Protesters converge on the Hilton Hotel in Burlington. Photo by Greg Guma
Activists who say they were repeatedly shot with rubber pellets during a confrontation with police last Sunday at the Hilton Hotel have filed a public records request with the Burlington Police Department.
At a press briefing outside City Hall on Wednesday Jared Carter, managing attorney at the Vermont Community Law Center, said that both the community and the activists involved deserve answers to a series of important questions. “People I’ve spoken with involved in social and community organizing over the decades do not remember a time where a peaceful protest escalated to the point where it did on Sunday, where people were injured, where people were shot multiple times with rubber bullets,” Carter said.
Jonathan Leavitt, one of the organizers of protests coinciding with the 36th Annual Conference of New England Governors and Eastern Canadian Premiers, stood silently beside the lawyer for most of the press conference. In a prepared statement, however, Leavitt stated that he was “walking away with my hands up” when he was shot with rubber munitions that left 19 bruises.
“In light of the events Sunday Vermont needs to have a serious conversation about so-called ‘less-than-lethal’ munitions and protected First Amendment speech,” Leavitt said. Although Carter has not been retained to represent anyone, he advised Leavitt not to answer reporters’ questions. Carter added that he has spoken to three people who say they were shot, and has seen their various bruises.
Sandra Baird, an attorney on the Law Center’s board, said that the police response last Sunday differs from how Burlington has handled such civil disobedience in the past. “If they don’t move, they get arrested,” she explained. “In this case apparently more excessive steps were taken. In other protests, people were arrested, brought to court, and had a chance to answer the charges against them.”
On July 31, attorney Barry Kade sent a public records request to Burlington Police Chief Michael Schirling on behalf of the protesters, requesting information on the policy for use of “less-lethal” weapons, any incident reports generated after the Hilton incident, all communications between the local police department and both state and federal agencies about security for the conference, and whether any policy covers “the removal by uniformed police officers on name-tags or badges while on duty.”
“We would also like an inventory of all the non-lethal weapons that were used during the protest, as well as a description of the details of those weapons,” Carted added. The reason for this request is reports online that “some of these weapons were expired and should not have been used,” he said.
The confrontation began late Sunday afternoon, after several hours of peaceful protests in two city parks and the hotel driveway. About 500 people, many coming from Canada and other New England states, had gathered to voice their opposition to tar sands oil shipments and other regional development projects near the gathering of regional leaders.
After most activists left, a smaller group decided to block tour buses carrying people who were attending the conference. When the vehicles attempted to use a side entrance about 25 protesters stood in the driveway with banners. Riders on the bus snapped pictures while activists outside shouted “the whole world is watching,” a chant dating back to anti-Vietnam War protests at the 1968 Democratic National Convention.
After a few minutes, eight riot-clad police assembled in a row in front of a bus, with more nearby in reserve. The protesters were asked to move but did not initially comply. A few moments passed before the police began to advance, their shields up. The protesters slowly cleared a path.
Accounts differ from this point. Police claim they were provoked, protesters deny it. Videoclips and photos have circulated since Sunday, but the material available so far has not resolved all the questions. A police report of the incident said that some protesters “began pushing back” while others were on the ground with locked arms, but no video released thus far shows those moments.
The police report does say that “two officers discharged defensive munitions,” listing eight to 10 pepper balls, a sting ball round that projected several rubber “stingball pellets,” and pepper spray. Leavitt’s testimony about sustaining 19 bruises and the injuries seen by Carter raise questions about that estimate.
“The community and individuals involved deserve answers,” Carter said. “We won’t solve this problem with press releases and platitudes.” On the other hand, he said it is too early to talk about a potential lawsuit. “We’re nowhere near that state. We need to get to the bottom of what happened,” he said.
Baird noted that recent statements from the police suggest that charges could be brought against some protesters. Following up on that, Carter said that the request for records and dialogue represent “more of a defensive posture.”
Before speaking with the press on Wednesday Carter left a message about it at the mayor’s office, but had not yet spoken directly with any local officials. “We’ve begun to reach out,” he said. Mike Kanerick, assistant to Mayor Miro Weinberger, attended the press conference and took notes.
Carter also acknowledged that it is not yet clear who did what. “But the chilling effect it has on future activism in Vermont is important to recognize,” he added.
Previous court decisions have given the police authority to use force in some situations, “but not excessive force,”Carter explained. Asked whether that definition applied to this case, he responded carefully that the protesters were “not claiming that at this point.” However, he noted that the current video evidence does not show police being provoked.
“We have the individuals with their rights, and we have the unity of the community, which is equally important,” Carter continued. In some instances, “police are allowed to use force. We just don’t know whether that force (at the Hilton) was reasonable under the law.”
Leavitt was less conciliatory in his statement, accusing “powerful institutions” of violating the basic right to speak and assemble and, after the police response, attempting to “explain away the policy of firing upon their own Vermont citizens.”
Permalink |
Police are charged with enforcing the law. IF these protesters were breaking a law, they should have been arrested and removed. The police did not arrest, or charge anyone with a crime. Instead, the beat, shot and injured people who were peaceful and showed no threat to anyone. This is called one thing: ASSAULT. Where are the criminal charges and law suits agains these clear assaults? Police have a tough job dealing with protesters, I have nothing against police doing their job. But this was assault, and this cannot be tolerated.
Unless we’re ready to admit that our civilian police and constitutional rule of law, innocent until proven guilty, etc has been turned into a MILITARY force where anyone is an enemy-combatant and is guilty until proven innocent? Is that the message this story is really telling? Tough luck, you have no rights, shut up or I’ll bust your face?
Permalink |
Gaelan thank you.
I appreciate your comments and would like to add just one thing if I may.
The difference between “ASSAULT” and “BRUTALITY” is this:
One takes place IN uniform / on duty, and the other does NOT.
To the best of my knowledge ASSAULT takes place when the officer is “OFF DUTY” and “BRUTALITY” happens IN uniform on duty.
For example: If an officer is assigned to work a protest and beats the shit out of a protester (either provoked or not) this would be an example of “Police Brutality.” You may include shooting with rubber bullets, tasing, use of their baton or any number of other violent actions.
If that same officer gets busted and subsequently fired for it because someone filmed him and posted it on Youtube, then in frustration goes home and beats the shit out of his wife in the same mannor, this would be “Assault.”
The actions and violence perpetrated may be entirely the same but one takes place in uniform on duty, while the other takes place off duty out of uniform.
Thank you for your post and I agree.
Permalink |
“has been turned into a MILITARY force where anyone is an enemy-combatant and is guilty until proven innocent?”
Those of us who were around in the sixties and seventies saw this same thing. I agree that the cops on the riot line have a tough job, protecting both sides, but our society is so much more militarized now than then and the cops, especially, in the cities, could be brutal. I hope that it is not happening in Vermont, but this is an ominous note that it is.
Permalink |
I posted this statement on the VPR web site yesterday, to comment on the Burlington Police Chief’s appearance during Vermont Edition:
I was present as a witness during the confrontation between police and protesters on July 29th. I was not involved, but was directly across the street from the scene. I was shocked to see riot equipped police with two dogs appear, and suddenly begin firing their pellet weapons with no apparent provocation – it was really frightening, even for bystanders. There is no doubt in my mind that this event was provoked by police, simply by their unexpected menacing appearance. How in the world can a riot squad brandishing “non-lethal” weaponry be justified for a small group of lightly clad (due to heat) people who had clearly expressed their intention to behave non-violently? It is a disgrace to our democracy-loving state.
Permalink |
When a group of peaceful, well mannered but determined protesters, these weren’t terrorists, are confronted by riot police with shields, masks, guns, etc. it creates an unhealthy and unnecessary atmosphere of increased confrontation. In my mind, the police and the mayor are solely responsible for this sad outcome.
Even sadder is the fact that the police have upped the intimidation anti unnecessarily. I’m fearful that the police have just upped the level of protest. It’s simply a variation of Newton’s law of motion.
Add to this the intrusion and intimidation of the FBI into peaceful protesters lives. And the labeling them as “terrorists” does nothing but inflame the situation.
I’m reminded of the WW I veterans march on Washington over Congress and the White Houses denying of their hard earned benefits. And how they were met by the National Guard with armor and bullets.
Permalink |
Well said Jed.
If the police, albeit local, state or federal train long and hard enough for a scenario requiring a violent confrontation, eventually, that scenario will come to fruition. The excuse will be that “We should just let them do their job” when in fact THEY will be the ones insurecting our peaceful protests.
The same is true with our military unfortunately. If we tax payers provide them with more and more guns and combat equipment, they will need to “Train” with those guns and eventually, the training will lead to their actual use, when in fact we hire the police and military to maintain the peace, not destroy it.
This is revolting.
Its like a big lie to the public and media.
It is exactly the opposite of why we hire the police and military in the first place.
Permalink |
I’d like to state that it’s not the rank and file police officers I pointing the finger at. It’s the chief and his staff and the Mayor as well as the FBI who bear this responsibility. Sending the officers out in riot gear and special weapons against, as protesters are now defined “terrorists” creates an unintended but well understood dynamic.
Permalink |
Agreed.
It is the higher ups which are responsible.
I’d say the majority of officers are good hard working people also. In fact the individuals responsible are good people but given too much discretionary power puts their good intentions at risk.
The Chief of the Burlington Police lied ( I mean unequivically lied to me ) and the public recording of the incident went missing. I don’t think that just because someone is in a position of authority that they should go unsupervised or blindly followed.
I think that the “dynamic” you’re talking about is just a little more criminal than you’ve let on.
These are the police. We hire them to help us maintain law and order. Peaceful protestors are NOT “Terrorists” and this is NOT an opportunity to expend munitions, tear gas or any other violent means with peaceful protestors.
It makes them look STUPID, rudimentary and poorly informed of the peaceful community they are supposed to be serving.
Remember, the first act of police misconduct is to misinform and mischaracterize the situation.
Permalink
The responsibility for this action by police rests squarely on the Chief. He calls the shots (pun intended). If he is permitted to get away with this one, it will signal that they, The Police are Above The Law and can do anything they want and no one can Do Any Thing About It…Hopefully the people of Burlington will not allow this to happen and insist on answers untill the truth of what hapened here is finally told.
Permalink |
What’s really sad is that we have really good people here in VT and this could have been handled very differently. At any point the Police Chief, or the Governor, or Senator…or whoever was there as a VT representative could have stood out there publicly and said that the protestors were heard and their position understood…they did not need to say they agreed…it didn’t need to be a rally… just acknowledging their stance would have been enough for any of our people and I’m really disappointed in our Reps for not doing that before the police brutality happened. Instead what we saw was pure force and power, letting us “little people” know that we don’t matter in the eyes of those who “control” us!!! Our Reps are supposed to represent our wants/needs/desires not tell us this is how it’s going to be, like it or not, which is what this force did on that Sunday afternoon….
Permalink |
“Instead what we saw was pure force and power, . . .”
Pure power lies in peace, not force. Those who resolve with force and power are, in fact, weak.
True “power” lies in the ability to mediate and resolve peacefully WITHOUT the use of force.
I understand and agree with what you’re saying though.
Permalink |
I am so happy to see each comment above. Each is so right on the mark. Thank you all. What to add? The truth is simply the truth! It’s so simple. All this overlay of police brutality is aberrant, dangerous, and in denial of normal healthy expression of the truth. The simple truth is that ‘people’ are expressing their views for other people to hear. The police have no business interfering in such a public expression of views on a subject which will have damaging and distressing impacts on their lives, their welfare, their environment, and their future.