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

As the events that led to Oakland protester Scott Olsen's head injury continue to unfold and investigations begin, we thought it important to offer some perspective. This comment is from a former Marine with special operations in crowd control. He points out that shooting canisters such as those that likely hit Scott Olsen is prohibited under rules of engagements in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Article Source Link

I think that the use of a 40mm tear gas canister fired directly at Scott Olsen's head from very close range was a premeditated leadership decapitation strike. I think it was deliberate and planned and the police intelligence had clued in sharp shooters using these 40mm grenade launchers at close range to effect a hit.

I will tell you that I am trained in the 40mm grenade launcher of my generation and I would regularly send a round through a specific window in a target building from 400 meters out from the target. Better than hitting the broad side of a barn I would commonly send a practice round through the window of my choice from 400 meters. I think from just less than 50 meters that the line of cops were at in this case they could easily hit the person they aimed at.

I do not accept that they did not do this shot on purpose. Identify potential leadership and do them harm at any opportunity is common practice in counter insurgency. That is what the state thinks of OWS protestors and Ron Paul small government types like me. We are insurgency because we want to shut down the gravy train for so many. It is for the benefit of the nation not ourselves I might add.

reply to post by wayouttheredude

Good points and well put. I also find it impossible to believe that at that close range, it wasn't an aimed shot at head level. I'm not sure about identifying him as leadership, as I can't really see how he would be taken that way. The Vets for Peace guys I met in St Louis were among the strongest pacifists this side of a Quaker.

However, I wouldn't put it past a vet in the police line to feel personally offended somehow and think that was either payback, or just hilariously funny to hit a protester in the head and see what it did.

Regardless, I agree with you completely in the premise and I want to see the police who fired that round, tossed the follow up grenades and those who had command at the scene tried on criminal charges. Bottles or whatever might have come first (I never saw anything like that on live feed, by the way..but who knows) don't justify what came next.

reply to post by Wrabbit2000


I have to agree with you that the initial round of 40mm grenade launcher tear gas round should not have been shot into Scott Olsen's head. It also should not need to be said that the police acted in a sense of militaristic fury over these anti-government protestors. They used excessive force and used overwhelming force to cause these peaceful protestors enough harm to abandon their cause. That is in reality their goal. Cause enough harm to them that the protestors give up.

The 1% is scared to death of veterans especially Marines because they are so crazy they will do anything.

reply to post by cybro


The "one percent" isn't "scared" of anything.
They are the ones who engineered this whole thing in the first place.
This is all going exactly as planned.

Marines aren't "crazy".
You've seen too many movies.

Just relax and watch it all unfold.
Things are getting ready to ratchet up a few notches real soon.

I fully support anyone and everyone who is playing a part of the OWS protests.
Unfortunately this is nothing more than a high stakes game of chess and we are playing with pros.

Where the hell are the lawyers?
If there was a fire, car wreck, building collaps, we would have those cockroaches everywhere looking to a way to squeeze money out of anyone thery can sue.

It seems a well heeled attorny or two could cripple a couple of LEO departments for their actions.
2-3 active lawsuits would make budget managers think twice about sending out stormtroopers.

Remeber, their weak spot is and has always been their wallets.

OWS has had minimal success with actual protests.. but when people started pulling money from big banks, they started changing policies, and visibly acting nervous.
Now... what does that tell you??

hit them in the jugular.. go for the wallet!!
Find lawyers that will sue the depts...use their tools against them ( pun intended)
Don't let banks charge YOU to use YOUR money as THIER working capitol... when they cross the line.. sue their elite as**s off.

reply to post by wayouttheredude


Here is the Oakland police departments Crowd Management/Crowd Control Policy 2005.The purpose of this Training Bulletin is to set forth policy and procedures regarding crowd management and crowd control.

Source

The Oakland Police Department crowd management and crowd control policy is to

• apply the appropriate level of direction and control to protect life, property, and vital facilities;

• maintain public peace and order; and

• uphold constitutional rights of free speech and assembly while relying on the minimum use of physical force and authority required to address a crowd management or crowd control issue.

Not sure if the policy has changed since then,but it is the most recent I could find.

Cops dont have as strict rules to follow as the military.

The path to legitimize police kicking in your door and gunning you down is less regulated than the path for a military team to raid a suspected enemy hideout. The military actually seems to care about how locals perceive them so they try to avoid unnecessary casualties and even unnecessary conflict. Cops apparently dont have that concern seeing as how they intentionally escalate conflict and fire blindly into crowds.

It's as if over the past 20-30 years all the good guys went into military positions and all the baby-killing psychopaths stayed home and put on badges.

I just thought I would toss this in here. Not sure if you folks are aware or not, but did you know that Anonymous has put a bounty on whoever the cop was that did it?

Small snip:

“As you stand in solidarity with the people of the world, Anonymous stands in solidarity with you Scott...You are a veteran of a foreign war, a brave soldier who has stood up for his people in the face of death, in a strange land. Whether our presence in the Middle East is justified or not, we commend those brave men and women who defend our Constitutional rights from enemies, both foreign and domestic; in standing your ground in Oakland, you have become one of the few Americans who have done both,” a message to Olsen from Anonymous states.

Read rest of story HERE

reply to post by wayouttheredude


Good article and I agree with him. I had to do a bit of crowd control in the Navy and to make a long story short if myself or any of my team members injured protesters while we were safe from attack we would have been dragged to Captains Mast asap. The military has to learn and use escalation of force, I guess our little domestic terrorists don't have to follow that same law.

reply to post by Daedal

Thanks for finding the guidelines. That is interesting to see. I would note though that the words there are what they wrote for and intend to be able to defend in a court room should something go wrong. What I want to know, and we may never know for sure, is what these officers were told in their briefing prior to deployment THAT NIGHT. Also, what was the chatter over command radio channels prior to and during the engagement Scott Olsen was shot in.

It's hoping against hope, but if someone who mentioned it is correct and all the officers out there had radios under those gas masks, then there might even be recorded radio traffic between individuals when the follow-up grenades were thrown almost on top of Scott and into the crowd rendering aid to him. I'd give anything if such a record existed and can be produced for the civil/criminal matters that are sure to follow that engagement.

Originally posted by ScrewedThe "one percent" isn't "scared" of anything.

Yes they are very secrure in their castles. Still castles are subject to seige. Drop the FRN as a unit of trade except for taxpaying purposes and see how fast those walls come down. Want to trade a milkcow for a picasso original? Stop accepting FRN for about six months and see the cards fall.

So I'm old fasioned.

reply to post by wayouttheredude

S+ F

Not just about ending the gravy train. The governmnent doesnt want to give up any power...

Now allowed to spy on and search the homes of citizens without a warrant or any oversight. Assassinating US citizens without due process. TSA Viper teams. Rex 84. An ever growing police state mentality.

They have been building the police state for some time. Imagine the damage that Ron Paul would do to all the work the totalitarians have done over the past 30 years.

reply to post by Silverado292


Check out this latest video that shows Scott moments before he was hit and he is just standing 20 feet from the police line. At that range a direct shot to the head with a 40mm grenade canister can kill you. There is no way this was an accident. If anyone can watch this and conclude this was an accident I think they have head in sand disease. What do you say?

reply to post by wayouttheredude


The ROE for the Military during out of country engagements have nothing to do with how LEO here operate.
2 different entities.

Now, the idea that someone can "sharp shoot" a tear gas grenade, let alone a standard Military Spec grenade launcher is funny.

The effective range of most Police Department Tear Gas launching platforms is about 100 yards or so, and have an accuracy scope of about 8 ft.
Now, those that are trained properly to use the launcher, will do so by either shooting it at say a 45 to 60 degree angle, above a crowd.
The other method is to shoot it at the ground, about 20-30 ft in front of the target area. This same method is used when using rubber rounds. You are taught to skip them off the ground. Bean bags are center mass.

With all of this said, it is highly and i do stress HIGHLY unlikely that the police knew of Scott Olson and his past, either Vet or what ever.
The idea that they could target his face and hit it with accuracy is unlikely as well.

The most probable equation is that the LEO firing the launcher made a poor decision and did not adhere to the above methods of deploying said round.
Unless, it is shown that the tear gas canister did in fact reach an arch above the crowd, thus potentially striking someone, anyone in the face or head.

The launchers deployed by LE departments do not have any optics, and are set up the same as a shotgun, normally, with some having similar iron sights as an AR-15.

The canisters do not achieve an adequate spin or twist to remain stable in flight past 40 yards or so. They are not designed to do so, as the goal is not to strike an individual with the canister.

Just something to think about, before the public lynch mob starts beating down doors.

Certain internet groups are aware of their actions.

Oakland police should pay attention. This is not a threat from me. Just an observation of internet chatter.

I just find it strange that marines are all over the world fighting for freedom and free speech, in the name of democracy. Yet back home they are missing from the ranks of the people,who are fighting for the same thing. A 40mm round fired at very close range at some ones head, in my mind is attempted murder.
Land of the free?

reply to post by Daedal


Great find.

Section F-2, Page 16 covers the use of the Launched Tear Gas Canister.
While it states that the SIM will not be fired at potential lethal areas of a human, it does not outline specifically it will be deployed.

reply to post by macman


From 20 feet away I guarantee I would be able to target someone standing still like Scott was if I was shooting that weapon. I don't see how they could have done that by accident. Not from 20 feet away.

Originally posted by wayouttheredude
reply to post by macman

 

From 20 feet away I guarantee I would be able to target someone standing still like Scott was if I was shooting that weapon. I don't see how they could have done that by accident. Not from 20 feet away.

20 ft away, the accuracy will be within 6-12 inches or so.

So, it is viable, but before the officer is vindicated and sentenced, an investigation needs to be launched.

If the cop, did in fact target Olson's head, then he disobeyed policy and training. He should be fired.