Jury Rules for Police in Use of Nunchakus

A federal court jury ruled Thursday that San Diego police officers did not use excessive force when they used nunchakus, a pain-inflicting martial-arts weapon, to remove six demonstrators from three abortion protest rallies held in 1989.

Police Chief Bob Burgreen hailed the verdict as a reaffirmation that the Police Department acted reasonably and responsibly during the highly publicized arrests.

“These people put us in a very bad position of either having to pick them up and carry them or to inflict some type of pain compliance measure upon them in order to effect the arrest,” Burgreen said. “We didn’t want to do either, but we took the course which we felt was the best of two bad alternatives.”

The case stemmed from the use of pain compliance techniques to remove protesters from three separate Operation Rescue demonstrations in April and June of 1989. As a result, a lawsuit was filed that year by six protesters, who alleged that the Police Department used excessive force in removing them from the demonstrations.

The suing protesters asked the jury to award them $210,000 for their injuries--ranging from a broken wrist to nerve damage--that resulted from the nunchakus, said their attorney, Lloyd Tooks.

Tooks used videotaped footage of the demonstrations and police seizures of the protesters to make his case that police used excessive force.

But, in ruling in favor of the police, the jury found that officers properly followed a reasonable policy and used the proper amount of force necessary to remove the demonstrators, Deputy City Atty. Frank Devaney said.

Tooks said he did not know whether his clients will appeal. But he said he fears the verdict sends an “unfortunate message” to law enforcement officials.

“I believe the jury’s verdict may unfortunately send a message to the San Diego Police Department and other law enforcement agencies that the use of pain compliance or the intentional infliction of injury is acceptable when dealing with passive nonviolent demonstrators,” Tooks said.

Tooks said it appeared the jury was moved by the politeness of the officers before they applied the nunchakus and the fact that the officers asked his clients to leave the premises.

The protesters who filed the suit were Dr. Michael Forrester, Michaelene Jenkins, Harold and Nancy Scofield, and Donna and Dena Niehouse.

Nunchakus are a police weapon composed of two 12-inch lengths of hard plastic connected by several inches of nylon cord.

Devaney, the city’s attorney, said there were some initial moments of indecision as to whether to push forward to trial, because of a decision by the Los Angeles Police Department in June, as part of a trial settlement, to discontinue use of nunchakus.

“We had to decide, in light of what happened in Los Angeles, whether we should proceed to trial,” Devaney said. “Chief Burgreen said, ‘Let’s go for it. We think we’re right.’ ”

Devaney said Burgreen, before the Operation Rescue demonstrations, had adopted a policy that, in its initial phases, attempted to have protesters moved without the use of nunchakus.

The three-step policy consisted of ordering the protesters out of the area, then telling them they were under arrest and asking them to please get up, and finally, the use of pain compliance to remove them, which consisted of wrapping nunchakus around their wrists and squeezing, Devaney said.