Rubber Bullets Used on War Protesters in Oakland

[PhillyKev 0]

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&ncid=578&e=3&cid=578&u=/nm/20030407/ts_nm/iraq_protests_usa_dc

Quote

several were hit as they were moving from the scene, as evidenced by large bruises on their backs.

Quote

Susan Quinlan was hit with pellets twice in the back. "I never heard any warning to disperse. They pursued us and shot us as we walked away," she said.

That's just messed up...I'd like to see some other sources, but according to this, the police instigated the violence.

[mnischalke 0]

But, there's three sides to every story. This story only has one and a half. All those people and not one bystander to interview? Not one outside witness? Not even one participating police officer? I hate crappy reporting. I agreed with you that this is messed up until I read the story. I thing there was quite a bit more going on than this story reveals.

On a side note: Hope that vice-mayor guy never needs the police for anything.

mike

Girls only want boyfriends who have great skills--You know, like nunchuk skills, bow-hunting skills, computer-hacking skills.

[PhillyKev 0]

That's why I said "I'd like to see some other sources". I'd like to hope that it is a seriously one sided view. But, I've been in the middle of a riot where people were throwing bottles and rocks at police (Fat Tuesday in Philly a couple years ago). There were a whole hell of a lot moe than 750 people involved and it was NOT necessary for the police to use rubber bullets, night sticks, or any other indiscriminate force to disperse the crowd.

[PhillyKev 0]

Here's a whole slew of sources. Most of them show the same side of the story. Also it appears that a group of long shoreman who were bystanders were also shot and confirm the story.

Quote

Steve Stallone, spokesman for the International Longshore and Warehouse Union, said most of the dockworkers went back to work after the protesters left. A few were too shaken up to return.

He said a union arbitrator was evaluating the situation, trying to determine whether the longshoremen should cross the protesters' picket line and go to work, when police started firing.

"They didn't care," he said. "They just attacked the picket line. They declared it an illegal assembly and gave people two minutes to disperse. The police did not move to arrest anyone, they just started shooting."

http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&q=oakland+protest&btnG=Search+News

And here's a couple pics. Notice the label on the wooden bullets the cops used. They state that they are not to be used for direct hits on people but should be aimed at the ground in order to ricochet in front of them. I guess they didn't read the labels.

[mnischalke 0]

From ABC7

Quote

Most of the 500 demonstrators at the port were dispersed peacefully, but police opened fire at two gates when protesters refused to move. The longshoremen, pinned against a fence, were caught in the crossfire.

Quote

Oakland police said at least 24 people were arrested at the port.

"Some people were blocking port property and the port authorities asked us to move them off," said Deputy Police Chief Patrick Haw. "Police moved aggressively against crowds because some people threw rocks and big iron bolts at officers."

Quote

The San Francisco Bay area has been the site of some of the biggest and most boisterous anti-war protests in the country. In the first few days after the war began, there were more than 2,000 arrests when demonstrators blocked downtown streets and tried to seize control of the San Francisco-Oakland Bay Bridge.

The object in that photo is a specialty impact round designed to be fired from a 37mm gas gun or a 37 mm M203 grenade launcher. They are called 5 Multiple Baton Rounds and are for outdoor use in riot-control situations where teargas is not chosen, yet a crowd must be dispersed quickly and efficiently. They are filled with five wood or foam projectiles with an effective range of 50 yards for wood and 50 feet for foam. The correct employment procedure is to fire at the ground to skip-fire at the feet of the rioters for a ricochet effect.

If they were direct fired, they were used incorrectly and could have been lethal with a direct hit at close range. Also, when shot, they tend to follow each other, and would either impact together or group on the direct-hit target. From the pic, it looks like they were employed correctly.

I am still not sure of the rest of this story, but it seems to me, if you're going to protest and something like this happens, ya might want to go ahead and either run (speed walk) or beat the shit out of the guy who starts throwing shit at the cops.

mike

Girls only want boyfriends who have great skills--You know, like nunchuk skills, bow-hunting skills, computer-hacking skills.

[TheAnvil 0]

I think you nailed it dude. I have a lot of friends who are cops and the media always seems to give them the short end of the stick in situations like this. Granted, some policemen do some pretty awful things as well, but I think them few and far between.

You are dead on about the photos - the weapons DO seem to have been employed correctly.

The Anvil

Vinny the Anvil
Post Traumatic Didn't Make The Lakers Syndrome is REAL
JACKASS POWER!!!!!!

[lummy 4]

a side note is that the Oakland Police have been under intense scrutiny for their dismal performance in controlling the riots after the Raiders won the AFC and played in the Superbowl ( subject to debate if they really played).
There was quite a large public outcry after the first riot, yet there was another after the Raider s lost too...

I promise not to TP Davis under canopy.. I promise not to TP Davis under canopy.. eat sushi, get smoochieTTK#1

[gemini 0]

Quote

...I've been in the middle of a riot where people were throwing bottles and rocks at police (Fat Tuesday in Philly a couple years ago). There were a whole hell of a lot moe than 750 people involved and it was NOT necessary for the police to use rubber bullets...

I'm a little confused here. Are you saying there were a lot more than 750 rioters or more than 750 police?

At what ratio of cops/rioters does the situation become uncontrollable? Or does the throwing of rocks and bottles have anything to do with it?

Jim

Blue skies,

Jim

[bodypilot90 0]

Quote

"Some people were blocking port property and the port authorities asked us to move them off," said Deputy Police Chief Patrick Haw. "Police moved aggressively against crowds because some people threw rocks and big iron bolts at officers."

well what part of MOVE didn't they understand. If you are going to be dumb to better be tough! Seems to me they got what they were asking for.

[Tf15 0]

At Kent State they used real bullets on protestors. So much for the 1st Amendment.

Three times is enemy action

[mnischalke 0]

Totally! And without the 2nd Amendment, there'd be no 1st Amendment.

mike

Girls only want boyfriends who have great skills--You know, like nunchuk skills, bow-hunting skills, computer-hacking skills.

[FallRate 0]

Quote

At Kent State they used real bullets on protestors.

Just goes to show: Don't pick a fight with armed soldiers. "Peaceful Protest", my ass!

FallRate

[wmw999 2,550]

Quote

At Kent State they used real bullets on protestors. So much for the 1st Amendment

Kent State was awful; I lived only about 50 miles away at the time, and my high school was shut for 2 weeks. But I think everyone has learned a lot since then, and it wasn't SOP even at the time.

Invoking Kent State, particularly this early, is probably premature. Really. You only have to read most of what I post to understand I'm in favor of freedom of speech and protest; but responsibilitiy goes with that.

Wendy W.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[wmw999 2,550]

Quote

without the 2nd Amendment, there'd be no 1st Amendment

Tell me -- is the second amendment the most important one? And why?

Sometimes it seems as though it trumps all of the others. Yet when someone disagrees with something of the government that y'all agree with, it's unamerican, treasonous, leftist, and irrational.

Wendy W.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[mnischalke 0]

Ummmm, I dunno, that's just what they tell me in my pro-gun classes out behind the old woodshed, right before they hand out the little American flags on sticks.

As I recall, somewhere in that mantra we chant over and over, it goes something like this:

The Second is the Amendment that protects the citizens of this country from being oppressed by the government should it become something other than what was designed in the Constitution. In other words, if the government decides it will oppress rather than represent the citizenry of the United States, there may be a call to arms to remove the cancer from the capital.

Now, the funny thing, you make an argument that is clearly directed towards me. I ask you this, since you know me and can make assumptions such as these, have I ever said anything truly defending our national government, or would you consider my comments in the past to be more defensive toward the Constitution of this great nation and the people who volunteer their lives to defend her and her precious freedoms?

On a tangent, people protest simply because they are in the minority of opinion. Protest is fine in my opinion. I do find the people who protest in an other than orderly and reasonable manner to be infringing upon the rights other Americans. When they do that, they are not subject to any special treatment.

Let's just say I don't like someone. Would it be okay to follow them around all day repeating every nasty thing your mother washed your mouth out with soap for saying? I am betting somewhere you can find laws against that. I am also betting that throwing objects at police officers is even more clear-cut in it's definition of an illegal activity. Where's the 1st Amendment come into play? What about trying to seize the Golden Gate Bridge? Is that something we want to entertain as a freedom of speech?

mike

Girls only want boyfriends who have great skills--You know, like nunchuk skills, bow-hunting skills, computer-hacking skills.

[wmw999 2,550]

I was asking you as a representative. I really try to make no assumptions about people -- it tends to make them defensive, which is pointless. If you took it as an attack, I'm sorry -- I really try not to do that; see above.

What you quoted sounded like a canned saying; right up there with "you'll get my gun when you pry it from my cold, dead fingers."

As far as protesters, people walking behind you chanting obscenities, and protesting, being in the minority doesn't make one wrong. The Constitution is a guideline that was set up for the country; the fact that it's not perfect is demonstrated by the fact that it can be amended by the government. If the time ever comes that people feel as though the government is a threat to them, who gets to decide whether that's valid?

There will always be people who are fine with, or at least who can accept, the status quo. If it's just their guns that makes them right or wrong, then I think we have a problem.

Wendy W.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[mnischalke 0]

I didn't take it as an attack on me. I knew it was directed towards me, and I just don't want to be labeled as being obsequious when it comes to the federal government.

I think the wording of my post may have been used before, but it is my belief--not a quote liked and started using. It was also put out there sort of in jest.

Mentioning the 1st Amendment within the Kent State reference is indicative that folks only know what they read in some 8th grade history book. Kent State was a fucked-up situation that clearly left no winners and did nothing to impact our withdrawal from Vietnam.

Comparing Kent State to what happened in the story which originated this post was reaching at best, but in my opinion, Kent State doesn't even come close to the government's atrocities from Wounded Knee to Waco.

Quote

As far as protesters, people walking behind you chanting obscenities, and protesting, being in the minority doesn't make one wrong.

Nor does it make one right (especially in a system which coddles the criminal and rapes the victim). I am not just talking about walking behind someone chanting profanity at a protest--someone following someone else throughout their day, screaming obscenities about them for all to hear. Ya know, just exercising your first amendment rights to say whatever your little heart desires.

The Constitution can be amended, to be sure. But, the framers of those pieces of paper were quite clear in their intent. I really think they were much smarter than we are today. They had seen how things happen. They knew how tyranny happened. They installed safeguards throughout their system of government to prevent it. The system was less dependence on a federal government and more dependence on the state government. That's why they gave states rights. (That's why when the Confederate states seceded, the ensuing Civil War was unconstitutional, yet a very good reason to increase the power of federal government.) And, as we all know, there are ways around everything. Unfortunately, it's a very slow process much like watching grass grow or the UN's involvement in the destruction of our essential liberties (the UN has had plans to disarm the general populace of the United States since at least the 70s). It's all about a slow and seamless erosion of our rights and freedoms. It's not a coup d'etat its rather a ralentissez la poussée d'etat.

It's not the guns that make you right or wrong. As with any tool, it's how they are used that is the defining factor.

As a final note, this country was created by the minority. It's just that the minority were armed and had a stronger will than the British.

mike

Girls only want boyfriends who have great skills--You know, like nunchuk skills, bow-hunting skills, computer-hacking skills.

[jose 0]

Before people run to their computers in an effort to "inform" us of the atrocities committed by our government agencies, I implore you. READ MORE THAN ONE ARTICLE SIMPLETONS!

It blows my mind on a many occasion here when someone thoughtlessly post snippets from an editorial without taking the time to research the facts only due to the fact that it supports their thought processes.

Originator of this post is obviously disgusted with the actions of the Oakland law enforcement community. Therefore post that support only that thought process are used. This is merely a troll of sorts, due to its massive holes in the story. I like to call it "Sunny side up reporting", you only get the half baked opinion.

Here is an example on the flip side of things:

Apr. 7 (AP)
"Oakland Police Chief Richard Word said the use of non-lethal projectiles was necessary to disperse the crowd. Some protesters threw rocks, set a bonfire and shut down the port, Word said.

"In response to direct illegal action we've deployed non-lethal action,"

or maybe,

OAKLAND, Calif. (Reuters)
"Police, in the line of fire there reacted in the best way they know how. You've got some pretty violent people there, those fellows who put on black masks and picked up big rocks. One guy took a slab of concrete and threw it at one of the officers," he told Reuters.

Hows it read now as compared to before? 180 degrees different thats how.

Regardless of your opinion on the use of force, at least now you have the cause and effect. I really pisses me off when protestors block traffic, block access to work areas for citizens, but it is not a cause for violence. What is a cause for force is when the "peaceful" protestors "which they all like to call themselves" start throwing objects that can injure another person. Excuse me asshole, but you dont have a frigging right to block the road, block the gate, or block ANYTHING without a permit in the first place. And when you don't like being told to leave, you start throwing shit? Where the fuck do these people get off?

I don't give a rats ass what you are protesting, if you decide on this tactic, your ass is going to jail. And it is within the rights of the police to use whatever escalating force to disperse and arrest those responsible. If you get hit with rubber bullets and other non-lethal rounds in the process, tough luck, you should have better knowledge of who you are protesting with. Beside, your not going to die anyways, thats why the are called NON-LETHAL in the first place, to make it safer for EVERYONE.

I am not going to state my opinion on if I agree or not with anything here, solely because I was not there. People are going to have opinions that support both sides, but for the love of PETE! at least allow others the privilege of having an INFORMED opinion based on the originating post.

Ya know, whatever, I'm really just getting sick of all this crap. I am truly tired of the abuses that this site has to put up with in the name of Freedom of Speech.

edit for spelling

[konradptr 0]

I agree with Jose...

------------------------------------------
Getting banned isn't that bad......

[taz9420 0]

The group was blocking supplies and food from going over to Iraq to help our troops. That is an act of terrisom.
PS-I also feel sorry for the person I catch burning the stars and stripes.

[bodypilot90 0]

Quote

As far as protesters, people walking behind you chanting obscenities, and protesting, being in the minority doesn't make one wrong. The Constitution is a guideline that was set up for the country; the fact that it's not perfect is demonstrated by the fact that it can be amended by the government. If the time ever comes that people feel as though the government is a threat to them, who gets to decide whether that's valid?

ok wendy how about the rock throwing? and the blocking of oakland. Also let's say someone got hurt really bad and the protesters blocked the medics from getting there and they died as a result. Would you think it's right to charge them for murder? If they are blocking supplies to our troops would you charge them for treason? if not why not. just asking not a personal attack.

[Genie 0]

*** If you get hit with rubber bullets and other non-lethal rounds in the process, tough luck, you should have better knowledge of who you are protesting with. Beside, your not going to die anyways, thats why the are called NON-LETHAL in the first place, to make it safer for EVERYONE.***
edit for spelling

[PhillyKev 0]

Quote

Quote

...I've been in the middle of a riot where people were throwing bottles and rocks at police (Fat Tuesday in Philly a couple years ago). There were a whole hell of a lot moe than 750 people involved and it was NOT necessary for the police to use rubber bullets...

I'm a little confused here. Are you saying there were a lot more than 750 rioters or more than 750 police?

At what ratio of cops/rioters does the situation become uncontrollable? Or does the throwing of rocks and bottles have anything to do with it?

Jim

There were 40,000 people in the crowd and a few hundred cops. Some people in the crowd starting throwing rocks and bottles, and lighting trash cans on fire and rolling them at the police barricades. I was right in front of the line of cops in riot gear. They formed a phalanx, and marched into the crowd pushing us with their shields. Only when they were attacked did they respond with force and make arrests, and only against those that were attacking them.

After they cleared the street of those who were willing to leave on their own when they were ordered to, did they fire tear gas to get rid of the rest.

I support the police and know they have a hard job. But I think it's a serious abuse of authority to shoot any kind of projectile into a crowd because you don't like where they were standing. There's much less harmful and effective ways to do it that don't risk serious injury or death, especially to those who weren't participating in violence.

And for those who felt those projectiles were used correctly...I guess you're right, they must have shot them past the protesters and made them ricochet to come back and hit them in the back. IN THE BACK!

[PhillyKev 0]

Quote

Before people run to their computers in an effort to "inform" us of the atrocities committed by our government agencies, I implore you. READ MORE THAN ONE ARTICLE SIMPLETONS!

If certain "simpletons" would have followed the link I posted you'd see that I linked to a page with a half a dozen articles from different sources. I also stated that I'd like to see more sources because it was only one side of the story.

It seems from the different sources that some people were violently attacking the police. They have every right to go after those people, I don't disagree with that. I have a problem with them shooting into a crowd of people, some of whom were NOT being violent and also shooting people in the back as they were fleeing.

Quote

for the love of PETE! at least allow others the privilege of having an INFORMED opinion based on the originating post.

I never claimed to be the thought police. I posted a link to an article, posted links to other articles, and said that if it were true, it's a bad thing. If you don't like my opinion about the situation then voice yours. But try to do it without attacking mine.

[PhillyKev 0]

Quote

I am still not sure of the rest of this story, but it seems to me, if you're going to protest and something like this happens, ya might want to go ahead and either run (speed walk) or beat the shit out of the guy who starts throwing shit at the cops.

Agree 100%.