A local woman has filed a federal lawsuit against the county of Humboldt and the city of Eureka, alleging police officers violated her constitutional rights when they shot her with less-than-lethal projectiles as she peacefully marched while protesting the May 25, 2020, murder of George Floyd by a Minneapolis police officer.
In the suit filed last month seeking unspecified damages for physical pain and emotional distress, Molly Crane Conso alleges that she was peacefully marching, locked arm-in-arm with other protesters, on May 31, 2020, near the Dutch Bros. parking lot on N Street, when — “suddenly and without warning” — officers shot pepper balls into the crowd and they struck her in the “head, buttocks and breasts.”
“At no time did plaintiff violate any laws or present any harm or threat of harm to the officers or others at the scene,” the lawsuit states. “Upon information and belief, (the officers) gave plaintiff no verbal warning or command before shooting her with projectiles. Upon information and belief, at no time was an order to disburse issued to the peaceful protestors by defendants prior to unlawfully and unjustifiably shooting plaintiff with the projectile.”
The suite alleges Conso suffered injuries to her head, a concussion, post-concussive syndrome, bruising, chemical burns and hearing impairment from being hit with the projectiles, as well as emotional distress as a result of the incident.
On June 1, 2020, EPD Capt. Brian Stephens released a video recorded statement detailing the police response to protests — including the one in which Conso alleges she was injured — that had occurred the prior weekend. Regarding the May 31, 2020, protest, Stephens said EPD officers had been standing by as those participating in the protest marched from the courthouse to various parts of the city. But as the day drew on, Stephens said officers documented numerous incidents of vandalism, including one businesses with a broken window and others that had been spray-painted with graffiti, and identified a suspect.
“At this point, I made the decision to remove the person who we knew was causing the vandalism,” Stephens said, adding that officers with EPD and the sheriff’s office moved into to affect an arrest at the intersection of Fifth and N streets.
But when police took the suspect — later identified as Brent Clark — into custody, Stephens said the crowd turned unruly, with at least one person — later identified as Oliver Winfield Perez — allegedly trying to forcibly remove Clark from police custody.
At that point, Stephens said that “given the escalating circumstances and the safety risks to the officers” police opened fire on the crowd with paintball guns that fire projectiles filled with a powdered pepper spray, commonly referred to as pepper balls. Stephens did not specify how many officers fired or how many people were struck but said there were injuries and police spent “several minutes” on scene trying to de-escalate the situation and offer medical aid. (Watch Stephens full recorded statement below.)
The following video, submitted by a viewer and posted to social media by local television reporter Nazy Javid, appears to capture the incident here:
In her suit, Conso alleges officers used excessive force, violated her First Amendment rights and inflicted emotional distress, while also alleging that the city, county, EPD Chief Steve Watson and Sheriff William Honsal were negligent.
The county and city have yet to respond to the suit, and no trial date has yet been set in the case.
This article appears in Dishgamu Humboldt.
I believe that to have a reasonable idea of how (by)law-enforcers will perform their job, one must understand what underlying nature/desire motivated them to their profession to start with. There are people who sincerely pursue and attain their position of authority, however armed, to help their fellow human beings. But I believe that many, if not most, ‘law-enforcers’ — be they private-property security, community police, prison guards or heavily-armed rapid-response police units — have targeted/acquired such authoritative fields of employment for ‘power’ reasons, albeit perhaps subconsciously.
Society, including me, undoubtedly needs law-enforcers, especially to protect the law-abiding and most vulnerable people. Still, should we ignore the fact that it’s a profession in which they might get to, for example, storm into suspects’ homes, screaming, with fully-automatic machineguns or handguns drawn, at the homes’ occupants (to “face down!”), all of whom, including infants, can be permanently traumatized from the experience.
Occasionally the law-enforcers force their way into the wrong home, altogether; that is when open-fire can and does occur, followed by wrongful deaths to be ‘impartially’ investigated.
Problematically, there may be many people who are in such an armed authority capacity that were reared with an irrational distrust or baseless dislike of people of other races.
One broken window and any/all graffiti is too much. The so called “peaceful protests.”. What a bunch nonsense. Guilty by association? Direct or indirect involvement in a destructive or violent activity is not negotiable (negated… mitigated…excused, etc.).
If you’re going to take part in something of this nature, you either police yourselves (check yourselves) or bare the consequences of others acting silly, irresponsible, dangerous, etc. Again, guilty by association.
Hang out (“peaceful protest”) with a bunch of random people, then you must be prepared/expect the worst too. As the saying goes, “Sh*t happens.”.
A barrage of riot control rubber bullets or chemical deployment maybe a possibility at a public (unruly?) event such as this. Surprise..surprise…you may get hurt or much worse.
Good luck with the lawsuit. Sounds like a money grab. In my opinion, the harmed woman should receive nothing. As I’ve repeatedly stated, “guilty by association.”
“Guilt by association” is why law enforcement, or opposition groups, have been planting violent “instigators” within disliked organizations for many years. It has been an effective tactic to discredit perceived opponents dating back centuries.
Interfering in an arrest is a serious crime, unless they were “instigators”… in other words…not arrested.