4/8/2003: Protest gets painful
 

http://cellar.org/2003/woodbulletwound.jpg

Oakland police ratcheted up the "war on protests" by loading up with rubber bullets and wood "pellets" to stop protesters. Some people were hurt. One guy had his hand shattered.

The protesters were ratcheting up the volume themselves, by trying to block access to a shipping company that was apparently involved in shipping to the war effort.

Apparently, this is the first time that any projectiles have been used in protests in the US for this war.

Wa Post story

This one enters into some very murky waters. On one hand, the use of these wooden pellets or "batons" is really over the top.

Description of wooden batons and proper usage

That page explains: the wooden rounds work by "producing incapacitation by blunt impact trauma and excruciating pain." It also says "IMPORTANT NOTE: Never aim at or above the Sternum. Less Lethal Ammunition can cause contusions, abrasions,broken ribs, concussions, loss of eyes, superficial organ damage, serious skin lacerations massive skull fractures, rupture of the heart or kidney, fragmentation of the liver, hemorrhages, and death."

Death. Huh.

On the other hand, actually interrupting a military operation is going much further than speaking out with signs and marching. Whether you're for or against the operation, it's happening, and to interrupt the supply of it is to put troops at risk. The 250 mile supply line into Baghdad actually starts from these port cities, thousands of miles away.

And then there are the costs. San Francisco has learned that the city itself is affected by the protests there, having to deal with almost a million dollars in additional costs because of them. (But much more positively affected by having the city unofficially represent the counter-culture!) One can only imagine how the city of Oakland makes its decisions when looking over at its neighbor, when it would have a harder time of affording such additional costs. And yet, by opening themselves to lawsuits, Oakland may find its approach even more costly than San Francisco's!

The proper way to address this might have been to arrest the protesters for trespassing, and then petition the feds to add treason to the charges. You can demonstrate, you can speak, you can march, but you can't interrupt shipments to troops. Don't ratchet up the physical pain threshhold for protesting: elevate the debate to taking it to courtrooms.

Apparently the cops also shot at and injured a couple of longshoremen who had shown up to work and were waiting for Oakland's finest to clear out the protestors blocking the entrance.

I suppose it would be silly and racist of me to point out that, were these people staging a protest in interference with any sort of military operation in, say, Iraq, that they would probably have been beaten, shot, burned, kidnapped, raped and tortured for their punishments?

Protest is legitimate, interference with a military support operation is not. In fact, I feel that it more closely borders on treason than anything that Peter Arnett said, and I think *he's* an idiot.

Scream, yell, wave signs, perform acts of passive civil disobedience, but stay the hell out of the way of the military when it is actively operating, otherwise, expect to get your ass kicked for your trouble.

I'm not saying it is right to injure protesters, I'm saying (much as I said about the bulldozed protester in Gaza) that if you interfere with something that is not going to be interfered with, expect to get hurt.

Thank God they weren't using pepper spray!

I don't think there's a way to rinse that off her[his?] pie-hole.

Well, a few things. Dispersing a large crowd is a lot different than taking away a single person. If they had fired rubber bullets at a woman holding a sign and being in the way... well, that's pretty re-goddamn-diculous. On the other hand, I have little sympathy for these people. The police don't have much of a choice when there are 750 people that are obstructing a very serious operation. You need to get them out of there, and fast. Taking all day to do it could cost lives. Again, if it were a single person, arrest makes perfect sense. But not in this case.

She certainly shouldn't have a wound to her face, but the cops are generally pretty good about that. I'm guessing she didn't realize what was happening and ducked, which is the dumbest thing you can do with less lethal ammunition, because it greatly increased the chances of you being <b>permanently</b> stopped. If you're hit over the heart with a bean bag, you're a goner.

The best bet is to not do stupid shit like obstructing an area like that with a large crowd, where the police really have no choice but use these methods.

Real cool.
 

That doesn't look like a richochet wound, someone took a head shot on a girl. She's very lucky it was a glancing blow.

These are "less lethal" munitions, not non-lethal. Take a straight-on head shot with a baton (dowel) round and you die. I thought they had stopped making those things because they were so dangerous. The instructions call for skip-firing, not taking direct aim.

A riot once broke out on the street I live on. A cop took a head shot on a teenager with a bean bag round, and blew the victim's eyeball out of the socket. The police department later issued an apology and said they wished it had never happened.

Here's the deal. You don't use powder-actuated projectile weapons for crowd dispersal, that's what tear gas is for.

I agree with Dave on this one.

And....here again, as with the dozer, if you see and hear the cops shooting get the fuck out of the way.

I don't know, Joe. It looks like it hit her cheek, then skipped down off her neck. If the officer fired it from a ladder it might make sense, or maybe she saw they were firing, dropped forward and caught a skip shot.

Gas or pepper spray would have been a better alternative if they were in a hurry.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;The cops also have this paint ball like round filled with white pepper. Finely ground. Makes a nice cloud or at least that's what I hear. It also hit's a little bit harder than a regular paint ball. How cool is that? Still, these are common enough that I've seen them in person. (Um... a cop showed 'em to me in a friendly way... not a ... hostile situation) It seems they would have been a better choice too.

It's called "Bio Shield" ... It both washes the capscascin (sp?) resin off of you and neutralizes it.

It works.

Extremely well.

(I have never been sprayed myself, but have spent a fair amount of time around people who have been.)

pepper spray removal techniques
 

They told me to use warm water and LOTS of liquid soap.

I found that plain yogurt worked better.

Yes, I've been sprayed. Three times.

The military requires one to be sprayed once a year to maintain qualifications on it's use. I could use pepper spray for three out of the last four years that I was active duty.

The last qual, the instructor was using me to demonstrate how incapacitated a person would be for a class...I got up, took away his canister and let him have it. He didn't know that I can operate blind, I do not react well to pepper spray, that is, I do not have the full effect - (I don't breathe IN when sprayed...I hold my breath!)

This boy knows how to deal with most weapons that I might find on the street. Too bad the instructor wasn't breifed on that...HE had the full effect! HEHEHEHE

Brian

What I want to know is, why is there a bumble bee embedded in her nose?

Quzah.

I was originally going to make some comment about patchouli and stud-seeking rounds, but thought better of it. I was trying to be sarcastic about the pepper spray, and that you can't rinse the golfball and severe rug burn of her pie-hole.

Is it ok to interfere with the military operation?
 

Just two places.

June 4, 1989 - Tiananmen Square, Bejing, China.
August 19, 1991 - Moscow, Russia.

People there were lying before the tanks and died for what they beleived was right. It does take courage and not everyone is willing to do it, but I can only admire the courage of people who oppose what they think is wrong.

If one disagrees with "military operation" (which is an euphemism for war), if one disagrees with invading another country or with killing innocent civilians and is willing to stand for her beliefs, that is a great person. And it is not treason, but the highest form of loyalty to be able to say "my country is wrong" and attempt to correct while risking your life.