Posted on 10/27/2011 8:47:22 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
Scott Olsen survived two tours of Iraq, but his life could be over after being critically injured by a police projectile at Occupy Oakland, The Guardian reports. He's 24 years old.
As we know, Occupy Oakland got incredibly ugly this week as police tried to remove protesters from their camp in front of City Hall by using tear gas, fire crackers, and rubber bullets.
Olsen suffered a head injury on Tuesday night, and is now in critical condition in Oakland's Highland Hospital. Jay Finneburgh, a photographer on the scene, managed to witness and take pictures of the incident. Police policy specifically prohibits the firing of these weapons at a person's head.
"This poor guy was right behind me when he was hit in the head with a police projectile. He went down hard and did not get up," Finneburgh wrote.
At first, Doctors told Olsen's friends that he was in critical, but stable condition. Now they're being told that his skull has been fractured and his brain is beginning to swell. Neurologists are in the process of determining whether or not he will require surgery.
According to Keith Shannon, a friend who served with Olsen during his time in Iraq, Olsen was hit in the head with a tear gas or smoke canister, and he has the scar on his head to prove it.
Meanwhile, Oakland police admit that they used tear gas and baton rounds, but have denied the use of flash bang grenades. Protesters, however, say they saw police use them, and the more video that comes out, the harder it is to believe the police.
Olsen hails from Wisconsin, served tours of Iraq in 2006 and 2007, and is active in both Veterans for Peace and Iraq Veterans Against the War.
(Excerpt) Read more at businessinsider.com ...
Call me crazy, but yes indeed,,, i do criticize law enforcement when they do things I dont agree with,, and give them kudos when they do things i do agree with.
You’re not really as stupid as you pretend to be in your posts are you?
And that is perfectly acceptable. That is the way it should be. It highlights one of the reasons that out of control Federalism (as we have now) cannot coexist with healty state rights. If I hate the area I live in due to the local ordinances, I can simply move to another town or state like yours, where people are allowed to live and are expected to be considerate towards others. Like kudzu weeds, an overbearing Federalism chokes that out, using things like the federal highway funds that you only get if you adhere to certain federal standards. They use that as a cudgel to trample and wither states rights.
Where you live, everyone has standards that are somewhat on the same page (moral standards, oh, the horror)and those standards seem to have a built in respect for other people.
Liberals abhor standards of any kind, particularly moral ones, because it sets a bar for people to aspire to.
To liberals, if you don’t live up to your standards, you are a hypocrite...to liberals, the worst malediction that can be applied is the charge of hypocrisy. To them it is worse than any violation of all the Ten Commandments rolled into one. (Conservatives generally understand that humans are fallible, and as such, do not always live up to our standards...but when you fail, you dust yourself off and try harder to meet them.)
That is why liberals have no moral standards (they can never fail to meet them and thus be accused of hypocrisy)
Because they have no standards, any and all primitive Roussouian behavior is fair play to them, no matter how depraved, immoral or inconsiderate.
It is why many places DO have ordinances against making noise after 2200, requirements and permits for assembly, and so on.
They can’t be trusted to adhere to civilized standards of behavior, so everything has to be spelled out in rule books such at the damned Federal Register and town ordinances.
It is why we have to have dress codes at work and policy and procedure manuals that run into the thousands of pages.
All because of liberalism. You are not allow to simply use your brain and common sense to guide behavior, because idiot liberals have neither of them.
Those are some interesting thoughts regarding restrictions on the right to peaceful assembly.
I think the NYC rally is on private property, but even so...
If I wanted to have a tea party ralley in my front yard,
and a bunch of folks pitched tents there for several weeks,
I think my local government would eventually put a stop to it.
But, alas, the dis-honoring of private property rights has sadly been long-standing.
There are lots of municipal parks with lots of ordinances and restrictions
(i.e. no alcohol, no skateboarding, no dogs, no radios, and closed from dusk til dawn)
And, in addition, I guess there are many cities and towns where there is no such thing as a “public park” at all.
So where would such an “assembly” take place there?
I don’t know what the founders would have said about all of this.
A right to peaceful assembly...but where?
We are not a democracy, we are a constitutional republic. Only liberals think that 50.1% approval of anything makes it okay.
If I have a house bordered by three streets, and protesters are able to take all three streets, place loudspeakers pointing at my house and play rap music and speeches by Fidel Castro at top volume 24x7, then that is okay with you?
Stay on subject please.
Reality and Common Sense
Tea party? Sh!t, people exercising their 2A rights get murdered every year by cops in the USA. But because it's the 2A, the cops are the bad guys @ FR. And all the police reports are lies that are in direct conflict with eye-witness accounts.
However, when it's misguided youth, stinky hippies, et al having their 1A rights violated, the cops are suddenly the good guys. Because, you know, the crowd didn't disperse when ordered @ 5am. So, when is it ok to peaceably assemble? Oh, it wasn't peaceable, because all the police reports are the truth that are in direct conflict with eye-witness accounts.
I must be tough to hold two opposing view points at the same time. That is, if they are sincere and not some sock puppets.
If this happened at the next tea party event...it wouldn't.
The cops here served notices for three straight days on the protestors, telling them to quit squatting in a public park. It was only after they refused to move that they were moved.
Had those same notices been served at a tea party event, they'd be a non-issue because tea parties don't squat permanently on public property. They'd be gone at the end of the day anyway, likely leaving the place cleaner than when they'd arrived.
Sorry, I haven’t read the entire thread. Just commenting on what happened in Oakland two nights ago. Haven’t heard about a Las Vegas shooting.
Cops are nothing more than the enforcement arm of the Nanny State and Big Brother Govt.
Most people grow out of the spoon fed bs about cops by the time they are adults, others don’t because they are related to cops or whatever.
There are some good cops, but most are public sector
mini-madoffs with the garbage they pull on the taxpayers who they are supposed to serve.
I'm not going to answer for Cripplecreek, but I am going to answer with respect to your First Amendment question. Their rights under the First Amendment end when the "peaceable" assembly ends. If they were throwing things, damaging property, spitting, causing a riot, assaulting folks, then they no longer have First Amendment protection. Period.
So, when Gore was hounded to get out of "Cheney's house" back in 2000, the cops should have been busting heads (many of whom were/are regular FR posters), right?
Look, you already lost the debate when you decided to take the position that representatives (thanx for the lecture - LOL) can regulate the BoR.
Peaceable assembly means just that - peaceable assembly. It doesn't mean between the hours of 9-5, it doesn't mean no rap music, it doesn't mean not on public property.
You start approving of 'reasonable' limits to the BoR, the next thing you know, others who hold differing opinions may begin doing the same thing. Oops, they are already are - bummer dude!
Those are two completely different things. Of course the First Amendment is subject to interpretation by the Courts. That has nothing to do with majority rule.
Suppose a few hundred protestors decided to link hands across all the bridges/tunnels leading into/out of Manhatten (all public property), blocking traffic, and singing songs. Maybe they decide to set up camp right across those highways.
Is there First Amendment right to "Assemble" completely unlimited, with no exceptions? Because if that's the case, then courts and police would be violating the Constitution to break those assemblages, even if they're on roads. because after all, the Constitution doesn't contain a right of assmbly limitation for roads on its face, does it? New Yorkers would be trapped.
On the other hand, if you think those protests would not be protected by the First Amendment, what is the basis for that opinion? From where in the Constitution would the courts get the right to order those particular protests to disperse?
Either the courts have the power to make such judgment calls, or they don't.
I guess.
Guess what I did?
I LEFT...I did what the cops said.
Government power is the most dangerous power. I can't blindly cheer when cops--the arm of the State--send protesters to the hospital. Change the nature of the protest from OWS to, say, Pro-Lifers, Gun Owners, Tea Partiers--and a lot of folks here would be singing a different tune.
Their are heartfelt prayers being offered up by the political left that this young man dies so that the movement will have a martyr.
If the powers that be were smart they would put a guard on him in the hospital to keep anything unfortunate from happening to the young man while he is unconscious.
For some reason, FR has decided to fully support the police reports in this matter. But if the subject of Ruby Ridge, Waco, Erik Scott, et al come up, the tables are turned 180 degrees. Funny how that works out.
It's sort of sad, but FR and the statist right are going to come out of the wrong side on this issue. For those who aren't paying attention, there are major changes afoot. Blindly supporting a police state just because you don't like the opposition can only lead to loss of influence in helping shape positive change.
You guys really like taking a losing position, don't you? Who said the 1A is subject to interpretation by the Courts? Marshall in 1803?
That has nothing to do with majority rule. Sure it does - a majority elects representatives, who along with others, pass laws restricting core Constitutional rights. In this case, a minority of dirty hippies, leftists and other malcontents now need to "follow the law" governing the 1A.
Suppose a few hundred protestors decided to link hands across all the bridges/tunnels leading into/out of Manhatten (all public property), blocking traffic, and singing songs. Maybe they decide to set up camp right across those highways.
As an earlier poster noted (finally thank G_d), the core issue is "peaceable". Is purposely blocking traffic by linking hands "peaceable"? Of is the sheer number of people overflowing into streets "not peaceable", and therefore in need of some serious hand banging to 'follow the law'?
I'll say it once more, because I'd like to see conservatives come out on the right side of this issue, but we should be paying attention to these movements. Anyone foolishly supporting arbitrary restrictions is simply giving cover to other restrictions, such as the 2nd and 4th. (Or do people here like TSA booty calls?)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.