'Occupy' types

[firstdown]

I wouldn't attack him personally he did serve two tours in Iraq.

[NC_Skins]

And here comes the smear campaign right on queue. The public have a hero or symbol they can get behind, the media will smear his name right into the ground regardless if it's true or not.

/facepalm

Even if the guy hates the marines, does it discredit anything he's done for our country or his time served? Not in the least.

[firstdown]

The cops should have just told the crowd that a bus load of under age skanks just showed up down the road and they would have taken off running. Instead of warning them about the use of tear gas.

[mlmpetert]

Im in the middle on this. Im nearly positive the injuries to the Marine came from a tear gas container or other crowd disbursement weapon fired from the police. But the guy should have fled once the police started firing tear gas, instead he just stood there and took on the risk that something could happen. If he had left he wouldn’t have been hit by a canister and perhaps the police wouldn’t have had the need to fire additional canisters. I think police abuse powers but that doesn’t give me the right not to pull over when a cop car flashes his lights, or waive my responsibility to disperse when they fire tear gas at me.

[CRedskinsRule]

Again, not making excuses for the cops, but a couple things on that video, and preface with I wasn't there. one, once the guy was down, if a crowd surrounds him that is a threat to the police's safety. NC_Skins, you say no one was trying to get the police, but from the police's view it only takes one instigator hidden in the crowd of people helping Olsen to throw an incendiary device, and a whole bunch of police would be hurt. That crowd gathered fast, and the reaction is to disperse them just as fast. Second, and again, I don't know this, but if the cops did want to help Olsen, they would need to go past that barricade, or the medics would, and a gathered crowd would prevent that, so again, they would need to be dispersed. The grenade actually landed past the crowd, just a bit (not a lot) if you watch the highlighted portion from 1:37 on.

You also can't tell what happened to Olsen originally, but it is odd that everyone else was clearing out that area, while he stood there seemingly unaware of anything.

[Alvin Walton]

Originally Posted by CRedskinsRule

Again, not making excuses for the cops, but a couple things on that video, and preface with I wasn't there. one, once the guy was down, if a crowd surrounds him that is a threat to the police's safety. NC_Skins, you say no one was trying to get the police, but from the police's view it only takes one instigator hidden in the crowd of people helping Olsen to throw an incendiary device, and a whole bunch of police would be hurt. That crowd gathered fast, and the reaction is to disperse them just as fast. Second, and again, I don't know this, but if the cops did want to help Olsen, they would need to go past that barricade, or the medics would, and a gathered crowd would prevent that, so again, they would need to be dispersed. The grenade actually landed past the crowd, just a bit (not a lot) if you watch the highlighted portion from 1:37 on.

You also can't tell what happened to Olsen originally, but it is odd that everyone else was clearing out that area, while he stood there seemingly unaware of anything.

Yea, he just stood there stock still thru the whole thing.
Kinda weird that a combat veteran would allow himself to be exposed like that.

And I agree that a cop lobbed a flash bang in the group of people trying to help him.

[JoeRedskin]

I am at work and can't view the clip. With that caveat, here's my two cents:

Given the numbers involved and the fact that protests are all taking place in the heart of very busy cities, I would suggest that the fact that only one protester has been seriously injured is a testament to the restraint of both the police and the protestors. I would suggest that, had the OWS movement tried this stunt in the 50's, 60's or even early 70's, that the level of violence would have been significantly higher. I commend both sides for conducting a mostly civil, mostly peaceful protest that is mostly safe to the property and person of those not choosing to be part of the protest. I do not doubt there will be an investigation into Mr. Scott's injury and, if the police are determined to have acted in an unprofessional manner that caused harm, sanctions will follow (again, crowd control has come a long way since the 60's - as I am not convinced such an investigation would have happened then).

Crowd control by police of large - otherwise peaceful - crowds is an innately tricky, tense affair. Crowds can become mobs quickly and a mob can become a dangerous, powerful force of indiscriminate destruction just as quickly. Thus, what starts as a peaceful protest can quickly turn into an uncontrollable destructive force - have we already forgotten London?

If the police have been heavy handed at times, I would suggest that, in countless confrontations, they have also dispersed disruptive crowds in a manner consistent with the law and with the rights of citizens who either oppose or chose to ignore the protest. As I have said before, non-OWS folks have the right to go about their lives without being subjected to illegal traffic/pedestrian obstructions by the OWS. OWS may have the right to protest, but everyone else has the right to use public property to get to work, school or simply for their own lawful enjoyment of the same. Only a fool would fail to see that, for the police doing so, balancing the rights of these two groups is an extremely tricky and dangerous proposition.

I would hope all agree that some type of police monitoring of any large, organized crowd is necessary - particularly in city settings where close contact with individuals not part of the protest is both imminent and can occur in large volume. Further, in such settings, the congested nature of buildings and people exponentially increase the number of potential "sparks" that could turn the crowd to mob and mob to violence. Obviously, the police themselves also create, by their mere presense, potential conflict and is something that must be considered in determining the size and nature of the police presence.

All of this is simply to say, despite the recent portrayal of the police as a bunch of goose stepping stormtroopers, I believe that they have, in the main, acted with professionalism and have managed a tense situation well. Not perfectly - but well. The protestors have rights but so do the rest of the public and balancing those competing rights on the streets, in the middle of a congested metropolis, day after day is not an easy affair.

Again, in light of all the surrounding circumstances, I commend both sides on the lack of violence, damage and/or injury to protesters, police, property and non-participants.

[NC_Skins]

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

Given the numbers involved and the fact that protests are all taking place in the heart of very busy cities, I would suggest that the fact that only one protester has been seriously injured is a testament to the restraint of both the police and the protestors. I would suggest that, had the OWS movement tried this stunt in the 50's, 60's or even early 70's, that the level of violence would have been significantly higher. I commend both sides for conducting a mostly civil, mostly peaceful protest that is mostly safe to the property and person of those not choosing to be part of the protest. I do not doubt there will be an investigation into Mr. Scott's injury and, if the police are determined to have acted in an unprofessional manner that caused harm, sanctions will follow (again, crowd control has come a long way since the 60's - as I am not convinced such an investigation would have happened then). .

I can agree with a majority of what you said, and without a doubt it's no easy task to monitor that many people all the while having your other duties. If anything, you just block the area and let it be. No sense of igniting something that shouldn't be ignited. Who cares in the end if a street or two is blocked off?

I disagree with the "investigation" bullshit though. How many times have we seen these "investigations" only to clear the cop of any and all wrong doing even though there is significant evidence to prove otherwise? Hell, even the cops in the Rodney King beating were cleared...lol That's my biggest issue with cops now. It's not that cops do these bad things, it's that their leadership covers for them and hides the truth.

[JoeRedskin]

Originally Posted by NC_Skins

I can agree with a majority of what you said, and without a doubt it's no easy task to monitor that many people all the while having your other duties. If anything, you just block the area and let it be. No sense of igniting something that shouldn't be ignited. Who cares in the end if a street or two is blocked off?

Except that everyone, not just the protestors have a right to use public property. What if you live or work there? What if your livelihood requires others to be able to reach you there? What if your health or safety requires routine access to the area either b/c you live there or you need something from the area? As usual, it's just not as simple as you try to make it.

Originally Posted by NC_Skins

I disagree with the "investigation" bullshit though. How many times have we seen these "investigations" only to clear the cop of any and all wrong doing even though there is significant evidence to prove otherwise? Hell, even the cops in the Rodney King beating were cleared...lol That's my biggest issue with cops now. It's not that cops do these bad things, it's that their leadership covers for them and hides the truth.

Undoubtedly, cops cover up cops actions. At the same time, I would suggest that police are also being subject to sanctions more often than at any time in history. In the era of internet, facebook and youtube, it is much more difficult for officers to escape scrutiny as they have in the past. Are there still abuses? Undoubtedly. Is there more accountability than there was even 30 years ago? I believe that also to be true.

And just so we're clear, rather than demonstrating a will to cover things up, I would suggest that the Rodney King affair demonstrates just how far the government will go to pursue justice when it comes to police abuse. The cops in the Rodney King beating were criminally charged and found not guilty by a jury who viewed the entire video not just the portions released to the public. They were subsequently recharged with civil rights violations and found guilty. Bottom line is, the State went to great lengths to secure significant sanctions of those cops.

But I digress ...

[NC_Skins]

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

And just so we're clear, rather than demonstrating a will to cover things up, I would suggest that the Rodney King affair demonstrates just how far the government will go to pursue justice when it comes to police abuse. The cops in the Rodney King beating were criminally charged and found not guilty by a jury who viewed the entire video not just the portions released to the public. They were subsequently recharged with civil rights violations and found guilty. Bottom line is, the State went to great lengths to secure significant sanctions of those cops.

But I digress ...

State lost out. It was the Feds that got the civil rights conviction.

Let's be honest. The only reason the Feds even bothered is because of the riot (and racial explosion) that happened after the not guilty verdict. There have been a many of other cases where it gets swept under the rug. You know this and I know this.

Had there been no video, this would have never came to light.

[saden1]

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

Except that everyone, not just the protestors have a right to use public property. What if you live or work there? What if your livelihood requires others to be able to reach you there? What if your health or safety requires routine access to the area either b/c you live there or you need something from the area? As usual, it's just not as simple as you try to make it.



Undoubtedly, cops cover up cops actions. At the same time, I would suggest that police are also being subject to sanctions more often than at any time in history. In the era of internet, facebook and youtube, it is much more difficult for officers to escape scrutiny as they have in the past. Are there still abuses? Undoubtedly. Is there more accountability than there was even 30 years ago? I believe that also to be true.

And just so we're clear, rather than demonstrating a will to cover things up, I would suggest that the Rodney King affair demonstrates just how far the government will go to pursue justice when it comes to police abuse. The cops in the Rodney King beating were criminally charged and found not guilty by a jury who viewed the entire video not just the portions released to the public. They were subsequently recharged with civil rights violations and found guilty. Bottom line is, the State went to great lengths to secure significant sanctions of those cops.

But I digress ...

Give me a fcking break...the real bottom line is they were caught giving an Oscar worthy beat-down and managed to avoided getting their salad tossed in prison. It's no secrete that in America 10 white jurors let alone one is one too many to criminally convict white police officers "doing their job."

But hey, everyone deserves a fair trial and not guilty means not guilty. If lady Karma got to O.J. I am confident she will get at them too..

[JoeRedskin]

Originally Posted by saden1

Give me a fcking break...the real bottom line is they were caught giving an Oscar worthy beat-down and managed to avoided getting their salad tossed in prison. It's no secrete that in America 10 white jurors let alone one is one too many to criminally convict white police officers "doing their job."

But hey, everyone deserves a fair trial and not guilty means not guilty. If lady Karma got to O.J. I am confident she will get at them too..

Okay, fine. I am not in any way shape or form defend the cops in the R. King matter. My only point is that, while still benefitting from internal protections, police are subject to higher levels of scrutiny and are subject to sanction than at any time in the past.

[SmootSmack]

JoeRedskin shutting everyone up once again

[over the mountain]

that officer who threw the flash gernande is a POS.

he deliberately threw it nonchalantly underhanded (without moving his body or arms, just flicking his wrist underhanded) so a video perhaps wouldnt pick it up.

what a POS. there are a bunch of stupid power tripping dirty cops. ive had run ins with them ive written about on here, weve all seen the various videos we sometimes post on here.

there are some bad ones, some good ones. but it really gets me that this guy knew he was doing somehting dirty b/c he tried to do it inconspicuously which clearly shows an intentional malicious act with knowledge it was wrong.

[Chico23231]

Originally Posted by over the mountain

that officer who threw the flash gernande is a POS.
he deliberately threw it nonchalantly underhanded (without moving his body or arms, just flicking his wrist underhanded) so a video perhaps wouldnt pick it up.

what a POS. there are a bunch of stupid power tripping dirty cops. ive had run ins with them ive written about on here, weve all seen the various videos we sometimes post on here.

there are some bad ones, some good ones. but it really gets me that this guy knew he was doing somehting dirty b/c he tried to do it inconspicuously which clearly shows an intentional malicious act with knowledge it was wrong.

Thats the type of thing you see in communist China. Really no excuse. Especially after beating down an unarmed iraq war vet. Pathetic use of force by the police.