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!
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.
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.
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...
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.
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.
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.
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."
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
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.
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
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.
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.