OccupyOakland protests - Navyman stands Alone in tear gas.filled Police Firestorm

reply to post by AnonymousFem


If that video was taken right before he got hit, seems like they meant to hit him. He is just standing there fgs. This makes me so angry. I really just do not have words. How is it OK to hit someone just standing there in the head with one of those things? Not the world I want to be living in that is for sure.

Recall how they just "discovered" how John Olsen (marine who got shot by tear gas canister) started the website "ihatemarines.com." Really original and believable story, correct?


How long until they "discover" this man created a website called "ihatethenavy.com"?

Big UPS to this guy~!~
He shows more bravery standing there alone,than all those police standing there with weapons combined!!


The police keep these "heavy handed" actions ongoing,eventually the people will have enough.

Some in other countries already have ideas on how to deal with police violence.

reply to post by onehuman


Yet ANOTHER former military member who is not active duty...most likely a military hater too. How do I know this? Because he's sporting a big, fat earring in his ear. Not to mention the fact that he's wearing a uniform.

Do people not understand that if these folks loved their service to their country so much, they'd never do this? This is clearly a smear campaign on the military itself, to create disunity. I wouldn't be surprised if these folks were hired plants, purposely paid to do this.

Stop allowing your emotions to be manipulated so easily....unless you enjoy being a puppet. I'm starting to wonder if it's possible for the majority of the people here to watch with indifference, and just OBSERVE with caution. None of you know the whole story or who is behind what. That alone should make all of you want to proceed with extreme caution.

reply to post by onehuman

Even though I have a serious issue with the "Occupy" movement, I find this to be a very-very awe inspiring and impressive video. While watching the clip without volume, the scene speaks volumes in of itself. If you watch the expressions on the police, they have no idea on what to do next. They are standing there saying to themselves, "What the..?". I can just hear their thoughts in that moment.

Unfortunately, he is not in the military. He is wearing an earring in uniform, which is forbidden by the military dress code of conduct. My father was an admiral in the Navy.

It doesn't win me over, but it is an impressive sight to see.

One brave man versus multiple chicken#s. This is what it has all come down to, and this is the calm before the storm.

That guy has got balls of steel. A powerful image for sure even if he may or may not be Navy with the police shooting more tear gas and rubber bullets.It takes courage to stand up for what you believe in while under adversity.

duplicate of this post
www.abovetopsecret.com...

my plans exactly if the police decided to move on us yesterday.
Sit down and meditate with a a bunch of friends, they'd have to drag us away.

reply to post by Section31

Excuse me? I'm in the military and so is my spouse, and we each have earrings. It's obvious you have no clue what your talking about. Save this area of talk for grown folks who know what they are talking about.
Anyways, the public response to this kind of corruption is not going to be peaceful for long, as everyone is getting fed up with the way our country's morals are decaying. It's only a matter of time before the police are the ones being treated unfairly, and watch how much THAT gets coverage by the media. Sad but true.

Originally posted by Ronfairness
reply to post by Section31

 

Excuse me? I'm in the military and so is my spouse, and we each have earrings. It's obvious you have no clue what your talking about. Save this area of talk for grown folks who know what they are talking about.

Riddle me this... Can male military members wear earrings while in uniform?

They cannot.

So even though this man stood bravely defending what he holds dear, in front of armed police obviously looking for a fight, and represents the sort of integrity that these policeman can only read about, you go for a uniform infraction.

Sad. Sad. Sad.

Pathetic, even.

The Sailor is showing a lot of bravery but not a lot of smarts.....Court-Martial

DoD Directive 1325.6 says it is DoD policy to preserve military members' "right of expression … to the maximum extent possible, consistent with good order and discipline and the national security." Then it puts limits on that right. Members of the military may attend demonstrations. But only in the United States. Only off base. Only off duty. And only out of uniform. Free speech may be forbidden if it "constitute[s] a breach of law and order." It is also forbidden "when violence is likely to result." Peaceful demonstrations are not a problem. Violent ones are. Members who do not want to risk court-martial, should stay away from demonstrations they think are likely to become violent.

DoD Dir. 1334.1. Wearing of the Uniform. Prohibits wearing uniform at certain events, including demonstrations

AND, I don't think that Diamond Stud in his ear is "Regulation".

Beyond pathetic.

I'm Army not Navy, yet unless your in basic training, no sergeant is going to jump someones ass for wearing a earring in public. Not only that, but this guy isn't at a military event Or on a military post. You know how many times I've took my overshirt off at a bar (which is not supposed to happen) WHILE I was playing pool with lieutenants and sergeants? Multiple times. You see, even though to it is proper to wear and exhibit military gear in the highest standards.....regardless at the end of the day WE HAVE ALL SERVED OUR COUNTRY. The end.

reply to post by pistolerooo


Your idiocy doesn't even deserve a response. But who are you to judge someone that has put their life on the line for this country?

As a veteran I don't expect a civilian to dictate or even read my dictations to me. I know my laws and what can be stretched, so if I stretch any said dictations civilians should mind their own business. As long as I'm not hurting anyone. The brave deserve leniency.- My commander

I really dont think he is in the military...ear rings...not allowed IAW Navy/Army Reg. Seems to me someone went to the Army & Navy Surplus store and got a uniform. Anyone who has been in the military can spot a fake in a second. I call fake!

reply to post by caveman242


I don't.

reply to post by pistolerooo

So therefore, now we can has "shoot him in the head from very close range with a gas cannister?" Not to mention flashbanging any civilians who try to help him as they did Scott Olsen?

I cant help thinking if things get messy there would be a stand off between the military and the police.......Lets hope its just a standoff whats the alternative...

Originally posted by Ronfairness
reply to post by caveman242

 

I don't.

So your telling me that any average Joe in the Military is going to say "Screw it...Im going to wear my best uniform out to the OWS event and risk my job which supports me (maybe family)"? Not to mention it goes against all regulations put forth by the DOD. I put forth the folling regulations:

Wearing of the Uniform, DOD Instruction (DODI) 1334.01 is a good starting point for Judge Advocates (JAs) and servicemembers researching this issue. (2) Paragraph 3.1.3 states that absent approval by a competent authority, members of the Armed Services (including retired members and members of Reserve components) are prohibited from wearing the uniform when "participating in activities such as unofficial public speeches, interviews, picket lines, marches, rallies or any public demonstration, which may imply Service sanction of the cause for which the demonstration or activity is conducted." (3)

Although DODI 1344.01 lists other situations where the wear of the uniform is prohibited, (4) paragraph 3.1.3 covers most situations encountered by servicemembers, especially in a time of vigorous public debate, emotion, and opinion associated with the ongoing combat operations. Paragraph 3.1.2 includes an additional "catch-all" provision that prohibits the wearing of the uniform "[d]uring or in connection with furthering political activities, private employment or commercial interests, when an inference of official sponsorship for the activity or interest may be drawn." (5) The unambiguous intent of the policy is to restrain servicemembers from engaging in conduct that implies or suggests military sanction of a particular event or activity, especially political events. Simply put, the best way to ensure compliance is to stay out of the military uniform when attending these events.

Consistent with, and serving as a compliment to DODI 1334.01, is DOD Directive (DODD) 1325.6, Guidelines for Handling Dissident and Protest Activities Among Members of the Armed Forces. (6) Paragraph 3.5.6 entitled "Off-Post Demonstrations by Members" states in part, "[m]embers of the Armed Forces are prohibited from participating in off-post demonstrations ... when they are in uniform in violation of DOD Directive 1334.1." (7) The reference to DOD Directive (DODD) 1334.1 is outdated due to its cancellation and reissuance as DODI 1334.01 that same month. Regardless, DODD 1325.6 underscores the general prohibition laid out in DODI 1334.01.

Another important DOD directive is the recently updated DODD 1344.10, Political Activities by Members of the Armed Forces. (8) Although the directive's primary focus is to provide general guidance regarding political activity of servicemembers, such as voting, making monetary contributions, attending partisan and nonpartisan political meetings, running for political office and holding political office, (9) it also directly addresses when to stay out of the military uniform. For example, paragraph 4.1.1.3 states that a servicemember on active duty may "[j]oin a partisan or nonpartisan political club and attend its meetings when not in uniform." (10) Further, paragraph 4.1.1.4 states that a servicemember may serve as an election official under specific conditions, to include when such service "is performed when not in uniform." (11) Finally, paragraph E3.1.1 states that servicemembers taking part in local nonpartisan political activity shall not "wear a uniform." (12)

As with DODI 1334.01, the directive also addresses what not to do while in uniform, stating in paragraph E3.2.3 that servicemembers engaging in permissible political activity shall "[r]efrain from participating in any political activity while in military uniform." (13) Also, the directive now clarifies how political candidates or nominees may use photographs of themselves in their military uniform. (14) Prior to the recent update, guidance on the use by political candidates of their military photographs was rather murky. The new guidance is much more clear: candidates may use such photographs in campaign literature (to include Web sites, videos, television, and conventional print advertisements) "when displayed with other nonmilitary biographical details," (15) when accompanied by a prominent and clearly displayed disclaimer, (16) and when the use of the photograph is not the "primary graphic representation in any campaign media, such as a billboard, brochure, flyer, Web site, or television commercial." (17) Hence, a candidate's inclusion of his Class A military photograph on page three of his campaign brochure with other photographs of his life (such as a family photograph, a hunting photograph, and a marathon photograph) is acceptable. However, placing the military photograph front and center on page one of the brochure is not acceptable.