[Imc] lamb et al v. city of decatur et al

[sigfried at shout.net]

Some quick notes about the pepper gassing of staley protesters
trial.

I've got a copy of the complaint and a list of all the documents
associated witht he trial on my desk at ojc, if anyone wants
to read them.

The counts are: excessive force (42 usc 1983 and fourth ammendment),
conspiracy (to deprive plaintiffs of constitutional rights),
intentional infliction of emotional distress, assault and battery.

The plaintiffs are saying that the protest was peaceful, people
were sitting or standing with their backs to the police when
the police sprayed pepper gas directly in the faces of some,
and generally in the direction of the rest. 

This is a class action suit with two classes, people sprayed
directly and people who had pepper gas waft over them.  There
are about 6 people in the first class (i think) and about 79
in the second class.

The defense claims that the protesters were attempting to break 
through police lines, there is video tape including a chant of
"cross that line! cross that line!"  They claim that the police
did not use excessive force, that the police informed protest
leaders prior to the protest that pepper gas would be used
under certain conditions, that the protesters were prepared
for the police to use pepper gas and they were determined to
break through the police lines anyway, using masks and cloths
over their faces; and that the police prevented violence which
would have occurred if they hadn't used gas.

Yesterday afternoon the judge sent the jury home because he
needed to watch a video the police took which will be presented
as evidence.  The plaintiff's attorney, Jan Sussler requested
that the video be shown without sound.  Her argument was that
voices heard on the video would constitute hearsay evidence
(statements made by people who are not witnesses available for 
cross examination at the trial).  It seemed that her real
reason was that the protest is very loud and chaotic and would
be used by the defendants to show how they were justifiably
afraid of the unruly crowd.  Her request was overruled.  The
judge said that the sound on the video would not only be allowed
but that it would be a mistake not to include it since it
conveys part of the totality of circumstances necessary for
understanding what happened that day.


Unfortunately i have way too much work to do at the office and
i'm leaving town for a few days tomorrow, so i'm not going
to get to the trial any more this week.  I'm actually very
distraught about this.  The trial is fascinating.  There are
also a couple of clergy people there who are supporting the
union members and have been involved in this for a long time,
including a woman who is writing a book about the whole issue
for the university of illinois press.  These people are all
here from out of town.  They will be very busy during the trial
(the plaintiffs, their attorneys, and these clergy and other
people supporting them).  They're all from out of town and I offered
them hospitality and told them that SDS and IMC would love to
talk to them, but i think they will be too busy while they're
here to take us up on those offers.

I very much hope that people will keep going and writing about it.

It's much better than tv.

sigfried


.------------------------------------------------------------.
| Sigfried Gold                        sigfried at onthejob.net |
| (217) 278-3933                            www.onthejob.net |
`------------------------------------------------------------'