Remember Oakland OWS Scott Olsen who was shot in the head ? Oakland lost in a several big lawsuits !

Lederman explained, “The commanders knew the teargas and flashbangs would cause people to panic and run, yet they elected to shoot SIM into the densely packed crowd and it is only a matter of luck that more people weren’t injured as severely as Scott Olsen or killed. If the police had done sufficient planning for the demonstration and followed their own Crowd Control Policy, the use of weapons could have entirely been avoided. After all, no other Bay Area city responded to Occupy with SIM or teargas and no other city has incurred the enormous costs that the people of Oakland have as a result

www.activistpost.com...

A lead filled “bean bag” round, fired from a 12 gauge shotgun, shattered Scott’s skull... Duh! Anyone who knows anything about that (less than an lethal) round at close range could expect nothing less except instant death; it is not fired at the head but the body and leaves a very nasty bruise. These lawsuits may be a big win for future protesters if it stops what happened in Oakland during any future protest.

Settlement, hell. When are they going to charge the police who did this criminally? Oh, right, they won't even fire them. Because cops.

To toss in a couple cents on this in having written about it and watched it when it happened on Livestream feeds, I think the OP article's view is both right and wrong. Far more right than wrong, but having had the ammo they did wasn't the problem. Bean bag guns were also seen at the BofA Building in L.A. when that camp was taken down by the LAPD. In fact, one ran the muzzle right across the crowd with the color clear for which type of shotgun it was. It happened to be a few feet from a Livestreamer who got it broadcast for posterity.

Oakland, California is no wonderland and absolutely no peaceful or nice place. Simple crime stats will support that in plain numbers and have for decades as it's reputation is well earned. I think the cops were scared. Scared and not terribly wise in some of that decision making. Having tear gas isn't what bothered me for seeing and I don't recall that being what people were outraged about at the time, either. Everyone in the camps was ready for that and street medics had cures to all irritants which ailed the unfortunate protester.

It's that one cop. Just one. Chose to take aim and shoot Scott in the head. Directly. No games and no B.S.. Scott Olsen and his Navy buddy from Vets for Peace were standing tall, without hesitating or flinching...and without threatening, and I think it pissed off one cop more than his self control could handle.

The crowd as a whole WAS a threat and the cops were scared for good reasons...but at least one chose to try killing one of the most harmless protesters on-site. (Vets for Peace are SO anti-violence, I almost had hard words on the matter with one in camp at St Louis..but I respect them for the depth of conviction on it)

The rest I saw that night (again, on live feeds running then) fired to the ground and used deflected shots, as it's supposed to be, if ever at that close a range, anyway. All except one of course, for those who didn't watch it then, it's at 4:34 on the vid. That was sadistic to the point of criminal. Felony criminal, in the true sense, in my opinion. That dropped the banger right on TOP of someone laying prone and the tight knot rendering aid. If the head shot didn't kill him already, he had a guardian angel in that the flash bang grenade didn't, for adding to it.

Careers should have flat out ended over that, and for cause...not just those for political expediency.

Bedlam
Settlement, hell. When are they going to charge the police who did this criminally? Oh, right, they won't even fire them. Because cops.

I agree. Until the thugs who do this kind of stuff are punished the same as us worthless citizens, it don't mean crap.

reply to post by 727Sky




I hope something bad happens to all the cops that let this happen

For those that think this result would somehow keep other cops from repeating this type of irresponsible action --- yeah, keep dreaming. If that was the case, then we would be seeing a decline in police using brutality. We arent seeing a decline so why would anyone believe the decline will start due to this result. Cops have tunnel-vision. They act first and expect their corrupt department to cover their asses in the aftermath. They arent smart enough (see IQ requirements) to learn from others' mistakes. The word "animals" comes to mind.

Sure, there are some good cops out there. Yada yada yada.

There are good bankers out there too.

Wrabbit2000

It's that one cop. Just one. Chose to take aim and shoot Scott in the head. Directly. No games and no B.S.. Scott Olsen and his Navy buddy from Vets for Peace were standing tall, without hesitating or flinching...and without threatening, and I think it pissed off one cop more than his self control could handle.

Hi, Mr Cop. Ok, did you have training on this weapon? (yes/no)
if NO - go to negligent homicide
if YES -

Mr Cop, did you sign the document at the end of class that attests you had the training? (yes/no)
if NO, proceed to negligent homicide
if YES, get your trainer's name and proceed to:

Did the material include a statement saying that the weapon could be lethal if fired at too close a range, and if fired at the eyes/face/head?
If YES: proceed to Murder II, give cop life without parole
If NO: charge cop with manslaughter and trainer in civil suit for wrongful death

I'm not seeing how you don't charge at all, and not even dismiss the guy. I'd add in - police union keeping cop from being fired - proceed to RICO investigation of FOP.

The crowd as a whole WAS a threat and the cops were scared for good reasons...but at least one chose to try killing one of the most harmless protesters on-site.

I agree the cop CHOSE to shoot this guy in the face at close range. For which he should do hard time. And he ought to be made an example of before his peers; I like the old Danny Deever method where you put the guy on display and cut the ID off his uniform in a sort of ritual. I guess hanging him at the end of it and marching his buddies past the twitching peeing body is sort of out of the question. Alas.

Careers should have flat out ended over that, and for cause...not just those for political expediency.

Yet he won't even be dismissed, because of police unions, and the fact that the police are allowed to police themselves, and the prosecutor won't bring charges because it's a conflict of interest.

We need a totally independent authority for prosecuting police that's incentivized to put cops in jail, not terrorized away from it by political pressure. No feedback, no change. "Oh, so IA decided you were in the clear? How cute. Turn around and put your hands behind your back or the guys with the M16's will blow you and your buddies a new one. Please, please, one of you try resisting" would go a long way towards stopping this sort of thing.

reply to post by Bedlam


I agree with your last point entirely as one of the core reforms which would change a great deal in one move. If we have a form of effective oversight/review boards for police action which are independent of the department AND the political system it's a part of, we might see the % of criminals who happen to have badges be culled from the majority who are trying to support families and make one day to the next in earning retirement.

In terms of the cop out there? I sure hope my generally pro-police position in life isn't mistaken in this case. Pro-Police in general terms absolutely never means I don't call 'em like I see 'em, damn who may be offended. In this case? You're kind and generous with negligent homicide.

I'd have called that 2nd degree murder, if Scott had been killed. If fact, depending on which attack killed him ...had he not been as strong as he is...that could have worked charging twice. The animal that shot him point blank in the face, and the one that threw a damn grenade at his head, while he was down and half conscious.

(I say 2nd, because I believe that cop chose who he was going to put down with that shot, well before the confrontation started for real). Vets for Peace are like that. You love 'em..or really really really hate them for how maddeningly unflappable they are, no matter what. Guards in front of Buckingham Palace could take lessons from some of those guys, I swear.

It's amazing how many people I run into in the RL today where the subject comes up, who have only the media's view of what Occupy was or who was a part of it, outside chaotic and angry media scenes like Oakland that night. Even there tho.....among that crowd, the only one who likely would have stood there for a full beat down without so much as raising a hand in defense...is the one to have gotten shot. (sigh)

reply to post by Wrabbit2000


Bull, You forget one thing.

PEACEFUL PROTEST.

This wasn't a riot, this was an Occupy protest they didn't want there.

They sent the cops in to bust it up.

This is police state apologetics.

The cops where scared.

Damn right they should be scared, They shot a Protesting Citizen in the head, un-armed and Peaceful.

They are lucky it didn't turn into the Shot heard round world Part 2.

WTF is wrong with people excusing this, every cop there and who gave the order to disperse the crowd in that manner should be facing criminal Liability if not worse.

reply to post by benrl


I always said these Occupy folks and other non-violent protestors should take a page from the 2nd A open-carry protestors.

When's the last time some cops blasted somebody at an open carry march or rushed in to quick-cuff a bunch of armed non-violent protestors holding signs?

Cops are bullies and bullies often balk when met with resistance. Real resistance. Not just the "go limp" variety.

That rifle over a shoulder or pistol on a hip represents a line most cops do not want to cross.

reply to post by thisguyrighthere


Maybe they should,

Because according to ATS, cops being afraid is enough of an excuse to open up with Tear gas and Bean bags on Peaceful protesters.

...


Apparently we might just need the 2nd so we can exercise the 1st...

reply to post by benrl

Bull, You forget one thing.

PEACEFUL PROTEST.

Sell that to someone who wasn't a part of it and up to their eyeballs in it. I was, thanks..and peaceful protest was as much Occupy propaganda as saying they were all combat camps was State propaganda. Both statements hold truth...and both statements were B.S.. It was all situational when Occupy stretched across all 50 U.S. States and in most cases, multiple camps within each at it's peak point (around the time this was happening to Scott Olsen).

Among the movement at that time in America, there absolutely were combat camps that CHOSE to fight and openly engage law enforcement. They didn't defend...they sought out and engaged. To each their own..and the camp I was a part of absolutely did not do that. In any way. We had an actual liaison with St Louis PD assigned for easy contact when trouble arose..and it occasionally did. That is HOW different Occupy was for who formed it.

Not every camp was 'offensive' minded, but Oakland absolutely was. Not every camp burned American flags to piss off the public Occupy BADLY NEEDED TO RALLY, not alienate. Oakland did, and a whole lot more in the long day to day of the protests at the time.

benrl
reply to post by thisguyrighthere

 

Apparently we might just need the 2nd so we can exercise the 1st...

All rights go hand in hand.

The 2nd is what kept the Panthers from being hosed or becoming dog meat. The response from the gov was to ban open carry.

If you are unarmed and the cops are armed you are just # to them. If you are both armed you suddenly become equals.

Unarmed protest is in reality today as futile as the chances of a bait dog winning against a trained and angry bull.

reply to post by Wrabbit2000


Every things peaceful until they sweep through.

THE police action caused the violence.

what where the Cops injury total again from this "violent riot"


Ill wait while you get the Police death toll from ULTRA VIOLENT OAKLAND, that needed to have protesters shot in the head...

reply to post by benrl


You would condemn law and order, as a concept in itself, by condemning every law enforcement Officer in the bay area that night. There were mutual aid calls out from early that evening with aid staged and some in closer in case Occupy decided to over-run those police lines. The cops were holding the square Occupy had been evicted from that morning, and Occupy was there to TAKE IT BACK. That isn't defensive. That isn't the police starting the engagement. It undermines legitimate points of abuse and excess when we don't keep perspective to the fact there were very much two sides to each individual event, across the months that formed the movement in 2011. Some good, some very bad and across both sides.

There is no excuse. I've said this a few times now. No excuse, of any kind, for that cop to have aimed and delivered a head shot to a protester. Any protester, but damn sure not THAT one. However, I can never and will never subscribe to the concept of collective guilt or group punishment for the actions of individuals. One cop tried to kill him that night, OR, engaged in a sick action with total reckless disregard for whether that was the outcome or not.

What that video DOES NOT SHOW and which those watching Livestream that night did see and hear about (I'm not the only one here at ATS who was, I know that for sure) were the law enforcement teams also on the lower buildings around Occupy and particularly behind the police lines, facing up into Occupy's line of retreat.

HAD Law enforcement wanted to re-stage the People's Park Massacre, they absolutely could have and that isn't what happened. Just a couple cops losing all control...and normal people go to prison for that. They should too. The guilty ones. Not every one out there at the time.

Glad to see some level of Justice, although I'm sure the police "officials" are still collecting paychecks.

reply to post by Wrabbit2000


What you post about the deliberate shot to the head by the cop reminds me of the observations of Philip Zimbardo who ran the Stanford Prison Experiment back in the 70's. He wrote a book about it entitled The Lucifer Effect.

Humans are interesting...

Good news for Scott Olsen.