SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
Missouri police will restrain the use of tear gas on crowds after Ferguson protesters brought a lawsuit against three law enforcement agencies. (Photo: Reuters)
In Response to Ferguson Lawsuit, Missouri Police to Restrain Tear Gas Use on Protesters
Police to cut back on weapons meant to 'chill' racial justice movement in settlement with Ferguson activists
Mar 27, 2015
Three police agencies in Missouri agreed on Thursday to cut back on the use of tear gas as a means of crowd control, in response to a lawsuit brought by six protesters from the city of Ferguson.
U.S. district judge Carol Jackson dismissed the lawsuit on Thursday at the request of both sides after the settlement was reached. Jackson, however, will supervise for compliance until January 1, 2018.
The restraining order will require police to give "reasonable" warning before deploying the chemical weapon on protesters. The lawsuit was brought against the St. Louis Police, the St. Louis County Police, and the Missouri Highway Patrol by local activists Alexis Templeton, Maureen Costello, Brittany Ferrell, Steve Hoffman, Nile McClain and Kira Hudson.
The lawsuit comes after months of ongoing protests against police brutality and racial profiling, sparked by the police shooting death of unarmed black teenager Michael Brown by a white officer in Ferguson last August.
Three protesters testified at a hearing in December that they were subjected to improper treatment by police, including the use of tear gas.
Thomas Harvey, executive director of Arch City Defenders, which represented the plaintiffs in the lawsuit, said in a statement on Thursday, "This victory rests on the shoulders of the courageous protesters who are tirelessly demonstrating in the streets of Ferguson, and it's a testament to the powerful movement they have fostered."
Denise Lieberman of the Advancement Project, which also represented the protesters, added, "We had not seen this kind of excessive police force used against protesters since the Civil Rights Movement of the 1960s. The use of tear gas in Ferguson has been a tactic to chill this movement, and today's consent decree will finally put a stop to those efforts."
Each of the three agencies will also pay the protesters $2,500 in legal costs.
An Urgent Message From Our Co-Founder
Dear Common Dreams reader, The U.S. is on a fast track to authoritarianism like nothing I've ever seen. Meanwhile, corporate news outlets are utterly capitulating to Trump, twisting their coverage to avoid drawing his ire while lining up to stuff cash in his pockets. That's why I believe that Common Dreams is doing the best and most consequential reporting that we've ever done. Our small but mighty team is a progressive reporting powerhouse, covering the news every day that the corporate media never will. Our mission has always been simple: To inform. To inspire. And to ignite change for the common good. Now here's the key piece that I want all our readers to understand: None of this would be possible without your financial support. That's not just some fundraising cliche. It's the absolute and literal truth. We don't accept corporate advertising and never will. We don't have a paywall because we don't think people should be blocked from critical news based on their ability to pay. Everything we do is funded by the donations of readers like you. Will you donate now to help power the nonprofit, independent reporting of Common Dreams? Thank you for being a vital member of our community. Together, we can keep independent journalism alive when it’s needed most. - Craig Brown, Co-founder |
Our work is licensed under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0). Feel free to republish and share widely.
Nadia Prupis
Nadia Prupis is a former Common Dreams staff writer. She wrote on media policy for Truthout.org and has been published in New America Media and AlterNet. She graduated from UC Santa Barbara with a BA in English in 2008.
Three police agencies in Missouri agreed on Thursday to cut back on the use of tear gas as a means of crowd control, in response to a lawsuit brought by six protesters from the city of Ferguson.
U.S. district judge Carol Jackson dismissed the lawsuit on Thursday at the request of both sides after the settlement was reached. Jackson, however, will supervise for compliance until January 1, 2018.
The restraining order will require police to give "reasonable" warning before deploying the chemical weapon on protesters. The lawsuit was brought against the St. Louis Police, the St. Louis County Police, and the Missouri Highway Patrol by local activists Alexis Templeton, Maureen Costello, Brittany Ferrell, Steve Hoffman, Nile McClain and Kira Hudson.
The lawsuit comes after months of ongoing protests against police brutality and racial profiling, sparked by the police shooting death of unarmed black teenager Michael Brown by a white officer in Ferguson last August.
Three protesters testified at a hearing in December that they were subjected to improper treatment by police, including the use of tear gas.
Thomas Harvey, executive director of Arch City Defenders, which represented the plaintiffs in the lawsuit, said in a statement on Thursday, "This victory rests on the shoulders of the courageous protesters who are tirelessly demonstrating in the streets of Ferguson, and it's a testament to the powerful movement they have fostered."
Denise Lieberman of the Advancement Project, which also represented the protesters, added, "We had not seen this kind of excessive police force used against protesters since the Civil Rights Movement of the 1960s. The use of tear gas in Ferguson has been a tactic to chill this movement, and today's consent decree will finally put a stop to those efforts."
Each of the three agencies will also pay the protesters $2,500 in legal costs.
Nadia Prupis
Nadia Prupis is a former Common Dreams staff writer. She wrote on media policy for Truthout.org and has been published in New America Media and AlterNet. She graduated from UC Santa Barbara with a BA in English in 2008.
Three police agencies in Missouri agreed on Thursday to cut back on the use of tear gas as a means of crowd control, in response to a lawsuit brought by six protesters from the city of Ferguson.
U.S. district judge Carol Jackson dismissed the lawsuit on Thursday at the request of both sides after the settlement was reached. Jackson, however, will supervise for compliance until January 1, 2018.
The restraining order will require police to give "reasonable" warning before deploying the chemical weapon on protesters. The lawsuit was brought against the St. Louis Police, the St. Louis County Police, and the Missouri Highway Patrol by local activists Alexis Templeton, Maureen Costello, Brittany Ferrell, Steve Hoffman, Nile McClain and Kira Hudson.
The lawsuit comes after months of ongoing protests against police brutality and racial profiling, sparked by the police shooting death of unarmed black teenager Michael Brown by a white officer in Ferguson last August.
Three protesters testified at a hearing in December that they were subjected to improper treatment by police, including the use of tear gas.
Thomas Harvey, executive director of Arch City Defenders, which represented the plaintiffs in the lawsuit, said in a statement on Thursday, "This victory rests on the shoulders of the courageous protesters who are tirelessly demonstrating in the streets of Ferguson, and it's a testament to the powerful movement they have fostered."
Denise Lieberman of the Advancement Project, which also represented the protesters, added, "We had not seen this kind of excessive police force used against protesters since the Civil Rights Movement of the 1960s. The use of tear gas in Ferguson has been a tactic to chill this movement, and today's consent decree will finally put a stop to those efforts."
Each of the three agencies will also pay the protesters $2,500 in legal costs.
We've had enough. The 1% own and operate the corporate media. They are doing everything they can to defend the status quo, squash dissent and protect the wealthy and the powerful. The Common Dreams media model is different. We cover the news that matters to the 99%. Our mission? To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. How? Nonprofit. Independent. Reader-supported. Free to read. Free to republish. Free to share. With no advertising. No paywalls. No selling of your data. Thousands of small donations fund our newsroom and allow us to continue publishing. Can you chip in? We can't do it without you. Thank you.