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
Related Stories
Authorities used rubber-coated steel bullets, concussion grenades, tear gas, and water cannons against unarmed protesters near the Dakota Access oil pipeline in 26°F (-3°C) temperatures over the weekend.
Indian Country Today reports
"We have seen four gunshot wounds, three of them to the face and head", said Leland Brenholt, a volunteer medic.
[...]400 protesters, or "water protectors", attempted to dismantle a police-enforced barricade on State Highway 1806.
[...]"Water protectors are done with the military-style barricades. We are done with the floodlights and the armored military trucks. We are are done with it!" declared organizer, Dallas Goldtooth in a mid-evening Facebook post.
Their action was met with the same militarized response that the Morton County Sheriff's Department has demonstrated on protesters for weeks: the use of armored trucks, less-than-lethal ammunition, tear-gas, mace, and on this below-freezing night, water cannons.
[...]Reports from a coalition of advocacy groups near Standing Rock report hundreds of water protectors were receiving treatment for contamination by tear gas, hypothermia, and blunt traumas as a result of rubber bullets. One person, an elder, was reportedly revived after suffering cardiac arrest, organizers said.
"As medical professionals, we are concerned for the real risk of loss of life due to severe hypothermia under these conditions," read a statement from the Standing Rock Medic and Healer Council.
A more measured take is available from the AP.
AlterNet reports
A federal judge ruled [June 14] that the Trump administration must conduct additional environmental review of the Dakota Access Pipeline, handing a limited victory to Native American tribes fighting the administration's decision to move forward with the project.
In an extensive opinion,[PDF][1] Washington, DC District Court Judge James Boasberg sided with the tribes by agreeing the Army Corps of Engineers "did not consider the impacts of an oil spill on fishing rights, human rights, or environmental justice."
[...] Boasberg did not order a shutdown of operations on the pipeline, which began pumping oil early this month. The tribes and pipeline owner Energy Transfer Partners are ordered to appear in court next week to decide next legal steps, and the tribes are expected to argue for a full shutdown of pipeline operations.
[1] Link in article redirects.
Previous coverage:
Dakota Access Pipeline Suffers Oil Leak Even Before Becoming Operational
Recent News Dispatches From Standing Rock (DAPL)
Army Corp of Engineers Now Accepting Public Comment on the Dakota Access Pipeline
Army Corps of Engineers Blocks the Dakota Access Pipeline
Standing Rock Protester May Lose Her Arm Because of Police Grenades
Water Cannons Used in Sub-Freezing Temperatures at Dakota Access Oil Pipeline Protest
Standing Rock Protestors Gassed and Attacked; Bundy Gang Acquitted [Updated]
Journalist Charged in North Dakota with Rioting; Case is Dismissed
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Runaway1956 on Thursday November 24 2016, @11:51AM
A flash-bang is a grenade. Grenades come in differenty types, for different purposes, but all are recognized to be deadly. Aboard ship, all grenades were kept in the small arms locker, all of them had the same security and checkout procedures. A flash-bang wasn't handled any differently than the fragmentation grenade that everyone recognizes from the movies. When a grenade is used in action, it is intended to cause casualties.
The original submission yesterday made no mention of the usage of grenades, and I had zero sympathy for some demostrators who got hosed down with water, and gassed with tear gas. Those things are not deadly - even in the freezing temperatures described. (NOTE: I spent a winter aboard ship on the arctic circle. Hypothermia can be deadly, but people who understand hypothermia aren't especially threatened by it.)
But, I've complained for a long time about the police forces use of military equipment. When they start tossing explosives around, nothing good can come from that. If the cops want to use grenades, then the demonstrators should have free access to grenades. Police forces have no legitimate use for weapons that the general population can't have. None.
If things get so desparate that grenades, tanks, etc are needed to quell unrest, the National Guard is available. That is their purpose, after all.
Of course, if things come to that, it is a good indication that the government is due for replacement.
(Score: 5, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 24 2016, @12:47PM
The original submission yesterday made no mention of the usage of grenades
Actually,
When a grenade is used in action, it is intended to cause casualties.
[...]
When they start tossing explosives around, nothing good can come from that.
Absolutely. This whole thing was criminal assault on unarmed people exercising their 1st Amendment rights.
aboard ship [...] Hypothermia
One assumes there was an "indoors" on that vessel where you could duck back in.
If you went out to the exterior of the ship when there was a chance of getting wet, I'll bet you went dressed for that.
The folks at Standing Rock are living rough (camping).
They didn't expect to be soaked through in freezing weather by a bunch of jerks.
To deal with their soaked clothing, they would first have to evade the bully boys with the weapons then get back to where there are warm dry clothes and change into those, likely in a tent.
The combined distance, time, and thoroughness of the soaking seem like more way than they could have foreseen, unlike someone doing a daily routine where all the variables are known ahead of time.
It would be interesting to see how you held up under the exact same conditions.
-- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Thursday November 24 2016, @01:32PM
"all the variables are known ahead of time."
The sea. You can't know ahead of time. You can only guess, and be vigilant for changing conditions.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 25 2016, @08:54AM
"Today the sea was more wet than expected, so we had to go back to port to replace our regular waterproof gear with extra waterproof gear".
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Friday November 25 2016, @12:08PM
Small minds are easily amused, right? When you have a couple year's sea duty behind you, come back and tell me about the sea.
(Score: 2) by Geezer on Thursday November 24 2016, @01:07PM
Agreed, bearing in mind that the National Guard is not a police agency per seand generally not well-trained (states and units may vary) in non-lethal crowd control. Anyone remember Kent State?
(Score: 1) by Geezer on Thursday November 24 2016, @01:10PM
Oops, replied wrong post. Meant to agree with Runaway1956. My bad.
(Score: 2) by sjames on Thursday November 24 2016, @05:24PM
You were on a ship in the arctic. You were expecting cold and plenty of water. You understood hypothermia.
The protesters certainly should have been expecting cold, but did they expect water? How much understanding of hypothermia do you suppose they had?
But yes, cops shouldn't be using grenades. Even from the practical side (neverminding civil society) they have proven insufficiently disciplined and trained to use grenades of any kind. Like 'blanks', flash bangs and concussion grenades can (and have) maim or kill when not used responsibly.
And of course, once police get to the point of preventing ambulance service to protesters, they have gone all the way over the line. There's no shades of grey left.
(Score: 2) by mhajicek on Thursday November 24 2016, @06:21PM
Is it or is it not legally assault to spray someone with a firehose? If it isn't, than can people do it to cops without repercussion? What would an officer do if you shot him with a rubber coated steel slug?
The spacelike surfaces of time foliations can have a cusp at the surface of discontinuity. - P. Hajicek
(Score: 2, Insightful) by chris.alex.thomas on Thursday November 24 2016, @05:35PM
The fact that you are ok with spraying people with water and potentially injuring them, says more about you, than it does about the protestors.
Even if you don't care, then I would never actively wish harm on people, I would say that they should not do that, but that you are ok with it.....what the fuck is wrong with you? Are you some kind of psychopath?
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Thursday November 24 2016, @05:38PM
Sometimes, you've got to put on your big boy pants, and try to act like an adult. When you decide to be a protestor, it's time. Going up against an armed police force is your decision - the cops didn't come to these people's homes, and drag them out to that bridge.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by mhajicek on Thursday November 24 2016, @06:29PM
Sometimes the government should put on it's big boy pants and honor the treaties they signed. Sometimes the police should put on their big boy pants and stop throwing tantrums.
The spacelike surfaces of time foliations can have a cusp at the surface of discontinuity. - P. Hajicek
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Thursday November 24 2016, @07:03PM
All of that may very well be. But, there's a cop out on the corner. Big burly guy, wearing riot gear, carrying a club, a gun, mace, a taser. If I go out and pick a fight with him, are you going to feel sorry for me when he breaks half the bones in my body, then shoots me? FFS - it's very damned difficult for me to work up a lot of sympathy for protestors who get hurt. The cops didn't drag the protestors to the protest. Rather, government dragged the cops out because the protestors were there.
Anyone who challenges an armed man, and doesn't expect to get shot is just plain stupid.
Now - do you want these protestors rememberd for bravery, or for stupidity? Stupid people hurt themselves all the time, you know, but we don't honor them for it. We do honor brave people.
(Score: 3, Touché) by https on Thursday November 24 2016, @07:50PM
If you think the protestors picked a fight with riot police, your understanding of the situation is wrong. Next time, don't call until you're ready to play.
Offended and laughing about it.
(Score: 3, Touché) by mhajicek on Thursday November 24 2016, @08:36PM
Yes, the Indians should have stayed away from the native police reservation.
The spacelike surfaces of time foliations can have a cusp at the surface of discontinuity. - P. Hajicek
(Score: 2) by urza9814 on Tuesday November 29 2016, @11:18PM
If I go out and pick a fight with him, are you going to feel sorry for me when he breaks half the bones in my body, then shoots me?
So explain how they're "picking a fight" with someone who wasn't even there when they set up. They weren't trying to battle with the cops, they weren't trying to get maced, they were trying to build a damn tent on their own goddamn land. And the government dragged the police out to attack them in response, as you've accurately described. The protesters have no desire to go up against the cops, the cops are the only ones initiating the interaction and are therefore the only ones responsible for whatever force they are using.
It's not at all like going out and picking a fight with the cop on the street; a better analogy would be sitting in your living room when a bunch of cops show up with a bulldozer and an armory and a SWAT team breaks through your front door.
(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...
(Score: 2) by Reziac on Friday November 25 2016, @04:21AM
And before people get too sympathetic:
http://www.cnn.com/2016/10/29/us/dakota-pipeline-standing-rock-sioux/index.html [cnn.com]
=========
Fool Bear has had it with the protesters. He says that more than two years ago, when members of the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe could have attended hearings to make their concerns known, they didn't care. Now, suddenly, the crowds are out of control, and he fears it's just a matter of time before someone gets seriously hurt. Now, suddenly, the crowds are out of control, and he fears it's just a matter of time before someone gets seriously hurt.
Go down to the camps, he says, and you won't see many Standing Rock Sioux. "It irks me. People are here from all over the world," he says. "If they could come from other planets, I think they would."
==========
In short, this "protest" is totally astroturf, with lots of useful idiots, and a few bored locals on welfare with nothing better to do.
And there is no Alkibiades to come back and save us from ourselves.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Friday November 25 2016, @05:54AM
Good find. The girl who was injured - her name sounds Polski to me. The Poles came to this country a little late, in comparison to some other nationalities. Sure, there was some intermarriage between Poles and Indians - but MOST Native Americans with European sounding names are descended from English, Scottish, Irish, French. So, naturally, I wondered if that girl was really Indian.
Mehhh.
The talk radio show I listen to is full of tales of demonstrators who are PAID by Soros funded organizations to come out and demonstrate. A demonstration in Houston that they covered, almost all the demonstrators admitted that they were being paid $15/hr by some org to be there. Three busloads of outsiders were brought in for the event - and only a handful of locals who weren't being paid.
Wonder if there's a money trail to be found for this demonstration?
(Score: 2) by Reziac on Friday November 25 2016, @08:11AM
Good point on Indian surnames. And some eastern Europeans with Mongol ancestry can pass for Amerind.
A while back I did find an article about people being bussed into this ND 'event' by some Soros-backed activist outfit, but today couldn't relocate it.
"Wonder if there's a money trail to be found for this demonstration?"
Good luck:
http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/viewSubCategory.asp?id=1237 [discoverthenetworks.org]
Most of these in turn fund dozens of activist groups, some of which in turn... you get the idea.
Would be interesting to learn who pays her hospital bill...
While I'm digging around, haven't looked at these yet, but anyway:
http://linkis.com/fenixx.org/George_Soros_Enemy_o.html [linkis.com]
I assume you've seen Black Pigeon's video on the subject? numerous links on the docs page.
From what I've seen so far, the usual conspiracy theories about Soros-funded mayhem grossly underestimate the scope of the problem. Further, my own theory is that he's funneling Saudi money... note who remained essentially untouched by all this "Arab spring" and migrant nonsense...
And there is no Alkibiades to come back and save us from ourselves.
(Score: 2) by darkfeline on Thursday November 24 2016, @09:58PM
Flashbangs (stun grenades) are considerably safer than sting grenades precisely because they generally don't cause physical injury (barring coming into direct contact with the grenade, which will cause burns, or triggering epilepsy). The summary mentions concussion grenades, but I'm assuming that's a typo caused by ignorance. Concussion grenades are fully intended to be lethal.
I'm not even sure why sting grenades exist. They're like a watered down version of frag grenades that don't reliably kill, say maybe 40% of the time.
Of course, none of these, including stun grenades, are perfectly safe; they're called less-lethal for a reason (explicitly not non-lethal).
In theory I'm okay with the police maintaining arms in the case of emergency (for example, zombies). In practice however...
Join the SDF Public Access UNIX System today!
(Score: 2) by Bogsnoticus on Friday November 25 2016, @07:09AM
There is a logical, if nasty, reason why sting grenades exist.
You kill a man with a grenade, you lessen the attacking force by 1. You wound a man with a grenade, you lessen the attacking force by the number of wounded, AND the number of unwounded who now have to treat and stabilise the wounded.
Genius by birth. Evil by choice.
(Score: 3, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 24 2016, @12:03PM
http://bearingarms.com/bob-o/2016/11/23/really-injured-sophia-wilansky/ [bearingarms.com]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 24 2016, @12:16PM
So a lie is a "point of view" now?
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 24 2016, @12:24PM
Well, there's this one
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/nov/23/standing-rock-dakota-access-pipeline-sophia-wilansky-injury [theguardian.com]
and this one
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2016/11/22/activists-and-police-trade-blame-after-dakota-access-protester-severely-injured/ [washingtonpost.com]
So I would think a reasonable person might conclude that the cause of the injury is unconfirmed. I know it is in vogue to jump to rash conclusions especially regarding anything having to do with police violence, but maybe wait until more facts come out instead?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 24 2016, @12:41PM
So the fact that they pulled grenade pieces out of her arm during surgery just went right over your head?
I know it is in vogue to jump to rash conclusions
You're talking about yourself here, but you're probably too stupid to realize it.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 24 2016, @01:01PM
Unless the attending doctors are intimately familiar with the ordinance use by the police, I don't think they are qualified to state exactly where it originated from, let alone being able to differentiate a flashbang from an exploding propane tank.
Here's an example of a flashbang.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s4VJaNVHa88 [youtube.com]
Note the lack fragments in the wall. They are mostly paper.
Further, as police state they did not use any such devise, it will be easy to catch them in a lie as every single piece of ordinance has a paper trail and a reclamation form to follow.
I know it is easy to work yourself into a frenzy, but you might try a bit of critical thinking instead.
(Score: 2) by Scruffy Beard 2 on Thursday November 24 2016, @02:18PM
From that video, it looks like just the shock-wave can kill you if you are close enough to it.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Thursday November 24 2016, @03:45PM
You're missing one very important question. Actually, two. Who determined that the fragments were from a grenade? And, was that person qualified to make that determination?
If we were to learn that the doctor who removed the shrapnel was an Army, or Navy surgeon, familiar with grenade fragments, then I would tend to believe that he knew a grenade fragment when he saw it.
If the doctor is some backwoods doctor, with a degree from Podunk U, he would have a credibility issue.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by mhajicek on Thursday November 24 2016, @06:19PM
The police have proven repeatedly that they do not deserve the benefit of the doubt. Police lying, planting and falsifying of evidence, excessive violence, and coverup are systemic.
The spacelike surfaces of time foliations can have a cusp at the surface of discontinuity. - P. Hajicek
(Score: 2) by janrinok on Thursday November 24 2016, @02:47PM
The onus is upon you to prove it was a 'lie', otherwise you are just repeating what someone else has told you. That's probably why 'hearsay' is not acceptable as a form of evidence in court.
(Score: 2, Disagree) by bradley13 on Thursday November 24 2016, @12:43PM
Look at AC's post: It's an informative article [bearingarms.com]. In a nutshell, there's evidence that the girl blew her own arm off, trying to plant an IED. Time will tell...
Meanwhile, even if she was entirely peaceful herself, the protests as a whole are not. Lie down with dogs, get up with fleas.
Everyone is somebody else's weirdo.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 24 2016, @01:11PM
At the time of the attempt to murder her with an explosive thrown straight at her, she was delivering water to her comrades.
She has plenty of witnesses who have said that the cops are lying.
Lamestream Media has repeated the cops' lies without any questions and Reactionary nitwits with access to the internet have followed suit.
As I said earlier,
-- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 24 2016, @01:19PM
Did the mainstream media plant the propane tanks? Didn't the shooting of Michael Brown have a bunch of witness saying he was minding his own business, hands up in the air, instead of actively fighting with a cop for the weapon?
There's actual a bit of video evidence that corroborates the police account (water cannons weren't used indiscriminately, but instead against protestors charging the line). How do you explain that? Or are we into some Illuminati level conspiracy?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 24 2016, @01:35PM
I guess we'll have to wait and see what the analysis of the shrapnel removed from her body reveals.
Rule of thumb:
1 Cops lie
2 There is no 2
-- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday November 24 2016, @02:33PM
1 Cops lie
So do protesters.
Once again, This [bearingarms.com] looks bad for her story since the police appear to have several home-made bombs in their possession. They even found blood on one of the propane tanks.
And it's quite suspicious that we don't have video evidence of police using such grenades. Supposedly the protesters were live streaming the whole thing. Where's the video clip of grenade use?
Finally, I see repeatedly the accusation that this was due to a concussion grenade, which are intended to kill people, instead of stun grenades (flash bangs) which aren't. How did that show up at the protest?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 24 2016, @03:13PM
I find this very interesting. I was brought up to view the police as government thugs that were intent on depriving me of my liberties any chance they got. Perhaps my folks weren't as right-wing as I had thought. It's amazing to me that the zeitgeist among right-wingers now is to absolutely trust the police 100%. Seemingly gone is the idea of “Am I being detained? Am I free to go?” I suppose a protest is a bit different after all, and that wouldn't apply. I'm more thinking about the general attitude instead of specifics.
I remember listening to a shortwave broadcast of Mark Koernke and his family being assaulted during what I think was a traffic stop iirc. Just the audio.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday November 24 2016, @03:48PM
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Thursday November 24 2016, @03:51PM
Essentially, there is no difference between a flash bang and a concussion grenade. The term flash bang is used by police forces to minimize the potential lethality of their weapons. The packaging and labeling is different, but I suspect that military concussion grenades and these flash bangs come off of the same assembly line, built with the same components, assembled by the same people and robots. Bottom line is, an explosion at your feet is likely to knock you off of your feet, so that opposing forces can rush in to capture and/or kill you and your comrades.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday November 24 2016, @04:08PM
Essentially, there is no difference between a flash bang and a concussion grenade.
Sounds like there is a big difference of explosive power. The concussion grenade is packed with enough to kill people who just happen to be nearby. The other is designed to be pretty non lethal.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Thursday November 24 2016, @05:34PM
And - you base this assumption on what, exactly?
http://www.theagitator.com/2011/03/09/swat-officer-killed-by-non-lethal-flashbang-grenade/ [theagitator.com]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stun_grenade [wikipedia.org]
https://archive.wired.com/science/discoveries/news/2002/04/51760?currentPage=all [wired.com]
""If you've got the device in your hand, or against your chest, back or head, and it blows up, what you've done is set off a small bomb in close proximity to your body," said Mark Grubelich, researcher at Sandia National Laboratories and creator of the new device."
(Score: 2) by fido_dogstoyevsky on Friday November 25 2016, @01:45AM
The concussion grenade is packed with enough to kill people who just happen to be nearby. The other is designed to be a bit less lethal.
Since you're only going to throw it at enemy combatants. See offensive grenade [wikipedia.org].
It's NOT a conspiracy... it's a plot.
(Score: 2) by janrinok on Thursday November 24 2016, @02:50PM
So do protesters and extremists - but I'm certainly not suggesting that she is the latter.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 24 2016, @02:51PM
Or maybe cops have been know to lie when they need to
but sometimes they don't need to.
In this case, there should have clear evidence to sort it out.
The stuff removed from the lady's arm should support one story or the other.
I find it hard to believe that there are not many video's of the encounter from each side as well.
If both sides are not producing these, then maybe both sides were pushing things past where they should.
What are the limits?
An unarmed mob on one side of a line defended by cops on the other side.
As long as the mob stays on their side of the line, the cops should just watch.
If the mob tries to cross the line, then the cops should be expected to respond with proportional violence.
If the mob becomes armed, then unfortunately, the answer has to be same answer.
This is a near impossible set of operating rules.
For example what do you do when a few folks from one side act violently and then hide in the otherwise peaceful crowd.
Do you respond as if the whole crowd was violent?
No. You switch to more creative tactics like the water cannon and hopefully a bunch of cameras to hold folks accountable later.
I wonder if that says that wearing a mask on either side should be considered something over the line?
(Score: 2, Insightful) by khallow on Thursday November 24 2016, @01:30PM
At the time of the attempt to murder her with an explosive thrown straight at her, she was delivering water to her comrades. She has plenty of witnesses who have said that the cops are lying.
The cops apparently have their own witnesses who say otherwise. This whole situation is being handled badly so I wouldn't be surprised to find out that you're correct. But it's going to take more than a couple of biased articles to do that for me.
(Score: 2) by Nerdfest on Thursday November 24 2016, @02:38PM
There's actually no confirmed "evidence" ether way. If grenade shrapnel is found, or propane residue or propane tank shrapnel is found we'll know for sure ... or we'll know what the FBI want us to think.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by bzipitidoo on Thursday November 24 2016, @02:40PM
Where have you been for the past, oh, 3 to 5 decades? There is ample evidence that police use excessive force, are poorly trained to handle peaceful protest situations, and when they mess up tell lies that make it seem like their victims were assaulting them and got what they deserved, and finally are not too smart. People of low intelligence tend to be more racist, and more impatient and quicker to violence. Also, police work attracts the sort of people who enjoy being little dictators, enjoy the feeling of power it gives them to carry firearms around, and are prone to thinking of legal barriers to the way they want to work as "Constitutional bullshit" for which they "don't have time".
A common trick is to plant a weapon on or near a weaponless victim. The police have no shortage of weapons to plant, and it would be no problem for them to procure a few propane tanks. Perhaps the protesters did have propane tanks they were using to keep themselves warm and cook meals, and the police seized a few earlier. This story that the young protester was setting up a IED and it detonated stinks to high heaven, yet you actually give it serious consideration? Do you have any idea how hard it is to make a propane tank explode? "In fact, bringing a propane tank to the point of 'explosion' is a tremendously difficult and time consuming task that's not as simple as most people think. Many people believe that a propane tank 'explosion' can occur with the slightest of ease." Who among the protesters would have experience in making propane tanks explode? Would think of trying to make IEDs from propane tanks, think making IEDs was a good idea, and think they know how to do it and that it would work? Not at all likely to be a young woman. Was she obsessed with explosives in high school chemistry class or something?
The protesters know that they are massively outgunned, know that showing weapons in this situation is suicidally stupid. Yet you think some are stupid enough to do that anyway? Much more likely that some protesters were merely blocking the road with their bodies, and the police lost their patience and tried to flush the protesters out with force, then threw in these propane tanks and concocted this story to place blame on the protesters.
Selma AL, 1965. Kent State, 1970. Ruby Ridge, 1992. Branch Davidian compound, Waco TX, 1993, to name just a few. And all the recent shootings that Black Lives Matter has been protesting.
People have been saying for years that the police frame citizens all the time, and get away with it. Now thanks to smart phones with built in cameras, we have ample video evidence that they are right, and it has finally been accepted by the public. Also consider that police are awfully anxious that no one film them. They've been resisting requirements to wear body cameras and install dash cameras in their patrol cars. They frequently harass citizens who are trying to film them, and it's taken lawsuits and court cases to back them off. If they were the upstanding, righteous enforcers of the law they like to appear to be, they should welcome all these cameras, as the footage could not but support them. That they don't want to be on camera is most telling. They're doing wrong, and they know it.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 24 2016, @04:37PM
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 24 2016, @11:36PM
Bob Owens never met a law he didn't like. If some random person in a black dress says something, Bob Owens treats it as Bible Truth.
He's been straining credibility for a while, tho for me the last straw was his exhuberance in the execution of LaVoy Finicum, from the Oregon Malheur protest/redress.
(Score: 2, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 24 2016, @01:54PM
Rejected submission
Update on Severely-Wounded Standing Rock Protester Sophia Wilansky [soylentnews.org]
from the life-changing-injuries dept.
The Standing Rock Medic and Healer Council reports [commondreams.org] via Common Dreams
(Score: 2) by wonkey_monkey on Thursday November 24 2016, @04:19PM
turned into a violent [assault on protesters by] law enforcement officials.
The original article says "confrontation".
Whether you agree or not, those were Snopes's words and I think it's a bit disingenuous to be changing their meaning like this while still claiming to be quoting Snopes. [-]ing is all well and good when you're trying to clarify or make more succinct, but this goes a bit far.
being shot by rubber[-coated steel] bullets
Got a citation for them being rubber-coated steel, and just not just rubber?
systemd is Roko's Basilisk
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 24 2016, @04:41PM
Oh, Gewg has plenty of citation material. It is from the craptastic web sites he inflicts upon us.
Waiting for articles on the massive police coverup on Area 51, but I think he's still got lots of US Gov't behind 9/11 material to still submit.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 24 2016, @07:43PM
those were [Snopes'][1] words
...and, according to other sources, those particular terms were less than fully accurate and, as such, misleading.
I have also seen the word "clash" applied to the events.
I also thought that that was inappropriate and deceptive.
What I haven't seen is any evidence that any of the protesters had weapons or used weapons, which would indicate that both sides were belligerents.
This was a 1-sided attack on unarmed people by bullies.
[1] When I spot errors, my instinct is to correct those.
...and when that is more than punctuation or letter case, I typically indicate that a change has been made.
.
Got a citation for them being rubber-coated steel?
My source was several individuals independently reporting from Pacifica Radio's KPFK, whom I have found to be to be reliable sources.
-- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2) by wonkey_monkey on Thursday November 24 2016, @10:35PM
Then a different source should have been quoted instead of putting words into Snopes's mouth.
systemd is Roko's Basilisk
(Score: 2) by wonkey_monkey on Thursday November 24 2016, @10:38PM
[1] When I spot errors, my instinct is to correct those.
It's not an error.
systemd is Roko's Basilisk
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 24 2016, @05:11PM
this is all quite ridiculous.
the protest/protestors: Are they saying all the land is sacred or they have actual burial sites, etc. that will be bulldozed? If yes, reroute a little. If no, screw off. As far as the possibility of contaminating the missouri: make companies liable for all the effects of what they do and then, if they pay for the land or the rights, then they can do what they want assuming they have the money to cover all the possible impacts. If you can't get oil/gas out without destroying the water table/polluting the river and you don't have trillions to cover that, then screw off. of course, that could be handled by liability instead of regulation. put a little more money into r&d until you can do it safer and with less liability. most of the time they just want to save money and already know how to do it completely safe but don't care as they aren't ever held accountable. televised executions and long prison sentences for CEOs ought to help correct that shit.
the assault: were the protestors trespassing? calmly arrest them, then dumb asses! why do you have to stand back and lob grenades and shoot them like chickenshits? get your fat pig ass in there and arrest those dangerous hippies and overweight indians.
the "real news": why can't you useless #@%^$ do anything right? you could be drilling down to the heart of the issue and helping the people develop a useful consensus but instead you just play dumb, promote stupid ideas, lies, etc. and film the carnage. you are vile whores and nothing more.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 24 2016, @08:18PM
They already had a route plotted out.
They could simply use that.
Oh, wait. That might poison the water of WHITE people.
Can't have that.
trespassing? calmly arrest them
Too much like right.
the "real news" [...] you are vile whores
Sounds about right.
...at least since Ronnie Raygun deep-sixed The Fairness Doctrine and corporate media decided to be about profit and not truthful information.
"It [Trump's candidacy] may not be good for America, but it's [damned] good for CBS." -- Les Moonves, CEO of CBS
(Reuters says Trump got $5B of free media during his campaign.)
-- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 24 2016, @05:36PM
You take risks. Deal with it.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 24 2016, @08:00PM
Trump supporter? (He's not a fan of the 1st Amendment either.)
You take risks
The word "proportional" comes to mind.
People who aren't being violent should have no expectation of being attacked with weapons of war.
That's the way it goes in civilized places.
Perhaps some Brits can weigh in on how Bobbies behave.
(They say that in Heaven the cops are British.)
-- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2) by Bogsnoticus on Friday November 25 2016, @07:22AM
In heaven, the cops are British bobbies.
In hell, it's the Sweeney.
Genius by birth. Evil by choice.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 25 2016, @09:33PM
I had to Google that one.
For the rest of the non-Brits:
-- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]