Smear Job From The Right? (Scott Olsen)

Well this is interesting...

Smear Job From The Right? (Scott Olsen)

Now this is infuriating.

There are a large number of right-wing people who claim that Scott Olsen (the Scott Olsen who was shot in the head with a projectile at OccupyOakland leaving him critically injured, then the cops violated the rules of war -- say much less reasonable police work -- by attacking those who came to his aid) is the owner of a domain called "ihatethemarinecorps.com"

Read the rest at the link...

We shall see what comes out of this... I wouldn't put it pass those bastards (Oakland cops/feds) from trying to smear Scott Olsen to cover up their crimes.

Even if the guy is the owner of IHATETHEMARINECORPS... it doesn't matter... what's important is cops injuring peaceful protesters.

Originally posted by Vitchilo


Even if the guy is the owner of IHATETHEMARINECORPS... it doesn't matter... what's important is cops injuring peaceful protesters.

edit on 29-10-2011 by Vitchilo because: (no reason given)

The "Cops" are not the 1%.

If the "Cops" are told to clear the street...They will clear the street.

The street is not the place to fight the Cops.

Funny how the media spins this where the Cops represent the 1%.

Cops are struggling like the rest of us and just trying to raise their families.

If you are mad at "Rich People". Take the protest to the "Super Wealthy".

Because right now...The "Super Wealthy" are completely and totally unaffected.

reply to post by Vitchilo

Ooookay... can someone explain this in layman's terms please?
How exactly is this "record" magically altered?
Is it possible to identify WHO altered the data?

reply to post by Vitchilo


There was no crime committed. The police have the duty to use the appropriate amount of force necessary to protect the public. The police tried unsuccessfully to disperse the crowds in Oakland but they were surrounded and outnumbered by angry protesters who were throwing things and becoming more violent. When people throw objects at the police and attempt to impede the arrest of suspects the police are justified in escalating force.

www.riversideca.gov...

Generally, the deployment of less lethal munitions should have the goal to restore order
and/or reduce the risk of more serious injury. Incidents where deployment may be an option
include, but are not limited to, the following:

4.30 - 5
• RESTORATION OR MAINTENANCE OF ORDER DURING A JAIL BREAK OR CIVIL DISTURBANCE.
• Safely controlling violent persons.
• Subduing vicious animals.
• Situations wherein the authorizing person deems their use necessary to safely
resolve the incident.

Depending on circumstances, less lethal weapons can be used to safely control violent or
potentially violent suspects when the officer reasonably believes the following conditions
exist:
• Attempts to control the incident with lesser force options have been, or will likely be
ineffective in the situation, and
• There is a reasonable expectation that it would be tactically unwise for officers to
approach or place themselves in range of the suspect.

reply to post by Vitchilo


Thanks vitchilo, as soon I saw the propaganda I decided to take my time and do some research, you know us, we don't fall easily for propaganda without some prof, that is what you are good at, I appreciated your effort on finding the truth.

As usual you will find some that will fight you and even put your well known reputation for finding the truth on line due to pre conceived ideas. Great work.

I also trying to figure out and research why a smear campaign against a Veteran and the only reason I could find is that some are very afraid of what this will do to the moral of the military as a whole

He was against the war as me a veteran's wife am after my husband served for 20 years and he didn't stay home as a arm chair warrior he went out there and voice in person his reasons why.

The Right Launches A Smear Campaign Against Occupy Oakland’s Scott Olsen

www.politicususa.com...

www.blogster.com...

The truth will send the Marine hero free.

edit on 29-10-2011 by marg6043 because: (no reason given)

reply to post by whyamIhere


Show me one instance where the media spins this to show the cops as the 1%.

reply to post by seabag

There was no crime committed. The police have the duty to use the appropriate amount of force necessary to protect the public. The police tried unsuccessfully to disperse the crowds in Oakland but they were surrounded and outnumbered by angry protesters who were throwing things and becoming more violent. When people throw objects at the police and attempt to impede the arrest of suspects the police are justified in escalating force.

The police showed up in full riot gear ready for a fight. It should be no surprise at all that at some point the police decided they had a fight on their hands. The public was not protected by any police in this incident. The public should be very afraid of these gang member thugs, and should do everything necessary to have these incorporated administrative agencies dismantled and the criminal thugs within it prosecuted for their crimes.

The police most assuredly acted criminally, and it matters not that a handful of protestors were throwing rocks and bottles (also a criminal act) this does not authorize LEO's to indiscriminately use force and harm the innocent along with the guilty.

People have the absolute and undeniable right to peaceably assemble. No "orders" to put a stop to the exercise of this right has any lawful weight. If police are taking "orders" to ignore the oath of office they took then they have chosen their side and it sure as hell ain't with the people. The pretentious preening protestors do not come close to representing 99% of the population, but regardless of what real numbers they do represent their rights are as sacrosanct as any other person. That is the rule of law, this is what those police ignored.

Originally posted by Vitchilo
(the Scott Olsen who was shot in the head with a projectile at OccupyOakland leaving him critically injured, then the cops violated the rules of war -- say much less reasonable police work -- by attacking those who came to his aid) is the owner of a domain called "ihatethemarinecorps.com"

First off who cares if he did have a website about hating the marines?

Second the article is one sided sensationalism.

If Scott and all the other protesters
would of followed the orders to vacate the premises overnight only.

(whether you think it is legal or not they were going to be made to leave)
one way or the other, on there own terms or by force.
The protesters chose to stay and esculate things
The protesters chose to be removed by force
The protesters chose to start throwing things at the cops.

The protesters and Scott knew what they were getting themselves into.

The fact if he had a website or not does not negate the reasons
things went down as they did.

You can't prove it is not his site.
Can't prove it is.
Why doesn't somebody ASK him.
If he says it is so what
if he says it is not so what.

All speculation from here.

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
reply to post by seabag

 

The police showed up in full riot gear ready for a fight. It should be no surprise at all that at some point the police decided they had a fight on their hands. The public was not protected by any police in this incident. The public should be very afraid of these gang member thugs, and should do everything necessary to have these incorporated administrative agencies dismantled and the criminal thugs within it prosecuted for their crimes.

The police most assuredly acted criminally, and it matters not that a handful of protestors were throwing rocks and bottles (also a criminal act) this does not authorize LEO's to indiscriminately use force and harm the innocent along with the guilty.

People have the absolute and undeniable right to peaceably assemble. No "orders" to put a stop to the exercise of this right has any lawful weight. If police are taking "orders" to ignore the oath of office they took then they have chosen their side and it sure as hell ain't with the people. The pretentious preening protestors do not come close to representing 99% of the population, but regardless of what real numbers they do represent their rights are as sacrosanct as any other person. That is the rule of law, this is what those police ignored.

You can continue repeating that there was a crime committed by the police but that won’t make it so. In my previous post (above) I gave everyone the Riverside, California rules for the use of non-lethal force. I’m sure it’s very similar in San Diego, LA, Oakland, etc. The police will deploy less lethal munitions to restore order and/or reduce the risk of more serious injury during a period of civil disobedience. As show in the news report below, the police gave these guys every chance in the world to leave and they were informed that they were in violation of the law. The people who were there admit they were inciting violence and its obvious they refused to leave.



Be honest....this was not a peaceful protest!!

Originally posted by GogoVicMorrow
reply to post by whyamIhere

 

Show me one instance where the media spins this to show the cops as the 1%.

Show me one instance where the 1% forcibly removed protesters...By default it's the Cops.

reply to post by popsmayhem

(whether you think it is legal or not they were going to be made to leave)
one way or the other, on there own terms or by force.
The protesters chose to stay and esculate things
The protesters chose to be removed by force
The protesters chose to start throwing things at the cops.

"Legal" has nothing to do with unalienable and natural rights. "Legal" would apply to government, and in the matter of defending and protecting the rights of the People to Peaceably Assemble, the police acted illegally. The had no Constitutional authority to act as they did.

The police chose to arrive dressed in full riot gear looking for a fight. They wanted a fight, and made damns sure they got one!

The police chose to make sure they used force to deny and disparage rights of the People.

The police chose to ignore those that were acting criminally by throwing rocks and bottles and in that willful ignoring of criminality used it as an excuse to criminally attack innocent people.

Originally posted by seabag

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
reply to post by seabag

 

The police showed up in full riot gear ready for a fight. It should be no surprise at all that at some point the police decided they had a fight on their hands. The public was not protected by any police in this incident. The public should be very afraid of these gang member thugs, and should do everything necessary to have these incorporated administrative agencies dismantled and the criminal thugs within it prosecuted for their crimes.

The police most assuredly acted criminally, and it matters not that a handful of protestors were throwing rocks and bottles (also a criminal act) this does not authorize LEO's to indiscriminately use force and harm the innocent along with the guilty.

People have the absolute and undeniable right to peaceably assemble. No "orders" to put a stop to the exercise of this right has any lawful weight. If police are taking "orders" to ignore the oath of office they took then they have chosen their side and it sure as hell ain't with the people. The pretentious preening protestors do not come close to representing 99% of the population, but regardless of what real numbers they do represent their rights are as sacrosanct as any other person. That is the rule of law, this is what those police ignored.

You can continue repeating that there was a crime committed by the police but that won’t make it so. In my previous post (above) I gave everyone the Riverside, California rules for the use of non-lethal force. I’m sure it’s very similar in San Diego, LA, Oakland, etc. The police will deploy less lethal munitions to restore order and/or reduce the risk of more serious injury during a period of civil disobedience. As show in the news report below, the police gave these guys every chance in the world to leave and they were informed that they were in violation of the law. The people who were there admit they were inciting violence and its obvious they refused to leave.

Be honest....this was not a peaceful protest!!

So going by your logic,if a few people in your town decide to throw bottles at some cops, then the entire town deserves to be tear gassed, shot with rubber bullets, and have flash grenades go off in their faces, right?

Because, going by your logic, your town would no longer be considered peaceful. Because a few people in your town broke the rules, the rest are fair game for retribution by the cops.

That is exactly what you're saying, by your logic. Because a few protesters threw things, EVERYONE else deserves what they got.

Uh huh.......

What we appear to have is someone tampering with the return from the Whois servers, stored in the Google cache

If you've ever been a DNS admin, you'd "lol" at that. I stopped reading there, as it rendered the rest of it as ludicrous as that one sentence.

There is no smear here. A former marine named Scott Olsen was injured in a protest. Someone named Scott Olsen, from the same geographic region of the U.S. (the Great Lakes area), created a domain called "ihatethemarinecorps.com". Pretty hefty coincidence, if you ask me.

But it doesn't matter. He could created a domain called "godhatesfags.com" and it'd still be his right to. Wait...that's taken already.

/TOA

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
reply to post by popsmayhem

 

(whether you think it is legal or not they were going to be made to leave)
one way or the other, on there own terms or by force.
The protesters chose to stay and esculate things
The protesters chose to be removed by force
The protesters chose to start throwing things at the cops.

"Legal" has nothing to do with unalienable and natural rights. "Legal" would apply to government, and in the matter of defending and protecting the rights of the People to Peaceably Assemble, the police acted illegally. The had no Constitutional authority to act as they did.

The police chose to arrive dressed in full riot gear looking for a fight. They wanted a fight, and made damns sure they got one!

The police chose to make sure they used force to deny and disparage rights of the People.

The police chose to ignore those that were acting criminally by throwing rocks and bottles and in that willful ignoring of criminality used it as an excuse to criminally attack innocent people.

Even though I don't always agree with you, I respect your opinion.

Know why? Because even though you disagree with OWS, you still are able to look at it objectively, and don't deny it when cops overstep their boundaries and abuse their rights.

Seems a few others let their agenda cloud reality. No one is saying the people who did throw things don't deserve to be arrested. People are saying because a few did throw things, it DOES NOT give the cops the right to blindly assault everyone else.

Shocked some don't get it.

reply to post by seabag

You can continue repeating that there was a crime committed by the police but that won’t make it so. In my previous post (above) I gave everyone the Riverside, California rules for the use of non-lethal force.

The very moment the decision was made to disperse a crowd that had not been doing anything to justify such disbursement a crime was committed. The police officers who acquiesced to this criminal decision agreed to be criminals as well, and dressed for the occasion. You can post as many silly rules as you like, I will see your rules and post the Supreme Law of the Land for the State of California:

Beginning with the Preamble:

We, the People of the State of California, grateful to Almighty God for our freedom, in order to secure and perpetuate its blessings, do establish this Constitution.

Get it? A bunch of uniformed gang member sycophants for a corporation (the incorporated municipality of Oakland in this case) did not establish this Constitution, the People did.

Next, we turn to Section 1 of the Declaration of Rights:

SECTION 1. All people are by nature free and independent and have inalienable rights. Among these are enjoying and defending life and liberty, acquiring, possessing, and protecting property, and pursuing and obtaining safety, happiness, and privacy.

All people are by nature free and independent and have inalienable rights. Get it?

Next we turn to Section 3 of that Declaration of Rights:

SEC. 3. (a) The people have the right to instruct their representatives, petition government for redress of grievances, and assemble freely to consult for the common good.

This is the Supreme Law of the Land, and your pathetic "rules" are subordinate to this Constitution. Do not dare to presume that you and other thugs can write up a rule book that gives you any lawful authority to deny and disparage the rights of People.

All these confused and mindless protestors needed was the criminality of government law enforcement to do what they are now doing to change the tide of how they are being perceived, and if you think that after incidents like Oakland, that the public is more disgusted with the protestors than they are the LEO gang member thugs, think again.

Some are claiming that the protestors are falling right into that mysterious "TPTB" hands and doing their bidding, but after watching the reactionary abuse being perpetuated by gang member thug/predators in blue, it is arguable that government has fallen right into the protestors hands. Way to go morons!

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux


Uhm…..excuse me.....THEY WERE THROWING BOTTLES AT THE POLICE, THEY REFUSED TO LEAVE AND SOME WERE RESISTING ARREST!! They were all given warning to LEAVE THE AREA!! What don’t you understand about that, professor??

They were a violent unruly MOB!! What about the people who live in that area and have children?? They can’t leave their homes because of these people! Pull your head out!! Stop trying to convince people that the cops shoot rubber bullets and chemical agents at poor innocent people. This group was FAR FROM INNOCENT!

Originally posted by MysticPearl

So going by your logic,if a few people in your town decide to throw bottles at some cops, then the entire town deserves to be tear gassed, shot with rubber bullets, and have flash grenades go off in their faces, right?

Because, going by your logic, your town would no longer be considered peaceful. Because a few people in your town broke the rules, the rest are fair game for retribution by the cops.

That is exactly what you're saying, by your logic. Because a few protesters threw things, EVERYONE else deserves what they got.

Uh huh.......

When you’re in a group that is breaking the law then you are guilty by association. Why would you not heed the warning and leave?? What about police in riot gear asking you to leave didn’t they understand?? They CHOSE to stand their ground against what they knew was coming and some paid the price with bodily injury. That was THEIR CHOICE! If you make that choice then you can’t cry about it later!!

Originally posted by MysticPearl

That is exactly what you're saying, by your logic. Because a few protesters threw things, EVERYONE else deserves what they got.

Uh huh.......

I would choose who I protests with VERY carefully.
Everyone who refused to leave knew what they were
facing, cops in riot gear, cops with tear gas. Common sense would tell you
*cops in riot gear, they are serious lets get the hell out of here if someone
does something reckless we are going to get caught in the middle of this*

Scott Olsen was caught in the middle of it because of
reckless protesters he chose to stand in solidarity with.

The only smear job is the protesters acting like they did nothing
wrong when they are the ones who picked the fight.

reply to post by seabag

Uhm…..excuse me.....THEY WERE THROWING BOTTLES AT THE POLICE, THEY REFUSED TO LEAVE AND SOME WERE RESISTING ARREST!! They were all given warning to LEAVE THE AREA!! What don’t you understand about that, professor??

Uhm...excuse me...THEN ARREST THE ONES THAT WERE THROWING BOTTLES AT THE POLICE INSTEAD OF ACTING LIKE A BUNCH OF PUSSIES AND CLAIMING THAT SOME CRIMINAL FEW GIVES GANG MEMBER THUGS/PREDATORS IN BLUE THE RIGHT TO BULLY EVERYONE. The Constitution for the State of California gave the police who took an oath of office to protect and defend that Constitution fair warning to act lawfully or SUFFER THE CONSEQUENCES. What don't you understand about that my oh too slow on the uptake and failing student?

They were a violent unruly MOB!!

You are lying. There was no mob until the riot police showed up, then there was a mob. Before that there were a bunch of confused protestors who don't know much about what or how they intend to fix our problems, but they did not show up in force DRESSED TO KILL like your gang member homies did.

What about the people who live in that area and have children??

Let the People who live there in that area and have children speak for themselves...oh...that's right, you don't countenance with that kind of freedom, do you? You wrote up a "rule" book that claims authority to speak for them.

They can’t leave their homes because of these people!

Prove it! Your willingness to suppress the truth, your obvious and undeniable disregard for the Supreme Law of the Land makes your claims more than suspect, it is fairly presumed you are lying! If what you claim about residence unable to leave their homes because of protest is true, then prove it. Show me one verified complaint by one residence claiming injury by these protestors. Just one verified complaint will do.

Pull your head out!!

This is what we have for police in this country, a bunch of morons calling the educated morons. It is quite clear that municipalities have purposely sought out stupid and ill educated people to fill their police forces and the evidence keeps coming in.

Stop trying to convince people that the cops shoot rubber bullets and chemical agents at poor innocent people. This group was FAR FROM INNOCENT!

You fool, you don't even bother to pay attention to who you're replying to, do you? I have not ever mentioned rubber bullets nor chemical agents in my defense of the rule of law. This is typical of the modern day police, they just assume, assume, assume, and pretend their ignorant assumptions are more impressive than actual investigation and education. People are spending hard on money in taxes to feed a bunch of stupid uneducated thug gang members. Keep defending your gang homeboy. Keep strutting around with your pathetic "rule" book proud to be a gang member.

Well, if anyone has earned the right to "hate the Marines" it's any Marine veteran of the Iraq war. But, aside from that, as a citizen he has the right to express his opinion both on line and in the streets.

And for the life of me I can't understand why some view the OWS movement as left versus right. But then I also don't get how the right has co-opted millions of middle class Americans to vote against their own economic interests.