How do the ATS Cops/Veterans feel about Scott Olsen.

There would appear to be a good many current and former police officers who frequent and are moderators on ATS.
A good majority of active and former police officers in the US are active Military Reserves, Ready Reserve, or Veterans.

This thread isn't to bash the Military to Paramilitary Police assembly line, and it isn't to bash police officers.

But I do have to ask the question. Since so many active police officers are also veterans, what is your take on the Scott Olsen situation?

Does it cause you an odd kind of internal conflict? Like being a Native American who is also a Cowboy?
Do you side with the veteran who for all intents and purposes was just exercising the rights he defended.
Or do you side with your brothers in blue who may or may not have fractured his skull open because at the time he was mixed in with all the hippies.

The above post is written in English isn't it? Someone check it for me to make sure that I didn't somehow write an entire post in portu-greek or ching chang slang.
It isn't a troll bridge, and I sincerely want to know how those who are both veterans and police officers feel about this current situation.
What part takes precedent the veteran part or the police officer part? How do you reconcile the duality of the issue?

reply to post by Butterbone


Ching chang slang? that's a new one.

Originally posted by Butterbone

Or do you side with your brothers in blue who may or may not have fractured his skull open because at the time he was mixed in with all the hippies.

I'm a vet and a hippie. What are you trying to imply? Are they mutually exclusive?

reply to post by whaaa


Not trying to imply anything. I don't think veteran becomes exclusive to anything other than military service. My attempt was to juxtapose the reality of Mr. Olsen's beliefs. Did the police officers at the time believe him to be more veteran or more hippy?

Should it matter more when a veteran is protesting than when someone like me is protesting?
Actually I think Yes it should. I've done nothing but lived for my own interests. Anyone who signed those documents promising to give their life if need be do honestly deserve more respect for that decision no matter why they did it.

Of course the cops had no way actually knowing if he was a veteran, but I don't think that matters either.

I am more interested in how people who are both veterans and police officers feel about knowing that fellow police officers chose to fire into that crowd and possibly may have destroyed the life of a fellow veteran simply because he chose to exercise his rights.
Rights that he gave more for, than most people are willing to give. Rights that they also gave more for, than most people give.

Doesn't that put them on the same footing with the soldier/cops in a foreign land who fired into crowds of people who gathered to protest so that they could have democracy and freedom of assembly?

Didn't they just come back from being shot at and or blown up for trying to bring that same freedom to some one else?

What if one of these veteran/cops found out that the officer who fired the teargas round that may or may not have fractured Scotts skull, wasn't a veteran but was in fact a college cop?
Would that make a difference to them?

You know a good point of view you might want to ask for? Semperfortis. A mod, a cop, a former marine sniper...

You might drop him a U2U and see if he is willing to offer his opinion.

This is moronic. I doubt the police officers intentionally bashed his skull with a tear gas canister. That is stupid. The police are under enough scrutiny. This guy's face was by chance in the same space as a tear gas canister (supposedly) at the same time. That is it. The guy went to a protest that got violent and something did not go in his favor, period. What if this moron cracked a police officer's skull open with a can if paint? Would he be some kind of hero? Would we feel bad for the police officer?

reply to post by etombo


I understand your point of view on that. I wouldn't call it moronic. But I have to agree with a good amount of it. There is 0 evidence that he was singled out, and even if he was, you'll never get anyone to admit that.

I think my point is better made in my third post in this thread, and not the initial post.

reply to post by Butterbone


So the question is why did the police disburse the crowd when it was a possibility that someone in the crowd believed in the same philosophies as the police? What are you talking about here? I really want to understand what we are talking about.

reply to post by etombo


I'm talking about this.

I am more interested in how people who are both veterans and police officers feel about knowing that fellow police officers chose to fire into that crowd and possibly may have destroyed the life of a fellow veteran simply because he chose to exercise his rights.
Rights that he gave more for, than most people are willing to give. Rights that they also gave more for, than most people give.

Doesn't that put them on the same footing with the soldier/cops in a foreign land who fired into crowds of people who gathered to protest so that they could have democracy and freedom of assembly?

Didn't they just come back from being shot at and or blown up for trying to bring that same freedom to some one else?

reply to post by Butterbone


If you have ever met a police officer and had any understanding of their thought process you would know that they would sooner see you hanged than throw their co-worker under the bus.

reply to post by etombo


That's just bashing. There are thousands of threads around here where that is welcome. My questions are sincere.
If you want to add to the conversation that's fine, but you can't take an absolute line on this. If you do it's just bigotry at that point. And it should be obvious this isn't a "pat on the back" thread. I have no history of love for the PoPo.

reply to post by Butterbone


It is the thin blue line, it is real and you will find few officers who will roll over on people. I am sure of this.