Slashdot Mirror


Police Disperse Bush Protesters with Pepper Paintballs

help_cecil_help writes "The AP has this story on how Bush protesters in Jacksonville Oregon were dispersed by local police using 'pepperballs.' The Jacksonville City Administrator described the projectiles as 'like a paintball filled with cayenne pepper'."

59 of 259 comments (clear)

  1. to all Americans out there by xutopia · · Score: 3, Insightful

    wether you support Bush or not this is fascism.

    1. Re:to all Americans out there by l1nuxpunk · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I agree. This is absolutely disgusting.

      Does the first amendment even apply anymore? I can't tell.

      --
      Prontab.net - Porn for geeks. (nsfw)
    2. Re:to all Americans out there by escher · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Welcome to the United Police States of America. Papers, please!

    3. Re:to all Americans out there by tid242 · · Score: 4, Interesting
      Jacksonville City Administrator Paul Wyntergreen said the protest was peaceful until a few people started pushing police.

      99% of the time this is utter bullshit, reminds me of when a cop calls someone a "stupid fucking nigger" and when someone points out that the cop's a racist asshole, he/she's arrested for "harassing an officer" or some such other nonesense.

      -tid242

      --

      With a few exceptions, secrecy is deeply incompatible with democracy and with science. --Carl Sagan

    4. Re:to all Americans out there by finkployd · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Really, what country are you in where cops are perfectly ok with protesters pushing them and instigating a fight (or did you not read the article?)

      Finkployd

    5. Re:to all Americans out there by finkployd · · Score: 3, Insightful

      You find it hard to believe that anyone of the hundreds of protestors was being violent or aggressive with the police? Hell when you get that many angry people together I would find it hard to believe.

      Have you ever BEEN in a protest? There are always people who just want to fuck things up and make a scene.

      Finkployd

    6. Re:to all Americans out there by EnronHaliburton2004 · · Score: 3, Funny

      "Papers, please!"

      RTFA!

      "PEPPERS please!"

      (As someone who has been peppered sprayed by cops during protests, I have a right to make a joke!"

    7. Re:to all Americans out there by zxnos · · Score: 2, Insightful

      is it fascism when revelers (after superbowls, world series, etc.) are dispersed in the same manner? or is it for protection for property/person?

      granted it seems like the response by local authorities was over the top. but remember bush supporters where present too. even musilini (and stalin) didnt attack those who supported them.

      just overzealous cops here, move along.

      --
      always mosh clockwise
    8. Re:to all Americans out there by Squinky86 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Yes, the first amendment still applies. It is normally crowds like this that cause damage and violence and the police force was used to push the demonstrators into an area where they could better be controlled. In the case of Hustler v. Falwell, it was judged that fighting words, or words that could incite revolt at their very utterance, were not allowed. It was slanderous remarks coming from the crowd that incited the demonstrators to be pushed back. What is disgusting is that the article makes no mention of the police also pushing back the people roudily chanting "4 more years" and making obscene gestures/remarks at the ones shouting "3 more weeks." The bias in this article was astounding. Freedoms must be limited to an extent to allow them to be practiced to their fullest degree.

    9. Re:to all Americans out there by Zitchas · · Score: 2, Insightful

      From all that I can tell from the article, there wasn't anything that could be termed "fighting words". And even if there were, I fundementally disagree that some cop can arbitrarly decide "Oh, that sounds like he actually meant it. Let's break this up now." Quite frankly, unless they're actually inciting violence or obviously trying to start a riot/mob mentality, the police shouldn't be able to do anything. With all respect to police, who do provide a necesary function in our society, they should NOT be in the busness of preventing "disturbances" in the political and/or freedom of speach areas. Just like they can't arrest someone for walking down the street dressed in black at night on the basis that "they might be planning to break into somewhere", they should not be allowed to break up demonstrations (and even arrest people for failing to disperse) if said demonstration was not doing anything illegal. From the sounds of the article they weren't even blocking the street, and that's one of the easiest and least violent things a protest can do. If they aren't even doing that, what's the chances they're doing anything worse. (say, throwing rocks at the oposing group, or the police) Essentially, it's the entire "presumed innocent untill proven guilty" thing. Which is what the constitution is based on. Although from what I can tell from outside of the US it does appear to be gradually changing towards "presumed guilty untill proven inocent", what with all the anti-terrorism and anti-don't like the goverment type bills.

      --
      Z
    10. Re:to all Americans out there by battlesharrp · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The first amendment stopped applying after the Party Conventions this year had "Free Speech" zones. This is America. Why do we need specific places for freedom of speech? That makes me sad. And ashamed.

  2. According to TFA... by droid_rage · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The police didn't start firing pepper balls until people in the crowd started pushing them.

    Is it excessive? Definitely. But rather than calling this fascism, I'd call this hyper-sensitivity by law enforcement, probably mostly due to the constant terror warnings and the much higher than normal tension over this election.

  3. ummm... by Tanktalus · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Fascism? No. This is a bunch of cops who would rather inflict than be inflicted upon. I highly doubt either candidate would tell the cops to do this!

    From the article:

    We were being loud, but I never knew that was against the law.
    Yeah, most cities have noise ordnances. And:
    ...the protest was peaceful until a few people started pushing police. Police reacted...
    You start pushing them, they get worried about their safety, and respond. An earlier protest didn't get the news coverage, so I assume there were no pepper bullets fired there. Just a bit of a mob mentality (two opposing sides yelling at each other - it'll get heated!), and a few self-preserving cops.

    Nothing to see here. Move along.

    1. Re:ummm... by node+3 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Fascism? No. This is a bunch of cops who would rather inflict than be inflicted upon. I highly doubt either candidate would tell the cops to do this!

      They don't have to tell them what to do, they just set up the situation and let things unfold "naturally".

      Yeah, most cities have noise ordnances.

      You can't let local ordinances (your misspelling is quite amusing in context) trump democracy. If you do, that's just the sort of sign to look for to warn you that you're in a fascist state.

      Just a bit of a mob mentality (two opposing sides yelling at each other - it'll get heated!), and a few self-preserving cops.

      "Self-preserving"? They were pushed. That's what they're there for. To provide a wall between the people and the President. In a democracy, walls aren't supposed to shoot people who "push" against it. Shooting people with chemical weapons (they've one-upped the normal mace cans with this one, now they've combined chemical and projectile weapons into one!) is excessive.

    2. Re:ummm... by node+3 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Take your pick. Either the cops let shit get out of hand in which case people start fighting and breaking shit, or they can end it BEFORE anything starts.

      False dichotomy. The crowd wasn't shot at for "fighting and breaking shit", it was for speaking up about Bush.

      In fact, the only real violence was on the part of the police who shot people. This is excessive force against the right of the people to dissent. That's an act of a fascist state.

      Do you realize you are condoning actions which diminish the moral validity of our nation?

      Either way, they have goddamned idiots like your stupid self up their ass about how they're fascist.

      That doesn't make any sense. No one calls them fascists if they let people assemble.

      Grow the fuck up, dipshit.

      And you're the paragon of maturity? LOL

    3. Re:ummm... by cnsc1rtr · · Score: 2, Insightful
      They don't have to tell them what to do, they just set up the situation and let things unfold "naturally".

      You can't let local ordinances (your misspelling is quite amusing in context) trump democracy. If you do, that's just the sort of sign to look for to warn you that you're in a fascist state.

      From what I read in TFA (which I doubt is complete from either the protesters' side or the cops'), the police were trying to move the crowd away from the place that Bush was going to be staying at. I live in Phoenix. We had huge streets shut down last week for extra security for the candidates. People aren't allowed to get too close to them for good reason. The police were trying to move the people away from the Inn and they were probably also trying to keep the Bush and Kerry groups apart.

      Then some dumbass started pushing the cops. We don't know exactly what happened though, so this is really stupid to argue about. Maybe someone bumped into a cop and the cops then unleashed hundreds of rounds of pepperballs into the crowd... Maybe a couple people actually shoved an officer or two and the took a couple pepperballs and the rest of the crowd was just bitching about the small bit of the cloud of pepper dust that got to them... Maybe the cops used grossly excessive force... Maybe they were actually showing a bit of restraint before shooting. We just don't have enough information to make this a valid thing to argue about.
      Shooting people with chemical weapons (they've one-upped the normal mace cans with this one, now they've combined chemical and projectile weapons into one!) is excessive.

      Actually, Mace® is way worse than pepperballs because its active ingredient is CS (chlorobenzylidene malonitrile). It is possible to die from CS, although it is not very likely.

      The active ingredient in Pepperballs is capsaicin, just like in ordinary oleoresin capsicum (OC/"pepper spray"). It is basically just the same active ingredient that makes a pepper hot. People don't die from it. In fact, I've seen a couple people who are barely even affected by it. (They were both mexicans who ate insanely spicy stuff everyday)

      The projectile nature of pepperballs is mroe for delivery than for pain compliance. On bare skin, ya, it might hurt. But if it was really that bad, people wouldn't participate in recreational activites in which one is very likely to get hit many times with paintballs.

      Although, I guess I'm probably just bitching about details because you said "mace" instead of "pepper spray." (It is kinda like saying xerox-machine instead of photocopier)
  4. Knocked down by a paint ball...? by BurritoJ · · Score: 3, Funny

    Geez, is this guy made of tissue paper and popsicle sticks? Or is the reporter being a little melodramatic?

    1. Re:Knocked down by a paint ball...? by DShard · · Score: 2

      Better than being clubbed anyday. At least the police have gotten nicer since the democratic national convention in chicago.

  5. Teachers' T-shirts bring Bush speech ouster by Seumas · · Score: 5, Informative

    Another story from the same event. There were three women that were kicked out of the gathering and threatened with being arrested for wearing obscene tee-shirts to tht event. What did the tee-shirts say?

    "Protect our civil liberties"

    http://www.bend.com/news/ar_view%5E3Far_id%5E3D187 12.htm

    From Bend.com news sources
    Posted: Thursday, October 14, 2004 10:24 PM
    Reference Code: PR-18712

    October 14 - MEDFORD - President Bush taught three Oregon schoolteachers a new lesson in irony - or tragedy - Thursday night when his campaign removed them from a Bush speech and threatened them with arrest simply for wearing t-shirts that said "Protect Our Civil Liberties," the Democratic Party of Oregon reported.

    The women were ticketed to the event, admitted into the event, and were then approached by event officials before the president's speech. They were asked to leave and to turn over their tickets - two of the three tickets were seized, but the third was saved when one of the teachers put it underneath an article of clothing.

    "The U.S. Constitution was not available on site for comment, but expressed in a written statement support for "the freedom of speech" and "of the press" among other civil liberties," a Democratic news release said.

    The Associated Press and local CBS affiliate KTVL captured Bush's principled stand against civil liberties in news accounts published immediately after the event.

    The AP reported:

    Three Medford school teachers were threatened with arrest and escorted from the event after they showed up wearing T-shirts with the slogan "Protect our civil liberties." All three said they applied for and received valid tickets from Republican headquarters in Medford.

    The women said they did not intend to protest. "I wanted to see if I would be able to make a statement that I feel is important, but not offensive, in a rally for my president," said Janet Voorhies, 48, a teacher in training.

    "We chose this phrase specifically because we didn't think it would be offensive or degrading or obscene," said Tania Tong, 34, a special education teacher.

    Thursday's event in Oregon sets a new bar for a Bush/Cheney campaign that has taken extraordinary measures to screen the opinions of those who attend Bush and Cheney speeches. For months, the Bush/Cheney campaign has limited event access to those willing to volunteer in Bush/Cheney campaign offices. In recent weeks, the Bush/Cheney campaign has gone so far as to have those who voice dissenting viewpoints at their events arrested and charged as criminals.

    Thursday's actions in Oregon set a new standard even for Bush/Cheney - removing and threatening with arrest citizens who in no way disrupt an event and wear clothing that expresses non-disruptive party-neutral viewpoints such as "Protect Our Civil Liberties."

    When Vice President Dick Cheney visited Eugene, Oregon on Sept. 17, a 54-Year old woman named Perry Patterson was charged with criminal trespass for blurting the word "No" when Cheney said that George W. Bush has made the world safer.

    One day before, Sue Niederer, 55, the mother of a slain American soldier in Iraq was cuffed and arrested for criminal trespass when she interrupted a Laura Bush speech in New Jersey. Both women had tickets to the event.

    1. Re:Teachers' T-shirts bring Bush speech ouster by dar · · Score: 5, Insightful

      You would compare a shirt that says "Hitler was right" to one that says "Protect our civil liberties"?

      Your argument is only valid if the Bush gathering found the phrase "Protect our civil liberties" repugnant.

      --
      My other Slashdot ID is much lower.
    2. Re:Teachers' T-shirts bring Bush speech ouster by BrynM · · Score: 3, Insightful
      Second, I guarantee you that the back of the ticket says, "This is a pro-Bush, pro-Republican rally. You presence is contingent upon not pissing in our Cheerios" or, something to that effect.
      They say nothing of the sort. Funny that. I think you're pushing it with your Hitler example as well. "Hitler was right" is far more offensive than what these teachers wore - I don't even thik the shirts the teachers wore could be really considered anti-Bush. The shirts were a simple statement that I'd gladly make to ANY public official regardless of party affiliation. As to your third point, I don't think feeling good and getting rah-rah is a constitutional right. They can pursue it, but it's not a given. Finally, public protestors were arrested en masse in New York during the RNC. Consider these recent arrests follow-ups.
      --
      US Democracy:The best person for the job (among These pre-selected choices...)
    3. Re:Teachers' T-shirts bring Bush speech ouster by mithras · · Score: 4, Insightful

      tdemark. Tony. You're not being reasonable. Perhaps I'm simply feeding the trolls, but...

      Are you seriously suggesting that wearing a t-shirt that says "Protect Our Civil Liberties" is just as offensive to the President of the United States of America...

      ...as wearing a "Hitler was right" t-shirt to a Jewish bar mitzvah?

      This isn't even about the women's rights in this instance. This is about what the President and his administration finds offensive.

      How is reminding the president of one of his duties "pissing in [his] Cheerios"?

      Sorry, Tony. You're a bad, bad troll. If I had mod points right now...

    4. Re:Teachers' T-shirts bring Bush speech ouster by tdemark · · Score: 3, Insightful

      That isn't what they said. They didn't say "uncomfortable". They said the shirts were OBSCENE.

      Since when is "protect civil liberties" *OBSCENE*?!


      Can you please point to the location in the quoted article where the organizers call the shirts "obscene"? Actually, can you point to any location in the article where the organizers are actually quoted as to their reasoning?

      - Tony

    5. Re:Teachers' T-shirts bring Bush speech ouster by BrynM · · Score: 2, Interesting
      Thanks for the response. I missed the "back" part of your statement. Sorry about that. An account by NPR of other Bush events stated that the tickets didn't have disclaimers, but there was an agreement with the RNC of loyalty given at purchase (can't find the link to the broadcast). So, you are correct: They did have to agree to gladhand.

      I do stand by the idea that the "Hitler" remark was somewhat inflamatory on your part and others seem to agree. This is a subjective argument about an example though, so let's just pretend your shirts just said something the organizers of the conceptual party disagreed with. Sure, they have a right to kick someone out of their private party, but the rules change somewhat when a public official enters the equation. Not many private parties can get the Secret Service to shake you down and kick you out. This blurs the line further since the Secret Service is a taxpayer paid institution. Even if it's okay for all of this, it's also okay for the rest of us to think that the party organizers are narrow minded assholes.

      This has nothing to do with Rights or the Constitution. Any private establishment has the right to toss you out, so long as they don't base it on race, religion, etc. You do not have any "right" to be there.
      Um, the ideas about rights started with your original post. To refresh memory:
      Third, what about the rights of other 99.9% to gather peacefully and have a feel-good, rah-rah session without having to deal with Captain Bringdown and the Buzzkills?
      I agree that private parties have rules, but this is a pseudo-private party. I wouldn't invite you to my party, but I also wouldn't invite the press while I made a speech providing them with sound bites. (My friends wouldn't care what you wore or did by the way - they would only be entertained. We're a really tolerant bunch.)
      --
      US Democracy:The best person for the job (among These pre-selected choices...)
    6. Re:Teachers' T-shirts bring Bush speech ouster by tdemark · · Score: 2, Informative

      That's not even remotely the same thing. First of all, nowhere have I heard that the women in question were being obnoxious or making a scene. A more apt analogy would be that at a Blur concert you get kicked out for wearing an Oasis t-shirt.


      Irrelevant. All I have said is that at a private function, the owner (and the organizer) have every right to ask anyone to leave. I would go so far as to say they could do so without cause. Failure to do so would result is said person "trespassing" on the owner's property.

      yes, they legally have the right to ask these women to leave, but that doesn't mean that apologists like you can make me and all believers in free speech shutup when we say that such tactics are thuggish, stupid, and petty.

      I am certainly not apologizing for their actions. I don't need to agree with what they did to support their rights to do so.

      The fact that these people can't tolerate the idea that civil liberties might need protecting only further convinces me that the current Republican leadership is borderline fascist.

      You believe what you want. My primary reason for posting has not been to defend the actions taken by the organizers, but to defend their right to take the actions they did.

      There appeared to be a belief that such actions could only be taken because it was a political function and the President was speaking, I merely wanted to make sure that it was understood that, while it might be "bullshit", "thuggish", "stupid", and "petty", no rights were harmed in the execution of such actions.

      - Tony

    7. Re:Teachers' T-shirts bring Bush speech ouster by Penis_Envy · · Score: 2, Insightful

      1.) How do they implicitly argue that the president was/is curtailing civil liberties? Depending on how you interpret it, they could have been supporting Bush, because he's defending our civil liberties.

      Okay, now laugh.

      2.) The article said they had tickets. How is that not an invitation?

    8. Re:Teachers' T-shirts bring Bush speech ouster by jerde · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I think it would be an interesting thought experiment to consider a different alternative "private event" besides a rock concert. Maybe a similar speaking engagement. Say, for example, it were the CEO of a large business speaking at a private gathering.

      Say the CEO of Coca Cola were speaking, and I bought a ticket to attend and showed up wearing a Pepsi shirt. The Coke goons could conceivably (and quite legally) evict me from the event.

      In my mind, at least, I'm much less upset by that scenario than by the very similar situation of a political candidate. Why? Because a candidate for public office, and especially an incumbent office holder, works in the public sector. To me that changes the rules just a little bit -- not legally, but ethically.

      The whole concept of a sitting president making a campaign speech a "private" event is what bothers us, I think. Yes, on purely legal grounds they're within their rights to evict anyone they want. But there are troubling ethical issues with that, because the lines begin to blur a bit between "public" and "private" with a public official using some amount of public funds for security and transportation etc. to be at the event in the first place.

      I would argue that the t-shirt evictions were legal, but ethically not right.

      - Peter

      --
      INsigNIFICANT
    9. Re:Teachers' T-shirts bring Bush speech ouster by revscat · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Because for the president of the United States, the supposed defender of our constitution and the rights of all Americans, to have people arrested who are guilty of nothing more than being energetic about our liberties, is both tragic and criminal, and shows how little the president actually cares for those liberties whenever it comes time to put words into action. Given a choice between accepting a difference of view, or even encouraging those who wish to broaden our liberties, the president has them arrested. That, in my book, is the very definition of anti-American.

    10. Re:Teachers' T-shirts bring Bush speech ouster by Casualposter · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The responsibilities of the office of the President of the United STates are quite clearly delineated in the US Constitution. Among the duties of the President, and sworn to in the oath of office, is "to protect and defend the constitution of the United States." By removing someone who wore a shirt marked "Protect our Civil Liberties," the Repbulicans in charge of this gathering, have implied that they do not agree with that phrase. How can a man swear to uphold the US Constitution as required of him, and find repugnant the phrase "Protect our Civil Liberties?" If performing the duties of the office are so offensive, then why run for re-election? The job description has not changed in 200 years, and is unlikely to change in the next four.

      I am more than uncomfortable with a group of republicans who are uncomfortable with protecting our civil liberties. That is the foundation of the US government.

      --
      Creative Spelling Copyright (2002). May use without Persimmons
  6. quote from the Jacksonville police by rogabean · · Score: 2, Funny

    "Well we actually didn't shoot them before we shot them with cayenne pepper balls."

    --
    "why don't you just slip into something more comfortable...like a coma!"
  7. Hmmm by Otter · · Score: 3, Funny

    You can tell I didn't eat enough at lunch as my first thought was "That would be good with some melted Monterey jack..."

  8. Sounds bad by Psmylie · · Score: 4, Interesting
    But it's difficult to say what really happened. When you have that many people together, in an emotionally charged environment, small things can trigger large incidents.

    I've personally seen this happen before, during Critical Mass (an event where a large number of bicyclists essentially take over the streets). The police were keeping an eye on the situation, and 99% of the participants were well-behaved. Then a few people broke the law (ran a red light) and suddenly the police began chasing people down, yanking them off their bikes (which were tossed onto a flatbed truck) and arresting a few who protested the unfair treatment.

    At this particular protest, there may have been a few hotheads in the front (there usually are) who decided to push the police. Then the police (who were probably just waiting for an excuse anyway) treated the whole crowd as potentially hostile, instead of just the agitators. Did the police over-react? I'd say yes. But I wasn't at that protest, so I can't say for sure. My advice is, if you are holding a protest, always have someone who is some distance away film the entire event. Heck, have several, from different vantage points. That way, if the police aren't justified in their actions, you have the proof right there, and proper steps can be taken.

    --

    psmylie's dictionary: Godzillion (noun) Any number large enough to destroy Tokyo

  9. Working theory by BrynM · · Score: 4, Insightful
    I've been tempted in the last few elections to just vote for the cantidate who actually talks to his/her protestors or the cantidate with the least protestors. How you treat someone who doesn't agree with you is a good measure of leadership skills in my opinion. This quieting of dissent by force really scares me as an american. I watched as my city turned into a police state during a WTO protest that happened here. None - I repeat: NONE - of the protestors were violent, but many of them and many bystanders were arrested anyway for edicts passed the night before by our city council which were breaching the constitutional right to assemble (They've been taken off the books now, but their intent was carried out). The Republican party has been way overreaching this year. I'm not voting for a single republican.

    So Republican slashdotters: go and tell your party that an independant voter won't even consider your cantidates because of this. Change this from within because they certainly aren't listening to us external voices.

    --
    US Democracy:The best person for the job (among These pre-selected choices...)
  10. Safety Issues? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    I've been playing paintball for 10 years, 3 of which I spent working in the business, and the one thing the sport stresses the most is safety.

    At normal playing velocities, a paintball will just feel like a firm slap when it hits your skin. However if one hits you in the eye, you'd better learn to walk with a white cane, because you're going to lose the use of that eye. This is why players wear a mask at all times unless off the field. Even assuming the police were trained to fire low in order to avoid hitting someone in the face, there's still the fact that paintballs aren't accurate past about 40 feet, and firing into a milling crowd would only make that worse.

    Also note that I said normal velocities. I doubt the police had their markers set that low, since a few paintballs hitting you at 250 to 280 feet per second is not going to deter anyone. More likely they'd be set to at least the mid 300's, at which point they easily tear holes in clothing, not to mention the skin underneath.

    Paintballs may sound nice and safe, but if they're used against people who aren't properly protected then it's only a matter of time before someone is permanently blinded.

  11. In Southern Oregon by Marxist+Hacker+42 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    The protestors were lucky the police weren't firing grenade launchers.

    I protested the first Gulf War in Klamath Falls, and while the police weren't out in force, pro-Bush (I) protesters were there with shotguns- and the next night I skipped the protest to do homework only to hear my roommate's watercolor peace sign pulled off the door. When I opened the door, I got a ring in my eye and 7 stiches.

    --
    SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
    1. Re:In Southern Oregon by Marxist+Hacker+42 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Oddly enough I wasn't thinking about that- I was just trying to comment on my own meandering experience in the area.

      But it's a darn good example of the process, isn't it? And just like I posted in that other thread you don't have to make stuff up to get the point across- Everything I said was true. I even ended up getting $400 for my $800 medical bill paid- as a fine for the guy that hit me. I still have the scar over my left eye- though it's usually hidden by an eyebrow- and I plan on showing it to my grandchildren as a warning about the careless use of freedom of speech.

      --
      SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
  12. Quashing of dissent by Engineer-Poet · · Score: 4, Insightful
    I remember speeches by pols where protest signs held up in the auditorium were taken in stride. Hell, I attended a speech by President Ford which was punctuated by cries of "What about Nixon?" from somewhere off to my right. (This was before I was able to vote, natch.)

    I have never, ever seen anything like the reflexive hostility of this administration to normal political opposition. This Bush should expect it; he got into office on a hugely controversial court decision and with fewer votes than his opponent, and has proceeded to embark on an extreme right-wing program targetting access to and even information about birth control, gutting of pollution regulations and the doctoring of scientific information on government websites to conform to a partisan agenda.

    Nothing can excuse this. Nothing. And then we read about the arrest and harassment of people whose only act is to register their discontent with the acts of the President, over and over and over.

    I have few beefs with the President over the most controversial of his actions, over in a hot, tired and dusty land far away... but the rest of this stuff threatens the very soul of America if it is allowed to continue. So the only thing I can do is to vote the rascal out, as a lesson to him and any who would follow him:

    Thou shalt not abridge the freedom of speech, or of the press, or tell falsehoods about the conclusions which our taxpayer-financed research has given us, or let anyone contaminate my air and water for the bonuses of the corporate executive class. Not In My Name.

    (And that goes for anyone pandering to the postmodern PC idiotarians on the other side too; throw sops to them, and you've declared yourself my enemy.)

    1. Re:Quashing of dissent by Atzanteol · · Score: 2, Funny

      I have never, ever seen anything like the reflexive hostility of this administration to normal political opposition.

      Apparently you missed the '60s...

      --
      "Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge"

      - Charles Darwin
  13. "Freedom is On The March!" by Cryofan · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I can hardly wait until we can spread American freedom all over the world.....

    --
    eat shiat and bark at the moon
  14. Best reaction by korny69 · · Score: 4, Insightful
    Probably the best reaction from the police that could have been made was to instead grab and arrest the offending few and allow the rest to protest peacefully.

    Instead, like said above, they decided to take it out on everyone. I can see where past thoughts would have said to stop the entire protest because it could errupt into something very large. But, the police could have arrested the few perps and allowed the rest to go on. Anyone at the protest, who would have seen the people pushing their luck, probably would have supported the arrests and spread the word throughout.

    Problem is that Americans see on TV how fast a crowd of peaceful people protesting can errupt into a mob of car-pushing, fire-lighting persons. Probably without even thinking, and going on what they have seen in the past, the police made the wrong decision.

    It is time that police organizations around the country start to re-think the idea of crowd control. From the RNC to this situation, we have too much policing and not enough protesting.

    --

    The biggest security hole sits between the keyboard and chair.
    -Andrew McAllister

    1. Re:Best reaction by Atzanteol · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Probably the best reaction from the police that could have been made was to instead grab and arrest the offending few and allow the rest to protest peacefully.

      That often doesn't happen though. While you're arresting those few, the people around them sometimes get angry and begin to resist the arresting.

      Anyone at the protest, who would have seen the people pushing their luck, probably would have supported the arrests and spread the word throughout.

      Again, very naive IMHO. Police tactics are setup the way they are for a reason. They used pepper to avoid injuring anybody (in the past all they had was guns and hoses). The mob was broken up, and nobody was seriously hurt. If this is fascism, it's changed over the last 100 years (reply not to you here, but others who are way over-reacting)

      It is time that police organizations around the country start to re-think the idea of crowd control. From the RNC to this situation, we have too much policing and not enough protesting.

      (don't forget the DNC too). There are people who make a living trying to figure out the solution to this problem. You think it's an easy one? 500 people with maybe 20 cops to control them? It would be nice if we could trust the protesters to be 'nice' and to not destroy things. History shows they are prone to do otherwise though. Mobs get angry, and *very* out of control. If it gets out of control the police are blamed, if they stop it early the police are blamed. If you're so friggin' smart, what's your solution?

      --
      "Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge"

      - Charles Darwin
  15. Bloody Sunday. by tid242 · · Score: 4, Interesting
    You find it hard to believe that anyone of the hundreds of protestors was being violent or aggressive with the police? Hell when you get that many angry people together I would find it hard to believe.

    Have you ever BEEN in a protest? There are always people who just want to fuck things up and make a scene.

    Yes, like Bloody Sunday, where the word of the paratroopers *totally* justified the 27 people they shot, 13 of which were killed... Police PR tactics typically play the "blame the victm" game, which i'm just saying is fallacious, and generally untrustworthy.

    -tid242

    --

    With a few exceptions, secrecy is deeply incompatible with democracy and with science. --Carl Sagan

  16. About the pepperball. by cryptor3 · · Score: 5, Informative

    Incidentally, pepperball.net appears to be a manufacturer and seems to be informative in how these may be applied. 350-380 fps is the nominal pepperball muzzle velocity.

    [From FAQ] All PepperBall launchers can target accurately at distances up to 30 feet.For PAVA (Capsaicin II) area saturation, projectilescan be broken against a hard surface such as a car or wall at distances up to 150 feet.

    In other words, they can still be effective even if you don't aim for the target individual.

    [Training FAQ] PepperBall projectiles can be shot at point-blank range, although the kinetic impact will be slightly greater at close range. Suspects can be accurately targeted up to 30 feet away with the enough kinetic impact to shatter the projectile and leave a welt or bruise. PepperBall projectiles should never be aimed at a suspect's eyes, face, throat, and spine. Instead, aim below the neck at the suspect's torso or center of mass area.

    There are multiple other statements that the pepperball is safe at point blank range. (what exactly "safe" means, I will leave to the reader's judgement.)

    You are probably right; it's only a matter of time before someone bends down and gets hit in the eye. Then again, same thing for rubber bullets. Note that most riot control weapons are called "less lethal weapons," because they always have the potential of causing serious bodily injury if placed (in-)correctly. The difference with pepperballs is that you can still incapacitate your target if you hit the ground in front of them or the wall behind them.

    It appears that pepperballs can be considered as a way of saturating the air of the target zone with a strong irritant. This option is completely unavailable in paintball (or with rubber bullets), and so really this method appears no worse than rubber bullets (or even hoses with water [since people will get knocked down].) I would also argue that a misplaced baton to the face would also cause permanent damage.

  17. Pepperballs? by mhesseltine · · Score: 2, Funny

    While the idea of getting shot by one of these doesn't sound that appealing, I would like to know:

    1. Do these fit in a normal paintball marker?
    2. If so, where can I get some of these?

    Not that I'd use these in a paintball game, but this could be an interesting addition to the home defense arsenal.

    --
    Overrated / Underrated : Moderation :: Anonymous Coward : Posting
  18. Pepperball brief / Miami November 2003 by ickypoo · · Score: 4, Informative

    These pepperballs were used in Miami last November at the FTAA Ministerial protests. Police fired a whole lot of these things at protestors from guns like these - not at all unlike a normal paintball gun. They apparently can only be shot a short distance, but police would fire a whole lot into the crowd at once. Wounds generally look like this or this - red welts with a small chemical burn surroundinng it, but it isn't any consolation for this guy who got one in the face.

  19. crowd control by zxnos · · Score: 5, Insightful

    i would chalk this up to the police begin stupid. since political emotions are really high right now. i find it really hard to believe bush (or kerry should roles be reversed) or his people would tell the cops to start peppering people, for this very reason, it will get reported.

    the cops started to move the crowd for 'security reasons', i am sure. one cop was probably green and got jittery.

    i have seen cops stand there and ignore people screaming at them during new years parties or when the local team wins a huge game. i have even seen them wrestle down the few trouble makers and let everyone go about there business. sometimes the crowd gets dispersed w/ pepper/gas. usually once some morons flip over a car or something.

    what are cops going to do? let property get destoyed or pepper some people.

    in summary, more likely jittery cops than political.

    --
    always mosh clockwise
  20. Who to believe? by Bowling+Moses · · Score: 2, Insightful

    From TFA: "Jacksonville City Administrator Paul Wyntergreen said the protest was peaceful until a few people started pushing police. Police reacted by firing pepperballs, which he described as projectiles like a paintball filled with cayenne pepper. Two people were arrested for failing to disperse. There were no reports of injuries."

    Police were pushed, then responded or: "He [Richard Swaney] said he was walking with the crowd away from the inn when he was hit in the back with three separate bursts, one of which knocked him down. He felt a stinging sensation he thought was rubber bullets and smelled pepper. "I don't think I moved fast enough,'' said Swaney. "I can't believe this happens in the United States. It was very peaceful. I think this is the way tyranny begins.''

    The two statements don't exactly jive, and both one could say are biased--a protestor who got hit in the back while walking away and the city administrator. Who to believe? At best the city administrator's account is accurate and we have hypersensitivity by the police. If the city administrator's account is wrong and the protest was peaceful then we have something worse. Unfortunately we have no account from an objective, independent third observer to decide the matter.

  21. The U.S. gov. is FAR more corrupt than most know. by Futurepower(R) · · Score: 3, Informative


    The U.S. government is FAR more corrupt than people want to believe.

    Here is a list of 3 movies and 35 books that say that the Bush administration is corrupt: Unprecedented Corruption: A guide to conflict of interest in the U.S. government.

    Table of U.S. Parties and Economics

    Government data shows Democrat and Republican spending patterns.

  22. I think you missed my point by Engineer-Poet · · Score: 2, Insightful
    Actually, there are large differences with prior "crowd dispersal" techniques. The police in recent times have invested lots of money and time into 'less than leathal' weapons for dealing with crowds.
    ... which makes it that much easier for the government to use them to squelch political discourse and peaceful (if noisy) protest, because the consequences are so much less likely to create martyrs (tin soldiers and Nixon coming, anyone?). Notice how much anti-speech action we're seeing?

    And what's with the epithet? I never even met Kenny!

    1. Re:I think you missed my point by Penis_Envy · · Score: 2, Interesting

      And as far as protesting in the streets is concerned, I consider it to be the lowest form of protesting. Holding signs and yelling at the president is quite possibly the least effective means of getting your point made. Yes, I still support it as legal, but such situations are often dangerous, and rarely lead to any good...

      I would be curious to hear how you think people would better protest. How else should they be heard?

      I'm curious, exactly what anti-speech actions are you talking about?

      He's probably referring to the premature and/or mass arrests of protesters taking advantage of "the lowest form of protesting" (your words.) I think he may be talking about protesters (again, practicing "the lowest form") being cordoned off into a "free speech zone" blocks away from events.

      Just google for "Bush" and "freedom of speech". Please make note of the quotes. You will get ironically different results without them.

  23. Re:NewSpeak. by RobertB-DC · · Score: 4, Insightful

    You make some good points -- my own cause (more trees, less Bush) isn't helped by name-calling.

    Just one clarification:
    Tolerance - [...] Appointing a record number of minorities to key cabinet positions is not tolerance.

    One of the things that made Bush a reasonably good governor here in Texas is that he was more truly color-blind than your typical "I have black friends" Democrat. He carried that virtue into the Presidency as well, which gave me hope that even with Gore's contested defeat, the country would still have a chance.

    Unfortunately, Bush proved that women and minorites can be just as dumb as white guys. That hubris knows no color. That Condoleesa Rice is just as qualified as any white male to make bad decisions. That Colin Powell can be duped into lying to the UN just as well as any white Secretary of State. And Hispanics can be just as radically right-wing as Anglos.

    I hope that part of Bush's legacy is a true integration of the upper echelons of government. I just hope that his legacy can start being tallied next January 21.

    --
    Stressed? Me? Of course not. Stress is what a rubber band feels before it breaks, silly.
  24. Talk to me when you have footage by Mawbid · · Score: 2, Insightful
    People lie. People spin. I'm too tired to try piece together a picture of protest violence that allows me to confidently condemn either party and spew righteous indignation so I can feel better.

    These are PROTESTS. They're outside. There are lots of people there. Didn't anybody bring a fucking video camera?

    --
    Fuck the system? Nah, you might catch something.
    1. Re:Talk to me when you have footage by dtfinch · · Score: 3, Informative

      This site has a video. Be kind to their bandwidth, they're a local website.

      I'm still downloading it, so I haven't seen it yet.

  25. Been there, done that. by khasim · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Oh yeah, because that wouldn't give the rest of the crowd a flimsy excuse to act like even bigger cocks and escalate the situation further. That NEVER happens at protests...

    It all comes down to whether you believe that there are a few problem cases or almost all are problem cases. I believe that there are a few, you seem to believe that most of them are problems.

    Oh shit! Look out! It's a mild irritant designed to disperse large and unruly crowds before they get out of hand by making it slightly uncomfortable to stay in the same place! NAZIIIIIIIIIS!

    Let's try to keep the Nazi chatter under control, okay? Thanks.

    How old are you? Twelve? Thirteen?

    40

    I have an idea. Let's throw YOUR BITCH ASS into the middle of 500 people that disagree with each other and see how YOU react when you get pushed around.

    Been there, done that. Germany in the 70's. I was military and we had hundreds of people protest us. We were assigned to keep people out of one of our sites. We did it without any conflicts even though we only had our squad at that site. It's actually very easy to do, if you follow the training.

    Do you sit back and let the situation escalate into violence or do you take steps right then and there to make sure that doesn't happen?

    Like I said, you remove the problem cases and leave the rest of them alone. As long as they don't try to break through, they can sit and sing as long as they want.

    You're a fucking liar if you say you don't end it right there if you can.

    No, I've just had more training and practical experience dealing with protests. The majority of the people, in my experience, are calm and reasonable. It's only when the cops over-react that they become problems.

  26. Theres no way not to condemn the story as written by Crashmarik · · Score: 3, Interesting

    The right to peacefull protest is enshrined in everything we are about.

    I would like something a little better than just the written word of the mainstream press that something happened. The AP has been doing alot of silent retractions on stories lately. The most infamous when they falsely reported that a republican rally had booed President Clintons good health.

    This election has raised the question of the honesty of the press to a new level, while I am loathe to recomend curtailing freespeach the current libel/slander laws are clearly insufficient to curtail abuse. Perhaps Something like an honesty bond or bounty is neccesesary to keep the process honest.

  27. Re:You pegged it by dtfinch · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Those weapons are meant for "riot dispersal". There are some differences between an angry crowd and a riot. If you're acting within your rights, your constitutional rights, and a police officer under orders from your government shoots you in the face with a paintball, filled not with paint but with cayenne pepper, to restrain you from further practice of your consitutional rights, guaranteed to you as a protection against government abuse, intentionally worded to allow no exceptions, is that a success? For who?

  28. Re:Not 1, but 2. by TheLink · · Score: 3, Interesting

    That's what worries some of us in the rest of the world.

    The US people don't want to know or seem to care. Look at the response to Diebold, Iraq + "WMD".

    When we say we don't support Bush, they say stupid stuff like: "That's because we don't want a strong America". Or we are lying/just-as-evil "Democrats". Doh! Just look at many of the postings here.

    There was a strong America for gulf war I and AFAIK much of the world was fairly supportive up till the US gov did some dubious stuff post sep 11.

    Dunno why so many US ppl don't seem to get it when/why the very same allies/neutrals that said "Go ahead, attack Iraq" when Iraq attacked Kuwait, said a very different thing when the US wanted to start Gulf War II.

    AFAIK many of us don't mind a strong America. A "stupid/evil and strong America" is what worries us.

    The US playing "World Police" is OK. It's when the US starts heading down the path towards "World Dictator" that scares us.

    Face it US folk. We were right to say there was no justification for the 2nd Iraq war based on the official reasons given - we could see your leaders were not being _honest_ about the war. Whether they lied is another matter - but the lack of honesty was obvious to us, we don't understand fully why it wasn't obvious to you. EVEN NOW, the US Gov gets away with: "aw shucks, oops looks like the info wasn't good, oh well aren't you glad Saddam is out of power now?".

    Doh. When the World Most Powerful Nation goes against the most of world opinion, unilaterally attacks an already hamstrung nation ruled by a evil dictator and most importantly doesn't give honest reasons for doing so, it's missing the point completely to swallow the "aren't you glad Saddam is gone" line.

    Remember: being honest is not the same as not telling lies. When very many people say "you're wrong", if you really care about the truth, you should at least recheck the "facts", rather than keep massaging them till they look good to you.

    I don't see how people can conclude Bush and the US Gov were honest.

    --
  29. You don't get out much, do you? by Engineer-Poet · · Score: 2, Interesting
    A quick search turns up an article on the arrest of people whose "crime" was to desire to hold signs critical of Bush's policies where they would be visible from his motorcade. This policy of arresting and jailing people who criticize Bush in public appears to be official policy of the "Justice" Department under Bush.

    A government which is abiding by the law would be firing and prosecuting the Secret Service agents and police officials responsible for these outrages, rather than institutionalizing the violation of civil rights under color of law. A government which abuses the power of arrest to "protect" the President from seeing people who disagree with his policies is not a government which is abiding by the Constitution, and to allow it to remain in office one day longer is to place all rights in jeopardy. The bastard has violated his oath of office (so much for his claim of "keeping his word"), and voting him out is the duty of everyone who holds the Constitution to heart.

    Which, unfortunately, isn't all that many people these days.

  30. Dunno by Erwos · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I'm always reminded of the paper I wrote on the World Bank and IMF riots in Seattle and DC - specifically on the topic of riot control.

    "The Battle of Seattle" happened because there were inadequately trained cops confronted by a huge number of unruly protesters. They _didn't_ take steps to crack down on the situation, and things spiralled rapidly out of control.

    A good account from the BBC:
    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/54 7581.s tm

    The part to take away from there is that, indeed, some people come to these events for violent reasons.

    Compare this to DC. In DC, the situation was almost as intense, but the cops raided a bunch of organizations the day before, and made quite a few arrests on the first day. While this was of dubious legality, DC didn't experience massive rioting, either.

    In case you didn't follow my logic, "excessive force" can often prevent an unruly protest from turning into a full-blown riot. No, this is not a blanket statement intended to justify everything the police do - but /.'ers hundreds or thousands of miles away are not really in the position to say whether or not the situation calls for it.

    Now, the measures taken here don't compare to Seattle or DC. I've seen the cops shooting pepperballs at people who were rioting after the Maryland-Duke game, and while they hurt, they're hardly going to permenantly injure people. Bullhorns don't work for this sort of thing, and pepper balls are a damned sight better than nightsticks and fire hoses.

    Most likely, the cops got shoved around a bit and over-reacted. I am sympathetic to the protesters, but the cops are always put in a bad situation by these sorts of events, too.

    Crying "FASCISM!" because some county cops were scared and probably somewhat badly trained is laughable. No one even got hurt, for crying out loud!

    This is no Kent State, in other words. Not even close.

    -Erwos

    --
    Plausible conjecture should not be misrepresented as proof positive.