Occupy Oakland Protester admits bottles were thrown at Police BEFORE police responded

Originally posted by areyouserious2010
reply to post by TheWalkingFox

 

Maybe not, but the flash-bang used afterwards was clearly aimed at people trying to help him. So I'm inclined to think it may have been intentional, since there was at least one clear act of malice from the OPD.

Flashbangs can be used to disperse large crowds during riot like situations like this.

Flashbangs only deploy a loud bang and temporary blinding effect through the large flash associated with the small explosion. It is not like a regular fragmentation or incindiary grenade deployed by the military. Flashbang grenades are specifically designed to provide no fragmentation and a very little amount of heat and flame when they explode. For the flashbang to injure a person, it would have to literally be directly against their body. The Flashbang deployed in this situation had very little chance of hurting anyone. It was done to disperse the crowd.

You have to look at it from another angle. Technically, the police are required to protect the injured man and get him PROPER medical attention. If they do not, the department, as well as individual officers, open themselves to liability for failing to act.

Now, were the police not acting fast enough the get the man to medical attention? Well, maybe. In a fluid situation like this, it is hard to weigh the injured man's safety with the safety of the officers. But, the man also needs medical attention no matter how he received the injuries.

So, the police cannot rightfully allow the injured man to be surrounded and dragged off by the crowd. Not because their intentions are malevolent, but because if the police allow the man to be carried away and he fails to get the PROPER medical attention and dies, the department will be solely blamed for allowing this action to happen.

Hopefully, this sheds some light on why the police were attempting to break up the crowd that gathered around the injured man.

im guessing you didn't correctly read what he said " the flash-bang used afterwards was clearly aimed at people trying to help him". i hope you know what the word riot means.
dictionary.reference.com...
"violent or wild disorder".
please tell me at what moment HELPING an injured man is considered VIOLENT OR WILD DISORDER. at that moment none of the protesters attentions was focused on violence or directly at the officers. i agree that some guys MIGHT (which i haven't seen in any video) have sparked it, just not at that moment, it was unnecessary. here it is slow motion for you.
www.youtube.com...

I expected as much and "lo and behold" the TRUTH ears it's ugly head AGAIN. Whacha gonna now? I have seen some of the videos and believe it or not the Police have been very restrained. The Cops know what can happen if they mess up. The protesters think that they can get away with just about anything but, if they are not careful, it will only take one real screwup and a lot of people get hurt. The Cops are not going to roll over and play dead because they believe they are protecting their city and citizens from Anarchy. The protesters need to find out who are giving them their marching orders and once that is done they will truly experience "Enlightment"

How many rocks and bottles do you see here?

Originally posted by links234

How many rocks and bottles do you see here?

i just posted a video just like this one above, i never saw any bottles or rocks thrown. show me a video of that and i'll rest my case.
star.

reply to post by projectvxn

You're right. They should just stay peaceful. That will change the minds of the corrupt bankers, politicians, and police. Peace is what will force these oligarchs and aristocrats to change their ways.

I'm confused why people are supporting violence. Are you saying that if 5 million americans marched on washington DC and invaded political biuldings in a peaceful sit-in that cops would start shooting people in the heads or something? Why is violence an answer, or better yet, how is violence an answer? These police are human beings just like you and me. Imagine if there are 10,000 cops, if millions of civilians surround them do you expect the cops to just start killing people? They would give up, they wouldn't even try. The reason nothing has happened yet to meet any kind of demand is because a massive chunk of people needs to join the protest. Can you imagine 1 million+ people occupying wall street for a month?

reply to post by ModernAcademia


Doesn't surprise me at all. With all the arrests for real crimes, and all the threats of violence, it was a matter of time before some group of them acted out. Of course, they are mostly phony anyway. They claim to be poor, disadvantaged types, but I have seen MANY on video admitting to having a big trust fund or a nice stock portfolio. Many more are union thugs. In my opinion, the whole thing is a move to declare martial law, and stop the next election.

Originally posted by areyouserious2010
reply to post by TheWalkingFox

 

Maybe not, but the flash-bang used afterwards was clearly aimed at people trying to help him. So I'm inclined to think it may have been intentional, since there was at least one clear act of malice from the OPD.

Flashbangs can be used to disperse large crowds during riot like situations like this.

Flashbangs only deploy a loud bang and temporary blinding effect through the large flash associated with the small explosion. It is not like a regular fragmentation or incindiary grenade deployed by the military. Flashbang grenades are specifically designed to provide no fragmentation and a very little amount of heat and flame when they explode. For the flashbang to injure a person, it would have to literally be directly against their body. The Flashbang deployed in this situation had very little chance of hurting anyone. It was done to disperse the crowd.

You have to look at it from another angle. Technically, the police are required to protect the injured man and get him PROPER medical attention. If they do not, the department, as well as individual officers, open themselves to liability for failing to act.

Now, were the police not acting fast enough the get the man to medical attention? Well, maybe. In a fluid situation like this, it is hard to weigh the injured man's safety with the safety of the officers. But, the man also needs medical attention no matter how he received the injuries.

So, the police cannot rightfully allow the injured man to be surrounded and dragged off by the crowd. Not because their intentions are malevolent, but because if the police allow the man to be carried away and he fails to get the PROPER medical attention and dies, the department will be solely blamed for allowing this action to happen.

Hopefully, this sheds some light on why the police were attempting to break up the crowd that gathered around the injured man.

There's no fragments? When I look at the video, the guy is (accounting for perspective) about six to nine(?) feet away from it. There's other footage of him walking away from the thing when it hits the ground.
As soon as the flash goes off, bang, he's down. I had thought a fragment had got him.
What else could it be then?
The overhead shot is confusing. I can track via the smoke where things are falling, but that one seems to just hit and bang with no smoke trail.
I'd like to hear from people with some experience on this.

reply to post by Evolutionsend


What about the Tea Party?

Some members have been claiming that nomatter what the OWS movement stands for, we should support them. Or at least some people are implying this.

Many of these people also claim that now is not the time to stand appart, but to stand together. But, I have asked this many times, and will continue asking. Why didn't the OWS movement support the Tea Party?... If they wanted to stand together, why didn't they do it with THE FIRST group that stood up for what's right for Americans and the U.S.?....

The answer should be obvious, and this is why most of the OWS movement can't really answer these questions.

IMO this movement was made up as a counteroffensive against the Tea Party movement or any other movement that could rise.

reply to post by ElectricUniverse


You also forgot the "if you aint with us your against us" mantra I keep hearing. That in itself,turns off ANYONE that has legitimate questions concerning OWS.

I know a majority of these people mean good. Unfortunately though,the fringe/radical are using this movement to their advantage.

reply to post by ModernAcademia


What a crock of shi# !

If you are against OWS right to peacefully assemble then simply must be for the Bankers and Wall Street con men ! good for you. The majority of OWS are not bothering anyone besides the criminals in those buildings, the ones that robbed us. Just because some people act unruly on their own and throw bottles that does not mean in any way shape or form that OWS is some kind of flash mob of thugs. You are stereo typing thousands of people, independent individuals who all happen to be there for all kinds of reasons. Bottle chucking is peanuts in comparison to getting rubber bullets shot at your head!

This is the same straw man attack on OWS we keep seeing posted here. Before they were all "Obama folk" some claimed, but were proven wrong. Then all these people were labeled as Anarchists, Socialists, lazy unemployed unbathed hippies blah blah blah. Just more propaganda and spin! Of course people are going to act up and stir up violence this is common in our countries history, from the civil rights movement to war protests. But people like you find it to be a threat because it has teeth.


How about all the money that was extorted from the American people by the Banks , Wall Street and the like? Now they are not a problem, they have not committed any crimes have they? And all those people are just there just because someone told them to show up right? Maybe those people are pissed off about something? Ya think ? I don't condone or condemn bottle throwing but i can certainly understand the anger that causes one to do so. Bad news for you is we are not going away, even with the winter coming. Expect it to explode during the spring.

They should expect us

FOLKS !!!!! it's Sunday, Occupy your Church and ask God for graces to become a better people !

Originally posted by LadyGreenEyes
reply to post by ModernAcademia

 

Of course, they are mostly phony anyway. They claim to be poor, disadvantaged types, but I have seen MANY on video admitting to having a big trust fund or a nice stock portfolio. Many more are union thugs. In my opinion, the whole thing is a move to declare martial law, and stop the next election.

Again here we go with the "one guy is _________ so the rest must be __________" crap!

What do you define as "phony" lol name calling . thugs blah blah


Those people are fighting for what they believe in, that is pretty damn real! Oh and those Union guys like myself are thugs? What an ignorant statement. We have unions in order to see the working man gets his fair share, receives his rights on the job and is protected ! We are not slaves ya know, we do have children to feed.


Look it would be incredibly gullible to think OWS is just a bunch of poor folk. If a person has money or not it is irrelevant to the cause and why they are there. If the wealthy want to join then that is a positive. [Perhaps some wealthy folk agree with OWS? They "the people of the usa" are there because of Wall Street and the bail outs, the Banks, Corruption. The FED, and various reasons by the day. The manifesto grows however the basic gist is about right and wrong. The system has failed the people of the United States! And they are putting a foot down. That is as American as it gets.

Stop the next election? WOW really reaching are we

Originally posted by Cryptonomicon
reply to post by projectvxn

 

You're right. They should just stay peaceful. That will change the minds of the corrupt bankers, politicians, and police. Peace is what will force these oligarchs and aristocrats to change their ways.

Sarcasm How expected.

Whether by peaceful means or by violent means, if your goal is to change the minds of the elite, you have already failed.

You want to change the minds of the PEOPLE. And you don't do that by offering them chaos. When you have the people on your side, and everyone is on the same page, then and ONLY then can you do real damage to those you believe deserve your wrath. Then, and only then, can you drain their pocket books, shutter their institutions, and break their pillars of power.

Without the people you have nothing. And so far, you have nothing.

reply to post by ModernAcademia


ONLY AFTER THE COPS FORCEFULLY REMOVED EVERYONE FROM THE PARK IN THE AM.
nuff said.

Originally posted by projectvxn
reply to post by NoHierarchy

 

I got sick of being angry all the time.

You should try it some time.

Whether I'm angry, sad, happy, calm, or apathetic... I won't stick my head in the sand and pretend all is well like the majority of people I've ever encountered. I CANNOT AND I WILL NOT.

reply to post by projectvxn

You could have all the "people" in the world on your side, in like minded agreement, but peace isn't going to remove those in corrupt control of your government. I'm pretty sure the French during WW2 were all in like minded agreement, that they did NOT want the Germans controlling their country, but the Germans didn't leave until they were forced to leave.

At the end of the day, ACTION is what is required. Peaceful protest doesn't end anything of substantial economic & power interests, history has proven this. It's a very popular misconception that it does. However, when examined closely you'll see that peaceful protest is just part of a multifaceted approach to changes in power.

Action in all forms is required, and when an unstoppable force meets an immovable object, the result is violence or at least the threat of violence.

reply to post by OUTofSTEPwithTHEworld

im guessing you didn't correctly read what he said " the flash-bang used afterwards was clearly aimed at people trying to help him". i hope you know what the word riot means.
dictionary.reference.com...
"violent or wild disorder".

Would you consider throwing bottles violent? At the least it would be considered disorderly.

please tell me at what moment HELPING an injured man is considered VIOLENT OR WILD DISORDER. at that moment none of the protesters attentions was focused on violence or directly at the officers. i agree that some guys MIGHT (which i haven't seen in any video) have sparked it, just not at that moment, it was unnecessary.

First, prove that the police knew the man was seriously injured. I understand that you have ample time to watch the video and read what other people say about it but that does not mean that the police were afforded such a luxury as watching it in the comfort of their home with the ability to rewind it and watch it again before making the decision to act.

If the police were aware that the man was seriously injured it may have changed the way they handled the situation.

Second, if they knew the man was seriously injured then they are responsible for the man's safety and could not allow him to be dragged away by the crowd. Being in a position of authority, it is the responsibility of the police to ensure the man is PROPERLY treated for his injuries. Failing to do so, resulting in death, could open the department to serious legal ramnifications.

If they knew the man was seriously injured then I agree a flashbang was a poor choice of tool. Still though, it does not warrant this entire situation being blown way out of proportion like it is by people who disagree with it.

It warrants the officer to be reprimanded and all attempts should be made to make sure it does not happen again but that is all.

here it is slow motion for you.

Yes, I understand that you can slow the video down and make full use of your 20/20 hindsight.

reply to post by TheCounselor

There's no fragments? When I look at the video, the guy is (accounting for perspective) about six to nine(?) feet away from it. There's other footage of him walking away from the thing when it hits the ground.
As soon as the flash goes off, bang, he's down. I had thought a fragment had got him.
What else could it be then?
The overhead shot is confusing. I can track via the smoke where things are falling, but that one seems to just hit and bang with no smoke trail.
I'd like to hear from people with some experience on this.

Flashbang grenades are specifically designed to not expell any fragmentation whatsoever. Fragmentation is what makes military fragmentation grenades so deadly.

Flashbangs are designed to simply flash, creating a temporary blinding effect, and bang, which also temporarily disorients, for the purpose of allowing a few seconds for dynamic room entry. Flashbangs can also be used for crowd control because they are pretty effective at dispersing people.

Flashbangs are specifically designed to pose no immediate danger to those around it. For a flashbang to be harmful it pretty much has to be directly against a person's body for the heat to cause burning.

Thanks. I didn't know the nature of the devices.
Now I'm confused as to what hit that kid. I thought it was from the device that gave off firework sparks that landed nearby him as he tried to walk away.
Smoke grenades don't give off fragments, either?