GRENADES

MC, USP, Lewisburg, Pennsylvania describes conditions at FCI McKean, Bradford, Pennsylvania

"Stun grenades have been classified since 1980 by the Treasury Department as 'destructive devices and [since 1968] as 'firearms.' [They] are made from aluminum flashpowder which [the ATF] classifie[s] as 'high explosives.'" At FCI McKean in 1995 after a disturbance "in response to Congress disapproving the crack cocaine sentencing guideline amendment had been quelled ... [a] 'disturbance control team' massed at the front of each unit. At my unit, ... the guards, however, threw stun grenades into the unit and one landed near my bed (in the open common area). The blast injured my ears. Grenades were also thrown into all the ... housing units even though their vandalism had ceased. Apparently they did this as a show of force, to show off, for fun or for training purposes." The prisoner filed suit to which "the government filed a Motion to Dismiss claiming that a stun grenade ..., when used by government officers, becomes a mere 'nonlethal distraction device'."

SMR, ADX-Florence, Colorado

"[In] July, 1992, at USP Lewisburg, Pennsylvania, there was a prisoner disturbance in which staff used stun grenades and tear gas grenades on 150 (approximately) prisoners. Ten to 15 inmates threatened the officers ... after the officers turned off the television. The officers abandoned the unit and the inmates barricaded the ... doors.

Staff surrounded the unit and demanded ... it come out peacefully ... Tbe doors were blocked and the bulk of the inmates who were not participating could not exit. For approximately 45 minutes staff threw in stun grenades. Along with the stun grenades, thrown in by hand, staff placed the barrels of grenade launchers through the windows and shot canisters of tear gas into the unit - I remember seeing [one prisoner] get shot in the face with a canister of gas.

The staff used [an] explosive device to blow open the doors at the same time. Staff entered the unit in gas masks and ... in crews of three beat and handcuffed every prisoner, whether involved or not. I was hit in the face with a baton and treated later for a cut above my eye. (I was not a participant in the disturbance.)

STUN BELTS

"You are hereby advised that you are being required to wear an electronic restraint belt. This belt discharges 50,000 volts of electricity. By means of a remote transmitter an attending officer has the ability to activate the stun package to the belt, thereby causing the following results ... 1) immobilization causing you to fall to the ground; 2) Possibility of ... defecation; 3) Possibility of urination.

"Failure to comply with officer directions could lead to any of the above.

"The belt could be activated [by] the following actions on your [part]: A) Any tampering with the belt; B) Failure to comply with staff's verbal order to halt movement ... ; C) Any attempt to escape custody, D) Any attempt to inflict serious bodily harm on another person; E) Any loss of visual contact by the officer in charge.

"I understand the above information and acknowledge being advised." [USDOI-BOP]

"He was shackled and chained at the hearing and he had also been fitted with a stun belt under his jail issue clothing because, according to court officials, he had been violent in jail and had disrupted previous court proceedings. [He] was acting as his own lawyer at the ... hearing in the Municipal Court of the Long Beach Judicial District. When the judge grew angry with his repeated interruptions she warned him that he was wearing a 'very bad instrument.' According to reports, [he] was being loud, but not abusive, nor was he making any threatening or aggressive movements. After further interruptions ... including complaining that the activation of the stun belt against him would be unconstitutional, the judge ordered a Los Angeles County bailiff to set off the device. ... [He] grimaced and his limbs stiffened as the 50,000 volts hit him. He later said, 'It was like a stinging in my spine and then a lot of pain in my back. I was paralyzed for about four seconds.'"

"During the prosecutor's closing arguments at the capital trial of [the prisoner] in Las Vegas, Nevada, the stun belt that the defendant was wearing was activated. The electro-shock caused [the prisoner] to fall from his chair and 'shake uncontrollably' on the floor. An officer he had inadvertently set off the stun belt off when he leaned across a desk and touched the remote control switch. Just over an hour later the jury sentenced [the prisoner] to death for the murder of his wife. It is not clear why the authorities felt it necessary to put a stun belt on [him] as he was a cooperative defendant to the point of his own self destruction. He had represented himself during the proceedings and had urged the jurors to give him the death penalty."

"A defendant facing rape charges is reported to have been electro-shocked at two separate trials ... [He] was made to wear a stun belt during his first trial in Dade County, Florida, after he had displayed bizarre behavior during an earlier competency hearing, which included talking to an imaginary person called Frank and throwing feces at the judge. His lawyers, who argued that [he] was mentally incompetent to stand trial, state [that] he sat 'still and quiet' during the trial (to the extent that he did not assist his defense counsel). Then, as the prosecutor began fo make her closing arguments, [the prisoner] suddenly stood up and picked up a chair as if to throw it. Officials activated the stun belt and the defendant sprawled across the table and fell to the floor. ... At his second trial ... [he] was shackled and made to wear a stun belt. When he caused a similar disturbance during the proceedings the belt was again allegedly activated against him. ...

"[He] was allegedly subjected to severe sexual and other abuse as a child in his native Nicaragua, including being beaten, tied up and hung up outside his house. Around the time of the arrest he was said to be hearing voices and displaying disturbed behavior including eating his feces. He is currently serving two life sentences."

The above three examples of stun belt use show clearly that it is used not only against the normal but disruptive individual but against the mentally ill - and that it can be set off accidently relatively easily. They have been taken from the Amnesty International report AICRUEL, pages 23-26