Marine: "He was aiming at him-Oakland Used Crowd Control Methods That Are Prohibited In War Zones"

[kpete]

Marine Says Oakland Used Crowd Control Methods That Are Prohibited In War Zones
Robert Johnson and Linette Lopez | Oct. 28, 2011, 8:28 AM | 5,135 | 36

As the events that led to Scott Olsen's injury continue to unfold and investigations begin, we thought it important to offer some perspective. This comment is from a former Marine with special operations in crowd control.
http://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/lqv57/marines_to_oakland_police_you_did_this_to_my/


He points out that shooting canisters such as those that likely hit Scott Olsen is prohibited under rules of engagements in Iraq and Afghanistan. Regardless of any political position on the Occupy protests, these are some Interesting insights:

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 bullshit assault. 3 warnings must be given to the crowd in a manner they can hear that force is about to be used. 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. Projectile gas is not used except for longer ranged engagement or trying to steer the crowd ( by steering a crowd I mean firing gas to block a street off ). You also have shotguns with beanbags and various less than lethal rounds for your launchers. These are the rules for a WARZONE!!

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.


Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/marine-with-crowd-control-training-points-out-oakland-used-methods-prohibited-in-war-zones-2011-10#ixzz1c7d8E2Qt

[Fire Walk With Me]

1. Recommend!

[Vincardog]

2. He was aiming at him.

[McCamy Taylor]

57. Assumes cops are perfect shots and the victim was stationary.

[dotymed]

72. IMO, it assumes that the cop wasn't using proper technique

for crowd control. He was going beyond what is done in a war zone. Gas canisters are not supposed to be shot into protestors.

[City Lights]

3. K&R. eom

[louslobbs]

4. K&R n/t

Lou

[fascisthunter]

5. WOW! These Cops just Made themselves the Bad Guys....

cowards for what they did and how they have reacted so far.

[McCamy Taylor]

60. Nope. YOU just made them the bad guys. Enjoy your divided and conquered Occupy movement.

[MadMaddie]

69. I normally support the police but in this case the protesters

were unarmed. Do you remember the Tea Party movement they walked around with their guns.....why didn't the police remove them? Why didn't they send tear gas into the crowd? The police are mistreated in this country too. From losing their pensions to getting murdered....

There is a problem and to ignore it and allow the police to act like a third world country police state is unacceptable. There are rules for this type of weapon and one of the rules is not to aim at the head....that's not hard to do....in fact if it was tear gas why not aim it short to fall in front of the crowd.....there were other options.....

[democrank]

6. Ready....aim....FIRE!

Sickening

[Gregorian]

7. With the drug war, the cops have had nothing but sitting ducks for decades.

When someone stands up against them now, I believe it must be a real ego crusher for them.

I really want to see huge changes in this country. God knows it's way overdue.

[Bake]

8. This has to be a crime. The cop who did it should/MUST be prosecuted.

Bake

[gateley]

22. And those who gave the orders to use such force need to be

nailed, too. I'm thinking Mayor, City Council, whomever it was who said "go in with riot gear" rather than "go in without riot gear". There was no rioting going on to warrant that order.

[lunatica]

29. City Administrator Deanna Santana developed the plan

She's the one that got all the other police departments to join. I think that's probably illegal too. Don't police have jurisdiction rules or laws?

[gateley]

30. Don't know about the jurisdiction rules, but even if there is

such a "help us!" provision, I hardly think a peaceful protest would qualify as a good reason to implement it.

Did the Mayor have to sign off on Deanna's plan?

[lunatica]

31. I got that information from the Mayor's Facebook page

When she put up the note praising the police work and Deanna Santana. She probably gave her instructions to do it. I think she may have taken the note down though.

[gateley]

43. I've got a rage-on for deanna Santana now, too. I just read

a post that put it perfectly: They were sent out to stop the protest, not to keep the peace.

What kind of officials would intentionally stop a constitutionally-protected protest?

Off with their heads. I hope they, and the others responsible, suffer greatly for their decisions.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

9. There is a tendency to confuse ROE with legal limits

ROE is self imposed

[redqueen]

11. Are you saying that firing tear gas into a crowd at close range..

a crowd who wasn't a threat... a crowd who was coming to the aid of a man who had been injured... that's not against any rules at all?

[bananas]

17. At a minimum, it's assault under color of authority, expert witnesses will convince a jury

beyond a reasonable doubt that this was intentional and not an accident.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Under_color_of_authority

[truedelphi]

53. Good viewpoint. Thanks for offering up the links. n/t

[ProgressiveProfessor]

20. I am saying the citing the ROE in Afganistan is not relevant in the slightest

[Marazinia]

33. First things first

Investigate, convict, and imprison whoever ordered those cops out against the protesters in the first place. I don't for a second believe those cops were sent out to keep the peace. They were sent to stop the protests.

[gateley]

42. I think you stated this perfectly -- sent out to stop the protest,

not to keep the peace. Agree. :thumbsup:

[UnrepentantLiberal]

52. Not gonna happen. Forget about it. (Remember the Rodney King video?)

The cops will say Scott Olsen got in the way of the tear gas canister and the flash-bang grenade. (Oops. Our bad.) Nothing will happen. No one will be convicted of anything.

[Marazinia]

75. Probably not

But you'll have to excuse my temporary overabundance of optimism. I've spent the past few years in a state of utter despair over our political and economic systems.

[cyglet]

10. If

any of us were to "accidentally" shoot someone in the head, the police would be suspicious of us. Because that doesn't just happen. So I don't get why they would escape scrutiny here....they're just awful hired thugs. They're so used to just doing what they want (because they get away with it in the black community etc.; it's easy to do that to groups with little legal clout)...

I can't believe even Oakland Police's own procedures for crowd control were followed...

[xchrom]

12. recommend

[joanbarnes]

13. I'm stunned, but of course, he is correct.

[tuckessee]

14. This is laughable.

Are these the rules that are followed by the same military that has "accidently" directly killed tens of thousands of innocent people over the last decade?

Is he talking about the same military that had immunity from prosecution of war crimes by the locals?

Anybody remember when the 82nd AB opened fire with real bullets on the crowd in Fallujah protesting the US military requisitioning their school buildings? Where were all these ROE sticklers then?

[Muskypundit]

16. You have not a damn clue.

Of anything that happens there.

Civilian deaths occur when we are taking fire or getting attacked by combatants, and they are caught in the middle. Despite your completely biased anecdote, we do not kill civilians who are protesting. Those are the correct ROE for protests and riots, and I have always seen them followed to a T. I operated a loudspeaker on the humvee that gave the three loud verbal warnings.

I know what situation you are talking about. And that day the 82nd was taking fire from people in the crowd, and were running into an ambush behind them when they tried to back off. Nothing is black and white. So dont talk like it is.

We also dont get protected by police unions that stop soldiers from facing military tribunals. Which happens when the rules are not followed.

[gateley]

23. +1 nt

[McCamy Taylor]

61. Sorry, but everyone is fallible. And dividing and conquering police vs. soldiers benefits only the

1%.

[Muskypundit]

68. Sure everyone is fallible.

But only police can get away with it.

[reggie the dog]

21. that same military

isn't it good that the military has rules in place so that if people in it go overboard they get punished? yes our bombs have killed many innocent people but that does not mean that the average soldier occupying iraq has to treat the iraqi people poorly, the military puts rules in place so as to make the relations with the local people as good as they can be.

[pasto76]

27. no I dont. Do you? were you there? ...of course you werent.

just another person who loves to demonize the military. Your comments are about as relevant to the OP as tits on a bull.

[truedelphi]

56. I hear you. I understand where you are coming from.

but our own Pentagon has cited the ROE - like a few years ago, when it came out that our military had the ability to have new "non-lethal" weaponry that works in crowd dispersal situations by heating up a person's skin, via microwave action.
The heating effect is such that people flee the area.

At first it was thought this might be good for our troops to have should there be rebellions in Iraq. but then our top military brass released statements tot he effect that we could not, per Geneva Conventions, use these in a war we are waging - we must first test them on our own people. Or so said the military officials.

Of course, that is contrary to the US Civil Code that our nation uses to govern itself, so I have no idea if the microwave stuff will be used against us when we protest or not.

Perhaps the scariest part of it is that no one knows the effect of such a device on someone who has a mouthful of metal fillings. Would that metal heat up and incinerate your mouth? Would your teeth explode?

[WillyT]

15. Yep... K & R !!!

:mad:

:kick:

[Major Hogwash]

18. It was pretty obvious.

Anyone who has ever used any of those types of weapons or seen them demonstrated knows they aren't supposed to come down from a 45º angle.

[sce56]

19. Let's hope Scott is luckier than Rubén Salazar

Rubén Salazar (March 3, 1928 – August 29, 1970) was a Mexican-American journalist killed by a Los Angeles County Sheriff's deputy during the National Chicano Moratorium March against the Vietnam War on August 29, 1970 in East Los Angeles, California.

On August 29, 1970, he was covering the National Chicano Moratorium March, organized to protest the disproportionate number of Chicanos killed in the Vietnam War. The peaceful march ended with a rally that was broken up by the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department using tear gas. Panic and rioting ensued, during which Salazar was shot in the head at short range with a tear gas projectile while seated in The Silver Dollar Cafe

http://www.aztlan.net/twilson.htm

I remember that day was the first time I smelled riot C/S tear gas, I was there that day marching against the war in Vietnam!

[gateley]

24. Good find. And having had that happen, you'd think they'd

do all they could to not have it happen again. I'm not sure what that would entail, but this never should have occurred a second time. :(

I got gassed protesting the war, too. Just a little bit, but boy, that was enough.

[sce56]

37. Here is a photo taken just before the LA Sheriffs Deputy murdered Salazar

Ruben Salazar walking with RFK

[gateley]

49. I'm not sure if the piece is saying that he was specifically

targeted for murder (sounds like it, but just not sure). So I'll ask you since you were there -- was it essentially a hit job?

And despite being deemed a homicide, the cop suffers no ramifications. I'd like to think it's different these days, but even with all the on-the-spot documentation, there seem to be far too many cops let off the hook.

[sce56]

70. I was getting at the fact that it was a callous use of force shooting a Wall piercing round through

a curtain with no regard for what or who was on the other side! Salazar had been critical of the Police in the past!
As far as Scott is concerned the Police can't say they did not see where they were firing since the people were in plain sight but you have to think they would have had training on all of this having a person killed 40 years ago by a round of tear gas should be taught in weapons training to prevent it from happening again..
The type used against Salazar was I believe simliar to if not actually an Army M79 grenade launcher.

[Fire Walk With Me]

50. Here's a pic of the police line-up behind Scott Olsen:

Sheriffs.

[UnrepentantLiberal]

25. The cop who did this should be put on trial for attempted murder.

But alas, that would make Obama seem like he was siding with undesirables over corporations in an election year. Not gonna happen.

[pasto76]

26. well. Isnt that interesting. takes the wind out of any notion OPD was responding to assault...

which I had been putting a lot of stock into. There is undoubtedly a documented policy on use of tear gas containers within OPD/SFSO

[EFerrari]

44. It's remarkable that the crowd in Oakland was so well behaved

when you think about it because the OPD started raiding them at 3:30 that morning and this assault on Olsen happened more than twelve hours later.

They didn't retaliate. They didn't start breaking anything. They marched and when they were blocked from moving, they stood still and chanted.

It really says something about who these people are that after twelve hours of being arrested, dispossessed, watching their camp being destroyed before their eyes, after being threatened and gassed and shot at, they didn't deviate from their principled non-violence.

[pasto76]

28. has conclusive proof been found that it was a CS canister?

[EFerrari]

45. Howard Jordon isn't exactly over-exerting himself looking for evidence.

If you know weapons, you might be able to draw some conclusions or guesstimates from the video there is of the incident.

[Enthusiast]

32. He was aiming at him.

[Uncle Joe]

34. Kicked and recommended.

Thanks for the thread, kpete.

[Raksha]

35. K & R

[Starry Messenger]

36. k&r

[mckara]

38. The Guilty Policeman Should be Prosecuted. Period!

[sulphurdunn]

39. Although unlikely,

whatever hit Olsen in the head and nearly killed him may have been an unintentional act. What is undeniable and was obviously intentional is that the cops stood ten feet away from him afterward and not only did nothing to render aid but threw flash-bang grenades into the midst of those who did. Whoever did that is the kind of person who'd open up on an unarmed crowd with a machine gun if thought he could get away with it.

[Fire Walk With Me]

40. Anonymous say they have identified the culprit. eom

[MissDeeds]

48. Good

I hope the culprit is at the least charged with excessive force. This is unconscionable and indefensible.

[Name removed]

41. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Marazinia]

46. Yes it does.

But the last thing the mainstream media will do is report this honestly. However, if enough Americans ignore the biased, commercial media in favor of independent sources, the commercial media won't be mainstream anymore, will it?

The internet is vital to all movements of this nature. I'm certain we won't have access to it much longer if this continues. It's time to lay the groundwork for alternate forms of communication and face to face communication in our communities now, so that when the enemy takes full control of communications we won't be crippled. And yes, I use the word enemy knowing full well what that means. They are the enemy. Anyone of any class is my enemy if they use people as things. And that's what the wealthy and powerful do. They make money from using people as objects instead of working with them to create technologies and societies that everyone can benefit from. It's time to remove power from the hands of the enemy. If Occupy is how it starts, then so be. Let's see it to the end.

[Quixote1818]

47. Great read. K and R

[Marnie]

51. Why are cops not tested for personality disorders.

Like anger control and the resort to violence over petty matters.

No thinking person would aim a gun at head height into a crowd unless they fully intended to seriously injure of kill.

So this shooter was not thinking. How did he become a cop?

[Marazinia]

54. Oddly enough...

Oddly enough, it's possible to be turned down by some police departments in America for having too high of an IQ.

Ponder on that one for a bit, and the possible reasons behind it.

[DeSwiss]

55. K&R n/t

[Mimosa]

58. Whoa. n/t

[McCamy Taylor]

59. The 1% WANTS you to hate the police. So, by all means, HATE the police.

Because Occupy just desperately needs to alienate the nation's police---and citizens that support the police---so that we can prevent any sense of solidarity that might enable the working 99% to get something done.

[Marazinia]

62. When is it time to say enough?

All right, good point. And I like most of the street cops I've met and worked with. But that doesn't mean if it's a life or death situation against a cop, I won't try to be the one who walks out alive. Cops and the National Guard have used lethal force against protesters in this country for generations, without sufficient provocation and often without any provocation at all. What the heck do you expect protesters to do, keep dying? There has to be a time when enough is enough.

[McCamy Taylor]

64. The correct response is to get the police to change the policies that call for extraordinary force.

If you just post "that bloody cop must have been trying to kill him/pigs are bad/he was AIMING for him" you do not prevent the same from happening again. Instead, you make it more likely that it will happen again by making folks in the Occupy movement more angry and more likely to get violent themselves.

[McCamy Taylor]

63. This whole thread is one big divide and conquer opportunity for Wall Street.

Citizens vs the police. Military vs. the police. Wall Street is wishing, hoping and praying that Occupy turns violent and that police turn defensive and that the whole thing ends up worse than Chicago.

[Marazinia]

65. This is true

And they aren't just wishing, hoping and praying. Dollars to doughnuts (couldn't resist, sorry) that at least some of the violence supposedly started by protesters recently was actually started by government agents. Sounds nutty, but they've done it before. I'm all for stopping violence from protesters, regardless of whether it's just idiots or these agents, but if the police are the ones who start the fight, then I have to ask myself, how far does my non-violence take me?

[McCamy Taylor]

66. It should take you down on the ground just like in the Civil Rights movement. Go limp.

Make it absolutely clear that you are no threat at all. The bad cops may still get rough but the good ones will restrain themselves--and onlookers and cameras will be able to tell quite clearly that it was excessive force.

[Marazinia]

67. I hope you're right

I want you to be right. And I intend to protest as I always have, absolutely peaceably and in an orderly fashion, so long as I do not feel like my life is in danger. Because violence, while it certainly does solve things, often ends creating a worse situation than the one that sparked it. I will also be keeping an eye out for protesters who are behaving in a fashion that might incite an attack from police. But I know my country's history, and I worry.

[McCamy Taylor]

71. By this logic, a US service member was aiming at Pat Tillman in Afghanistan.

So, when can we expect the Army to bring this dangerous killer up on murder charges? We all know that no one armed with a gun or rifle ever makes a mistake.

[burrowowl]

73. K&R

[Quantess]

74. This makes me feel ill.