The Most OBVIOUS police brutality I have ever witnessed. This is shamefully MALICIOUS!!!!

Originally posted by LiberalSceptic
Is it possible that the gash in the forehead is from the canister exploding next to him, at 0.30sec?
Could be that he first was hit by a beanbag and knocked down, and then a piece of the exploding canister tour up his forehead.

edit on 28-10-2011 by LiberalSceptic because: (no reason given)

I don't think so. Flash bangs don't give off shrapnel. Doesn't mean they aren't dangerous when they go off that close to someone. One video shows Olsen just standing there facing the police moments before what we see in the OP's video. No bottles or rocks were being thrown. In fact the only thing I saw being thrown by the protesters were the gas canisters the police fired into the crowd. I saw a few being thrown back at the cops.

That video in case it hasn't been posted.

reply to post by Simon_Boudreaux


Thanks for that link.
Seems to me like Mr Olsen stood there as calm as a tree.
And if he was shot direct in the face, I get the feeling that someone deliberately aimed at him.

reply to post by AlienStalker


The rights im referring to are the exact same ones that apply to any US citizen.

People do have an absolute right to protest. What they dont have a right is to be violent during those protests. Once your rights infringe on the rights of another, the right is gone. If the protesters were blocking a public right of way and failed to disperse, then they can be moved to make way for people who arent protesting to go about their business.


As far as what happened, how bout we let the investigation run its course?

Originally posted by Xcathdra

What they dont have a right is to be violent during those protests.

Do the cops have the right to be violent to the protesters and the protesters don't have the right to respond in the same manner? Can you show me where exactly these rights are for cops to use the weapons they're using against unarmed citizens?

We the people have the right to peacefully assemble. When you have thugs using violence against that peaceful assembly we then have the right to defend ourselves against those thugs.
I would agree with you that we should see what the investigation turns up but I'm sure that "investigation" will side with the cops if it's investigated by the cops. They always do.

Whenever you are confronted by several hundred cops in Riot Gear the last thing to do is f--- with them. You seen those big sticks? Those big sticks are for the cops to protect themselves, as a first defense. If, the Big Stick doesn't work, a bullet will. Those protesters were taunting the copsand wanted something to happen...guess what???.

The Border Patrol has already established that a thrown rock can be used to justify use of "Deadly Force". The protesters are pushing and pushing and will need to take responsibility for their actions. The Police are REACTING to the actions of the protesters but your trying to turn that around and make the protesters out to be just a bunch of Patriots expressing themselves....WRONG. Money and politics are behind this and most of the protesters are too nieve to understand. Once AGAIN the youth of America are being used as tools, yep, they're a bunch of TOOLS.

The video is inconclusive but IF the police officer did intentionally shoot at the protesters then yes, its disgusting behaviour and he should be investigated.

On the flip side why would a massive group of protesters converge on an injured person? If I was that officer or in the boots of the other officers I would have been immediately thinking 'they must be planning something else'. Police officers are taught a whole range of things and officer safety is a massive part of training - as long as you can justify your use of force you can use any level of it here in the UK.

Originally posted by Xcathdra
People do have an absolute right to protest. What they dont have a right is to be violent during those protests. Once your rights infringe on the rights of another, the right is gone.

Have you ever read, the UN amendment? I sincerely suggest you do ... it is a HUMAN right, to take up arms against your government ... but for that, it needs to be an organisation, with clear goals.

I hope this officer meets a sniper soon.

Originally posted by alpha chino
***snip***
Or they stop wearing masks at events like this. Seriously, why do they all wear masks? Only one reason, to allow them freedom to do whatever sick thing they want. Without fear of being fired.

Or the guy at 0:12?
Is he wearing a mask so that he has the freedom to do whatever sick thing he wants?

Or is he merely trying not to pass his influenza to somebody else?

reply to post by Aggie Man


A man in my town got 18 years for attacking an officer with a deadly weapon. Would you like to know what this deadly weapon was? It was a 1/4 inch thick branch from a near by bush.

This cop should go to prison for 25 years, according to this persecution, I mean prosecution.

I am in no way shape or form religious, but JESUS CHRIST! Are you #ing kidding me? I started off SO ANGRY, so I did some digging a la google (googling stuff calms me down) to find some quotes that best describe my feelings about this monstrosity they call "Crowd Dispersal" of an "Unlawful Protest". But before those I just have to say, what constitutes an "Unlawful Protest"? No joke, I watched a lot of videos about this Oakland OWS disaster, but that question has stuck with me mostly throughout reading this thread, boiled down to personal opinion, I give you this quote :

No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce it.
-- 16 Am. Jur. Sec. 177 late 2d, Sec 256

(OH MY GAWD AN "UNDER 30" PERSON QUOTING AMENDMENTS!! # off to whoever said negative things about people because they don't need to move their old man gut to say hey to their dick)

Saying that the protest is "Unlawful" is totally and completely unconstitutional. What the hell changed the minds of whoever the hell deemed the protest from being "Lawful" to "Unlawful". And why the hell did they need SO MANY ARMED POLICE OFFICERS? Watch other videos on this, there are a # ton of cops EVERYWHERE, and I don't know about you, but that many cops would put me on edge, the full #ing battle gear and shotguns are pretty damn intimidating. But I digress, my original question was what makes a protest " Unlawful", serious question awaiting a serious answer. I was unaware the right to assemble could be brushed aside by a dick with a bullhorn and a badge.
Now I'm not sure if Officer Dickweed saw the BLOOD on the downed marines face, or possibly the looks of concern on the faces of all of the GOOD PEOPLE rushing to his aide. But all of that aside, what a dick! Seriously people wonder why certain people dislike/hate cops, THIS IS WHY!!! People remember when you hurt them more so than when you help them. And as for calling the cops for help, no thank you. I keep my own gun, and I could buy an ugly uniform and a badge if I really wanted to, but I'm pretty sure the gun is really the only thing you would ever desperately need a police officer for, so they can (if they feel like it) unload on whoever is causing you harm. I really don't know much about, or care to know more about the OWS movement, but that does not mean that I will show no compassion for a wronged citizen, or that I will not show absolute rage for the misuse of power or the total ignorance of THE PEOPLE'S rights.
Personally I think that the thing(s) we need to see and understand from watching this video is that A) That cop is a total dick, and I'm never going to Oakland and B) We have all of these wonderful, beautiful things called rights, our founding fathers fought for them with their lives. When an establishment tries to take them away or limit them that's when "WE THE PEOPLE" need to take some #ing action. Seriously, everyone on this forum can talk about how wrong what Officer Bastard did, but if that was you, would you stand up for your FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHT to protest? The people at the protest who were arrested JUST FOR BEING THERE, should be released with no charges. The first amendment clearly states that one of it's purposes is prohibiting the making of any law that INTERFERES WITH THE RIGHT TO PEACEABLY ASSEMBLE. The time to start defending your rights is now, I advocate making homemade flash bang GRENADES and throwing them back at the cops, or homemade tear gas, anything. If it gets to bullets, it gets to bullets. In my opinion, my rights are worth dying for.


"God forbid we should ever be twenty years without such a rebellion. The people cannot be all, and always, well informed. The part which is wrong will be discontented, in proportion to the importance of the facts they misconceive. If they remain quiet under such misconceptions, it is lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public liberty . . . And what country can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not warned from time to time, that this people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to the facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure."
-- Thomas Jefferson

Or as I refer to him: Thomas MOTHER#ING Jefferson

reply to post by Kali74

I hear this all the time. 'Don't blame the 9 good cops for the one creep in the crowd.'
But have you considered that maybe it should be 'don't credit the 9 creeps for the one good cop in the crowd'?
So watch the video.
When the one 'creep' throws the flash bang grenade did you see how quickly the nine 'good' cops jumped all over him? No? Neither did I

Originally posted by Puck 22
reply to post by Kali74

 

I hear this all the time. 'Don't blame the 9 good cops for the one creep in the crowd.'
But have you considered that maybe it should be 'don't credit the 9 creeps for the one good cop in the crowd'?
So watch the video.
When the one 'creep' throws the flash bang grenade did you see how quickly the nine 'good' cops jumped all over him? No? Neither did I

becausse deployment of the flash bang was consisistent with use and policy. They dont explode they make a loud sound and a bright light. Its a distraction device and nothing more.

Secondly, if you find the bahvior of the police wrong, thats fine. Is there any reason you and others dont find the action of the protestors wrong? You failed to notice in the video that the crowb is the one who approached the officers, not the other way around. It was only after they got close and didnt turn away that the flashbang used.

Not all cops evil just as not all protestors are violent. So please stop making ignorant sterotypical blanket statements until you do some more research please.

Originally posted by bjarneorn

Originally posted by Xcathdra
People do have an absolute right to protest. What they dont have a right is to be violent during those protests. Once your rights infringe on the rights of another, the right is gone.

Have you ever read, the UN amendment? I sincerely suggest you do ... it is a HUMAN right, to take up arms against your government ... but for that, it needs to be an organisation, with clear goals.

You need to read up on history. Start with the US Constitution that deals with international treaties. ONce done, look up the Head Money case because the Supreme Court ruling in that case made international treaties / agreements as part of the Us Federal body of law. International agreements cannot bestow any authority on the US Congress / President / Courts that is not specifically allowed under the constitution.

The UN agreements are a part of federal law, and as such are modifiable by the US Congress, can be challenged by US citizens affected by direct invovement and can be refined ruled on by the courts.

UN / Internal law, inside the US, is sibservient to US Domestic law.

Originally posted by Simon_Boudreaux
Do the cops have the right to be violent to the protesters and the protesters don't have the right to respond in the same manner?

Its not protesting when people decide to break the law or infringe on the rights of others. The latter is something people really need to be familiar with. A persons rights end the moment they interfere with the rights of others.

Example - Protestors int he middle of the street blocking the road. Their right to protest has just infringed on the rights of those not protesting the use of that public right of way.

The response from law enforcement thus far has had noting to do with the protestors, but the actions of individuals who dont understand the difference between protesting and rioting. If you want to contend this point I suggest you check the arrest records where will you find they werent arrested for protesting.

Originally posted by Simon_Boudreaux
Can you show me where exactly these rights are for cops to use the weapons they're using against unarmed citizens?

The legal frame is called less than lethal. The Supreme Court has established that law enforcement must use the least amount of force neccisary and deescalate the situation as quickly as possible. The use of pepper spray / OC / Tear gas / tasers / pepperball guns / rubber bullets etc are all designed to end a conflict safely. However, the reason the term is less than lethal is, because with any object and murphys law, something can go wrong.

The protestors were throwing rocks / glass bottles / paint, etc. So the notion they are unarmed is either naieve or you are ignoring those actions because it doesnt quite fit into your innocent civilian argument.

Originally posted by Simon_Boudreaux
We the people have the right to peacefully assemble. When you have thugs using violence against that peaceful assembly we then have the right to defend ourselves against those thugs.

Throwing rocks, beer bottles, paint and other items, while destroying public and private property is NOT peaceful protesting. Those people who are peaceful have been left alone. The ones pushing their luck by engaging in behavior that falls under rioting and assault are not peaceful.

Im not sure what your level of knowledge is on this, but law enforcement as well as civilians in some instances, arent required to be shot at first before taking action.

With your logic though you are creating an us vs them mentality, and that is dangerous. You are condemning the police for the very action you are suggesting protestors should use.

Originally posted by Simon_Boudreaux
I would agree with you that we should see what the investigation turns up but I'm sure that "investigation" will side with the cops if it's investigated by the cops. They always do.

The investigation from a department standpoint is Internal Affairs, which looks into possible policy violations.
The Chief of Oakland has assigned the incident as a top priority and turn the whole investigation over to the Prosecuting Attorneys office.

I am not saying anyone is innocent, however to argue the government is trampeling all over a persons rights while at the same time you guys are making an argument and action that you accuse the police of.

That is sick. The cops were close enough they could see the guy was severely injured, that alone should have made the idiots realize dropping a flash bang grendade would probably not do the poor guy's injuries much good. Keystone Kops. At least they were amusing.

I can see this going viral, and a big fat lawsuit ensuing. The oakland Police department brought it on themselves.

Originally posted by Skadi_the_Evil_Elf
That is sick. The cops were close enough they could see the guy was severely injured, that alone should have made the idiots realize dropping a flash bang grendade would probably not do the poor guy's injuries much good. Keystone Kops. At least they were amusing.

I can see this going viral, and a big fat lawsuit ensuing. The oakland Police department brought it on themselves.

Here is a thought you and some others need to put into your mind while looking at this situation.

What makes you and everyone else so sure the officer even saw the guy on the ground. You all are coming to your conclusions based on the video evidence, which is looking at the officer and not from the officers position looking at the crowd.

Just because you see something does not mean its in sight for people looking in the opposite direction back towards the camera.

Also the next time your at a very large event do the following. Walk against the flow of the crowd while trying to watch (hypothetically) for people who might pose a threat to you. Now think about the officers view.

Its easy for 2000 people to recall what 10 offcers were doing.
Its impossible for the police to see everything little detail / action / movement by the 2000 people.

Im not excusing the incident. I am giving you a devils advocate view from the side people want to hang.

As an example - watch these 2 quick videos -
Dash Cam 1



Dash Cam 2




The above video is just one example of how angles affect perception and actions.

Originally posted by Skadi_the_Evil_Elf
That is sick. The cops were close enough they could see the guy was severely injured, that alone should have made the idiots realize dropping a flash bang grendade would probably not do the poor guy's injuries much good. Keystone Kops. At least they were amusing.

I can see this going viral, and a big fat lawsuit ensuing. The oakland Police department brought it on themselves.

Well, since the investigation revolves around the use of a rubber bullet exactly why are you assigning blame to Oakland PD? They dont utilise that item at all, and its looking like multiple agencies were present.

by all means though lets use a video at one angle and sprint across the 100 meter ruish to judgment finish line.

reply to post by Xcathdra


Olsen was laying on the ground, right in front of them. You can see him from the distance. Riot gear doesn't make cops blind or kill their peripheral vision.

He got shot in the face with a tear gas canister. From the images I am seeing (and I'm not just looking at this vid) the shot in the face was bad enough to put him in a coma, and looks like it might have damaged parts of his skull.

Which leads me to believe that the projectile was shot pretty damned close. Close enough that the cop firing the round was either careless, malicous, or a complete idiot. You do realize that cops, like everyone else, have rules of engagement they have to follow. They have to be careful in crowd dispersal tactics. Which they aren't, it looks like.

This ain't limited to oakland, either. Family members and friends back home in the states, who have nothing to do with any of these demonstrations, are telling me the cops are often unecessarily agressive and antagonistic at best towards the demonstrations. And the demonstrations, for the most part, weren't that wild, offensive, or disruptive.

Originally posted by OzTruth
OWS is a NWO strategy to disrupt and bring down the American economy, freedom and spirit... Van Jones, George Soros and other left wing groups are using the protests, challenging capitalism to trigger a revolution for a new american communist socialist society. This is well known to people who can read between the lines.

So.... good on the cops for dispersing them, only one got hit in the head, it's not that a bigger deal.

edit on 27-10-2011 by OzTruth because: (no reason given)

"disrupt and bring down the American economy"? Hello?

Have you been away from the planet for a while. The American economy has been disrupted and has been on the way down for a few years now. Were you not aware?

Maybe another bailout will help!