|
|
Blog Feeds
Public InquiryInterested in maladministration. Estd. 2005
Human Rights in IrelandPromoting Human Rights in Ireland
Lockdown Skeptics
Voltaire NetworkVoltaire, international edition
|
USA: Inquiry into possible excessive force against anti-war protesters national |
miscellaneous |
news report
 Wednesday April 16, 2003 10:01 by News Release - amnesty international
 Following the anti-war demonstration at Port of Oakland, California, on 7 April, where at least 21 people were injured, Amnesty International called today on the Chief of Police to conduct a full inquiry into allegations of excessive force by police. Police reportedly fired non-lethal weapons, including bean bags, wooden bullets and sting ball grenades at demonstrators, causing injuries to at least twelve protesters, and nine by-standers who were not involved in the demonstration. From: Amnesty International News Release Issued by the International Secretariat of Amnesty International AI INDEX: AMR 51/056/2003 15 April 2003 USA: Call for Inquiry into possible excessive force against anti-war protesters
Police reportedly fired non-lethal weapons, including bean bags, wooden bullets and sting ball grenades at demonstrators, causing injuries to at least twelve protesters, and nine by-standers who were not involved in the demonstration. Those injured were reportedly hit in the back, arms, necks and faces. In a letter to the Chief of Police of Oakland Police Department, Amnesty International acknowledged the challenges presented to police officers when policing large demonstrations. "However, we are concerned at reports that police opened fire within 30 seconds of ordering demonstrators to disperse, and that they fired projectiles directly at demonstrators at close range, including wooden bullets." "Evidence has shown that the weapons used can cause serious internal injuries, break bones, inflict blindness, and are potentially lethal. A full inquiry is needed to confirm whether any of these weapons were misused by the Oakland police on 7 April. Steps should also be taken to ensure that police do not subject further protesters to such treatment." "If the allegations are true, the police actions in this case would clearly be incompatible with international standards requiring that law enforcement officials should use force only as a last resort, in proportion to the threat posed, and in a way to minimize damage or injury," Amnesty International said. "These reports are particularly disturbing, given the potentially harmful effects of such weapons on small children or the elderly, or people suffering from weak hearts or other conditions." In its letter, Amnesty International asked to see Oakland Police Department's guidelines for use of non-lethal weapons and to receive information on police training in place for use of these weapons. "This is not the first time we have had to raise concerns with US law enforcement agencies about the use of non-lethal weapons. All law enforcement agencies across the USA must introduce strict guidelines and limitations on use of these weapons with clear monitoring procedures," concluded Amnesty International.
Weapons used on 7 April include: Bean Bags: Evidence has shown that bean bags can cause serious internal injuries as they can penetrate deep into the body. If fired from too close they can cause broken bones and are particularly dangerous if aimed at sensitive areas, as they make it difficult to quantify the level of pain inflicted to some parts of the body. Although originally considered to be a suitable "less-than-lethal" force option against potentially dangerous suspects, police departments in some US states are abandoning the use of bean bags after finding that they can be dangerously inaccurate and deadlier than manufacturers claim . Sting ball grenades: According to some experts, these weapons are completely indiscriminate and inaccurate. They should not be fired at close range because they are potentially lethal. The small pellets released when the grenades explode may penetrate the skin and pose serious eye injury risk, including blindness. Wooden bullets: These were deemed to be unacceptable by the British government in the 1970s in relation to use by British soldiers in Northern Ireland as they can cause serious head injuries as well as the possibility of inflicting blindness and may penetrate the skin.
View all documents on USA visit http://click.topica.com/maaa0h0aaXpPabcWusyb/ **************************************************************** |
printable version
Digg this
del.icio.us
Furl
Reddit
Technorati
Facebook
Gab
Twitter
|
View Comments Titles Only
save preference
Comments (7 of 7)
Jump To Comment: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7Check this link and see how the girl in question was shot on the cheek and neck
http://www.indybay.org/news/2003/04/1596371.php
http://www.indybay.org/news/2003/04/1596785.php
This guy lost an eye due to a wooden bullet injury:
http://wildcat.arizona.edu/papers/94/148/
http://rogueimc.org/2003/04/435.shtml
Record of rubber bullet injuries in Northern Ireland
http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/4521/history.html
They have to block the roads. They have to restrict access of normal citizens. They have to threaten people.
Sure, maybe the cops went a little overboard here, but the protesters have totally brought it upon themselves.
Get real gargoyle, how would you like it if this was your son or daughter?
Are these not the sort of brutal methods one might have expected of Saddams secret police or some other 3rd world dictatorship?
Is this the sort of "democracy" the US/K occupation forces wish to put in place, as they showed yesterday by the Mosul massacre of 10 innocent civilians?
I would hope that my son or daughter could make their opinions known without engaging in "civil disobedience", the catch word for breaking the law.
In the US, the protesters have blocked access to places of work and threatened the workers. I don't know if that is what happened here, or not. As I said, perhaps this is over the edge, but the history of the nature of the protests has brought this upon themselves.
gargoyle, what have you got to say about the war?
And your other comment:
"As I said, perhaps this is over the edge, but the history of the nature of the protests has
brought this upon themselves"
Please explain.
Gargoyle, obviously you believe that there is no right to civil disobedience and it is against the law to protest in a non-violent manner.
This stands in stark contrast to the obvious fact that the war is being conducted outside the boundaries of international law.
How can citizens have any respect for governments who flout the law themselves with tragic consequences, while violently repressing minor transgressions?
Finally, the fact that you think your hypothetical children would not be given to protest of whatever form, is no guarantee that the won't.
The protesters are not just protesting and making their voices heard. They are preventing ordinary people from going to work, blocking traffic, and threatening military personnel (in the US).
Of course people have the right to protest. They don't have the right to do any of the above. That said, its just as much the govt's fault as any. Actively participating in acts of organized civil disobediance, ie. purposely doing any of the above should result in a 500 Euro fine for first offense, 5000 for second.