Forty injured as police fire rubber bullets at peace protesters
"Duncan Campbell in Los Angeles
Tuesday April 8, 2003
The Guardian
Police opened fire with rubber bullets yesterday on anti-war demonstrators in Oakland, California, in what was the first such action during the current round of anti-war protests. Organisers said that around 40 protesters were injured, one seriously."
Oh say can you see…
Now there is a thread title that ought to be changed as deceptive. "Frenzy" indeed. BTW, they also shot beanbags at the protestors. Maybe next time a pillow fight will break out.
Guardain also offers its own unique spin. It quotes a demonstrator as saying that "It was a peaceful, legal picket, not a blockade."
However, in the US, it is reported as an attempt to block access to American President Lines, a shipping company the protestors claimed was profiting from the war in Iraq.
The sponsor is also the same group that sponsored the "die in" that attempted to and did block traffic in Manhattan and other cities.
I don't have all the facts yet but have heard radio reports that the protestors were actually trying to stop loading of a ship with supplies bound for Iraq to support the war effort. If true, such conduct could violate US criminal laws dealing wih sabotage which carries a 30 year prison sentence.
Ok, in case you think a rubber bullet is toy gun, this is what a rubber bullet does.. this pic was taken yesterday in Oakland, where police fired at the anti-war protesters.
[thumb=B]rubberbullet.JPG[/thumb]
A protester sports a large welt on her face after being hit by a rubber bullet fired by police. Protesters tried to block the entrance to APL Shipping at the Port of Oakland on Monday. (Mark DuFrene/Contra Costa Times)
Source: San Jose Mercury News
Lagta hai Oakland city is gonna pay a lot in cicil Lawsuites. :)
I wish I got hit by some bullets. Man I was at work.
Some of these protesters deserve real bullets. These peace hippies need to be shipped over to Saudi Arabia to learn what kind of bullets will be used on them should they come out for a peace rally. Their right to protest is guaranteed by the constitution, but they have no right to blockade ships.
Myvoice, these morons provide entertainment in NYC. So comical to see all these un-showered smelly people chanting peace slogans as if they will be considered uncool if they didn’t. Just like in other countries, anti-Americanism is more like a fashionable thing to do (Arabs of all people, who have no rights in their own countries are the loudest mouths of all), peace marches have also become fashionable.
Interesting that this type of force was used in a city that is governed by Jerry Brown. I wonder how many peace rallys he went to in the 60s?
Are you sure that girl isn't just eating a jawbreaker?
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Faisal: *
[thumb=B]rubberbullet.JPG[/thumb]
[/QUOTE]
OUCH :(
But Faisal…where is the “before” picture? I’ve seen worse things than that hanging off of war protestors faces who haven’t been shot. 
Do not fire directly at persons as serious injury or death may result.
[thumb=B]protest.JPG[/thumb]
By the dawn's early light.....
I saw the best "on-the-street" interview the other day.
Some protestors were laying down in the street, and trying to tie up traffic. The police came and started to break up the group. A reporter ran over and found a woman laying on the sidewalk. He was asking her what she was protesting, and she gave him the "No War for Oil, Not in My Name" line. He asked why she was lying on the sidewalk, and she said "If I lie in the road they will arrest me, and I need to get to work soon so I am lying on the sidewalk!"
Now there is some dedication to the cause!
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Ohioguy: *
Now there is some dedication to the cause!
[/QUOTE]
Let's not criticize her. It still takes guts to actually take time off your schedule and participate in a protest. Not everyone can, or should, be expected to give the same level of participation.
Those pictures are awful.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Ohioguy: *
..... He asked why she was lying on the sidewalk, and she said "If I lie in the road they will arrest me, and I need to get to work soon so I am lying on the sidewalk!"
Now there is some dedication to the cause!
[/QUOTE]
I wonder how many dedicated protestors participate by just lying down in their beds. It sounds a lot safer. No jail and no bean bags to dodge.
[QUOTE]
Originally posted by Thap: *
**Do not fire directly at persons as serious injury or death may result.*
[thumb=B]protest.JPG[/thumb]
By the dawn's early light.....
[/QUOTE]
This is pretty harsh stuff. Even when playing paintball you shouldn't aim for the head. This could have killed her had it hit higher on her head. The cops need to be careful and the protestors have a responsibility to disperse when told to.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by storch: *
This could have killed her had it hit higher on her head.
[/QUOTE]
My bet is that the place least likely to cause damage to her is by hitting her in the head.
“Safer” ? 
Is that democracy in action.
Whether or not we agree with their political perspectives, we should be worried about the rights of these protestors because, after all, they are simply exercising their right to protest and freedom of expression (as long as they do not intentionally injure someone else). These are the true patriots and citizens in every sense of the word :k:
runs away from thread
They do need to be careful with those things, as mom said, you could put an eye out ....
Almost as bad as dating Mike Tyson.....
Nadia: Our Constitution gives people/protestors the right to “peacably assemble.” Peaceful assembly does NOT include blocking traffic or blockading loading docks or interfering with the rights of others. “Intentionally injuring someone else” is not the test.
The fact is that many sponsoring organizations of these protests have given up on peacefully assembling in parks or other public places, giving speeches and carrying posters. Instead, they are advocating “direct action” and “civil disobedience” which are code words for violating the law and infringing upon the rights of others.
These people just don’t get it. They think the vast majority of Americans don’t buy into their viewpoint because we haven’t heard their message so they take more extreme measures trying to force us hear them. The truth is that the vast majority of Americans have heard them and we think they are misguided left-wing liberal trash and/or useful idiots for others who are either misguided left-wing liberal trash (at best) or virulent very well guided anti-Americans (at worst).
OG, for some reason i think dating Mike Tyson would be more dangerous.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by myvoice: *
**Our Constitution gives people/protestors the right to "peacably assemble." Peaceful assembly does NOT include blocking traffic or blockading loading docks or interfering with the rights of others. "Intentionally injuring someone else" is not the test.
...] Instead, they are advocating "direct action" and "civil disobedience" which are code words for violating the law and infringing upon the rights of others. ...] The truth is that the vast majority of Americans have heard them and we think they are misguided left-wing liberal trash and/or useful idiots for others who are either misguided left-wing liberal trash (at best) or virulent very well guided anti-Americans (at worst).
[/QUOTE]
**
MyVoice,
You don't understand the mentality of "these" protestors (in Canada, i am one of "them"). Perhaps question why so many North Americans have become so disillusioned with the political system that they feel they have absolutely no other means of being represented in a system whose officials they elected - you call it civil disobedience, but some of us call it civil obedience. If the political system reaches a point where we perceive it does not reflect our perspectives and concerns, then what other alternatives would you propose? My own member of parliament refused to meet me for about six months, writing letters to her never seemed to help. If i feel more powerful as a Canadian citizen by protesting down my downtown streets - then so be it.
As for violence - well, we have had millions upon millions of protestors from Antarctica to Rio de Janeiro to Durban to Helsinki. i think overall, there was an astonishingly low level of violence at these global protests.
MyVoice,
Maybe I am a little more mellow than you.
I personally think that protest is a great thing. With the Vietnam protestors, dang, a few years later it turned out they were right, and it had become the majority opinion.
I think in some quarters, however, the protests take on the tone of a street fair, or a cool get together. If somebody wants to throw themselves down in front of traffic, well, so be it. Remember both you and I have advocated aggressive forms of civil disobedience in lieu of suicide bombings by the Palestinians.
On the other hand, as Robert Blake used to say, "Don't do the crime if you can't pay the time...."
[QUOTE]
Originally posted by Nadia_H: *
**MyVoice,
Perhaps question why so many North Americans have become so disillusioned with the political system that they feel they have absolutely no other means of being represented in a system whose officials they elected - you call it civil disobedience, but some of us call it civil obedience. If the political system reaches a point where **we perceive* it does not reflect our perspectives and concerns, then what other alternatives would you propose? My own member of parliament refused to meet me for about six months, writing letters to her never seemed to help. If i feel more powerful as a Canadian citizen by protesting down my downtown streets - then so be it.
[/QUOTE]
Hey Nadia. We don’t allow people to infringe on the rights of others just because they perceive things are not going as they hoped. Do you think you have the right to barricade your parliament member in her office until she listens to you? Perhaps, hold her hostage at the end of a gun until she says she hears you out? What you CAN do if you think she is not representing you adequately is vote for someone else and peacefully encourage others to do likewise. If you are in the minority and she wins again, well …. So be it.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Ohioguy: *
MyVoice,
Maybe I am a little more mellow than you.
I personally think that protest is a great thing. With the Vietnam protestors, dang, a few years later it turned out they were right, and it had become the majority opinion.
I think in some quarters, however, the protests take on the tone of a street fair, or a cool get together. If somebody wants to throw themselves down in front of traffic, well, so be it. Remember both you and I have advocated aggressive forms of civil disobedience in lieu of suicide bombings by the Palestinians.
[/QUOTE]
Ohio Guy: I’m all for protest. I’d have no problem with any one of the anti-war protestors sitting in the middle of a park, pouring gasoline on himself or herself and immolating himself/herself to protest the war. I don’t want him/her to do it on the streets I need to take home after work causing me to miss the start of Everybody Loves Raymond.
Too many people forget that we are on Orange Alert right now and we are literally trying to fend off terrorist attacks at home. I traveled to Los Angeles about 2 weeks ago and found extremely heavy police presence and roadblocks in the federal district downtown. A peaceful protest in the park does not require drawing law enforcement personnel away from serious duties they are performing protecting the average American against terrorist attacks. “Direct Action” that violates the law and interferes with my rights like blockading roads, harbors, piers, etc. drains law enforcement resources and also places many Americans at increased risk. I have no sympathy for law-breaking protestors who find that the price of their protest is a whelp or two from rubber bullets and beanbags. Their punishment ought to be a lot worse if their law-breaking makes a site more vulnerable to terrorist attack and leads to other Americans losing their lives in such an attack.