reply to post by jefwane
Unfortunately I do especially in a city where a very short time ago you have a cop murder a handcuffed man in the prone position. I know it was
a BART cop that did that but still.
Again - I don't buy it.
Just as you don't buy that these protesters were doing something that could be reasonably construed as hostile.
The truth is likely a mix of an antagonistic group of individuals and an overzealous officer.
Although there are other factors to consider - plenty of protesters were bearing quite an arsenal of impromptu "artillery." We see paint cans,
glass bottles, and others being lobbed at the officers. Everyone -should- know that artillery comes with the greatest risk of friendly fire.
Shoulder-fired variants are no exception.
(Just in case you didn't notice - I'm aiming to be comical with my choice of wording - I'm not seriously trying to classify lobbed objects as some
type of field artillery).
Are you trying to say that most of the injured as well as large numbers of the veterans protesting in Oakland are gang members? Olsen appears
to be exactly the type of kid you'd want representing your country. Did his duty, came home, got a good job, and was taking care of himself pretty
well. That seems pretty slanderous to me.
I am simply stating observations. There are more than a few instances where "blue on blue" crime is the result of gang influences and warfare.
Most of the injured in the videos I've seen, however, displayed no obvious affiliation with any veteran group. In fact - I have mentioned, prior,
that the group of veterans is notably absent from the videos of his 'extraction.'
Police forces are also known to have been infiltrated by gangs.
Think a little outside the box, here, and we see a range of scenarios enter into consideration - it is possible that many of the more contentious
groups that did approach the line were comprised largely of, or rooted in gang influence (they dislike the cops, anyway). A member of a rival gang
happens to be in the ranks of the hundreds of police officers there, and decides to take a pot-shot at a group that appear to be mostly members of a
rival gang. Olsen catches the brunt of it.
There's also another angle. Conflict between civilians and police is a beneficial arrangement for many gangs - who already behave like warlords and
fill the power vacuum in areas that do not function according to the same laws and principles the rest of us do. Strengthening hostilities between
protesters and police further weakens police departments and destabilizes society, as a whole (more voids of power to be filled by gangs).
That can work from either or both sides of the fence (quite literally, in this incident). Gang members within police forces could be instructed to
instigate hostilities - and gang members participating in the protests can also be instructed to instigate hostilities. ... Works even better if you
have people coordinating on both sides.
"Aim, you are saying Olsen is a gang member?"
No. Gang members don't have to be injured for such a strategy to function. He could have simply been in the wrong place at the wrong time
(foolishly, perhaps - but that doesn't place him as being part of a conspiracy).
As for Olsen - he doesn't impress me one bit. I've met a hundred others who have done multiple tours in Iraq and Afghanistan. It kind of dilutes
the -wow- factor, particularly when he shows up in a haphazard array of uniform articles mixed with civilian attire. I'd have more respect for him
if he simply wore that T-shirt he has on under his blouse and stood at attention.
It's important to show those against the OWS movement that there are large numbers of people who have served who are pissed about how the
actions of the 1% have permanently harmed our country.
Stop it. You're making yourself sound retarded and affiliating yourself with the military.
What "1%" are we talking about? The military is less than 1% of the population. Less than 2% of the population are even eligible for military
service. I represent the top 1% in tests of knowledge and intellectual performance.
You don't even display a reasonable understanding of the problem in this country - much less how to go about resolving it.
Dragging your veteran status into it is just manipulative. I has -no- bearing on your opinion, whatsoever. Read my other posts that slaughter the
points you just made, I don't have room or patience to do it, here.
Your veteran status doesn't make you more or less relevant than anyone else there, or anywhere. Your -experience- can be worth something in various
situations - but affiliation is, generally, irrelevant. I'm equal opportunity - you're wrong when you are wrong, and you are right when you are
right. The rest is idle.