• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

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

Military and police have very different mission statements. Police enforce the rule of law. Military kill enemy combatants.

All the more surprising that military SOP in this case seemed to be a lot less "trigger-happy" and more disciplined than what apparently happened in Oakland, I think that's the point the OP is trying to make.
 
Marine Says Oakland Used Crowd Control Methods That Are Prohibited In War Zones

But thats ok because the OWS people are commies and deserve whats coming to them.

I know what he's trying to describe - I've been through the SOTG non-lethal course as well. (incidentally, your bit about humanity? oleoresin capscicum (and you suggested foam!)..... trust me on this one. not humane. I'd rather you just beat me with a stick :D ). Those are not the rules for a warzone. Those aren't even the rules for a tax-free danger area such as Kuwait, for cripes sakes. In a warzone - always you have live rounds. Never are you allowed to not to have live rounds.

but you do have shotguns, that is true, with beanbags, as I have mentioned before. which can also kill, should they strike you in the head.




but hey, ya'll keep trying to whitewash the actions of the crowd by trying to smear the cops. it's a good media image, at least, so maybe it will work out for you.
 
Last edited:
All the more surprising that military SOP in this case seemed to be a lot less "trigger-happy" and more disciplined than what apparently happened in Oakland, I think that's the point the OP is trying to make.

:shrug: then it's a stupid point, because in a warzone we are a lot more "trigger happy", and anyone who has worked crowd control can look at this line and know that the cops did show discipline. a breakdown of discipline would have involved them trying to kill people on purpose.
 
:shrug: then it's a stupid point, because in a warzone we are a lot more "trigger happy", and anyone who has worked crowd control can look at this line and know that the cops did show discipline. a breakdown of discipline would have involved them trying to kill people on purpose.

I'm no expert, but was the quote that was mentioned in the OP accurate?
 
Marine Says Oakland Used Crowd Control Methods That Are Prohibited In War Zones



But thats ok because the OWS people are commies and deserve whats coming to them.

Ok well - he has a point.

They're not allowed to do it in a warzone to the enemy or foreigners but are allowed to do it at home to our own people . . . what it seems is that our rules and regulations for home-base use are antiquated whereas the rules and regulations that have developed for warzone areas are specifically designed to be overly careful and sensitive as not to harm civilians.

Well - that's reasonable. Regulation VS regulation. Is there anything in this officer's training or regulation code that dictates he used his firing tool inaccurately? Anything in their crowd-dispersal training that would have (should have) told him otherwise?

If not - then obviously the problem with this issue lies in a lack of proper and adequate training or regulations.

But I disagree with the accusation that he was aiming - I think he was just firing into the crowd and happened ot hit someone. If this was unacceptable there should be written rules against it which the officer then would have violated.
 
Last edited:
1) I thought there were administrative rules against military personnel participating in political protests while in uniform. Does anyone have any insight on that?

that is correct. the military is apolitical and while individual members retain most of their rights of free speech - they are heavily mitigated when it comes to connecting their service to their speech.

at least, while they are active duty. Once you are out (which means if you did 1 tour you are past your IRR time as well), then you're out.

2) Police are humans just like the rest of us. They get twitchy and nervous, makes mistakes and overreact just like everyone else. It's really a high-stress job, and when you combine that stress with a volatile situation w/ demonstrators, and a lack of experience with regard to riot/crowd control tactics, **** just happens sometimes.

**** does indeed happen. the law of big numbers always comes through. if you use a non-lethal weapon on a crowd, no matter how comparatively gentle, eventually you will seriously hurt someone. and police are indeed human, and subject to all of our foils. which is why I am proud of them - given the actions of the crowd, they acted with admirable restraint.
 
Jesus Christ! There is something screwed up with America when people start saying that brutality is not brutal enough unless people start dying.

What's even more screwed up, is that people think that they can break the law and there will be concequences.
 
From your link:
The Military manual states:
…have a duty to collect and care for the wounded. Prioritize treatment according to injuries. Make NO treatment distinction based on nationality. All soldiers, enemy or friendly, must be treated the same. [/b]

Not really germaine to your post's intent, but this is a real surprise. I can pretty much guarantee I'm not going to be treating enemy and friendly the same.

As to your post, **** happens. Accidents happen. This anonymous source says one aims for range and not at people's heads. So. Range requires an arc. I don't for a New York Minute think this copper aimed at someone's head intentionally. If you think so, then you're into conspiracies. We have got to give "our own" the benefit of the doubt. Period.

Enemy wounded that have been wounded by American firepower.
 
1) I thought there were administrative rules against military personnel participating in political protests while in uniform. Does anyone have any insight on that?

2) Police are humans just like the rest of us. They get twitchy and nervous, makes mistakes and overreact just like everyone else. It's really a high-stress job, and when you combine that stress with a volatile situation w/ demonstrators, and a lack of experience with regard to riot/crowd control tactics, **** just happens sometimes.

You're thinking exactly correct
 
I guess I have to do this again in this thread...

Article said:
Before gas goes into a crowd shield bearers have to be making no progress moving a crowd or crowd must be assaulting the line. Not with sticks and stones but a no bull**** assault.
I wonder what the manual describes is a "no bull****" assault. Sounds like an opinionated statement. Fact is they were assaulting the line, and no progress was being made.
3 warnings must be given to the crowd in a manner they can hear that force is about to be used.
Warnings were issued... and ignored.
Shield bearers take a knee and CS gas is released in grenade form first to fog out your lines because you have gas masks. You then kick the canisters along in front of your lines.
Not how FEMA teaches Law Enforcement Agencies across the country strangely enough. And yes, my department is going through that as many of us will have to help with the DNC next year.
You also have shotguns with beanbags and various less than lethal rounds for your launchers. These are the rules for a WARZONE!!
Which they had.
How did a cop who is supposed to have training on his weapon system accidentally SHOOT someone in the head with a 40mm gas canister? Simple. He was aiming at him.
I watched a very clear video where the camera SHOWED the guy before and after he was injured... no projectile came smacking him directly in the head.... This marine obviously has some bias issues... or was TOLD (by a biased person) that the guy was shot in the head. Regardless.... He is talking out of his ass.
The person that pulled that trigger has no business being a cop.
Says the Marine who has no business speaking on the matter.
He sent that round out with the intention of doing some serious damage to the protestors.
Again, lack of any knowledge of intent, yet making accusatory statements.
 
What's even more screwed up, is that people think that they can break the law and there will be concequences.

why wouldnt' they? they've never had to face consequences before in their life. they think having to face consequences is mean and unfair - that's what this whole protest is about.
 
The footage I have seen shows him on the ground quite close to the police line. The police are standing behind barricades, not trying to advance afaict.

Iraq War Veteran Suffers Skull Fracture In Occupy Oakland Violence « CBS San Francisco

Yes, he is on the ground quite close to the police line...

But if one watches the video I saw that someone posted in the main Oakland Police Raid thread, you can SEE HIM when he falls, and nothing is shot directly at him hitting him.

As close as he is, if he was hit in the head by a direct shot, his head would explode.

He was hit by something else, or knocked down and cracked his head.....
 
I'm no expert, but was the quote that was mentioned in the OP accurate?

Ok well - he has a point.

They're not allowed to do it in a warzone to the enemy or foreigners but are allowed to do it at home to our own people . . . what it seems is that our rules and regulations for home-base use are antiquated whereas the rules and regulations that have developed for warzone areas are specifically designed to be overly careful and sensitive as not to harm civilians.

technically yes, this kind of thing would not happen in a warzone - however, the truth of that charge is a matter of insinuated direction. In a warzone, the ammunition that you carry is live; and human wave attacks are met with grenades that spray shrapnel.
 
why wouldnt' they? they've never had to face consequences before in their life. they think having to face consequences is mean and unfair - that's what this whole protest is about.

Keep pretending that you don't get it. Others with far more vision do get it.

according to Bloomberg Businessweek:
They want more and better jobs, more equal distribution of income, less profit (or no profit) for banks, lower compensation for bankers, and more strictures on banks with regard to negotiating consumer services such as mortgages and debit cards. They also want to reduce the influence that corporations—financial firms in particular—wield in politics, and they want a more populist set of government priorities: bailouts for student debtors and mortgage holders, not just for banks.

But you knew all this anyway and simply pretend to focus on stupid nonsense like trivia and hygiene and where somebody poops or pees because it helps you mock what you are afraid of. For folks of your ilk, its the same as whistling past a graveyard.
 
I find it pretty entertaining how you argue that they don't want to avoid paying for themselves or facing the consequences of their actions.... and then you unironically cite an piece claiming that they are demanding a bail-out.
 
Keep pretending that you don't get it. Others with far more vision do get it.

according to Bloomberg Businessweek:


But you knew all this anyway and simply pretend to focus on stupid nonsense like trivia and hygiene and where somebody poops or pees because it helps you mock what you are afraid of. For folks of your ilk, its the same as whistling past a graveyard.
Get a clue, they're not going to get any of that on Wall Street. Half the freaking federal budget is a redistribution. Hello?
 
I'll admit, I am curious about why I am supposed to be afraid of these people. Are they breeding some kind of supervirus in there?
 
I know what he's trying to describe - I've been through the SOTG non-lethal course as well. (incidentally, your bit about humanity? oleoresin capscicum (and you suggested foam!)..... trust me on this one. not humane. I'd rather you just beat me with a stick :D ). Those are not the rules for a warzone. Those aren't even the rules for a tax-free danger area such as Kuwait, for cripes sakes. In a warzone - always you have live rounds. Never are you allowed to not to have live rounds.

but you do have shotguns, that is true, with beanbags, as I have mentioned before. which can also kill, should they strike you in the head.




but hey, ya'll keep trying to whitewash the actions of the crowd by trying to smear the cops. it's a good media image, at least, so maybe it will work out for you.
Are you saying the Marine is wrong. It's not like police don't make mistakes. No doubt there's been error on both sides, because protesters can be beligerent too. But the police have to consider the fact that the protesters are generally unarmed. Regardless of the subject of the protest, we have to be careful to watch the crossing of the line in subduing speech or even the appearance thereof. Otherwise it could come to the point very quickly where the 2nd Amendment comes in and citizens begin to shoot back in an attempt to protect their right to speech. We don't want to go there. Because in the end whether the crowd was acting up or not, all that will be remembered is that citizens began fighting the govt for their rights.
 
Keep pretending that you don't get it. Others with far more vision do get it.

What is there not to get? these people are (not all of them mind you) speaking for the most part against capitalism, and successful business in this country. It really is a childish stand.

Let's take a look at the Bloomberg article you posted bit by bit shall we?

haymarket's Bloomberg article said:
They want more and better jobs,

Don't we all want jobs....? Employers want to hire, and investors want to invest, but why would they when they are not sure what is going to happen down the road? And oh, BTW, I thought that the big business people, and investors weren't how jobs were created? Wasn't that the popular meme of the liberal left?

more equal distribution of income

This notion of "distribution" of income....Tell us, who distributes income? There is no such thing.

less profit (or no profit) for banks, lower compensation for bankers

Why do people get into business? No profit? heh, who would lend you money for nothing? Executive compensation should not be your concern. It is largely based on what the market will bear. Sounds like childish jealousy to me.

and more strictures on banks with regard to negotiating consumer services such as mortgages and debit cards.

So you want your money for nothin' and your chicks for free eh? Although some of the way banks are regulated need to be looked at as far as keeping a top on things like usury laws, I don't think it is the major banks doing such. You want the real problem striking the poor with interest, take a look at the payday loan industry, or title loans. Now there is some real ****heads in that industry.

They also want to reduce the influence that corporations—financial firms in particular—wield in politics

I agree in part, but only if they admit that unions also have to get out of politics.

and they want a more populist set of government priorities: bailouts for student debtors and mortgage holders, not just for banks.

Oh so, they want more freebies themselves....I am shocked! Good GAWD! these people are nuts!

But you knew all this anyway and simply pretend to focus on stupid nonsense like trivia and hygiene and where somebody poops or pees because it helps you mock what you are afraid of. For folks of your ilk, its the same as whistling past a graveyard.

When they start acting like adults, and not children throwing a temper tantrum, get back to us.

j-mac
 
Oh, and BTW, isn't there some question as to whether or not this IVAW marine was even hit by the canister in the first place? This guy could have been hit by the rocks, and bottles that other protesters were throwing at the police. But I guess the police are just supposed to take it eh?

j-mac
 
Get a clue, they're not going to get any of that on Wall Street. Half the freaking federal budget is a redistribution. Hello?

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'

This notion of "distribution" of income....Tell us, who distributes income? There is no such thing.

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.

I agree in part, but only if they admit that unions also have to get out of politics.

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

Why do people get into business? No profit? heh, who would lend you money for nothing? Executive compensation should not be your concern. It is largely based on what the market will bear. Sounds like childish jealousy to me.

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.

Don't we all want jobs....?

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.
 
Last edited:
They want more and better jobs, more equal distribution of income, less profit (or no profit) for banks, lower compensation for bankers, and more strictures on banks with regard to negotiating consumer services such as mortgages and debit cards. They also want to reduce the influence that corporations—financial firms in particular—wield in politics, and they want a more populist set of government priorities: bailouts for student debtors and mortgage holders, not just for banks.

Those are the folks that, "get it"? I'll keep not, "getting it", but thanks anyway. :lamo
 
Those are the folks that, "get it"? I'll keep not, "getting it", but thanks anyway. :lamo

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.
 
Back
Top Bottom