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: 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.