Vet's injuries from Occupy Oakland protest not caused by deputies, SF sheriff says

Originally posted by 0zzymand0s
reply to post by Xcathdra

 

Ok, but JUST the ones throwing stuff, right?

Thats my view on it. Protests are designed to get the attention of whomever they are directed at. I fully support a person right to free speech, assembly, protesting, redress of greivances etc etc etc.

I take exception when protesters cross over and move into more of a rioting mentality, which would be the throwing beer bottles, rocks etc while destroying personal and private proprty and interfering with the operation of businesses.

Its difficult to claim the more high ground when the actions of the protestors fall to the level they accuse the police of using.

If you check the people who were arrested, not one got arrested for protesting. If you have 10k people protesting, and 20 of those people decide to go further than just protesting, its difficult for the police to narrow down who did what when and where.

When the protestors dont assist in locating those people, then what? It creates a disconnect between all groups and intentions are misread and assumptions are made.

Long story short - I support a person right to own, carry and use a firearm under the 2nd amendment. I dont support that person when he pulls his gun and just randomply starts killing people in the crowd.

Does that viewpoint of mine in any way shape or form threaten that persona bility to be in possesion of a fire arm?

See my point?

Originally posted by Makeshift
reply to post by The_Phantom

 

I'm talking about the cops in the direct area of the shooting. Can any of them be seen holding the tear gas launcher? Is there a canister on the ground near him? Wouldn't there be tear gas all around him if he was shot with one?

I saw plenty of tear gas being used, do you think the protesters were using it or the cops?

The point is that it is a fact that the police were using projectiles, 100%. On the other hand you just like to argue that he was hit by a rock that you are making up, it's argument without any basis at all. Any viewer with any intellectual honesty at all will admit that the cops were using projectiles.

reply to post by The_Phantom


I never said he was hit by a rock you did. You said a magic rock would have to curve around him from the back and hit him in the face, I said maybe he turned around. All I am saying is that nobody even knows if he was actually shot or not. He hasn't even said what happened to him, but you would never know it from the reaction its getting around here.
Also I agree 100% that the cops.were using projectiles but that does not mean that he was shot in the face.

Originally posted by Makeshift
reply to post by The_Phantom

 

I never said he was hit by a rock you did. You said a magic rock would have to curve around him from the back and hit him in the face, I said maybe he turned around. All I am saying is that nobody even knows if he was actually shot or not. He hasn't even said what happened to him, but you would never know it from the reaction its getting around here.

So turning around causes damage to your face, since when?

What I'm saying is that the cops were without question using projectiles in the direction of the protesters, 100% can't be denied. To say that he was hit by an object of some sort from the protesters is completely out of left field and has nothing to support it at all.

reply to post by The_Phantom


We dont know what caused his inury - period. Even the video doesnt show when the injury occured or how it occured. If it did, we wouldnt be in here debating the points.

Let the investigation run its course and see what comes from it.

reply to post by The_Phantom


If the protestors were throwing things and he turned around to leave you don't think something could hit him in the face? That's not possible and is out of left field?

Originally posted by Xcathdra
reply to post by The_Phantom

 

We dont know what caused his inury - period. Even the video doesnt show when the injury occured or how it occured. If it did, we wouldnt be in here debating the points.

Let the investigation run its course and see what comes from it.

That's my point almost nobody here is debating the points, or waiting for an investigation nor are they investigating for themselves. Most are screaming for blood. They have already named the guy their gonna get.

Originally posted by Xcathdra
reply to post by The_Phantom

 

We dont know what caused his inury - period. Even the video doesnt show when the injury occured or how it occured. If it did, we wouldnt be in here debating the points.

Let the investigation run its course and see what comes from it.

Fair enough, I'm just making my point that one side is 100% using projectiles (police) the other side is based on speculation (protesters) mostly being defended by police, like the sheriff that this thread is about, and maybe other police that might be taking his side. Now that my point is made my end of the debate is over.

This post is on topic...

reply to post by FugitiveSoul

Here's the footage, in case there is one or two people on the planet who missed it.

Useless. It shows nothing of the actual incident. Only a bunch of people screaming "medic" as they carry a guy away from the barricade.

The injury is simply inconsistent with any non-lethal weapon ("rubber bullets" included). The original claim was that a CS canister was shot into his face. This has, since, been modified several times to now include other less-than-lethal solutions.

It's far more consistent with a larger object traveling at slow velocities as opposed to a small object traveling at extreme velocities. Primarily the whole issue with enough trauma to get medical personnel to induce a coma.

reply to post by 0zzymand0s

The problem is "trust," and its been used up over the last 30 years or so. You have to put a little in the bank if you want to make withdraws.

The problem is sense. You lack it.

You don't need to trust anyone to step back and take a logical look at the situation.

What do the injuries indicate? What sources exist for that injury?

The only CS canisters I see are being lobbed - I suppose if you caught the sharp edge of one (thrown incorrectly) right on your brow, it could split the skin. The injuries are inconsistent with a non-lethal munition (rubber/wax/foam/etc), and are more consistent with a blunt instrument.

It would seem most probable and sensible that he caught a rock or bottle to the head (though a can of paint would certainly cause confusion amidst CS canisters). Riot police can sport about amidst such a hail of nonsense because of the armor they wear. The human body is not nearly as resilient against rocks and lobbed beer bottles as foam-backed hard plastic/polymer composites.

reply to post by Blaine91555


Yes, he got hit in the face, while facing the police, by a projectile thrown by the people just a very short distance behind him, at a great enough velocity to smash his skull and cause lasting brain damage.

Must be one of them newfangled rocket-powered boomerang bottles. You know, the kind that are invisible to video cameras.

Really, man? Are you this desperate?

reply to post by Aim64C


I lack sense?

Your the one that admitted tear gas canisters were "lobed." Then you argued that those are far less likely to do damage then a water bottle that caught a ricochet.

Even if he was hit in the face by people throwing bottles from behind him [cough....cough...], with enough force to cause such serious damage [cough....cough...], my issue is that he was injured - apparently quite severely - and a huge group of police, who swore an oath to serve and protect, did absolutely nothing to help him. Then some protesters went to help him and the police threw an explosive canister into the group.


That's on video. That's just hired mercenaries performing a task they'd been given. By whom? Who gave that order?

Why are they not being prosecuted?

Those police did nothing to help, and actually tried to prevent people from helping him.

They are cowards and should be prosecuted with assault on first responders. That is a crime against humanity.

If you fail to see that this is wrong, you are part of the problem.

The first responder had a visible bruise, and the actual projectile. No amount of denial will stand up to that sort of evidence.

But you go on believing that this is all a ruse to make the police look bad.

Pathetic. Sad.

Go to bed and sleep the sleep of the innocent knowing that all cops are there to help those in need.

Originally posted by Makeshift
reply to post by The_Phantom

 

How does anything you just said equal proof of anything? The cops were throwing things is proof they shot him in the head? Do you have or have you seen any pictures or video of the police there holding the weapon that fires those gas cannisters?

Well in the video there was a tear gas canister about 30 feet away and to the right of where Scott Olson was standing. That was thrown back toward the police line. The next cut of the video shows Scott Olsen DOWNED and another tear gas canister pops about 20 feet away, right after a flash bang goes off. Then you can see another officer ready, step back, and throw another flash bang.

It is probable that the second tear gas canister you see go off in the video right after the first flash bang goes off, is the canister that struck Olson in the head, and bounced right and popped about 20 feet away.

The first tear gas canister that you see being thrown back at the police line, looked to have been fired to land between the police line and protesters barricade. Presumably to make a "line" and to push back protesters in a non violent way. When the first canister was thrown back it seems reasonable to fire another in the same location. But seeing the direction and speed of the gas drift from the first canister, the most logical positioning of the second canister would have been about 30 feet left of the first so that the drift would have made a more prominent "hold line".

That position just happened to be where Scott Olsen was standing. At least that's how it looked to me.

Police departments still use the M79 which has a muzzle velocity of 247 feet per second. Lets call this average for a device of this type.

Where as throwing a baseball, optimally designed to be thrown hard and fast, the average person throws a 50 mph straight pitch which is about 73 feet per second.

So being conservative and assuming that a 5 ounce baseball thrown by an average person you would have hit him in the front of the head with about 25 foot pounds of energy spread across a one inch square area with another 3 inch square of dispersion. That probably wouldn't cause a skull fracture and brain trauma.
Even a 200 gram beer bottle with 73 feet per second would only generate about 38 foot pounds but would have covered a much smaller area with less dispersion.
But that's still less foot pounds of energy than you could get falling face first drunk onto concrete. Since he was a Marine there is a good chance he has fallen down drunk at least once in his life.

Now an M651r tear gas grenade weighing .23 kilograms at 240 feet per second would hit with 480 foot pounds of force across a 3 inch impact area with another 2 inches of dispersion could easily fracture a persons skull, and cause brain trauma. Plus if launched from far behind the police line, the grenade probably would have lost 20-30% of it's fps and energy within the first 50 feet of flight.

Take into account that from 20 yards back or more you might not see a smoke trail from a tear gas grenade. They are one a timed fuse and don't always start spuming smoke as soon as they come out of the barrel.

I'm not saying that I have proof or anything, but just simple math makes it look improbable that a rock, or bottle, or baseball, would fracture someones skull being thrown by anyone less than an all star 90MPH+ baseball pitcher.

Plus in the video it is clear that 2 tear gas canisters enter the video and 2 flash bangs enter the video. The second tear gas grenade could easily have bounced off of Scott Olson and landed off to his right and behind right before it's fuse ignited the propellant and gas.

At least that's how it looked to me.

Of course all of this changes if his injury is considered to be a "temporal region" injury. Because much less force would be required to cause a temporal fracture. But from all the video and pictures it doesn't look like he got hit on the side of the head but right across the strongest front part of his skull more to the left of center.

But that's just my opinion.

reply to post by Butterbone


Good post thanks for the reply.

Uncommon Sense

Originally posted by Aim64C
The problem is sense. You lack it.

Please read this.

If you are having difficulty understanding the need to refrain from this sort of commentary when a moderator specifically requests doing so, then by all means let me know and we can discuss this privately.

Speaking more generally, I ask my fellow members once again to remember the importance of maintaining civility especially when discussing emotionally-charged topics. I will not ask a third time, so please do your best.

As always, thanks to everyone who does not need to be reminded.

There are a few things that bother me in those videos.

Why is there an obvious gap in the filming right before the first tear gas canisters and flash bangs start popping?

Why is there an obvious gap in both videos for the period of time that exists right when he gets hit?

Why was there a plume of presumably tear gas coming from the first tear gas canister seen on video that led in a rather short arc that implied that the canister had been hand thrown from the police side AFTER it was releasing gas?


These questions in my opinion make the edited videos suspect and lead easily to believing that the videos were edited specifically because they do show what hit Scott Olsen and are evidence that it wasn't police brutality.

So it can go either way really. I'd be even more suspicious if Scott is able to communicate soon and he says that he knows he was hit by a tear gas grenade or rubber bullet. Because that would also be highly improbable that he saw it coming.

The video clearly shows a large spark trail from the projectile that seemed to be aimed at Olsen just before he was hit. No it wasn't that clear, but it certainly follows that he was hit by that.

The argument that his injury was caused by water bottles or rocks are just distractions. Do they sell glass water bottles anymore? Are the streets of Oakland littered with fist-sized rocks? I would say no. This wasn't out in the country or suburbs, it was the middle of a city street. Most of the reported thrown objects were plastic water bottles (granted those might still hurt, but not crack open a skull) and spent tear gas canisters thrown back at the police.

Olsen was standing close to the police line - they didn't elevate their tear-gas canister gun high enough to clear him. I'm assuming the police were aiming lower in order to get their canisters to land further into the back of the crowd.

reply to post by Blaine91555


Wouldn't even be the first time the OWS lies about their stuff. That infamous bridge incident and one that I caught that actually made mainstream media of a person with a camera being taken down in the famous pepper spray video. They conviniently cut that video so you can't see the part where the camera guy actually assaults the cops first. They've been failing so hard in the past so one wouldn't think it unreasonable that they're doing it again.

Originally posted by Butterbone
Originally posted by Makeshift


Police departments still use the M79 which has a muzzle velocity of 247 feet per second. Lets call this average for a device of this type.

Very very few departments use the M79.(mostly military base departments)
The M79 is 40 mm and police use 37mm gas guns that chamber a wide variety of cartridges like tear gas. tear gas pentrators, stun balls(rubber bullets). The police 37mm launchers do look identical to the M79 in some cases. but have a different caliber barrel

The police 37mm rounds do not have the high/low pressure cartridges like the 40 mm the military uses.
As far as i can find none if the police 37mm rounds are metal. So the high velocity is not there.

I have fired a 37 mm marine flare gun that can fire the same 37mm rounds and if that police department has someone that is cute they can fire a marine signal round called a "ship to close round".
this round flies about 100 feet and goes off like a oversize M80.
usmachinegun.com...

The only rounds i find are plastic of one form or another.(police catalogs)
Some are hard plastic for breaching doors but they would not be use by riot control officers and not carried by them they are swat use rounds only.

reply to post by ANNED


Find the muzzle velocity and the weight of the round a 37mm shoots and we can still find the foot pounds and approximate the impact area.

Either way I'd put my money on a fired projectile over a thrown one for fracturing a skull in the frontal lobe region.

100 feet does sound much more reasonable for riot control than upwards of 300 yards maximum range.