Collateral Damage in Free Trade Agreements

Brian Doherty | February 2, 2004

The tale of a Miami booster and trade agreement supporter shot in the face with one of them there beanbag guns by (probably) a SWAT team member during Miami's Free Trade Agreement of the Americas brouhaha in November. It's long, and has some interesting details about the cops rules of engagement (still secret, apparently) and some suggestions that perhaps people with cameras were being deliberately targeted by overzealous SWAT members. Although it caused him some ongoing problems--"two months later, the right side of his face remains partially paralyzed and his right eyelid droops. A bandage still covers part of his ear and the raw slash where 35 stitches closed a golf ball-size hole. His days on camera are over, Kesser said. ``The doctor tells me the nerve is gone and will never come back.''--Mr. Carl Kesser has not (yet) sued anyone.

Comments

|2.2.04 @ 1:38AM|#

sued?

couldn't there be an assault charge tossed in there?

|2.2.04 @ 2:27AM|#

couldn't there be an assault charge tossed in there?

Of course not! Our Friendly Neighborhood Policeman Who Joined the SWAT Team was acting in good faith, thinking that these hippies might get out of line and challenge The Law. Can't have them getting uppity, after all. Better to have a bit of collateral damage than anyone challenging authority. Next one who tries to protest might face the same thing, so we'll all stay in line, like good little citizens.

|2.2.04 @ 2:34AM|#

"couldn't there be an assault charge tossed in there?"

Of course not! Our Friendly Neighborhood Policeman Who Joined the SWAT Team was acting in good faith, thinking that these hippies might get out of line and challenge The Law.

The non-dipshit answer to your question, dhex, is "against who?". Nobody seems to know who actually fired the beanbag in question, it didn't get caught on tape, and you can't run a ballistics test on a lead-shot beanbag fired from a shotgun.

|2.2.04 @ 3:15AM|#

Besides that, he was a punk- so who actually gives a shit?

|2.2.04 @ 3:30AM|#

Yep, too many people around here don't give a shit about police brutality when the victims are people they don't like. Sad, huh?

|2.2.04 @ 3:40AM|#

Whenever you go to a demonstration, there is SOME assumption of risk.

One time, when I was at this demonstration, there were these neo-commie types, and the end of my toe got stubbed in my boot. Sure, I took precautions, I mean, my boots had steel toes and everything, but there's your assumption of risk. I mean, you just kind of know that when you're stomping a hippie, there's a possibilty of getting hurt.

But I didn't SUE anybody over it!

P.S. Just kidding.

|2.2.04 @ 4:01AM|#

I wonder why protestors don't wear face shields, catchers pads, gas-masks, and carry riot shields.

I mean, let's not let some chemicals and non-lethal projectiles get in the way of free speech...

|2.2.04 @ 4:07AM|#

I'm pretty sure that protestors in riot gear would be interpreted by the cops as an intent to get into a fight.

|2.2.04 @ 4:09AM|#

dhex, the police are allowed to use force to enforce the law or keep the peace. It would be nearly impossible to demonstrate that the officer's intent in using force was criminal. It would be similarly difficult to show that that his superiors' orders were given with criminal intent. Unless you actually had tape of a cop saying "f***ing hippies, let's show 'em who's boss." Chances are, that sentiment/order was passed non-verbally.

|2.2.04 @ 4:18AM|#

Are protesters even "allowed" to wear gas masks? I remember a recent Reason Hit&Run about LA banning protesters from using gas masks. They make tear gas less effective and all..

|2.2.04 @ 4:26AM|#

Swamp:

Reminds me of the Left Coast law prohibiting civilians from wearing body armor.

By golly, if the cops want you dead, who are you to passively interfere?

|2.2.04 @ 4:50AM|#

Are protesters even "allowed" to wear gas masks? I remember a recent Reason Hit&Run about LA banning protesters from using gas masks. They make tear gas less effective and all..

Not sure about LA, but after the first day of WTO protests (er..police riots), then Seattle mayor Paul Schell immediately passed an ordinance making gas masks illegal to sell or distribute in Seattle. Within a couple of days of passing the ordinance, it was ruled unconstitutional and repealed.

|2.2.04 @ 5:04AM|#

Neb: I don't think it's so common in the US, but in Europe there have been some demonstrators who've shown up with motorcycle helmets, etc. Then again, they seem to have more organized factions than we do. Here's something that mentions more prepared rioters in Europe:
http://www.corpwatch.org/issues/PID.jsp?articleid=437
The inner tubes bit is pretty clever. Hard to carry without being obvious, though.

Dan: Since whoever fired the beanbag was a police officer operating under the official and express instructions of the department, he could just sue the police, or the city. Doesn't have to be the individual officer.

|2.2.04 @ 5:41AM|#

he could just sue the police, or the city. Doesn't have to be the individual officer.

Dhex asked why assault charges shouldn't be filed, in addition to a lawsuit. My response addressed only the possibility of prosecuting someone for assault -- something which most certainly does require the identities of specific officers.

|2.2.04 @ 6:39AM|#

I've been to several of these trade protests, the cops have been horrible at all of them -- arresting people not involved in the violence -- pepperspraying journolists and other not involved in the action, etc. -- they know they'll get away with it so they do whatever -- even if they lose some court case over violating peoples rights (there are still court cases going on over DC trade protests) the cops retire to their fat pensions with zero responsibility -- its amazing they haven't killed anyone yet -- I root of the anarchists, they hurt the leftist cause and the cops get what they deserve but they're all too chickensh*t to be effective against the cops...

jon|2.2.04 @ 8:41AM|#

Here in Tucson, there was the 1997 NCAA Championship Police Riot. The police plan seemed to be to make 4th Avenue the designated anarchy zone, make the bars send all the celebrants out onto the street after the game, have a wall of police in full battle array (as if they were in Beirut or the West Bank or someplace), and then blame the injuries on a few bad apples.

As far as I know, only cameramen and cars were harmed during the police stupidity demonstration. And a guy had his eye shot out, though he got paid via lawsuit.

SteveInClearwater|2.2.04 @ 10:17AM|#

I'd have to chase down the supporting info, but I'm pretty sure that prior to the Miami events, the local city council passed some emergency legislation that exempted all law enforcement, the city, the state, anyone in uniform, from being charged civilly. And yes, it's virtually impossible for cops to be convicted of criminal charges for damaging civilians.

|2.2.04 @ 11:06AM|#

"Whenever you go to a demonstration, there is SOME assumption of risk."

Shultz, I don't know what country you live in, but when I go to a demonstration in the United States, the last thing on my mind is an assumption of risk. I'm there, usually, with my beagles, to make a point and voice my opinion. Where exactly do you live? Or is it just paranoia?

|2.2.04 @ 11:23AM|#

>some suggestions that perhaps

|2.2.04 @ 11:32AM|#

> some suggestions that perhaps people with cameras were being deliberately targeted by overzealous

|2.3.04 @ 1:09AM|#

Ayatollah: I was thinking along the same lines. Some of these rounds are fired from regular shotguns. If you pointed a shotgun at the cops, how long do you think it would take them to respond with deadly force? Think they're going to wait to find out whether you're firing buckshot or only beanbags? Yet when they do it to the citizens, the citizens are just supposed to rely on the good graces of the cops and assume the best. If things keep going this way, eventually there _will_ be an incident where the cops fire live ammunition at people - some nervous cop will think he sees a gun in the crowd, and that will be that.

dj: "go back" to clubs? The police still do use batons in riot situations. As for "not looking that bad", there have been people who have lost eyes because of things like this. I don't, and I don't think most people do, have a problem with the police using these devices where they're justified, but there are lots of reports of the police using them in a very indiscriminate fashion.

A historical note - google for "Peterloo Massacre" to see an example of a similar event from Britain in 1819.

|2.3.04 @ 2:27AM|#

Whenever police are questioned about excessive force, the answer is always that they were following their training. Sounds like Nuremberg and "just folling orders."

Of course it sounds that way; you invented the "answer" to achieve that effect. A parallel would be if I said "When anti-trade protesters are asked about their motives, they always say that they think America should come first. Sounds like the same thing Nazi sympathizers said prior to World War II." Except, of course, that neither the police nor the protesters "always", or even frequently, say anything of the kind.

When police are questioned about the use of force other people claim is excessive, what they *actually* usually say (they don't "always" say anything) is that the use of force was necessary, warranted, and non-excessive. In cases of obviously-excessive force, the usual spin comes as an appeal to pity -- "it's tough being a cop", "we have to make difficult decisions", etc.

Saying "I'm just doing what I was trained to do", however, is NOT a common response. For one thing, that's the kind of response that deflects blame *upwards* -- a cop who says "I just did what they told me" is just asking for the police chief to declare that that cop had acted inappropriately, and counter to his training, whether that's true or not.

When the use of force is proven in court to have been excessive, the police do NOT say "well, it was how we were trained, so we're still innocent" -- the claim the "just following orders" Nazis were trying to make.

|2.3.04 @ 3:37AM|#

"That's led to a lot of suspicion, in certain segments of the a-g movement, that the Blac Bloc people are police provocateurs."

Wow the oninion gets deeper and deeper. I hear that Rage Agaisnt the Machine and Fight Club were subsidized by the NWO to discredit the anti-world movement as fans of shitty music and movies. Did you know that the CIA gets $2 per every Che T-Shirt produced?

|2.3.04 @ 5:51AM|#

That's led to a lot of suspicion, in certain segments of the a-g movement, that the Blac Bloc people are police provocateurs

If they had a firm grasp of reality, they wouldn't be in the movement in the first place.

Most fringe political groups have traditional beliefs that The Government Is Conspiring To Keep Them Down, and that The Government Knows It Needs To Keep People From Hearing Their Message Or They'd Be Up Against The Wall Double-Quick. The reality, which is that they're a bunch of whackjobs who don't even register on "The Man"'s radar screen, seldom occurs to them.

|2.3.04 @ 9:05AM|#

Whenever police are questioned about excessive force, the answer is always that they were following their training. Sounds like Nuremberg and "just folling orders."

The whole problem with less-lethal weapons is that they encourages cops to use their guns in situations where they cannot use deadly force. These beanbags are fired from a shotgun, pepper from a 40mm pistol. Yet if you brandished such a weapon, you will get shot and killed, with real slugs and JHPs. I recall one incident where the cop reached for his taser, but got his Glock by accident, and shot the suspect in the back. Less-lethal leads to escalation, and should not be a part of any law enforcement toolkit.

|2.3.04 @ 10:01AM|#

>let's not let some chemicals and non-lethal
>projectiles get in the way of free speech...

Since when does "free speech" include harassing foreign dignitaries, blocking hotels and meeting rooms, and stopping traffic? I'm all against brutality, and this is clearly an unfortunate excess, but I've been to a lot of these anti-trade events and the protestors quite often seek to provoke a police confrontation. The charge that these are just law-abiding people getting pounced on by the cops is pure crap.

|2.3.04 @ 11:04AM|#

>I don't, and I don't think most people do, have a problem with the police using these devices where they're justified, but there are lots of reports of the police using them in a very indiscriminate fashion.

Kevin Carson|2.3.04 @ 12:15PM|#

The problem, Conor, is that the cops often seem to show more zeal for jumping on the peaceful demonstrators than they do for going after the people who are breaking windows and vandalizing cars. That's led to a lot of suspicion, in certain segments of the a-g movement, that the Blac Bloc people are police provocateurs.

And the police don't limit themselves to responding to force or to a "clear and present danger" of it. Police Commissioner Timoney, especially, has been a zealot for preemptively arresting the leadership of activist groups in the days before a demo, on whatever trumped-up charges he can invent, and holding them in preventive detention until the event is over. This isn't just cops reacting excessively to a bunch of admittedly thuggish punks in Circle-A t-shirts. It's the action of a political police force to shut down a movement it's opposed to ideologically.

|2.3.04 @ 12:42PM|#

Mr. Lynch,

Please note the P.S. on my original post--No, I've never done any such thing, but the logic that I used was similar to some of the arguments I've seen posted (and I've heard), so I thought some satire was in order.

P.S. Some of my best friends are Beagles. Beagles are the ultimate life form. Everything I ever really needed to know, I learned from my Beagle.