Second Iraqi War Veteran Hospitalized By Oakland PD, In Intensive Care

reply to post by Xcathdra


It's just sad that you have to avoid the argument and start talking about the protest in general instead of the isolated incident.

Originally posted by gamesmaster63


If you read some of the other articles that can be found using search engines, they are. They may not be effective, but they are. If the OWS groups would turn the "agents provocateur" to the police much of this could be stopped.

And for the "agent provocateurs" that ARE police?

Originally posted by gamesmaster63
If you read some of the other articles that can be found using search engines, they are. They may not be effective, but they are. If the OWS groups would turn the "agents provocateur" to the police much of this could be stopped.

I agree

Originally posted by gamesmaster63
I didn't say it made no difference, I simply said to set it aside for now. I was looking at the reported treatment of this vet. By all reports I have found, he was being non-violent and non-confrontational, at the time this occurred. Unless questioning an officer is confrontational?

As much as its going to piss people off, yes it can be confrontational. However we only have one side of the story.

Originally posted by gamesmaster63
This time you are the one making an assumption, neither article linked yet says one way or another whether he requested to go to the hospital. Also, why was the cell door closed on him after bail had been posted?

A person remains in custody until the paper work is finished and the person is processed out of custody. If we look at the larger oakland picture, my guess is the jail / holding facilities might be close to capacity. If the guy was charged with a crime then he will get his court date and all that other stuff before being processed out (will vary state to state).

Originally posted by gamesmaster63
I never said anything of the sort, but a little human courtesy does no harm, in fact, it usually does good.

Again I completely agree... However it is a 2 way street.

Originally posted by gamesmaster63
I may have mispoken there, we will not know whether there was criminal behavior on the part of the officers involved until after the investigation, but the police behavior described after the arrest was inappropriate.

Ill concede that point, however innapropriate and violation of the law are not the same.

Originally posted by gamesmaster63
He was already remoning himself from the situation, he was walking home and was already not in the immediate area of the rioting. I will admit that I am assuming the injury occurred with the police encounter, that is all the imformation we have at this time. BTW, I have suffered from a lacerated and ruptured spleen, and I am here to tell you, the pain is far beyond abdominal distress, it is intense and immediate.

The injury portion is what I want to see more info on. I still ahve not found any articles that state he asked to go to the Hospital, nor did he give specfic information to the jail RN that would have raised flags something was wrong (again based on info to date).

He was apparently close enough to come across law enforcement. As fas as immediate area of rioting, what area would that be?

Originally posted by gamesmaster63
I agree with you here, but my point is that from all the information available at this time, this vet was not in the crowd when this occurred.

and by extension we dont know how the injury to his spleen occured. I am willing to wager that the vets side of the story leaves out some info.

As with the other, it will be investigated.

Originally posted by MysticPearl
What I've seen from Xcathdra, with all due respect, is a problem many see regarding the culture in law enforcement.

Xcathdra, you seem more concerned with protecting, and making excuses for the officers involved, then showing any compassion whatsoever for the member of our military who was locked in a jail cell and suffered a lacerated spleen during an apparent assault.

Just an observation.

Observations are fine so no owrries. However, I am not protecting or making excuses. People on this site can vouch to the fact that ive taken law enforcement to task when appropriate. What I do is respond to people who make accusations, like police brutality, violating rights etc and give the flip side of the equation. I provide information as to why something people think should be illegal is not. Why the 4th amendment wouldnt apply to some of the cases or the limitations on the 1st amendment.

I try to get the information out there so people can have a more complete picture of the incident. The goal for everyone should be to find the truth, regardless of what side the answers support.

As far as your last comment goes - you are doing to the protester what you accuse me of doing to law enforcement. We have no idea how the guys spleen sustained the injury. Assuming it occured during the police encounter is a leap of logic that is not supported by anything (yet). In this one area I guess I do defend officers, however its to the extent of reminding people that we are all innocent until proven guilty, and the 100 meter rush to judgement is always a bad game plan.

As an example I point out that its only the police and its actions which are discussed in these threads, while people ignore the actions of the rioters. People protesting is in response to the FEderal Government and large corporations. Taking that anger out on law enforcement in the City of Oakland Califfornia supports OWS cause how?

Originally posted by GogoVicMorrow
Where is the hypocrisy? They sure as hell aren't shooting the cops in the #ing face!

I must have missed it. Can you please point out where law enforcement purposely aimed and targeted the first marine in the face before shooting. Also, you are right that they arent shooting cops in the face. Instead they are using glass bottles, rocks, paint and other items.

There is the hypocrisy

Originally posted by GogoVicMorrow
Also, aside from one cafe on WALL STREET I'd like to see how they are effecting businesses? That's B.S. The whole foods store was attacked by provocatuers, and I believe it was peaceful occupiers that tried to stop them.

The it would behoove the protestors to weed those morons out. As far as business loss goes I am going to take the word of those business owners, since they would know. The area affected by the protestors / rioters / police do affect business. People arent able to get into some of those areas to shop, by food, etc etc etc. The peaceful occupiers arent the ones the police are going for.

Originally posted by GogoVicMorrow
Treat peaceful protesters like criminals for so long they become rioters. Cops fault.

edit on 5-11-2011 by GogoVicMorrow because: (no reason given)

Treat all cops as the enemy with no distinctions for so long, they become part of the peoples paranoia regardless of action.

Originally posted by GogoVicMorrow
reply to post by Xcathdra

 

It's just sad that you have to avoid the argument and start talking about the protest in general instead of the isolated incident.

Almost as sad as people talking about the police in general instead of the isolated incidents.

Originally posted by GogoVicMorrow

Originally posted by gamesmaster63


If you read some of the other articles that can be found using search engines, they are. They may not be effective, but they are. If the OWS groups would turn the "agents provocateur" to the police much of this could be stopped.

And for the "agent provocateurs" that ARE police?

Uhhhm..... ok

It's just sad that you have to avoid the argument and start talking about the protest in general instead of the isolated incident.

So when referring to protestors or rioters, we must be specific, and for police you generalize?

Way to go, ATS. The only version of this story we've gotten is from the person alleging the brutality. We have no other witness accounts, no video, and no statements from the police....yet everyone's going to take this man's statement at face value (apparently because he's a vet) and immediately begin the hate campaign against the cops.....again.

And, please, remind me again why the fact this man is an Iraqi war vet is relevant to this situation at all? Unless someone here is trying to imply that this man was specifically targeted because he was a vet, this info about his past has no relevance except that it seems to be the new trend in the media and on ATS to use these vets' military status to further some political agenda. I think that is pathetic, especially when a good portion of police officers are former military themselves. The idea that police would intentionally target those who've served in the military defies logic to me.

I guess it doesn't matter to anyone, either, that the stories of this man's beating conflict. He's directly quoted at one point as saying the cops hit him in the arms, legs, and back, none of which are areas of the spleen. Later, it's claimed that he was hit four times in the abdomen. Sounds like there's more to the story than meets the eye, perhaps.

My eyebrow is raised with respect to why his medical condition was not taken more seriously much earlier on. Typically, if police have had to use batons on someone, it is common sense to ensure that any complaints of pain or outward symptoms an arrestee exhibits are checked by a doctor prior to booking, otherwise it could mean legal trouble if it turns out someone's condition worsened because they didn't receive proper medical attention at the onset. But, here again, we are only hearing his side of this, so we'll see how this aspect plays out.

Originally posted by Xcathdra

As much as its going to piss people off, yes it can be confrontational. However we only have one side of the story.

I won't argue that it can be confrontational, but who gets to say so? Also, aren't PO's trained to non-aggressively deal with verbal confrontation? I know that most PO's in my city and state are, I have worked in occupations where I have had a lot of interaction with both city and state police, and many of them are my friends.

A person remains in custody until the paper work is finished and the person is processed out of custody. If we look at the larger oakland picture, my guess is the jail / holding facilities might be close to capacity. If the guy was charged with a crime then he will get his court date and all that other stuff before being processed out (will vary state to state).

Again, no disagreement, but the level of pain expressed should have caused the RN to be suspicious of possible further injury. This should have prompted her to refer him to an ER, with police escort, thus keeping him in custody.

Again I completely agree... However it is a 2 way street.

True, but because the officers were expecting confrontational behavior, perhaps they saw confrontation where there was none.

Ill concede that point, however innapropriate and violation of the law are not the same.

Unless the inappropriate behavior; in this case referring to the time before proper medical attention, caused further injury, then it would be.

One thing that I am saying here, is with the bad press that the Oakland PD has already received, I would think that they would be a little more cautious and proactive in order to get some good PR.

I understand your reluctance to just accept what has been reported to this point, Xcathdra, and I even agree with many of your points, but you have to admit that evidence is building.

Don't get me wrong, I think that the investigations should continue and whoever is in the wrong should be held accountable.

I am not jumping on the hate all police bandwagon either, I have to much respect for the ones that I know; but I really have to wonder, when two people in two weeks are put into the hospital in critical condition, maybe it's time to ensure that the only officers on the front lines are ones with prior experience in defusing hostile situations.

This is Oakland after all, they have to have quite a few officers experienced in that way

reply to post by Xcathdra


Rocks against armor is nothing. They don't feel it.
So you are telling me that cops aren't trained on how to fire their weapons? You guys just fire willy nilly into crowds? You wouldn't make absolute sure that it wasn't going to hit someone (in the head of all places) and critically injure them? Especially a weapon that shouldn't be shot in the direction of anyone? Tear gas canisters should hit no person. Rubber bullets. A weapon that is only meant to be aimed at legs. Again cops are just firing these deadly projectiles at random? They aren't trained to know exactly where the bullet is going? If you are aiming at the legs that is where it should hit, no excuse for anywhere else.

reply to post by Xcathdra


Umm ok what? You disagree that there are note likely agent provacatuers even though they are very common in situations like this and have been recorded multiple times in the last few years. There have already been videos of Oakland cops hanging out in groups out of uniform with bandanas around their necks at the protest and then in uniform at the same protest later.

The second thing you said, no point was made, cops shouldn't be breaking the law period right? The guy here was leaving the protest and was caught and beat to a pulp by a group of cops and then didn't get hospital treatment for 18 hours. He was in excruciating pain all of that time. He was innocent. You can justify that? You can justify that kind of treatment to an innocent person?!?!

Originally posted by gamesmaster63
I won't argue that it can be confrontational, but who gets to say so? Also, aren't PO's trained to non-aggressively deal with verbal confrontation? I know that most PO's in my city and state are, I have worked in occupations where I have had a lot of interaction with both city and state police, and many of them are my friends.

I cant speak for all of law enforcement but my academy traiing as well as continuing / advanced training at my department includes "verbal judo".

However as with anything there is a time and place. Trying to address issues in a riot situation is not a good time, nor is it a good place, to attempt that. I still think we are not getting the entire story from the vet. No disrespect to his service to the country is intended, however as another pointed out it shouldnt be considered.

The fact it is by some people in these threads drives home my point about the hypocrisy an d agenda some people like to run. Many argue the police get special treatment when they break the law, and those people are passionate about that perception.

Any particular reason those people are ok with the double standard? Could it be their position has nothing to do with the purpose of the protests? What about the other people who sustained injuries, on both sides of line? Why are those ignored? Could it be because an injured protestor is barely news worthy, however an injured protestor who happens to be in the military is the lead in?

Manipulation much by the media / anti government people?

Originally posted by gamesmaster63
Again, no disagreement, but the level of pain expressed should have caused the RN to be suspicious of possible further injury. This should have prompted her to refer him to an ER, with police escort, thus keeping him in custody.

Out of curiosity can anyone tell me the warning signs of a perosn who has a injury to their spleen? Law Enforcement in addition to RN's arnt allowed to diagnose a person. Secondly, from the article, the guy never made mention of anything other than not feeling well. Look at it form the flipside. The jail facilities are busier than normal with rioters / etc being booked in on misdameanor charges nd then released back out the door. How many people do you think are going to claim some type of medical issue in hopes of getting out of jail / charge?

You guys are seeing this through the benefiet of 20/20 hindsight. Something that the person injured, the cops present and the Jail nurse dont have the luxury of.


[

Originally posted by gamesmaster63
True, but because the officers were expecting confrontational behavior, perhaps they saw confrontation where there was none.

or it could be possible the cops werent being agressive until the person became agressive with them? We can speculate back and forth, but all we have right now is one side of the story, and you know how the saying goes -
There is his side, their side and somewhere in the middle lies the truth.

Originally posted by gamesmaster63
Unless the inappropriate behavior; in this case referring to the time before proper medical attention, caused further injury, then it would be.

Not really and here is why. The staff could not have known the guys spleen was damaged. That is not something people are trained to know about. Thee is a term called acting in good faith. If the officers / nurse acted on the belief that there was nothing wrong with the person, and its based on the evidence available to them at the time, their actions are valid.

As a police officer I couldnt rule a house fire an arson anymore than a jail nurse can make a diagnosis, especially of a ruptured / lacerated spleen. The comment about the alcohol / heroin is without context. I would like to see what action prompted that comment. Was the guy drinking before he went to the protest area? Was he drunk? Was there anything else in his system?.

Originally posted by gamesmaster63
One thing that I am saying here, is with the bad press that the Oakland PD has already received, I would think that they would be a little more cautious and proactive in order to get some good PR.

The problem wit that statement is the Oakland PD had nothing to do with the first vets injuries. There are about 4 different version of that story going around. First is was all about the rubber bullets, and at one point a protestor showed a rubber bullet he claimed to have found at the scene. Oakland PD does not use rubber bullets, and once that came out, it was spun intoi the flash bang causing the issue. When it was found flash bangs dont explode like a grenade, it moved into the tear gas head shot theory.

Also, as far as the PR comment goes, is there any reason its concentrated on just law enforcement? Cops didnt decide to just show up in downtoan Oakland in hopes of a protest occuring. The bahavior of some of the civilians in attendance is worse off than what people accuse law enforcement of.

Why the double standard?

Originally posted by gamesmaster63
I understand your reluctance to just accept what has been reported to this point, Xcathdra, and I even agree with many of your points, but you have to admit that evidence is building.

Evidence of what? If an investigation determins and officers actions were invalid and a laww violation, then by all means file charges and go from there. People must remeber that even if they found evidence of the second gunmen on the grassy knoll, they must still prove in court beyond a reasonable doubt the facts present supports the charge, and since thats done in court and not with law enforcement, we must be patient and wait.

Originally posted by gamesmaster63
Don't get me wrong, I think that the investigations should continue and whoever is in the wrong should be held accountable.

Completely agree

Originally posted by gamesmaster63
I am not jumping on the hate all police bandwagon either, I have to much respect for the ones that I know; but I really have to wonder, when two people in two weeks are put into the hospital in critical condition, maybe it's time to ensure that the only officers on the front lines are ones with prior experience in defusing hostile situations.

Again, and with all due respect, wy the one sided view? Is it so difficult to accept that law enforcement, given the situation, acted appropriately?

More than just the 2 vets went to the hospital with injuries. Highlighting those 2 does not support the argument for police over reaction or brutality. We still dont know what caused the fisrt vets injuries, nor do we know what caused the second vets injuries. People are making leaps of logic based on info from one side only.

As far as defusing a volatile situation let me ask this - Why dont the protestors comply with the law enforcement commands? Before the police move in, they are on loud speakers giving ample warnings for people to disperse the area and move on.

When those people ignore police commands, they have set the events into motion resulting in a confrontation.

Originally posted by gamesmaster63
This is Oakland after all, they have to have quite a few officers experienced in that way

Again you assume its oakland PD. People seem to be uignoring the fact other agencies are involved.

Originally posted by GogoVicMorrow
Rocks against armor is nothing. They don't feel it.

First off this is the worst attempt to justify bad behavior solely to paint the police as something they arent. Not all people present have riot gear on. Throwing rocks or glass bottles could easily hit other protestors, possibly creating a head injury to one and spleen injury to the second one form where he fell when hit with a rock / bottle.

Also, I wear body armor when I go to work. just because I have that armor on doesnt mean people are free to shoot at me.

Originally posted by GogoVicMorrow
So you are telling me that cops aren't trained on how to fire their weapons? You guys just fire willy nilly into crowds?

Actually we are, and as I stated before the manner those items were deployed are consistent with policy and case law goerning their use. There is no such thing as a non lethal / non violent / noi possibility of injury item we can use. You could be walking down the hall holding a pencil, trip and fall, and be killed when the pencil penetrated your brain thorugh the eye socket. There is risk with everything, from being a police officer to protesting.

Pepper Spray, Tear Gas and Flash bangs are area of effect items.

Ever think the police would not have needed to emply those methods had the crowds complied with reasonable requests to claer the streets as well as private property and businesses?

Originally posted by GogoVicMorrow
You wouldn't make absolute sure that it wasn't going to hit someone (in the head of all places) and critically injure them? Especially a weapon that shouldn't be shot in the direction of anyone? Tear gas canisters should hit no person. Rubber bullets. A weapon that is only meant to be aimed at legs. Again cops are just firing these deadly projectiles at random? They aren't trained to know exactly where the bullet is going? If you are aiming at the legs that is where it should hit, no excuse for anywhere else.

This is the problem. You are viewing this incident and judging officers actions on what you think the law should be, an not what it actually is.

The decision to use force by an officer is reviewed in context. Meaning what did the officer perceive at the exact moment force was used. Hindsight 20/20 is not allowed per SCOTUS.

The characterization of the weapons is a bit over dramatic. We can make the same argument for automobiles, baseball bats, airplanes, handcuffs etc etc etc.

Again, had the crowds moved there would have been no reason for law enforcement to employ those items.

Originally posted by GogoVicMorrow
Umm ok what? You disagree that there are note likely agent provacatuers even though they are very common in situations like this and have been recorded multiple times in the last few years. There have already been videos of Oakland cops hanging out in groups out of uniform with bandanas around their necks at the protest and then in uniform at the same protest later.

Once again your myopic view only sees one side of the story, focusing only on officer actions. I think there are provacatuers present, however I dont think its limited to just the police. To ignore the actons of people because they arent the police while calling out the actions of the police is hypocritical and self defeating.

Is it that hard to accept that people other than the police can do wrong?

Originally posted by GogoVicMorrow
The second thing you said, no point was made, cops shouldn't be breaking the law period right? The guy here was leaving the protest and was caught and beat to a pulp by a group of cops and then didn't get hospital treatment for 18 hours. He was in excruciating pain all of that time. He was innocent. You can justify that? You can justify that kind of treatment to an innocent person?!?!

Again, we dont know that is true. We only have one side of the story, and for some reason you and others dont seem to care about finding the truth. You seem more intrested in just blaming the police for personal reasons.

I can go into detail about the justification for an officers use of force, and I have done so in other threads. The problem with that is you guys ignore it because you dont like the law that allows it. Simply ignoring a law doesnt mean its invalid, nor does it mean people arent protected by it.

If you guys really want to go down the law road we can, however I dont think you are going to get the truth you want from that road either.

Let the investigation run its course. As you pointed out above with the vet, I will point this out to you - the cops are also innocent until proven guilty.

You guys really need to quit seeing only what you want while ignoring the parts that dont support your claims.

reply to post by Xcathdra


We don't know what is true?
I think you are confused on the law.

You miss the point of being a police officer I guess. Which is sad since you are one. Cops are never tried equally by the law so it doesn't really matter if they are found guilty. The system is broken and rigged in their favor.
You and I both know they guy didn't fake the pain he was in as the doctors can testify and he was left without medical attention for hours. I doubt it took a beating by several cops to get him under control.

The fact is you have never taken a citizens side ever. That is enough for me. You are more cop than you are person. You just can't see it. There has never been an instance that I have seen where your first reaction was wow that's a messed up thing for a cop to do.

Originally posted by GogoVicMorrow
reply to post by Xcathdra

 

We don't know what is true?
I think you are confused on the law.

The story about how the vets, both of them, were injured. We only have one side of the story. We dont know for usre what caused their injuries. We dont know what their actions were during the time of the injuries. People havent bothered to explore the thrown rocks / bottles as a possibility, instead just concentraing on the police theory.

So yeah - we dont know what is true in these reagrds.

And no, im not confused about the law at all. Are you?

reply to post by Xcathdra


He is innocent until proven guilty. The cops are always violating rights by punishing the innocent knowing it will NEVER come to that for them. They will always be tried first and barely punished (if found guilty) later. That is undeniable fact. FACT.

I also added to my above post.

Why would I need to move just because a police officer demands it?

Please add any comments to the existing thread found here...

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Thread closed.