Marine Says Oakland Used Crowd Control Methods That Are Prohibited In War Zones

haymarket said:

Your announcement that you do not get it comes right after the news bulletin on the CNN news that the sun came up in the east this morning.

Click to expand...

When I see the school of thought out there from the folks, "who get it", I take your comment as a compliment.

Student loan bailouts? No profit for banks? You're right. I don't ****in' get it! :lamo

haymarket said:

Do you labor under the delusion that the OWS demonstrators are begging Wall Street to do things things out of the goodness of their heart?

No wonder the right wing lives at the bottom of that rabbit hole.

Click to expand...

Ah, smear, and personal attack...man you are almost a parody of liberal thought.

This is about drawing attention to problems and alerting the people of the nation to the dangers before us.

Click to expand...

Attention to problems eh, you mean like your seeming support of the use of violence in conjunction with your comrades overblown temper tantrum?

The fact that progressives, and liberals are so willing to use violence should bear striking contrast to anything the Tea party was doing...

j-mac gives us an indication of his thinking process replying to my comment

more equal distribution of income


with this nugget of 'wisdom'

Click to expand...

I see personal attack, but not too much actual rebuttal....Explain your phrase 'distribution of income'

There is no such thing as income distribution!?!?!?!? Amazing. And you got this economic truth from where exactly? That statements is indicative of the rest of your reply.

Click to expand...

Still more attack...no substance.

You cannot pass up an opportunity - even a lame one - to attacks unions can you? Predictable and silly.

Click to expand...

Dismissal, is not anything close to debate. Am I to infer that you don't think that unions are involved with the Occupy children?

Do you know the difference between the words LESS and NO when discussing profit? Obviously either you do not or you do not care to examine the difference. Less profit is a reasonable demand. I agree that NO profit is not a reasonable but I have seen no real advocacy for that sort of thing outside of this Bloomberg framing of the ideas. But a nice try to distort and pervert the actual words they said with a strawman of your own making for a much easier target.

Click to expand...

First off, which is it then? Less, or No? You said both when you put in the "or". Second, it is the shareholders that demand the level of profit within a corporation, and hold their execs accountable when that level is not achieved...BTW, those share holders are you and I pal. So what is it you think? Government should tell corporations what they can make?

j-mac

haymarket said:

Do you labor under the delusion that the OWS demonstrators are begging Wall Street to do things things out of the goodness of their heart?

No wonder the right wing lives at the bottom of that rabbit hole.

This is about drawing attention to problems and alerting the people of the nation to the dangers before us.

j-mac gives us an indication of his thinking process replying to my comment

more equal distribution of income


with this nugget of 'wisdom'



There is no such thing as income distribution!?!?!?!? Amazing. And you got this economic truth from where exactly? That statements is indicative of the rest of your reply.



You cannot pass up an opportunity - even a lame one - to attacks unions can you? Predictable and silly.

on banks needing to get less profit ...... less profit (or no profit) for banks



Do you know the difference between the words LESS and NO when discussing profit? Obviously either you do not or you do not care to examine the difference. Less profit is a reasonable demand. I agree that NO profit is not a reasonable but I have seen no real advocacy for that sort of thing outside of this Bloomberg framing of the ideas. But a nice try to distort and pervert the actual words they said with a strawman of your own making for a much easier target.



Obviously NOT. People on the right here scream, rant and whine about the need to fire public employees and make government smaller. Companies cut millions of jobs and find out they can do just nicely thank you without them. Obviously WE ALL DO NOT WANT JOBS.

Click to expand...

Then draw attention on Washington, DC where it belongs. Oh, but that would be protesting Obama, wouldn't it? And we'd have a conflict of interest there, wouldn't we? Those collecting govt entitlements protesting the hand that feeds. The legal system that allowed all this is located in DC, not NY.

American said:

Then draw attention on Washington, DC where it belongs. Oh, but that would be protesting Obama, wouldn't it? And we'd have a conflict of interest there, wouldn't we? Those collecting govt entitlements protesting the hand that feeds. The legal system that allowed all this is located in DC, not NY.

Click to expand...

Hey, here is a interesting development, when the Tea Party in AZ had some guy walking around with his rifle on his shoulder, the MSM made a huge deal out it, to the point where even today, and in these debates members of DP have mischaracterized that happening as some kind of right wing loons brandishing weapons at Tea party events for smear purposes....Why then have we not heard about this at Phoenix Occupy over the weekend?



j-mac

TurtleDude said:

If the cops were bombing those turds with willy peter or machine gunning them with explosive bullets he might have a point

Click to expand...

We're talking police action, government force, against our own people here. The government is meant to be limited. Or did you forget that? That includes the way in which it may apply force to us and under which conditions they are legally and justly able to employ that force. We don't need to start waiting for the Government to start killing a bunch of the People before we stop and say "wait wait wait....this is too much". If it's too much before hand, then it's too much. The rights and liberties of the individual must be held to their maximum. And that also protects against many forms of government force.

Government is restricted, not the People.

j-mac

you really have an aversion to reality. Here is some of your nonsense replying to me

Attention to problems eh, you mean like your seeming support of the use of violence in conjunction with your comrades overblown temper tantrum?

The fact that progressives, and liberals are so willing to use violence should bear striking contrast to anything the Tea party was doing...

Click to expand...

Could you please man up and quote from my posts on this issue where I support the use of violence in this movement?

If you can do that - the rest of the nonsense you are spewing in my direction can be dealt with. But I want to flush this particular piece of crap here and now.

Ikari said:

We're talking police action, government force, against our own people here. The government is meant to be limited. Or did you forget that? That includes the way in which it may apply force to us and under which conditions they are legally and justly able to employ that force. We don't need to start waiting for the Government to start killing a bunch of the People before we stop and say "wait wait wait....this is too much". If it's too much before hand, then it's too much. The rights and liberties of the individual must be held to their maximum. And that also protects against many forms of government force.

Government is restricted, not the People.

Click to expand...

Ikari - I must say that your position in these threads in discussing this subject has given me a great deal of respect for your intellectual and political consistency. Sad to say that others show no such thing and are motivated by partisan expediency and ideological fear. You voice support for the same principles that you always support. My glass is raised to you. eace

j-mac said:

Hey, here is a interesting development, when the Tea Party in AZ had some guy walking around with his rifle on his shoulder, the MSM made a huge deal out it, to the point where even today, and in these debates members of DP have mischaracterized that happening as some kind of right wing loons brandishing weapons at Tea party events for smear purposes....Why then have we not heard about this at Phoenix Occupy over the weekend?



j-mac

Click to expand...

Is this like the fifth different thread we have seen this really important development in in the last two days?

Ikari said:

We're talking police action, government force, against our own people here. The government is meant to be limited. Or did you forget that? That includes the way in which it may apply force to us and under which conditions they are legally and justly able to employ that force. We don't need to start waiting for the Government to start killing a bunch of the People before we stop and say "wait wait wait....this is too much". If it's too much before hand, then it's too much. The rights and liberties of the individual must be held to their maximum. And that also protects against many forms of government force.

Government is restricted, not the People.

Click to expand...

Someone needs to tell our Dear Leader....

Barrak Obama said:

“We can’t wait for Congress to do its job,” Obama said. “So where they won’t act, I will.”

Click to expand...

j-mac

Quick question...

has any definitive conclussion even came about that this guy WAS hit by a firearm launched cannister of tear gas, and was doing nothing prior to it?

I've not been keeping up with it a ton, but from the little I've read and seen it seems all there is are protesters, already upset at the cops, claiming that's what happened and video that isn't anything but footage after the fact. I understand the notion that the Cops are potentially biased in what they claim happen, but the same can be said of the protesters.

Its hard for me to scold the government for doing something it shouldn't do if we don't even know if they actually did said thing.

j-mac said:

Someone needs to tell our Dear Leader....

j-mac

Click to expand...

Moderator's Warning:

"Dear Leader" isn't the topic, nor is his quote related to this thread. This is thread jacking, I suggest you cease it

j-mac said:

Someone needs to tell our Dear Leader....



j-mac

Click to expand...

You won't hear me complain. I'd reinstate a lot of the checks and balances, I think the Presidency has usurped well too much power and now wields too much. Congress should be the most powerful branch. In fact through property of controlling money and law it was meant to be (it's also why it was to have the most people). Consolidating power into 1 person is NOT a good idea. The system was meant to be inefficient, slow, and full of infighting. That's how you produce the proper checks.

For everyone who cries "small government" they must understand the ramifications of calling for such a system. Small government means restricted government, capped government, controlled government. Not in just the things you want government away from, but in all things. Limited in how it can go to war, limited in how it can sustain war, limited in how it can act against its people, limited to how it can interact with the market, etc. The small government mindset does not allow for excusing gross State force against the rights and liberties of the individual. Small government, in fact, would be questioning the use of police force here, the type of police force, whether or not there was actual cause for it or if this level of force was unprovoked. If one is truly small government that is.

Zyphlin said:

has any definitive conclussion even came about that this guy WAS hit by a firearm launched cannister of tear gas, and was doing nothing prior to it?

Click to expand...

The State has to prove that, not the individual. His injuries are consistent with being hit by the canister. The police and State must prove that their response was appropriate and within the constraints placed upon them.

Zyphlin said:

Moderator's Warning:

"Dear Leader" isn't the topic, nor is his quote related to this thread. This is thread jacking, I suggest you cease it

Click to expand...

Sorry, that wasn't my intent, but our government actions whether spending the tax payer money as a campaign bribe to a core group, or government giving money to pet projects that are headed up by big Presidential supporters are all examples of Crony capitalism, and governmental overreach...Thus tied to the Occupy movement, and should be considered when discussing the subject.

In the reply, I wasn't trying to argue, as much as make a point that we are a long way from any sort of limit on government.

j-mac

Ikari said:

The State has to prove that, not the individual. His injuries are consistent with being hit by the canister. The police and State must prove that their response was appropriate and within the constraints placed upon them.

Click to expand...

Why does this seem to me the definition of the accused having to prove their innocence, in that the police that were firing tear gas, has to prove the claim that the protester made against them. Isn't the burden of proof in this country on the accuser?

j-mac

Ikari said:

The State has to prove that, not the individual.

Click to expand...

Umm, last I checked police officers are still citizens and are still innocent until proven guilty. I don't agree with your seeming implication that people who make claims of government wrong doing somehow should be believed as factually true unless the government proves otherwise.

The police and State must prove that their response was appropriate and within the constraints placed upon them.

Click to expand...

And here you're making hte assumption that there WAS a response by them that they must prove was appropriate. My issue is I've seen nothing at this point that concludes that is the absolute case.

As I do with every other instance of a potential crime, I'm going to hold off on making grand accusations and demands for action to be taken until the dust settles enough for some semblance of real facts and definitive answer scome out.

j-mac said:

Why does this seem to me the definition of the accused having to prove their innocence, in that the police that were firing tear gas, has to prove the claim that the protester made against them. Isn't the burden of proof in this country on the accuser?

j-mac

Click to expand...

No. Burden of proof is ALWAYS on the State. The State here is the police. They have to demonstrate that their reaction was appropriate and within the constraints placed upon them. The State is the entity which is limited, not the individual. We're not placing the individual cop on trial with possible jail times. We're critiquing the amount of force used by the government against the rights and liberties of the individual. As such the State must PROVE that they were within their rightful power to react the way they did.

Zyphlin said:

And here you're making hte assumption that there WAS a response by them that they must prove was appropriate. My issue is I've seen nothing at this point that concludes that is the absolute case.

Click to expand...

So the State made no response? No action? Then why do we even have this thread. The police obviously stood there and took no action against the people, and thus we have nothing to discuss.

Zyphlin said:

As I do with every other instance of a potential crime, I'm going to hold off on making grand accusations and demands for action to be taken until the dust settles enough for some semblance of real facts and definitive answer scome out.

Click to expand...

I didn't make accusations. I merely claimed that the State must prove its case. It is the State which is limited, not the People.

What a joke. Protesters who are insisting on provocation in their pursuit of gaining public sympathy and support, get injured, and it's a national issue?
Go protest on a majory highway and see if some of you idiots don't get hit by cars. And then start yelling about highway laws (The marine OP issue), or about how you're gonna sue because it's someone elses fault you got hit while prancing around on a busy street (Ikari wanting it to be some legal issue).

It's all this type of person though, this OWS mindset, this ignorant masses trying to armchair run the country. Like some Marine trying to say what's appropriate or not rather than the law enforcement officials actually in charge there. Or Ikari trying to question the "use of force", when clearly OWS is consistently clashing with the police for the apparently purpose of generating sympathetic headlines...which appear to backfire because they have no legitimate cause for acting like ass-hats.

It's like all these college kids and unemployed people saw those middle east protests and thought "hey, we need to do the same!!! Arab Spring!!! Hot damn!! Uh, you live in the U.S. you idiots, not under a ruthless dictator in a 3rd world country. The police are reacting to your violent behavior and illegal protests, not trying to tell you what gods to worship or what you do with your life, etc.

Mach said:

Or Ikari trying to question the "use of force", when clearly OWS is consistently clashing with the police for the apparently purpose of generating sympathetic headlines...which appear to backfire because they have no legitimate cause for acting like ass-hats.

Click to expand...

Clearly, huh? So you can, beyond a shadow of a doubt, prove this? Can I see this "proof"?

Ikari said:

So the State made no response? No action? Then why do we even have this thread. The police obviously stood there and took no action against the people, and thus we have nothing to discuss.

Click to expand...

We have this thread because the person in question claims that the state took action, and another person claims that said claimed action would not be allowed in a War Zone.

I can claim that the government spied on my personal computer and stole information, another person could claim such thing is illegal.

Claims do not equal fact.

IF what the individual who was injured says comes to light as being the actual truth of the matter then I think the cops in question went too far...IE, the guy was not doing anything threatening, his injury came from a cannister, and said cannister was actually fired from a weapon by an officer.

However, at this point I have no idea if his story is true or not and nothing substantial enough to lead me to believe its true any more than for me to doubt its veracity. At this point I am not going to demand that the government prove something, that their response was appropriate, that may not be provable because it may not have happened as stated. I'm going to do the same thing I do in most matters or potential illegality...wait until all the emotion of the immediete circumstances dies out and try to look at all the facts as they actually become clear and make a judgement once something solid seems to form. That, from what I've seen, isn't where this issue is.

I didn't make accusations. I merely claimed that the State must prove its case. It is the State which is limited, not the People.

Click to expand...

The State is not required to "prove" every claim made against it is false or else accept that said claim is true. Its ridiculous and unrealistic to demand them to do such.

Zyphlin said:

We have this thread because the person in question claims that the state took action, and another person claims that said claimed action would not be allowed in a War Zone.

I can claim that the government spied on my personal computer and stole information, another person could claim such thing is illegal.

Claims do not equal fact.

Click to expand...

Certainly do not. But if there is recorded evidence of your computer being broken into, you can certainly say action was taken against you. It's not as clear cut in this case as in this case we SAW the cops firing tear gas and other projectiles into the crowd, so we KNOW that the State did take action. There is reaction against it, claims that how they conducted the action is not lawful under other sets of rules, etc. What is NOT in contention, however, is that of State action. We KNOW they took action, it's been measured.

Zyphlin said:

IF what the individual who was injured says comes to light as being the actual truth of the matter then I think the cops in question went too far...IE, the guy was not doing anything threatening, his injury came from a cannister, and said cannister was actually fired from a weapon by an officer.

However, at this point I have no idea if his story is true or not and nothing substantial enough to lead me to believe its true any more than for me to doubt its veracity. At this point I am not going to demand that the government prove something, that their response was appropriate, that may not be provable because it may not have happened as stated. I'm going to do the same thing I do in most matters or potential illegality...wait until all the emotion of the immediete circumstances dies out and try to look at all the facts as they actually become clear and make a judgement once something solid seems to form. That, from what I've seen, isn't where this issue is.

Click to expand...

At this point we have immediate concern, however. From measured quantities we saw this man get injured during a period of launching projectiles and gas cans into the crowd (a technique that apparently isn't standard for dispersal). As this is government force against our own people, I do think that this requires investigation and not dismissal. There is enough from measured quantity to assume that there is a decent chance this man was injured through police action. Under such circumstance then, we must determine what happened. We must question the police as to why the responded in that manner, was that manner justified. Since this is action of the State against the exercise of the rights of the individual, we must demonstrate the State was within proper restraint to take the action it did.

Whenever they fire into the crowds of our own people, it must be demonstrated that they acted justly and appropriately. Even if no one is hurt. Because the action is still being taken against our rights, and thus force used against our rights MUST BE JUSTIFIED. If not, then the State must be further explicitly restricted to prevent aggressive government force being used against our rights.

Zyphlin said:

The State is not required to "prove" every claim made against it is false or else accept that said claim is true. Its ridiculous and unrealistic to demand them to do such.

Click to expand...

Not every claim. But there's enough here to warrant the demand.

Ikari said:

Certainly do not. But if there is recorded evidence of your computer being broken into, you can certainly say action was taken against you. It's not as clear cut in this case as in this case we SAW the cops firing tear gas and other projectiles into the crowd, so we KNOW that the State did take action.

Click to expand...

We have seen that in this particular case? Like I said in my first post, I've not read a ton which is why I was specifically asking for what evidence has been shown outside of what I mentioned above. I know they've shown things of tear gas at places...I didn't know if there was evidence that it happened at the location this gentleman was at.

I do think that this requires investigation and not dismissal.

Click to expand...

I'm not against investigation, I have no issue with that. I'm just saying I'm not of the mind to start condemning and significantly accusing the government of definite wrong doing prior to said investigation.

Zyphlin said:

Quick question...

has any definitive conclussion even came about that this guy WAS hit by a firearm launched cannister of tear gas, and was doing nothing prior to it?

I've not been keeping up with it a ton, but from the little I've read and seen it seems all there is are protesters, already upset at the cops, claiming that's what happened and video that isn't anything but footage after the fact. I understand the notion that the Cops are potentially biased in what they claim happen, but the same can be said of the protesters.

Its hard for me to scold the government for doing something it shouldn't do if we don't even know if they actually did said thing.

Click to expand...

Im still not convinced the guy was struck with anything.
From the video I saw, two others just ran pretty much right on top of him and he fell, and didn't even try to get up at that point. Its unknown if some debris from a riot control munition uncontrolably flew into his head, or he just got knocked down by other protesters and smacked his head good on the pavement.

Caine said:

Im still not convinced the guy was struck with anything.
From the video I saw, two others just ran pretty much right on top of him and he fell, and didn't even try to get up at that point. Its unknown if some debris from a riot control munition uncontrolably flew into his head, or he just got knocked down by other protesters and smacked his head good on the pavement.

Click to expand...

He went down like a sack of potatoes right after the big burst just downscreen.

You can see it in the video if you look. My wife saw it first and pointed it out to me, but its there. Looks just like some piece of shrapnel got him, not that he was struck directly.