US Marine in critical condition after OccupyOakland

reply to post by RealAmerican23

I JUST FIGURED THIS OUT AND HAD TO CREATE AN ATS ACCOUNT IMMEDIATELY TO LET PEOPLE KNOW WTF IS GOING ON!!!! THE WHOLE REASON OBAMA IS BRINGING THE TROOPS FROM IRAQ BACK HOME IS SO THAT THEY CAN RELEASE THEM INTO AMERICA TO PATROL US(MARTIAL LAW!!!!). ALL THE TROOPS ARE PROBABLY IN A CRAZY STATE OF MIND RIGHT NOW FROM ALL THE FIGHTING THEY HAVE BEEN DOING IN THE WAR. AND ARE NOT GOING TO THINK ABOUT QUESTIONING THE GOVERNMENTS MOTIVES, THEY ARE GOING TO TELL THE TROOPS THAT THE ONES PROTESTING AND QUESTIONING THE GOVERNMENT ARE UNAMERICAN AND TERRORIST, THIS # IS SERIOUS!!!!!!!

I just had to quote this in its entirety - since it will likely get removed by mods, and it is just too precious to have these words forever obscured by a T&C violation notice.

First - the number of troops we have deployed in two countries that are a fraction of our combined population (and about the size of two of our smaller 50 states) - would simply disappear in our landmass. The entire U.S. Armed Forces (this includes cooks and others not trained/qualified for combat) includes less than 1% of the population.

Police and military will not be able to contain widespread rioting. Period. Delusions of martial law are just that - delusions. It is mathematically impossible to enact such a scenario.

As for soldiers "being in a crazed state of mind" and "believing whatever the government tells them."

.... It's an adorable statement. I'll put it that way.

Honestly, the military tends to have more libertarian/anarchist-leaning types than it does any others. You have a few liberals, and you have a few 'traditionalists' (not really conservative in my opinion, as they typically are very liberal when it comes to moral issues - wanting to legislate morality and otherwise authorize government intrusion into personal affairs on a moral/religious/ethical pretense)... but, mostly - the people in the military are not there to be servants of the state.

reply to post by Aim64C

That's quite an illogical conclusion to come to

I didn't say that the little violence we did see was caused by under cover officers (agent provocateurs if you will) I just said it would not surprise me.The training we did before the G-8 summit at the Georgia Law Enforcement Training Center in Forsyth was eye opening. Their was a company that provided about 500 or so fake protesters. I'd say their were 150+ agents whose job would be to be in the crowd training there. That was one weekend of training they did two or three so various Guard units and State Patrolmen could rotate through. I never believed in the idea of agent provocateurs till then. A couple of years later I saw the youtube from one of the protests in Canada where undercover cops tried starting the violence unfortunately for them the protesters found and told a head of a rather large union, it was much discussed on here and there is great video of it floating around.

I'm sorry. I don't buy that these protesters were just milling about, minding their own business when a police officer just decides to shoot one of them in the face with some kind of intermediate weapon.

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.

Although - I will point out, as I did before, the intriguing number of symbols demonstrating gang affiliations on many of the people displaying injuries in those videos. It is known that a number of gangs have embedded members into both military and law enforcement ranks - it's a growing problem. There is also that facet to be considered, here - from multiple angles. First - I would imagine a fair number of the confrontational groups have a disproportionate representation of gang members compared to other micro-demographics (these groups were largely composed of gang members).

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.

However, I find it somewhat manipulative that you would drag your -irrelevant- military affiliation into the mix.

Point taken and considered, but let me put it this way. 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.Outsourcing, Bailouts, "Free Trade", and the evisceration of our industrial base are just a few of the issues I tend to side with OWS on.
Something is systemically wrong in our country right now, and I think OWS has correctly identified the source. I don't agree with(and despise some) every group who aligns with OWS but they have just as much right to speak their mind as me.

reply to post by Xcathdra


A pursuit and a protest don't have that much in common.

A pursuit can cover multiple jurisdictions by it's nature. The protest is confined to fairly small area, and you had said initially that OPD were the only LEO's there.

Now that the rubber bullet evidence comes out they say there were other agencies, but before that they claimed it wasn't possible since they were the only agency there and they don't have them.

It's much more confusing than it should be.

Originally posted by Xcathdra
reply to post by jefwane

 

As far as members of the military wearing their uniforms, I am under the impression that regardless of being in or out, they are still subject to the UCMJ?

I'm not sure how it works now, but "back in the day" you were subject to the UCMJ for the seven year period after separation when you were classified as "inactive reserve", and subject to recall. There is at least still some period that one is subject to recall, but I don't know if it's still seven years. There was a case not too long ago where an inactive reservist, a sergeant, was recalled to stand trial on charges several years after separation.

NM

Originally posted by neo96
So someone tell me what is point blank then?

Point blank is up close and personal is in less than a few inches

5 feet away is not point blank.

I swear.

"Point blank" could be 5 feet. "Point blank" is a technical term that is often misused to mean "close, but no contact". it is actually defined as the distance interval in which a given weapon requires no elevation adjustment to hit a given target, That will of course vary by weapon, by target, by the power of the ammunition used in that instance, and by weapon/ammo/target combination. A flatter trajectory gives a wider "point blank" range in general. A bigger target also gives a wider point blank range.

Then there are all the permutations of a weapon/ammo/target combination.

reply to post by nenothtu


Thanks there i will defer to your experience and knowledge guess i was always under the assumption of it being closer the thought never occurred to me that depends on variables i was not taking into consideration.

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.

Originally posted by neo96
reply to post by nenothtu

 

Thanks there i will defer to your experience and knowledge guess i was always under the assumption of it being closer the thought never occurred to me that depends on variables i was not taking into consideration.

No problem. The common misusage is what most people default to. The actual definition involves messy physics and ballistics. basically, as soon as a projectile leaves a muzzle, it starts to fall to Earth under the influence of gravity. How fast it falls is governed ONLY by gravity, but it's forward momentum dictates how far forward it moves in a given interval of drop, resulting in a "trajectory" which is influenced and manipulated by elevating the muzzle to make it got farther forward before it hits the ground.

Point Blank it the interval it is still on target without that elevation manipulation.

Once a Marine, always a Marine - a truism every Marine swears by. A bond forged by the tough trainning and real life under fire, not just by Marines, but every military man in US.

No doubt there will be some whom will disassociate from Scott's courageous activity, either honestly, or dishonestly by claiming to be a Marine, it doesnt really matter.

I too, had served in the military, and remembered vividly a day when in downtime, fellow buddies were shooting the breeze and commenting on what would happened in the event of a civil disorder and the military was to step in.

My answer was straight to the point. I would resign from my commission, take off my uniform and be sent to Leavenworth instead, than to point my rifle to an unarmed or even armed fellow citizen in a civil disobedience standoff, for there cannot be fire without smoke, the very ones whom had sweated and worked so hard to provide my salary, as well as his forefathers whom had provided social infrastructure through their taxes for me.

I could not have achieve anything by myself or my family, if not for them, and thus owe them a debt of honor and hurting/harming them is a definate no-no. I will not be able to live with myself if harm is done and be incarcerated by my conscience for life, a far more painful ordeal than a life in imprisonment.

I don't expect anyone else to follow me, for this has to come from free will and conscience. But I am sure many more will follow my stance. The military is suppose to defend the Constitution and the People, not use for the destruction of all.

If I was a cop, I would swear off riot duty and do what the noble profession was meant to do - catching crooks, terrorists, drug dealers and child slave traders. What are the causes of civil riots? Educated and civilised humans such as Americans will not riot for fun. There has to be something to it, and if the order was called to move in upon fellow citizens, it would only mean unarmed or even legally armed citizens will be destroyed by armed riot troops.

What if the order was wrong? Can I live with myself and my conscience for life? I doubt so.

In summary, best our elected leaders NEVER pit us citizens against citizens, and for just once, listen up, don't ignore, and try to find some common ground to resolve issues, We are rational humans,not animals, and no human such as Scott deserve what he got for only simply and peacefully seeking to be heard.

reply to post by SeekerofTruth101

Educated and civilised humans such as Americans will not riot for fun.

You, clearly, have no clue what country you're living in.

Educated?

Civilized?

Won't riot for fun?

.... Have you paid a bit of attention to this Occupy Wall Street movement? What do they want? How do they plan to go about accomplishing it?

These are the same people who use terms like: "banksters" and "African-American Africans" (not Black Africans...).

I'm sorry - They are, at least collectively, (and quite a few of the individuals) dumber than a bag of hammers. They are behaving anything but civilized, and they do not represent what I took an oath to protect, or the creed that defines my service:

"I am a United States Sailor.

I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States of America, and I will obey the orders of those appointed over me.

I represent the fighting spirit of the Navy, and those who have gone before me to defend Freedom and Democracy around the world.

I proudly serve my Country's Navy combat team with Honor, Courage, and Commitment.

I am committed to Excellence and the fair treatment of all."

OWS and the behavior/demands demonstrated by the leaders of the leaderless movement do not stand consistent with the values of the Constitution.

They are a domestic threat. As is an overbearing and intrusive government.

Both, from where I stand, are equal threats to the peace, stability, and quality of this Nation and its Constitutional structure.

reply to post by SeekerofTruth101


i have no issues with people wanting to hold the police accountible. out of curiosity though, in your world who holds the people accountible for their actions?

Protesting is not engaging in violent activity towards police / pther people.
Protesting is not engaging in the destruction of public or private property.
Protesting is not blocking the entrance to businesses.

while the events surrounding the marines injury are tragic, the police are not the sole party responsible for that incident, and to attempt to blame the police for all of it is a bit naieve and disenguous.

Especially when the investigation is just starting up to determine all of the events that transpired, instead of the 100 meter rush to judgment.

I guarantee that if a protestor had done this to an officer, and that protestor were arrested, people would be screaming their heads off about police brutality and how they are rushing to judgment without having all the facts.

If the protestors are demanding their rights be respected, then they must respect the rights of those they are pointing the finger at, and must respect the process in place to investigate that.

If the protestors dont accept that, then they really dont have the moral authority to challenge any laws, since they would demonstrate that those very laws mean nothing to them.

reply to post by Xcathdra


You are correct, however, the police are the ones protecting TPTB, and not the people.

That's why they will always be painted with a negative brush.


Also, their tactics as of late seem to be geared toward provoking protestors and starting fights in order to make the protestors look guilty. It's impossible to peacefully protest when cops are provoking and *potential* government plants are instigating.

Originally posted by v1rtu0s0
reply to post by Xcathdra

 

You are correct, however, the police are the ones protecting TPTB, and not the people.

That's why they will always be painted with a negative brush.


Also, their tactics as of late seem to be geared toward provoking protestors and starting fights in order to make the protestors look guilty. It's impossible to peacefully protest when cops are provoking and *potential* government plants are instigating.

For the love of God get off the damn TPTB BS. If you cant name them, tell me whwere they are at, how they are linked into all this crap, I dont want to here it as a fact. I know who my bosses are and I answer to the people, not some mysterious group parnoid people create from an overdose of meds while watching the X files.

Your constant blanket comments towards law enforcement and its motives are based on nothing but you misperception and lack of knowledge on the topic.. I make that acusation based on the continued refusal on your part to rationally look at all the evidence before opening your mouth.

People have a right to protest. they dont have a right to throw rocks, glass bottles, pain or other items at law enforcement or any other person for that matter. When they act like jackwagons, they are going to be treated as such. By the way, they are lucky all they are getting is tear gas and pepper spray. They could easily be arrested for felonious assult on emergency personel, yet none of them have.

Why?

Because the police, albeit annoyed with the juvenile behavior of some protestors and a general lack of intelligence by a larger majority of them, are giving them the leaway.

Your refusal, as well as a few other people on this site, to even acknowledge the behavior of some protestors as way out of line, leads me to beleive that it doesnt matter what occurs, your only goal is to blame people, and since you and others who are paranoid and lacking facts, insetad rely on hearsay and that paranoia.

If its something you or others dont understand, you dont take the time to look it up. You just make your own conclsuions, and in most cases, its an incorrect assumption.

Here is any easy fix for the protestors and the police. If the protestors stop throwing items at the police, the police will stop defending themselves with pepper spray, tear gas and rubber bullets.

If you dont want a flashbamg used, dont charge the damn barricade line.

It really is that simple.

Protesting does not include violence, and police response during that violence is not suppression of individual rights.

reply to post by v1rtu0s0

You are correct, however, the police are the ones protecting TPTB, and not the people.

Don't know about you, but when I show up for work in the morning, I do not appreciate a wall of protesters being in the way or giving me 'the eye' because I have a dress code to adhere to.

Then you hear about the rape, assault, and theft cases coming out of the OWS crowds.

Then, figure that a large percentage of these people aren't even residents of the city or state in which this is going on (particularly in New York's case) - and my (and many other people's) reaction is simply to want these people to go the hell home, already.

That's why they will always be painted with a negative brush.

There's something positive worth highlighting?

Also, their tactics as of late seem to be geared toward provoking protestors and starting fights in order to make the protestors look guilty. It's impossible to peacefully protest when cops are provoking and *potential* government plants are instigating.

.
.
.

For you, I have a few words for you to think over - and I really want you to take this to heart.

Will there ever cease to be "powers that be" in your life?

Will these protests -end- the feeling that you are being manipulated and controlled?

It is a phenomena that seems to be more frequent among the younger generations than the old. Now, we can speculate as to the cause - but the bottom line is that their life begins to center around the belief that there is always a "man behind the curtain."

Somewhat ironically - it is done for the security it brings to one's life. Hardships, particularly in today's complex legal and political environment, can be difficult to comprehend - and even more difficult to accept as being the product of chaos and "# happens." It is a scary thought to think that our entire civilization can crumble with a 'perfect storm' of accidents. Instead - we like to accept that it was ordained... planned "for many months" (as memes would have it). No matter how bad things are, and no matter how out of control it may seem... there's always someone behind the curtain who -does- have control, and who -does- have a plan (even if it isn't in your own best interest - your existence is now justified and centered around resisting that plan and control).

Humans are faith-based creatures. Any species capable of any shred of self-awareness will be. At some point - you have to believe it is all for something.

The problem is, many people are not aware of their own self-awareness (we'll divide by zero while we're at it) and how it impacts their mental/emotional state/health.

Yes - there are bad people in the world. Yes, some of them do have power, influence, and resources. But to believe someone puts on a uniform and suddenly becomes a mindless servant of "TPTB" is a belief and faith in a fundamental maliciousness within every human being. It's unhealthy - just as it is unhealthy to have faith in an inherent goodness within everyone.

Would someone mind telling me, what kind of gun these officers, are holding, and are pointing them at the protesors, while arresting others?

Seems a little over the top to me.