Scott Olsen, Marine vet injured by police at Occupy Oakland, is released from hospital

Discuss

11 Responses to “Scott Olsen, Marine vet injured by police at Occupy Oakland, is released from hospital”

  1. microdot says:

    Occupy Marines published the name of the alleged shooter on line a 2 weeks ago. 

    • nick15 says:

      Assuming it’s the one I’m thinking of… it was a complete fake. Three people–two SF bartenders and a completely unrelated OPD officer–got thrown involved into a mess that didn’t involve them, simply because people were out for blood.

      This Scott Olsen tale is a very good cautionary tale that shows how “the road to hell is paved with ‘good intentions’”…. That is to say, this story was one where I felt was an important lesson for everyone, based on the fact that:
      1. Scott wasn’t doing anything to warrant being hit, and CERTAINLY not being violent and cussing at the OPD
      2. But it did look like it was an accident to begin with (seeing as he was laying down with his head TOWARDS the OPD). Furthermore, the OPD did request everyone to disperse, lest they toss smoke grenades into the crowd.
      3. But that flash bomb to the crowd that tried to help Scott was no accident
      4. The Right tried to discredit Scott by claiming that some other Scott Olsen’s “I Hate the Marine Corp” was this Scott Olsen
      5. But everyone’s desire for that officer’s head on a platter would apparently ended up discrediting itself by dragging three unrelated people into this mess… people wanted to “hang”/hang the officer who injured Scott Olsen and/or tossed that flash grenade and they jumped on the first rumor that someone tossed together and assumed it was true. I assumed the Occupy folk were better than just accepting anything that “sounds true” to be actually true…
      6. Of course when Mayor Jean Quan–a former protestor/activist herself–went to apologize and admit she did something wrong in all this, the Occupy Oakland crowd proved themselves to be the better and more civilized people…. by booing her, refusing to let her speak and basically not accepting her apology.

      If I got any details incorrect, feel free to correct me. But–assuming these facts were true and I didn’t leave anything out–this story just lead me to the conclusion that… many of us are guilty of being just as flawed people as we make our opponents to be. I feel that if we are to really turn this very real movement into something even MORE real, we need to be better than what this Scott Olsen situation had brought to the surface–namely:
      1. It’s OK to damage other people if they hurt one of us
      2. It’s OK to assume someone is at fault just because it SOUNDS like they were the one
      3. It’s OK to not accept someone’s apology and/or forgive someone, especially if they did you some MAJOR wrong.

      At least, these are the conclusions I’ve come to, and I welcome anyone who thinks otherwise or if I’m wrong.

      • Cowicide says:

        But it did look like it was an accident to begin with (seeing as he was laying down with his head TOWARDS the OPD).

        That tells us nothing about whether or not it was an “accident” when they shot a peaceful war vet in the head.

        The Right tried to discredit Scott

        This tells us everything about how insidious The Right is.

        people wanted to “hang”/hang the officer

        Most simply wanted the officers and their handlers brought to justice.  No hangings required.

        the Occupy Oakland crowd proved themselves to be the better and more civilized people…. by booing her, refusing to let her speak and basically not accepting her apology.

        Occupy Oakland already proved themselves more civilized people from the violent cops and the authorities who blindly sent them in the first place, thank you very much.

        It’s OK to not accept someone’s apology and/or forgive someone, especially if they did you some MAJOR wrong.

        Most people who could critically think their way out of a wet paper bag could see that the apology was insincere, political damage control.  And, as time goes on, the OWS has very obviously been proven correct in this thinking as the mayor continues to work against the OWS.  The mayor should have stepped down and still needs to step down ASAP.

        I sincerely apologize for the OWS not accepting her insincere apology.  I hope it makes you feel better.  Enjoy your conclusions.

        • nick15 says:

          “That tells us nothing about whether or not it was an “accident” when they shot a peaceful war vet in the head.”

          Well, unless my understanding what happens when you are shot in the face is completely wrong… if you’re shot in the face, the impact would generally force you AWAY from the person who shot you, does it not? That is to say, if Scott Olsen was laying down with his head facing the police, there’s a pretty good chance that the ordinance exploded PAST Scott to where the force of it pushed him towards the police.

          Basically, if it was specifically targeted by the police, he would have landed with his feet towards his assailant. Instead, it looks like the OPD officer just shot it in the air and the force of the explosion pushed him the way he landed. Of course, I can accept that I could be wrong (reality usually wins out over what people THINK happen). I am open to any plausible explanation of how an OPD officer *specifically* (and not accidentally) targeted Scott in such a way that the force of his attach pushed Scott TOWARDS the OPD versus away.
          ….

          “This tells us everything about how insidious The Right is.”

          I’m sure you wrote that just as a general comment, and one that doesn’t necessarily imply that the Left AREN’T insidious just because the Right can be, yes?
          ….

          “Most simply wanted the officers and their handlers brought to justice.  No hangings required.”

          Most, perhaps. Doesn’t mean all. But fair enough.
          ….

          “Occupy Oakland already proved themselves more civilized people from the violent cops and the authorities who blindly sent them in the first place, thank you very much.”

          Yes, you are right, Occupy Oakland has done a lot of show that they’re civilized in many ways, more so than the OPD. But I’ve always understood that civilized people REMAIN “civilized”, regardless of the situation, versus turning it “on” or “off” when it suited them. Booing Mayor Quan and not trying to accept her apology–which is far more than other people have gotten–makes me question if, at least for certain people, this image of civilized behavior is something that they TRULY are deep down, or is something they wish to show off when it suits them.
          ….

          “Most people who could critically think their way out of a wet paper bag
          could see that the apology was insincere, political damage control.”

          Be that as it may, what would you rather have her do: NOT apologize and believe that everything she did was justified or apologize after realizing that she could have done things differently? A completely different conclusion apart from those two choices is perfectly acceptable, but it still would fall within the “She apologizes” and “She didn’t apologize” camp (correct me if I’m wrong). But regardless of what she would have done, you and I would still be having an discussion concerning her actions, and I feel that no matter what people wouldn’t have been satisfied.
          ….

          This movement is still young and everyone within it is still trying to find their voice within it, just as I am. I thus am by no means claiming that my opinions on the matter are concrete and never changing. In fact, part of the reason why I’m active in the movement is to not only find other people who share my views, but to also hear things I disagree with and help me weed out what opinions I may hold which are ones that I shouldn’t and thus replace them with something else. But most importantly, I participate in the movement because I feel that some of the things I believe are things that other people need to hear. I’ve lived in the San Francisco Bay Area my whole life and I have come to realize that there are just as many Lefts here who are so sure of their views and are unwilling to apply any form of critical thinking to them, just as much as many Rights elsewhere in the country are unwilling to apply critical thinking to theirs.

          I see myself as being Centrist/Moderate, not by choice, but simply because the combination of my views lead me in that direction. As such, I regularly butt heads with people I discuss issues with simply because they feel that, because they are Liberal, they are automatically correct. Of course, while I feel this is a wrong position to have, I DON’T assume that they have it because they are Liberals, but because they are afraid to have their views questioned… no different than many Conservatives in the nation.

          The Occupy movement will be–if not already bas become–THE touchstone for our generation. This is going to be the one thing that many minds and writers of our generation will spend the rest of their lives discussing about. I know I certainly will. But what encourages me to participate in this is to do everything I can in my power to make sure that this creates–and is remembered for–the positive changes it has made in our lives, environment and society. As such, I’m afraid that there may be too many people who are unwilling to accept critical analyzation of their views and that this movement becomes exactly what the Conservatives think it is: a bunch of people who think they are right (but us Conservatives know that there are just SO many holes in it).

          I mean, take the “civilized people” point above. I feel that it’s wrong for people to believe that just because they have acted “civilized” for most of the time that it gives them a “Bye” to act “uncivilized” once or twice (because, c’mon, it’s still more than they way THEY treat us, right??). Maybe *I’M* wrong for having that opinion, I can’t say. But I still feel that if we have a whole movement where people aren’t bringing these kinds of things up AND are also doing because they want to HELP the movement rather than tear it apart… then I feel that the people who think they’re never wrong and refuse to tolerate ANY form of criticism will eventually tear itself apart.

          Essentially, I’m not saying things against the Occupy movement because I want it to die, I’m saying it because I want it to THRIVE. I mean, there are enough people who do what needs to be done to do right, but I don’t feel there are enough to are criticizing the actions of the Occupy movement for the express intent of making it even sharper than it is with people boosting it alone. But most importantly, I want to do what I can to make people think about their actions and not always think that they’re right about EVERYTHING, even if they really are right about MANY things. …. I mean, think about it… do you think I’m wrong? Do you think ALL my points are wrong and that I shouldn’t bother bringing them up because they do nothing bolster negative Conservative thought within the movement? Hell, did you assume I was a Conservative anti-Occupyist from the get go? …. I certainly hope you didn’t think this about me and that you accepted me as someone who simply want to see the Occupy movement do right by itself, even if you don’t necessarily agree with my positions. But OTHER people I’ve encountered assumed that just because I criticize elements within the Occupy movement that I MUST be a Conservative, and it’s that kind of mentality I wish to combat.

          But, again, feel free to correct me if I really AM wrong. I mean, just because I want to see the Occupy movement do right by itself and truly become the force for positive change that I feel it should be, it doesn’t mean that I should push “2+2=5″ as something right, true and correct. I also hope you have a better idea of what I stand for in all this. I also welcome any ideas you have about how I could position myself to be able to criticize the Occupy movement without sounding destructive, or without having people assume that I’m a Conservative looking to tear it apart from within.

          And that’s all I have to say about this.

          • Cowicide says:

            I’m wrong? Do you think ALL my points are wrong

            Nope, just where I said I disagreed with you.

          • P.F. Bruns says:

            “Well, unless my understanding what happens when you are shot in the face is completely wrong… if you’re shot in the face, the impact would generally force you AWAY from the person who shot you, does it not? That is to say, if Scott Olsen was laying down with his head facing the police, there’s a pretty good chance that the ordinance exploded PAST
            Scott to where the force of it pushed him towards the police.”

            Based on my (admittedly rudimentary) knowledge of ballistic physics, not necessarily. As I understand it, a concussion grenade would have to transfer almost its entire impact to a relatively tightly focused point on his body to move him, and any absorption of the force of impact, say, because his skull fractured and his face deformed to absorb it, would mitigate that turning force.

            Physics specialists, please correct my ignorance here.

      • occupyglosta says:

        I think this is over-simplification. I’m from an occupation clear across the US and most of us at a distance do not have enough info to make out clearly what’s happened. I think though you have to cut folks that were in the jaws of a traumatic experience a little slack.
        And I’ll say this much, if there were any names published besides of course the Mayor or Chief Of Police and a few administrators … It’s cause they’re public figures. I never once saw a policeman’s name and there is no outcry to hurt anyone coming from any published statement I’ve seen.
            Now I’m not saying you haven’t seen something locally that has you upset. But this account just doesn’t sound like what we’ve read and had broadcast to us by Occupy Oakland.
            In closing, I’ll leave whether your conclusions say anything about the folks in Oakland’s feelings or actions to them, and I guess you, if you’re in fact a local. But your conclusions speak NOTHING of the Occupiers elsewhere in the US. And I’ll leave the determination if you are on the money locally, to the LOCALS. They know what went down on their turf. And I am sure they’ll be eager to respond.
        OG

  2. benher says:

    You know what would have been better than using weapons, lethal or non? Respecting Scott’s rights serving the public. The fact that Scott is still so young and has already served his country only adds insult to (literal) injury. Hope he has a speedy recovery. 

  3. microdot says:

    I didn’t or wouldn’t publish an name on the internet. I merely pointed the fact that another person did some research and came up with an identity.  I’m pretty familiar with Jean Quans personal history, but find it fairly tragic that she has been fequently profiled on CRI recently as a victim of the Occupy Movement (in other words, the Chinese commentator thought it was terrible that she has been hamstrung in her ability to deal with the protests in a more forceful decisive way)…CRI is China Radio International and she has been spotlighted often in recent months as a successful Chinese American…I hear CRI on AM here in France, but you can access it on internet.
    All of the apologetics offered here are not relevant in lieu of the evictions notices that Occupy has been threatened with…in lieu of the violent attack on protesters in Berkeley earlier this week Quan can apologize all she wants…it is the actions which prove the sincerity of her words and she has not followed through in any meaningful way in regards to her apologies…an empty apology is propaganda and manipulation using the media.
    I don’t think any of your basic points are wrong, I would question your motives in the manner you present them.

    • nick15 says:

      I’m not saying that you did. But just because someone did some research and found a name doesn’t mean we should accept their conclusion just because it aligns with our own beliefs. What’s the old saying; “the first casualty of war is the truth”? I’m more frustrated with the idea that people blindfully accepted the findings on face value versus applying some critical thinking–where did the name come from? What is our evidence to say this WAS the one who did it?–simply because people are afraid to criticize ANYTHING that people do under the name of the Occupy movement, lest they be branded as hatemongering conservative.

      “in lieu of the violent attack on protesters in Berkeley earlier this week Quan can apologize all she wants”

      I like to keep things in perspective. True, perhaps her apology was done for propagandic purposes. But it’s still more than people in Syria, Egypt and Libya got. Still, it’s also, in my opinion, a bad call to always assume the worst of people; if people are sketical of Mayor Quan’s motives to apologize, fine, but they could still give her the chance to prove that her apology is more than just propaganda versus assume the worst out of her. I mean, assuming the worst of someone’s intentions is no different than what many Conservatives have been doing concerning the Occupy movement (such as immediately assuming that Scott Olsen was some anti-American jackass with the “I Hate The Marine Corp” website); I want to believe that people within the Occupy movement are better than that.

      “I don’t think any of your basic points are wrong, I would question your motives in the manner you present them.”

      Well, what do you think my motives are in bringing them up? I mean, do you think it is wrong for me to bring up points which seemingly criticize the Occupy movement, even though I believe it’s healthy to bring up things that may sound hurtful at first? That is to say, in all powerful movements for positive change–and correct me if I’m wrong–there is a very real element within those movements which have a strong potential for actually undermining the very principles and foundations which that movement stands upon. If we are too afraid to criticize the movement for those elements–because perhaps other people feel that ALL criticism of the movement is dangerous and anti-movement–then we allow those elements to take root and eventually choke the movement to death.

      Yes, the Occupy movement is still very young and is still trying to find its voice. It also still has a lot of people within the movement who don’t seem to realize that criticism of certain elements within the movement is a VERY healthy thing to do and thus shouldn’t be afraid to bring them up. And I’m certainly positive you’re quite familiar with all this. As such, my motives are simply to criticize certain elements within the Occupy movement, not to spew hate towards it, but instead to hope that the right people hear it and work to encourage that these things are minimized (or at least worked on so that our opponents don’t have much “ammunition” to use against the movement).

      But of course, I’m not perfect, and my intention to bring “positive criticism” to the table has been marred by my failure to properly communicate my beliefs. As such, I’m sorry that I wasn’t clearer and hope you still at least understand what I was trying to get it here. :)

  4. microdot says:

    btw, I listen to CRI pretty regularly and for cultural insights into China, they rock! Also their gossip stuff is hilarious.

Leave a Reply