SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Snopes reports
On 20 November 2016, the Dakota Access pipeline protests reached new proportions when an ongoing demonstration turned into a violent [assault on protesters by] law enforcement officials.
Pipeline protesters say 21-year-old Sophia Wilansky was critically injured when she was struck with a concussion grenade thrown by Morton County sheriff's deputies while she was handing out water. As a result, she has been hospitalized and now faces the prospect of having her left arm amputated.
On 21 November 2016, Wilansky's father, Wayne Wilansky, [...] told reporters that she may need as many as 20 surgeries and that, aside from her arm injury, Sophia had welts all over her body from being shot by rubber[-coated steel] bullets, and that it took hours for an ambulance to reach her because of roadblocks.
Heavy.com continues
A statement from The Standing Rock Medic & Healing Council stated:
"Sophia was heading to bring water to the unarmed people who were being attacked for several hours by Morton County Sheriff forces. The Morton County Sheriff's Department has stated that she was injured by a purported propane explosion that the Sheriff's Department claimed the unarmed people created."These statements are refuted by Sophia's testimony, by several eye-witnesses who watched police intentionally throw concussion grenades at unarmed people, by the lack of charring of flesh at the wound site, and by the grenade pieces that have been removed from her arm in surgery and will be saved for legal proceedings."
Snopes also notes:
A total of 26 protesters were hospitalized and more than 300 were injured.
Previously:
Water Cannons Used in Sub-Freezing Temperatures at Standing Rock
(Score: 2) by tfried on Thursday November 24 2016, @08:57PM
And yet you expressed agreement with the prostestor's cause (in the other story), so what exactly do you want them to do? Hush up and stay at home? Go out to be bullied by the cops, and hush up about police misbehavior? Oh, now I know, they should'a simply voted Trump, that would'a fixed things.
Seriously, Runaway, where are you defending those folks first amendment rights? Does that apply to online online comments and armchair rebels, only?
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Thursday November 24 2016, @10:06PM
I expect protestors - whether I agree with their stated aims or not - to expect backlash. You know - part of that "personal responsibility" thing. I may agree with any number of protest's goals, but don't agree that a protest is necessary. Or, I don't think the risks associated with the protest are justified. Or, I think it's just to damned cold to go out and stand around a burn barrel, trying not to freeze my ass off.
First amendment right don't include the "right" to occupy private property - you do realize that? Public property, maybe, within limits, but not private property. Trespass isn't speech. Vandalizing property isn't protected with first amendment rights, either. Remember when Jill Stein was arrested for spray painting a bulldozer blade? That was a frivolity - but she was arrested.
Support. I'm not real sure that I support these particular protestors or not. I've read different versions of the story now. Bombs and grenades? Let's see the videos. The OTHER SIDE says that the protestors have made improvised explosive devices? Again, no videos.
That grenade? I'm beginning to question whether any doctor pulled grenade shrapnel out of that woman's arm. There are several versions of those concussion grenades out there. Have you noted that some of them are REUSABLE? There is no shrapnel from them. The explosion does no take place within the body of the grenade. The explosive charge is propelled out of the body of the grenade, where it mixes with the atmosphere, then explodes. Kinda like MOAB, it's a fuel/air explosion. Unlike the Mother of All Bombs, the explosion leaves an undamaged, unscorched casing behind.
I support the stated goal of this demonstration - but I don't necessarily support their methods. And, if they are, in fact, trying to make IED's in support of their activities - well - it sucks to be them. If that is shown to be true, then I can't support them at all.
(Score: 2) by urza9814 on Tuesday November 29 2016, @11:26PM
But they're on *their own property*. The land, by treaty, is not owned by the United States government. It's a reservation. The police and the oil company are the ones who are trespassing.
And if the grenade is tampered with? For example I've seen a few images of such grenades that were apparently thrown while sealed with heavy black tape. I dunno if tape is enough to turn it into a frag grenade, but it seems plausible. Hopefully the fragments they recovered will explain exactly how that happened. The evidence seems pretty clear that it was an explosion, and with no burning it seems unlikely to be anything the protestors could have put together. But we know the police were definitely using weapons with that exact characteristic. The courts will decide, but I can't come up with any alternative explanation, and you don't seem to have any either...