to a crowd.

One of the police tactics I love reading about are sting operations where they mail out "you've won a free TV" to people wanted on arrest warrants. The idiots show up and are arrested. No muss, no fuss. Now that's smart.

 

[earlycuyler]

I'm sorry, Divine but firing tear gas into a crowd throwing rocks and bottles isn't an "overreacting". It's a proportional response and unless you're extremely naive you KNOW it's coming. I'm curious as to what you think the police response should be to a crowd that is pelting them with rocks and bottles? Stand there?

They did just stand there for awhile.

Do you know why?

From what I have read, they took a very long time to evict them. They went out of there way (the PD) to prevent a scene. It was known that there were out of town and local agitators in the crowed that were spoiling for a fight. They held back because they did not want to be all over the news for killing someone again. The PD (all agency's involved) actually showed great restraint in dealing with the trouble makers among the protesters.

 

[Jarhead]

I'm sorry, Divine but firing tear gas into a crowd throwing rocks and bottles isn't an "overreacting". It's a proportional response and unless you're extremely naive you KNOW it's coming. I'm curious as to what you think the police response should be to a crowd that is pelting them with rocks and bottles? Stand there?

Mobs are stupid. If a city government can't outsmart a mob with all the power and facilities available to a city police force, what does that make them?

When I flew for the military, we had a saying, "The definition of a superior pilot is a pilot who uses their superior judgment to avoid those situations requiring use of their superior skills".

This attitude can also be applied to crowd control. The city, from the Mayor on down, should have used superior judgment to avoid allowing a situation where a mob was tossing bottles and rocks resulting in the police having to use tear gas to disperse them (if that was indeed the case). It's naive to think that the police can only react to a crowd.

One of the police tactics I love reading about are sting operations where they mail out "you've won a free TV" to people wanted on arrest warrants. The idiots show up and are arrested. No muss, no fuss. Now that's smart.

The pilot analogy is accurate. I have been taught both in the military as well as in business that ones differential is their ability to avoid having to apply their differential.

However, we are talking about a collective...not an individual. Furthermore, we are talking about a situation that has become more political than anything else. Every move made by the police force is scrutinized and criticized.

Sure, being pro-active is the best action to take.

So what could they have done? Forbid the protest? Keep them in a contained area? What if they trampled over the barricades? Give them all the slack they needed? What oif they overstepped their boundaries?

I dont believe what you say is as easily acheived as you say.

Curious....you now know what happened...how the protesters acted...you have the advantage of hindsight......

SO what would you have done to prevent what happened?

 

[Jarhead]

They did just stand there for awhile.

Do you know why?

From what I have read, they took a very long time to evict them. They went out of there way (the PD) to prevent a scene. It was known that there were out of town and local agitators in the crowed that were spoiling for a fight. They held back because they did not want to be all over the news for killing someone again. The PD (all agency's involved) actually showed great restraint in dealing with the trouble makers among the protesters.

Very likely the reason.

But do you know why they stood there as a man lay injured?

I personally dont...but I will assume they had good reason until something otherwise is proven.

However, it seems sympathizers on this board have already convected those officers for not doing anything for the man without knowing all the facts.

 

[Divine Wind]

However, we are talking about a collective...not an individual. Furthermore, we are talking about a situation that has become more political than anything else. Every move made by the police force is scrutinized and criticized.

Sure, being pro-active is the best action to take.

So what could they have done? Forbid the protest? Keep them in a contained area? What if they trampled over the barricades? Give them all the slack they needed? What oif they overstepped their boundaries?

I dont believe what you say is as easily acheived as you say.

It's like flying; if it was easy, everyone would be doing it. Running a city isn't easy. Neither is running a police force.

In this case, I'd take a chapter out of history, specifically the 1960s, and inserted both informants and undercover police into the group the moment I noticed that it might become a problem. I'd have any agitators, leaders, troublemakers or other people of interest identified. With all the tech we have today, it should be easy to watch those identified from the surrounding buildings. Once identified, they could be either approached or drawn to an area where they could be more easily handled, quarantined or warned.

Likewise, I'd also identify the people who could be most helpful in keeping the peace in the crowd and seek their assistance in doing so. Part of this would undoubtedly involve listening to their concerns and providing them a forum to do so such as a joint news conference or a meeting.

Our city leaders need to get wise and starting considering that this movement isn't going to go away unless the problems giving rise to it are addressed. They need to get ahead of the problem, not just lag behind and react to a mob with tear gas or, if this continues, snipers.

 

[Oldstyle]

I'm sorry, Divine but firing tear gas into a crowd throwing rocks and bottles isn't an "overreacting". It's a proportional response and unless you're extremely naive you KNOW it's coming. I'm curious as to what you think the police response should be to a crowd that is pelting them with rocks and bottles? Stand there?

Mobs are stupid. If a city government can't outsmart a mob with all the power and facilities available to a city police force, what does that make them?

When I flew for the military, we had a saying, "The definition of a superior pilot is a pilot who uses their superior judgment to avoid those situations requiring use of their superior skills".

This attitude can also be applied to crowd control. The city, from the Mayor on down, should have used superior judgment to avoid allowing a situation where a mob was tossing bottles and rocks resulting in the police having to use tear gas to disperse them (if that was indeed the case). It's naive to think that the police can only react to a crowd.

One of the police tactics I love reading about are sting operations where they mail out "you've won a free TV" to people wanted on arrest warrants. The idiots show up and are arrested. No muss, no fuss. Now that's smart.

OK, then what should the city have done to avoid the situation? Saying the city should have used superior judgement is a wonderful sentiment, Divine but unworkable when you are facing protesters who are determined to provoke a response by police. Just as the police in NYC were forced by protesters to make arrests...the police in Oakland were forced by protesters to use tear gas. Please tell us all what you would have done differently if "you" were the Mayor of Oakland?

 

[earlycuyler]

Do you know why?

From what I have read, they took a very long time to evict them. They went out of there way (the PD) to prevent a scene. It was known that there were out of town and local agitators in the crowed that were spoiling for a fight. They held back because they did not want to be all over the news for killing someone again. The PD (all agency's involved) actually showed great restraint in dealing with the trouble makers among the protesters.

Very likely the reason.

But do you know why they stood there as a man lay injured?

I personally dont...but I will assume they had good reason until something otherwise is proven.

However, it seems sympathizers on this board have already convected those officers for not doing anything for the man without knowing all the facts.

To me it was a liability issue. What if the copper let EMT jump the fence and then the EMT's got rolled up or hit by flying bottles or rocks ? Or if the cop jumped the fence and tried to help the kid, but aggravated his injury by moving him ? In my mind, the cop made a decision to clear out the crowed. It looks like a cold callous act, but just telling the protesters obviously was not working.

 

[Liability]

Cops do need to disband people throwing bottles and piss.

They don't need to stand and watch as a man is on the ground critically wounded and when a group comes to help, flash bang them again.

Stop.

You have exactly zero evidence to support the notion that the last flash-bang was aimed at that group of folks coming to the aid of the wounded man.

It was an on-going situation and, as it turns out, flash bangs tend to bounce and roll. It could have been simply thrown in pretty much at random and, by happenstance, landed near the group assisting the injured guy.

The fact of the matter is: you don't know and you can't show differently.

 

[Divine Wind]

OK, then what should the city have done to avoid the situation? Saying the city should have used superior judgement is a wonderful sentiment, Divine but unworkable when you are facing protesters who are determined to provoke a response by police. Just as the police in NYC were forced by protesters to make arrests...the police in Oakland were forced by protesters to use tear gas. Please tell us all what you would have done differently if "you" were the Mayor of Oakland?

See my previous post. Yes, the city should have used superior judgment and not have let the situation deteriorate to the point where they " were forced by protesters to use tear gas."

Like the Kent State shootings, are we going to justify the killing or maiming of innocent bystanders in the near future if the police end up firing into a crowd by saying "well, the protesters forced them to shoot and it was just bad luck than an innocent kid a block away was killed on the way to the Chuckie Cheese"? City and Law Enforcement officials need to get a handle on this because it's their responsibility to do so. That's why tax payers pay them to do it. If they can't, then they should be replaced.