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.
Wow... (Score:4, Interesting)
That is fucking horrible! Why do they even need to disperse a crowd of only a few hundred people!? I know that if I were there, it would just piss me off, and make me want to attack the vehicles! I'm normally a peaceful guy, but when people unfairly fuck with me, I just makes me pissed off.
Plus, seems like some $0.50 earplugs would be a good defense against this, if someone had the forethought to bring them... Or maybe that would be "resisting... something" and you'd get arrested? Ugh, this is really fucked up.
-Taylor
Re:Good. (Score:5, Interesting)
Simple fix. (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Better than a billy club? (Score:3, Interesting)
But lets not cause them any discomfort. After all, if this device is used on terrorists, it must be a terrorist weapon. It shouldn't be uses on people who merely show up and trash your city. Can't have that.
Good old agents provocateurs. Works every time. You'd think we'd catch on.
Re:Good. (Score:4, Interesting)
Is protesting so bad? (Score:3, Interesting)
The importance of the rights of the people isn't just for the people, it also helps protect the stability and longevity of the government and other business/economic forces by providing a means for compromise, which is often better for all parties then forcing unilateral action. A government for and of the people simply makes healthier economic sense.
Re:no, the Executive directed security (Score:3, Interesting)
I highly doubt the President had any input into the operations other than (at most) telling his agencies to do what they saw best. I could be wrong, who knows? But he sure didn't do anything like this to the teabaggers.
Additionally, unless both the federal laws are severely more out of whack with the Constitution than I'm aware (and yes, I'm aware that the federal laws and the Constitution haven't seen eye-to-eye on many things for a rather long time), and the states and cities are far more spineless and corrupt than I imagined, any involvement by the Pittsburgh police beyond more or less a liaison role to facilitate the immediate logistical needs of the feds is completely voluntary.
To clarify, I can imagine the city of Pittsburgh may have an obligation to give the FBI, SS and DHS full access to the event venue, and provide a liaison to coordinate between the federal, state and city agencies, I don't believe the FBI or SS or DHS can order the Pittsburgh police to work overtime, gather at the event, and attack the protesters.
Re:Department of Orwellian Reasoning (Score:3, Interesting)
Those so-called barriers don't always work.
Back in the day, it was expected that the mere intimidation factor of troops carrying rifles with fixed bayonets would quell any riot. Instead, lack of non-lethal options contributed to the shootings at Kent State, Jackson State, and elsewhere.
Were I a rioter, I'd rather contend with weapons designed to be less-lethal than ball ammo, or nightsticks (skull fracture, anyone?), or pepper spray.
Re:Good. (Score:3, Interesting)
Of course they get away with it. Who is there to oppose them? If you recall the police are supposed to be there to protect people and maintain order. Given that scenario there's no need for a group of organised civilians to keep people safe. Given that the reality is that the police are in the pay of the wealthy, what are we to do to protect ourselves from them?
There's lots of talk about the technological singularity which appears likely to manifest in the future. Similarly, I'm increasingly of the opinion that we are approaching a worldwide social singularity where ordinary people band together against their oppressive governments.
Aren't we all tired of the hypocrisy yet? the idea that our elected representatives .. represent us, *equally* ?
The reality is that these people have no more power than we give them. When we acknowledge that they are not morally superior we understand that they have no right to rule and so we resist being ruled.
Re:Department of Orwellian Reasoning (Score:5, Interesting)
Although it really doesn't do much. Unless you are trying to bring awareness to some cause that no one has ever heard of but probably would care about if they did, protests aren't going to accomplish anything. Really, when was the last time you saw a protest on the death penalty, gay marriage, the Iraq war, abortion, or really anything that made you change your mind about it? It's hard to make a sensible, reasonable argument by yelling, blocking traffic, and trying to provoke police violence. Especially these days when any event at all is going to have some kind of protest.
Re:Good. (Score:4, Interesting)
As has been explained elsewhere in this thread, given that the slightest amount of violence becomes the focus for all media attention, overriding all legitimate concerns expressed by peaceful people, it's quite clear that the most direct way to suppress any dissenting voices it to create violence and blame it on dissenters.
The balance would come at the point where certain individuals no longer have the power to act (or coerce others to act) in any way they see fit under the guise of acting in the public interest.
This pattern if offensive in its simplicity and the extent to which it occurs; "Hey people we have a common enemy - allow us take control and we will keep you safe."
Re:Agents provocateurs (Score:5, Interesting)
They talk about the 'training' you get in the military, but at the end of the day, you're still expected to pack a rifle and engage in live fire 'if needed'. My daughter was supposed to be a mechanic in Iraq, but spent her 18 month tour guarding the motor pool while civilian contractors did the actual wrenching. My nephew was a medic in Iraq, assigned to hang out with the Special Forces troops in Feluga(sp) 4 years ago and only bandaged up captured 'guerillas' rounded up for questioning, after needing to put bullets in them to begin with.
Back during my time (late Vietnam War era), a lot of combat troops came home and went to school on the GI Bill. Big Unc paid for up to 4 years of college, no payroll deductions during your active duty time, and if you were a draftee & out in 2 years, no biggie, you still got the full 4 year ride. The troops coming out today don't have that option, they have the Montgomery GI Bill [va.gov] which requires veterans to put aside money for college during their active duty and Big Unc coughs up 8x what the vet puts away for up to 36 months. It's only in the last year or so that they finally voted in something close to the GI Bill I knew when I got out.
Now, considering that Big Unc wants trained killers around and really doesn't do a lot to help them readjust to civilian life if they don't get stop-lossed back into uniform, and considering the almost double digit unemployment in the US today, is there any wonder combat troops sign up as cops as the only viable job they're halfways trained for?
Re:What's it take to disable one of these gadgets? (Score:3, Interesting)
Would a singe round of buckshot at the emitters do the trick?
It would require getting far too close. A shotgun isn't exactly the most concealable weapon. The shotgun-toting protester would be spotted and gunned down long before they reached shotgun range.
Purely theoretically, it would be far more effective to position snipers in tall structures in advance just like the police & military do and simply decorate the nearby area with pieces of the $50K cannon. If they lost several of these very expensive units at every protest, their budgets would collapse.
Fear works both ways. They attempt to use terror against civilians to suppress protest against the government and its' policies. A cop with a family making ~$45K-$65K/yr would seriously consider a sudden career change if ordered to man/operate such crowd suppression devices after seeing a few devices ripped to very expensive confetti.
Ten to twenty competent radio-equipped snipers at an average-sized demonstration using 30-06 and similar long-reach high-velocity scoped rifles that easily penetrate body armor & helmets placed strategically around the area could even observe and suppress any police snipers or other Rambo wanna-be's that think using weapons on unarmed protesters is a good idea.
Again, this is purely a *theoretical* discussion of tactics. I do *not* advocate violence toward police or their weapons...err, their "crowd control devices" under normal circumstances.
Strat
Re:Don't blame the protestors (Score:3, Interesting)
"The use of agents provocateurs is standard practice at these sort of events. You can't legally break up a peaceful riot, so you send men in, incite the crowd, and then break up the riot you started. It happened at the last G20 in london. It happened at the WTO protests in Seattle. And you can bet your ass it's happening here."
There's a self-serving, conspiracy mindset. When the Conservatives and Libertarians were protesting during the town hall meetings, and holding their tea parties, there wasn't nearly the same sort of wanton disregard for authority. The Washington D.C. tea party, contrasting the G20 riot, was incident free. A Democrat-run D.C. and Democrat-run Congress/Executive would have gotten a lot of traction if the tea party had a riot. Why weren't there agent provocateurs?
Perhaps there's a more fundamental issue here. Perhaps the nature of those protesting? Perhaps because disruption is the primary means these various protests employ to get attention? No need for a police-infiltrating agent provocateur. The protesters are effective on their own.
Re:Don't blame the protestors (Score:2, Interesting)
You can't legally break up a peaceful riot
What are you talking about? Of course they can. 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. The agents that they send in to rile up the crowds are not there to create a riot for the purpose of later dispersing it. Rather, they are there to make the protesters look bad to outside bodies, such as the media or other bystanders. The last thing they need is even more people showing up the next day because it looked like innocent people were getting repressed. Let's not confuse the two issues here. Legally, those protesters were in the wrong merely by assembling like that. In the eyes of others though...
Re:Department of Orwellian Reasoning (Score:5, Interesting)
If you want to understand why the are protesting then I suggest you read "The Mystery of Banking" by Murray Rothbard, "America's Great Depression" by Murray Rothbard. There are dozens of other great books and articles available at mises.org.
Fundamentally what G-20 is doing is coordinating their monetary inflation policies so that they can monetize their debts on pace with each other. If they did not then countries would be at risk of financial collapse. They have no intention of doing anything to actually solve the problem with global economy.
Rather than allowing the required process of price decline, wage decline, and general financial depression they are pumping inflation into the game to artificially keep prices high so no one notices the prices are changing. This is price control. But salaries effective buying power is plummeting. Need proof? Check the price of hard commodities like Gold, Silver, and even Mac & Cheese (up 14% in 2 months).
The G-20 is trying to coordinate all of this so that everyone's effective buying power falls in unison to help stabilize prices and trade.
Left to our own devices, the US would become a export nation because of falling wages. But first we need the industrial infrastructure to do this -- which we have largely lost over the last 50 years. Which means we probably won't really recover during most of our lifetimes.
Re:Department of Orwellian Reasoning (Score:3, Interesting)
Would your friend rather that they used real bullets?
I would, yes. There is likely to be a lot more accountability, congressional hearings, and the like when police start mowing down unarmed crowds of protesters.
Re:They outlawed masks during the WTO protests. (Score:3, Interesting)
The police also tend to wear masks to hide their identity.
Sometimes they even take off their name badges, which is clearly illegal, but they never get punished for that.
Re:Department of Orwellian Reasoning (Score:3, Interesting)
Some also say, that the reason for this, is to artificially throw people into debts they can't repay, so they work harder in their hamster wheels. All for the good of the upper 0.01% of the people. And in terms of evolution and nature, is makes perfect sense. You want all the resources (inclusive human ones), and your mindset and genes to be the only surviving. Kinda like really big time asshole natural selection.
The problem is, that in the long run, they are killing us with it. And this means that they are killing themselves and their whole goal too. But what is that, in the eyes of short-term greed? :/
The good thing is, that it's actually pretty easy to get out of the hamster wheel: Stop using their money.
Yes, it is very hard if done alone. But think of the smallest town that could sustain itself completely, and still have what you need. (Which even without compromises is less than you think.)
Now you have the number of people that you'd need to get out of it *without* any real changes in your life (except for moving). If you accept small changes at first, then that number drastically goes down.
Every single bill is actually a debt of someone else. That's how it works. (Look at what's written on the dollar bills, if you don't believe me.)
Without using their money... their economic ups and downs have no meanings to you. A quick drop-in replacement is gold and silver. Everyone takes them, if he knows they are real. And when done right, the worse the economy is, the more you can buy.
Ha. At this point, people usually realize, how handy is is, that some big banks have their huge reserves in *gold*:
1. Get rid of all your money.
2. Make the economy crash.
3. Buy everything that's worth something with your gold.
4. Profit.
Why should only they do it? You can do it too. Just pay attention to the fact, that to buy gold with paper money, when your paper money *already* is worth nothing, is not such a good idea. ;)
Re:Department of Orwellian Reasoning (Score:5, Interesting)
Given some of the footage I've seen [mediaite.com]... that would seem to fit it...
For anyone who didn't watch thevideo [mediaite.com] he posted it shows the police already having described it as unlawful assembly and have already began firing in tear gas and using the "sound cannon". A large amount of the crowd are journalists. The garbage dumpsters thing was a few people rolling it towards the police, it was pretty pathetic and in no way made it a riot. Even so considering the police were already using force to try and disperse them it is well known that this can cause people to riot (see G20 protests in London and the kettling) and so it can be the police that causes the violence in the first place.
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).
Haha yes your google-foo is so strong that you think that the number of results from an unquoted query on google proves anything. Did you even look at the first link google responds with?
Well here [msn.com] it is. The first paragraph:
"PITTSBURGH - A vociferous but peaceful group of several thousand people marched for miles through downtown Pittsburgh on Friday, united by opposition to the Group of 20 summit but expressing a diversity of mostly liberal causes as an army of stone-faced riot police watched their every move"
So in summary if you are trying to correct someone for spouting bullshit don't bullshit yourself.