The Blood Is Real
October 10th, 2007
No matter what the Colorado Daily says in their caption (.pdf of the front page here, just in case it disappears) the blood is real. I don’t know if they’re lying intentionally, or if they’re just hacks, but there’s no way they should have mistaken this.
The blood is real. That’s demonstrable, that’s fact.
More to come.
Update: For all those doubting whether the blood in the above picture is real, the Colorado Daily offered the following in today’s edition.
The caption of the front-page photograph of yesterday’s Colorado Daily was inaccurate. The source of the caption revealed later that, while the protester depicted had contact with the fake blood poured on the street in front of the parade in Denver on Oct. 6, the blood on his face was, unfortunately, his own. The Colorado Daily regrets the incompleteness of the information provided to readers.
Update II: As I’m sure most of our readers know, Colorado AIM held a press conference today, announcing several civil lawsuits against the Denver Police. The allegations include straight brutality, sure: kicking protesters in the genitals, yanking American Indian men around by their hair, taking batons to protesters’ faces, using pain holds on a female Methodist clergyperson while addressing sexual slurs at her, dropping a female protester on her head and then refusing her medical treatment, keeping Russell Means in isolation without his heart medication for 14 hours after he’d posted bond. Y’know, the usual. But they also include the, well, piggish sublime: stealing $1,100 one protester brought for bond, and, better, taking a blind man’s cane, refusing him a sight guide, and then mocking him as he tried to make his way around the station.
Update III: Rocky Mountain News hack Berny Morson already has a piece up on the AIM press conference, doing his best to minimize the allegations. Perhaps, had Mr. Morson not stepped outside for half to three-quarters of the press conference to chat on his cell phone, he might’ve caught a little more of what was actually being alleged. Hell, he might’ve even pulled his notebook out of his pants and cracked the thing. I understand journalists are notoriously a couple of knights short of a Crusade, but good Christ, one does expect them to at least fucking pretend to pay attention to the news events they’re covering.
Update IV: Oops, forgot one of the allegations of police brutality: using batons to choke protesters into unconsciousness. Don’t wanna forget that one.
Update V: Super-attorney Walter Gerash was on Caplis and Silverman, discussing the Columbus Day protest trials. You can get the .mp3 here. Don’t miss, at 6:03, when Mr. Gerash mentions both video and photographs of the police brutality. Can’t wait for the trial, kids.
October 10th, 2007 at 7:18 am
Obviously a theatrical blood capsule was used. The blood flow is all wrong if you are suggesting that the officer restraining the individual is responsible.
October 10th, 2007 at 7:26 am
I’d say he incurred the face smashing prior to the restraint you see in the picture. But it’s real.
October 10th, 2007 at 7:37 am
i like the blood all over the officer’s boot.
October 10th, 2007 at 2:05 pm
Larry,
You don’t think that blood on his cheek came from that big hole in his lower lip do you?
Nah, that’d be too easy. I bet you’re right….a “theatrical blood capsule” was probably used and I bet he also theatrically bit that hole in his own lip too!
October 10th, 2007 at 2:21 pm
And that blood under his chin. Wonder how that got there? Oh, yeah, and the blood coming out of his nose. Curious, that.
To be fair, though, I don’t think that’s blood on the cop’s boots.
October 10th, 2007 at 2:25 pm
Can you put a theatrical blood capsule up your nose?
October 10th, 2007 at 2:41 pm
Hey Benjie, will that “more” include the post you removed without notice or explanation in which you claimed that the Denver cops “beat-down” with their nightsticks numerous already jailed Columbus Day protesters, including one guy who–well, here, let me quote from your Sunday JB-fueled fantasy again:
Please put the post back up, Benjie. The world needs to know.
October 10th, 2007 at 2:41 pm
Larry, is your logic that “theatrical blood” runs uphill, while real blood doesn’t? What makes it “Obviously” “theatrical blood” vs. real blood? I can’t follow your reasoning. What appears to be a split lower lip in this photo would contradict any “Obvious” conclusion that there was no impact to his face that could have produced real blood.
What is your logic behind saying the blood flow means the officer could not be responsible? Are you claiming that this individual was already laying there with his face and glasses smashed into the ground when the officer arrived? And this officer just walked up and put their knee on him without any prior contact? This man had to get into this position some how, and there is an officer with a knee on his head in this photo. This strongly suggests that this officer had a role in getting this individual into this position. I can’t follow your logic. Please explain.
The blood flow is ONLY consistent with an injury sustained while the victim was already laying on his back when the blood flow began. There is no other possible forensic explanation for the blood flow.
For this to be staged “theatrical blood”, this man would have had to laid down on his back with his head turned to one side, then split his lower lip. After splitting own lip while laying down, he would have then burst the capsule. Then while remaining on his back while the fake blood was still fresh, he would have had to have done something to threaten the officers in such a way as to compel the officers to immediately arrest him. These actions that he would have taken while laying on his back would have had to have been so threatening that the officers would have had to take the drastic and unusual action of kneeling on his head.
How does he time all of this just right so his plan of getting the officers to use force on him after he splits his own lip and bursts a fake blood capsule? Are you suggesting he has some control over these police officers that can empower him to stage such an elaborate hoax? And why would he decide to do everything on his back, instead of standing or sitting upright? What would laying on his back before bursting a fake blood capsule add to any hoax you suggest he concocted?
There has been nothing presented that would make that the “Obvious” course of events. Far from obvious, it is far fetched conspiracy nonsense.
Here is the more-likely-than-not forensic explanation of the blood flow based upon the information we have:
This individual was taken to the ground during the process of arrest and was on his back during the arrest when the blood flow began. Then, as it is police procedure to do, this individual was rolled over on his chest to be cuffed. As he was being cuffed, this officer put his knee on his head and this photo was taken.
This is what the evidence suggests is the more likely than not set of events.
I would even go so far as to say that it is more likely than not that this officer injured this individual causing this blood flow while he was on his back just prior to him being rolled over, given this officer’s proximity to the head of this individual, and the aggressive tactics he is pictured using. It is consistent with both his proximity to the site of injury, and his aggressive use of his knee in the photograph.
October 10th, 2007 at 2:51 pm
i guess the blood’s probably on the officer’s baton. my mistake.
October 10th, 2007 at 2:58 pm
I’ll post what I want to post, and I’ll remove what I want to remove. I’ll explain what I want to explain. It’s a fucking blog. Feel free to be as outraged as you wanna be. Scream, yell, pull your hair out, chew on the couch, break down in tears.
October 10th, 2007 at 3:01 pm
That was me, of course. What a shithole of a blog, even technically: no search function, no sitemeter, no preview, you have to type your info in every time–gee, one might think you wanted to make it difficult for people.
Here’s an improvement you could make right off: make WTF a co-blogger! He’s easily as cogent, honest and literate as MK (or anyone else around here), and he’s got the 9/11 conspiracy thing, which you clearly tacitly support, down. That could drive a lot of traffic your way, Benjie! And it’d all be from Ward’s key demographic.
And speaking of honesty, where’s that fat ambulatory cancer cell Charley Arthur been lately? Oh yeah, writing “several” books, following his “full” speaking schedule, and cocooning with his loving wife, Nancy Elaine Natsu “Truthforce” Saito. Blech. You all gonna have Thanksgiving together this year?
October 10th, 2007 at 3:16 pm
Oh, and Nixon,
Your willingness to ignore Benjie’s massive dishonesty makes your pseudo-rational maunderings even more believable.
We want WTF!
October 10th, 2007 at 4:22 pm
jgm - pulling something is “massive dishonesty”???
Are you fucking serious? In that case, I want your good buddy Mr. Paine over PB brought up on charges based on everything HE has pulled down from their site that I’ve posted in the past!
Hypocrite.
October 10th, 2007 at 7:31 pm
Nixon,
Unless this officer’s leg is 4″ inches long, his knee is not on the person’s head. Looks to me as if it’s on the shoulder.
This looks like an effective hold. The person being arrested cannot move the head forward because the officer’s foot is in the way and can’t roll on his/her back because he/she is pinned at the shoulder by the officer’s knee. It appears the officer is trying to restrain the person being arrested and isn’t using an “aggressive” hold intended to cause injury.
I’ll take a few guesses at the injury to the mouth:
1. Someone in the group of protesters accidently knocked him in the mouth with an elbow or knee, while they were sitting together, holding on to eachother, to make it more difficult for the officers to pull them apart and arrest them.
2. he/she bit him/herself while flailing around within the group as they removed each protester.
3. an officer punched him/her in the mouth. I can’t imagine that would be missed by everyone who watched. It would be important that all protesters not volunteering to break the law and be arrested to keep a careful watch of those who did volunteer, for safety’s sake and future complaints against the police if something bad happened. The officer would be identified and charges brought by these witnesses. I would expect the witnesses would shout about any abuse immediately, which would draw cameras. Anyone hear that kind of activity?
I think a baton would produce far more damage than this picture shows. There’s not that much blood. Even mild injuries to the head and face produce profuse bleeding.
I know, Ben. You don’t care what I think.
October 10th, 2007 at 7:34 pm
One more observation about brutality by the police in this picture:
The glasses are still on this person’s face. It doesn’t take much to knock them completely off, from my experience.
October 11th, 2007 at 12:36 am
Laurie, anything is possible. I specifically used the phrase “more likely than not” because I don’t know what happened. I’m speculating based upon the evidence at hand.
If I replace “knee” with “shin” throughout my post, does it invalidate my post? no. So just replace knee with shin and everything I said still stands.
The difference between your first two guesses and my speculation is that my speculations are consistent with the evidence at hand. Neither of your first two guesses are consistent with the evidence.
1) The blood indicates he was on his back when he began bleeding, and that he stayed down long enough to have the blood run down his face. You have him sitting down and/or struggling against arrest in #1 when the injury happened. This does not match, making your first guess much less likely.
The evidence shows that he was on his back, and stayed on his back without violent struggle that would have caused the blood to flow in a way other than straight down his cheek. This is consistent with being pinned to the ground by officers and not struggling against arrest. Also, the blood has not been touched or disturbed, indicating that the injury that caused the bleeding “more likely than not” happened very soon before this photo was taken, before he had a chance to touch his hand to his face. Since it is more likely than not that the people who make bodily contact with him and wrestled him to the ground directly before this picture were all officers, it is more likely than not that the officers caused this damage — not fellow protesters sitting next to him before the officers took him down.
2) The injury to his lip is on the far outside of his lip. Had he bit himself, it would have been on the inside of his lip, not the outside. Please try as you are sitting reading this to bite the far outside of your lip. It would take extreme circumstances for him to even be able to bite that part of his lip if he tried. It is far from likely that he bit this part of his lip on accident.
3) Now number 3 is very likely, since multiple charges of brutality HAVE been levied against officers involved in arrests this day. See the latest updates.
As for the Baton, I personally didn’t bring anything about a Baton into this. But I will address your statements about the Baton causing more than just this damage. There are a number of ways batons are used, with an open baseball-style swing being the least likely way a Baton would have been used. In crowd control, officers are trained to hold the baton lengthways along the forearm while holding the short leg of the baton in the fist. This allows them to push and control crowds with an extended bent arm. A downward forearm push from a baton held in this mannor to a victim laying on their back (to pin the victim to the ground) is consitent with an injury like what is seen in the photo.
I’m not saying that a baton caused this injury. I want to make that clear. But it is not as far fetched as you would make it out to be.
The same holds for the glasses staying on his face. This is consistent with being struck while already on his back on the ground, then being rolled over into the position that he is in when the photo was taken without further struggle on his behalf. The glasses actually HELP make the case that he was not struggling violently just prior to this picture, because as you keenly observe it is easy for glasses to be knocked off in a struggle. It makes the case stronger that he was “more likely than not” struck in the mouth after the police already had him down on his back on the ground. With his head already against the ground, it would not snap back or twist and have the glasses fly off. Had he been sitting or standing when struck, there would have been a much higher chance of his glasses flying off. This makes it very improbable that anyone besides the officers would have caused this injury.
Care to try any more guesses? Your first two had holes so big in them that you could drive a train through them.
October 11th, 2007 at 12:41 am
In my last post when I said “multiple charges of brutality HAVE been levied against officers involved in arrests this day”, I mean individuals making charges or alligations of brutality, not criminal charges. Just to make that clear…
October 11th, 2007 at 9:13 am
Nixon,
It was my understanding from other pictures and reports that these protesters were already on the ground, sitting as a group. Therefore, we’ll change “knee” to “shin” (the officer probably doesn’t have a 4″ leg) and delete all references to “wrestled him to the ground” and all consequences of that action. Again, I think there’s a good chance he got popped by some gangly fellow protester, kicking and flailing about while being removed from the sitting group.
As to the injury itself, didn’t you mention a split lower lip? What’s all this other stuff about the injury being too far away from the mouth to be caused by his own teeth?
October 11th, 2007 at 9:37 am
First a protester’s face was beaten in, then a protester was choked to unconsciousness with a baton to the throat. These are very serious, deadly actions and I think they should be backed up. Was the choked person taken to the hospital?
October 11th, 2007 at 10:04 am
Laurie, if you aren’t going to READ my responses, why are you asking me questions?
I’ve already addressed why this didn’t happen sitting up.
I stand behind the “wrestled him to the ground”, because he had to get from sitting upright to his face smashed into the asphalt somehow. He didn’t do that himself.
I stand behind my statements about it being damn near impossible to bite your own lip in the location the injury appears in the picture.
It is all in my post above. I’m not going to repeat myself over an over to you if you aren’t capable of taking the time to read the long posts that answer your questions.
October 11th, 2007 at 10:07 am
Laurie, I figured it out. You don’t know the difference between sitting down and laying down! you think they are the same thing! Now it is clear.
October 11th, 2007 at 1:32 pm
I just wanted to say there’s a part of the Colorado Daily’s apology I particularly enjoyed:
“The Colorado Daily regrets the incompleteness of the information provided to readers.”
That’s right, incompleteness, as opposed to an un-researched bit of propaganda later proven to be an outright lie. What a joke.
October 11th, 2007 at 3:28 pm
I fail to see what the big deal is here. That isn’t real blood. This whole “controversey” is so contrived.
October 11th, 2007 at 3:42 pm
ralph, you are behind on the story. The original source that reported that this wasn’t real blood has now printed a retraction to that claim and confirmed it WAS real blood. See the update at the top of this article:
“Update: For all those doubting whether the blood in the above picture is real, the Colorado Daily offered the following in today’s edition.
The caption of the front-page photograph of yesterday’s Colorado Daily was inaccurate. The source of the caption revealed later that, while the protester depicted had contact with the fake blood poured on the street in front of the parade in Denver on Oct. 6, the blood on his face was, unfortunately, his own. The Colorado Daily regrets the incompleteness of the information provided to readers.”
So unless you have something NEW to bring that would suggest this isn’t real blood, YOUR retraction should appear here soon after you read this.
October 11th, 2007 at 3:44 pm
Ralph, or is it that you mean to say that Indian blood isn’t real like White blood? Perhaps you just don’t see Indians as humans?
October 11th, 2007 at 7:33 pm
It is AIM that has contempt for Indians.
AIM attacked Pine Ridge and went to the bathroom right on people’s floors. They wrecked their houses, vandalized and robbed their museum.
They murdered Indians. Raped women.
Churchill is a white man who wrote for a KGB publication. He makes films with a CIA defector who lives in Cuba.
They don’t care about Indians. They care about undermining the FBI, CIA, and Army.
They want to pit Indians against the police so they can “prove” the police/FBI are “terrorists.”
They want Indians to get hurt. They want to make up lies to fuel hatred.
AIM has other people’s blood on their hands–mostly Indian people’s blood, but also others.
Indians are AIM’s human shields.
October 11th, 2007 at 10:30 pm
Ben–
You should talk about how this white man Ward Churchill admits he threw his INDIAN wife into a wall. Her sister says Churchill even tried to throw Leah out of a moving car.
Her own tribe is mad at Churchill for misrepresenting her story.
http://legendofpineridge.blogspot.com/2007/05/canadian-ojibways-support-family-of.html
October 12th, 2007 at 6:47 am
You’re a fucking nutbar, dude.
October 12th, 2007 at 9:01 am
Enough is enough.
Has anyone else noticed that Snapple never has anything new to say? Not to mention anything that is even remotely relative to the post at hand?
I personally, am really sick of Snapple’s weak attempts to create a distraction. Stay on topic and stop repeating yourself or SHUT THE HELL UP!
Sorry, is that too much to ask?
October 12th, 2007 at 10:26 am
I see you shitcanned poor, sick WTF, Beatdown Boy. Good doggie! Now, tell us again why you shitcanned that post.
October 12th, 2007 at 11:42 am
And why do jgm’s comments always sound like a rabid ferret?
October 12th, 2007 at 6:04 pm
AIM rapes, robs, and murders Indians. Churchill wrote for the KGB.
Why should I say anything but the truth?
AIM were vandals, rapists, murderers of Indians.
You think the KGB cares about Indians? They don’t even care about their own people.
Churchill assaulted his own Indian wife. He reportedly tried to push her out of a moving car.
She ended up roadkill.
He made up all that stuff about Indians getting murdered by the FBI on Pine Ridge from the history of the Osage Indian murders. http://legendofpineridge.blogspot.com/2006/02/osage-indian-murders-and-legend-of.html
He says who should be burned alive, strangled on a gallows. A revolting, disgusting terrorist!
October 12th, 2007 at 9:41 pm
Bring on the videos. I want to see some more cops with 4″ legs!
October 13th, 2007 at 12:01 am
Yeah, and some more protesters that “obviously” used “theatrical blood capsules”!
October 13th, 2007 at 3:52 pm
I think their bodies are theatrical blood capsules.
October 14th, 2007 at 7:22 pm
jgm
You do not even have to work at being a loser it just comes naturally to you. None of my posts have been deleted here. I determined for myself that you are a lying dolt on the last thread so I usually just skip over your posts. What is funny is that more you post the better you make Benjamin look. You really should see someone about you compulsive lying and stalking habits. Looooser.
October 18th, 2007 at 10:28 pm
i bet the colonisation and genocide that the European settlers perpetrated in the name of civilisation against the indigenous peoples of america was a “theatrical blood capsule”. down with imperialism.