we need freedom to keep working
On 2/17/23, Gunnar Larson <[email protected]> wrote: > Where are the logs? > > LET CYPHERPUNKS EVERYWHERE KNOW BRODY LARSON HAS A SUPREME COURT DECISION > ON HAVANA SYNDROME: > https://ottawacitizen.com/news/local-news/havana-syndrome-part-2-how-a-dogs-brain-may-help-solve-the-mystery-of-canadian-diplomats-cuban-nightmare > . > > LONG LIVE BRODY. > > What a great dog. > > ------ > > Judge Robert Sweet rejected the argument, ruling, “This is force, and the > kind that could be used excessively.” > > The de Blasio administration appealed the decision, but in 2018 the 2nd > Circuit affirmed it, forcefully rejecting the City’s argument that > subjecting people to dangerously loud sound isn’t a use of force. “Even > though sound waves are a novel method for deploying force,” the court wrote > in its opinion, “the effect of an LRAD’s area denial function is familiar: > pain and incapacitation.” > > The 2nd Circuit also reaffirmed that just because there isn’t case law > governing a new technology for hurting people, that doesn’t give police a > blank check to use that technology however they want. “Novel technology,” > the court wrote, “does not entitle an officer to qualified immunity.” > > Still unwilling to concede the point, the de Blasio administration > petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court in 2018 to overturn the lower courts’ > rulings, but the court declined to hear the request. > > > On Sun, Feb 12, 2023, 8:49 AM Gunnar Larson <[email protected]> wrote: > >> >> https://gothamist.com/news/city-settles-lawsuit-protesters-who-accused-nypd-firing-sound-cannon-them >> >> >> The City has agreed to pay $748,000 to settle a lawsuit brought by Black >> Lives Matter protesters who said the NYPD illegally targeted >> demonstrators >> with Long Range Acoustic Devices [LRAD] in 2014. Under the settlement, >> the >> NYPD will also ban the use of the LRAD’s powerful “deterrent tone” and, >> for >> the first time, generate a written policy governing the use of the >> devices. >> >> The suit stems from a demonstration in December of that year, when a >> group >> was marching in midtown Manhattan to protest a grand jury’s refusal to >> indict the officer who killed Staten Island resident Eric Garner using a >> banned chokehold. As part of an effort to disperse the crowd, two police >> officers repeatedly used the powerful tone generated by their LRAD. Some >> of >> the journalists and protesters who were in close range at the time >> complained afterwards of pain, ringing in their ears, and migraines that >> lasted for days afterwards. >> >> The LRAD was initially developed for the U.S. Navy after terrorists >> attacked the U.S.S. Cole in 2000, using a small boat laden with >> explosives. >> Like its successors, the original LRAD served a dual function, on the one >> hand serving as a public-address system capable of communicating >> ship-to-ship over very long distances, and on the other hand capable of >> creating a cone of noise so loud and painful that it could deter anyone >> from approaching. >> >> Police forces soon realized these dual functions could be used in >> policing >> protests, and began adding them to their arsenals. The NYPD used its >> first >> LRAD to address protesters during the 2004 Republican National >> Convention, >> though it wouldn’t begin regularly deploying LRADs to protests until >> 2014. >> Less frequently, police have also used the device’s piercing sound-weapon >> function against protesters. The NYPD devices are capable of producing >> sound as loud as 137 decibels, well over the threshold that can cause >> pain >> and lasting damage to human ears. >> >> In 2012, Captain Anthony Raganella, the commander of the NYPD’s Disorder >> Control Unit, requested the department replace his unit’s LRADs with new >> models: a truck-mounted 500X LRAD at $23,000, and two handheld 100X LRADs >> at $7,680 each. (The request was included in a larger proposal that >> included $30,000 for pepper spray and pepper-ball weapons, thousands more >> for rubber pellet grenades and chemical irritant grenades, and $16,000 >> for >> orange crowd-control netting.) In an internal email explaining to the >> NYPD >> grants unit the necessity of his request, Raganella cited the threat >> posed >> by the Animal Liberation Front, the Earth Liberation Front, and People >> for >> the Ethical Treatment of Animals. “The requested equipment would be used >> to >> train and ensure the readiness of the Department to respond to any civil >> unrest caused by these terrorist groups,” Raganella wrote. >> >> Today’s settlement brings final resolution to a landmark case first filed >> five years ago, but the City’s legal defeat dates back to a judge’s 2017 >> ruling. The de Blasio administration had argued that police couldn’t be >> held liable for excessive force in using an LRAD because they never >> actually touched anybody. “The officers' creation of a sound that >> plaintiffs happened to hear cannot be considered 'physical contact,’” >> City >> lawyers claimed. “the LRAD is not an instrumentality of force, but a >> communication device.” >> >> Judge Robert Sweet rejected the argument, ruling, “This is force, and the >> kind that could be used excessively.” >> >> The de Blasio administration appealed the decision, but in 2018 the 2nd >> Circuit affirmed it, forcefully rejecting the City’s argument that >> subjecting people to dangerously loud sound isn’t a use of force. “Even >> though sound waves are a novel method for deploying force,” the court >> wrote >> in its opinion, “the effect of an LRAD’s area denial function is >> familiar: >> pain and incapacitation.” >> >> The 2nd Circuit also reaffirmed that just because there isn’t case law >> governing a new technology for hurting people, that doesn’t give police a >> blank check to use that technology however they want. “Novel technology,” >> the court wrote, “does not entitle an officer to qualified immunity.” >> >> Still unwilling to concede the point, the de Blasio administration >> petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court in 2018 to overturn the lower courts’ >> rulings, but the court declined to hear the request. >> >> Notwithstanding courts’ repeated findings that the deployment of LRADs >> could constitute use of force, current NYPD training takes pains to >> assert >> that the LRAD is not a weapon. “The LRAD is not any of these,” reads one >> slide from an LRAD training program for the Disorder Control Unit: “Sound >> Cannon; Sound Gun; Wave Gun; Sonic Weapons; Active Denial System.” >> >> “The tone does not create a sonic wave, blast or have the ability to >> cause >> physical injury like a weapon,” one training presentation reads, >> explaining >> that NYPD officers may use the tone “to help gain attention of >> individuals” >> in bursts of up to three seconds separated by at least a second. >> >> In settling the suit, the City does not concede that police officers >> using >> the LRAD broke any laws or violated anyone’s rights. >> >> But under the terms of the settlement, the NYPD commits to update its >> administrative guide and its officer training to ban the use of the >> deterrent tone altogether, and require police using LRADs to “make >> reasonable efforts to maintain minimum safe distances between the LRAD >> and >> all persons within its cone of sound.” Officers who fail to do so “may be >> subject to such further discipline as deemed appropriate.” >> >> The City will also pay the five plaintiffs in the case a total of >> $98,000, >> as well as $650,000 in fees for their lawyers, Gideon Oliver, Elena >> Cohen, >> and Michael Decker, all affiliated with the National Lawyers Guild. >> >> Annika Edrei, the lead plaintiff in the case, was a journalism student in >> 2014 when she found herself caught in the LRAD’s cone of sound, and >> suffered migraines for a week afterwards. The experience, she said, >> discouraged her from attending protests for years. “I actually gave up on >> a >> major part of my photography career,” she said. Speaking of the >> settlement, >> she said, “I hope that protesters in the future are more protected >> because >> of our actions.” >> >> “The City could have and should have decided to make policy change and >> pay >> our clients for their injuries much earlier,” said Oliver. “But instead >> of >> doing that, they fought tooth and nail for years in this case, and so in >> addition to damages and policy change, the city has to pay attorneys’ >> fees >> that are much higher than they would have been.” >> >
