The Occupation of Wall Street Spreads

[Kamakazie Sith]

So here's the issue. We keep getting stories and/or videos of peaceful protesters being severely injured either by police action or in their custody. There's plenty of media showing protesters being restrained without consideration for their safety.

We get instances like Scott Olsen where not only do the police 5 feet away fail to render aid, they grenade the people who actually do try to help him. I don't know what your opinion was, but KS agreed that the cop who threw that grenade ought to be prosecuted.

There was a video earlier of a group of non-violent, cooperative protesters sitting on the ground were assaulted and pepper sprayed in the face before being restrained in a prone position.

Replying to the last point. The one person that was hit with pepper spray or forced to the ground was not cooperative.

We had a second veteran get confronted by at least a half dozen officers and came out of it with a lacerated spleen whose cries for help were ignored for 18 hours. It's likely the injur came from repeated blows to the torso, which has been stated to not be a valid target for batons. It's suggested they missed and accidentally hit his abdomen, presumably while he was lying on the ground.

The 18 hours thing is all hearsay. Again, in combat things happen. Two local police officers were involved in a fight with a resisting suspect during the fight one officer struck another officer in the legs with a baton. Using your logic he MUST have done it on purpose. Shit happens, Los. I like how you are selective with the information I provide but fail to include points that hurt what you're trying to project here.

We now have a cameraman being shot with no apparent provocation, after years of police threatening and harrassing bystanders recording their actions nationwide. You have suggested that the cameraman was apparently being threatening or just happened to walk in front of someone who was.

Actually, SVPD was suggestion would could have happened that would justify the police response.

And yeah, I'm at these protests as a street medic. It's been made fairly clear that protesters' welfare is not a top priority, or else the police wouldn't interfere with their prompt treatment. I've also been doing a lot more internal policing of idiots trying to sir shit up than it seems the police have done. It doesn't even matter if you guys are or not, no one sees it and the wall of secrecy or whatever just adds to the feeling of corruption.

You have us at a disadvantage here. In your direct experience how are the police interferring with prompt treatment? What kind of treatment? What were the injuries?

Or you get shit like in Occupy DC where was a car runs into multiple groups of protesters and the police decline to press charges. We're not the ones undermining the relationship between the police and their communities. You guys have been working on that for literally my entire life.

Police can only press charges for crimes. What you've described could have been just a traffic accident. Traffic accidents are not crimes.

EDIT * Heh...I give Keevan crap for not reading the whole thread then I go do the same thing. Sorry.

So, the driver has a green light and then proceeds to hit some pedestrians. What were the lighting conditions...was this at a crosswalk? When you say drive off...how far did he drive off? Did the pedestrians want to press charges?

[Kamakazie Sith]

I have not been reading this thread in any detail, but I will just note here that there is actually a phenomenon called 'delayed rupture of the spleen' or 'delayed splenic rupture':

That explains what we're seeing then. Thank you.

Don't be a moron Los, clearly the police were in the right to shoot a cameraman who was doing nothing to agitate an entire line of riot cops. Besides, the example of domestic abuse you gave clearly doesn't apply unless a police officer gave her the black eye. Then clearly she must have been UP TO SOMETHING.

Remember Los, only the police are allowed to decide when abuse is taking place, because they are trained in it.

It's too bad you're so focused on being a troll. Back in the day I thought you made decent contributions to threads. Now, you're simply no better than any other troll that's been banned from this board. Shame really...

[Losonti Tokash]

To be honest I'm curious why if we put forth a theory for what happened based on a literal interpretation of what was seen we're being ridiculous police haters, but if you say things like "he might have been throwing a rock!" it is totally plausible. Why is it hearsay that it took 18 hours to get our other guy to a hospital when we have records of when he was arrested, when his bail was posted, and when the ambulance was called? When we know he had surgery for a lacerated spleen?

PS actual soldiers manage to provide aid to people on every side of an actual combat situation where there are actual people shooting actual bullets and actually trying to kill them, so why can't they help a guy out when they're just standing around and not actually being threatened?

Honestly, I apologize for getting emotional, but it's an emotional issue. At the heart of it is the idea that if there's an accusation of police abuse, it should get taken seriously, and should be investigated by some agency OTHER than the one being accused. I don't see what's wrong with that in the least. It might at least prevent the next Rodney King or Stonewall riots, which you guys seem hellbent on recreating.

[SVPD]

Remember Los, only the police are allowed to decide when abuse is taking place, because they are trained in it.

Remember, it's better to troll and strawman than actually address what's being said.

The point is not that only the police are allowed to decide when abuse is taking place, the point is that just because a laymen says police abuse is taking place does not mean it is. Laypersons generally do not have a good grasp on what is reasonable, and tend to make snap judgements and emotional responses; this is why we allow courts of law to decide when abuse has taken place.

Abuse is not an open and shut matter of "OWS/Los/Flagg/White Haven/Whoever the fuck else says there was abuse, so there was" but that is how you guys are trying to treat it, and your only response to counterpoints is scoffing. White Haven is the only person who's made a serious effort at counterargument. Neither KS or I has claimed "oh, everything the police have done is ok", even in this latest video I have acknoweldged it might very well be a case of police brutality. The fact is, however, that it also might not.

Why is it that you're so threatened by the idea that the protestors may not be angels, might have agendas, and might not be completely in the right is so threatening to you?

[Kryten]

The 18 hours thing is all hearsay. Again, in combat things happen. Two local police officers were involved in a fight with a resisting suspect during the fight one officer struck another officer in the legs with a baton.

Are you retarded?
Are you honestly comparing someone being hit in the legs ONCE to someone's organs being ruptured?

And none of this 'explains' the fact that this man received treatment for his severe injuries only after a long length of time when he was clearly in agony, 'delayed' or not.

[Kamakazie Sith]

To be honest I'm curious why if we put forth a theory for what happened based on a literal interpretation of what was seen we're being ridiculous police haters, but if you say things like "he might have been throwing a rock!" it is totally plausible. Why is it hearsay that it took 18 hours to get our other guy to a hospital when we have records of when he was arrested, when his bail was posted, and when the ambulance was called? When we know he had surgery for a lacerated spleen?

I apologize. You're right. Even if you didn't have all the records there is really nothing wrong with considering his claim. I hope I clarify my position when I say that incident needs to be investigated and those responsible fired and charged if possible.

PS actual soldiers manage to provide aid to people on every side of an actual combat situation where there are actual people shooting actual bullets and actually trying to kill them, so why can't they help a guy out when they're just standing around and not actually being threatened?

I have no idea why. It should be that way. I'm familiar with arrest tactics developed for when an instigator is identified. Those same tactics could be utilized to rescue an injured civilian and bring that person to the rear of the lines.

Honestly, I apologize for getting emotional, but it's an emotional issue. At the heart of it is the idea that if there's an accusation of police abuse, it should get taken seriously, and should be investigated by some agency OTHER than the one being accused. I don't see what's wrong with that in the least. It might at least prevent the next Rodney King or Stonewall riots, which you guys seem hellbent on recreating.

I agree it should be this way.

[SVPD]

To be honest I'm curious why if we put forth a theory for what happened based on a literal interpretation of what was seen we're being ridiculous police haters, but if you say things like "he might have been throwing a rock!" it is totally plausible. Why is it hearsay that it took 18 hours to get our other guy to a hospital when we have records of when he was arrested, when his bail was posted, and when the ambulance was called? When we know he had surgery for a lacerated spleen?

Because just the fact that he was arrested and bailed out at a certain time does not establish what happened in between.

You're comparing 2 different assertions. We're saying "it's a real possibility he was throwing a rock, but it isn't certain". That's plausible but not certain. You're saying "He was denied treatment for 18 hours!" as if it were definite, established fact.

That's why. In both cases, you are claiming brutality as some definite established fact, and doing it by filling in missing data with assumptions. You are comparing our assertion that it's possible a rock was about to be thrown with the claim that the other guy was not treated, when in fact the proper comparison is the claim that treatment was denied to the claim the rubber bullet was unjustified. In both cases there is ample room for the situation to have actually played out a number of ways, but you apparently just can't handle that.

PS actual soldiers manage to provide aid to people on every side of an actual combat situation where there are actual people shooting actual bullets and actually trying to kill them, so why can't they help a guy out when they're just standing around and not actually being threatened?

Because actual soldiers do not render aid while actual bullets are flying; they wait until the area is secure, even to go pull other injured soldiers out of danger in most cases. I'm not sure what incident you're talkiing about, but your word that "they're just standing around and not being threatened" is not good enough.

Honestly, I apologize for getting emotional, but it's an emotional issue. At the heart of it is the idea that if there's an accusation of police abuse, it should get taken seriously, and should be investigated by some agency OTHER than the one being accused. I don't see what's wrong with that in the least. It might at least prevent the next Rodney King or Stonewall riots, which you guys seem hellbent on recreating.

The only reason we seem "heelbent on recreating" it to you is that you simply do not want to admit that it is not cut and dried just because it's an emotional issue to you. There is nothing wrong with some other agency coming in and investigating but honestly even if the FBI came and investigated every one of these complaints, I have a feeling that would not be good enough in any case where the conclusion you've already come to is not the one they arrive at.

Try stepping back from the emotion, since that's what you expect of us. Turn a critical eye on your own people. Some of them are a fucking embarassment to OWS.

[SVPD]

The 18 hours thing is all hearsay. Again, in combat things happen. Two local police officers were involved in a fight with a resisting suspect during the fight one officer struck another officer in the legs with a baton.

Are you retarded?
Are you honestly comparing someone being hit in the legs ONCE to someone's organs being ruptured?

Are you a total idiot? He's saying the hit to the legs was accidental and that the hits to the torso of the other guy could ahve been as well. Have you ever been in a fight in your life?

Yes, they are comparable in that neither one is necessarily the result of malice. The severity of the injury is not what makes it an accident or not.

And none of this 'explains' the fact that this man received treatment for his severe injuries only after a long length of time when he was clearly in agony, 'delayed' or not.

Where was he "clearly" in agony? We now have 18 hours of video showing that, too?

[Kamakazie Sith]

Are you retarded?
Are you honestly comparing someone being hit in the legs ONCE to someone's organs being ruptured?

Uh, are you retarded? My point isn't that complicated. My point has nothing to do with the injury. My point is that during physical combat...people miss. I would hope that you'd see the significance in missing one person and hitting someone else that you didn't intend to hit then considering that if someone can miss an entire person and hit another then it is plausible that someone could also miss an arm and strike the torso.

And none of this 'explains' the fact that this man received treatment for his severe injuries only after a long length of time when he was clearly in agony, 'delayed' or not.

Agreed. That is inexcusable.

[Losonti Tokash]

SVPD, KS, let's redo this. Let's try to take turns asking and answering one question at a time, yeah? I apologize for getting worked up.

SVPD, the point of mentioning that he posted bail was that he was actually unable to leave his cell. He was stuck in igt another six hours because he was unable to walk, at which point an ambulance was called. At no point between did he actually leave. And he was clearly in agony because, again, he was crying for help, with vomiting and diarhea mixed with blood. They were aware of this at least enough to allow him to crawl to a different cell to use a toilet.

[Kryten]

Where was he "clearly" in agony? We now have 18 hours of video showing that, too?

Yes, we need clear video to show police misconduct, but protesters obviously could have throwing bricks while keeping a camera steady.

[Kamakazie Sith]

Where was he "clearly" in agony? We now have 18 hours of video showing that, too?

Yes, we need clear video to show police misconduct, but protesters obviously could have throwing bricks while keeping a camera steady.

There's no doubt he was in agony. What isn't necessarily clear is the amount of time. 18 hours is a long time for someone to ignore screams and bloody feces. What I want to know is how long did it take for him to receive medical attention from the time he reported it or from the time the guards should have noticed it.

[SVPD]

SVPD, KS, let's redo this. Let's try to take turns asking and answering one question at a time, yeah? I apologize for getting worked up.

No worries. I greatly appreciate your willingness to do so.

SVPD, the point of mentioning that he posted bail was that he was actually unable to leave his cell. He was stuck in igt another six hours because he was unable to walk, at which point an ambulance was called. At no point between did he actually leave. And he was clearly in agony because, again, he was crying for help, with vomiting and diarhea mixed with blood. They were aware of this at least enough to allow him to crawl to a different cell to use a toilet.

This account does not seem to make a lot of sense to me. He was unable to leave his cell, but he was able to crawl to another cell to use the toilet? There was no toilet in his cell?

Also, do we have anything supporting this account other than his own testimony? The reason I ask is that eventually someone did call him an ambulance. Was this because shift changed and someone with more concern came on, or was it because at that point he finally did claim to have a problem?

If his spleen did rupture in that "delayed" rupture that was brought up earlier, it's entirely possible that he himself did not realize how sick he was until much later, and was trying to "tough it out", something far from unknown among military people, which he evidently had been. After that, the story changed just a bit, possibly due to anger over his injury or at being arrested or just feeling that he ought to have been taken to the hospital as a precautionary measure - which probably should have been done anyhow.

I'm not so much claiming he's possibly lying, so much as I think it quite possible that he is exaggerating how obvious his injuries should have been, and for how long?

[SVPD]

Where was he "clearly" in agony? We now have 18 hours of video showing that, too?

Yes, we need clear video to show police misconduct, but protesters obviously could have throwing bricks while keeping a camera steady.

Yes, if you want to state absolutely that misconduct occured, you need some sort of convincing evidence.. you know the kind that would establish "proof beyond a reasonable doubt".

If, on the other hand, you want to establish reasonable doubt, such as reasonable doubt of an unjustified shooting, you need far less evidence since the burden of proof is on the accuser.

So yes, you're exactly right, except insofar as evidence does not have to be video.

It's hilarious, however, that you think that the same amount of evidence should be required of the police to establish something is a possibility that you require of protestors to establish a certainty. The double standard is fantastic

[Kryten]

So, I have a case of potential police brutality; the evidence-somebody with ruptured organs.
I also have a potential case of somebody, while holding a camera steady, apparently being threatening enough to police officers a good ten meters away to justify being shot. The evidence?

[SCRawl]

So, I have a case of potential police brutality; the evidence-somebody with ruptured organs.
I also have a potential case of somebody, while holding a camera steady, apparently being threatening enough to police officers a good ten meters away to justify being shot. The evidence?

To your first point: Evidence of damage to tissue is not evidence of police brutality. The latter requires that excessive force was brought to bear upon the subject, and that evidence is not available, to the best of my knowledge.

To your second point: There is not enough evidence available to condemn the officer who fired upon the subject. There is certainly enough to question the action quite closely, and get more evidence.

That's three idiotic posts from you on the same page that don't rise above the level of "blithering idiot". My advice to you is to think very carefully about number four.

[Kamakazie Sith]

So, I have a case of potential police brutality; the evidence-somebody with ruptured organs.
I also have a potential case of somebody, while holding a camera steady, apparently being threatening enough to police officers a good ten meters away to justify being shot. The evidence?

Thanks for the emphasis. If you hadn't done that I might have not seen "ruptured organs" despite us talking about it in detail, including an examination of the actual video. Appreciate it.

Well, there's the possibility of other evidence* like a third party recording and the officers statement. What if the officer articulates the reason why he intended on striking the arms and then articulates that he missed during one or several strikes. Then they asked if he wanted medical attention he replied "No, I feel fine" (due to the delayed onset). Do you feel that this is reasonable doubt for the actions of the arresting officers?

As for the person being shot? Again, same situation. What do the officers have to say? What other evidence is there? Sometimes the only evidence you have is the word of another person so whose side do you take?

*I wouldn't be surprised if the police had their own recording device. Though an important difference is we usually don't post our videos all over YouTube especially if there's a chance it could compromise the defendants right to a fair trial. But, let's not worry about that trivial matters.

[Mr Bean]

*I wouldn't be surprised if the police had their own recording device. Though an important difference is we usually don't post our videos all over YouTube especially if there's a chance it could compromise the defendants right to a fair trial. But, let's not worry about that trivial matters.

Yes because defendants HATE when police leak video that results in mistrials and thus freedom.
I believe we were just talking about unwarranted assumptions KS and I believe a second camera (On the grassy knoll of course), falls into that grouping would you not agree?

So as to not make unwarranted assumptions let us review the last posted video which I believe was the Camera-man filming the cops who was shot with rubber bullets.

1. What was the official police statement.
2. What did the video show
3. With this available evidence what conclusion can we come to at this point with this evidence?

[SVPD]

We can basically conclude (in both the case of the video and the case of the ruptured spleen) that the officers and departments involved need to be investigated by an outside agency.

[Losonti Tokash]

SVPD, he might have just been in one of those big holding cells they have for drunks or just for when a large group comes in. I don't konw what they're called but they have them here mostly for people they don't seem to expect to be in jail long. They don't have toilets.

It's possible that at the time he played tough or what have you, but on the other hand we know for a fact that his spleen was severely damaged, so there would likely be both vomiting and blood present. It's hard to say when he had the onset of these signs, but they're the sort of thing you'd likely notice. Someone should have at least been curious why he stayed in his cell six hours after bail was posted. To my knowledge there's been no statement from the police on the matter (I am posting from my phone during breaks, so bear with me) which further obfuscates the situation. I think it would do everyone a bit of good if the situation was investigated by a third party.

[Flagg]

I truly love this idea that laypeople (meaning not the police) aren't allowed to form their own opinions and accuse the police of being brutal thugs when they are being brutal thugs as shown by mountains of direct video evidence. And you wonder why people don't trust police anymore.

[Kryten]

We can basically conclude (in both the case of the video and the case of the ruptured spleen) that the officers and departments involved need to be investigated by an outside agency.

Is there such an official third party in the U.S.? Do you have an equivalent to, e.g., the Independent Police Complaints Commission?

[Flagg]

We can basically conclude (in both the case of the video and the case of the ruptured spleen) that the officers and departments involved need to be investigated by an outside agency.

Is there such an official third party in the U.S.? Do you have an equivalent to, e.g., the Independent Police Complaints Commission?

Not to my knowledge. As far as I know a third party would have to be the US Justice Department.

[SVPD]

SVPD, he might have just been in one of those big holding cells they have for drunks or just for when a large group comes in. I don't konw what they're called but they have them here mostly for people they don't seem to expect to be in jail long. They don't have toilets.

That's amazing. I've never seen a jail cell without a toilet before. I'm also still not clear on how he got to the other cell to use the toilet.

It's possible that at the time he played tough or what have you, but on the other hand we know for a fact that his spleen was severely damaged, so there would likely be both vomiting and blood present. It's hard to say when he had the onset of these signs, but they're the sort of thing you'd likely notice. Someone should have at least been curious why he stayed in his cell six hours after bail was posted. To my knowledge there's been no statement from the police on the matter (I am posting from my phone during breaks, so bear with me) which further obfuscates the situation. I think it would do everyone a bit of good if the situation was investigated by a third party.

Yes, exactly. It's hard to say when the onset of these signs would occur. If they didn't occur for, say, 12 hours and then they gradually got worse for the next 4 or 5 before he finally said "hey, something's wrong" and then finally decided he needed to tell someone about it, that could account for 18 hours easily. We won't know without considerable further investigation.

I find this business about him staying in his cell 6 hours after bail was posted especially dubious. The person posting bail didn't even wait for him to come out of the cell? No one went to let him go?

This guy's story just does not fully add up. He was in the cell for 6 hours after bail was posted, and no one noticed, yet he was also able to leave the cell and go to another one to use the toilet where he was shitting blood?

At this point I'm thinking the guy's story is basically true insofar as

A) he was hit
B) he suffered spleen damage
C) at some unknown point it ruptured
D) at some further unknown point he began exhibiting symptoms
E) He was in jail for 18 hours and someone posted bail
F) At the end of that time he was taken to the hospital

The details, however, point to a guy who either A) does not accurately remember the details and is making some up to fill in or B) is exaggerating.

Like I said, investigation is needed.

[SVPD]

I truly love this idea that laypeople (meaning not the police) aren't allowed to form their own opinions and accuse the police of being brutal thugs when they are being brutal thugs as shown by mountains of direct video evidence. And you wonder why people don't trust police anymore.

I'm glad you're so in love with this idea. Congratulations for thinking it up. Now that you're done thinking that up, perhaps you can come up with an excuse for ignoring massive problems with the "mountains" of video evidence created and posted by people who have good reason to show you what they want you to see.