G20 Protesters Blasted By "Sound Cannon" 630
aaandre sends word of the use of a "sound cannon" on G20 protesters in Pittsburgh. Only a few hundred protesters took to the streets. The NY Times notes: "City officials said they believed it was the first time the sound cannon had been used publicly." The device projects a narrow beam of extremely annoying sound, at levels that can reach 151 decibels, over a distance of a mile or more. The Guardian notes, "It is feared the sounds emitted are loud enough to damage eardrums and even cause fatal aneurysms." Officials of the company that manufactures the sound cannon say that ear damage is only possible if someone manages to stand directly in front of the device for an extended period.
Department of Orwellian Reasoning (Score:5, Insightful)
The company should be named "Ear Damage", Inc. (Score:1, Insightful)
151 Decibels? Officials lie.
extended periods unavoidable with crowds (Score:5, Insightful)
They can't maneuver to save their lives, literally.
Extended periods in the area of effect is going to be absolutely unavoidable.
I know the people pushing for these weapons show "examples" of targets getting out of the way quickly and efficiently. Of course, these are rigged. The targets are trained individuals (often military or police) who are in limited quantities (never seen more than a dozen at once) and are not panicking because they know exactly what's going to happen, exactly what to do, and how to evacuate the test area. That is as much of an unrealistic situation as using the film work of a Hollywood stuntman to show that it's safe to fall down stairs.
Re:The Bush administration (Score:4, Insightful)
Why not now during the Obama administration?
Because you're the 5th poster and you've apparently gotten the cognitive dissonance down to an art, since you're complaining about nobody complaining about "Obama doing it" in an article complaining about it being done.
Re:Good. (Score:5, Insightful)
The police who used this? Yeah. We don't need police driving around inflicting pain on any individuals or groups that they or the government disapproves of. Now what law or part of the constitution does this contravene and what steps are necessary to bring a prosecution?
Apathy, the next frontier (Score:2, Insightful)
Sounds fishy (Score:3, Insightful)
Next thing you know they will tell us that all that water usage at a Space Shuttle launch is not necessary for sound suppression, and it's perfectly safe to have yourself right next to the shuttle launch, your hearing won't be blasted to kingdom come.
All loud sounds are damaging, no matter how short the bust actually is. The hair follicles within the ear cannot grow back, once damaged that's it. That's why we have progressively worse hearing in old age.
Re:Testing the limits of repression (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Department of Orwellian Reasoning (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:WHAT? (Score:4, Insightful)
And an explosion can cause blindness, too.
The ban is on weapons *specifically* designed to blind people, as opposed to those for which blindness is merely a side effect.
Re:Extremely annoying sound (Score:1, Insightful)
Really? I thought it'd be more like "Y... M. C. A."
Re:extended periods unavoidable with crowds (Score:5, Insightful)
Isn't it rather disgusting that police feel the need to use multiple sophisticated weapons against a group of people guilty only of "marching without a permit"?
Dispersing a crowd by force is something that should only be done in extreme circumstances. From TFA it doesn't look like this qualifies.
Re:extended periods unavoidable with crowds (Score:4, Insightful)
"OSHA also states that "exposure to impulsive or impact noise should not exceed 140 dB peak sound pressure level" (CFR 1910.95(b)(2))"
This thing runs at 151db, and it's a tight beam so there'll be little volume loss with distance. No matter how brief the blast it will cause hearing damage. This is a device designed for permanently disabling people without visible damage, and it should be banned under international law just as blinding weapons are. Everyone who makes/sells/uses this device should be executed for war crimes.
Re:Freedom of assembly (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Department of Orwellian Reasoning (Score:5, Insightful)
True, but: there is a mental (and often legal) barrier for the use of any weapon, and the less harmful a weapon is perceived to be, the lower that barrier is. Google "taser death" or "pepper spray injury"; cops perceive tasers and pepper spray to be harmless, so they use them indiscriminately.
And speaking of indiscriminate use, there is also the matter of target discrimination: you have to mentally pick a person to strike with a baton and then physically hit him. You have to aim every rubber bullet you fire. This? Just sweep the entire crowd with the sound cannon - after all, it's harmless!
Re:Good. (Score:2, Insightful)
We don't need anarchists in ski masks committing acts of violence and vandalism.
What is sad is that the thoughtful arguments against much of what goes on in the G20 conferences are completely obscured by these cretins. It also does not help that all these other peripheral (not G20/economic order related) issues are added to the fray to further muddle a message that is worthy of being heard and directly relevant to the event being protested. Anarchists and hooligans do not positively contribute to any serious debate and they merely insure that large numbers of the potential audience turn away dismiss the whole thing. Their reputation (which stains all protesters) incite the politicians and police act more forcefully more quickly against any perceived threat.
You have to pick your friends wisely and be quick to denounce the lunatic fringe trying to appear to be on your side. That said, I'd rather have police use water cannon and sound guns than guns or batons when they can.
Re:extended periods unavoidable with crowds (Score:0, Insightful)
Re:Wow... (Score:5, Insightful)
And like the WTO protests in Seattle, and protests during the Vietnam war, chances are these acts are done by plain clothes officers to give them an excuse to disperse an otherwise peaceful protest.
Re:Freedom of assembly (Score:4, Insightful)
Well, to be fair, you have a right to assemble _peacefully_. Quite a bit of the 'protesters' were smashing windows, burning, and otherwise destroying nearby private property. So it really all depends on who specifically they were using it on. Which personally I would bet was probably the wrong people, but I also have absolutely no evidence for that...
Re:Department of Orwellian Reasoning (Score:4, Insightful)
A friend of mine has been out there for the majority of this week.
Is he a journalist or a protester?
If he's a protester, I am curious just what he thinks he's accomplishing? For the life of me, I have no idea what they're protesting about, or what their problem with the G20 and every other type of international economic summit is, or what they think they can do about it. If their goal is to "get the word out"; well, they're doing a really shitty job.
As far as I can tell, they're just a bunch of punks who are causing damage and rioting for the sake of causing damage and rioting under the false pretense of standing up for something.
Re:Extremely Annoying Sound (Score:1, Insightful)
I'm sure they weren't using Celine Dion to disperse hundreds of people. That would count as a public performance, and would cost law enforcement thousands of dollars in RIAA royalty payments.
Re:Good. (Score:5, Insightful)
We don't need police in plain clothes instigating acts of violence and vandalism.
What's sad is that they get away with it, and it's all blamed on people legitimately concerned about the future of their country.
Re:Wow... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:The Bush administration (Score:5, Insightful)
Obama and the Congress have nothing to do with this. To try to equate the Democrats and the Republicans is absurd, when you see cases of Bush protesters being arrested for wearing a t-shirt, or being harassed by police for a bumper sticker, but Obama protesters showing up with assault rifles and being left free to do so (and before anyone points out that it's their 2nd Amendment right, I agree, but it's also their 1st Amendment right to wear a t-shirt, and of the two, it interesting that Republicans fear words to a greater extent than Democrats fear guns!)
This G20 summit is not being defended by the President, or by Congress, but by the city, and by the wealthy. And if you want to make any equivalencies between Republican administrations and Democratic administrations, that equivalency should be that in either case, the rich are still going to use force and violence to get what they want, and the media is going to side with the rich.
Re:Good. (Score:1, Insightful)
So that's what Washington et al should have done, happy to see you agree with your former colonial overlords.
Re:Why can't we protest a summit meeting? (Score:5, Insightful)
Is the government just trying to provoke violence to justify more totalitarian actions? Is the supreme court taking a nap and won't hear cases that would limit the amount of intervention that can occur with a protest?
The Supreme Court doesn't need to care about jack shit. The civilian population is completely toothless, at this point.
a) No more than 15% of the mainstream population cares about the political situation, tops.
b) As long as a) remains true, the government can slaughter whoever it wants, with impunity, and the ovine majority will not care as long as too large a number are not killed at once, and it doesn't interfere with the source of the majority's distractions.
As long as the majority get their iphones, their McDonald's, and the latest info about what Paris Hilton is doing this week, any totalitarian behaviour is barely going to register to them as background noise. Even if it does, all the government has to do, for the most part, is have the media play the anthem and wave a few flags, and they'll promptly go straight back to sleep.
Re:Apathy, the next frontier (Score:2, Insightful)
Dude, I've never seen 2 people successfully keep a secret, let alone 10. You're nuts.
Re:extended periods unavoidable with crowds (Score:5, Insightful)
They only use it as needed
I saw no situation in which this weapon was "needed" at all. Was the mob dangerous?
just like the training they do for the Taser
The training is apparently, "this is safer than a gun, so fire away!"
Never, ever, ever should a taser be used when someone's safety isn't at risk. Ever. But you see it used as a compliance device all the time. We are not the police's slaves. But step out of line, boy, and you get the lash.
Re:Better than a billy club? (Score:5, Insightful)
There are a few destructive nuts out there among the protest groups, and there are also black-hats pretending to be protesters who are hired to start trouble and thus give the authorities the excuse to hammer down control measures, as well as allow the media to spin anti-establishment people as fringe-dangerous. All you have to do is drug and wind-up one borderline loon to make an entire legion of well-meaning and responsible people look bad. It's an old, easy and as it happens, well-documented system. Do a Google around for it. The term "COINTELPRO" will come up. There is a lot of fascinating reading you can do on the subject.
The objective is to keep the little people from forming groups of any power and to keep people like you misinformed and afraid of, (and in love with) the wrong parties.
Remember; it wasn't protesters who trashed the economy and made off with billions of YOUR tax dollars with no repercussions. It was the people being protested against.
-FL
Re:Biggest gang in America! (Score:5, Insightful)
Now it's tanks and armored cars, military fatigues and terrifying weaponry for the sake of... what?
Your question contains the answer. Modern police uniforms are designed to incite fear. Similar to the uniforms of the storm troopers in Star Wars, only in black.
Re:Good. (Score:3, Insightful)
Yeah? Let's see them use the same techniques against the Tea Baggers carrying guns.
I don't think they'd use these against the armed teabaggers, those guys might shoot back.
no, the Executive directed security (Score:4, Insightful)
Security was not handled by the city of Pittsburgh, although they did provide a good proportion of the actual policemen. The summit was designated [post-gazette.com] a National Special Security Event [wikipedia.org] by the Department of Homeland Security, a designation which by law puts the Secret Service, a police force closely associated with the President, in charge of operations.
Ah, so you are for free immigration? (Score:4, Insightful)
How is it that I get the distinct impression that if a bunch of whiney, bitchy Mexican hippies were to cross the border because of police oppression and decide to settle in the US, you wouldn't exactly cheer about it?
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:extended periods unavoidable with crowds (Score:4, Insightful)
just like the training they do for the Taser.
Since police routinely abuse the Taser, this isn't much of an assurance.
Re:Wow... (Score:5, Insightful)
It isn't done to give an excuse to disperse. They don't need any. It is done to clearly mark the movements as "unlawful" in the media and in peaceful protesters and to prevent any kind of massive public support.
Re:Wasn't there an amendment... (Score:4, Insightful)
Peaceably. http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/Assembly/overview.aspx [firstamendmentcenter.org]
Course, when LRAD and the tear gas and concussion grenades are coming in, things get a lot less peaceful looking with all the running around screaming, in turn justifying the LRAD, tear gas, and concussion grenades. Fiendishly clever in its simplicity.
Pull your lens back a touch. . . (Score:3, Insightful)
I can't wait to see what happens when they take over healthcare
They are ALREADY in control of health care. That's why healthcare sucks. Big business and government, (and certainly the medical industry), are all heads of the same beast, employ the same people and worship the same masters. They just wear different labels to confuse the ever-ignorant population.
Now, the ideal is that the people should be in control of their health care through a government they put together and control.
But the U.S., before it can take on such a task, needs to completely gut its government and build something which isn't going to put personal greed ahead of the public interest. That's not going to happen because the U.S. population is far too drugged, weakened and brainwashed. They haven't got a chance. They are free-range serfs.
-FL
Re:Freedom of assembly (Score:5, Insightful)
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
Re:Department of Orwellian Reasoning (Score:2, Insightful)
I would just as soon see them all shot.
I feel the same way about you, if it's any consolation.
Re:Why can't we protest a summit meeting? (Score:3, Insightful)
I don't get it either. Friggin PRO CASTRO demonstrators marched right through the intersection of 18th and U Streets when I lived in Washington DC, and nobody cared. The DC police escorted them through the intersection, and along U St.
You've never heard about this protest, because the police were cool about it. Nobody takes a pro-Castro protest seriously. The G-20 protestors are being taken seriously, and it's backfiring on the cops. If they treated these protestors with the same civility that the pro-Castro demonstration was treated, you probably wouldn't hear very much about it.
Re:Department of Orwellian Reasoning (Score:3, Insightful)
Yes, certainly that's precisely what one would think if one made no attempt whatsoever to research the event or the movement beyond asking a third party for a hearsay opinion on slashdot. And why would you?
Exactly: why would I go out of my way to try to figure out why some nutjobs are doing what they're doing? If I hear about the police using rubber bullets and sound canons and whatever else, but I have no idea why you were protesting, then your protest has completely and utterly failed, and you need to rethink your strategy.
Are you just.. generally protesting the existence of the G20? OK, but... should the leaders of these countries not talk to each other about economic issues? Do you have any constructive recommendations? What should they be doing differently? Are you angry about something? Is this really the most appropriate forum to display your anger? Do you think the G20 leaders know why you're protesting?
Re:Don't blame the protestors (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:extended periods unavoidable with crowds (Score:3, Insightful)
There is actually two settings on the LRAD, normal and maximum. Maximum can only be unlocked with a key. Normal settings wouldn't damage anyone's hearing/ears. From the videos i'm guessing it's on normal.. or people seriously would have been running away from it.
Re:Good. (Score:5, Insightful)
We're guaranteed the right to assembly, but not the right to unharrassed assembly *g*
Or maybe we're guaranteed the right to assembly, provided we own rebreather gas masks (for pepper spray), bullet vests (for tasers), body armor (for rubber bullets), silvered full body suits with Peltier coolers mounted on heatsinks with large fans (for infrared heat guns), and earplugs rated for 60dB reduction (for sound cannons) at frequencies up to at least 60kHz (for ultrasonic pain generators). Until, of course, that type of body protection is considered a military-grade weapon and heavy penalties are given to a citizen for owning or using these banned items...
"What good is a phone call, if you are unable to speak?"
Re:Don't blame the protestors (Score:1, Insightful)
You're absolutely right!
Don't blame the protesters.
Don't blame them when they started hurling bricks, smashing windows or rolling dumpsters downhill at the police.
I am sure provocateurs did the 3 million in damages in Seattle 10 years ago.
And they must be so disappointed in the measly 50k they were able to do here in Pittsburgh.
Re:extended periods unavoidable with crowds (Score:2, Insightful)
1) If the crowd was violent because you lot used excessive force on them first -- well, you shouldn't have done that.
2) If the crowd was violent because police in previous protests used excessive force, and this lot came spoiling for a fight -- well, you're in a tough situation, but your predecessors fucked it up for you.
3) If you were attacked by the crowd en masse when you tried to arrest people who were legitimately committing real crimes, then you're justified in fighting back if the harm you cause (to people's right to protest) is less than the harm you prevent (to property being damaged).
"Real crimes" does not include "trying to be where we don't want you to be", btw, and it doesn't mean "fighting back when we try to remove you from where we don't want you to be".
"Non-lethal" (Score:5, Insightful)
There should be a requirement for ANY use of "non-lethal" weapons to be investigated as if it were the same as a lethal weapon.
Unless the cop would have used lethal force IN THE SAME SITUATION if "non-lethal" weapons were not available then the use of the "non-lethal" weapon should be enough to get said cop suspended.
Instead of being a "safer" alternative to lethal force, the cops are using them to threaten and torture anyone who does not immediately obey the cops' orders.
Re:Ah, so you are for free immigration? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Agents provocateurs (Score:5, Insightful)
is there any wonder combat troops sign up as cops as the only viable job they're halfways trained for?
The way we treat soldiers is shameful, but there's no way a soldier is in anyway trained as a cop. I'd say that they are less qualified for being a soldier, since they've been trained to kill and subjugate, while cops are supposed to keep the peace and build ties with the community - the army is a wholly improper tool for policing.
It could be worse (Score:2, Insightful)
Napoleon's comment as to demonstrators/rioter was the he had, "...dismissed them with a little grapeshot."
The constitution guarantees the right to PEACEFUL assembly and the right of free speech. Free speech does not entitle the speaker to force someone to listen nor does it permit them to cause damage to property if no one cares to listen.
Cheers,
Dave
Re:Good. (Score:5, Insightful)
Ahh yes, the fiction of choice within a competitive marketplace. Have you tried switching to a mobile operator that doesn't screw you? Hint: There's no choice if every player colludes.
Re:Good. (Score:3, Insightful)
In the end, the only thing that truly keeps governments accountable is the threat of disorder and revolution. Governments that are unhindered by this fear because of their willingness to use "as much force as is necessary" are usually the most tyrannical. Think of France. They have a history of protesting and if necessary rioting. Their government has possibly as a result of this, enacted many policies that are directly to the benefit of the public.
What scares me most about these so called "soft" weapons is that they can be so easily used, and without the blood and gore that usually comes with batons and bullets. These weapons have the potential to make real protest impossible.
Re:Speaking of Orwellian Reasoning (Score:4, Insightful)
"those people" are usually undercover policemen. The cops generally do not want peaceful demonstrations, since they reduce control options. You can hand-carry each individual non-violent protester from the ground to a waiting van, or you can get one of your guys to throw a brick from within their ranks and bust out the tear gas and water cannons. It's easy to do, effective, and practically impossible to stop.
Re:Biggest gang in America! (Score:3, Insightful)
On the other hand, some of us consider lives and due process more important than your (or my) stuff. I would be among those. I don't want to see the police appointed judge, jury, and executioner. That's why we have judges and juries.
I'd much rather lose my stuff than my rights.
Re:Department of Orwellian Reasoning (Score:4, Insightful)
It doesn't matter what they think they are accomplishing. They have a first amendment right to protest, and shooting them with pain cannons seems to fly in the face of that right. If someone breaks a window, obviously that person should be arrested, but you can't arrest people for crimes that you think they might be about to commit when there is no evidence that any crime is imminent. And you can't take away the first amendment rights of most of the crowd just because it might contain a few trouble-makers.
As to what they might be trying to accomplish, you don't seem to have thought about it too hard. It doesn't take much research to learn that the nature of the G20 organization is undemocratic. How does a country get represented in these talks? It's by invitation only. Poor countries are not welcome at these talks. Neither are poor people.
This meeting is simply the rich people who run the world getting together outside of the formal bounds of government to decide how the world will be run in order to protect their interests. The world's poor people will not be represented.
I think that might have something to do with why people are protesting. So what do you suppose that you were accomplishing with your slanderous tales of "riots" and "punks"? Besides being a fascist, I mean.
Re:Department of Orwellian Reasoning (Score:3, Insightful)
As far as I can tell, they're just a bunch of punks who are causing damage and rioting for the sake of causing damage and rioting under the false pretense of standing up for something.
I'm actually in Pittsburgh. Perhaps 8-9 miles away from where these events occurred. What is missing is that many of the people who have been subjected to this are innocent observers. Sound cannons and OC canisters don't discriminate between the people who are actually causing a problem and the people who are just protesting and not causing any damage.
LK
Re:The company should be named "Ear Damage", Inc. (Score:3, Insightful)
I have to wonder what the group dynamic is... If you have a mass of people who can't get away from the sound because they are in the center of a large group of people, what do they do? Duck and cover their ears while staying in the sound? If so, that could be detrimental. It's fine if you are the sole target because "getting away" from the sound is easy.
Re:Good. (Score:3, Insightful)
A very mainstream reporter for the Guardian (a major national UK newspaper) documented her direct experience of an undercover police officer agitating for violence at a protest in London.
Actually, you bring up a good point: How much should we trust The Guardian? Slashdot have previously reported on stories reported by The Daily Mail, which is about as reputable as The National Enquirer (ie. The Onion frequently contains more factual reporting)
I'm no Brit, although I've spent a fair amount of time there. My (largely informal) opinion of the UK media is that "tabloid journalism" is rampant. Papers that don't stoop to this level seem to be edged out of the market. Ironically, the government-run BBC appear to have been one of the only neutral and unbiased news sources throughout the years (and in some cases, one of the government's harshest critics).
Although the US is hardly much better, I'd like to believe that the New York Times and Washington Post are trustworthy sources of news, even with their self-admitted liberal biases*. Although I do trust the Guardian more than most UK publications, the prevalence of bad journalism makes me view any outlandish claim by a UK news source with a grain of salt.
*I don't want to engage in a political flamewar, although I do think it's prudent to point out that any political party that routinely lies to the media aren't likely to be viewed favorably by the press. The Republicans kind of shot themselves in the foot with that one...
Assembling unlawfully? (Score:1, Insightful)
Unless the protesters file for permits to hold these sorts of assemblies, they are acting unlawfully and can be broken up as the police see fit.
Good point. The only permit for these "freedom of speech, freedom of assembly" jerks is more than 200 years old! Surely that expired long ago...
Re:Don't blame the protestors (Score:2, Insightful)
I don't doubt for a moment that ANY police department in the country would miss the opportunity to rile up protesters so they get to bust some heads.
Understanding (Score:3, Insightful)
100% wrong. (Score:3, Insightful)
Where did I say that it would not be?
Finding that the cop used lethal force when not warranted can be enough for a murder charge.
Why shouldn't they be investigated the same?
The whole point of "non-lethal" is an alternative to lethal force.
With your attitude, we end up with the situation today where "non-lethal" is used to intimidate and torture innocent people who do not immediately follow the cops' orders.
Re:Department of Orwellian Reasoning (Score:5, Insightful)
How your trash got modded insightful is beyond me.
>Speaking of Orwellian, you're a fascist.
Didn't you get the memo? Calling those you disagree with facist is so 2001-2008... now you are supposed to call them racist, get with it man!
>No one is rioting.
Depends on your definition of rioting, Merriam-Webster defines it in part as [merriam-webster.com]:
Given some of the footage I've seen [mediaite.com]... that would seem to fit it... or are people grabbing dumpsters and running them towards the police something ordinary and peaceful protestors do?
>That's a lie that you just made up.
Such a shame that the word 'lie' has lost all meaning over the last 8 years.
For what he said to be a lie... he would have to know the truth and be deliberately trying to say or imply otherwise. He could be dead wrong... as could you... however you are offering no more than him but instead come off looking rather petty with your name calling.
>I've read several accounts of what has been going on, and I find nothing about damage or what I would call a "riot".
Really? Your Google-foo must be weak... mine though is strong, because a quick search for g 20 pittsburgh damage [google.com] turns up 290k hits... repeating a number of ~50k in damage (20k of which sounds to be due to one man).
Care to offer some links to some of these bits you've read with no mention of damage?
>What the protesters are accused of is "unlawful assembly", but I've also found nothing about what makes the gathering unlawful.
Just because you have the right to free speech does not mean you are free to exercise it where you want. Some areas (including Pittsburgh) require permits for certain types of activities so as to try to prevent those activities from interfering with the rights of others.
Those groups who were accused of 'unlawfully assembly' failed to acquire such permits.
Interestingly enough... many of the Tea Parties planned ahead and did.
>So that makes you a fascist who hates our constitution and our freedoms, in my book.
And you are a moron who does not understand our constitution or our freedoms... not just in my book, but in demonstrated fact, as evidenced by this post of yours.
>It doesn't matter what they think they are accomplishing.
Amazing... you've actually said something correct here, congrats!
>They have a first amendment right to protest, and shooting them with pain cannons seems to fly in the face of that right.
It depends on if they are breaking the law while exercising that right.
I too have the right to free speech... however if I show up outside of your front door with a bullhorn at 3 am to express it with a lecture on... why Coke is better than Pepsi, I will be arrested (as I should).
If I were to return with a group of friends the next night to protest my arrest, break a few windows and refuse to leave when the police come, they would once again be legally obligated (rightly so) to arrest us.
>If someone breaks a window, obviously that person should be arrested, but you can't arrest people for crimes that you think they might be about to commit when there is no evidence that any crime is imminent.
You started correct... but then just had to go off on another nonsensical tangent... unless you wish to provide specific evidence from this case of someone being arrested for just being there based on the fear that they MIGHT commit a crime...
Re:Don't blame the protestors (Score:4, Insightful)
Just because the police force is one of the best doesn't mean they don't deploy agent provocateurs.
I'm pro-police most of the time. I fully support their actions in fighting crime in the community. But most police forces are way too heavy handed against peaceful protestors. If the protest is peaceful but politically charged, the higher-ups deem it necessary to break it up by any means necessary.
Re:Department of Orwellian Reasoning (Score:3, Insightful)
Exactly: why would I go out of my way to try to figure out why [thousands of concerned citizens] are doing what they're doing [about a series of dire problems that affect the world]? If [the corporate media feed me skewed and sensationalised stories] about the police using rubber bullets and sound canons and whatever else, but I have no idea why you were protesting [because the media choose not to give this information, and I am too lazy to google for it], then your protest has completely and utterly failed, and you need to rethink your strategy.
Similarly, I can imagine a kid who sits in the back of the class sending text messages and chewing gum saying, "Why would I go out of my way to try to figure out what this nutjob teacher is saying? If my stoner friends tell me that learning is for losers, and I have no idea why you are trying to make me literate and numerate, then your teaching has completely failed, and you need to rethink it."
It's always good to re-evaluate strategies, but it's not for you to say so. It is yours to listen for once.
Re:Agents provocateurs (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Department of Orwellian Reasoning (Score:4, Insightful)
That's because in France, the mob burns cars, smashes windows and in general makes it absolutely clear that they'll proceed to actual armed revolution if they're not listened to. Protesting is only useful if whoever you're protesting to knows there's an implied "or die" attached to your demands.
Re:Wow... (Score:3, Insightful)
Because it is unheard of that some people smash things just [youtube.com] for [metacafe.com] fun [youtube.com].
Re:Department of Orwellian Reasoning (Score:4, Insightful)
I can't speak for those modding you troll, but most of us don't think the police are using tasers and sound cannons instead of killing people. It's naive in the extreme to think that if they hadn't a method of pain compliance such as this sound weapon, those people would have been shot and killed. People are objecting to (a) the police being able to use the infliction of pain to control whoever they want and (b) their willingness to do so against people who are gathering to speak out against perceived injustice, meet and exchange views and publicise their cause - none of which merits being driven off by police forces with pain weapons.
Re:Department of Orwellian Reasoning (Score:4, Insightful)
Currently the United States does not recognize the Gold or Silver elements (Au, Ag) as legal tender. However if you were to resort to a pure cash (Federal Reserve Notes) in your pocket over bank check money in your account (no ATM, Credit Card, Check) this would put a massive strain on the banks resulting in a national bank run and federal reserve collapse.
Unfortunately, if everyone in the nation decided on 12/1/2009 to go to their local banks and start withdrawing all their money in cash two things would happen:
This may sound extreme. But hypothetically, if this was done for only a couple of days and then everyone returned their money to the banks a week later it would be sufficient to show how truly fraudulent the economy has been since 1971 when we left the gold standard, allowing fractional reserve banking to run without any controls.
There's good reason for returning to a gold standard. It's impossible to defraud the citizens if they have a money that has both exchange value and commodity value. The dollar today has no commodity value (it's paper) but allegedly holds exchange value. The exchange value is only as good as those willing to use it. Confederate money (1860-1870's) isn't used much for money exchange because there's no faith in it.
Re:100% wrong. (Score:2, Insightful)
By your reasoning, a police officer who chooses to use a wristlock to subdue an agitated subject during a domestic violence call is no different than a police officer who shoots said suspect with a firearm. That's just patently ridiculous, and a statement of absolutism I hope you would care to rethink.
Re:Agents provocateurs (Score:1, Insightful)
not to mention it's not like you're sitting on your ass the whole time being a soldier. If you don't think it's possible to get AT LEAST the amount of training you'd get in a college course from years in the military, you're probably just misguided about how well civilian training works. Yeah, you won't get a lot of useful experience, and your own specialisation choices won't be what is focused on the most, but there's no doubt that it's at LEAST as good as the crap they put civilians through- and then you get civilian training on top of that.
Almost makes it worth being brainwashed to the point where you don't actually have any ability to make decisions for yourself if someone speaks to you in the correct tone.
Re:Good. (Score:3, Insightful)
Violence only discredits your cause in the eyes of the public. It's actually better to be passive victims of police violence - if and when it occurs - than to be seen fighting them. Why do you think that on occasion some police agencies use agents provocateurs? Its because violence serves the interests of those you are protesting against, not yours.