.webp)
Who blew apart Sophia Wilansky's arm and what weapon did they use? The details of the horrific injury to Sophia's arm are described in the federal court case, which names the officers who fired the weapons at Sophia at Backwater Bridge at Standing Rock during the freezing predawn hours of November 21, 2016.
As with the other cases filed by Standing Rock water protectors, Sophia was denied justice in a North Dakota court in 2024. Federal Judge Daniel Traynor in North Dakota dismissed her case.
 |
| Law enforcement near the Backwater Bridge in Morton County, North Dakota, on November 20, 2016. |
 |
Police use a water cannon on people during a demonstration against plans to pass the Dakota Access pipeline near the Standing Rock Nation, near Cannon Ball, North Dakota. (Stephanie Keith/Reuters) |
"Officer Moll aimed and intended to shoot Ms. Wilansky from the turret of his tank-like vehicle like a sniper hunting a human. The Aerial Signaling/Warning Munitions shot by Moll are explosive munitions launched from a 12-gauge shotgun shell."
"The shell contains flash powder and a fuse that ignites when fired from a shotgun. They are designed to travel approximately fifty (50) to one hundred (100) meters before the fuse ignites the flash powder and creates a bright flash with loud sound. When it is shot directly at a human and explodes on their flesh, it is a deadly weapon. He intended to shoot her, she crumpled to the ground and almost lost her arm and her life that night."
 |
| Washington Post, Dec. 2, 2016 https://www.washingtonpost.com/sf/national/2016/12/02/voices-from-standing-rock/ |
 |
| https://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/02/us/standing-rock-front-lines.html |
 |
| https://www.nd.gov/ndhp/sites/www/files/documents/News/2023%20Media%20Release/April-2023/2023.4.24.DvorakPromotion.pdf |
MORTON COUNTY POLICE OFFICER SHOOTS RECENT COLLEGE GRAD AT STANDING ROCK PROTESTS FROM A GUN TURRET, BLOWS UP HER ARM; NORTH DAKOTA COURT RULING DISMISSES THE CIVIL RIGHTS CASE– MISSES THE MARK.
This federal civil rights lawsuit was filed in November 2018, and pertains to the infamous violence perpetrated by police and private security against Water Protectors engaged in political activism opposing the Dakota Access Pipeline at Standing Rock, near Mandan, ND. The Indigenous-led #NoDAPL protests began in April 2016, ended in February 2017, and involved one of the largest gatherings of Native American tribes and the largest resistance in the US to fossil fuel infrastructure gravely exacerbating catastrophic climate change to date.
In the early hours of November 21, 2016, then-21-year-old Sophia Wilansky had taken part in a protest on the Backwater Bridge in Morton County. Earlier that frigid evening, law enforcement had used excessive weaponry against protestors including water cannons in the freezing temperatures, chemical weapons, and a multitude of munitions that caused grave injuries to numerous people gathered on the bridge that had been closed to traffic. Despite the fact that law enforcement denied culpability for years, the Court ruling states:
While Wilanksy and the other protestor were still behind the metal sheet next to the burned out vehicle, Defendant Jonathan Moll (“Moll”) positioned himself on the turret of a Humvee with his 12-gauge shotgun to better aim at Wilansky. One of the law enforcement officers eventually shot a less-lethal munition at Wilansky. The Amended Complaint indicates two other officers may have hit her with less-lethal munitions…. After this, Wilansky “began running as fast as she could south, away from the barricade and [burned-out] truck” yelling, “I’m leaving. Please don’t shoot.” Wilansky was able to run approximately thirty (30) yards south. While running, she saw a piece of plywood lying on the ground, stopped, and picked it up to use as a shield. As she stopped, Moll shot an Aerial Signaling/Warning Munition3 which hit Wilansky’s left forearm and exploded, causing significant injuries. According to the Amended Complaint, “[t]he blast destroyed almost all of the arteries, skin, tissue, muscle, nerves, tendons, and bone in her left forearm.” Wilansky claims the officers “laughed and cheered” and “congratulated Defendant Moll on his marksmanship.” Amended Order of the US District Court for North Dakota, p. 4 (citations omitted).
Despite the delays and obfuscation employed by the defendants to cover this up, we know that the complaint adequately alleged that Officer Moll aimed and intended to shoot Ms. Wilansky from the turret of his tank-like vehicle like a sniper hunting a human. The Aerial Signaling/Warning Munitions shot by Moll are explosive munitions launched from a 12-gauge shotgun shell. The shell contains flash powder and a fuse that ignites when fired from a shotgun. They are designed to travel approximately fifty (50) to one hundred (100) meters before the fuse ignites the flash powder and creates a bright flash with loud sound. When it is shot directly at a human and explodes on their flesh, it is a deadly weapon. He intended to shoot her, she crumpled to the ground and almost lost her arm and her life that night.
“I have committed to continue the fight to expose this extreme police violence with the hope that it prevents anyone else from enduring what I have gone through. At 21 years old, I lost the use of my arm because a police officer shot me from a gun turret with an exploding grenade at a protest. My life will never be the same, but I will also not be scared away from fighting for what is right.” Sophia Wilansky, plaintiff.
“We know the court misinterpreted the allegations in the complaint and the applicable law in its opinion dismissing this case. As alleged, Officer Moll intentionally shot Sophia Wilansky with an explosive munition loaded into a 12-gauge shotgun. He did not shoot near her to scare her into dispersing faster – he shot directly at her, while she was running from the burned-out truck as she had been directed to do. The explosive munition hit her directly, with such a severe use of force that it almost blew her arm off, fully stopping her ability to move or continue dispersing. The officers laughed and congratulated Moll for his marksmanship, removing any doubt that he intended the explosive munition to make contact with her and stop her movement. No rational person hearing those facts would believe the intent was to make Ms. Wilansky leave the area more quickly.” Said Lauren Regan of the Civil Liberties Defense Center, one of Sophia Wilansky’s attorneys.
The 2021 Supreme Court case the court relied on, Torres v. Madrid, is not germane and has been misinterpreted by the District Court. That case actually broadened the situations in which people can sue the police for use of excessive force. In that case, police officers successfully argued in the lower courts that they had not “seized” Torres because she kept driving after they shot her. The Supreme Court held that “The application of physical force to the body of a person with intent to restrain is a seizure, even if the force does not succeed in subduing the person.” That ruling is irrelevant to Ms. Wilansky’s situation – clearly the force succeeded in subduing her. In fact, the Torres Court explicitly said “In this opinion, we consider only force used to apprehend. We do not accept the dissent’s invitation to opine on matters not presented here — pepper spray, flash-bang grenades, lasers, and more.”
The Torres Court did say, as an aside (what lawyers call “dicta”), that not every use of force would be a “seizure” under the law, giving “accidental” force as one type of force that the Court had previously ruled was not a seizure (like shooting a bystander). But the word “disperse” or “dispersal” is nowhere to be found in the Torres opinion. The Court failed to even address that in many instances Courts have ruled that the deployment of flashbang devices clearly created a constitutional violation. The Court’s opinion acknowledged that there is a presumption here that the police intentionally fired upon Ms. Wilansky, and that only the doctrine of Qualified Immunity shields them from liability in this lawsuit. Qualified immunity was directly challenged in this lawsuit because it is an outdated and patently unfair doctrine that needs to change.
That said, as noted above, as clearly alleged in the complaint (which the courts are required to take as true for purposes of a motion to dismiss), Officer Moll intended to stop Sophia in her tracks, and he succeeded in doing so. The court dismissed the case ruling that Moll’s actions did not “seize” Ms. Wilansky and thus he should completely escape liability for his actions— thus ruling that yet another example of sadistic police misconduct is lawful in the eyes of this Court and is thus permitted to happen again—possibly to your daughter, friend, or family member– merely attending a political protest. It is a dark day for democracy and the First Amendment when police are allowed to stand behind razor wire and blast protestors with tear gas, rubber bullets, explosive munitions, and water cannons on a freezing night while doing the bidding for a pipeline corporation profiting off of the climate crisis. Ms. Wilansky intends to appeal the Court’s deeply flawed decision.
1:18-cv-00236
04-03-2024
Sophia Wilansky, Plaintiff, v. Morton County, North Dakota; Kyle Kirchmeier in his official capacity; Adam J. Dvorak, in his personal capacity; and Jonathan R. Moll, in his personal capacity, Defendants.
Leading up to November 20 and 21, 2016, there was a tumultuous protest at the Dakota Access Pipeline (“DAPL”) site near the Backwater Bridge (“the Bridge”) on Highway 1806 in Morton County, North Dakota, in which Morton County recruited law enforcement help from across the United States. Doc. No. 259, ¶¶ 27-114. Sometime on or before November 20, 2016, law enforcement constructed a barricade across the Bridge to prevent protestors from accessing the highway further down the road. Id. at ¶ 95. Due to the protest activities, there were two burned out vehicles on the Bridge on the opposite side of the roadblock from law enforcement. Id. On the afternoon of November 20, 2016, numerous protestors went to the Backwater Bridge with a semi-truck to move one of the burned-out vehicles to the ditch. Id. at ¶ 98. When it came to the removal of the second burned-out vehicle, law enforcement ordered the protestors not to remove it. Id. at ¶ 99 (“Law enforcement officers prevented these [protestors] from towing away the second burned-out vehicle.”).
The Amended Complaint euphemistically refers to the protestors as “water protectors.” The reality of the situation, even as alleged in the Amended Complaint, is these individuals were protesting the construction of the pipeline and, thus, were protestors.
[¶4] Over the next several hours, hundreds of protestors gathered to protest the continued closure of the Bridge. Id. at ¶ 100. In response, Morton County Sheriff Kyle Kirchmeier (“Sheriff Kirchmeier”) requested help from all law enforcement within 100 miles of the Bridge. Id. at ¶ 101. The protest allegedly ended around midnight, at which time all the protestors returned to their camps or were otherwise dispersed by law enforcement. Id. at ¶¶ 111-12. By 2:00 a.m. on November 21, 2016, with most of the protestors dispersed, those who remained were chatting near “makeshift campfires.” Id. at ¶ 114. Wilansky wandered back to the Bridge around 2:00 a.m., alleging the area was “quiet and tranquil.” Id. at ¶ 120. Throughout the night, Wilansky was unarmed. Id. at ¶ 126 Around 4:00 a.m., Wilansky approached the barricade and stayed in very close-proximity to the burned out vehicle for more than thirty minutes. Id. at ¶¶ 124, 127.
[¶5] Law enforcement officers ordered the protestors to move away from the burned-out vehicle around 3:57 a.m. on November 21, 2016, believing someone to be under the vehicle. Id. at ¶ 131. A fellow protestor yelled there was no one under the car. Id. at ¶ 132. Believing someone was nevertheless still under the burned-out vehicle, law enforcement began firing less-lethal munitions towards Wilansky and the other protestor. Id. at ¶ 133. Rather than leave the scene and comply with the officers' commands, Wilansky and the other protestors hid behind a metal sheet propped up against the driver-side of the burned-out vehicle in order to avoid getting hit. Id. at ¶¶ 125, 134. At this time Defendant Adam Dvorak (“Dvorak”) threw two Stinger Ball grenades toward them, which landed and exploded within a few feet of Wilansky. Id. at ¶ 135. No one was injured from this use of force. See id. (not indicating any injury from this use of the Stinger Ball grenade).
Stinger Ball grenades are 32 caliber rubber ball grenades. Doc. No. 259, ¶ 57. They are akin to flashbangs, containing flash powder ignited by fuse and producing a bright light and loud sound. Id. at ¶ 61. They differ from flashbangs in that Stinger Ball grenades have numerous rubber pellets that function as projectiles when the grenade detonates. Id.
[¶6] While Wilanksy and the other protestor were still behind the metal sheet next to the burned-out vehicle, Defendant Jonathan Moll (“Moll”) positioned himself on the turret of a Humvee with his 12-gauge shotgun to better aim at Wilansky. Id. at ¶ 138. One of the law enforcement officers eventually shot a less-lethal munition at Wilansky. Id. at ¶ 139. The Amended Complaint indicates two other officers may have hit her with less-lethal munitions. Id. They are not named as Defendants to this case. After this, Wilansky “began running as fast as she could south, away from the barricade and [burned-out] truck” yelling, “I'm leaving. Please don't shoot.” Id. at ¶¶ 141-42. Wilansky was able to run approximately thirty (30) yards south. Id. at ¶ 145. While running, she saw a piece of plywood lying on the ground, stopped, and picked it up to use as a shield. Id. at ¶¶ 146-47.
[¶7] As she stopped, Moll shot an Aerial Signaling/Warning Munition which hit Wilansky's left forearm and exploded, causing significant injuries. Id. at ¶¶ 148-50; see also Doc. No. 1-1 (photo of Wilansky's injury). According to the Amended Complaint, “[t]he blast destroyed almost all of the arteries, skin, tissue, muscle, nerves, tendons, and bone in her left forearm.” Id. at ¶ 151. Wilansky claims the officers “laughed and cheered” and “congratulated Defendant Moll on his marksmanship.” Id. at ¶ 154. Protestors helped transport her in a car away from the Bridge for medical care. Id. at ¶¶ 156-159. Wilansky was ultimately treated at the Hennepin County Medical Center, which incredibly avoided amputation. Id. at ¶¶ 160-63.
Aerial Signaling/Warning Munitions are flashbangs launched from a 12-guage shotgun shell. Doc. No. 259, ¶ 62. The shell contains flash powder and a fuse that ignites when fired from a shotgun. Id. They are designed to travel approximately fifty (50) to one hundred (100) meters before the fuse ignites the flash powder and creates a bright flash with loud sound. Id. For ease, the Court will refer to the Aerial Signaling/Warning Munitions launched by Moll simply as a flashbang.
[¶8] Wilansky's Amended Complaint Seven (7) claims for relief: (1) Excessive Force under the Fourth Amendment; (2) Excessive Force under the Fourteenth Amendment; (3) Monell Claim against Defendants Kirchmeier and Morton County; (4) Assault and batter under North Dakota law; (5) Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress; (6) Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress; and (7) Negligence and Violation of North Dakota Century Code §§ 9-10-01 and 9-1006. The Defendants seek to dismiss each claim alleged in the Amended Complaint.
No comments:
Post a Comment