Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Police Aggressors Attack Protestors Who Weren't Protesting

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Police Aggressors Attack Protestors Who Weren't Protesting

    Several "hippie homes" are raided this morning by semi-automatic-weapon-wielding police squads.



    Massive police raids on suspected protestors in Minneapolis



    Several "hippie homes" are raided this morning by semi-automatic-weapon-wielding police squads.


    Glenn Greenwald

    Aug. 30, 2008 | [updated below (with video) - Update II - Update III]


    Protesters here in Minneapolis have been targeted by a series of highly intimidating, sweeping police raids across the city, involving teams of 25-30 officers in riot gear, with semi-automatic weapons drawn, entering homes of those suspected of planning protests, handcuffing and forcing them to lay on the floor, while law enforcement officers searched the homes, seizing computers, journals, and political pamphlets. Last night, members of the St. Paul police department and the Ramsey County sheriff's department handcuffed, photographed and detained dozens of people meeting at a public venue to plan a demonstration, charging them with no crime other than "fire code violations," and early this morning, the Sheriff's department sent teams of officers into at least four Minneapolis area homes where suspected protesters were staying.

    Jane Hamsher and I were at two of those homes this morning -- one which had just been raided and one which was in the process of being raided. Each of the raided houses is known by neighbors as a "hippie house," where 5-10 college-aged individuals live in a communal setting, and everyone we spoke with said that there had never been any problems of any kind in those houses, that they were filled with "peaceful kids" who are politically active but entirely unthreatening and friendly. Posted below is the video of the scene, including various interviews, which convey a very clear sense of what is actually going on here.

    In the house that had just been raided, those inside described how a team of roughly 25 officers had barged into their homes with masks and black swat gear, holding large semi-automatic rifles, and ordered them to lie on the floor, where they were handcuffed and ordered not to move. The officers refused to state why they were there and, until the very end, refused to show whether they had a search warrant. They were forced to remain on the floor for 45 minutes while the officers took away the laptops, computers, individual journals, and political materials kept in the house. One of the individuals renting the house, an 18-year-old woman, was extremely shaken as she and others described how the officers were deliberately making intimidating statements such as "Do you have Terminator ready?" as they lay on the floor in handcuffs. The 10 or so individuals in the house all said that though they found the experience very jarring, they still intended to protest against the GOP Convention, and several said that being subjected to raids of that sort made them more emboldened than ever to do so.

    Several of those who were arrested are being represented by Bruce Nestor, the President of the Minnesota chapter of the National Lawyers' Guild. Nestor said that last night's raid involved a meeting of a group calling itself the "RNC Welcoming Committee", and that this morning's raids appeared to target members of "Food Not Bombs," which he described as an anti-war, anti-authoritarian protest group. There was not a single act of violence or illegality that has taken place, Nestor said. Instead, the raids were purely anticipatory in nature, and clearly designed to frighten people contemplating taking part in any unauthorized protests.

    Nestor indicated that only 2 or 3 of the 50 individuals who were handcuffed this morning at the 2 houses were actually arrested and charged with a crime, and the crime they were charged with is "conspiracy to commit riot." Nestor, who has practiced law in Minnesota for many years, said that he had never before heard of that statute being used for anything, and that its parameters are so self-evidently vague, designed to allow pre-emeptive arrests of those who are peacefully protesting, that it is almost certainly unconstitutional, though because it had never been invoked (until now), its constitutionality had not been tested.

    There is clearly an intent on the part of law enforcement authorities here to engage in extreme and highly intimidating raids against those who are planning to protest the Convention. The DNC in Denver was the site of several quite ugly incidents where law enforcement acted on behalf of Democratic Party officials and the corporate elite that funded the Convention to keep the media and protesters from doing anything remotely off-script. But the massive and plainly excessive preemptive police raids in Minnesota are of a different order altogether. Targeting people with automatic-weapons-carrying SWAT teams and mass raids in their homes, who are suspected of nothing more than planning dissident political protests at a political convention and who have engaged in no illegal activity whatsoever, is about as redolent of the worst tactics of a police state as can be imagined.

    UPDATE: Here is the first of the videos, from the house that had just been raided:



    Jane Hamsher has more here, and The Minnesota Independent has a report on another one of the raided houses, here.

    UPDATE II: Here is the video we took from the second house as the raid was occurring. We were barred from entering but spoke with neighbors outside as well as with Bruce Nestor, the President of the Minnesota Lawyer's Guild, regarding these raids:



    Over at FDL, Lindsay Beyerstein spoke with the property owner whose house -- the fourth one we now know of -- was being raided while the raid was in progress, and Lindsay has details here ("About an hour and a half ago 20 to 30 heavily armed police officers surrounded the house. One of my roommates said 'I want to see a warrant' and she was immediately detained"). Meanwhile, Indy Media of Twin Cities -- an association of independent journalists in the area -- just told me that several of their journalists have been detained while trying to cover these raids. Their site, with ongoing updates, is here.

    The Uptake also has several reports of the various raids, including video of the raid at the property whose owner Bernstein spoke with as the raid occurred. That video includes an interview with a lawyer from the National Lawyer's Guild who was detained and put in handcufffs, explaining that the surrounded house is one where various journalists are staying. Additionally, a photojournalist with Democracy Now was detained at that house as well. So, both journalists and lawyers -- in addition to protesters -- have been detained and arrested even though not a single violent or criminal act has occurred.

    UPDATE III: FDL has the transcript of part of my discussion about these raids with the National Lawyer Guild's Minnesota President -- here.

    The Uptake has this amazing video interview with the Democracy Now producer who was detained today. As the DN producer explains, she was present at a meeting of a group called "I-Witness" -- which videotaped police behavior at the 2004 GOP Convention in New York and helped get charges dismissed against hundreds of protesters who were arrested. The police surrounded the St. Paul house where they were meeting even though they had no warrant, told them that anyone who exited the house would be arrested, and then -- even though they finally, after several hours, obtained a warrant only for the house next door -- basically broke into the house, pointed weapons at everyone inside, handcuffed them, searched the house, and then left. Here is a blog post from one of the members of I-Witness asking for help during the time when they were forced to stay inside the house (see the second post -- it reads like a note from a hostage crying out for help). This is truly repugnant, extreme police behavior designed to intimidate protesters, police critics and others, and it ought to infuriate anyone and everyone who cares about basic liberties.

    Christianity: The belief that a cosmic Jewish Zombie who was his own father can make you live forever if you symbolically eat his flesh and telepathically tell him you accept him as your master, so he can remove an evil force from your soul that is present in humanity because a rib-woman was convinced by a talking snake to eat from a magical tree...

  • #2
    If they have nothing to hide then they shouldn't have anything to worry about, right?

    Comment


    • #3
      TLDR for the most part, but why do they go to such pains to emphasize that the police were wielding semi-automatic weapons? Is unwarranted search and seizure hunky-dory provided you're armed a certain way? Did the police have revolvers that they kept holstered while they menaced the hippies with their Berettas? Or are the writers just counting on some ignorant-ass readers to not know the difference between semi- and full automatic and envision the cops running around with big scary assault rifles? I suspect the third possibility.

      Oh yes, and canned outrage about thuggish police goes here, but I stopped reading when I read about the SEMI-AUTOMATIC weapons! OMG!
      1011 1100
      Pyrebound--a free online serial fantasy novel

      Comment


      • #4
        The charges are a joke though. They wanted to protest so they got arrested on a charge of suspicion to riot? Supposedly all the literature confiscated was about peaceful protesting techniques. Lawyers are saying it's a catch all charge often used to disrupt legal protests where people plan to exercise their 1st amendment rights.

        This will get tossed out by the courts but by then the Republican Convention will be over which is why the authorities have done this.
        Try http://wordforge.net/index.php for discussion and debate.

        Comment


        • #5
          But it's all fine as long as someone writes an article about it and stresses the nature of the weapons used

          Comment


          • #6
            Try http://wordforge.net/index.php for discussion and debate.

            Comment


            • #7
              God, if this is true, someone, Russia, China, Iran, someone has got to put us out of our misery.
              You've just proven signature advertising works!

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by Elok
                TLDR for the most part, but why do they go to such pains to emphasize that the police were wielding semi-automatic weapons? Is unwarranted search and seizure hunky-dory provided you're armed a certain way? Did the police have revolvers that they kept holstered while they menaced the hippies with their Berettas? Or are the writers just counting on some ignorant-ass readers to not know the difference between semi- and full automatic and envision the cops running around with big scary assault rifles? I suspect the third possibility.

                Oh yes, and canned outrage about thuggish police goes here, but I stopped reading when I read about the SEMI-AUTOMATIC weapons! OMG!
                Obviously semi-automatic weapons are more threatening, and the purpose was to terrorize these young people.
                I drank beer. I like beer. I still like beer. ... Do you like beer Senator?
                - Justice Brett Kavanaugh

                Comment


                • #9
                  Do you know what semi-automatic means, Kid? I don't know that I've ever seen or heard of a modern-day cop being issued a revolver. I suppose they do still use some bolt-action sniper rifles for improved accuracy, but I take it as a given that they not drag bulky long-range weapons into a house raid. In any case, I'd crap my pants if a cop pointed a .50 rifle the size of a fencepost at me. Or a .45 six-shooter.

                  I realize this is a very trifling point, but the adjective is extraneous and annoying.
                  1011 1100
                  Pyrebound--a free online serial fantasy novel

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by Elok
                    Do you know what semi-automatic means, Kid? I don't know that I've ever seen or heard of a modern-day cop being issued a revolver. I suppose they do still use some bolt-action sniper rifles for improved accuracy, but I take it as a given that they not drag bulky long-range weapons into a house raid. In any case, I'd crap my pants if a cop pointed a .50 rifle the size of a fencepost at me. Or a .45 six-shooter.

                    I realize this is a very trifling point, but the adjective is extraneous and annoying.
                    Combat type cops use semi-automatic weapons. Regular cops use handguns and shotguns in some cases. If it's a felony arrest they use a shotgun in some cases. This wasn't a felony arrest.
                    I drank beer. I like beer. I still like beer. ... Do you like beer Senator?
                    - Justice Brett Kavanaugh

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Armed police would have been wrong because of frequent use of tasers these days. Gun would have been wrong because that could mean assault weapon also.

                      Details
                      Using words we don't like
                      Christians putting atheists in their place with semi-automatic weapons

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by Kidicious
                        Combat type cops use semi-automatic weapons. Regular cops use handguns and shotguns in some cases. If it's a felony arrest they use a shotgun in some cases. This wasn't a felony arrest.
                        ...I repeat, do you know what semi-automatic means? It means that the ammunition is pre-loaded in a clip or magazine of some sort, so that a round is automatically chambered after each shot. You still have to pull the trigger for each and every shot. The advantage of semi-automatic weapons is ease of reload. In terms of lethality or stopping power or what-have-you they're identical except insofar as a man with a semi-automatic will be more efficient due to not having to fumble a new round in by whatever means after every shot.

                        The only reason not to have a semi-automatic weapons--except in sniper weapons, where I understand the added complexity introduced by the reload mechanism introduces a slight but unacceptable decrease in accuracy and reliability compared to the negligible gain from reloading what's meant to be a one-shot weapon--is having a low budget or wanting to be sportsmanlike. If you look at a cop on the street, odds are you'll see a semi-automatic pistol on his hip. He's not trying to be menacing, he just doesn't feel like reloading his revolver one bullet at a time when the **** hits the fan. Or carrying around those stupid easy-spill "daisy wheels."

                        Now, I don't think they needed rifles, which if anything would be a disadvantage in close quarters due to their bulk. But the semi-automatic bit I'd take for granted. Maybe Donegeal can correct or shed some light on this point.
                        1011 1100
                        Pyrebound--a free online serial fantasy novel

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          With buckets of Urine?

                          Didn't protesters throw urine filled balloons at the DNC protests?
                          Today, you are the waves of the Pacific, pushing ever eastward. You are the sequoias rising from the Sierra Nevada, defiant and enduring.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            These are hippies, Lonestar - if that really is your name - they live like that!

                            Edit: fat-fingering on my behalf.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by Elok


                              ...I repeat, do you know what semi-automatic means? It means that the ammunition is pre-loaded in a clip or magazine of some sort, so that a round is automatically chambered after each shot. You still have to pull the trigger for each and every shot. The advantage of semi-automatic weapons is ease of reload. In terms of lethality or stopping power or what-have-you they're identical except insofar as a man with a semi-automatic will be more efficient due to not having to fumble a new round in by whatever means after every shot.

                              The only reason not to have a semi-automatic weapons--except in sniper weapons, where I understand the added complexity introduced by the reload mechanism introduces a slight but unacceptable decrease in accuracy and reliability compared to the negligible gain from reloading what's meant to be a one-shot weapon--is having a low budget or wanting to be sportsmanlike. If you look at a cop on the street, odds are you'll see a semi-automatic pistol on his hip. He's not trying to be menacing, he just doesn't feel like reloading his revolver one bullet at a time when the **** hits the fan. Or carrying around those stupid easy-spill "daisy wheels."

                              Now, I don't think they needed rifles, which if anything would be a disadvantage in close quarters due to their bulk. But the semi-automatic bit I'd take for granted. Maybe Donegeal can correct or shed some light on this point.
                              Yes, I've used a semi-automatic rifle before. I know how it works. I'm trying to avoid your little troll here.
                              I drank beer. I like beer. I still like beer. ... Do you like beer Senator?
                              - Justice Brett Kavanaugh

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X