Mounted cops trample non-violent strikers in Houston

Striking Houston janitors engaged in non-violent civil disobedience were trampled by mounted police. It's not clear whether the police did this on purpose, or whether they were merely shockingly inept at crowd control.

The janitors and their allies were staging a sit-in at a major intersection in Houston.

One of the victims, an 83-year-old woman was taken to hospital after a horse stepped on her arm. As one MyDD diarist noted dryly, these workers are striking for health insurance as well as a living wage.

Note to authoritarian and pseudo-libertarian commenters: Recent discussions of police brutality suggest that some people need some remedial instruction on democracy and the rule of law.

Let's review. Blocking a street or refusing to show ID at the library does not give the police to hurt you.

Maybe you get a kick out of imagining big, strong cops meting out their own rough justice to disruptive and/or inconvenient citizens. But remember, just that's your fantasy--not the law, not their job, and certainly not what's right. The cops can't punish anyone just for pissing them off.

Got that?

[HT: Progressive Gold]

Comments

[Jim]

Thanks for the report and for the reminder to the authoritarians .... let's fight for "democratization" abroad and beat the shit out of dissenters at home.

[aeroman]

Cops can't punish anyone, period.

[Lindsay Beyerstein]

Aeroman's right, authoritarians: Police are not to punish anyone. Do you understand?! Even, and I want to make this absolutely clear, even if they do say 'Jehovah'.

[John Lucid]

We need more street judges. Just because it was a shitty movie doesn't make it a shitty idea. The cops need to carry sponges and canteens so that they can perform waterboarding whenever and wherever necessary. Refusing to display one's ID or any other acts of civil disobedience need to be dealt with swiftly and harshly, or else the terrorists will already have won.

That UCLA student went too far. Yelling at a cop should be punishable by death. Trampling was too good for that elderly Houston janitor. As long as the cops had the horses there she should have been drawn and quartered. Just being an asshole should be a crime. The only problem with establishing this sort of legal framework: Everyone at Stupid Metaphor for Hand Grenades would be in prison.

[Eric Jaffa]

The tasering at UCLA may already be illegal under laws about assault.

Regardless, I would like to see a law specifically written for tasers, making it a felony to taser an unarmed person.

[Lindsay Beyerstein]

I don't know what the law says, but the policing principle is that Tasers are a substitute for lethal force. So, it should be illegal to Taser anyone unless you would otherwise be entitled to shoot them. That would make Tasing illegal for virtually all unarmed suspects and plenty of armed ones as well.

Tasers should also by required by law to have a secure "counter" that records the date and time of every single discharge. Officers should be required to file paperwork on every single Taser firing.

The "burst" mode on a Taser should be also be illegal. Cattle prods are not okay.

[Alon Levy]

The cops can't punish anyone just for pissing them off. Got that?

Yes, they can. The trick is to make laws against it to discourage them from doing so.

[The Phantom]

--I would like to see a law specifically written for tasers, making it a felony to taser an unarmed person.--

A terrible, terrible idea. If you have large, violent, male (or two) attacking or even "just" threatening people with a bat, a broken bottle, or even "just" his bare hands, use of a taser can be highly appropriate.

The proposed law you speak of would endanger both civilians and police, esp female police officers who would not have the physical strength to overcome a large and violent male perp.

Hard cases make bad law, and this hard video should not be used to make more bad law.

[Lindsay Beyerstein]

Well, anyone with a Taser is physically capable of "punishing" anyone who pisses them off.

Taser is even extending its marketing efforts to the general public.

The point is that from a legal POV, it's just assault to physically injure someone who annoys you or who offends community standards of polite behavior. It's not punishment, it's just abuse.

The laws already discourage assault, for cops and everyone else. Citizens should be aware of their rights and the existing legal limits on the authority of the police.

[aeroman]

The tasering, though I'm guessing not the trampling if it was accidental, is probably a federal crime under 18 USC 242:

Whoever, under color of any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom, willfully subjects any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States, ... shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both; and if bodily injury results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include the use, attempted use, or threatened use of a dangerous weapon, explosives, or fire, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both

It's a statute federal prosecutors have often used the statute in brutality settings; for example, they secured convictions of two officers involved in the Rodney King beating under the law.

For what it's worth, even a broken watch is right twice a day, and Phantom is right that the general law Eric suggested seems dangerously overinclusive. It'd be better for prosecutors to rely on the laws we already have.

[aeroman]

To be clear: that's in addition to being potentially criminal under state assault laws.

[Mnemosyne]

If you have large, violent, male (or two) attacking or even "just" threatening people with a bat, a broken bottle, or even "just" his bare hands, use of a taser can be highly appropriate.

Um, two of your three examples are of people who are armed, legally speaking. A bat and a broken bottle are both weapons.

When I was in college, some idiot frat boys were quite properly arrested for assault with a deadly weapon when they used a slingshot to shoot frozen grapefruit at passersby.

[Molly, NYC]

The wherewithal to do that sort of thing is what attracts a lot of people to police work in the first place. Your better police departments try to weed these jackasses out (and until Bush came along, so did our military) but the screening process isn't terrific; and if you've got a superior who thinks patrolmen are supposed to be hired muscle or worse, that's what they're going to act like. (Case in point: Abner Louima. The cops involved had to know, if they'd thought about it for 2 seconds, that their careers were over the minute Louima reported it to anyone but a cop. So why go through with it? I can only guess that assaulting prisoners was so common at that precinct that it didn't occur to them that it might be a problem.)

If this is how Houstom cops act in public, how are they treating arrestees back at their precincts?

[Lindsay Beyerstein]

I think the law should treat Tasers equivalent to lethal force. If you're entitled to shoot a person, you're entitled to Taser them. Otherwise, no.

It's okay to use lethal force on an unarmed suspect who's trying to push a hostage off a bridge, if there's no other way to stop her. OTOH, it's not okay to shoot a fleeing bank robber just because you know he has a gun.

The same standards should apply to Tasers.

The average person doesn't realize how easily these things can kill. IIRC, over a hundred people have died this year in the US alone from Tasers. They can kill young, apparently healthy people. Even imperceptible defects in the size of the arteries to the heart (apparent only at autopsy) can mean the difference between surviving a Taser attack and dying.

Of course, Tasers are often used to subdue people who are high or mentally il. These folks may be at even greater risk than the average suspect. Drug abusers may already have heart rhythm abnormalities. Some of the most widely prescribed drugs for schizophrenia interfere with heart rhythms.

There's a popular perception that Tasers are some kind of cartoon violence. They're not. They're less lethal than bullets, but they're still agonizing and dangerous.

[Chris O.]

Part of me really wants Tasers just plain banned. Obviously if it's a choice of necessity between that or a gun, a Taser is a better, less lethal instrument. On the other hand, they are so very very much more prone to abuse, that I think the trade-off might not be worth it.

[Mike the Mad Biologist]

If you think the horses were bad, they were treated worse once they were in custody

[Molly, NYC]

In answer to my own question, how are the Houston cops treating prisoners?

[TW Andrews]

Note to authoritarian and pseudo-libertarian commenters: Recent discussions of police brutality suggest that some people need some remedial instruction on democracy and the rule of law.

Let's review. Blocking a street or refusing to show ID at the library does not give the police to hurt you.

Any libertarian (big or little "l") worth their salt should be absolutely on the side of the protesters here. This is a textbook example of the state abusing it's monopoly on the use of force, and precisely why it's necessary to have stringent laws delimiting the appropriate behavior of government officials in such situations.

[Soullite]

The lack of blogs covering this is frightening.

I find it impossible to believe it has nothing to do with Chevron's advertising dollars. Atrios spoke of the taser incident, but not this. what's the difference? Atrios doesn't take money from TASER like he does CHEVRON. Neither does DailyKOS. Both accept chevron money, both refuse to cover this incident. This isn't a slander of people who accept Chevron money, clearly. A chevron ad commonly runs on this site. But it's obvious that Kos and Atrios are corrupted and untrustworthy. I always suspected that Kos was too deep in with the enemy, I never really thought that of Atrios before this.

This is a matter of editorial judgement. This is a symptom of the the intense rot in our party and in our country. This is the face of corruption, the violence it breds and the blood that it forces to be shed. Yet some random indy band and random 'heh, indeed' type remarks are more important than even mentioning it happens. This is the same way it began in the print newspapers. Our country is truly lost.

[Lindsay Beyerstein]

The good news is that this story is gathering steam in the blogosphere. Digby has a big post on the janitors. Crooks and Liars linked to stories about it. MyDD is doing a good job on this. It started in the diaries, but the front page posters are running with it. Not sure what's happening on Kos viz the janitors, though. I predict Atrios will get on board soon.

[aeroman]

Atrios doesn't tend to cover topics like this very often. Most of his posts cover either electoral politics, publicity/media issues, blogocentric issues, or more general questions of policy and economics. And Kos himself seems to blog very little, and mostly about elections and party politics. So it doesn't strike me as particularly shocking or suspicious that either of them has individually chosen not to focus too much on this incident. Accusing them of pulling punches because of advertiser relationships seems unfounded to me.

[Kitt]

Let's review. Blocking a street or refusing to show ID at the library does not give the police to hurt you.

Excellent point, Lindsay. Many of those commenting other places were of the notion that blocking the street, protesting or even gathering to protest somehow set the Houston janitors up for deserving whatever came their way.

There are many progressive religious blogs on which I visit and I've left the newstory, info, and other links regarding this. The point of their wages should undoubtedly should 'front & center' as should be the treatment they received following their arrest. Even places like 'Alternate Brain' where I visit because they're all progressive veterans has this as a story today. Class, economics, & unions.

[Lawrence Krubner]

"Any libertarian (big or little "l") worth their salt should be absolutely on the side of the protesters here."

Seriously. It drives me crazy the way people like Glenn Reynolds have redefined "libertarian" to mean "support of the President at all times, no matter what he says or does, and regardless of any silly law that might try to impede his power".

[Bruce/Crablaw]

I was and am a libertarian before that authoritarian asshole Reynolds - the only libertarian I know who supports the growth of an aggressive, intrusive state - stole the name. It isn't trademarked, we sadly cannot sue.

Part of liberty is liberty of assembly and liberty not to work, on one's own or in concert with others. The same right-wing hacks who scream against enforcement of antitrust laws are ready to use state or private violence to bust up the free assembly and actions of workers.

I would respect Reynolds so much more if he would admit "I like big mean ass government that can wreck people." Yeah. Libertarian. About as libertarian as Ted Haggard was a good Christian husband.

[bobby]

Take a look and read at this. Chicago Police Officer responds to a disturbacne by himself and shoots and kills and unarmed citizen with absolutely no cause. The Chicago Police Department then attempts to conceal the murder. The video and the accompanying article explain it all in depth. What are your comments in the UK?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pNQnqwxy9Vc

http://www.chicagoreader.com/features/stories/killedoncamera/

Chicago Police Officer beats female Polish bartender severly after she refuses more free alcohol
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nz6YJtnLtus