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.

28 of 630 comments (clear)

  1. Department of Orwellian Reasoning by CubeNudger · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Our weapons are only deadly if you stand in front of them!

    1. Re:Department of Orwellian Reasoning by __aagctu1952 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      On the other hand, you have to consider the fact that the weapons that have been used in the past in place of this "sound cannon" for crowd control - rubber bullets and wooden batons, for example - are significantly more likely to cause bodily harm, including permanent damage and "fatal aneurisms". And they are significantly harder to escape.

      True, but: there is a mental (and often legal) barrier for the use of any weapon, and the less harmful a weapon is perceived to be, the lower that barrier is. Google "taser death" or "pepper spray injury"; cops perceive tasers and pepper spray to be harmless, so they use them indiscriminately.
      And speaking of indiscriminate use, there is also the matter of target discrimination: you have to mentally pick a person to strike with a baton and then physically hit him. You have to aim every rubber bullet you fire. This? Just sweep the entire crowd with the sound cannon - after all, it's harmless!

    2. Re:Department of Orwellian Reasoning by NoYob · · Score: 4, Insightful

      A friend of mine has been out there for the majority of this week.

      Is he a journalist or a protester?

      If he's a protester, I am curious just what he thinks he's accomplishing? For the life of me, I have no idea what they're protesting about, or what their problem with the G20 and every other type of international economic summit is, or what they think they can do about it. If their goal is to "get the word out"; well, they're doing a really shitty job.

      As far as I can tell, they're just a bunch of punks who are causing damage and rioting for the sake of causing damage and rioting under the false pretense of standing up for something.

      --
      It's NOT me! It's the meds! I'm on 1000mg of Fukitol.
    3. Re:Department of Orwellian Reasoning by h3llfish · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Speaking of Orwellian, you're a fascist. No one is rioting. That's a lie that you just made up. I've read several accounts of what has been going on, and I find nothing about damage or what I would call a "riot". What the protesters are accused of is "unlawful assembly", but I've also found nothing about what makes the gathering unlawful. So that makes you a fascist who hates our constitution and our freedoms, in my book.

      It doesn't matter what they think they are accomplishing. They have a first amendment right to protest, and shooting them with pain cannons seems to fly in the face of that right. If someone breaks a window, obviously that person should be arrested, but you can't arrest people for crimes that you think they might be about to commit when there is no evidence that any crime is imminent. And you can't take away the first amendment rights of most of the crowd just because it might contain a few trouble-makers.

      As to what they might be trying to accomplish, you don't seem to have thought about it too hard. It doesn't take much research to learn that the nature of the G20 organization is undemocratic. How does a country get represented in these talks? It's by invitation only. Poor countries are not welcome at these talks. Neither are poor people.

      This meeting is simply the rich people who run the world getting together outside of the formal bounds of government to decide how the world will be run in order to protect their interests. The world's poor people will not be represented.

      I think that might have something to do with why people are protesting. So what do you suppose that you were accomplishing with your slanderous tales of "riots" and "punks"? Besides being a fascist, I mean.

    4. Re:Department of Orwellian Reasoning by DaHat · · Score: 4, Insightful

      How your trash got modded insightful is beyond me.

      >Speaking of Orwellian, you're a fascist.

      Didn't you get the memo? Calling those you disagree with facist is so 2001-2008... now you are supposed to call them racist, get with it man!

      >No one is rioting.

      Depends on your definition of rioting, Merriam-Webster defines it in part as:

      2 a : public violence, tumult, or disorder b : a violent public disorder; specifically : a tumultuous disturbance of the public peace by three or more persons assembled together and acting with a common intent

      Given some of the footage I've seen... that would seem to fit it... or are people grabbing dumpsters and running them towards the police something ordinary and peaceful protestors do?

      >That's a lie that you just made up.

      Such a shame that the word 'lie' has lost all meaning over the last 8 years.

      For what he said to be a lie... he would have to know the truth and be deliberately trying to say or imply otherwise. He could be dead wrong... as could you... however you are offering no more than him but instead come off looking rather petty with your name calling.

      >I've read several accounts of what has been going on, and I find nothing about damage or what I would call a "riot".

      Really? Your Google-foo must be weak... mine though is strong, because a quick search for g 20 pittsburgh damage turns up 290k hits... repeating a number of ~50k in damage (20k of which sounds to be due to one man).

      Care to offer some links to some of these bits you've read with no mention of damage?

      >What the protesters are accused of is "unlawful assembly", but I've also found nothing about what makes the gathering unlawful.

      Just because you have the right to free speech does not mean you are free to exercise it where you want. Some areas (including Pittsburgh) require permits for certain types of activities so as to try to prevent those activities from interfering with the rights of others.

      Those groups who were accused of 'unlawfully assembly' failed to acquire such permits.

      Interestingly enough... many of the Tea Parties planned ahead and did.

      >So that makes you a fascist who hates our constitution and our freedoms, in my book.

      And you are a moron who does not understand our constitution or our freedoms... not just in my book, but in demonstrated fact, as evidenced by this post of yours.

      >It doesn't matter what they think they are accomplishing.

      Amazing... you've actually said something correct here, congrats!

      >They have a first amendment right to protest, and shooting them with pain cannons seems to fly in the face of that right.

      It depends on if they are breaking the law while exercising that right.

      I too have the right to free speech... however if I show up outside of your front door with a bullhorn at 3 am to express it with a lecture on... why Coke is better than Pepsi, I will be arrested (as I should).

      If I were to return with a group of friends the next night to protest my arrest, break a few windows and refuse to leave when the police come, they would once again be legally obligated (rightly so) to arrest us.

      >If someone breaks a window, obviously that person should be arrested, but you can't arrest people for crimes that you think they might be about to commit when there is no evidence that any crime is imminent.

      You started correct... but then just had to go off on another nonsensical tangent... unless you wish to provide specific evidence from this case of someone being arrested for just being there based on the fear that they MIGHT commit a crime...

  2. extended periods unavoidable with crowds by meerling · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:extended periods unavoidable with crowds by Entropius · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Isn't it rather disgusting that police feel the need to use multiple sophisticated weapons against a group of people guilty only of "marching without a permit"?

      Dispersing a crowd by force is something that should only be done in extreme circumstances. From TFA it doesn't look like this qualifies.

    2. Re:extended periods unavoidable with crowds by Mprx · · Score: 4, Insightful

      "OSHA also states that "exposure to impulsive or impact noise should not exceed 140 dB peak sound pressure level" (CFR 1910.95(b)(2))"

      This thing runs at 151db, and it's a tight beam so there'll be little volume loss with distance. No matter how brief the blast it will cause hearing damage. This is a device designed for permanently disabling people without visible damage, and it should be banned under international law just as blinding weapons are. Everyone who makes/sells/uses this device should be executed for war crimes.

    3. Re:extended periods unavoidable with crowds by node+3 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      They only use it as needed

      I saw no situation in which this weapon was "needed" at all. Was the mob dangerous?

      just like the training they do for the Taser

      The training is apparently, "this is safer than a gun, so fire away!"

      Never, ever, ever should a taser be used when someone's safety isn't at risk. Ever. But you see it used as a compliance device all the time. We are not the police's slaves. But step out of line, boy, and you get the lash.

  3. Re:The Bush administration by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

  4. Re:Good. by h4rm0ny · · Score: 4, Insightful


    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.
  5. Re:Wow... by Hatta · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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!
  6. Re:Good. by Hatta · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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!
  7. Re:Wow... by selven · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Shouldn't that be 141 decibels, given that the unit is logarithmic?

  8. Re:The Bush administration by node+3 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

  9. Re:Why can't we protest a summit meeting? by petrus4 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

  10. Re:Better than a billy club? by Fantastic+Lad · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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

  11. Re:Biggest gang in America! by node+3 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

  12. Ah, so you are for free immigration? by Mathinker · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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?

  13. Re:Testing the limits of repression by jcr · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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."
  14. Re:Wow... by 7+digits · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

  15. Re:Freedom of assembly by Shadow+of+Eternity · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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."
  16. Re:Don't blame the protestors by maccodemonkey · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  17. Re:Good. by orangesquid · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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
  18. "Non-lethal" by khasim · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

  19. Re:Agents provocateurs by haruharaharu · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.
  20. Re:Good. by easyTree · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Nobody's stopping you from voting with your feet and jumping ship to a different country

    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.

  21. Re:Speaking of Orwellian Reasoning by tsm_sf · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.