Militarization of Police

Watch a Cop Lob a Flash Grenade Into a Group of Occupy Oakland Protesters Trying to Help a Seriously Injured Man

|

I don't see any exculpatory interpretation of this event. I hope that cop gets fired, and worse. Certainly calls into question acting Police Chief Howard Jordan's claim that "The goal is not to cause injury."

Via the Twitter feed of Michael Tracey. Lucy Steigerwald wrote about the Oakland ruckus yesterday.

NEXT: School Competition Rescues Kids

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. No other way to interpret that.

    1. Rest assured though, that Dunphy is working on another way to do just that.

  2. Causing injury is one of several goals, not just “the” goal.

    1. It’s okay for law enforcement to use potentially lethal force on peaceful protesters because “OWS are basically white kids.”

  3. Cheap 7.62 rifles that go through SWAT armor like paper, $200.
    A worn copy of FM 7-8 infantry platoon and squad tactics, $10.
    Advice from an Iraq or Afghanistan vet who thinks this stuff is BS, $10 (beer)

    Effect on cop’s attitudes when they start burying A LOT more of their own, priceless.

    1. Maybe this 1st Gulf War vet is out of touch, but I doubt you will find too many Vets who sympathize with the occupy people (and one of them is in the hospital now).

      Your $200 .308 rifles don’t exist either unless you are talking about old bolt-action hunting guns.

      1. Maybe this 1st Gulf War vet is out of touch, but I doubt you will find too many Vets who sympathize with the occupy people (and one of them is in the hospital now).

        Not at least until they start touching G.I. Bill entitlements. I doubt the government is stupid enough to piss off their Praetorian Guard though.

        1. The GI Bill isn’t all that great – the guys in the National Guard usually get far more from their states than the Feds.

        2. I doubt the government is stupid enough to piss off their Praetorian Guard though.

          Once the “Praetorian Guard” falls out of line, then the Varangian Guard comes in.

        3. GI Bill is just deferred salary. It’s not an ‘entitlement’.

          1. GI Bill is just deferred salary. It’s not an ‘entitlement’.

            By that logic, so is Social Security.

            1. Social Security isn’t an entilement as everyone pays for it out of every paycheck. Social security disability is.

        4. You are an idiot. When we signed our contract; we were promised the GI Bill; it was part of our compensation package for signing our lives away. Risk your life, go to college. Some of us have had our GI Bill and other entitlements taken away. I’m pissed but not rebelling. So why not just keep your mouth shut if you have no personal experience with what is being discussed.

            1. Not emotional, just stating a fact.

      2. He said 7.62- probably meaning 7.62×39, not 7.62×51 NATO. You can buy surplus 7.62×39 SKS rifles for well under $200.

        I don’t know if 7.62×39 will punch through body armor lacking ballistic plates, but it’s not unthinkable.

        1. I’m pretty sure the Box-of-Truth guys have tried it. There is so such thing as a “bullet-proof vest”. Sometimes the bullet stops and sometimes it doesn’t.

          http://www.theboxotruth.com/

        2. 7.62 could also mean 7.62x54R, and those are available for under $200 and are substantially more powerful than x39. Modern military body armor with hard plates apparently will stop it, but that’s about the max they can take. All of this based on about five minutes of internet research, so take with the requisite grain of salt.

          As for the appropriateness of escalating force like that…it’s probably a bad idea. Emotionally, I understand it. You want to start lobbing grenades at unarmed people? Here, see how you like some rifle fire, fucko. Intellectually, I don’t think it’s a good idea. It won’t get much support from people, and it will give the state a very legitimate reason to seriously crack down.

          Now, if the crowd had picked up barricades, cinderblocks, etc. and charged the police, I’d be in favor of that.

          1. Sometimes you have to fight fire with fire.

            More importantly, the state is already seriously cracking down.

            The people have been largely peaceful and worked through the courts and look where it’s gotten us. You’re saying that we dare not directly fight back against this kind of aggression because they’ll become even more aggressive?

            Maybe they will be more aggressive, but they (police) won’t last long in a fight against the people-they don’t have the numbers.

            You’re OK with people responding to the police with barricades and cinderblocks, but not firearms?

            1. but they (police) won’t last long in a fight against the people-they don’t have the numbers

              Wow. You really DO think you’re “the 99%”, don’t you?

        3. You can get a 7.62×54 1891/30 Mosin Nagant rifle for roughly a C-note. 7.62×54 is roughly equivalent to 7.62×51 NATO and .30-06 in power. For another hundred bucks or so you can get a 440 round “spam can” of ammo steel-core ammo. I find Mosins to be clunky and the sights and ergonomics suck, but I have thought about buying a few of them and making up a bandolier or two for each as “loaners” in case of a SHTF scenario. It’s not a Remington 700 or a 1903 Springfield or even a K98 Mauser, but a Mosin is hard to beat for its price point.

    2. Fuck off. More violence is not the answer. It takes a real special kind of armchair stud to advocate murder as a reasonable response to any and every problem.

      1. Come on. We’re not really violent. We just, you know, advocate violence as a means to an end. There’s a difference!

      2. Tell that to every armed revolution.

    3. Hey guys, check out the ATF agent with nothing better to do.

      1. Spoonman, I don’t remember if you’ve been here long enough, but there was a poster / troll – “Terry” who talked about his “Libertarian militia”. He left after people started posting ‘ATF’ every time he was around.

        1. I’d like to believe that the Feds wouldn’t try to incite us to murder, but they’re so demonstrably stupid in every other way that I wouldn’t be surprised if that guy woke up this morning and said “I’m gonna entrap some of those anti-government radicals!”

          1. Dude, these Federal cocksuckers sold weapons to the Zetas. That’s like selling Zyklon B to the Germans. A little entrapment isn’t going to bother them.

    4. Yes. The cops were wrong. But the crime here is that a citizen threw a weapon (flashbang) at another citizen that was causing no real harm. By shooting the cop you are just as bad as they are.

      1. Slaver!

      2. Ah, we have to better then them while they attack. Does this work for rapists and robbers too?

        Don’t fight back against the rapist with a gun, or you’re just as bad as him…

    5. So you are saying it is okay to kill cops? But if a cop kills you, then they should be sued for millions, right? You are as bad as the pro-lifers; it is murder to kill a fetus but it is ok to kill a doctor….

    6. Keyboard commando punk; is what you are. You wouldn’t say three words to my face. Your just an internet punk. BTW idiots – its a flash bang not grenade. Learn the difference. See you on the streets.

  4. a massive confrontation Tuesday night between as many as 1,000 protesters, several who threw rocks and bottles at police, forcing officers to deploy tear gas and fire bean bags to disperse the crowd.

    See? The cops had no choice! Fucking media apologists.

    1. They should receive further training. Preferably somewhere in the middle east or Pakistan, so they can see what a dangerous riot really looks like.

  5. Oakland police will also review its training, policies and procedures.

    Jordan called the incident “unfortunate,” adding that he wished it did not happen.

    “…but, hey, what are ya gonna do.”

    No doubt they’ll be making sure internal procedures don’t expressly forbid tossing an explosive device at an unarmed and non-dangerous civilian.

  6. Procedures were followed..
    Devices were exploded…
    The crowd was dispersed…

  7. Saw this yesterday. Made me sick. Little will be done about it, other than a loss of vacation days and some training. I do have a very serious question about this though: how did it get this way? WOD? 9/11? I mean, how did we get here, where I can reasonably predict that little or no corrective action will be taken against any police officer who is clearly, demonstrably-with-video evidence guilty of reckless, illegal action? This shit isn’t isolated, and we know it – so, how did we get here? Maybe more importantly, can it or will it ever be changed?

    1. My own view is the cozy relationship between PEU and politicians. The union supports the politician seeking/holding onto power, politician promises to support union requests/demands for more money, benefits, and “job security” (really just a euphamism for “no accountability”). Each party benefits, and the public gets screwed.

    2. How did it get this way? It’s always been this way. The only difference is that with the wide proliferation of cameras, now people are slightly more aware of it.

      1. Exactly, if anything it’s gotten better since the cops know they might end up on camera. Which is why a cop is the only person you can’t record in public.

        1. If we are allowed to record the police in public, the terraists have won.

    3. It got this way because of your elected leaders — local judges mainly and state legislators.

      Your judges are afraid of looking like they’re soft on crime so they rubber-stamp everything a police man does: abuse, property theft, murder, whatever. Nowadays, judges NEVER find cops liable under Sec. 1983 when they violate someone’s constitutional rights so the “Us Versus Them” mentality continues.

      And the legislators bloviate about how we “need more cops” and “cops are heroes.” And, as usual, the average ignorant American goes along with it. So then when cops just out right assault people or gun them down in the streets, we bemoan, “How did it get this way?!”

      The blame rests mainly on judges though. Judges are responsible for suppressing illegally obtained evidence, keeping prosecutors in check and for ultimately holding cops accountable under 42 U.S.C. Sec 1983.

  8. Cops under control or cops underground. Seems a reasonable set of options.

    1. You’ll never take me alive, coppers!

  9. Fuck off. More violence is not the answer.

    1. Pish. Violence is always an answer. Sometimes not a very good one, true.

  10. I’m actually more angry about this part of the incident than I am about the original injury.

    The guy with the fractured skull apparently got hit by a tear gas canister. That can potentially happen any time such a canister is fired in a chaotic situation.

    But this follow-up act clearly requires intention.

  11. I’m guessing it was an ABC-M25A2 riot control hand grenade or something similar.

    Some places are saying the cops were throwing M84 military grenades. This looks way too mild and nobody is holding their ears. The cops are too close also – they would be affected.

    1. A million candella and 170 dBA? Yeah, I’d say so. A cop tossing an M84 in close proximity would likely be dealt with “informally” by his “brothers.” Well, I know I’d be pissed off getting my eardrums pierced.

  12. I’m proud of the restraint displayed in this video by the Oakland police. They could have accidentally reached for their Tasers, you know.

    1. Exactly. Also, look how carefully the flash grenade was positioned, not onto a protester, but onto the ground.

  13. http://www.bloomberg.com/news/…..redit.html

    Predictably, now that Greece got a 50% haircut on its debt, Ireland wants a new deal.

    They aren’t saying yet that they want a haircut on their own debt – in fact, they’re “ruling it out” – but in Euro-speak “ruling it out” means, “That is ultimately what is going to happen, but we won’t say that today because we’re Europeans and that’s just how we talk.”

    1. Who would ever buy debt from either country again? I guess that is one way to force a balanced budget on a country that doesn’t print its own money – never loan them a dime.

      1. This. Why in the world would government debt ever be a viable investment again? Especially from these countries. What investor in their right mind is going to say, “Well, I could lose 50% of my principal investment, but that 5% upside is really tempting!”

        1. … you’ve gotta ask yourself a question: “Do I feel lucky?”

          Well, do ya, punk?

        2. It all cycles. Greece has defaulted many times in the past yet the Euro era was supposed to be different. Face facts: most countries have defaulted at some point but have always been able to come back to the table eventually.

        3. At that point it’s not really an “investment” so much as a “purchase”. And the product for sale is understood to be a deep and abiding friendship with the guys who have guns, for when the government decides to go full-fascist and nationalize all of your competitors.

    2. [PM Enda Kenny said], “I cannot say it often enough or strongly enough; we will not be going down the same road.”

      Assuming truth and lies have any meaning, he’s really putting himself out there saying it won’t happen. So if it does, I hope he gets called on it. Sigh.

      1. Again, this is Euro-code. He’s just mad people have figured out the ending before the delicate EU kabuki is finished. It’s like screaming “Dumbledore dies” at a Harry Potter release event. Just not cool.

        1. Dumbledore … dies?

          YOU BAST—

          oh, wait, I knew that.

          1. ** slowly and shakily removes glasses **

    3. I don’t see how Ireland manages to pay back the full amount owed. Every time I went home there was a new housing estate going up somewhere in my home town. No matter how insane the house prices were, everyone felt they had to buy before prices went up further.
      At least the Irish government has cut salaries for the public sector. Two years in, and the Greek government has yet to lay any public sector workers off.

      1. They haven’t cut public sector salaries or laid anybody off in Ireland. There is a hiring freeze and state workers now have to contribute to their defined benefit pensions – 7% minus tax relief. Big deal. Public sector unions and government agreed a series of raises in exchange for ‘reformed’ work practices at the height of the chaos in the so-called Croke Park agreement. Meanwhile the private sector is dying – hundreds of insolvencies a month, no job growth, falling wages, etc etc. I’m personally down 21% in take home pay since 2008, but at least I’m working. The commenter upstream was right: Kenny is just doing EU kabuki until Ireland gets its second bailout in 2014. It’s coming.

  14. Can’t they both lose?

  15. I think the anonymity of the uniforms and gear is part of the problem; not only because the officer is hidden in a cloak of sameness but because policing is done in isolation.

    Does anyone ever see a cop outside a car, unless he’s arresting a suspect?

    They were part of the community and symbols of respect but I can’t imagine anyone wanting to be a cop.

    1. the anonymity of the uniforms and gear is part of the problem

      Also, the fact that all this stuff is black/OD/urban-camo tends to escalate the violence. The uniforms and gear should be calming, giggle-inducing pink.

      1. Despite your snark, there is a psychology to color.

        The fact that you cannot discern their faces, or make eye contact though smoked glass face shields is also part of the impersonal nature.

        1. Yum – love impersonal meat.

          1. handle

          2. handle

    2. So when I inhale, you have to know I do.

      1. handle

        1. handle

    3. Does anyone ever see a cop outside a car, unless he’s arresting a suspect?

      Yeah, in the donut shop.

  16. You just don’t know a nurturing environment when you see one.

  17. You could take all the money in the US and redistribute equally to everyone and the wall street protesters would piss it away foolishly and the same people who had money would end up with money AGAIN.

  18. Is there any question that our police force has been converted into a gendarmerie?

  19. Abe: I want to hear the Glenn Miller Orchestra and see cops beating up hippies!

  20. It’s not a demonstration anymore. The youth got tired ot sticking dollars into the machine and not getting change or even a coke, and they’ve been beating on the face of the machine with their hands.

    Now the only choice they have left is to tip the machine over, tear its wires, loot its contents. Alas, Babylon.

    1. And the machine has no choice but to fall on them and crush them when they try to tip it over.

      1. Oh, so they can both lose.

        1. Thankfully, yes.

      2. Or have an arm sawed off while holding on to the can inside

  21. How many people does it take to aid an injured man?

    I can think of several reasons why the cop might have reasonably thought that the gathering around the injured man was hostile:

    1. People in the crowd were vocally calling for violence.

    2. Protesters had carried threatening signs such as “My only heroes kill cops.”

    3. Some protesters obscured their faces, a practice which is common among those who intend to engage in violent acts.

    4. The crowd had failed to disperse even after teargas had been fired, an indication that they were willing to escalate the confrontation with the police.

    5. Finally, it’s possible, that the cop heard or saw threats that are not clearly visible from the perspective that the video was taken.

    In sum, there’s reason to doubt that the cop acted with malice.

    1. Those reasons are stupid, you are stupid, and you should feel stupid.

      1. I think some of the reasons are valid, but the conclusion is stupid.

    2. 3. Some protesters GED blockheads with badges and a license to kill obscured their faces, a practice which is common among those who intend to engage in violent acts.

      Or as rather said:
      The fact that you cannot discern their faces, or make eye contact though smoked glass face shields is also part of the impersonal nature.

    3. “3. Some protesters obscured their faces, a practice which is common among those who intend to engage in violent acts.”

      You mean they were following standard practice of SWAT teams and riot cops?

      “. The crowd had failed to disperse even after teargas had been fired, an indication that they were willing to escalate the confrontation with the police.”

      Firing tear gas isn’t an escalation?

      “5. Finally, it’s possible, that the cop heard or saw threats that are not clearly visible from the perspective that the video was taken.”

      I am sure they did, even if nothing threatening was said. All cops are liars, every one.

    4. “3. Some protesters obscured their faces, a practice which is common among those who intend to engage in violent acts.”

      You mean they were following standard practice of SWAT teams and riot cops?

      “. The crowd had failed to disperse even after teargas had been fired, an indication that they were willing to escalate the confrontation with the police.”

      Firing tear gas isn’t an escalation?

      “5. Finally, it’s possible, that the cop heard or saw threats that are not clearly visible from the perspective that the video was taken.”

      I am sure they did, even if nothing threatening was said. All cops are liars, every one.

      1. “You mean they were following standard practice of SWAT teams and riot cops?”

        So you agree that there’s an implied threat?

        Yeah, I do see the similarity. The difference of course is that one side is acting lawfully while the other is not: there’s no constitutional right to riot or throw things at the police; the police are legally empowered to use force.

        1. The state is illegitimate! All cops are jackbooted thugs! Also pigs!

        2. “Let us reflect upon the fact that a man who covers his face shows reason to be ashamed of what he is doing. A man who takes it upon himself to shed blood while concealing his identity is a revolting perversion of the warrior ethic. It has long been my conviction that a masked man with a gun is a target. I see no reason to change that view.”
          -Jeff Cooper

    5. If the cops fear for their safety, perhaps they should get the hell out of there and go somewhere safe!

      1. Clever. My suspicion is that the protesters by and large underestimate the degree to which the police protect them from harm. As the saying goes, be careful what you wish for.

        1. My suspicion is that the protesters by and large underestimate the degree to which the police protect them from harm.

          Protect them from harm by whom?

          1. < authoritarian logic >Every time a cop doesn’t beat you with a club or shoot you in the face with a tear gas canister, he is protecting you from the harm that he could have inflicted.< /authoritarian logic >

            1. Nice try, mensan. In this case the authorities were explicitly concerned about protesters causing harm to passersby, onlookers, and each other. An unstated concern, obvious to anybody who thinks about maintaining civil order, is that if the authorities allow one group to run riot, vigilantes will step up and cause more violence. The history of mob violence in the United States testifies to this fact. Even in the Bay Area I don’t suppose goodwill towards anarchists and communists is universal.

              Authoritarianism is not the only alternative to mob violence. Democratic governments who respect civil liberties may also be opposed to mob violence. In fact it’s rather the norm.

              1. In this case the authorities were explicitly concerned about protesters causing harm to passersby, onlookers, and each other.

                The ‘authorities’ concern doesn’t matter. Absent evidence of your list of things actually occurring, there is no reason for the cop to lob a grenade into a crowd of people, especially since there was an injured protestor already down.

        2. So who is going to protect them from harm by the police?

          Oh, right, police action is always justified. I forgot.

          1. In the case the reasons for the police taking action were clear. They even put it in writing. If you think it was unjustified the onus is on you to make the case.

            1. Negative. The onus is on the state. Always is. As yet, they have not proven why it was necessary to throw a flash-bang into a crowd of people responding to the injury of another.

    6. In sum, derp.

    7. 3. Some protesters cops obscured their faces, a practice which is common among those who intend to engage in violent acts.

  22. They need to find which cop (I can’t tell from the video if it’s the one they highlighted or not) who threw that and fire/prosecute his ass.

  23. Poor Jose Guerena. Rather than pick up a rifle, he should have tossed a flash bang out the front door. Being a non-lethal weapon, this would surely have produced an entirely different outcome for him.

  24. They should occupy the Coliseum.

    No one’s occupied it in years.

  25. He was coming right for them!

  26. So what?

    Obama dropped an icy shit-bomb on Occupy Las Vegas.

    http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/41638

    1. A “narrow miss” is still a miss. What a shitty fucking president.

  27. Usually right on board with Reason. This time no. Use of force by police is sometimes necessary. And if the protesters followed orders to vacate and dispersed there would be no need for escalation.

  28. So what the idiot was told to leave !! Hes no better or worse then a Illegal who has entered the country Illegally . I cant wait for more videos of more beat downs across the country . Should be great viewing when the Police start whooping AZZ

    1. You’re such a good bootlicker.

    2. He’s much better than an illegal alien. He’s not taking anyone’s job.

  29. These Idiots need to “Occupy Obamas Teleprompter”

  30. That sucks. I could be even more sympathetic if I saw any evidence that they’re protesting for any reason other than the thrill and excitement of protesting.

    I thought Obama’s administration was the only thing standing between Wall Street and the pitchforks. How’s that working out? Do they get their campaign contributions back now?

  31. I have to say that I watched the aerial video and the cops launched tear gas canisters, which is SOP for a crowd control situation. There were NO flash bangs used. The protestors were ordered repeatedly to leave the area (legally) and refused to comply. The explosions you hear on the video are protestors throwing fireworks into the crowd (I will venture to guess that it was intended to simulate flash bangs and add to their grievences). When the police ask you to clear an area, clear it. There is a reason and a procedure. This article is merely incendiary c**p and if Reason prints much more of this dishonest junk, I will cancel my subscription.

    1. Bye.

      If a person tells the police to leave their house/property unless they have a warrant, then police leave. If not, it’s OK for the owner to deploy tear gas, right?

      1. Certainly, I don’t see why not. But I find the idea of a cop refusing to leave your property when he has no right there to be highly unlikely.

    2. I don’t think you have a subscription.

      1. I do and it ends in 2 months, don’t think I’ll renew.

  32. P. S. the cop threw a tear gas grenade in the crowd when they wouldn’t disperse. A flash bang would have made less smoke and they ALL would have fallen down. So stop already with the sensationalism. Also, to all the cop haters out there; do you think maybe your shady lifestyle was the reason you have had such bad experiences with them. Oh, I’m sorry, I forgot y’all don’t believe in personal responsibility…….kill them all for expecting that from you. Morons!

    1. Also, to all the cop haters out there; do you think maybe your shady lifestyle was the reason you have had such bad experiences with them[?]

      Do you think maybe the fact that you’re a shitty cop was the reason people hated you?

      1. Never been a cop, but I was military police. I used to train cops. I was also a bit wild when I was younger, so I got to know that side of cops too. I never hated them for doing their job because I knew I was wrong at the time and took responsibility for my actions. Do you think maybe the fact that you are a shitty human being is why the cops treat you the way they do?

        1. In other words, yes.

          Luckily you fit right into that not-too-smart demographic from which the police are recruited. I’m sure it was a major advantage to you when training them.

          1. It always ammuses me when I comment on these threads and invariably, someone has to attack my intelligence. That is a sign of someone who cannot rebut the argument in an intellectually honest fashion, so resorts to emotional rhetoric in an attempt to hurt the person who disagrees with them. My rebuttal to your emotional argument: With a name like ballz I would have to say that you are repressing homosexual tendencies, that is, if I were a Freudian. I can say without doubt that you are emotionally immature; even for your 20 something years. Your attack on my intelligence tells me that you are self-conscious about yours; you maybe had to struggle a bit to make it through high school and have to resort to student loans for your education because you didn’t make the cut for a scholarship. Your demographic isn’t much more impressive than mine, is it?

            1. Mike – I did some research and commented up above that the cops are using very low-powered “flash-bangs” not the full-blown military M84’s. Basically big firecrackers.

              I did my last few years in the National Guard. We had riot gear in the armory (shields, helmets, batons). I’m grateful I never had to use that crap.

              1. Soldier, I have done riot control, I’ve never heard of a “low” powered flash bang. As for the rest of your posts; generally, I agree. Thanks for your service.

            2. Mike, first I would just like to say, you can’t spell wimp without MP. As a former MP I’m sure you are aware that other soldiers despised you as much as many people on here despise civilian cops. Secondly, did you watch the video on this post? It clearly shows a cop throwing a flashbang into a crowd.

              Old Soldier, I also finished my military career in the National Guard, and during that time I was one of the training NCOs on the state MSCA team. Maybe things have changed in the last two years, but I can assure you flashbangs were never part of the crowd control methods we taught.

              1. We never had flash-bangs for crowd control either – just good old shields and clubs.

                I practiced with flash-bangs for Urban Warfare. Those military flash-bangs were a hell of a lot more powerful than the firecracker in the video.

              2. Mensan, yes, I watched the video, and every OTHER video that has been released (I never take my info from 1 source). Don’t appreciate the wimp comment; most of my duty was EPW and combat support, although I did have to do a great deal of riot control. My experience was a great deal of camaraderie with my fellow soldiers, foriegn as well as US. Had a few problems but handled them. Next I have to say that those were NOT flash bangs; as a trainer you should know that. They were civilian tear gas grenades (military doesn’t burst normally).

                1. Mike, the wimp comment was just a little intraservice ribbing; I spent my first six years in an infantry brigade. If you were a combat MP, then I apologize for saying that you were despised. I was referring to the post MPs who seemed to take great pleasure in giving out speeding tickets, and generally harassing other soldiers.

                  On further review, I think that you are correct that it was not a flash-bang. I had only ever dealt with the M7 burner type CS grenades, and completely forgot about the M58s, which I now suspect is what the officer threw.

                  1. My apologies for getting my hackles up, lol. I did experience that on the few garrison missions I did. You should’ve been an MP, we got to ride in jeeps instead of marching 🙂

            3. Mike, your sole argument was ad hominem (Google it if you don’t know what it means). If you can’t take it, don’t dish it out. Not that I would expect you to — cops are always the first ones to whine when their tactics are used against them.

              And my demographic is far more impressive than yours, I assure you.

              1. I know what ad hominem means,believe it or not, I do have an education. I DID take your advice though and googled it anyway. “The ad hominem is normally described as a logical fallacy,[2][3][4] but it is not always fallacious; in some instances, questions of personal conduct, character, motives, etc., are legitimate and relevant to the issue”; maybe you should google it. I also told you once before that I am not a cop; funny how the facts are ignored when they don’t fit your belief system. A question: what is your demographic? Can’t wait to hear the answer.

  33. Reason prints much more of this dishonest junk, I will cancel my subscription.

    That’s one for later. I haven’t even had breakfast.

  34. I am not giving a carte blanche to the police. But here are a few thing to consider the officer was wearing a gas mask, this limited his field of view, particularly his ability to see laterally and down. He very well may not have seen the injured man, and the only thing he saw was a crowd.

    Also he likely is for lack of a better word the grenadier, his job is to disperse crowds with a flash bangs.

    These situations always have so many technical aspects to them.

    1. his job is to disperse crowds with a flash bangs.

      From Mensan above:Maybe things have changed in the last two years, but I can assure you flashbangs were never part of the crowd control methods we taught.

      1. @apogee, last time, those WERE NOT flash bangs! Those were riot control grenades; CS tear gas, designed to burst. The function of the burst is “shock and awe” so to speak. It has been well documented that riot instigators are generally prepared for tear gas and aren’t dispersed by gas alone. I have witnessed this myself. Thus the reasoning behind the burst. If that had been a flash bang, they would have all fallen down and likely curled into the fetal position; all fall and most curl. IT WASN”T A FLASH BANG!

    2. Sir, you have made the most sense so far. Thank you for your open mind.

      1. I agree that not all cops are honest, just as all citizens are not honest. But to automatically assume someone is dishonest is against everything this country stands for. No carte blanche, but a fair and reasoned investigation.

  35. I will forward this article to him. Pretty sure he will have a good read. Thanks for sharing!

  36. With HR facilitating the conversation and the employee was never given any solid reasons for the termination.

  37. By the way I am part way through the tiny, but mighty book FLINCH. You might like the concept too. Convicting in my case.

  38. By the way I am part way through the tiny, but mighty book FLINCH. You might like the concept too. Convicting in my case.

  39. Also, the technique doesn’t work consistency or not. It is better than getting no sleep but is in no way an actual substitute for real uninterrupted sleep.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.