Slashdot Mirror
G20 Protesters Blasted By "Sound Cannon"
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.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noise-induced_hearing_loss#Acoustic_trauma
Pain cannons.
Sort of like the 'Mosquito' devices that are aimed at anyone under 21...
Our weapons are only deadly if you stand in front of them!
You have the right to freely assemble, everyone knows that. But nowhere - in no so-called constitution - does it say you also have the right to hear when you're assembled. Nor do you have the right to leave the assembly retaining all your ability to hear.
Once we learn our civic rights, and what we're not entitled to, we'll be a much happier and easier people for the government to govern.
It's interesting that there's a Geneva Convention on weapons specifically designed to cause blindness , but apparently nothing about deafness.
"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."
151 Decibels? Officials lie.
When they start mounting these to the front of congress and the senate, we're screwed.
Ever seen the results of a panic in a crowd?
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.
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.
Remember when cops used to wear the blue uniforms with the badge on the hat and do a beat through a neighborhood? Now it's tanks and armored cars, military fatigues and terrifying weaponry for the sake of... what? The answer is holding their turf. They're thugs!
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?
Aide-toi, le Ciel t'aidera - Jeanne D'Arc.
Just stand by and watch freedom die. Why not? It's quite obvious when the big guns come out for globalist agenda meetings, not according to numbers of protesters or violence levels. It is also quite obvious that precedents are being set using the military on the streets of Pittsburgh for a small protest, like there aren't enough cops.
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.
Take Nobody's Word For It.
How else are you supposed to register your discontent with the government's policies? A letter can easily be thrown away and a phone message is similarly ignorable. If voting decisions are based off of other unrelated subject matter how else are these people supposed to communicate?
"The device projects a narrow beam of extremely annoying sound..."
Ah, I was wondering what had happened to Daphne and Celeste.
If you don't like your government's policies, find a new government. Nobody's stopping you.
DON'T SONIC BOOM ME, BRO!
There are around six posts at the time of writing this one. Give it a little time. If there's anything clear, it's that oppression of people through means such as this isn't limited by what party is in power. Trampling the constitution like this should be objected to by intelligent Democrat and Rebublican voters / members.
Aide-toi, le Ciel t'aidera - Jeanne D'Arc.
Oh come on. You can come up with a lot better than that.
May the Maths Be with you!
I can't wait to see what happens when they take over healthcare
Sonic weaponry is honestly quite nasty stuff, and should be banned.
The variety of side effects they can induce ranging from hearing loss to liquefaction of internal organs isn't a laughing matter, especially when its almost as simple as turning a dial for the operator.
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
Worldwide Military budgets: $2100 billion. Worldwide Space Exploration budgets: $38 billion. Really, world? Really?
Wouldn't it be easier to get this lady to just start talking to the crowd?
I would imagine everyone would be gone in a minute or so.
Developers, developers,developers....
it's gilbert gottfried doing a commercial for oxyclean with mariah carey shrieking away in the background
Umm. This article is pretty much about just one of the ways that lots of people are stopping you.
"It is feared the sounds emitted are loud enough to damage eardrums and even cause fatal aneurysms." "
The professional protesters who travel from place to place to riot every time this (or similar) meetings are held seem to exhibit little fear. Look at the video on the first link. Several photographers didn't even bother to put down their cameras.
If you stand within 30 feet and remain stationary it might damage your ear drums, but because the beam is very focused its and vary directional its easy to get out of the way.
ALL of the citations of "fatal aneurysms" point back to a single reporter named "Kim Dvorac" who cited un-named sources from the department of defense.
The protesters will simply show up with earplugs next time, and continue to smash store fronts, and torch cars, as usual. Apparently thats ok.
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.
Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
>The device projects a narrow beam of extremely annoying sound
This is great; Celine Dion can never have too much air-time.
The sound cannon was mentioned at length in a New Yorker article back in June 2008. You'll need a subscription to read the whole article but the abstract is here...
http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2008/06/02/080602fa_fact_wilkinson
"The device projects a narrow beam of extremely annoying sound" What, like soundtrack to Hannah Montana: The Movie? Just wait until human rights activists hear about this.
Ezekiel 23:20
... in the constitution that said something about our right to gather?
... to just beating people with batons. Both are nonlethal methods of causing pain (and possibly physiological damage), designed to get people out of an area by force. If just beating the shit out of people isn't justified, use of the LRAD isn't either.
Now, certainly, there are times when it may be justified. But it's a weapon like any other, and the standards for its use shouldn't be lower because it's invisible and acts at long range.
I'd imagine that five gallons of honey or liquid mastic would render the sound emitter inoperable.
It must rely on a number of diaphragms to produce and focus the sound, which must be exposed to the air.
Getting some viscous substance on them would lower the frequency response and ruin the focussing.
There would be weather proofing and protection as well, but some should get through.
What?
Protesters will start carrying ear plugs to events.
I can see it now... a hoard of ear-plug-peddlers sprouting up at any major protest...
I am Jack's smirking revenge.
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.
Very often, people confuse simple with simplistic. The nuance is lost on most. - Clement Mok
I agree. Nothing more terrifying then waking up and seeing an army of hedgehogs in your garden.
fuck our totalitarian government..
If they use military weapons on people, the people should bring weapons and respond in a militaristic style. This isn't fucking Europe.
"They confiscated everything, even the stuff we didn't steal!"
I have a clip of the sound cannon in action in Pittsburgh. I'm editing it now and will post it on YouTube. It's quite impressive technology but it sucks to be on the wrong end of it.
Yeah? Let's see them use the same techniques against the Tea Baggers carrying guns.
The liberal types out there complaining about free speech zones have a point: The basic problem in Pittsburgh right now (and most other events that have attracted large numbers of protesters) is that police officers almost inevitably treat the protesters as enemies, as criminals, and otherwise as a force that should be minimized, destroyed, and shut down.
So to the police - the vast majority of protesters aren't going to hurt anyone. They're going to say their bit, and go home. That's it. That's all they want.
I am officially gone from
Nobody's stopping you from voting with your feet and jumping ship to a different country. The article is about Pittsburgh's finest giving a bunch of whiney, bitchy hippies what they rightfully deserve.
Time to bring out the big guns and fight back obviously
The police show up in force at the G-20 meeting with all the latest riot gear and outnumber the protesters 3 to 1. Yet, there are none at these town hall meetings where angry mobs shout down politicians, protesting changes to the health care system.
Some kid asks John Kerry questions out of turn a couple years ago and gets tasered.
Wansu, th' chinese sailor
I prefer they stick with good old-fashioned water cannons. It effectively disperses the protesters; plus (especially important with the G20 protesters) it has the added benefit of providing a free bath! The stench level in the immediate area goes down at least 75%.
You probably think I'm joking; but you weren't in Seattle during the WTO protests - I was.
#DeleteChrome
What is the big deal. Can't people go outside and shout about something they don't like? Is it necessary to disperse every crowd? Do we just have to repeat the Boston Massacre over and over again on ever increasing scales for the past 200 years?
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?
Will people just have to start bringing a case of molotovs to every protest so they can maintain the protest long enough to have some effect and some media coverage? Violence should be a last resort, but without a right to public protest what other options exist?
“Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
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.
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
If you don't like your government's policies, find a new government. Nobody's stopping you.
Well, if you're protesting the G20, you can strike the 20 biggest off the list right there....
This sounds suspiciously like it- just look for the AOE in Europe...
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.
when a bunch of large irish cops with handlebar moustaches and silly hats would just beat the crap out of everyone with their billy clubs.
So that's what Washington et al should have done, happy to see you agree with your former colonial overlords.
Yeah they're not as useful anymore but in the early 70s these were great for crowd control at protests; hippies would just plop down in them and light up a doobie and forget what they were protesting about. Now, if they could get this sound cannon to blast Pink Floyd ....
Tea baggers? Is that a porn movie?
got louder noise with my marshall. noobs.
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.
I am not a crackpot.
Scrap an old microwave and make a HERF gun. Short out all their shit, including their sound cannon.
Would a singe round of buckshot at the emitters do the trick?
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
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.
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
In demonstrations all over the planet, the dudes in the ski masks are usually undercover pigs inciting violence. This is so old it ain't funny. They do it all the freaking time. They've gotten caught at it not once, but *numerous* times. I've seen it several times back in the nam protest days, and it continues. The "battle of seattle" has plenty of evidence on it, just effin google it (anyone), just tons of witnesses who saw the official cops in uniform and darth vader gear IGNORING the "black ski masked anarchists", either pigs or military pigs, who were allowed to rampage along, then beating peaceful people just walking or even just sitting someplace because of the "excuse" they got from their own guys. You want even worse? Google for "operation gladio", 100% proven verifiable fact, they freaking blew folks up and stuff like that, hits, assassinations, terrible "false flag" operations. This was POLICE AND MILITARY doing it to their own people, so they could blame it on..others. Phony "terrorists".
And I also know some cops *personally* who have been ORDERED to do this shit. It's COMMON. I know military veterans who have done this in war areas, commit massacres on villagers then plant evidence so it looked like the "bad guys" did it. They told me about it, they didn't like it, but close to getting a pension, you do what you are told, and the younger ones dig it, they love it, they are violence freaks. That's all they hire as cops anymore, steroid popping violence freaks, mostly with military combat experience where every one they see is a "target" or could be.
Now, I wasn't at this latest protest deal, but I'd bet something similar is going on, because it is their standard modus operandi. Not to say it is always that case, but it is WAY more common than not.
These things are pathetic. The salesmen and users would like you to fear them, but good earplugs are all you need unless you are very close. These LRADs are just arrays of powerful conventional tweeters, and are not focused any more than a conventional speaker the size of the array. They're only 150 dB at one meter in front of the device. The sound level will drop off rapidly according to the inverse square law as you get farther away. Plugging your ears with your fingers would probably prevent hearing damage while you go to get some good earplugs. An LRAD was used on some anti-whaling protesters and the protesters earplugs rendered the LRAD ineffective. However, that looked to be at a distance of something like 50 meters. See the Wikipedia article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Long_Range_Acoustic_Device for some good info.
Security was not handled by the city of Pittsburgh, although they did provide a good proportion of the actual policemen. The summit was designated a National Special Security Event 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.
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
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?
Our right to vote was suppressed for generations with poll taxes etc. We did away with the big problems on that issue which shouldn't have required an amendment to fix.... We'll probably need another one to stop taxes / permit fees on our other rights and another one on free-speech zones so we can exercise our rights besides designated freedom areas!
I'm waiting for President Palin to require Free Speech permits for $20 an hour per person outside the speech zone. ("It pays for the police protection")
Its crazy to say we must pay for the BS for a permit with the excuse that we have to cover the overhead. Its just as crazy to have to pay property tax for your SHELTER (except there is no right to shelter.) My rent always included property tax and the deduction didn't cover it... If I don't pay the house property taxes then they kick me out-- is it really my house? or am I paying them rent to live there?? (sure it pays for needed services but there are OTHER equitable ways to pay for those instead of picking on me for being a handyman.)
Democracy Now! - uncensored, anti-establishment news
That will cause violent and unstoppable retching from all bodily orifices
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
This G20 summit is not being defended by the President, or by Congress, but by the city, and by the wealthy.
Actually, the G20 summit was designated a National Special Security Event by the DHS. The Secret Service was the lead agency in charge of security. Local and State officials were acting under the direction of the Feds.
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. He was showing people how to unhook barriers and trying to persuade people (unsuccessfully) to charge the police. Even a little common sense indicates some of the more violent protestors in London were undercover police. For example, in a protests involving thousands, lasting from morning into the night, suddenly a few people in balaclavas kick in a window whilst coincidentally surrounded by photographers. And were they arrested? No. There were proven police agitators masquerading as protestors at a city in the US, but I'm afraid I don't recall what the event was. The UK police have also engaged in what is now called "kettling" where they push as many people together as possible and keep them there in a confined area. There's no actual reason for it, but it does make for some good photos and a better chance you'll get to arrest someone for trying to get out of it.
You say that the legitimate arguments of the protestors are obscured by "these cretins". To that I point out that police forces have been proven quite willing to provide these people for exactly that purpose and secondly, its the media that are the problem. After all, is it natural or logical that three people kicking in a window should grab all the media coverage rather than the thousand-times that number of people peacefully protesting and making intelligent cases for why they are protesting to anyone who'll listen? No, it doesn't make sense, so why do the media focus on these minor and outlying cases? Honestly, in London, there's a window being kicked in somewhere on any day you care to mention. So can you really blame some bloke in a ski mask that there's so little actual interviews and coverage of the hundreds, often thousands, demonstrating about an important issue? No, you have to blame the media for that.
Aide-toi, le Ciel t'aidera - Jeanne D'Arc.
The water cannon trucks seem to be popular in Europe, why not in the US?
Or do they create some kind of controversy because of the Little Rock, AK incident with firefighters using the hoses on the African-American students.
It does seem to me though that the water cannons are harsh, it's like a dozen cops all taking a swing at you in a couple seconds.
I don't see any "anarchists in ski masks committing acts of violence and vandalism" in any footage of this weapon being used. There are people standing around peacefully. A loudspeaker orders the peaceful crowd to disperse, "by order of the Pittsburgh chief of police", as if the Pittsburgh chief of police has the right to override people's right to peaceably assemble. Still nobody does anything violent, and then the police fire a weapon at the protestors.
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
You ever actually look into what it takes to immigrate to another country? It's not near that simple.
Dude, like I've seen Spinal Tap in concert like, about a million times. I use frikkin sonic cannons for earbuds.
The Russians have won. They have made the world a cesspool of distrust, greed, fear and hate.
I'm pretty sure the local police have absolutely zero obligation to follow the demands of the feds other than to let the feds do what the law allows them to do.
For example, the FBI or SS can ask for the Pittsburgh police to assist by forming phalanxes of police officers with sound cannons and tear gas, but the Pittsburgh police can say no, they'd rather use their police force, money and resources fighting crime and keeping their citizens safe.
Not that I can imagine the police chief or mayor of any major city actually making that choice, but the choice is still theirs.
Hopefully protesters who have suffered damage - if there is any - due to the use of this device will retain the services of top lawyers who can help them win millions of dollars compensation - just like companies would do it.
Why exactly do we need to import military devices to keep citizens from embarrassing government? If you can't handle the fact that some portion of the population disagrees with you or your policy you should leave office. Repressing our natural socio-political means of expression only forces the act underground, and that's where a once healthy form of expression can become dangerous.
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.
Quack, quack.
Don't they have any of those old-fashioned ones that involve gunpowder?
Karma fed to this user will be promptly burnt. Be warned; be wary.
Just turn them up to 11
All big change in history was started by a small lunatic fringe.
But that's never the case is it? If it's just a minority of people who are doing it, I have a suggestion: turn those people over to the cops and tell the cops that you want peace.
Until we are able to achieve that world, we need to build popular pressure to win reforms that support democracy, human rights, and social and economic justice.
From what I gather, it is a socialist movement. It's hard to tell with all the double speak, euphemisms, and misunderstanding on their own part.
I do have a problem with folks from the Developed World, such as those protesters, arrogantly thinking that they know what's best for the people they are supposedly standing up for.
It's NOT me! It's the meds! I'm on 1000mg of Fukitol.
Is it even possible to build a herf gun that could have the same range to counter this atrocity? For now, I advise the protesters to use sheets of plywood, blocking the sound with a solid surface that conducts sound poorly will defeat this.
So what is the effective arc of this weapon, exactly? It's hard to tell from just videos of course, but it seemed to me that there was no "narrow" to be had based on the reactions of the "crowd". Never minding horizontal arc, how about the vertical? I saw some second story apartments in the video; here's to hoping no one's cat or dog got brain fried because of this.
Mod Points: Helping you keep your opinion to yourself.
Direct TV satellite dish converted into a solar reflector
Vintage computer adverts: http://www.vintageadbrowser.com/computers-and-software-ads
one of my photos of the back of the sound cannon used at the pittsburgh g20. if you look at the original size, you can actually read the volume controls, etc.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/corycousins/3952099124/in/set-72157622324331579/
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?"
--TheOrangeSquid Is it any wonder things seem so awry? We swim in a sea of confusion and don't have to think to survive
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.
Requiem for the American Dream
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.
lots of people are ridiculously stupid and easily incited to violence without cause, so how can we just let those people go nuts? It's also not fair to make those who are smarter than that (but maybe willing to protest) be the only people allowed to do so.
So where's the balance?
"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."
Oh, so just people like..... protesters?
In order for the cops to have more effective use of tear gas, it was a crime to possess a protective mask (or materials that could be used as such).
The cops can have protectives masks. Everyone else could not.
Are trying to claim that just because you didn't see them in the footage the press decided to broadcast of a particular moment that the weapon was being demonstrated that they don't exist? Who do you think you are fooling. Certainly you can't be that thick. They are there and they are active. There has been plenty of footage of them being active in the Pittsburgh demonstrations. These guys show up at every protest event and ruin it for the legitimate protesters.
Fortunately Pittsburgh is not as easy to get around as some larger cities on flatter ground and with fewer rivers. That and the fact the U.S. cops have less tolerance for these creeps helps keep their numbers down U.S. demonstrations outside a few select cities like Seattle.
Very often, people confuse simple with simplistic. The nuance is lost on most. - Clement Mok
There have been cases of undercover police agitators dating back to the 19th century. They don't account for very much of the anarchist and hooligan violence in demonstrations in Europe or the U.S. Do you think that anarchists or hooligans are a police myth? Are you that naive?
In any case the best thing for legitimate demonstrators to do - and they have done this from time to time - is to out the anarchists and don't let them mingle in your ranks. Work with the police to insure that they understand that you are interested in peaceful protest and that you will not aide, abet or tolerate violence within your ranks. Doing so will generally keep the police at bay and in a better mood and, more importantly, impress the public who will then be more likely to take your message seriously.
Very often, people confuse simple with simplistic. The nuance is lost on most. - Clement Mok
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."
Requiem for the American Dream
You know, the black guy that the cops pulled from his car and arrested ... only to have it turn out that he was a city official?
Richard McIver?
Yeah, that's it.
sure they are. ever try to travel lately?
Who do we appeal to when the very people charged with protecting the public good blatantly abuse that power ON VIDEO ?
Requiem for the American Dream
Forgot to say that over here in the UK, it's a criminal offence to take photos/video of police officers! We seem to be ahead of your curve-of-corruption.
Requiem for the American Dream
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
They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither safety nor liberty.
Ben
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.
Requiem for the American Dream
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.
This and no other is the root from which a tyrant springs; when first he appears as a protector - Plato (423 to 327 BC)
So only protesters can use megaphones and make loud noises?
It's just unproductive to stand on the street and yell at police with a megaphone. If you actually want to do something about protecting your constitutional right to assemble, take it to the courts. The police have declared the assembly unlawful.. if your argument is that no peaceful assembly can be unlawful then take it up with the appropriate court. That's how the world works.
How we know is more important than what we know.
Just play Lady Gaga really loud.
Bark less. Wag more.
If the protesters were using the sound cannon on the police... would that be against the law?
------ The best brain training is now totally free : )
And with hearing loss you risk Tinnitus, which is the #1 cause of disability in veterans from the war and a debilitating disease without cure. So what a terrible thing to do exposing entire crowds to that hell of an illness.
So we can calculate optimal parabolic countermeasures?
So if a civilian used this device on the police it would be perfectly legal? If so why are Tasers illegal for civilians in many states? The police claim that they are non-lethal devices. In ever more frequent cases civilians are illegally assaulted and arrested, should they not have the right to defend themselves from rouge police with non-lethal devices?
so in effect they are harming them for merely protesting
nice
now we have to wear OUR OWN riot GEAR just to say we disagree
It's just unproductive to stand on the street and yell at police with a megaphone. If you actually want to do something about protecting your constitutional right to assemble, take it to the courts. The police have declared the assembly unlawful.. if your argument is that no peaceful assembly can be unlawful then take it up with the appropriate court. That's how the world works.
.......and by the time the legal proccess vidicates you the g20 is over with and it's too late to protest.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a6hvNe11r9U
You already have protested, and had the police do what you think is illegal, otherwise you wouldn't be able to go to court about it.
How we know is more important than what we know.
For those of you who apply a blanket nutcase label to anyone who suggests a conspiracy theory.
How do you explain the Pittsbergh police marching gladiator style upon peaceful protesters at a gathering of world leaders and assaulting them with tear gas and sound cannons not being covered by CNN, Fox News, or any other major news outlet? Even the Guardian only gave a vague and brief mention of the cannon as if the weapon used was the story and not the unlawful attack on peaceful assembly?
As far as I can tell, Youtube seems to be the only uncensored news source on this issue. Whether the censorship is direct or indirect (perhaps veiled threats that the news outlet will be blacklisted media release by public officials and such) there is obviously something going on. I highly doubt anyone could make much of a claim that coverage of the police attacking peaceful protests wouldn't get ratings.
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...
-- If you try to fail and succeed, which have you done? - Uli's moose
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...
There's actually video of this happening in Canada. Several masked "demonstrators" got identified as cops by real demonstrators, and eventually went through police lines to escape being unmasked.
The video is online at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=St1-WTc1kow, and you can get more details here: http://www.cbc.ca/canada/ottawa/story/2007/08/22/ot-police-070822.html - the old guy in the video who tries to get their masks off is a union leader.
This is treason, pure and simple. Any government agent who behaves in this way is knowingly betraying their country, along with any superior officer with knowledge that this is happening.
It is a more significant crime than murder.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=trg3GkHXsYY
Ask Me About... The 80's!
Me too. And I still live there.
Nice try, but don't rely upon your personal claims next time.
The fact is that a demonstratively 100% legitimately innocent person was pulled from his car and arrested by the cops.
The cops were out of control.
You don't need to understand why they are protesting. You need to understand the Constitution of the United States of America.
If you mod me down, I shall become more powerful than you could possibly imagine.
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.
One of the videos on YouTube shows a bunch of students, bystanders, not looters, not even demonstrators, watching from a stairwell, trapped above and below by cops, then gassed. Complete SNAFU. Those cops should be fired.
If you mod me down, I shall become more powerful than you could possibly imagine.
Well, all the Tea Baggers ^h^h^h^h^h^h^h Party Protesters were busy with their guns attending speeches on health care.
If you mod me down, I shall become more powerful than you could possibly imagine.
...sonic overpressure can and does damage hearing. 120dB (20Pa RMS sound pressure) is equivalent to a jet engine at full throttle at 100m distance, and causes permanent damage. 134dB (100Pa RMS) is about equivalent to standing 20m away from a detonating stun grenade and is at the threshold of pain. Standing in the immediate vicinity of a stun grenade (5-10m) will cause immediate, debilitating and permanent harm not just due to the sonic pressure, but also due to the perceptible shock wave which knocks the victim flat on his arse.
A sonic /cannon/, while designed I would assume to deal with crowds, produces a continuous sonic pressure wave, which if over 80dB at 50m will most likely cause permanent damage to anybody standing in front of it when fired. This can only be classed as a device for torture. It is NOT something which I would consider as suitable for nonlethal crowd control nor for the apprehension of suspects.
Operation Guillotine is in effect.
You are correct that in both cases people complain about it, but last year they would have blamed Bush. This year they do not blame Obama. That's the difference. Who's the one with the cognitive dissonance?
Uuum, all those things you list, are actually crimes, and in a working state, it does not matter if it's a cop. You could sue the guy doing it, and the persons commanding him for organized mass assault. Throw in a wording that combines "weapons of mass destruction" with "torture", get it out the right way, and you will have the media all over them and with you.
But I think this was your point. I still wanted to clarify that.
Any sufficiently advanced intelligence is indistinguishable from stupidity.
1. Being an anarchist has nothing to do with wearing a mask;
2. Wearing a mask has nothing to do with committing vandalism;
3. Committing vandalism has nothing to do with violence;
4. We're discussing this in the context of police violence, not protestor violence.
The use of violence in Pittsburgh by police against protestors began when protestors initiated a Constitutional (and morally defensible) public demonstration in the form of a march. The police declared this an "unlawful assembly", without ever explaining what that means. The presumed background is that the march organizers did not obtain a [parade] "permit" from the city police; courts have routinely ruled these "permit" regulations as unconstitutional.
Exercising legal (and morally defensible) rights does not "incite" state violence. It is wrong to blame the victims of state violence for the victimization that they oppose, simply because they exercised these rights; it's even more wrong to blame them for the fallout that the state visits upon others who *don't* oppose these policies on principle.
With all of that said, I'm an anarchist, so I can't positively contribute to any serious debate. So feel free to dismiss my reasoning on the basis of my principles.
and he goes: "dude, lets start breaking windows"
and you go, and smash windows
why is agent x responsible for that?
in other words, if you have a bunch of peaceful marchers, and some assholes, whether secret agents or organically angry protestors, start rioting, then truly peaceful marchers would, at least, ignore them, or, at best, try to calm them down in order to remain a peaceful march. i've seen this in person: some hot head marcher suddenly leaves the march and stops screaming red faced at some people laughing at the antiwar rally. and his friend came up and calmed him down and helps him back in line. thats a REAL peaceful protest
now if instead that hot head starts yelling at the people laughing at the antiwar rally is suddenly joined by a crowd of antiwar protestors equally interested in starting a riot, then the scene will degrade into an outright mob that requires police intervention. in other words, it does not matter if you throw a spark. what matters is if the spark hits wet wood or dry kindling. either the crowd is truly peaceful and will not riot regardless of the stimulation, or they will turn into angry rioters at a moments notice. in either case, the character of the protesters en masse is the root cause of the outcome, not supposed secret agents OR genuinely bad seeds. if there are enough angry people in a march who are predisposed to violence, that is all that matters, and that means they deserve police intervention
so the existence of agents, real or paranoid schizophrenia, is a red herring: if there are enough people rioting in a protest, the protest needs to be stopped. it doesn't matter who started it: a truly peaceful march wouldn't EVER turn into a riot, no matter how many agents/ bad seeds or how forceful they try to agitate
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
1. Being an anarchist has nothing to do with wearing a mask;
2. Wearing a mask has nothing to do with committing vandalism;
3. Committing vandalism has nothing to do with violence;
4. The violence in question was committed by the state, not those resisting the state.
The violence in Pittsburgh began when police began using "less lethal" weapons against a Constitutionally protected (and morally defensible) public demonstration in the form of a march. Police declared this march an "unlawful assembly" in order to justify their assault, but never cited any legislation to this effect, nor how it interfaces with the relevant Constitutional law. The context is that the march organizers did not seek a police-granted "parade permit", which many jurisdictions have begun to require since the Seattle WTO protests. These "parade permit" restrictions have been struck down by many courts (including those concerning Seattle) as unconstitutional. All of this is relevant only if you consider state violence the appropriate response to an "unlawful assembly" which is causing no harm.
Further, it's wrong to blame victims of state violence for "inciting" their victimization by engaging in perfectly reasonable actionsâ"just as it's wrong to blame victims of parental violence for "inciting" their victimization by similarly questioning the authority's actions. It's even more wrong to blame some of the victims, who are in principle opposed to the state violence, when those who are not in principle opposed to the state violence become "collateral damage". It is the state, not the anarchists, wielding weapons and committing acts of violence.
But don't take my word for it. I'm an anarchist and clearly can't contribute to a "serious debate", the framing of which you've set with phantoms of wily black bloc coyotes, not much different from the caricatures of "bomb throwing anarchists" used to justify mass imprisonments and deportations of radical European Jews and Slavs in the early 20th century. And that caricature, too, had no basis in reality.
When discussing the "thoughtful arguments against much of what goes on in the G20 conferences", dismissing those who take their opposition to the level of principle and apply those principles consistently, referring to them as a "lunatic fringe", is the surest way to prevent any meaningful dialogue about the "thoughtful arguments" you think are being obscured by those advancing them. It may be helpful to keep in mind that the protestors in the streets in Pittsburgh, or Seattle, or whereverâ"and here I'm excluding myself, as I find these huge conferences and the trendy "tourist activism" of attending them strategically unsoundâ"don't vanish when the streets are cleared. The serious debate you don't consider them capable of engaging in... they helped to open it in the first place.
Please forgive the double reply. The first reply didn't show up on the page after submission, so I tried to reconstruct it. I think the reconstruction better addressed the point anyhow.
Which goes a long way to demonstrating that the assaults on left protestors has little to do with "violence"; just as the assaults on Iraq, rather than Iran or North Korea, had little to do with deterrence weapons like nukes.
Actually, you bring up a good point: How much should we trust The Guardian? [...]. My (largely informal) opinion of the UK media is that "tabloid journalism" is rampant.
You are impugning arguably the best mainstream newspaper in the world because it's British. You wouldn't happen to be a shit-for-brains Yank, by any chance?
As a conscientious observer from Pittsburgh, all I can ask is:
WHAT? SPEAK UP!
Also, Why are my ears ringing, and my nose bleeding?
Does anyone know where I can download the mp3 file for this event? I hope the police were using ogg tho.
Society use your Sciences
but Obama protesters showing up with assault rifles and being left free to do so
...not exactly.
This crap is called a Long Range Acoustic Device. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Long_Range_Acoustic_Device May lead to hearing loss!
Since the point of my post was to explain that it is bullshit to say "Nobody's stopping you from" immigrating/emmigrating I take it that you agree with me. Since you explain that yes, it is extremely difficult to do it (legally).
I suppose I shouldn't have bothered to reply to/feed the trollish "Nobody's stopping you from ..." post; please excuse...
Agreed wholeheartedly - and unfortunately for people with something cogent to say, the violence-prone anarchists are very much in the minority at protests of this type.
For the most part, protests are populated by concerned people who have a valid opinion to express. First amendment-protected speech.
But, because the police don't want to (or can't, really) take the time to differentiate between anarchists and non-violent protesters, everybody gets the same treatment. I'm not blaming them, the work of cops is difficult, and brats in hoodies and masks fuck up protests for everybody else. Police *have* to plan for the lowest common denominator on the street.
I worked as a freelance photojournalists from 1999 to 2004, mostly selling photos and the occasional story to AP and UPI. My primary interest was in covering protests, and the police. Seattle WTO, DC WB, Quebec City NAFTA, Miami FTAA, LA DNC, NYC RNC SF, Oakland etc. I've seen it all (or a lot, anyways.)
In my exercised opinion, there are better ways to get your point across, more targeted types of activism that leave you free from association with anarchists. Calling your representative and senators probably does more than protesting in the street - unfortunately. This country was founded on protest (and revolution.)
Protesting is a de facto outlaw activity now - not because the laws changed (not much), but because of codes like "disorderly conduct" which can be used to arrest pretty much anyone for anything.
O lord, bless this thy holy hand grenade, that with it thou mayest blow thine enemies to tiny bits, in thy mercy.
I had mod points today (still have 'em). Went through this story at -1, read everything carefully before I added my mods. After having taken the effort to read all the opinions and comments, when I got to the end, I had to log out without actually moderating anything. There's something which no one has pointed out and seems to contradict the majority of justifications for the march of the storm troopers (although there is no possible justification for trapping college kids in a stairwell to tear gas them).
It's a story in the New York Times. "Thousands Hold Peaceful March at G-20 Summit"
And there's a slide show, too (linked on the same page) -- "G20 Protest Turns Peaceful."
'Nuff said.
Their reputation (which stains all protesters) incite the politicians and police act more forcefully more quickly against any perceived threat.
Translation: peaceful or slightly disturbing assembly brings out the jackbooted Nazism that is at the core of every cop's personality.
Hence, we have volleys of shots fired, by "highly trained, disciplined professionals", at a black man who "drew his wallet" on an overwhelming number of cops who were in a state of testosterone-fueled bloodlust.
And we have the spectacle of some thirty-odd rounds fired into a mentally disturbed guy who, having ended a chase by driving into the grassy area at a freeway offramp in California, was then slain in his tracks by a gang of our stalwart California Highway Patrol. The justification -- he picked up a fucking rock off the ground to hold them at bay. Jesus, it's not like he conveniently ran off the road exactly where he'd previously stashed a gun. In fact, one of the "brave professionals" had time to reload so fast that he set loose three full clips at the guy.
If, however anything had happened to one of this gang of craven cowards, the cries would have gone up -- a fallen hero -- in the line of duty -- one of our own -- life on the line every day -- and all the rest of that obligatory bullshit.
And at least half the state and neighboring states would have been deprived of police "protection" because they'd all ride, at public expense and in polluting muscle cars to mourn the fallen thug.
They can all kiss my ass.
Never forget -- when seconds count, the cops are only minutes away.
that's the point.
-- This space for lease, low setup fee, inquire within!
I like capitalism. It feeds and clothes and educates and employs and entertains and medicates and transports a whole lot more people than any of the previously attempted systems. It's not perfect, but it sure beats the anarchist's demonstrated alternative - Take someone else's accomplishment and break it into little pieces, then break the pieces into pieces.
I don't like anarchists. 'Sound Cannon'? Blast away.
Harrison Bergeron
I saw a very interesting bit on selective media coverage on the excellent program Newswipe a few weeks back. It can be found here: http://www.ifiwatch.tv/en/video/2009/04/bbc-newswipe-g20-london
Break out the multi-watt diode lasers.
Well, i guess they don't have that right over in that state any more, and its a sad day when you cant express dissatisfaction of your government. But that is what you get when you live in a ( mostly ) socialist society .
---- Booth was a patriot ----
with the introduction of this sound canon, no power in the world can be peacefully resisted. this is more like psychological warfare. all the power has to do is say, "a couple of rocks were thrown, so we fired the sound canon at them". not terribly upsetting...none of the protesters were harmed...they shouldn't have been throwing rocks. before, the powers that be couldn't do that sort of thing..."a couple of rocks were thrown, so we opened fire on them with rubber bullets"...that sends people to the hospital and seems like cruel and unusual punishment for "a couple of rocks". but in a situation like that, how do you prove or disprove that someone actually threw rocks?
this sound canon tips the balance of power too far into the hands of governments and out of the hands of the people.
I read the Guardian amongst other UK papers for years. You can get a very warped view of reality if it's the only thing you read. Or to be less polite it's like Fox News in that it covers stories that fit its readers prejudices and doesn't cover ones that don't regardless of whether they are backed up by any evidence.
Actually most of the UK "quality" press is like this. Basically in the old days tabloids were entertainment and the quality press at least tried to report the news. Now all papers are entertainment. The only one that is any good is The Economist.
Of course I'm going to get modded down by a bunch of left wing Americans who see the world in "with us or against us" terms and The Guardian as being with them because they've seen a couple of articles criticizing Bush.
echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;
The 3 things you cite, gold silver and mac & cheese, have all risen in price the past few years for totally different reasons, none of them having to do with core inflation. Gold and silver has risen as a result of the economic collapse - gold and silver *always* rise during the period before and during a recession, because people want safe places to put their money.
Mac & cheese has risen by 14% because the price of wheat worldwide has risen dramatically during the past few years, due to various shortages that have absolutely nothing to do with the buying power of the dollar.
If you think core inflation is happening right now, then why is the price if energy so low? Why has the price of most consumer goods gone DOWN during the recession?
To go with Amerikkka's new uniform - the Brown Shirt.
"Speaking the Truth in times of universal deceit is a revolutionary act." -- George Orwell
that's very interesting - especially as the post above yours (on my screen anyway) asks the obvious 'define narrow' - from looking at your photo showing the rear of the device in question one can clearly see a coloured schematic diagram in red/yellow/green, in the centre of the device, above the volume control, which appears to show angles of effect / danger areas in front of the device.
it's seems to show that the effective angle of the device is approximately 120 degrees, ie. from the front of the device this is about 60 degrees to the left and right (this is shown by the big red pie slice) - then it shows smaller areas (approx 35 degrees each) to the far left and far right of that arc which are presumably still classed as unsafe areas to be in (because they're shown as yellow pie slices) - the diagram reveals that the only safe area (green) is if you are more than 90 degrees to the left or right of the device, ie. if you are in fact behind the device itself.
ok, so my estimation of angles could be slightly amiss, but let's run with the basic angle of 120 degrees for this part of my conversation, and apply some basic trigonometry and try to see what's what exactly regarding the width of this 'narrow' beam.
ok, let's make this easy by working with two right angled triangles, allowing us to easily solve using soh-cah-toa -- ok, so we already know angle theta = 120 and half of that = 60, so let's solve / find the 'opposite' side's length for various distances of the 'adjacent' sideâ¦
that means we'll be working with angle theta and the length of the opposite and adjacent sides, so we're going to use the 'toa' part of our high-school mnemonic (ie. tan of theta = opp / adj), and we'll solve for 'o'. i'll show my working (as taught at school) so it's easier for someone to point out if i have any errors in my maths, and where they might be.
we know that:-
tan(theta) = opposite / adjacent
which, when rearranged, simply becomes:-
tan(theta) * adjacent = opposite
in this equation, we already have theta (half our total frontal angle), and the 'adjacent' side, which is our range for which we are calculating (half of) the beam-width - the half-of-full-beam-width being the 'opposite' side of our triangle. (hope everyone's still following and i've not made an error yet!)
so, for a given range of 20 metres, we can calculate:-
tan(60) * 20 (metres range) * 2 (to convert half to full beam width) = 69.3 (total beam width in metres, at 20m)
and, for a given range of 50 metres, we can calculate:-
tan(60) * 50 * 2 = 173.2 (total beam width in metres, at 50m)
again, for a given range of 100 metres, we see:-
tan(60) * 100 * 2 = 376.4 (total beam width in metres, at 100m)
now, i don't know much about the mathematics involved in the falloff of sound over distance, so the above is really not the full story, it's only part of the picture -- BUT what it says to me is that this so-called 'narrow beam' is in fact FAR from narrow, as it seems it could be about 70m wide at a distance of only 20m in front of the device, and over 170m in width at 50m distance.
how they can say that an effective angle of 120 degrees is 'narrow' defies belief!!! (although it comes as no real surprise, i guess) - of course i must remind you that this angle isn't based upon any technical documentation i've read, it's based on a little coloured diagram on the back of the unit in question - so it may not be very accurate because of that.
(isn't this a bit like saying a sawn-off shotgun has a narrow range? - you know, you won't get shot if you stand behind it?)
of course: if my maths is wrong, then please speak up - or, indeed, if you want to confirm that my calculations are in fact correct, then let me know too!
also, if you have any hard technical data on the device then speak up also! it is easy to re-work these numbers if we get more accurate information about the angle-of-effect.
...comments?
hi
i did a few simple calculations for beam width, based, admittedly, on some fairly vague 'safety' information shown in a photograph of the back of the unit someone else posted.
i posted my calculations as a reply to the original post with the flickr link - you can find both here.
hth?
(heh, i'm hoping my maths is correct!)
by using a satellite dish - sound waves would behave like radio waves in that case.
Don't ask me how to bring one big enough at a protest, though.
Constitution? Have you not been paying attention? I mean, really, you Americans have already lost your republic. It's been awhile! And the rest of us would be really happy if you would do something about that.
just a sec- lemme turn the radio down.
.
- aqk
F U
...would express that very objection. They're all out there protesting that the G-20 isn't allowing prices and wages to properly decline.
There's this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=St1-WTc1kow
Of course the report in the news says otherwise:
http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20070822/montebello_cops_070822/20070822?hub=TopStories
But check the comments and see for yourself:
e.g. "Watch as the three men start to realize that they are being accused of being undercover cops... they say nothing, except for the one man in the back who leans over and exchanges a few words with one of the riot cops. Then, suddenly, three men who had been holding stones and getting ready to cause trouble suddenly walk peacefully right into the police line and are led away"
And there was no record of the provocateurs being arrested.
Whether it's something "typical" or not, I don't know. But sure looks like it does happen.
So what happens if someone gets annoyed enough to attack with a sound cannon of their own?
Plans are out so anyone could build one, would it be against the law for someone to use one in self defense against the police?
Not that it justifies the use, but were the protesters doing anything illegal?
One would expect this to be part of the story, but for some reason that one "dynamic" isn't being reported.
"Black bloc" anarchists originally developed as a response to police violence against peaceful demonstrations. Activists got tired of their people getting attacked all the time, and so they organized their own group of black-clad militants who were prepared to protect the crowd with barricades, shields, and physical force.
These so-called hooligans have been responsible for keeping less-organized protesters safe from brutal police many, many times. Of course, it doesn't work out that way, some groups of militant anarchists have had negative effects as well. But it's not as simple as just disassociating from anyone who has the courage to stand up against the cops.
...and then the courts say "Yes, what the police did was illegal. They must now pay $X in damages and say they're sorry." And so the police department gets some money from the city government, or dips into its "lawsuit slush fund" (public tax dollars, either way) and hands out the dough, a bullshit apology statement, and then turns around and buys more weapons for the next protest.
Large summits like the G20 have a security budget, and you can often see a significant amount of money factored in for "legal settlements and costs". This is money they set aside in advance for the fines and damages they know will have to pay for violating people's rights.
You're fucking funny. I don't know if it's because the copy are generally stupid as sheep, or they don't care for their own lives, or their bosses don't pay for it, but Police aren't hardly trained in anything useful at all, except perhaps unwarranted violence and arrogance.
Every time I see a TV show with "real" footage of cops in the field handling citizens, whether shoplifters or drunken slobs at closing hour or drivers or psychopaths on PCP, in France, Germany, USA, UK, wherever, the cops seem to uniformly have ZERO knowledge on how to handle a difficult situation correctly.
You walk in to any half-competent martial arts club, and they can show ANYONE pressure-point control, joint-locking, open-hand stun (no damage) techniques that work on every one. I'm 45, pretty solid built male, and the 14 year old girls in our karate club can manhandle me to the floor against my express will and exert serious non-permanent pain. (and you can take your pre-mature snide remarks and shove them somewhere dark - yes, I know where I'm posting as well).
Why can't those stupid fucking cops on the TV show trying to arrest a shoplifter manage to learn a wrist-lock?
Why do they need 8 football player sized thugs to hold down one skinny drunk teenager and beat him to shit?
I truly do not understand why every parent in the modern world doesn't send their kids to ju-jitsu or aikido classes, just so they can defend themselves long enough to escape or seek help.
As for why the police aren't trained? Or train themselves? Or attend karate classes?
Probably the same reason they don't read books - too fucking stupid for words. Prefer to use a gun or apply "legitimate" violence, feels more manly and "in control". Fucking horse-shit.
My apologies, sincere and honest, to those "good coppers" out there that really do try to do the right thing.
I've met 4 of you in 30 years of martial arts training, in several different countries. What a sad anecdotal statistic.
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.
Very often, people confuse simple with simplistic. The nuance is lost on most. - Clement Mok
What, and become a victim of our foreign policy?
With apologies to Bill Hicks
I'm European. I raised the US Constitution because that's where this incident took place. But really, we living in the UK are in no strong position to criticize. Our police shot someone in a public place without any cause, and then tried to cover it up with a series of lies, and no heads have rolled for that one yet. The only legal challenge that made it as far as an actual court case was one on whether Health and Safety laws had been violated. When things have become so bad that this happens, then I find little comfort in criticizing a fellow victim (the US public). The forces that are bringing about these changes are global. It's right therefore, that people work and talk together globally to oppose them. Hence this is of interest to me as a UK citizen, just as oppression in the UK, France or China is of interest to people in the USA. I didn't draw national boundaries or get to say who can or can't be a member of a country if they want to be. So I base my group on things I do control, not arbitrary nationalities.
Aide-toi, le Ciel t'aidera - Jeanne D'Arc.
by one of the dozens of cameras now sometimes outnumbering the number of protestors at rallies and marches
and then can be taken to the media, where the sensational story will bring even more attention to the cause of the protestors
and then can be litigated, drawing months and years of further media attention and interest
in other words, any smart police department isn't interested in doing anything you suggest, because it massively backfires. and if the police are that stupid to use such subterfuge, then all they are doing is giving the cause the protestors are agitating for massive prolonged media interest. in which case, in the name of the cause you care about, police subterfuge such as you describe is like winning the lottery, and you WISH they would employ these tactics
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
...and then the courts say "Yes, what the police did was illegal. They must now pay $X in damages and say they're sorry." And so the police department gets some money from the city government, or dips into its "lawsuit slush fund" (public tax dollars, either way) and hands out the dough, a bullshit apology statement, and then turns around and buys more weapons for the next protest. Large summits like the G20 have a security budget, and you can often see a significant amount of money factored in for "legal settlements and costs". This is money they set aside in advance for the fines and damages they know will have to pay for violating people's rights.
LOL, right like you'd actually get any money out of it. You'd win a criminal trial here . The only reward for that is walking out of jail. Good luck actually suing the police.
Oh, it happens. The ACLU or NLG brings lawsuits during/after many major protests like this. And sometimes they even win (years later). I've actually heard of more cases where people successfully sue for damages than where people successfully convict cops on criminal charges.
A cynic might say this is because criminal charges actually have a significant negative impact on the police department and would force them to change their policies, wheras civil damages are just a minor inconvenience.
There is a place for playing the "passive victims of police violence", and that strategy has worked at certain times in the past and sometimes still in the present. But I ask: did you see any significant coverage of passive victims of police violence in the corporate media? Because there were a lot of such victims. I mean a lot: uninvolved college kids just trying to get around their campus being beaten, sprayed with chem weapons, tackled and arrested, and they just took it. They wandered around helplessly, being abused by police, pleading for them to stop.
Where was that coverage? It's largely a myth that passive victims of police violence are mediagenic. We think of such things as the perfect story, the perfect thing to arouse public sympathy, mostly because we were raised on the powerful images of the civil rights movement. But it happens all the time these days and nobody hears about it, let alone cares.
People like you say that the reason is that we're not getting passively abused enough, but we've been doing this for decades now. At what point do we look at the old strategies and say "this isn't working anymore"? At what point do we straighten our backs and have enough self-respect to defend ourselves when attacked?
Thanks for the time, the clarification. Well said. The forces are not evenly distributed, globally, of course. US hegemony, the police state mentality, is not yet as severe in Canada as in the UK. Tomorrow? We get to see. Point taken, though. We need all to work toward something closer to real democracy. I fear we may not have much time. But I'm old -- my concern is for my grandchildren, everyone of their generation. Criticizing. Well, no, I don't blame the citizens of the US but if there is to be change they and those of your country will have to demand it. They may not. My country may well slide down that same slope.
Is there really a group called the Tea Baggers?
Why am I the only one that finds that funny?
Similarly thanks for the time you took to reply. I wondered after I'd posted whether I sounded a little snappish.
I have the fullest of respect for you worrying about your grandchildren's world. I think we citizens ar to blame to some extent. If a burglar robs me because I removed all the locks and alarms from my house then, yes, the burglar is still to blame, but I would have been the fool who let him. Where one draws the line between victimhood and culpability is debatable. Certainly the populations are well-played by their governments. A friend in the US was asked by some Iranian neighbours (topical, eh?) why there weren't riots and civil disobedience when Bush 'won' his first election with a minority of the vote and dubious procedures in Florida. She replied: "we're all too busy trying to pay mortgages". And there's a lot of truth to that. Few of us think we have the time to devote to opposing undemocratic behaviour. But still, I think we in the UK and people in the USA, need to act for ourselves to help protect our countries. If the countries become totalitarian, we share the blame for that.
But conversely, if a country is untotalitarian I suppose the people share the credit for that by the same principle, so kudos to old Canadians, I guess.
Regards,
Harmony.
Aide-toi, le Ciel t'aidera - Jeanne D'Arc.
I may not be an expert in the field of artillery, but I believe cannon cannons would be slightly more effective in breaking up pesky protesters.
Oh, it happens. The ACLU or NLG brings lawsuits during/after many major protests like this. And sometimes they even win (years later). I've actually heard of more cases where people successfully sue for damages than where people successfully convict cops on criminal charges.A cynic might say this is because criminal charges actually have a significant negative impact on the police department and would force them to change their policies, wheras civil damages are just a minor inconvenience.
The criminal trial I was refering to was for the protestors not the police.