"How did a cop...accidentally SHOOT someone in the head..? Simple. He was aiming at him."

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

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

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'll be the first to admit a 40mm round is tricky to aim if you are inexperienced but anyone can tell the difference between aiming at head level and going for range.

The person that pulled that trigger has no business being a cop. He sent that round out with the intention of doing some serious damage to the protestors. I don't care what the protestors were doing. I never broke my rules of engagement in Iraq or Afghanistan. So I can't imagine what a protester in the states did to deserve a headshot with a 40mm. He's damn lucky to be alive and that cop knows he was using lethal force against a protester he is supposed to be protecting.

He shouldn't have brought it with him. Geez, you libruls have a lot to learn about fascism, including that you're never supposed to call it that.

Including, specifically, the use of tear gas, and of hollow point bullets.

However, you don't have to be aiming at someone in order to hit them. First rule of ballistics is that what goes up must come down, unless you shoot it into orbit. You can fire up into the air at a 45 degree angle, but the round will still come back down with nearly the energy originally imparted to it. It'll just come down farther away at a different angle. It's one of the reasons anyone with a brain will tell you firing a gun into the air isn't any safer than firing it randomly around you.

The question is the teargas cannister in the first place.

:think:

I know a hell of a lot of people, honest people, who'd love to have their jobs.

as I understand it.

The standard range of a 40mm grenade, at least the kind the military uses, is around 1,300 feet. Launching 8 ounces that distance packs a great deal of kick.

You are of course aware they violated their own procedures...of course not.

In something similar. There is a reason for that procedure...cop, and dept. should face music. Of course the distance between should and will is getting wider these days.

if the projectile begins to tumble it loses much of its energy to air resistance. But, yeah, at 45 degrees from parallel to the surface-much of the energy will still be there. At 90 degrees--much less. Damn nit-pickers.

go up and then come down. It was fired directly at Olsen.

I agree.

If you're firing at a target that's hundreds of feet away, that's an entirely different story, since the canister will have shed most of it's muzzle energy by then.

You can fire up into the air at a 45 degree angle, but the round will still come back down with nearly the energy originally imparted to it. It'll just come down farther away at a different angle. It's one of the reasons anyone with a brain will tell you firing a gun into the air isn't any safer than firing it randomly around you.

If I fire my .30-06 into the air, the bullet has an initial muzzle veolicty of 3000 feet PER SECOND. It will travel up, reach its apex, then return to earth. When it comes back down, it will NOT have the same velocity (and therefore energy) right before it impacts.

Wildly firing your weapon into the air is dangerous and NOT SMART, but it is not as deadly as indiscriminately firing around you.

But that mostly applies to longer ranges and faster projectiles, like a true rifle bullet. The amount of energy lost by a gas canister would likely be not enough to make much of a difference.

So it will slow more than a rifle bullet.

What you're saying would be true if done in a vacuum. However, in the atmosphere, the speed of the returning projectile is limited by its ballistic coefficient. The return speed can easily be an order of magnitude less than the initial speed.

If you're talking about a 300 yard rifle shot at 2800 FPS, or a rocket launch, yes. But air resistance isn't going to matter much when you're talking an 8 ounce projectile moving at a couple hundred feet per second.

on Scott Olsen'. He was standing between the cops and the people and was hit almost point blank. He was also clearly a Marine. One excellent piece of footage also shows where the weapon was fired from, and it shows that it was apparently the same criminal who fired on the people who ran over to help him.

I hope the Marines and everyone who is helping them are able to get an ID so that that criminal can be removed as quickly as possible from the police force, he is a clear threat to the public.

Interesting how cowardly he is now. You would think he would have the guts to step forward and admit his 'heroics'. Many reports of those cops 'mocking' the protesters that night. I guess it's not so funny anymore.

That video should make it possible to id him. Whoever was in command of the group of robo cops should be able to identify him now that there is so much video from so many angles, not to mention his big, brave buddies who were also there.

If there was a lot gas already in the air, maybe visibility wasn't good?

You wouldn't shoot a round straight into the air and have it come down on someone, would you?

I'm just saying it's not always clear-cut, is it?

But then I've never shot anything, either.

Veterans for Peace, near the police line. He was hit in the head on the first volley of gas and flash-bangs. He was laying there and police threw a flash-bang into the crowd who attempted to come to his obvious need of aid. Visibility was fine.

I didn't notice that in the video first time. I still don't think it's warranted to paint all police officers with the same brush, though.

The guy who shot the round should be singled out.

This is why they are in the federal shit list.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ILEmWIMKoEw&list=FLmbtpDQcIb2UFYtrWBjFCkA&index=1&feature=plpp_video

Video begins at 24 seconds. Clear, visible, no protesters making threats against the police line.

At 56 seconds in the center of the screen, you can see the people gather to attempt to help Scott Olsen, and the flash-bang which scatters them.

Here is another perspective on that:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OZLyUK0t0vQ&list=FLmbtpDQcIb2UFYtrWBjFCkA&index=2&feature=plpp_video

Once again, visibility is just fine.

Tear gas is supposed to be fired out over a crowd so it falls into its midst. If you fire it out level/directly you're going to hit someone.

If cops don't all want to be painted with the same brush maybe they should start policing themselves.

The link up thread goes to a protest by cops for a cop accused of ticket fixing. Their signs read "It's a courtesy,not a crime". Really? But, it seems they think it is a crime to exercise one's first amendment rights.

That doesn't mean all cops are 'out to get us' as some posters want to believe.

I've been saying this for weeks and I'll say it again: the longer OWS consists of thousands of people milling around in a hundred cities without a focussed message to deliver, the more likely it is that a tragedy will occur and then the right-wing will paint the entire movement as crazed.

What happened in Oakland could have been worse and I am sorry to say I believe that.

:hi:

Not been paying much attention, eh?

Zoinks.

there like a bunch of parrots "don't have a message" "what do they want?" "don't have a leader" (squawk,squawk)

then all of them certainly are doing something pretty bad.

maybe your hypothesis that they can't all be bad is actually wrong with the group involved that night.

directly at Olsen. It's all visible on the video.

Yes, not all police officers are bad but there are enough that are. The cop that threw the flash bang into the crowd trying to help Olsen knew exactly what he was doing too and, I'm just guessing here, but probably laughed about it while doing it.

You never pull the trigger unless you know exactly where that round is going to hit. If the cop couldnt see because of gas in the air then there was no reason to shoot another round into the crowd at shoulder level. He either know and is a scum who should lose his freedom, or he's incompetent and should never have pulled the trigger. Period.

In shooting it is clear cut or the trigger isn't pulled.

With a hard, flat surface available like a street or sidewalk, it would be easy for the canister to ricochet and bounce up to head level. Or for that matter hitting someone on the stomach with one wouldn't be safe either; I'm not sure if the police tear gas canisters have a lower velocity, but the mil-spec 40mm grenades pack as much punch coming out of their launcher as a baseball going 170 miles per hour.

to take action.

Just about 20 feet away from the police and facing them. Other people had started moving away but he stood his ground. Maybe that's why he was shot.

Justification for getting shot ='standing still.

Not paying attention is the most common reason that people get shot by any kind of weapon. Usually, it is the person holding the weapon who is not paying attention. Occasionally, it is the person who is shot who is not paying attention. Both parties need to be paying attention to avoid such things.

Now, this could have been a malicious, intentional act, but it could also be simple negligence in pointing the weapon. I'd guess it was inattention.

I was in the Paris riots in 1968 and this was the same technique their CRS riot police used. One of their cute tricks was to shoot someone in the chest with a CS grenade during a police charge, then drop a flash-bang between their legs as the police line swept by.

As far as I'm concerned this is SOP for police forces that look on civilians as enemy combatants.

On edit: The CRS also fired flash-bangs into the second and third story apartments of people who were out on their balconies just watching the demonstration. How inattentive of them!

thinking. It could have been malicious. It could have been accidental. I don't suppose I'll ever know, actually.

However, the potential for causing serious injury is always there in situations like this. The whole thing was a massive overreaction.

I'm just not ready to say that the individual cop who fired that thing intentionally aimed it at someone. I do not know that to be the case.

I try to deal with actual information and facts. If I don't know them, I try not to draw specific conclusions. It's just that simple.

However, if I were in a demonstration and facing a line of police, I wouldn't have access to personal information about any of them - pretty much the same as our situation here. In that situation, I would have to go with probabilities. Based on what we know about the OPD and other riot police, the probability is that some of those officers with guns have malice in their hearts. From what we've seen on video, I'm inclined to that view here too.

Other units from outside Oakland were brought in.

I've seen enough of this behaviour to conclude that it's common among riot police, whether they're from Oakland, NY, Seattle, Paris, London, Athens or any of a hundred other cities around the globe.

Sorry about that.

I'm sure you're right that some of those officers had malice in their hearts. But I would guess the majority of them didn't.

Just a guess. In any event, the incident should not have happened because the police -regardless of where they came from- should have been trained to specifically avoid it.

Policies and procedures...yup the one every officer should know out of the academy.

For example, per policy they should transport those exposed to CS gas to hospital within forty five minutes and have EMS standing by...

I will stand by officers when they do right...but this was way over the top.

Absolutely right!

:shrug:

and even military personnel. If I assess the situation and believe that there is about to be a change toward violence, I make my way out of the danger area. I've been arrested. I've been hauled off. I've been tear-gassed. I've never been injured. I no longer participate, due to age and health, but during the 60s, I was up front unless things started going wonky.

I just don't believe that the police in those situations are there to protect anything or anyone except the interests of the 1%. There is a particular quirk to the personality of most police that I'm decidedly uncomfortable with.

going to happen. A group like that always signals its readiness to do something, and when the tensions heighten to a certain point, I follow my fade-out plan. My attention is always on the guys with the weapons, since I never had one of my own at the time. I've never been interested in being injured. I got it right almost all of the time.

and you have the perfect scenario for someone being shot accidentally.



It really disgusts me to see people ascribing evil motives to a person they don't even know.

Cops are human too, and I would imagine the one who accidentally shot that canister directly at a human being is probably feeling like shit right now.

So yeah...I'm with you. Really unfortunate accident.

...apparently a lot of police units from outside Oakland were brought in.

<http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x2197233>

cop who fired actually knows. I'm not into assigning motivations when I don't have the information to back that up. I simply don't know.

Then come back and support this turd of a human being's actions, if you must.

"I don't know" do you not understand.

What video? Give me a link.

:rofl:

Get a dog; they're easier to order about.

Also, this post was directed to another DUer. I didn't post the same admonition to you twice.

Seeya.

You don't fire these projectiles at head level. Let me say that again, YOU DON'T FIRE THESE PROJECTILES AT HEAD LEVEL. This not the proper way to use them, mainly due to the fact that they are not supposed to be used to cause injury but rather to deliver a tear gas container to a remote location. It is akin to failing to keep your weapon aimed down the firing line at the firing range. It is a dangerous and inappropriate use of the device.

Further, you have the video of the flash bang that was CLEARLY lobbed into the huddle of people who came to his rescue afterward. There is nothing whatever unintentional about that device's employment in that situation, and it shows the attitude of the police at the time.

Could it have been an accident? Let's just say that if I found myself on a jury where the officer who fired that tear gas can was being tried for it, I'd be willing to hear anything the defense offered up but they'd have an uphill battle.

You have a history of defending police actions on many threads here at DU. Sometimes it is refreshing to see that at least there is someone willing to attempt to see the other side. Other times, as now, the defenses you offer up in the face of all facts are quite frankly, a tad revolting. I submit to you that you exhibit a bias in these matters, one which prevents you from taking an objective view.

He accidentally shot Scott with the gas canister, and then when people crowded around his bleeding body to help him, the cop "accidentally" threw a flashbomb at them too! Oh--and Shrubya "accidentally" invaded Iraq and Afghanistan.

:eyes:

When I feel like shit about a mistake I've made, I go to the person I wronged and apologize. Who is stepping forward to ask for Scott Olsen's forgiveness?
When an apple is rotting in the barrel it accelerates the rot time of all the apples around it. I would want my barrel cleaned up if the apples near me were rotting. The policemen who were there know who Shot Scott Olsen. I won't respect any person or agency, who let's this stand.

you'd check to see how they were and get them medical attention.

and take responsibility for their actions. Gee, i guess that means that things must still be chaotic and they are making another understandable mistake, no?

But they aren't doing that, are they? They are cowards. Cowards and bullies. And they shouldn't have badges anymore.

:shrug:

Where might I find them?

There have been several that made the greatest page over the past few days, in fact.

If you've somehow managed to miss all of them, try the Search function.

being hit by anything. I've seen some stills, too. Same thing. That's why I asked. If you have a link, I will go and look to see if it's something I haven't seen already.

They paint a fairly compelling story of a LEO incorrectly firing his weapon into the crowd at chest/head height.

You can't know what was happening off-screen. No one can because no one can keep watch on such a large group of people at the same time.

I'm not saying the video does not paint a true picture, I'm saying it can't show everything so it's impossible to know everything that happened at the same moment in time.

:shrug:

I'm all ears.

Scott being hit. Clearly, the cops were firing at a low angle. That's easily seen from the trajectories of the cannisters. But, which one fired the one that hit the victim isn't clear in any of the videos I've seen. If you have another one I can look at, I'll be glad to, but I think I've seen all the relevant ones at this point.

That appears to be clear to you, yet absolutely unclear to the vast majority I've spoken to who've watched the video. How did you come to that conclusion?

watching the trajectories in the videos.

Watch the video again (or use the stills/slo-mo if it helps) and note that there are several LEOs who do not move their arms from a position perpendicular to their bodies before they shot.

That's how you get protestors being shot in the head to the point of brain damage. Not from a skip-shot fired from in an arc from the appropriate distance away from the crowd.

That's why most DUers are outraged over this incident.

Looking at the trajectories, I don't think any of the canisters I saw were fired at any angle larger than 30%. That means that someone standing close to their positions would be at risk of getting hit. And one did. It's not how those things are meant to be fired. They're designed to be lobbed or fired at the ground and bounced into position.

Poor training, at best, or malicious, at worst. I don't know which it was.


I'm not defending the actions of the police in any way. My objection was to the attempt to identify the individual from videos that didn't actually show that individual firing the shot that hit the victim. Someone did. I hope they find out who and that he or she faces consequences. But, the way the canisters were fired was wrong and made such an incident more likely than if they had be fired properly. Beyond that, I can't see any reason to use tear gas in the first place. It's a lot of stupid out there.

I'm not calling for mob violence on a particular LEO. I blame poor training and ineffective self-policing (if you'll pardon the pun) by departments.

I'm glad we agree that there was absolutely no cause to use tear gas in this case, and that it was a tactically ludicrous decision to shoot gas canisters from such a short range at peaceful protestors.

This is the other Veteran for Peace who was standing next to him, who did not move through the entire scene.

is supposed to be the minimum rage at which baton rounds can be fired.

... were caused by uncontrolled ricochet from the ground. Rubber bullets were particularly bad which is why plastic bullets were introduced. Squaddies and police soon learned that out of date plastic rounds were harder and ricocheted with lethal or near lethal force and so they found ways to keep rounds beyond the "use by" date instead of returning them or firing them during exercise.

Some elements of the forces used "coining", inserting a small coin in a slot cut in the baton. This was a courts martial offense if the soldier was found to have such a round.

instead of figuring out better ways to harm each other..

You are supposed to aim up over a crowd so they fall -into- the center of the crowd, not aim level AT the crowd.

Stunning article. Stunning headline.

Business Insider is doing some fantastic reporting on OWS.

of whether he was targeted or not was running through my mind all night after I saw some of the pictures.

The single most important thing TPTB do NOT WANT is the military or the police changing sides, that is allying with the people instead of those that give the orders, those that pay them, those that are destroying the country.

It kept running through my mind that when photos began appearing of vets with signs, there were decisions made to nip this in the bud.

Of course decisions were made by those threatened by this movement, those who pull the strings of our politicians, the top 1% who never have enough and their paid toadies.

Needless to say, it was a bad decision but who didn't see this coming?

against them.

courageous Marine who had just been shot in the head. Reminded me of tactics used by domestic terrorist Erik Rudolph who would set off one explosive device and wait for the first responders to rush in to help and then set off another explosive device to harm those people as well.

For those who haven't noticed, perhaps they've noticed now, some of those who are supposed to serve and protect us, have been militarized and now seem to be doing the bidding of the 1% while being paid by our tax dollars.

This whole thing has sickened me to my core, this Marine and the man the in Navy uniform were standing there unarmed, using the freedom to assemble that they have actually stood and fought for, and in return, got attacked by an army of fellow Americans dressed in riot gear who call themselves police.
Lou

The arrests and intimidation against #Occupy are occuring world-wide. It is clearly an Us/Them situation.

don't think I've been so angered yet so resolved in my entire life. The more the "authorities" use tactics of intimidation, abuse and arrests to silence free speech and break up free assembly, the more people are waking up to the ugly reality of what this country has become. Even in my own circle of close friends, I have never seen more people getting involved...........I think the powers that be know and fear, that they have awakened a sleeping giant.......we the 99%.
Lou

Or some shitty punishment like that. The cop deserves to be prosecuted, but that probably won't happen. Prosecutors and cops are too dependent on each other for that most of the time.

10 days of paid suspension while they investigate how there was no wrong doing on the offier's part and how he acted within department guidelines.

but I am definitely giving this a Royal KICK!!!:kick: :kick: :kick: :kick: :kick: :kick: :kick: :kick: :kick: :kick: :kick: :loveya: