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.
Our weapons are only deadly if you stand in front of them!
"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.
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.
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.
Haven't you already heard? Our politicians were deaf to the cries of the people LONG ago.
And an explosion can cause blindness, too.
The ban is on weapons *specifically* designed to blind people, as opposed to those for which blindness is merely a side effect.
Really? I thought it'd be more like "Y... M. C. A."
That's the problem. The perceived non-lethality of the weapons causes police to use them more recklessly and with much greater frequency.
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
And like the WTO protests in Seattle, and protests during the Vietnam war, chances are these acts are done by plain clothes officers to give them an excuse to disperse an otherwise peaceful protest.
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
Well, to be fair, you have a right to assemble _peacefully_. Quite a bit of the 'protesters' were smashing windows, burning, and otherwise destroying nearby private property. So it really all depends on who specifically they were using it on. Which personally I would bet was probably the wrong people, but I also have absolutely no evidence for that...
I'm sure they weren't using Celine Dion to disperse hundreds of people. That would count as a public performance, and would cost law enforcement thousands of dollars in RIAA royalty payments.
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!
Shouldn't that be 141 decibels, given that the unit is logarithmic?
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.
So that's what Washington et al should have done, happy to see you agree with your former colonial overlords.
Is the government just trying to provoke violence to justify more totalitarian actions? Is the supreme court taking a nap and won't hear cases that would limit the amount of intervention that can occur with a protest?
The Supreme Court doesn't need to care about jack shit. The civilian population is completely toothless, at this point.
a) No more than 15% of the mainstream population cares about the political situation, tops.
b) As long as a) remains true, the government can slaughter whoever it wants, with impunity, and the ovine majority will not care as long as too large a number are not killed at once, and it doesn't interfere with the source of the majority's distractions.
As long as the majority get their iphones, their McDonald's, and the latest info about what Paris Hilton is doing this week, any totalitarian behaviour is barely going to register to them as background noise. Even if it does, all the government has to do, for the most part, is have the media play the anthem and wave a few flags, and they'll promptly go straight back to sleep.
There are a few destructive nuts out there among the protest groups, and there are also black-hats pretending to be protesters who are hired to start trouble and thus give the authorities the excuse to hammer down control measures, as well as allow the media to spin anti-establishment people as fringe-dangerous. All you have to do is drug and wind-up one borderline loon to make an entire legion of well-meaning and responsible people look bad. It's an old, easy and as it happens, well-documented system. Do a Google around for it. The term "COINTELPRO" will come up. There is a lot of fascinating reading you can do on the subject.
The objective is to keep the little people from forming groups of any power and to keep people like you misinformed and afraid of, (and in love with) the wrong parties.
Remember; it wasn't protesters who trashed the economy and made off with billions of YOUR tax dollars with no repercussions. It was the people being protested against.
-FL
Now it's tanks and armored cars, military fatigues and terrifying weaponry for the sake of... what?
Your question contains the answer. Modern police uniforms are designed to incite fear. Similar to the uniforms of the storm troopers in Star Wars, only in black.
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.
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?
We are already screwed. Congress and friends have already got control of a disturbing amount of power in the US and no one really did anything about it as it is.
Well, the soviets had a disturbing amount of power, and they collapsed. There's an event rapidly approaching, which will drastically reduce the amount of power the federal government wields, and that is the collapse of the dollar. If nobody will take your bad checks, it's kind of hard to hire goons.
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
It isn't done to give an excuse to disperse. They don't need any. It is done to clearly mark the movements as "unlawful" in the media and in peaceful protesters and to prevent any kind of massive public support.
Peaceably. http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/Assembly/overview.aspx
Course, when LRAD and the tear gas and concussion grenades are coming in, things get a lot less peaceful looking with all the running around screaming, in turn justifying the LRAD, tear gas, and concussion grenades. Fiendishly clever in its simplicity.
I am not a crackpot.
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
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
A bullet may have your name on it but splash damage is addressed "To whom it may concern."
I don't get it either. Friggin PRO CASTRO demonstrators marched right through the intersection of 18th and U Streets when I lived in Washington DC, and nobody cared. The DC police escorted them through the intersection, and along U St.
You've never heard about this protest, because the police were cool about it. Nobody takes a pro-Castro protest seriously. The G-20 protestors are being taken seriously, and it's backfiring on the cops. If they treated these protestors with the same civility that the pro-Castro demonstration was treated, you probably wouldn't hear very much about it.
For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
Having lived in Seattle, and known people who were in the WTO Seattle protests, I'd have to tell you that you are full of crap. The Seattle PD is one of the best in the country. Our former police chief is even more making marijuana legal. The groups that caused the trouble in the Seattle WTO protests were already very active. They weren't incited, they came with the intention of causing trouble. Normal people weren't incited, as you suggest, into literally destroying specific pre-targeted downtown businesses. It's actually somewhat insulting you'd suggest so.
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
You're absolutely right!
Don't blame the protesters.
Don't blame them when they started hurling bricks, smashing windows or rolling dumpsters downhill at the police.
I am sure provocateurs did the 3 million in damages in Seattle 10 years ago.
And they must be so disappointed in the measly 50k they were able to do here in Pittsburgh.
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.
is there any wonder combat troops sign up as cops as the only viable job they're halfways trained for?
The way we treat soldiers is shameful, but there's no way a soldier is in anyway trained as a cop. I'd say that they are less qualified for being a soldier, since they've been trained to kill and subjugate, while cops are supposed to keep the peace and build ties with the community - the army is a wholly improper tool for policing.
Reboot macht Frei.
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)
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.
"those people" are usually undercover policemen. The cops generally do not want peaceful demonstrations, since they reduce control options. You can hand-carry each individual non-violent protester from the ground to a waiting van, or you can get one of your guys to throw a brick from within their ranks and bust out the tear gas and water cannons. It's easy to do, effective, and practically impossible to stop.
Literalism isn't a form of humor, it's you being irritating.
On the other hand, some of us consider lives and due process more important than your (or my) stuff. I would be among those. I don't want to see the police appointed judge, jury, and executioner. That's why we have judges and juries.
I'd much rather lose my stuff than my rights.
To fight the war on terror, stop being afraid.
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...
I don't doubt for a moment that ANY police department in the country would miss the opportunity to rile up protesters so they get to bust some heads.
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.
Just because the police force is one of the best doesn't mean they don't deploy agent provocateurs.
I'm pro-police most of the time. I fully support their actions in fighting crime in the community. But most police forces are way too heavy handed against peaceful protestors. If the protest is peaceful but politically charged, the higher-ups deem it necessary to break it up by any means necessary.
Alex Jones recently mentioned that he knew someone who worked for the Austin Piggy Department. This guy quit because his superiors kept on telling him to attack and ruff people up. But I guess that's just a conspiracy theory ;)
Because it is unheard of that some people smash things just for fun.
not to mention it's not like you're sitting on your ass the whole time being a soldier. If you don't think it's possible to get AT LEAST the amount of training you'd get in a college course from years in the military, you're probably just misguided about how well civilian training works. Yeah, you won't get a lot of useful experience, and your own specialisation choices won't be what is focused on the most, but there's no doubt that it's at LEAST as good as the crap they put civilians through- and then you get civilian training on top of that.
Almost makes it worth being brainwashed to the point where you don't actually have any ability to make decisions for yourself if someone speaks to you in the correct tone.
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