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

[Divine Wind]

What's a poor liberal Democratic mayor to do when she wants to get fellow liberals to behave and they won't play ball?

She screwed up by not having a handle on the situation in the first place. If it was just a rogue cop responsible for this, then I might see giving her a pass, but she's the mayor. She was undoubtedly the one who sent the police in and authorized the level of force used.

I have no doubt she's trying to pull her own ass out of the ringer and toss out some sacrificial lamb (probably a police officer) for the injuries, but she'll be lucky to recover from this screw up.

Again, the responsibilities of leadership state that they should be smarter than the masses because it's their job to do so. The city, from the Mayor on down, were stupid. They let themselves be put into a situation of reacting instead of being proactive. It's not like this popped up in just a couple of hours and they were desperate to do something. This thing had been going on for days. More than enough time to think it through.

I bet mayors across the nation are pulling in their managers, heads of first responders and other leaders to plan what they would do in such a situation because, if the movement continues, it is sure to confront other city mayors. They better have a handle on it or they'll be facing public scrutiny for screwing it up.

 

[Divine Wind]

Not so. One of the people that was with him commented to the guy doing the live blog that his group was there to take part in civil disobedience. The realty is that he was there to break the law and got hurt. It has also been alleged that he was hit with an object that was thrown by another protester.

Got any facts to back up your assertion that this Marine was a troublemaker out to break the law?

I'm content to wait for the investigation to be completed.

Hurt protester Scott Olsen was 'provoking no one'

"He was standing perfectly still, provoking no one," said Raleigh Latham, an Oakland filmmaker shooting footage of the confrontation between police and hundreds of protesters at 14th Street and Broadway. "If something didn't hit him directly in the face, then it went off close to his head and knocked him down."

Scott Olsen Attacked for Using First Amendment Rights, Says His Uncle: SFist

Olsen's uncle, George Nygaard, who discussed Olsen's ordeal. “Even when people were going to rescue Scott on the ground they fire and exploding tear gas grenades right amongst them," Nygaard said.......Nygaard claimed that Olsen was at Tuesday night's protest to serve as a peacemaker between the protestors and the law enforcement. He goes on to say that Olsen was attacked for his first amendment rights, something that Olsen and other soldiers were (allegedly, but probably not) fighting for in the middle east.

“He’s somebody who went over there and fought for our freedom comes back and is viciously attacked for exercising his first amendment rights," he said.

 

[Jarhead]

What's a poor liberal Democratic mayor to do when she wants to get fellow liberals to behave and they won't play ball?

She screwed up by not having a handle on the situation in the first place. If it was just a rogue cop responsible for this, then I might see giving her a pass, but she's the mayor. She was undoubtedly the one who sent the police in and authorized the level of force used.

I have no doubt she's trying to pull her own ass out of the ringer and toss out some sacrificial lamb (probably a police officer) for the injuries, but she'll be lucky to recover from this screw up.

Again, the responsibilities of leadership state that they should be smarter than the masses because it's their job to do so. The city, from the Mayor on down, were stupid. They let themselves be put into a situation of reacting instead of being proactive. It's not like this popped up in just a couple of hours and they were desperate to do something. This thing had been going on for days. More than enough time to think it through.

I bet mayors across the nation are pulling in their managers, heads of first responders and other leaders to plan what they would do in such a situation because, if the movement continues, it is sure to confront other city mayors. They better have a handle on it or they'll be facing public scrutiny for screwing it up.

What if they did not try to disperse the crowd and that same marine vet was injured by one of the rocks that were being thrown?

What would you be saying?

I am not being adversarial...I am just showing you how easy it is to be a monday morning quaterback.

And off the record...and as a marine myself for several years early on.....I do not appreciate the constant reference to his military background and experience. It is completely irrelevant to the incident and ensuing debate.

 

[BDBoop]

Asswipe. Always asswipe. Surely the lot of you could move onto the next letter in the insult dictionary.

And y'all wonder why you're perceived as "less than" on the intelligence front.

Sir Robert's Elizabethan Insult Creator

 

[Jarhead]

What's a poor liberal Democratic mayor to do when she wants to get fellow liberals to behave and they won't play ball?

She screwed up by not having a handle on the situation in the first place. If it was just a rogue cop responsible for this, then I might see giving her a pass, but she's the mayor. She was undoubtedly the one who sent the police in and authorized the level of force used.

I have no doubt she's trying to pull her own ass out of the ringer and toss out some sacrificial lamb (probably a police officer) for the injuries, but she'll be lucky to recover from this screw up.

Again, the responsibilities of leadership state that they should be smarter than the masses because it's their job to do so. The city, from the Mayor on down, were stupid. They let themselves be put into a situation of reacting instead of being proactive. It's not like this popped up in just a couple of hours and they were desperate to do something. This thing had been going on for days. More than enough time to think it through.

I bet mayors across the nation are pulling in their managers, heads of first responders and other leaders to plan what they would do in such a situation because, if the movement continues, it is sure to confront other city mayors. They better have a handle on it or they'll be facing public scrutiny for screwing it up.

In boston....what would have been the result if..

The neighbor called
The police showed up
A man came to the door well dressed claiming it was his house
The police did not ask for proof and left
And in the meantime the professor was tied up in a chair getting pistol whipped while his house was being robbed.

Would you have said the police acted stupidly for NOT asking for proof it was his home?

 

[Divine Wind]

What if they did not try to disperse the crowd and that same marine vet was injured by one of the rocks that were being thrown?

It's possible. Another good reason to wait for the investigation before drawing conclusions.

As for vets using their background to bolster their actions, we see it on this forum in the usernames of members, we see it at rallies, both left and right, to give credit to the agenda of whomever is holding the rally.

I think you and I are smart enough to see through most of it. Scott Olsen had a good job, was a good Marine and there is no evidence he was breaking the law or causing trouble like some people here are trying to allege in order to support their conclusions about the actions of the city.

The investigation will tell us all we need to know both about Scott Olsen's actions, how he was injured and whether or not the police and/or the city was culpable.

 

[Divine Wind]

In boston....what would have been the result if..

Nice scenario. Yes, the police should have asked for some ID or other proof of ownership. What is your point in regards to my post?

 

[Jarhead]

What if they did not try to disperse the crowd and that same marine vet was injured by one of the rocks that were being thrown?

It's possible. Another good reason to wait for the investigation before drawing conclusions.

As for vets using their background to bolster their actions, we see it on this forum in the usernames of members, we see it at rallies, both left and right, to give credit to the agenda of whomever is holding the rally.

I think you and I are smart enough to see through most of it. Scott Olsen had a good job, was a good Marine and there is no evidence he was breaking the law or causing trouble like some people here are trying to allege in order to support their conclusions about the actions of the city.

The investigation will tell us all we need to know both about Scott Olsen's actions, how he was injured and whether or not the police and/or the city was culpable.

Some us their military rank or arm as a form of identification....and pride.

But it is not he, the marine, that is continualy using his military background to ifentify himself. It is being used by supporters of the protesters to hit the point home as they know that many on the right look up to those in the military....

But that aside....I personally have not accused him of any wrong doing. Heck, I havent seen any video of him other than when he was already injured.

But many seemed to have already crucified the police for their actions...and even the mayor is in the wrong in my eyes....prior to any investigation, she is ASSUMING there was too much presence...when, in fact, she may find out there was no further violence BECAUSE of the presence they had.

Dam....politics is starting to dictate sound decision making.

 

[Jarhead]

In boston....what would have been the result if..

Nice scenario. Yes, the police should have asked for some ID or other proof of ownership. What is your point in regards to my post?

It was easy for anyone to assume the police acted "stupidly"...but when you look at all possibilities, they may have acted appropriately.

Heck.....even our President said the police acted stupidly....when, in fact, it would have been REAL stupid to NOT ask for ID.

Look at this thread. Most say the police went overboard....or some rogue cop...or a rookie...or whatever...

The media are saying "unarmed".....but do they know there were not protesters carrying broken bottles?

The media is saying "unprovoked"...how do they know?

But I used the analogy becuase as we saw with the boston incident....politicians can dictate the way people percieve things....reagrdless of whatever the facts prove to be.

In the case of Boston...the facts are that the police acted appropriately and within proper protocol...and if, in fact they did NOT ask for ID they would have likely receioved a reprimand...and would have lost their jobs if it was NOT the professor..

Yet becuase Obama said they acted stupidly.....most on the left still say such is fact...they acted stupidly.

 

[mskafka]

What if they did not try to disperse the crowd and that same marine vet was injured by one of the rocks that were being thrown?

It's possible. Another good reason to wait for the investigation before drawing conclusions.

As for vets using their background to bolster their actions, we see it on this forum in the usernames of members, we see it at rallies, both left and right, to give credit to the agenda of whomever is holding the rally.

I think you and I are smart enough to see through most of it. Scott Olsen had a good job, was a good Marine and there is no evidence he was breaking the law or causing trouble like some people here are trying to allege in order to support their conclusions about the actions of the city.

The investigation will tell us all we need to know both about Scott Olsen's actions, how he was injured and whether or not the police and/or the city was culpable.

Some us their military rank or arm as a form of identification....and pride.

But it is not he, the marine, that is continualy using his military background to ifentify himself. It is being used by supporters of the protesters to hit the point home as they know that many on the right look up to those in the military....

But that aside....I personally have not accused him of any wrong doing. Heck, I havent seen any video of him other than when he was already injured.

But many seemed to have already crucified the police for their actions...and even the mayor is in the wrong in my eyes....prior to any investigation, she is ASSUMING there was too much presence...when, in fact, she may find out there was no further violence BECAUSE of the presence they had.

Dam....politics is starting to dictate sound decision making.

You're right. The police don't care about a political movement. They just want to get home to their families alive and unharmed. And many of them are current or former military.

 

[earlycuyler]

Not so. One of the people that was with him commented to the guy doing the live blog that his group was there to take part in civil disobedience. The realty is that he was there to break the law and got hurt. It has also been alleged that he was hit with an object that was thrown by another protester.

Got any facts to back up your assertion that this Marine was a troublemaker out to break the law?

I'm content to wait for the investigation to be completed.

Hurt protester Scott Olsen was 'provoking no one'

"He was standing perfectly still, provoking no one," said Raleigh Latham, an Oakland filmmaker shooting footage of the confrontation between police and hundreds of protesters at 14th Street and Broadway. "If something didn't hit him directly in the face, then it went off close to his head and knocked him down."

Scott Olsen Attacked for Using First Amendment Rights, Says His Uncle: SFist

Olsen's uncle, George Nygaard, who discussed Olsen's ordeal. “Even when people were going to rescue Scott on the ground they fire and exploding tear gas grenades right amongst them," Nygaard said.......Nygaard claimed that Olsen was at Tuesday night's protest to serve as a peacemaker between the protestors and the law enforcement. He goes on to say that Olsen was attacked for his first amendment rights, something that Olsen and other soldiers were (allegedly, but probably not) fighting for in the middle east.

“He’s somebody who went over there and fought for our freedom comes back and is viciously attacked for exercising his first amendment rights," he said.

I already linked it many times in another thread, and I will again direct you to the live blog of the incident as it was going down. He was there to CIVILLY disobey the order to clear the area, notice I did not say throw rocks or instigate or participate in a riot, but he did answer the call for reinforcements that went out . He was not viciously attacked, if anything he is the victim of circumstance. The kid was not attacked. There is no evidence that he was.

 

[Divine Wind]

It was easy for anyone to assume the police acted "stupidly"...but when you look at all possibilities, they may have acted appropriately.

Perhaps, but my point is that this was primarily a failure of leadership. I'm not directing my comments to the police officer who pulled the trigger, but at the leaders who put him/her in that position. Hence my comments about outsmarting the agitators, being smarter than a mob and "working smarter, not harder".

 

[Jarhead]

It was easy for anyone to assume the police acted "stupidly"...but when you look at all possibilities, they may have acted appropriately.

Perhaps, but my point is that this was primarily a failure of leadership. I'm not directing my comments to the police officer who pulled the trigger, but at the leaders who put him/her in that position. Hence my comments about outsmarting the agitators, being smarter than a mob and "working smarter, not harder".

Perhaps...but in the spirit of an honest debate...

Maybe the investigation will find that if, in fact, tear gas was not used, the result would have been a lot worse than it was.

So again, you are referring to it as a failure of leadership. And maybe it was. Or maybe the outcome was the best possible outcome. But you have already determined it was a fialure of leadership.....but maybe we wil find that the only real failure in leadership is a mayor who opts to CHANGE tactics to appease political and social pressure before knowing for sure all of the facts and what went wrong.....and whether or not anything DID go wrong. An injured civilian does not mean something went wrong.

She very well may be poutting the protesters, the public and the police in grave danger by giving into the surrounding pressure before knowing all of the facts.

Am I wrong?

 

[Divine Wind]

Some us their military rank or arm as a form of identification....and pride.

True, and there's nothing wrong with that. It's only when we (I'm retired military) seek to use those credentials in lieu of facts to justify a position that we actually harm both our service record and our service.

People who call other people idiots and then use their military service as proof that they know what they are talking about are just being lazy. You're not guilty of this, but I'm sure you've seen people do it both on this forum and in the news such as when John Kerry threw his ribbons over a fence.

If we start denying people their right to using their background as a resume for politics, a lot of politicians, both left and right, will suffer. We can't say one guy can do it because we agree with their politics but another guy can't because we disagree with their politics.

 

[Jarhead]

Some us their military rank or arm as a form of identification....and pride.

True, and there's nothing wrong with that. It's only when we (I'm retired military) seek to use those credentials in lieu of facts to justify a position that we actually harm both our service record and our service.

People who call other people idiots and then use their military service as proof that they know what they are talking about are just being lazy. You're not guilty of this, but I'm sure you've seen people do it both on this forum and in the news such as when John Kerry threw his ribbons over a fence.

If we start denying people their right to using their background as a resume for politics, a lot of politicians, both left and right, will suffer. We can't say one guy can do it because we agree with their politics but another guy can't because we disagree with their politics.

Well said.

 

[Divine Wind]

Maybe the investigation will find that if, in fact, tear gas was not used, the result would have been a lot worse than it was.

Once it reached that point, tear gas was probably the only way to handle it. My point about "failure of leadership" was that it should never have reached that level.

Good leaders don't let situations within their command to deteriorate beyond their control or where they have to employ extreme measures to quell trouble. Can you imagine what would happen to a Navy Captain who let the moral and lack of discipline aboard his ship deteriorate to the point where he had to use tear gas to regain control?

While civilians aren't military and the Constitution is looser than the UCMJ, the analogy is still similar because the Mayor had several days to act before it culminated in a near-riot requiring the use of tear gas to stop.

 

[earlycuyler]

Of course the police are in the right, they never do any wrong.

No, not always. Oakland especially has had its issues.

 

[Jarhead]

Some us their military rank or arm as a form of identification....and pride.

True, and there's nothing wrong with that. It's only when we (I'm retired military) seek to use those credentials in lieu of facts to justify a position that we actually harm both our service record and our service.

People who call other people idiots and then use their military service as proof that they know what they are talking about are just being lazy. You're not guilty of this, but I'm sure you've seen people do it both on this forum and in the news such as when John Kerry threw his ribbons over a fence.

If we start denying people their right to using their background as a resume for politics, a lot of politicians, both left and right, will suffer. We can't say one guy can do it because we agree with their politics but another guy can't because we disagree with their politics.

But it bothers me when a third party uses someones military background to make a point...such as when I hear "an Irqui vet is injured by the police.
The fact that he is a vet is irrelevant to the topic at hand...and his service is being used to pushhome a point.
In my eyes, no one has the right to try to gain by using the heroism of one of our military.

And thank you, personally, for your service.

 

[Divine Wind]

But it bothers me when a third party uses someones military background to make a point...such as when I hear "an Irqui vet is injured by the police.
The fact that he is a vet is irrelevant to the topic at hand...and his service is being used to pushhome a point.
In my eyes, no one has the right to try to gain by using the heroism of one of our military.

And thank you, personally, for your service.

Thank you for yours.

Yes, it's obvious some people are trying to make political hay out it, but what are you going to do? Didn't Glenn Beck make political hay with his "non-political" Restore Honor rally? He used the military as a jumping board for his own political agenda. Should he have been allowed to do it? Although I agree with you that the political agendas of third parties using the military to further their goals is deplorable, I do not believe we should stop it since it puts us on a perilous path. This isn't "Stolen Valor" where people are lying about a service record, but just profiting off of it. Not nice, not honorable and I'll happily call it out when I see it, but we shouldn't stop it.

 

[Jarhead]

Maybe the investigation will find that if, in fact, tear gas was not used, the result would have been a lot worse than it was.

Once it reached that point, tear gas was probably the only way to handle it. My point about "failure of leadership" was that it should never have reached that level.

Good leaders don't let situations within their command to deteriorate beyond their control or where they have to employ extreme measures to quell trouble. Can you imagine what would happen to a Navy Captain who let the moral and lack of discipline aboard his ship deteriorate to the point where he had to use tear gas to regain control?

While civilians aren't military and the Constitution is looser than the UCMJ, the analogy is still similar because the Mayor had several days to act before it culminated in a near-riot requiring the use of tear gas to stop.

we are talking about a clash between two groups......a captain is expected to control his crew and not need to use tear gas. He has had the time to earn their respect.

A better analogy is a captain of a ship and a non related ship of unarmed bandits trying to board his ship. He does his best to fend the off and warn them to stay away....if they refuse and he fires tear gas to repel them...would you say it is a failure of leadership?

I liked some of the ideas you proposed earlier reagrding how the mayor could have quelled it well before the protest began.

But in regard to the poilice force......would you say there was a failure of leadership there?

What should the CO of the police presence have done?