Photo credit: Peter Bergin licensed under CC BY-SA 2.5

Mark Chiusano, AMNewYork, writes about the New York Police Department’s use of long range acoustic devices on people who were protesting against “the non-indictment of Daniel Pantaleo, the police officer involved in the death of Eric Garner on Staten Island.” One protester, Anika Edrei, ran after hearing a crash that sounded like a bottle shattering near the crowd, but then Edrei heard “a different sound,” one which sounded like a very loud car alarm. How loud? “Another listener described it as the loudest noise he’d ever heard.”

Edrei saw two police officers carrying “a bulky appliance,” which was a long range acoustic device (LRAD). LRADS can be used as a loudspeaker, but they also generate “sharper, high decibel “alert” or “deterrent” tones intended to control a crowd.” Chiusano reports that the police’s use of the sharper, high decibel tone on the crowd was “one of the first times the police reportedly used the tone.” Edrei and others claim that they suffered injuries due to the exposure to that tone.

LRADs are military devices that were developed after the 2000 bombing of the U.S.S. Cole in Yemen, but Chiusano writes that the devices “made their way to some police departments, too.” The NYPD purchased two LRADs before the 2004 Republican National Convention.

Edrei and others at the protest have sued the NYPD for injuries they claimed to have sustained from exposure to the LRADs, asserting that after exposure they developed migraines, sinus pain, dizziness, facial pressure, and ringing in their ears. Chiusano notes that:

[I]nternal NYPD documents available so far appear to lend weight to the plaintiffs’ claims. A 2010 document from the department’s Disorder Control Unit says the device’s alternate function can emit sounds at higher levels “than are considered safe to human ears. In this dangerous range (above 120 decibels), the device can cause damage to someone’s hearing and may be painful.

Chiusano reports that the judge “appeared convinced of the possibility of danger, finding a ‘cognizable claim’… that use of the LRAD had constituted excessive force.” As a result, the federal lawsuit will continue, while “the conclusion of a separate lawsuit in June requires the police, in part, to release certain documents about current LRAD training and usage procedures.”

It is disgraceful that a U.S. police department would use a device that can permanently injure its victims on citizens engaging in their First Amendment right to protest.

Originally posted at Silencity.com.

Pin It on Pinterest

Share This
%d bloggers like this: