Tech Wars In Meat Space

Starfish writes: "Police and protesters are asking if new technologies used by both sides will turn street protests into bloodless, but also meaningless rituals. Real protest robots, phaser-like weapons, and other cool gadgets are discussed in this Village Voice article. Good heads up about the Ruckus Society's tech action camp in October."

Comments

The Scariest Thing in the Article

[jeko]

USMC Colonel Mazzar, speaking in his official capacity, about the use of force by cops and military forces against protestors:

"It is the exploitation of perceived civil liberties which extends into violence...

My civil rights are merely perceived?!

Colonel, I see you're working at a college. Do us all a favor and go audit the freshman civics courses again. You are an embarrassment to the cause you have sworn to defend.

Re:What's wrong with this?

[Salamander]

teaching cops conflict resolution might be helpful.

They often do receive such training. How many protesters do?

The real problem is that protests are viewed as a problem and no one gives a damn about what's being protested.

Yes, it is a shame that often no one - most notably most of the protesters - seems to care about the issues. Every protest I attend, it seems like the majority are there for the adrenaline rush, or publicity, or the social scene - anything but the issues.

Less snidely, the police are expected to be dispassionate regarding the issues under protest. They are not there for the issues; they are there to preserve public safety and the law. You might not like that, you might not like the laws, but there it is.

What the hell are cops doing protecting the corporations against the point of view of protestors?

That's not what they're doing. They're not protecting points of view; they're protecting people, and laws, and sometimes property, against inappropriate expressions of a POV. As mentioned before, they are dispassionate wrt the issues, and concerned only with preventing criminal acts - including politically motivated criminal acts.

The cops are following orders -- but who the hell is giving the order?

Proximately, the civil authorities. Ultimately ourselves, through our duly elected representatives. If you don't like it, elect someone else. This is a (representative) democracy, not rule of whoever shouts loudest.

Who's protecting the protestors?

Those same police. I almost wish that some corporation would be stupid enough to hire their own goons, so you could see those very same police protecting the protesters - which they most assuredly would do. What a conundrum that would create for the self-righteous cop haters.

Corporations should hire their own security.

They do, and that's why the protesters prefer to misbehave in public places. They're too cowardly to risk getting their asses kicked on private property with little or no legal recourse, so instead they subject the public to all the BS they claim is directed at the corporations.

Re:Cops will have the bots...

[BadDoggie]

It's worse than that. Non-lethal weapons are more likely to be used because they are non-lethal (http://austin.indymedia.org/display.php3?article_ id=590) And because the repercussions are lower when non-lethal force is used in any crowd control situation, the police are that much more likely to use such force, and using as a defense "I was in fear for my safety and the safety of my fellow officers. It was just a beanbag/foam/pepper spray. At least I didn't kill him." And you can't really argue with that because there is a need to have police, a need to protect the police who protect you, and there is also an easily understood concept that when you have to make someone stop doing something bad, it doesn't necessarily mean you have to take his life -- worst case you Rochambeau.

Would I rather be shot by a beanbag or a bullet? Not a tough choice, that one. But the rules of engagement change with non-lethal weapons and the threshold for their use is lowered by virtue of the fact that they generally don't kill -- not intentionally, anyway. It becomes much easier to pull that trigger.

I could write a dissertation here, score a five, get some cool responses and maybe some E-Mail, but I don't have the time or resources. There's a lot of information about this; check out some of it. Google, teoma, even Yahoo.

Let me note that the military's use of non-lethal weapons has historically been to disarm/disable an enemy so that lethal force could then be used, from the days of catapulting rotting carcasses into the keep to the gas attacks of WWI.

woof