Video surfaces of Scott Olsen moments prior to being shot. Fuck EVERYTHING about this.
vimeo.com/31187119
vimeo.comPosted Oct 27, 2011, 11:42 PM UTC
21923
vimeo.comJust a reminder, Occupy Oakland has voted for a general strike on November 2nd. Please spread the word. The brutality of that night will not go unanswered.
16
OP here. I just returned from the vigil (video I recorded is being uploaded now). My younger brother asked me some questions about the events and I thought my answer would be pertinent here:
Brother: So a police officer shot a tear gas canister and it hit Scott Olsen in the head? Trying to get some clarity
Me: The evidence basically says someone shot him in the face with a tear gas canister.
Brother: Do you believe the evidence? Are there any other theories out there?
Me:
There isn't really any dispute about what happened, the dispute between police and protesters is on why and how it happened.
The official line people have been using is "police projectile" because it was initially believed he may have been knocked unconscious by a bean-bag or rubber pellet round, then injured by the flash-grenade (which police deny employing) thrown at the crowd that came to offer medical attention.
While it looks more and more likely it was a tear-gas canister, the point remains moot as the use of rubber-pellets other "Specialty Impact Less-Lethal Munitions" are unauthorized within Oakland's jurisdiction with the exception of bean-bag rounds* and all agencies are required by the Mutual Assistance Agreement to abide by the city they are in's regulations.
So regardless of what it was, it was done illegally.
On top of that as the video clearly shows, Scott was not destroying property and was not attacking police officers. Regulations are also very clear that the use of the above measures cannot be used unless targeting specific individuals acting in those manners - and further officers may not deploy those measures into peaceable crowds with an internal agitator.**
EVERYTHING about what happened to Scott, appears by the evidence available, to be against the law.
*See Press Conference
** See OPD Crowd Management/ Crowd Control Policy (page 9)
Quote: Direct Fired Specialty Impact Less-Lethal Munitions (Bean Bags): Less lethal specialty impact weapons that are designed to be direct fired at a specific target (“Direct Fired SIM”) including but not limited to flexible batons (“bean bags”), shall not be used for crowd management, crowd control or crowd dispersal during demonstrations or crowd events.
-
Direct Fired SIM shall only be used against a specific individual who is engaging in conduct that poses an immediate threat of loss of life or serious bodily injury to themselves, officers or the general pubic when other means of arrest are unsafe, or who is engaging in substantial destruction of property which creates an imminent risk to the lives or safety of other persons, and when the individual can be targeted without endangering other crowd members or bystanders. (See Special Order No. 8135 enacted April 15, 2004.)
-
Direct Fired SIM may never be used indiscriminately against a crowd or group of persons, even if some members of the crowd or group are violent or disruptive.
12
"While it looks more and more likely it was a tear-gas canister, the point remains moot as the use of rubber-pellets other "Specialty Impact Less-Lethal Munitions" are unauthorized within Oakland's jurisdiction with the exception of bean-bag rounds and all agencies are required by the Mutual Assistance Agreement to abide by the city they are in's regulations".*
The point is only moot if a tear gas canister is classified as a "Speciality Impact Less-Lethal Munition". If it is not, which I believe it wouldn't be, then you need to know the regulations regarding tear gas use, which is presumably not illegal.
Whether the officer deliberately aimed to shoot Olsen in the face or not is your real issue, but that would be extremely difficult to prove.
2
True. I was thinking it was moot because if it was a SIM, then it was done out of regulation and if it was tear-gas it wasn't deployed according to that regulation. Though on re-reading that section I'm less certain.
- Crowd control chemical agents are those chemical agents designed and intended to move or stop large numbers of individuals in a crowd situation, and which are administered in the form of a delivery system, which emits the chemical agent diffusely without targeting a specific individual or individuals.
- Chemical agents can produce fatalities serious injuries or even death. The elderly person or infant in the crowd or the individual with asthma or other breathing disorder, may have a fatal reaction to chemical agents even when those chemical agents are used in accordance with the manufacturer’s recommendations and the Department’s training. Thus, crowd control chemical agents shall only be used if other techniques, such as encirclement and multiple simultaneous arrest or police formations, have failed or will not accomplish the policing goal as determined by the Incident Commander.
- Members shall use the minimum amount of chemical agent necessary to obtain compliance.
If he was specifically targeted, that is clearly in violation (though hard to prove of course).
2
He is just standing there. Only a coward could shoot him in the head at that range. This is sickening.
7
I'll give you your point back since there seems to be a ring of cock suckers is going around reddit downvoting anything that brings bad light or negative statements about police.
FUCKING COWARDS WONT EVEN TELL YOU THEY DOWNVOTED YOU!
4
Fucking useless pigs.
6
[deleted]
-5
For that comment to offend you, you have to be a pig... Pig!
1
Did you even watch the video?
1
[deleted]
2
I do want to point out there is clearly something smoking being thrown TOWARD the police in this video while Scott is standing peaceably. That shows instigation by the crowd. Whether that legally (or morally) excuses things is another question, but people will notice and feel force by the police is justified, and Scott happened to be in the way (and he put himself there). ...I don't personally agree with any of that, but that is what some people will reason.
2
Throwing back a tear-gas canister is not instigation. Whether it is or isn't an appropriate action can be debated, but it certainly isn't starting something.
5
Looks like someone picked up a tear gas canister and threw it back in their faces. I am ok with this. Also, I was there. This shit is nonsense.
4
I agree. I'm just saying from this video, that is how some people will interpret it (especially if that's how they want to in the first place). ...so be prepared to explain why they shouldn't interpret it that way.
1
Yeah, I have seen a LOT of mis-attributions, intentionally misleading accusations, a lot of rhetoric, that I am burned out trying to "fix" everyone's perspective. I really guess I don't feel the need to explain it, I don't know why I even did to YOU... but you're right. This is getting spun every which direction, and twisted for private agendas for people who weren't supportive in the first place.
2
Fuck that, people need to push back on the bullshit about instigation. For fucks suck the video shows a phalanx of heavily armored shock troops in black standing securely in a line as protesters run around in terror. Nothing in that video suggests a 'clash' as the media seems to be reporting, it was an aggressive attack.
3
Oh you two haven't met? Shit, meet fan.
1
[deleted]
1
Not sure if same vid, but here's the youtube
1
i fucking hate america
0
[deleted]
-1
This is how his service is repaid? This makes me weep for my nation and what is to surely follow.
How badly was this guy injured? Did he die?
He was in critical condition, I believe he's been downgraded to stable, but he needs brain surgery.
That'll teach him to stand still, I guess.
I spoke with a member of Iraq Veterans Against the War today, who told me they were still uncertain if he would need surgery, but is conscious.
The IVAW is taking donations to cover the cost of Scott's medical bills.