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.

Comments

Good.

[Anonymous Coward]

Fuck 'em.

Re:Good.

[h4rm0ny]

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?

Re:Good.

[Anonymous Coward]

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?

Re:Good.

[Anonymous Coward]

If you don't like your government's policies, find a new government. Nobody's stopping you.

Re:Good.

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

Umm. This article is pretty much about just one of the ways that lots of people are stopping you.

Re:Good.

[Old97]

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.

Re:Good.

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah? Let's see them use the same techniques against the Tea Baggers carrying guns.

Re:Good.

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:Good.

[Hatta]

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.

Re:Good.

[Anonymous Coward]

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....

Re:Good.

[Anonymous Coward]

So that's what Washington et al should have done, happy to see you agree with your former colonial overlords.

Re:Good.

[Anonymous Coward]

Tea baggers? Is that a porn movie?

Re:Good.

[Rob the Bold]

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.

Re:Good.

[h4rm0ny]

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.

Re:Good.

[Trepidity]

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.

Re:Good.

[Dudeman_Jones]

You ever actually look into what it takes to immigrate to another country? It's not near that simple.

Re:Good.

[orangesquid]

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?"

Re:Good.

[easyTree]

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.

Re:Good.

[poetmatt]

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?

Re:Good.

[Old97]

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.

Re:Good.

[Old97]

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.

Re:Good.

[easyTree]

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."

Re:Good.

[Anonymous Coward]

sure they are. ever try to travel lately?

Re:Good.

[easyTree]

Who do we appeal to when the very people charged with protecting the public good blatantly abuse that power ON VIDEO ?

Re:Good.

[easyTree]

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.

Re:Good.

[easyTree]

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.

Re:Good.

[catchblue22]

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.

Re:Good.

[QuantumG]

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.

Re:Good.

[genner]

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.

Re:Good.

[QuantumG]

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.

Re:Good.

[moosesocks]

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...

Re:Good.

[Hurricane78]

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.

Re:Good.

[omfgnosis]

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.

Re:Good.

[omfgnosis]

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.

Re:Good.

[omfgnosis]

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.

Re:Good.

[omfgnosis]

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.

Re:Good.

[Anonymous Coward]

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?

Re:Good.

[Maxmin]

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.

Re:Good.

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:Good.

[Anonymous Coward]

And you are waving off his opinion because he might be of the US? You stupid fucking bigot. Penis envy for not being able to kick any nation in the teeth that has a dissenting view of you huh? So you use your anger and pick on the US because, it has achieved what took centuries for your country to achieve that got torn down in minutes. Get over it, the US isn't perfect by any stretch of the imagination but stop evangelizing your bullshit police state and you KNOW it's a fucking police state.

Re:Good.

[arkane1234]

that's the point.

Re:Good.

[742Evergreen]

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

Re:Good.

[Hal_Porter]

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.

Re:Good.

[zeno53]

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.

Re:Good.

[xappax]

"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.

Re:Good.

[xappax]

...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.

Re:Good.

[Old97]

If you've involved your cause in violence than you've lost the battle for public opinion - which is the the whole point of demonstrating. Your so-called "bad bloc" anarchists aren't really defending anyone. There is no "war" or "battle" between protesters and police. It's a battle to convince large numbers of the public on the sidelines to join your cause. That will force the ruling class to modify or change their behavior.

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.

Re:Good.

[RMH101]

What, and become a victim of our foreign policy?

With apologies to Bill Hicks

Re:Good.

[h4rm0ny]

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.

Re:Good.

[genner]

...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.

Re:Good.

[xappax]

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.

Re:Good.

[xappax]

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?

Re:Good.

[zeno53]

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.

Re:Good.

[Anonymous Coward]

Is there really a group called the Tea Baggers?

Why am I the only one that finds that funny?

Re:Good.

[h4rm0ny]

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. :) You seem to have ended up with a country that has a good level of respect amongst freedom-lovers around the world. If you can keep it that way, it will always help people fighting the fight elsewhere to have something to point at. :)

Regards,
Harmony.

Re:Good.

[genner]

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.

Off course it can damage the hearing permanently

[Anonymous Coward]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noise-induced_hearing_loss#Acoustic_trauma

Next step:

[Nithendil]

Pain cannons.

Re:Next step:

[Rising Ape]

Already there.

Re:Next step:

[dunkelfalke]

Atreides Sonic Tank

Re:Next step:

[Anonymous Coward]

Or earplugs

Re:Next step:

[qbast]

Looks like good tool for 'enhanced interrogations'. Just direct the weapon at subject that can't run and wait until he is ready to tell you everything he knows and quite a lot of things he actually does not know. Could be marketed as high-tech replacement for traditional hot irons.

Re:Next step:

[reub2000]

Most earplugs are rated to block about 30db, bringing the sound down to around 120db, which is still very irritating.

Re:Next step:

[Anonymous Coward]

That one is also known as the "cancer cannon."

Re:Next step:

[physburn]

You might have been joking, but the US have indeed made a microwave cannon, that cause incredible amounts of pain to the exposed flesh of anyone in its path.

---

Non Lethal Weapons Feed @ Feed Distiller

Re:Next step:

[syousef]

SO now protesters need to cover themselves something tasty but only 1/64th of an inch thick. That way the pain ray won't work on them but they'll get a delicious microwave meal instead!

Re:Next step:

[genner]

SO now protesters need to cover themselves something tasty but only 1/64th of an inch thick. That way the pain ray won't work on them but they'll get a delicious microwave meal instead!

Is there anything bacon can't do?

Re:Next step:

[Fred_A]

Most earplugs are rated to block about 30db, bringing the sound down to around 120db, which is still very irritating.

Put several, with 3 pairs you're back to 60dB which is OK.

Re:Next step:

[reub2000]

If this is a joke, then it's not a very funny one. If your actually being serious, then god help us all.

This looks...

[Dentrasi]

Sort of like the 'Mosquito' devices that are aimed at anyone under 21...

Re:This looks...

[Entropius]

I have very good high-frequency hearing (and am over 21), and those devices are annoying -- I've heard homeowners using them in their front lawns. How are they different from shining laser pointers in people's eyes? (Note that ordinary laser pointers will not cause blindness in people with healthy ocular reflexes.)

Department of Orwellian Reasoning

[CubeNudger]

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

Re:Department of Orwellian Reasoning

[lurch_mojoff]

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.

Re:Department of Orwellian Reasoning

[stonedcat]

They've already used rubber bullets, batons, and fucking tear gas...
A friend of mine has been out there for the majority of this week.
Seeing that they only just used this now it's pretty pathetic.

Re:Department of Orwellian Reasoning

[__aagctu1952]

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!

Re:Department of Orwellian Reasoning

[node 3]

How are those things harder to escape? A baton only requires you move about two feet away. The sound cannon's range, duration, ease of targeting and continual application (even on a moving target) vastly exceed that of rubber bullets.

Re:Department of Orwellian Reasoning

[NoYob]

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.

Re:Department of Orwellian Reasoning

[93 Escort Wagon]

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.

From what I saw during the Seattle WTO protests, they accomplished the acquisition of a lot of free televisions.

Re:Department of Orwellian Reasoning

[wpiman]

I don't know what footage you have seen; but the videos I have seen have kids sitting around on the street not really doing much. I think we will find out that the cops probably went a little overboard here; but that is speculation and I will wait for the official inquiry.

Re:Department of Orwellian Reasoning

[Anonymous Coward]

ear plugs standard at rallies now?

Re:Department of Orwellian Reasoning

[commodoresloat]

Yes, certainly that's precisely what one would think if one made no attempt whatsoever to research the event or the movement beyond asking a third party for a hearsay opinion on slashdot. And why would you? it's not like there's any information available on the internet or anything.

Re:Department of Orwellian Reasoning

[Anonymous Coward]

I would just as soon see them all shot.

Town Hall protesters were the Devil, but these guys are cool?

Re:Department of Orwellian Reasoning

[Mix Master Nixon]

I would just as soon see them all shot.

I feel the same way about you, if it's any consolation.

Re:Department of Orwellian Reasoning

[Phroggy]

Yes, certainly that's precisely what one would think if one made no attempt whatsoever to research the event or the movement beyond asking a third party for a hearsay opinion on slashdot. And why would you?

Exactly: why would I go out of my way to try to figure out why some nutjobs are doing what they're doing? If I hear about the police using rubber bullets and sound canons and whatever else, but I have no idea why you were protesting, then your protest has completely and utterly failed, and you need to rethink your strategy.

Are you just.. generally protesting the existence of the G20? OK, but... should the leaders of these countries not talk to each other about economic issues? Do you have any constructive recommendations? What should they be doing differently? Are you angry about something? Is this really the most appropriate forum to display your anger? Do you think the G20 leaders know why you're protesting?

Re:Department of Orwellian Reasoning

[couchslug]

Those so-called barriers don't always work.

Back in the day, it was expected that the mere intimidation factor of troops carrying rifles with fixed bayonets would quell any riot. Instead, lack of non-lethal options contributed to the shootings at Kent State, Jackson State, and elsewhere.

Were I a rioter, I'd rather contend with weapons designed to be less-lethal than ball ammo, or nightsticks (skull fracture, anyone?), or pepper spray.

Re:Department of Orwellian Reasoning

[AnotherUsername]

They've already used rubber bullets, batons, and fucking tear gas... A friend of mine has been out there for the majority of this week. Seeing that they only just used this now it's pretty pathetic.

Would your friend rather that they used real bullets?

Re:Department of Orwellian Reasoning

[Catskul]

Seeing that they only just used this now

I'm not sure what you're complaining about: that they didn't use it soon enough, or that you think they used the bullets first?
I live in Pittsburgh, and work in Lawrenceville section of town where the first serious protests of the week happened. My co-workers and I went out to watch and followed the march around for a while. They pretty much immediately used the LRAD as the first round. The CS (pepper) gas was also used after the LRAD, and I didn't see any rubber bullets/bean bag rounds being used, but hear they were used much later.

I witnessed this confrontation here which I think was the second time the march encountered the police. The first time they only used the LRAD. I managed to get an empty canister of the gas once the police left.

It looks like they got a little more brutal when they went to the Pitt campus. I think by that time some shop windows had been broken, and there were people setting dumpsters on fire.

Re:Department of Orwellian Reasoning

[shentino]

Riiight... ...And what do you think aiming does?

Re:Department of Orwellian Reasoning

[phantomfive]

According to this guy, they aren't particularly organized and have nothing much in common other than they are unhappy with the world, and the G20 meeting seems like a good time to protest it. When the police showed up there were more people trying to film the police than there were actually protesting. The police looked annoyed and one of the most active participants was John Oliver from The Daily Show. I know some people just like protesting. It's kind of fun.

Although it really doesn't do much. Unless you are trying to bring awareness to some cause that no one has ever heard of but probably would care about if they did, protests aren't going to accomplish anything. Really, when was the last time you saw a protest on the death penalty, gay marriage, the Iraq war, abortion, or really anything that made you change your mind about it? It's hard to make a sensible, reasonable argument by yelling, blocking traffic, and trying to provoke police violence. Especially these days when any event at all is going to have some kind of protest.

Re:Department of Orwellian Reasoning

[jamstar7]

Were I a rioter, I'd rather contend with weapons designed to be less-lethal than ball ammo, or nightsticks (skull fracture, anyone?), or pepper spray.

Considering they used this on a peaceful protest, I totally agree, use nonlethal force. The lawyers will make a killing, possibly pushing the city into insolvency.

Re:Department of Orwellian Reasoning

[easyTree]

And then what? They all need to be brought up on charges, dismissed from their jobs and locked in their own cells for breaking their OWN LAWS. I mean for fuck's sake - if you can't follow your own rules, what kind of joke are you?

Re:Department of Orwellian Reasoning

[h3llfish]

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.

Re:Department of Orwellian Reasoning

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm sorry that they have missed your friend.
Let's hope that the authorities manage to get to him soon too.

Re:Department of Orwellian Reasoning

[Anonymous Coward]

And the thing is, if the first place I hear about some problem is a protest, I assume that they are just extremists and ignore them.

Re:Department of Orwellian Reasoning

[halltk1983]

I'm sure his friend would prefer they allow peaceful assembly. I only wish there were some document suggesting this to be allowed in the United States...

Re:Department of Orwellian Reasoning

[tacocat]

If you want to understand why the are protesting then I suggest you read "The Mystery of Banking" by Murray Rothbard, "America's Great Depression" by Murray Rothbard. There are dozens of other great books and articles available at mises.org.

Fundamentally what G-20 is doing is coordinating their monetary inflation policies so that they can monetize their debts on pace with each other. If they did not then countries would be at risk of financial collapse. They have no intention of doing anything to actually solve the problem with global economy.

Rather than allowing the required process of price decline, wage decline, and general financial depression they are pumping inflation into the game to artificially keep prices high so no one notices the prices are changing. This is price control. But salaries effective buying power is plummeting. Need proof? Check the price of hard commodities like Gold, Silver, and even Mac & Cheese (up 14% in 2 months).

The G-20 is trying to coordinate all of this so that everyone's effective buying power falls in unison to help stabilize prices and trade.

Left to our own devices, the US would become a export nation because of falling wages. But first we need the industrial infrastructure to do this -- which we have largely lost over the last 50 years. Which means we probably won't really recover during most of our lifetimes.

Re:Department of Orwellian Reasoning

[michaelhood]

Would your friend rather that they used real bullets?

I would, yes. There is likely to be a lot more accountability, congressional hearings, and the like when police start mowing down unarmed crowds of protesters.

Re:Department of Orwellian Reasoning

[michaelhood]

The first time they only used the LRAD. I managed to get an empty canister of the gas once the police left.

Your sink is filthy.

Re:Department of Orwellian Reasoning

[Anonymous Coward]

They should keep their protests where they belong, buried in the letters to the editor section of the paper or on a blog where they can be safely ignored.

Re:Department of Orwellian Reasoning

[Lord Kano]

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.

I'm actually in Pittsburgh. Perhaps 8-9 miles away from where these events occurred. What is missing is that many of the people who have been subjected to this are innocent observers. Sound cannons and OC canisters don't discriminate between the people who are actually causing a problem and the people who are just protesting and not causing any damage.

LK

Re:Department of Orwellian Reasoning

[DarkOx]

Well, that is the the shithead G20 leaders want you to think. I guess they are winning. So much for democracy. I hope I can learn to enjoy being a slave as much as you are.

Re:Department of Orwellian Reasoning

[Anonymous Coward]

Why not. If the police start using bullets to upset peaceful assembly rights, isn't it only fair that they should be repaid in kind?

Re:Department of Orwellian Reasoning

[X0563511]

I would rather the police respect our rights, instead of trying to quash anything that looks to be outside the status quo.

Re:Department of Orwellian Reasoning

[Anonymous Coward]

From what I saw during the Seattle WTO protests, they accomplished the acquisition of a lot of free televisions.

Televisions just want to be free!

Re:Department of Orwellian Reasoning

[Anonymous Coward]

Most of the time the crazy anarchy people are military and its there job to infiltrate and bring these protests down. Rember the military work for the banks.

The anarchy group in question that where the crazy ones at the g20 where interviewed and didn't have any reason.. there where alot of people there who where there to protest a real protest abolishing the federal reserve the bailouts and they where civilized peaceful people.. almost 90% of the time the rough rougher ones always months later are mentioned in the news to be some sort of setup.. ..

inforwars.com

search the site read up a bit and don't take my word for it turn your tv off and spend some time reading and debunking if you think its not real

Re:Department of Orwellian Reasoning

[Anonymous Coward]

Town Hall protesters were the Devil, but these guys are cool?

No. They're all douchebags.

Re:Department of Orwellian Reasoning

[DaHat]

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...

Re:Department of Orwellian Reasoning

[kimvette]

They want you to forget that document because the same document suggests that keeping and bearing arms to make it possible to revolt and overturn the government when tyranny reigns.

Re:Department of Orwellian Reasoning

[Hurricane78]

Some also say, that the reason for this, is to artificially throw people into debts they can't repay, so they work harder in their hamster wheels. All for the good of the upper 0.01% of the people. And in terms of evolution and nature, is makes perfect sense. You want all the resources (inclusive human ones), and your mindset and genes to be the only surviving. Kinda like really big time asshole natural selection.

The problem is, that in the long run, they are killing us with it. And this means that they are killing themselves and their whole goal too. But what is that, in the eyes of short-term greed? :/

The good thing is, that it's actually pretty easy to get out of the hamster wheel: Stop using their money.
Yes, it is very hard if done alone. But think of the smallest town that could sustain itself completely, and still have what you need. (Which even without compromises is less than you think.)
Now you have the number of people that you'd need to get out of it *without* any real changes in your life (except for moving). If you accept small changes at first, then that number drastically goes down.

Every single bill is actually a debt of someone else. That's how it works. (Look at what's written on the dollar bills, if you don't believe me.)
Without using their money... their economic ups and downs have no meanings to you. A quick drop-in replacement is gold and silver. Everyone takes them, if he knows they are real. And when done right, the worse the economy is, the more you can buy.

Ha. At this point, people usually realize, how handy is is, that some big banks have their huge reserves in *gold*:
1. Get rid of all your money.
2. Make the economy crash.
3. Buy everything that's worth something with your gold.
4. Profit.

Why should only they do it? You can do it too. Just pay attention to the fact, that to buy gold with paper money, when your paper money *already* is worth nothing, is not such a good idea. ;)

Re:Department of Orwellian Reasoning

[Hurricane78]

That's the worst thing about the "wars" nowadays. Countries like the US mostly (not exclusively, but mostly) just push buttons and watch screens and data. A cruise missile is such an example.
You select the "target" (note the lack of mentioning that this is a place where real humans live, with partners and children thinking of them, etc), you press fire, and the target is "destroyed" (note the lack of "ripping live humans to shreds, destroying their *existence*, or making them *die* very painful and slowly").

I wish some aliens would just place a big cannon in space, and every time somebody is murdered, the murderer and only the murderer is annihilated. Letting a AI/robot do it, would only result in the creator of that machine being annihilated. No exceptions. No misses. Nobody would be overlooked.
Then wars would be over in an instant.

Unfortunately the whole thing is much harder for other crimes, like lie-based tricks.

Re:Department of Orwellian Reasoning

[Anonymous Coward]

There was no chance for an American recovery in our lifetimes anyway. The entitlements Bush Jr. allowed to pass are going to put the country 60 trillion dollars into debt in 40 years.

This is the fundamental truth of economics: if people stop working, the economy grinds to a halt. This might seem like a "classist" statement, but it's just a restatement of the law of conservation of energy. This is why governments CANNOT allow people to retire too early, even if they have saved their money. This is why governments use loose monetary policy, to slowly deplete the value of people's savings, so that they can't typically pass on large sums to the next generation. There has to be some incentive to work, or nobody would do it.

If a significant percentage of the work force is going to retire shortly, their contributions to the stock market are going to dry up. Something like 18% of Americans were "scheduled" to retire in a few years. Is it really surprising that their investment spending stopped at the first sign of trouble, and that they took their money out of the market? Is it surprising that companies that were growing because of their money can't now?

The law of conservation of energy is too important for an economist to ignore. But demographics are just as important. They drive our need for energy, which can no longer be fulfilled. This is a separate issue from our "current crisis", but the current crisis has brought it to people's attention.

Re:Department of Orwellian Reasoning

[Nazlfrag]

As far as I can see, they are legitimate protesters with a grievance against multinational companies atrocious human rights and environmental records, and protesting their governments for the collusion and collaboration they enjoy with these multinationals in that they not only do nothing to punish these companies for their sins but actively encourage them.

Either way they should be allowed to protest, denial of a permit be damned.

Re:Department of Orwellian Reasoning

[Anonymous Coward]

How would that even make sense.

Your first point: When you have a debt - if US borrows $100 from China and has $1000 circulating in the country, and then monetizes the debt by printing extra currency, then the IOU owned by China decreases in value. So China's not going to just agree to such a policy... esp. not when it is hoarding close to $1 Trillion.

Second - your thought that US would become an export nation. How ? US has a lot to sell - it is easily the leading innovator in the world. So GE for example makes a lot of money in licensing IP to its subsidiaries in other countries.... but how in hell would you expect US to compete with say Mexico or China in making, say, locks ? We Americans are expensive in terms of cost of labor - so we need to keep moving up the complexity ladder. [analogous to say HTML page designers making $150/hr in early and mid 1990s - and now it is a commodity skillset]

Finally - what is this price decline that you talk of ? If we monetize debt, then the value of the $$ goes down, so in absolute terms, your salary has gone down - but for material goods (say wheat, or hogs or gold) the price goes up cos they are easily transactable and the demand is global. They dont need to 'pump inflation into the game', when the value of $ goes down then the value of any goods which needs commodity materials goes up. The only way prices can decline is if demand decreases ....
with China and India in the picture (and them being already out of recession), the demand will not decrease.

Manufacturing may come back to the US - if the cost of labor goes down (chances are low), or if the cost of shipping goes up tremendously( higher chances). But chances of us being a manufacturing superpower is gone - not because our government screwed us, but because the cost of a laborer's time in the US is so much higher than the cost of a laborer in India/china (oh and Africa is still to blossom!)

Re:Department of Orwellian Reasoning

[Cochonou]

Although it really doesn't do much. Unless you are trying to bring awareness to some cause that no one has ever heard of but probably would care about if they did, protests aren't going to accomplish anything.

In France, popular protesting coupled with strikes has regularly made the government back off some laws. Big demonstrations can sometimes shift the opinion of the people. A recent example is First Employment Contract law. The country works like this. I would be surprised if it wasn't the same, to a certain extent, in other countries.

Re:Department of Orwellian Reasoning

[Anonymous Coward]

Try this for a good reason protests work. There are plenty of deliberately offensive protesters out there, neo-nazis, westbro etc. but I wouldn't want to take away their rights to free public speech.

Re:Department of Orwellian Reasoning

[phantomfive]

France is a different situation, however, because they don't really have any other way to talk to the government. In America, we can call our representative or write letters; heck my representative even has town meetings where I can converse with her personally if I want to. In France, you can't really do that.

Re:Department of Orwellian Reasoning

[Omestes]

Ahh... Infowars, probably the most trust worthy source that ever existed. I especially loved the "Obama is a zionist, muslim" one, oh.. and the "Truther" crap that they spread. If the things they generally espoused were true, I'd trust the government MORE, since they would be infinitely more competent than I view them as now.

I'm guessing that there IS some infliltration of these anarchist groups, this is obvious. But I severely doubt that the wackos are all "gubermint plants," barring actual, you know, evidence. Unless of course we say all the wackos in the Glenn Beck/Tea Party scene are also "gubermint plants" to make the right wing look inept as well. Which would be nice, since their making both extremes look silly, and thus it is a vast MODERATE conspiracy... Which, as a moderate, is pretty awesome.

I spent some time going to a very liberal college, and can tell you from experience that most protesters (of any cause) really have no clue. I remember one friend actually organizing and staging a protest at my college, who had very hard time actually articulating what they exactly were protesting. I'm guessing this is common, if not the norm. Watch some videos of people interviewing the "death panel" protesters some time, they have no bloody clue either, and I doubt that most people think that they were actually staged.

That said, to protest doesn't necessarily mean that you are dumb, but the dumb ones get the media play. As a rule, I think most protests are a waste of time, and only serve to cheapen actual arguments. If you have a point, it is more productive to coherently tell it to people (with evidence and reasoning), than it is to dress up in silly costumes, chant slogans, and cause property damage.

Re:Department of Orwellian Reasoning

[AnotherUsername]

Hmm...I am marked a troll merely for pointing out the fact that the police are using nonlethal methods rather than randomly shooting actual bullets and killing people, which is what some people around here seem to think that police always do. It seems like there are people here who actually believe that every police officer is out to kill everyone who disagrees with them. And I am the one marked a troll. Unbelievable. There seem to be a few anarchists around here who think the government is always out to get them, and anyone who thinks that having a police force in society being a pretty good thing is marked a troll. Unbelievable.

Re:Department of Orwellian Reasoning

[ChameleonDave]

Exactly: why would I go out of my way to try to figure out why [thousands of concerned citizens] are doing what they're doing [about a series of dire problems that affect the world]? If [the corporate media feed me skewed and sensationalised stories] about the police using rubber bullets and sound canons and whatever else, but I have no idea why you were protesting [because the media choose not to give this information, and I am too lazy to google for it], then your protest has completely and utterly failed, and you need to rethink your strategy.

Similarly, I can imagine a kid who sits in the back of the class sending text messages and chewing gum saying, "Why would I go out of my way to try to figure out what this nutjob teacher is saying? If my stoner friends tell me that learning is for losers, and I have no idea why you are trying to make me literate and numerate, then your teaching has completely failed, and you need to rethink it."

It's always good to re-evaluate strategies, but it's not for you to say so. It is yours to listen for once.

Re:Department of Orwellian Reasoning

[Anonymous Coward]

At first I read that as free television time.

But I did a double take and saw that you wrote free televisions. Probably a better deal.

But now TVs converted to digital, and those TVs are useless without converter. Stupid idiots.

Times change and it's amazing how it puts things in perspective, huh.

Re:Department of Orwellian Reasoning

[rohan972]

It's always good to re-evaluate strategies, but it's not for you to say so. It is yours to listen for once.

So the message of the protesters is that we should shut up and listen?

Re:Department of Orwellian Reasoning

[rohan972]

Were I a rioter, I'd rather contend with weapons designed to be less-lethal than ball ammo, or nightsticks (skull fracture, anyone?), or pepper spray.

Were you a peaceful protester your opinion ought to be heard. Were you a rioter, responding to you with violence is justified. As far as I'm concerned initiating violence removes your right to demand legal protection until such time as you stop and return to peaceful methods.

Re:Department of Orwellian Reasoning

[ChameleonDave]

So the message of the protesters is that we should shut up and listen?

Essentially, yeah. Except the shutting-up part is optional. And after the listening there should ideally be an action phase.

Re:Department of Orwellian Reasoning

[falseflag911]

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.

Actually, the majority of the demonstrators were peaceful. There were multiple groups there, including anti-war; basically anyone who is sick of being screwed over. If you think that sending the military after people is a good idea, then you need to read from Infowars every day (study Posse Comintatus while you're at it).

The G20 in Pittsburgh is only there to screw Americans over. Once they create an international currency and kill the Greenback, then the U.S. economy will be no more. It will just run on war, private prisons and riot police.

@everyone: But hey, feel free to call me a conspiracy theorist.

Re:Department of Orwellian Reasoning

[Anonymous Coward]

My friend has a souvenir rubber bullet and a tear gas canister from the other day. At the time there was no mention of a sound based weapon.
I'll have to wait for him to update on twitter or failbook about the new goings on, given that I have a general idea of the flow of time and this happened after he posted the other day, it's safe to assume that your understanding of the order of things is fucking wrong.

Re:Department of Orwellian Reasoning

[ultranova]

In France, popular protesting coupled with strikes has regularly made the government back off some laws.

That's because in France, the mob burns cars, smashes windows and in general makes it absolutely clear that they'll proceed to actual armed revolution if they're not listened to. Protesting is only useful if whoever you're protesting to knows there's an implied "or die" attached to your demands.

Re:Department of Orwellian Reasoning

[Anonymous Coward]

Translation:

C@pit0lizm iz Evi1!!!

Re:Department of Orwellian Reasoning

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

So you don't even know what their goals are but you know they're failing? And obviously they're getting no publicity, like an article on Slashdot...

It is really saddening to read what you wrote, I always thought nobody would so unquestionably buy the official truth. You really think there's no other side to the coin?

Re:Department of Orwellian Reasoning

[h4rm0ny]

So the message of the protesters is that we should shut up and listen?

You see something wrong with listening? :)

Re:Department of Orwellian Reasoning

[psyph3r]

What is their problem with the G20 meetings? Losing national sovereignty to world political bodies that circumvent individual country's political systems and constitutions by setting policy that directly affects the lives of citizens without being directly accountable (ie:voting). That is my personal problem with these meetings. The EU is an example of countries losing national sovereignty in this manner. It starts out with trade agreements like NAFTA and progresses from there. The punks that get the media attention you speak of are generally provocateurs. They are planted to give a rational for the excessive force the police exercise on protesters. That is my opinion though. Honestly, if the protesters want to express their opinion, they should be allowed to irrespective of the validity of their arguments or what they want to accomplish. Basic human rights are being violated, and everyone is debating on whether the protester's viewpoint is credible.

Re:Department of Orwellian Reasoning

[h4rm0ny]

Hmm...I am marked a troll merely for pointing out the fact that the police are using nonlethal methods rather than randomly shooting actual bullets and killing people,

I can't speak for those modding you troll, but most of us don't think the police are using tasers and sound cannons instead of killing people. It's naive in the extreme to think that if they hadn't a method of pain compliance such as this sound weapon, those people would have been shot and killed. People are objecting to (a) the police being able to use the infliction of pain to control whoever they want and (b) their willingness to do so against people who are gathering to speak out against perceived injustice, meet and exchange views and publicise their cause - none of which merits being driven off by police forces with pain weapons.

Re:Department of Orwellian Reasoning

[nixman99]

it's not like there's any information available on the internet or anything.

ok, I read the socialistworker "Why we're protesting the G20" link you posted and still have no idea why they are protesting. Most of the rather long page describes how and "you have a right to."

The only actual reasons given are:
"But they have not shared with us or consulted with us, the majority of the world's people, about exactly what they will be discussing."

The desire for the G20 to "respond positively on certain kind of issues"

"We need a better world, a different world, in which that democratic principle permeates everything."

Yeah, and I'd like a pony. Grow up, get a job, and actually do something with your life, because whatever you're doing now isn't have any impact.

Re:Department of Orwellian Reasoning

[BeardedChimp]

I only read the first few paragraphs of your post as it was so full of BS I couldn't even go on.

Given some of the footage I've seen [mediaite.com]... that would seem to fit it...

For anyone who didn't watch thevideo he posted it shows the police already having described it as unlawful assembly and have already began firing in tear gas and using the "sound cannon". A large amount of the crowd are journalists. The garbage dumpsters thing was a few people rolling it towards the police, it was pretty pathetic and in no way made it a riot. Even so considering the police were already using force to try and disperse them it is well known that this can cause people to riot (see G20 protests in London and the kettling) and so it can be the police that causes the violence in the first place.

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

Haha yes your google-foo is so strong that you think that the number of results from an unquoted query on google proves anything. Did you even look at the first link google responds with?
Well here it is. The first paragraph:
"PITTSBURGH - A vociferous but peaceful group of several thousand people marched for miles through downtown Pittsburgh on Friday, united by opposition to the Group of 20 summit but expressing a diversity of mostly liberal causes as an army of stone-faced riot police watched their every move"
So in summary if you are trying to correct someone for spouting bullshit don't bullshit yourself.

Re:Department of Orwellian Reasoning

[rohan972]

Except the shutting-up part is optional.

This seems inconsistent with your earlier message:

but it's not for you to say so

I just picked on the bit I disagreed with. I found this to oppose the general thrust of your message and be contradictory to the interests of the protesters. If people become aware of them without getting any idea of their message they ought to know. There are a lot of different groups competing to get their message out, nobody has time to investigate them all. Saying to someone that it's not for them to bring it up is counterproductive.

Re:Department of Orwellian Reasoning

[rohan972]

You see something wrong with listening? :)

Ha! No, I've got a bit of a problem taking people seriously who exercise their free speech by telling people to shut up though :p

Re:Department of Orwellian Reasoning

[Anonymous Coward]

Help Brendan pay off his student loans

Perhaps "Brendan" should spend less money on microsoft products. Or go and get a job with his saviours.

This site is based on ASP.NET and was written in C# against the 2.0 .NET Framework with Visual Studio 2005 and hosted from an IIS6 server by crystaltech.com.

The rest of us have loans too. Many of us had jobs at the time to soften the blow

Re:Department of Orwellian Reasoning

[ChameleonDave]

I just picked on the bit I disagreed with.

Yes, I know. I disingenuously pretended that you were asking a serious question rather than just snarkily pushing a straw man at me.

Re:Department of Orwellian Reasoning

[Anonymous Coward]

er no. actually you'd need quite a fertile imagination to believe that the protesters are right-wingers shrouding their vile views in libertarian clap-trap.

if you listen to the libertarian tendency then it turns out that the recent economic problems are (shrillVoice) actually caused by too much regulation of the markets - mein f... sorrrrrrry mein president (/shrillVoice)

have a look at the assorted nutcases on the ayn rand institute site for example. laughable idiots; outside of slashdot most people wouldn't take these cranks seriously.

if you really want to understand why they're protesting go to http://indypgh.org/g20/#

Re:Department of Orwellian Reasoning

[Anonymous Coward]

Correct me if I'm wrong, since its been a while since I've had physics.... but wouldn't holding a roughly 2ftx2ft sheet of flat metal in front of you A) protect you B) reflect the beam back (reflection angle based upon the incident angle)? It would only be if they were using tones towards the low frequency end that you would need something rather huge to reflect it.

Re:Department of Orwellian Reasoning

[tacocat]

Currently the United States does not recognize the Gold or Silver elements (Au, Ag) as legal tender. However if you were to resort to a pure cash (Federal Reserve Notes) in your pocket over bank check money in your account (no ATM, Credit Card, Check) this would put a massive strain on the banks resulting in a national bank run and federal reserve collapse.

Unfortunately, if everyone in the nation decided on 12/1/2009 to go to their local banks and start withdrawing all their money in cash two things would happen:

• Bank Holidays would be called for and prevent banks from collapse, thanks to the Federal Reserve System.
• Be prepared to personally defend your assets with extreme prejudice. Meaning, home theft will become out of control as people attempt to prey on their neighbors. Buy a shotgun.

This may sound extreme. But hypothetically, if this was done for only a couple of days and then everyone returned their money to the banks a week later it would be sufficient to show how truly fraudulent the economy has been since 1971 when we left the gold standard, allowing fractional reserve banking to run without any controls.

There's good reason for returning to a gold standard. It's impossible to defraud the citizens if they have a money that has both exchange value and commodity value. The dollar today has no commodity value (it's paper) but allegedly holds exchange value. The exchange value is only as good as those willing to use it. Confederate money (1860-1870's) isn't used much for money exchange because there's no faith in it.

Re:Department of Orwellian Reasoning

[tacocat]

Conservation of Energy implies that you cannot create Energy. That it is a zero sum game.

Economics is not a zero sum game.

You can allow people to retire from physical labor early if the economy will support it. The means to do this is to allow them to apply their money in a manner that continues to create wealth for them and others. That's what a bank does.

You seem to think that Economics belongs in the physical sciences. It does not. It belongs in the softer sciences because it depends on Human Interaction to exist.

This kind of thinking leads you to believe you can engineer a society that will work perfectly because the numbers say so. Marx tried that. Hoover tried that.

Re:Department of Orwellian Reasoning

[tacocat]

The Canadian Exchange rate has shifted from about 1.8 to 1.1. In the same time the wage rates in the US have remained the same.

If it costs me $100 USD to manufacture a chair in the US, the comparative cost for a Canadian to purchase that chair has changed from $180 to $110 Canadian. That's a nice discount.

If the Canadian cost to manufacture that same chair is $130 Canadian you have shifted the Chair industry from a Canada to US trade to a US to Canada Trade.

And we currently have all these things in effect this last year. Wages have not changed but the dollar is very weak. And that is how we will eventually compete with Mexico and China.

Price Decline. Costs are continually declining because manufacture is always more efficient. That's the result of competition. But this is balanced against inflation and so Prices remain stable. Computer costs have fallen faster than inflation can accommodate but food has risen with inflation.

Who benefits from Inflation?

Those who owe debt. The Government.

Re:Department of Orwellian Reasoning

[rohan972]

Yes, I know. I disingenuously pretended that you were asking a serious question rather than just snarkily pushing a straw man at me.

Snarky, well ok. Straw man, no way. For my comment to be a straw man would require that you hadn't said "but it's not for you to say so". "I have no idea why you were protesting" is a perfectly acceptable response for Phroggy to make since protesters are presumably trying to raise awareness of something. Telling him it's not for him to say is nonsensical.

Re:Department of Orwellian Reasoning

[tacocat]

Their were Economists who identified this coming depression. They are called the Austrian Economists and they were consistently calling for this downturn to happen effective 2000.

But there are no Austrian Economists working for the Federal Reserve or Treasury department. The Austrians have long ago proven that the Fed and Treasury generate these Business Cycles because of the Fed's manipulation of the economy. (The Myster of Banking by Murry Rothbard who holds a Nobel for Economics)

It has also been well established by Rothbard, Hazlitt, Mises, Bastiat, and Hayek that the government regulation and manipulation hinders economic and social growth. Ayn Rand and particularly Atlas Shrugged identifies a philosophy of Objectivism which essentialy calls for self responsibility and accountability rather than welfare, hand-outs, bail-outs.

Not sure they are all zealots and crazies over there. At least they have a clue.

Re:Department of Orwellian Reasoning

[DarkAce911]

A few people over on the right-wing gun nuts sites are wondering how well those things are going to work when they are hit by a 308 caliber bullet shot from a 1000 meters away. I have been noticing these things getting used more and more.

Re:Department of Orwellian Reasoning

[minstrelmike]

"According to this guy [wsj.com], they aren't particularly organized and have nothing much in common other than they are unhappy with the world, "

Sounds like the Republican Party.

Re:Department of Orwellian Reasoning

[Desert_Scarecrow]

Ignoring the parts of a post that are inconveniently and provably true...check.
Obvious lack of legal understanding...check.
Name-calling without the slightest shred of evidence (with bonus points for self-contradiction)...check.

You, sir, should run for Congress! You'd fit right in.

Re:Department of Orwellian Reasoning

[rtb61]

As a person who suffers from tinnitus let me assure you I would quite happily snap your neck if you used a device on me that caused that kind of damage. Hearing damage can not only result in hearing loss but also on the permanent extraordinarily irritating world of never off irritating whistles and screeches. Those idiots better wake up to themselves before they get hit with multi million dollar law suits from innocent bystanders http://www.asha.org/public/hearing/disorders/noise.htm.

Re:Department of Orwellian Reasoning

[mpe]

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.

There's also the issue of the consequences of misusing a weapon. Which often appear to be less for "cops" than for regular people. Actions which would get someone arrested and facing a criminal court may have police officers (or even their employer) facing a fine.

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!

If it's so harmless would it be acceptable for the protestors to point one at the police? How about the protestors having rubber bullets, CS gas, batons, etc...

Re:Department of Orwellian Reasoning

[wshs]

They also don't discriminate against students watching the protest from their dorm hallway who aren't involved in it in any away.

Re:Department of Orwellian Reasoning

[mpe]

Were you a peaceful protester your opinion ought to be heard. Were you a rioter, responding to you with violence is justified. As far as I'm concerned initiating violence removes your right to demand legal protection until such time as you stop and return to peaceful methods.

What should happen if violence is initiated by the police? Or if there appear to be agents provocateurs involved?

Re:Department of Orwellian Reasoning

[phantomfive]

Indeed. The democrat party continues to act so incompetently that I find myself wondering why Republicans aren't in power.......then the Republicans start talking and I remember why. They don't have much sense between their ears, I have to say.

Re:Department of Orwellian Reasoning

[Anonymous Coward]

Yesssss... because citing socialistworker is soooo fucking credible.

Re:Department of Orwellian Reasoning

[Lord Kano]

What really pisses me off to no end is the face that a LOT of people here just take the cops' word for it whenever they do something this outrageous.

5 cops beat an unarmed motorist to death 14 years ago, one of them was a steroid freak whose fiance "committed suicide" with his service weapon and not a single one of them faced any penalty. The steroid freak was actually promoted.

John Charo lied about the conditions under which he shot a suspect. The suspect was a dirtbag, he had stolen a car and had lead the police on a chase. He crashed the stolen car and officer Charmo shot him. No penalty faced by officer Charmo.

Jeffrey Cooperstein killed an unarmed suspect and in the aftermath it was determined that he published a cop-fetish website where he talked about squashing suspects like grapes. He was acquitted.

Fuck every last one of them.

LK

Re:Department of Orwellian Reasoning

[rohan972]

What should happen if violence is initiated by the police? Or if there appear to be agents provocateurs involved?

My last sentence applies equally to them. You don't lose your right of self defence just because you're being attacked by a policeman. Difficult or impossible in a lot of circumstances to sort out who did what first to the satisfaction of a court or the general public. Unless you can get that evidence, as a protester you're on the losing side unless public sentiment over continued abuse becomes strong enough to swing support to you.

Keep those cameras recording.

Re:Department of Orwellian Reasoning

[Phroggy]

Similarly, I can imagine a kid who sits in the back of the class sending text messages and chewing gum saying, "Why would I go out of my way to try to figure out what this nutjob teacher is saying? If my stoner friends tell me that learning is for losers, and I have no idea why you are trying to make me literate and numerate, then your teaching has completely failed, and you need to rethink it."

The kid sitting in the back of the room can stop sending text messages and just listen to the information being presented to him. When I do the equivalent, I learn is that people are protesting outside the G20 summit. That's more than I would know if I wasn't paying attention, but it doesn't tell me why they're protesting.

My classmate NoYob raised his hand and said he can't figure out what they're protesting about. The response he got included a link to a web page that repeats the question, but then just complains that the G20 members haven't consulted with us first. It also included a link to a radio report that lists some of the groups involved: Code Pink is protesting war funding, Pittsburgh United says they're not really protesting, and G6-Billion is apparently annoyed that only the world's top 20 economic leaders are meeting to discuss economic issues, and not the entire population. There will be a several other groups there, with lots of speakers and apparently an African dance group and some Buddhist monks.

These people say they want to make the world a better place, and that's great, but... my questions remain unanswered!

1) Are they protesting the existence of the G20?

2) The G20 is a group of finance ministers and central bank governors from 20 economies. These people have important jobs to do, trying to improve the global economy and make sure we don't enter into a depression. Are the protesters suggesting that the G20 members shouldn't talk to each other? That's stupid.

3) Are the protesters upset that the political leaders of these countries are coming to Pittsburgh, instead of just the financial leaders (i.e. President Obama met with his counterparts, rather than just Ben Bernanke meeting with his)?

4) Are the protesters suggesting that the G20 is doing a bad job of directing the economy, and they should be replaced by another group that can do it better? OK, but most of these people are either elected to office, or appointed by elected officials, in their own countries. If you have a problem with the way your country chooses its leaders, fine, go protest that.

5) What specifically do the protesters think the G20 should be doing differently?

6) Are the protesters angry at the G20? Are they angry at something else? If they're angry at something else, why are they protesting at the G20?

7) Do you think the G20 members know why people are protesting? I still don't; do you think your message has reached them more effectively than it has reached me?

It's always good to re-evaluate strategies, but it's not for you to say so. It is yours to listen for once.

I've listened, and I still don't know why you're protesting. I'd say there's a fair chance that the G20 members don't know why you're protesting either. If that's the case, complaining that they aren't listening is just dumb, and your strategy sucks.

Re:Department of Orwellian Reasoning

[Lunzo]

I think the keyword in your description of French protests is "Strike". It hits the people in power where it hurts - in the hip-pocket. Money talks.

Re:Department of Orwellian Reasoning

[psiclops]

what exactly are we supposed to listen to?

Re:Department of Orwellian Reasoning

[ChameleonDave]

Yes, I know. I disingenuously pretended that you were asking a serious question rather than just snarkily pushing a straw man at me.

Snarky, well ok. Straw man, no way.

People setting up straw men rarely think they are doing so. The deform their opponent's argument in their own head first, and then speak.

I could go on, but I'd have to untangle all the pieces of straw. If you want to persist in this, give a clear and concise explanation of what you think I meant by "say so", and I will then point out how inaccurate it is.

Re:Department of Orwellian Reasoning

[rohan972]

If you want to persist in this, give a clear and concise explanation of what you think I meant by "say so", and I will then point out how inaccurate it is.

Welcome to slashdot President Clinton! What did they mean by "is", I never found out?

Your ability to come up with a convoluted explanation of why your words don't convey their actual meaning and why that indicates a fault on my part rather than yours is not of interest to me.

Re:Department of Orwellian Reasoning

[ChameleonDave]

A series of non sequiturs. My words mean what they mean. I've challenged you to be more specific in your assertions that they mean something else, and you've had to give up.

Re:Department of Orwellian Reasoning

[rohan972]

I already interpreted "it's not for you to say so" as "shut up". That's as specific as necessary and you haven't offered a thing to counter that interpretation. In fact, when I asked (snarkily!) if that was correct, your response was Essentially, yeah. Have I misunderstood what you mean by the word "yeah"?

It's not that I've given up, you've just got nothing. It's impossible to counter your point since you haven't made one.

Re:Department of Orwellian Reasoning

[Mr. Slippery]

If you have a point, it is more productive to coherently tell it to people (with evidence and reasoning), than it is to dress up in silly costumes, chant slogans, and cause property damage.

In an ideal world populated by rational people, evidence and reasoning would be the best way to bring about political progress.

Here on Earth, however, some degree of spectacle works much better. You've got to get their attention before people will listen.

Now, property destruction during protests is generally counter-productive, but even then there there are exceptions -- had anti-war protestors in the 1960s not destroyed draft records in high-profile protests, we might still have a military draft here in the U.S.

But I do agree that there's no message in these G-20 protests more coherent than "the current power structure sucks!" Which it does, indeed, but that's not a clear call to action.

Re:Department of Orwellian Reasoning

[ReyHinckley]

Isn't that like saying that someone with a gun can't kill you unless you are intended to stand in the line of fire. This is an evil weapon. An electronic device that can created a 151 decibel beam over a mile has to be much louder the closer it is to the source. For this reason OSHA should have the authority to demand that the military not use them. Any creature, human, animal, or plant that happens to become in the line of the beam can be seriously harmed. Peace!

Re:Department of Orwellian Reasoning

[Mr. Slippery]

France is a different situation, however, because they don't really have any other way to talk to the government. In America, we can call our representative or write letters

Curious -- on what basis to you believe that the citizens of France can't write to their elected representatives in the National Assembly?

And on what basis do you think our Congresscritters give a flying fsck what we write to them, unless the envelope is stuffed with C-notes to the point of rivaling the corporations that bought and paid for them long ago?

Re:Department of Orwellian Reasoning

[Mr. Slippery]

The democrat party continues to act so incompetently that I find myself wondering why Republicans aren't in power.

"The democrat party"? Perhaps you mean "The Democratic Party", or "The Democrats"?

Yes, right-wing pundits and politicos have attempted to re-label them with the less-euphonious "Democrat Party". It is, simply, incorrect, and anyone engaging in that usage disqualifies themselves from being taken seriously by intelligent adults.

(For the record: I am not, and never have been, a member of either the Democratic or Republican parties.)

Re:Department of Orwellian Reasoning

[hondo77]

I am sad that my mod points expired yesterday instead of today. A virtual "+1 Insightful" to you.

Re:Department of Orwellian Reasoning

[defaria]

Precisely. You know what? It's not my job to figure out what your silly little protest is all about. I'm sure you think it's just the most important thing in the world and that everybody should know what it is and all but guess what? The mere fact that we don't know what it is is a failure of you to effectively communicate your concern not a failure of me not researching it. There is a lot of things that I am interested in - way more interested in than your silly and apparently violently protested and badly communicated "cause". If you cannot effectively communicate it then you surely do not have what it takes to do anything meaningful about it. I suggest you get out of the way before you do something stupid or hurt yourself or others. By and large, last time I looked, you were just bitching about other people in your jealous zeal to appear to be important. Here's a clue - you're not. You've failed. Give it up!

Re:Department of Orwellian Reasoning

[digsbo]

Nice post, tacocat. The only thing you missed is to spell out that by monetizing their debt, they are creating a massive and relatively swift wealth transfer from tax payers to the international banking cartel.

Re:Department of Orwellian Reasoning

[Mr. Slippery]

There's good reason for returning to a gold standard. It's impossible to defraud the citizens if they have a money that has both exchange value and commodity value. The dollar today has no commodity value (it's paper) but allegedly holds exchange value. The exchange value is only as good as those willing to use it.

Which still holds true for gold. Exchange value is, by definition, only as good as those willing to use it. Walk into the back country in Africa where the richest tribesman is the one with the most cows, and all your gold bullion is so much shiny ballast.

Gold's actual commodity value is low. You can make shiny things, and it has a handful of industrial applications, but outside of that gold has no more inherent value than pictures of George Washington.

But, many people in our society -- people like yourself -- still have some belief that gold is some special store of value. And so long as many people believe that, it will be true.

Personally, if I were looking for a store a value to survive an economic collapse, I'd invest in quality tools, weapons, drugs, and arable land.

how truly fraudulent the economy has been since 1971 when we left the gold standard, allowing fractional reserve banking to run without any controls.

Reserve banking predates the abandonment of the gold standard.

Re:Department of Orwellian Reasoning

[ChameleonDave]

Are you a Wikipedia admin or something? You seem to be one of those people who thinks they sound more convincing if they put a hyperlink to something their opponent has just said.

You have resorted to more and more direct lies. You know full well that I never said "yeah" to the "shut up" question. "Yeah" was my answer to the question of whether people should listen. I specifically said that shutting up was optional, in that very sentence.

It's really amazing how you have latched onto this one "shut up" that you imagine I said. If I'd said it, I wouldn't be saying I hadn't. You, for example, are a lying idiot and should shut the fuck up. See? I don't mind saying it straight out. It's just that I didn't say it where you imagine.

I already interpreted "it's not for you to say so" as "shut up".

Just in case your problem is more idiocy than malice, I'll explain this for you. I didn't ask you to clarify what you imagined "it's not for you to say so" meant. I asked you to clarify what you imagined "say so" meant. Why? Because I already knew that you had decided to grab the "not" and the "say" and splice them together as "shut up", and then interpret that as some boorish desire to silence people in general. But what, if anything, do you think "say so" refers to? "So" has pronominal value here; it refers back to something previously said. I argued that it was inappropriate for a certain person to say a certain thing. If you re-read that passage, you would see what I was talking about, but then everything you've subsequently said would look ridiculous. To avoid this cognitive dissonance, you can't bring yourself to examine this now. You will have no choice but to throw some sort of tantrum, or claim you can't talk to me.

Re:Department of Orwellian Reasoning

[rohan972]

I argued that it was inappropriate for a certain person to say a certain thing.

In other words, for him to shut up.

You will have no choice but to throw some sort of tantrum

Which would presumably be something similar to your latest post.

I already knew that you had decided to grab the "not" and the "say" and splice them together as "shut up"

Ah, I see. Telling someone to not say something (which you now confirm as we all can see by the first quote in this post) is so completely different to telling them to shut up.</sarcasm>

Now go away, or I shall taunt you a second time.

Re:Department of Orwellian Reasoning

[Anonymous Coward]

"This may sound extreme. But hypothetically, if this was done for only a couple of days and then everyone returned their money to the banks a week later it would be sufficient to show how truly fraudulent the economy has been since 1971 when we left the gold standard, allowing fractional reserve banking to run without any controls."

Suuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuu, let's spread the word over teh Inturnets and declare a week a holiday for this purpose?

Re:Department of Orwellian Reasoning

[ChameleonDave]

Ah, I see. Telling someone to not say something (which you now confirm as we all can see by the first quote in this post) is so completely different to telling them to shut up.</sarcasm>

It's amazing how you manage to latch onto the least relevant part of any given thing. I explain how you (a) put two words together and (b) gave them a certain interpretation; you then defend yourself by arguing that it is reasonable to put the two words together. Can you see what is missing?

Perhaps if I accused you of (a) picking up a gun and (b) shooting a baby in the head with it, you would complain that there's nothing wrong with picking up a gun.

Re:Department of Orwellian Reasoning

[rohan972]

I explain how you (a) put two words together and (b) gave them a certain interpretation; you then defend yourself by arguing that it is reasonable to put the two words together. Can you see what is missing?

Yes, the part where you acknowledge that you agreed to that interpretation twice already. I could link to and quote your posts, but you don't like that. If you really had any valid point to make you would have explained by now how "it's not for you to say so" means anything substantially different to "shut up". It doesn't and you can't.

You've called my comments snarky, a straw man, inaccurate, non sequiturs, called me a wikipedia admin, a liar, a lying idiot, claimed I would throw a tantrum and made an outrageous comment about how I would respond if you accused me of shooting a baby in the head. If you had a point to explain you've had ample opportunity to do so, yet you haven't. There's no reason for me to take you seriously. You disqualified yourself from that when you started the ad hominum arguments.

Re:Department of Orwellian Reasoning

[ChameleonDave]

Yes, the part where you acknowledge that you agreed to that interpretation twice already.

That simply never happened except in your head.

"it's not for you to say so" means anything substantially different to "shut up". It doesn't and you can't.

It is similar but different. There is about the same similarity as between "don't track dirt onto my carpet" and "take your shoes off". It is possible that they could convey the same message, but they are very different statements in themselves.

If you had a point to explain you've had ample opportunity to do so, yet you haven't.

I don't have a "point" as such. Remember how this started. You decided to criticise me for allegedly telling someone to shut up. That's your "point". All I've been doing is indicating how wrong you are, with your straw men, etc. I am refuting a point.

You disqualified yourself from that when you started the ad hominum arguments.

Ad hominem

No, shit-for-brains. I can insult you as much as I like, and it affects nothing else. For example, Hitler was a shifty-looking bastard with a nasty moustache. Am I now disqualified from condemning the invasion of Poland?

Re:Department of Orwellian Reasoning

[notrandomly]

The EU is an example of countries losing national sovereignty in this manner.

Yeah, like local states in the US lost their sovereignty when they were made part of the United States?

Losing national sovereignty to world political bodies

You live in a world where there are other nations. Your nation's sovereignty affects other nations. If your nation causes a lot of trouble for others, it needs to be dealt with. You don't live in a vacuum. If you think you can just go about your business and do whatever the hell you like, you are delusional. Your actions affect someone else.

By the way, what's so bad about world political bodies? If the global rules and laws are sound, it's a good thing to have authority above the national level in order to hold nations accountable for their actions.

Re:Department of Orwellian Reasoning

[notrandomly]

Some also say

The best claims always start out this way. No need to provide any evidence for any assertions. Just refer to "someone".

Re:Department of Orwellian Reasoning

[rohan972]

Yes, the part where you acknowledge that you agreed to that interpretation twice already.

That simply never happened except in your head.

Except here Essentially, yeah. Except the shutting-up part is optional. (the "optional" part is a qualification, not a denial), here I argued that it was inappropriate for a certain person to say a certain thing (which, in context, is saying shut up since the "certain thing" was the entire content of Phroggy's post) and here It is possible that they could convey the same message which is an acknowledgement that your post conveyed the message "shut up" even though you now claim you didn't say that. If you were claiming that you didn't mean it that way I could accept it, but to claim you didn't say it, well, your posts are there for everyone to see. I don't know why you continue to embarrass yourself with your denials.

I don't have a "point" as such.

Glad we can agree on something.

That's your "point". All I've been doing is indicating how wrong you are, with your straw men, etc. I am refuting a point.

You haven't shown me a straw man. To refute a point you have to, you know, refute it. Even in your last post you agree your words could convey that meaning, therefore it's not a case of me building a straw man but you communicating poorly.

I can insult you as much as I like, and it affects nothing else.

Yes, it affects your credibility, since those with a valid argument don't need to resort to such tactics.

Oh, I made a spelling mistake. Woe is me! Have mercy, ChameleonDave, have mercy.

Re:Department of Orwellian Reasoning

[ChameleonDave]

You're utterly immune to logic.

Except here Essentially, yeah. Except the shutting-up part is optional. (the "optional" part is a qualification, not a denial)

It's neither. It's an exception. The word "except" might be a hint there.

Imagine this. You ask, "did you get everything on the shopping list?". I reply, "yes, except for the apples." Later, you say, "where the hell are the apples? You said you got everything on the list. The "except" part was a qualification, not a denial!"

[You] argued that it was inappropriate for a certain person to say a certain thing (which, in context, is saying shut up since the "certain thing" was the entire content of Phroggy's post)

It looks like you are inadvertently finally answering my question. I asked you what you though "say so" was referring to, and you are claiming here that it means "say all that which Phroggy said". You have it wrong. It actually only refers to the tail end of Phroggy's first paragraph, about the strategy having failed.

"It is possible that they could convey the same message" which is an acknowledgement that your post conveyed the message "shut up" even though you now claim you didn't say that.

I really must have you pegged, because as I wrote that, I strongly suspected that you would respond in this way.

I have identified you as someone with a black-and-white mentality, unable to see grey. For you, "could convey" is incomprehensible. You have to interpret it as "conveys" to make it fit your point. The idea that A could convey B in another context, but not this one, is beyond you. Furthermore, the idea of your opponent politely making a concession to you, granting that something you've said is not entirely stupid because it could make sense in a different context, is not an idea you can grasp. Instead, you interpret it as your opponent letting something slip and then slyly retracting it.

I don't have a "point" as such.

Glad we can agree on something.

Sadly, I also was pretty sure that you'd go for that low blow. And yet I said it anyway, as a gift to you. It's a sign of how badly you're doing that I can hand you rhetorical flourishes on a plate, without fear.

Yes, it affects your credibility, since those with a valid argument don't need to resort to such tactics.

It's not a matter of need. I've already given an example where a valid statement was made, accompanied by a personal attack. Will you conclude that "such tactics" prove that the person has no argument? Was invading Poland therefore OK in your book?

Oh, I made a spelling mistake. Woe is me! Have mercy, ChameleonDave, have mercy.

Woe, eh? The rest of your post is far more woeful. This is reflected in the fact that I devoted a mere two words to correcting the spelling. You, of course, would rather now talk about that, to deflect attention from your faulty arguments.

Freedom of assembly

[craklyn]

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.

Re:Freedom of assembly

[Anonymous Coward]

Hey just don't tase me bro!

Re:Freedom of assembly

[Ethanol-fueled]

That's the problem. The perceived non-lethality of the weapons causes police to use them more recklessly and with much greater frequency.

Re:Freedom of assembly

[angelwolf71885]

the right to peacefuly assemble also means the goverment has no right to do anything to prevent us from doing so.. it helps to know that the ppl have MORE rights then the goverment

Re:Freedom of assembly

[Urza9814]

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...

Re:Freedom of assembly

[Shadow of Eternity]

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.

Re:Freedom of assembly

[Anonymous Coward]

And what frequency would that be.... Kenneth?

Re:Freedom of assembly

[Anonymous Coward]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agent_provocateur#United_States

Re:Freedom of assembly

[Anonymous Coward]

"ppl" is not a word, dumbfuck. Do you call yourself a "psn"? Learn to type straight, then post.

Re:Freedom of assembly

[easyTree]

I'd be very interested to read of any legal proceedings aimed at the police after this abuse of power.

Re:Freedom of assembly

[Anonymous Coward]

You also have the right to wear ear plugs.

Re:Freedom of assembly

[roguetrick]

Around 2kHz, give or take.

Re:Freedom of assembly

[Latinhypercube]

I've seen the video and the very few protesters that were there (30?) were all peaceful.

Re:Freedom of assembly

[Urza9814]

I live about an hour from Pittsburgh, and from local news reports, friends that live there, twitter, and listening to the police radio, there were definitely some who were far from peaceful. Buildings in flames, local businesses with windows smashed out, etc. I will say that the Pittsburgh police have had plenty of problems in the past, but they definitely had cause to use such tactics during the G20 protests. But again, there is still a question in my mind of whether or not they used them _only_ where they had just cause.

Re:Freedom of assembly

[Anonymous Coward]

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. -- That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, -- That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. -- Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.

A wise bunch of fellows they were.

Re:Freedom of assembly

[Anonymous Coward]

I knew it was only a matter of time before newly developed high tech weapons
of war would be used on peaceably assembled private citizens. The day before
yesterday it was bayonets and live fire (Kent State). Yesterday it was tear gas and
water cannons. Then it was rubber bullets and tasers. Today it is sound cannons.
Tomorrow it will be pain microwaves, or pulse lasers, or sarin gas.

Citizens have been subjected to Project Cointelpro, Project Echelon, Patriot Acts I
and II, total domestic electronic surveillance, extreme rendition, suspension of
habeous corpus, suspension of due process, Military Commissions Act, and civil
seizure of property without trial.

The true nature of the fascist Amerikan government has finally been revealed.
The only question is what is their next step in their march towards totalitarianism?
Is it time to meet force with force in the streets?

Re:Freedom of assembly

[Anonymous Coward]

I was there most of Thursday and last night. There was ZERO property destruction prior to police using the LRAD, OC gas, rubber bullets, pepper-balls and batons on people. Zero. A few dumpsters got moved in the street to slow police advances but that's it. And the only thing burned the entire two days was a bit of garbage in one or two dumpsters.

Re:Freedom of assembly

[Anonymous Coward]

If you think we're gonna change this deep shit we're in "peacefully" you gotta 'nother thing comin'.
One day you'll be mad enough...

Re:Freedom of assembly

[Hurricane78]

Ah, I see. So if you happen to be at a peaceful protest, and some asses start smashing windows, etc, it's OK to blast your ears out, and taze you?

For that point of view, I should taze you right now. Would help with remembering it. :P
Unfortunately this would make me no better, so I have to hope this suffices.

Re:Freedom of assembly

[Anonymous Coward]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agent_provocateur

Re:Freedom of assembly

[PrototypeNM1]

9th Amendment to the Constitution reads, "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people," meaning that the Bill of Rights is obviously incomplete and that other unalienable rights exist. The right to retain one's hearing would likely fall under this.

Re:Freedom of assembly

[clockworm]

Not all protesters were destructive. In fact, my impression is that a majority were peacful: http://pittsburghpolice.net/

Re:Freedom of assembly

[Anonymous Coward]

Well how about looking for evidence BEFORE making stupid claims? From Police outnumber demonstrators in G-20 protest Friday

"the people gathered in Schenley Plaza appeared to be doing little more than playing games or standing around talking"

Re:Freedom of assembly

[Urza9814]

That's not at all what I'm saying. I'm just saying that if you're at a protest and someone starts smashing windows, it's alright for them to blast the jackass smashing the windows. I wasn't saying that they were completely justified in using this technology everywhere that they did. I was just saying that there were certainly some cases where they may have been.

Re:Freedom of assembly

[Anonymous Coward]

none of those things (violence, etc) happened until the teargas came out. they were cutting off protesters and using tear gas to corner people, hence the frustration of the crowds. when they would turn around to "disperse" they would turn a corner and find the tear gas again. it was complete bullshit.

those people were simply walking until they found themselves face to face with LRAD vehicles and more tear gas.

go out and read some of the stories people who were there are telling. the video footage does not tell the whole story.

Re:Freedom of assembly

[Anonymous Coward]

You should stop watching Fox News and get real info...

Re:Freedom of assembly

[hondo77]

Thank you for taking the time to share that insight, Justice Scalia.

WHAT?

[jeffb (2.718)]

It's interesting that there's a Geneva Convention on weapons specifically designed to cause blindness , but apparently nothing about deafness.

Re:WHAT?

[semargofni]

Sorry, what was that you said?

Re:WHAT?

[craklyn]

I suppose it's difficult to regulate things that cause deafness. If a bomb can destroy buildings or bunkers, it can obviously cause deafness even if you're not in the range where your flesh is torn from bone.

Re:WHAT?

[Entropius]

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.

Re:WHAT?

[Anonymous Coward]

Sorry, what was that you said?

[YELLING] I said... if you got hit by the sound cannon during our last protest use closed captioning while watching FOX NEWS, CNN, and CBS for details on the plans for our next protest (make sure to bring sunglasses or a welding helmet). [/YELLING]

Re:WHAT?

[wizardforce]

I am not sure that the provision would have stopped this. After all, they claimed that it wasn't "specifically designed" to cause deafness. Which means that if they could justify this weapon for that reason, then they could also justify high intensity light based weapons as well. It's BS for sure but that doesn't mean that they won't look high and low to find some way to weasel it in somehow.

Re:WHAT?

[Ihlosi]

It's interesting that there's a Geneva Convention on weapons specifically designed to cause blindness , but apparently nothing about deafness.

That applies to military use only, anyway. Any government can feel free to fsck with their own people as they want.

Re:WHAT?

[Anonymous Coward]

How long until someone decides that's enough torture to endure, learns to fire a sniper riffle, goes up in a building and start shooting whoever holds the !@#$% sound cannon that is making people deaf?

Government is overrated. And they rely on the fact nobody will argue that.

Re:WHAT?

[Anonymous Coward]

Sorry, doesn't cut it, now is unfavorable to go after this shit.

Everyone who has used a less lethal device that has caused permanent damage is guilty of torture, while intent is currently visible, in 10 years intent will be forgotten, and those hit with tasers, pepper spray, flashbangs, tear gas, sound weapons will have their day of justice.

'Just doing your job' failed in Nuremberg, it will fail this time too.

When the gov't fails to govern a society in a civil fashion, the society will fail to act civilly.

Re:WHAT?

[ZosX]

Who said that the US follows the convention anymore? They DOJ specifically had Afghanistan declared a geneva free zone because it wasn't an internationally recognized government.

Re:WHAT?

[DFJA]

There's a Geneva Convention specifically designed to cause blindness? Whatever will the Swiss think of next?

Re:WHAT?

[DFJA]

So they should tell you to shut your eyes before the nuclear bomb goes off, I presume.

Re:WHAT?

[Anonymous Coward]

Or dead! I remember this movie!

Re:WHAT?

[jamstar7]

So they should tell you to shut your eyes before the nuclear bomb goes off, I presume.

Too young to remember Duck And Cover, eh? Part of the 'air raid drills' I lived through in the early 60's (pre-JFK assassination) included the teachers telling us to NOT look out the windows.

Re:WHAT?

[jeffb (2.718)]

There's a Geneva Convention specifically designed to cause blindness?

Only if you keep doing that with your hand while carefully searching the text for phrases that can possibly be parsed ambiguously.

Re:WHAT?

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Is "side effect" like "collateral damage"?

The company should be named "Ear Damage", Inc.

[Anonymous Coward]

"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.

Re:The company should be named "Ear Damage", Inc.

[Jeremy Erwin]

The OSHA standard stops at 115 db for 15 minutes. If we extrapolate the chart upwards (strictly against regulations), we'll see 120 db for 7.5 minutes, 125 db for 3.75 minutes, 130 db for 1.875 minutes, 135 db for 56 seconds, 140 db for 28 seconds, 145 db for 14 seconds, and 150 db for 7 seconds.

7 seconds is prolonged exposure? OK. Tell me another one.

Re:The company should be named "Ear Damage", Inc.

[Beardo the Bearded]

Unless it's using a different definition of dB than I'm used to, 3dB is a doubling, not 5.

Re:The company should be named "Ear Damage", Inc.

[Jeremy Erwin]

Yep. 3dB doubles the sound. You know that, I know that. The OSHA exposure limits (which are, by far, the most permissive of the three in my link), however, are graded by 5dB.

Re:The company should be named "Ear Damage", Inc.

[selven]

Ear damage does not have to scale linearly with volume. With the OSHA figures it scales roughly with the 2/3 power.

Re:The company should be named "Ear Damage", Inc.

[Shikaku]

Decibels are logarithmic, base 10 (meaning for every 10+ it is 10x stronger).

115 for 15 minutes

125 for 1.5 minutes

135 for 9 seconds

145 for .9 seconds

150 for some small number I don't feel like calculating but you get the point.

Re:The company should be named "Ear Damage", Inc.

[Alcari]

Still, one has to wonder about the accuracy of reporting on the 'weapon'. It could easily be interpreted to read: "The device projects a narrow beam of extremely annoying sound, at levels that can reach 151 decibels, (right in front the device, with an effective range of) over a distance of a mile or more."

Re:The company should be named "Ear Damage", Inc.

[MadnessASAP]

It's going to be like the Taser all over again, harmless at 50' for 2-3 seconds not so harmless when the jackass police officer decides he's going to teach a punk kid a lesson and blasts him with it from 6 inches for 2 minutes.

Re:The company should be named "Ear Damage", Inc.

[reub2000]

Those numbers are about inner ear damage. The TFA was talking about damage to the ear drum.

Re:The company should be named "Ear Damage", Inc.

[Anonymous Coward]

Please note that OSHA does not permit ANY intermittent exposure, for any duration, above 115 dB(A), and also limits impact/impulse noise to 140 dB(A) even when wearing hearing protection

150 dB(A) in the presence of non-protected individuals is off-the-charts ridiculous and in the workplace would (a) get you shut down by OSHA and (b) get your (easily, successfully) sued by your victims.

This is one case where I hope an ambulance chaser finds a few good victims and sues this police department back to the stone ages.

Re:The company should be named "Ear Damage", Inc.

[SEWilco]

135 for 9 seconds 145 for .9 seconds 150 for some small number I don't feel like calculating but you get the point.

0.000000074 fortnight, or 0.09 seconds.

Re:The company should be named "Ear Damage", Inc.

[Anonymous Coward]

It most certainly does not. 3 dB is double the POWER, not double the volume.

Doubling the volume is closer to a 10 dB jump.

Test it yourself, go get an SPL meter and measure at 70, 73, 80, 83, and 90. It'll be obvious quite quickly that 3 dB is nowhere near double the volume.

Re:The company should be named "Ear Damage", Inc.

[nschubach]

I have to wonder what the group dynamic is... If you have a mass of people who can't get away from the sound because they are in the center of a large group of people, what do they do? Duck and cover their ears while staying in the sound? If so, that could be detrimental. It's fine if you are the sole target because "getting away" from the sound is easy.

Re:The company should be named "Ear Damage", Inc.

[Shawn Parr]

Of course 3dB doubles the power not the perceived volume. Depending on the person 6 to 10dB doubles the perceived volume.

However it is the power of the sound that potentially causes damage, not how loud your brain interprets it as. So a doubling of power could easily lead to halving the safe amount of time to be exposed.

Re:The company should be named "Ear Damage", Inc.

[sgtsqh2o]

When will this be available on Thinkgeek?

Re:The company should be named "Ear Damage", Inc.

[VeryLargeNumber]

0.284604989 seconds, as you can see here
http://www.google.com/search?q=900*10%5E11.5%2F10%5E15

However, I heavily doubt you can calculate health standards like that. Or, OSHA would not allow you in a quiet library (35db) for more than 2853.88128 years <grin>.

Re:The company should be named "Ear Damage", Inc.

[Anonymous Coward]

OSHA standards aren't laws anyway. I ran a mobile crane that had no license because my employer had it classified as a company material handler, like a forklift. I was told to carry drywall with an average weight of 220 pounds by myself about 30,000 pounds a day, or get another job. None of it is against the law. Very little an employer can do is against a law because OSHA has less power than an at-will employee.

The Bush administration

[Anonymous Coward]

There are also you tube videos of peaceful protesters being tear gassed while trapped in a stairwell between two sets of riot police and another video showing at least one protester being stuffed kidnap style into an unmarked car by US soldiers. If this happened during the Bush administration there would be tons of posts ranting about civil liberties and what not. Why not now during the Obama administration?

Re:The Bush administration

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:The Bush administration

[h4rm0ny]

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.

Re:The Bush administration

[node 3]

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.

Re:The Bush administration

[jeaton]

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.

Re:The Bush administration

[node 3]

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.

Re:The Bush administration

[Anonymous Coward]

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?

Re:The Bush administration

[Anonymous Coward]

but Obama protesters showing up with assault rifles and being left free to do so

 
...not exactly.

Testing the limits of repression

[assemblerex]

When they start mounting these to the front of congress and the senate, we're screwed.

Re:Testing the limits of repression

[Anonymous Coward]

Depends which way they're pointed.

Re:Testing the limits of repression

[assemblerex]

Haven't you already heard? Our politicians were deaf to the cries of the people LONG ago.

Re:Testing the limits of repression

[wizardforce]

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. These less than lethal weapons combined with the slow disarmament of the populace will only make our job as citizens harder.

Re:Testing the limits of repression

[Anonymous Coward]

We were screwed when we gave up our right to bear arms...in the true meaning of the amendment, "military style weapons". See the rulings in 1938 and 1966.

Re:Testing the limits of repression

[jcr]

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

Re:Testing the limits of repression

[siddesu]

There's an event rapidly approaching

Do you mean the Doomsday, or the Rapture?

Re:Testing the limits of repression

[wizardforce]

What scares me about all of it is how bad it will get before the whole thing collapses. It took utter poverty and horrifying corruption to take the soviets down and the results were atrocious to the general population living there. THen after everything collapses and the system "resets" it is only a matter of time before it all happens again.

Re:Testing the limits of repression

[halltk1983]

If I read it correctly, he meant "the collapse of the dollar", which was at the end of the sentence you quoted the beginning of.

Re:Testing the limits of repression

[jcr]

Do you mean the Doomsday, or the Rapture?

No, I'm not superstitious.

-jcr

Re:Testing the limits of repression

[jcr]

Well, there is a big difference between our situation and that of the people in the soviet union, which is that we have a tradition of freedom to restore. Before the Soviets, there was a despotic monarchy. When the people withdrew their consent to being ruled by the communists, they had to figure out how to be free people from scratch, pretty much.

-jcr

Re:Testing the limits of repression

[Anonymous Coward]

Hm, this is a nice theory. But america has always been violent. Still is. It has an amazing load of weapons ready, and soldiers contracted such that they have to go to war if told to. Now imagine dollar failing. The only thing they have left to stay in power is weapons. Could get ugly, very ugly.

Re:Testing the limits of repression

[Anonymous Coward]

While you are correct that the dollar is near collapse, it will simply be replaced by the Amero.

Much of what is to come in the next few years, has been planned, and those plans are available online at the more reputable "conspiracy" sites.

extended periods unavoidable with crowds

[meerling]

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.

Re:extended periods unavoidable with crowds

[JLF65]

Well, if people would RTFA, they'd see the "brief periods" is not how long you stand in front of the weapon, but how long they use it. As mentioned in the article, riot police used a "brief blast" that caused the crowd to recoil, giving the riot police room to safely use tear gas and bean bag projectiles.

The police don't turn this thing on and leave it running. That WOULD cause deafness. They only use it as needed in brief bursts. I'm sure there's probably some "training" they make the users of the device go through, just like the training they do for the Taser.

Re:extended periods unavoidable with crowds

[Entropius]

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.

Re:extended periods unavoidable with crowds

[Mprx]

"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.

Re:extended periods unavoidable with crowds

[Anonymous Coward]

Woah, bean bags, really?

Re:extended periods unavoidable with crowds

[Anonymous Coward]

The OSHA covers what is legal and reasonable for working conditions, not for an illegal protest. Apples and oranges.

Re:extended periods unavoidable with crowds

[node 3]

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.

Re:extended periods unavoidable with crowds

[commodoresloat]

They only use it as needed in brief bursts. I'm sure there's probably some "training" they make the users of the device go through, just like the training they do for the Taser.

Therefore just like the Taser, this weapon will never be abused.

Re:extended periods unavoidable with crowds

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Exactly on point. The "demos" are rigged from the word go. You see the scenes on TV showing a cop getting tasered by another cop in a "realistic" training exercise. He gets a short blast and has two other cops standing by his side so he wont faww down and hurt his widdle head on the matting. He gets up and a good laugh is had by all. You want realistic?? -- just put me in control of the taser and that bastard is going down in agony until snot blows out his ass.

Same with waterboarding and all that shit. They try to justify it by saying our own guys go through i in SERE training. Again, you know that they're not going to kill you -- the paperwork load alone would lead the instructors to take early retirement. Just for the hell of it, having on previous occasions gotten stuck under water for a few seconds, I once lay in the bathtub, draped a wet wash towel over my face and splashed a single handful of water over it. You can be damned sure I shot bolt upright in an instant.

Now think of having this done to you with four guys holding you down and a fifth pouring a jug of water over the cloth. Keep in mind that these are not friends. They have a goal to achieve and your survival or not is an issue they can cover up with impunity.

As for hosing naked people down on the cold floor of a concrete cell, consider this: I read an article on Ranger training in a reputable national magazine -- either New Yorker of the Atlantic. It was carefully researched and documented. Guess what the major reason for people washing out of or voluntarily quitting Ranger training is. It's the constant, inescapable cold to which they are exposed. Not having to eat bugs, not waterboarding, not sleep deprivation -- just simple cold.

You may remember, if you're old enough, that this is exactly the same tactic our bastard limey allies used on IRA members imprisoned at Long Kesh in the 70s. And for what? The Irish simply wanted the occupying sons of bitches back off their island.

The fucking Brits have been so humiliated by the loss of their empire that they have to hang on like a dog with a bone to the last remaining scraps -- Northern Ireland and the Falklands. Cocksucking rapacious bastards.

Re:extended periods unavoidable with crowds

[Mprx]

It's the "without visible damage" part that is disturbing. If the situation warrants permanently disabling people then they should be using guns.

Re:extended periods unavoidable with crowds

[ColaMan]

Further to the impulse specs, I'm reasonably sure that maximum recommended limits for noise here is 85dB for 8 hours before it is likely that some sort of long term hearing damage will occur.

Each 3dB increase halves the exposure time. Just for fun, let's work some numbers.

88dB = 4 hours
91dB = 2 hours
94dB = 1 hour
97dB = 30 minutes
100dB = 15 minutes
103dB = 7.5 minutes
106dB = 195 seconds
109dB = 97.5 seconds
112dB = 48.75 seconds
115dB = 24 seconds
118dB = 12 seconds
121dB = 6 seconds
124dB = 3 seconds
127dB = 1.5 seconds
130dB = 0.75 seconds

Do I need to follow this through any further?

Re:extended periods unavoidable with crowds

[Trepidity]

just like the training they do for the Taser.

Since police routinely abuse the Taser, this isn't much of an assurance.

Re:extended periods unavoidable with crowds

[Alcari]

Well, that's the problem. (IANAL, but I had this thoroughly explained by one) See, as a group, they're only guilty of "marching without permit", but individuals in the group may be tossing bricks, disturbing the order, causing damage, looting, etc. etc. The problem is, unless you can identify said individuals, you can't do anything about it. You can't arrest them all for looting, because some of them are not. You can't arrest everyone in the group for burning down cars, because most of them are not. The difference between a protester and a rioter is that protesters don't toss bricks. The problem is getting rid of the rioters while not harming the protesters. So what can you do to stop some of them from causing damage? You can get them all to leave. If you have a better suggestion that does not involve single policemen and women walking through a potentially dangerous crowd to stop individuals, I'd love to hear it. Until then, it's a case of a few bad apples.

Re:extended periods unavoidable with crowds

[Entropius]

Was this crowd chunking bricks at anyone? Didn't look like it from the article.

And, I'm sorry, but sometimes the police are going to have to put themselves in danger. Announce "We saw the guy throw the brick at that storefront -- we're coming in to pick him up. Nobody else will be interfered with" over a bullhorn, and walk in.

If it's between a few broken windows and the use of chemical weapons and LRAD's on a crowd (in the process denying the 99% of the crowd that's peacefully protesting their right to do so), then I vote for the few broken windows.

Re:extended periods unavoidable with crowds

[tibman]

There is actually two settings on the LRAD, normal and maximum. Maximum can only be unlocked with a key. Normal settings wouldn't damage anyone's hearing/ears. From the videos i'm guessing it's on normal.. or people seriously would have been running away from it.

Re:extended periods unavoidable with crowds

[tibman]

Tasers have a timelimit on them. You pull the trigger and get 5 seconds of shock. You have to release and pull it again to continue tasing. You obviously haven't been tasered before, doesn't hurt at all. Just debilitating. Like losing control of your body or something. It's a very odd feeling. But the sound and speed of the weapon makes it scary. You are afraid of something you don't understand, Mr. AC.

Re:extended periods unavoidable with crowds

[ZosX]

Why don't you tell that to the 150 or so police officers in Seattle that were permanently disabled during the last summit in america?

Re:extended periods unavoidable with crowds

[Entropius]

1) If the crowd was violent because you lot used excessive force on them first -- well, you shouldn't have done that.

2) If the crowd was violent because police in previous protests used excessive force, and this lot came spoiling for a fight -- well, you're in a tough situation, but your predecessors fucked it up for you.

3) If you were attacked by the crowd en masse when you tried to arrest people who were legitimately committing real crimes, then you're justified in fighting back if the harm you cause (to people's right to protest) is less than the harm you prevent (to property being damaged).

"Real crimes" does not include "trying to be where we don't want you to be", btw, and it doesn't mean "fighting back when we try to remove you from where we don't want you to be".

Re:extended periods unavoidable with crowds

[Anonymous Coward]

The YouTube videos clearly show the device in use for much more than "brief periods". Did you know that sonic weapons are only the beginning of area denial systems in crowd control use? How about a burning sensation on your skin, caused by microwave beams? In response to unlawful assembly? Yeah, that's totally not fascism we're witnessing here.

Re:extended periods unavoidable with crowds

[Anonymous Coward]

Why don't you tell that to the 150 or so police officers in Seattle that were permanently disabled during the last summit in america?

You seem to be confusing the WTO convention center with the Cyberdyne building in Terminator 2.

Seriously, how does it help your cause to make up random bullshit?

Re:extended periods unavoidable with crowds

[TheCouchPotatoFamine]

Agree. Totally, totally agree. We are all aware of where this leads up. Synthetic Pain, audio, electrical (the microwave device) and optical (laser) that make up a platform for denying areas to people, and if i'm right, you'll see this being installed on PEOPLES HOMES in the next few years. People whom i'd rather not see have the ability to pull through a city evacuating a bubble around them at the cost of great human suffering. Yeah, i sound conspiratorial, because i'm typing fast. Plain truth is, the future above is my distilled hypothesis about the general outlay of force application in the next five years.

Re:extended periods unavoidable with crowds

[Anonymous Coward]

Here's my message to the supposed "150 or so police officers in Seattle that were permanently disabled during the last summit in america". If you mess with the first ammendment, you get what you deserve.

Re:extended periods unavoidable with crowds

[haruharaharu]

I was thinking that anyone who uses something like this deserves to be shot on the spot - this thing appears designed to main and seems intended for use against protestors - not even close to kosher.

Re:extended periods unavoidable with crowds

[QuantumG]

They should shoot them all so people will only protest when they're willing to risk their lives.. it would make the rest of us once again take notice when protests happen, as opposed to right now, where a protest could be happening outside my front door and I wouldn't care.

Re:extended periods unavoidable with crowds

[Anonymous Coward]

Do you have a citation for that number? Only data I can find on "people injured as a result of the WTO riots" is this off wikipedia:

On January 16, 2004, the city settled with 157 individuals arrested outside of the no-protest zone during the WTO events, agreeing to pay them a total of $250,000. ... which actually is talking about *protestor* injuries rather than police officers. I didn't hear of *any* police officers getting seriously injured..

Re:extended periods unavoidable with crowds

[SashaMan]

150 or so police officers

By saying "or so" I'm assuming that 0 is included in this estimate? Seriously, do you have any reference at all for this number? How the hell was this modded interesting?

Re:extended periods unavoidable with crowds

[Anonymous Coward]

citation?

Re:extended periods unavoidable with crowds

[moortak]

The cop who feels the protesters are a subhuman group of people disturbing the social order can do a ton of damage with something like this. Batons have a pretty simple physical restriction on how much damage they can do. You can only hit so many people before you tire out. Our legal system is pretty has pretty well clarified the outcome for a cop who fires indiscriminately into a crowd. Tear gas can look pretty bad for the cameras. New tools like this that lack a practical, legal, or even PR based restrictions can allow things to get out of hand pretty quick. Things like hearing damage can be a little too easy for the officer who screws up to avoid having to face consequences. Tools like this should really be kept out of high tension situations until we have some way to ensure some degree of accountability.

Re:extended periods unavoidable with crowds

[SEWilco]

Each 3dB increase halves the exposure time. Just for fun, let's work some numbers.
88dB = 4 hours
91dB = 2 hours
94dB = 1 hour
...
Do I need to follow this through any further?

Oh, let's.

31dB = 239 years
34dB = 120 years
37dB = 60 years
40dB = 30 years
43dB = 15 years
46dB = 7 years
49dB = 45 months
52dB = 22 months
55dB = 48 weeks
58dB = 24 weeks
61dB = 12 weeks
64dB = 6 weeks
67dB = 3 weeks
70dB = 10.7 days
73dB = 5.3 days
76dB = 2.7 days
79dB = 1.3 days
82dB = 16 hours
85dB = 8 hours
88dB = 4 hours

Re:extended periods unavoidable with crowds

[k8to]

Reviewing my history: the violence started after the chemical weapons. Perhaps these things are related?

Re:extended periods unavoidable with crowds

[Anonymous Coward]

Permanently disabled?

Link for that?

Re:extended periods unavoidable with crowds

[Falconhell]

Tell that to the guy who was killed in queensland not so long ago, when tased 28 times by the asshole cops. You blatantly obviously have no idea what you are talking about.

Re:extended periods unavoidable with crowds

[gzipped_tar]

OK, next-gen sound weapon: phased array of high-power noise blaster with automated tracking of moving targets. Capable of blowing an individual's head without touching the ones beside her.

Re:extended periods unavoidable with crowds

[easyTree]

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.

Instead they've got themselves a cozy arrangement with the police whereby they profit from the infliction of hearing-damage on people who are protesting peacefully.

Re:extended periods unavoidable with crowds

[easyTree]

The fucking Brits have been so humiliated by the loss of their empire that they have to hang on like a dog with a bone to the last remaining scraps -- Northern Ireland and the Falklands. Cocksucking rapacious bastards.

As a Brit I can totally agree with you.

Recently the film linked in my sig brought back memories from the 70's of the hunger strikes and so on... Isn't it great to be a westerner :-(

Re:extended periods unavoidable with crowds

[easyTree]

You obviously haven't been tasered before, doesn't hurt at all. Just debilitating. Like losing control of your body or something. It's a very odd feeling. But the sound and speed of the weapon makes it scary. You are afraid of something you don't understand, Mr. AC.

I'm sure we can all agree with you that it doesn't hurt at all.

Re:extended periods unavoidable with crowds

[tibman]

Honestly, it doesn't hurt.. just feels very odd and you can't control your arms/legs/body.

I did not say that abuse can't kill you.

I did say there is a safety mechanism in place that prevents the user from shocking someone to death.. UNLESS they continuously pull the trigger once each 5 second cycle. That is a decision from the user, not the taser. Which means the user of the taser killed the victim.

It's like most things, misuse can be fatal!

Re:extended periods unavoidable with crowds

[tibman]

No, i do have an idea of what i'm talking about. I have been tased many times (requirement to use one).

The taser is not supposed to be used 28 times on anybody. The user of that weaponsystem must have been untrained and murdered the guy tased 28 times. I realize that nobody wants the police to have a non-lethal weapon that is actually lethal. The Taser when used properly is very safe and an excellent tool for law-enforcement.

Please direct your anger at the Police Officer(s) involved!

Re:extended periods unavoidable with crowds

[easyTree]

One doesn't hurt but two kills a fifteen year old boy?

Admit it, this is another instance of the problem experienced whenever someone tries to make 'one rule for all'. People are physically very different - they are able to sustain different levels of electrical shock based on their age, body mass, cardiovascular health, levels of aggression and no doubt several other factors. Attempting to fabricate some device which stuns every victim by the appropriate amount seems flawed for this reason, unless there is some feedback.

Also, whatever happened to the idea that it is wrong to solve every problem with violence? Violence breeds violence.

Yet further, not enough is being done to ensure that appropriate levels are achieved across the board with respect to the educational-level and demeanour of officers given carte-blanche to use 'accidentally' deadly force.

Re:extended periods unavoidable with crowds

[tibman]

I can agree that one taser fits all is impossible. In-fact i don't remember target body weight being a factor in deciding whether or not to use the taser.

I hate to say it but guns, tasers, peperspray, batons, knuckles.. all of them probably cause deaths (direct or indirectly). The point of the taser is an attempt to minimize deaths.

Being able to deal with those kinds of high-stress environments is not easy. Can you imagine walking into a scene with two people fighting. You see if they have weapons, you scan the immediate area for weapons they could pick up. You see nothing and mentally switch to non-lethal mindset. You approach and attempt to diffuse the situation with talking. One of the men attack you.. do you a) Draw baton (close range), b) Draw taser (medium range), c) Draw pepper spray (medium range but affects everyone), d) move to grapple with him (last resort!).

So you draw your taser, zat-zat-zat he's down. You say "Don't move, stop resisting" he charges you and you zap him again.. he falls down dead. Guess what? You'll be playing that scene over and over in your head for the rest of your life.. what could you have done differently?

Now if you tased the guy 28 times? You're going to jail. If a guy under me did that, i'd crush him, friend or not.

Re:extended periods unavoidable with crowds

[easyTree]

In-fact i don't remember target body weight being a factor in deciding whether or not to use the taser.

Maybe not - I randomly chose parameters which seemed to me to be relevant.

The point of the taser is an attempt to minimize deaths.

That may well be the marketing line but the underlying message is that the holder can remove their fear of those they try to coerce into particular action by simply pressing a button.

A more lasting solution would involve addressing the fundamental imbalances within all levels of society and indeed across the globe; removal of the need for elite-level hypocrisy simply to get through the day without feeling debilitating guilt.

Re:extended periods unavoidable with crowds

[tibman]

no, i think your body weight idea is good, i was just saying i don't recall it being brought up in training.

Yes, i think you hit it on the head. Why go for a better/harder solution when you can just taser them and get it over with. That's tough. Especially if the rules of engagement allow you to use the taser but you know that talking them down (and possibly letting them get closer to you.. SCARY!) is better.

I have enjoyed this discussion with you. It's obvious we are on different sides of the fence in regards to use of force. But we both want a peaceful solution. I still maintain that i think the Taser should remain a tool for Police to use. But i admit it should be improved to reduce deaths or its use needs to become more limited otherwise. Perhaps change the Taser's category from non-lethal to less-than-lethal? Less-than-lethal weapons aren't designed to kill but can cause death (like rubber bullets.. they can go into someone's eye and into the brain).

I am not a police officer, btw. When deployed to Iraq my unit had to go down to Camp Bucca to put down riots. The AirForce could not control a detainee population of around 10,000. It only took ~100 US Army soldier's to put down any riot. Not because we were rough, but because we were fair and open about our procedures.

The detainee population never rioted when we were in charge because we treated them extremely well and with dignity. We also punished any detainee vs detainee crime to the letter of the law. To be honest, i had better conversations with detainees than much of the AirForce stationed there.

(I apologize to any Airmen reading this, you guys just weren't trained for all the up-close ground fighting)

Re:extended periods unavoidable with crowds

[Anonymous Coward]

Any official who uses this on citizens, with or without any court order, should be subject to second amendment rights and killed on the spot (painfully I might add) by the citizens since they are committing acts of tyranny.

Re:extended periods unavoidable with crowds

[Anonymous Coward]

Maximum can only be unlocked with a key.

Bull shit.
http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1383419&cid=29551365

Re:extended periods unavoidable with crowds

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, damn those Chinese totalitarian government... urrr commie dictators.... urrr.... (looks at where it happened)... Urrr, never mind.

Re:extended periods unavoidable with crowds

[tibman]

http://science.howstuffworks.com/lrad.htm
Scroll to the bottom, it talks about normal and Maximum mode (with override)

http://science.howstuffworks.com/lrad2.htm
Please just read the first paragraph.

The military version that i used has a Key that unlocks maximum. The version the police has is configured differently but has the same safeguards. The system won't go to harmful levels unless unlocked.

Re:extended periods unavoidable with crowds

[tibman]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=myWxwNQfo-8 checkout 07:00

More stuff about the maximum setting. In the video the LRAD has a toggle for the override. The one i used had a Key on a cable. Can't tell how the police version is setup. All the datasheets i can find are next to useless.. more like PR booklets than datasheets.

Re:extended periods unavoidable with crowds

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh I get what you're saying...

Guns dont kill people, people kill people!

Re:extended periods unavoidable with crowds

[Anonymous Coward]

Is rioting an "extreme circumstance"?

It seems the Guardian takes a more positive view on the protesters than other publications (for example, "protesters riot as police used tear gas", which is somewhat skewed for the protesters compared with the Times article I linked). I personally don't believe any politician would have dared to risk his chair for dispersing a violent mob, unless they were stealing and/or murdering locals. You know, they do like power.

Re:extended periods unavoidable with crowds

[Schadrach]

Right, but the problem is more or less that it gets used improperly far more often than a firearm, and that it's relatively safe for the officer involved to do so. Supposedly the taser is intended to reduce the need to apply lethal force by being used in place of such, so why aren't uses of them investigated as though they are firearm discharges?

As a point, the cop who tasered the guy 28 times would likely not have been punished in any way so long as the guy lived and didn't start a publicly embarrassing lawsuit.

Re:extended periods unavoidable with crowds

[Anonymous Coward]

They also forgot the other permit... the one about rioting and wrecking private property.

Re:extended periods unavoidable with crowds

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, any noise over 140 dB is illegal. This weapon is illegal, unless you want to hand out ear protection to the protesters first.

Re:extended periods unavoidable with crowds

[multipartmixed]

> 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.

This weapon is capable of disrupting religious ceremonies; ergo it is already banned as weapon of Mass disruption.

Re:extended periods unavoidable with crowds

[Anonymous Coward]

Their problem, they wanted to go protest.

It's not like they have anything specific to protest against, just vague "corporations are evil, man" homilies they parrot back to impress the chicks hanging out there so they can get laid.

They're not achieving shit.

Re:extended periods unavoidable with crowds

[L4t3r4lu5]

As mentioned in the article, riot police used a "brief blast" that caused the crowd to recoil, giving the riot police room to safely use tear gas and bean bag projectiles.

I think we can all agree that a brief burst of oppression is better than a prolonged one, but why should we put up with either? To attack the however many people acting violently and with blatant disregard to the nature of the otherwise peaceful protest, the police fired an area-of-effect weapon into the crowd. A crowd of journalists and peaceful demonstrators, which contained a small group (groups) of violent fools.

In my opinion, that's not the action you take. That's an act of escalation. You've taken innocent people, and attacked them. Subjugation was obviously the intent of the police officers at that time, and very well executed it was. Any less of a complete disabling of everyone present would have resulted in the demonstration becoming a riot, simply because when cornered (as any large press of people is by the sheer volume of numbers), the natural response is to lash out viciously and unrelentingly at the source of danger until it is utterly destroyed.

Biggest gang in America!

[Anonymous Coward]

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!

Re:Biggest gang in America!

[meerling]

They still 'do a beat through a neighborhood', it's just a different type of beating...

In reality, there are good cops, but every bad cop outweighs all the work of a hundred good ones. And then there are the guilty by association cops, you know, the ones that don't speak up against the wrongdoing of the bad cops, or worse, help hide it...

Re:Biggest gang in America!

[node 3]

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.

Re:Biggest gang in America!

[node 3]

It's kind of hard to argue there are any good cops when the entire police force participates in something like this. I realize it's not as simple as that, but "just following orders" is not a defense. Neither is "just doing their job", or "they don't agree with it, but are doing as they're told" or any other rationalization.

I'm sure that many/most of them are great people, and when they're not out shooting innocent people with rubber bullets, tear gas, tasers and sonic cannons, they're saving lives, stopping bank robberies and helping kittens out of trees. But that doesn't change the fact that sometimes they *are* shooting innocent people with rubber bullets, tear gas, tasers and sonic cannons.

Is it unfair that a "sometimes" act can taint an otherwise stellar person's life? Perhaps. But do you think the cops give you the same consideration if they find a joint on you? They'll even lie and tell you that they'll search you anyway (they can't), it's better if you just come clean now (it's not), and maybe they'll even just give you a warning (they won't).

Re:Biggest gang in America!

[couchslug]

"Remember when cops used to wear the blue uniforms with the badge on the hat and do a beat through a neighborhood?"

I do, and I'm so old I remember when neighborhoods hadn't upped the stakes by becoming violent hellholes where cops didn't need military gear. :)

"The answer is holding their turf."

The only answer to force is superior force. The cops do protect me and my "turf", so me and millions like me don't mind if they inflict casualties on the enemy while they hold the thin blue line. I live a peaceful life and do not prey on others. I want those who would prey on me and take what is mine stopped, and I'm fine with the method being injurious or fatal. I worked for what I have. I mean to keep it.

Re:Biggest gang in America!

[laughingcoyote]

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.

Re:Biggest gang in America!

[dkleinsc]

Similar to the uniforms of the storm troopers in Star Wars, only in black.

Wait, those inspire fear? (Actually, on second thought, they do - for everyone standing near the person they're aiming at.)

Re:Biggest gang in America!

[omfgnosis]

It's also not a reasonable defense for a cop to say "I wasn't the one who clobbered that kid", when that cop did nothing to prevent it. If their job is to enforce the law, their first priority should be to ensure that others who are employed to enforce the law are not violating it. If their job is to serve and protect, they should serve and protect those who are being victimized by their colleagues, rather than serving and protecting their colleagues and power.

I'm not a fan of cops, and having been brutalized by them myself on more occasions than I can count, I generally find it traumatic to even look them in the eye, much less interact with them. But I would personally thank and shake hands with any cop who made a successful (or even concerted) attempt to prevent their colleagues from committing this kind of brutality. Sadly, I've never heard of such a cop, much less encountered one.

Re:Biggest gang in America!

[omfgnosis]

"I do, and I'm so old I remember when neighborhoods hadn't upped the stakes by becoming violent hellholes where cops didn't need military gear."

1. Internal community violence is nowhere near new, and has never been promoted as a response to police. The framing of escalating community violence as "upped stakes" is absolutelyÂnonsense.

2. Cops do not deploy in neighborhood patrols with these accoutrements. Apart from the psychological warfare of dark dress (and increasingly, dark squad carsâ"more and more of which I've seen with black identifying lettering on black paint), they reserve the militarization for political demonstrations. It's clear from this that the purpose of these accoutrements is not to deal with supposed "violent hellholes", but to deal with political opposition.

"The only answer to force is superior force."

Nonsense. An entirely reasonable answer to the sort of disorganized violence you're speaking of is to address the underlying and reasonable complaints and conditions that inspire and fuel said violence. Which is to say, addressing marginalization of options besides violence.

Further, saying that the answer to force is superior force presumes that said superior force is inherently and unerringly justified.

"The cops do protect me and my "turf", so me and millions like me don't mind if they inflict casualties on the enemy while they hold the thin blue line. I live a peaceful life and do not prey on others."

Since we're getting anecdotal... I will forego my preferred point, which is to point out that the concept of well-off predators is largely a fairy tale and that the real predators are by and large akin to Eichmann (I don't ship bodies to death camps, I just arrange the train schedules!). Instead, I'll respond with personal anecdote:

I was once beaten by a police officer, using a bicycle as a weapon. I was, at the time, on a city sidewalk, clearing pepper spray out of a kid's eyes with antacid. I witnessed the pepper spraying of this kid (and at least a couple hundred others like him), who was (like the rest of those around him) doing nothing resembling predation or force, and was indeed only exercising his right to express grievances against a government official (Tom Ridge, if you must know... and he and his Homeland Security cohorts were spotted watching out of a hotel window, drinking beers and cheering). I'll skip asking what act of predation, or force, these protestors committed to deserve victimization by "superior force". I'll ask: what did I do, by providing first aid, that constitutes predation or force? Why did I deserve to be beaten with a bicycle?

To add another anecdote, I was once arrested while marching in a permitted demonstration (and here I'll add, as I did in another comment, that the requirement for parade permits to assemble has been ruled unconstitutional; but nonetheless, the permit had been secured). I was toward the end of the march, and was being pushed and ordered by police officers out of the street. I asked why, and was told that I would be arrested if I did not vacate the street. I asked what law I was breaking, at which point a cop asked what he could say or do to get me out of the street. My response: "you can tell me what law I'm breaking." HIs response: "okay, you're under arrest." Again, what was I doing that constitutes predation or force?

The subtext of your comment says a lot more, though, than the actual text of the comment. What you're saying, to me, is this: "I am privileged, and police protect that privilege. I think they're right to do so, and those who don't are my enemies. Force should be used to prevent them from vocalizing any challenge to this arrangement."

Re:Biggest gang in America!

[Nathrael]

Which is a good thing, as it significantly rises the chance of a problem being solved without or with minimal use of violence. You wouldn't listen to some guy wearing a Barney suit telling you to stop throwing bricks at windows, or else, would you?

Re:Biggest gang in America!

[Saxophonist]

I asked why, and was told that I would be arrested if I did not vacate the street. I asked what law I was breaking, at which point a cop asked what he could say or do to get me out of the street. My response: "you can tell me what law I'm breaking." HIs response: "okay, you're under arrest." Again, what was I doing that constitutes predation or force?

Just out of curiosity: upon arresting you, did you then find out what law you were allegedly breaking? Because, you know, aren't they supposed to tell you why you are under arrest? From the demeanor you described, I'm guessing you were told nothing of the sort, but again, I'm just curious.

Re:Biggest gang in America!

[omfgnosis]

I was charged with "pedestrian interference" (which is a fancy term for "jaywalking"). I was released on bail (*not* personal recognizance) within a few hours of arrest, but didn't hear my charges until my first hearing, weeks later. My case was dismissed (but not after accumulating substantial legal fees), and we are currently suing the city for violation of my Constitutional rights.

I guess couchslug isn't going to come back and tell me why I deserved this treatment, though. :P

Apathy, the next frontier

[Xanavi]

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.

Re:Apathy, the next frontier

[petrus4]

Just stand by and watch freedom die.

It being this blatant is a strong indication that freedom has already been dead for a good long while. Plans for "emergency" situations were on the books in the mid-80s; there was Waco in 1992, etc.

Freedom in that sense was already dead by the time the WTC attacks happened, too. You can be sure that they would not have been committed, if the STS crowd thought they weren't going to be able to get away with it.

Apathy is part of the problem, but a bigger part of it is division. The globalist cabal are organised now to a degree that it would take a similar level of organisation to stop them. The whole reason why that organisation doesn't happen, is because everyone is waiting for the person next to them to make the first move, so that they know that they aren't simply going to charge in as a single person, have their head meaninglessly blown off, and for the machine to then simply keep rumbling on.

The other thing is, the contemporary STS demographic know their limits. They're not going to publically institute concentration camps or similar such things, precisely because they know that that is how Hitler operated, so that is what the public thinks that fascism looks like.

They never kill too many people at once, either. 9/11 was the big incident; you won't see the body count that high in one incident again for a long time. That much death in one hit isn't what they want; it makes too many people restless, and causes too many questions to get asked. If it gets too bad, it also can't be reconciled with the patriotic illusion of freedom that they try and maintain, as well.

These days, instead of blatant fascism, they churn out World of Warcraft, pornography, game shows, reality TV, and celebrity gossip as news in order to keep people distracted, so that when an isolated incident like the one in question happens, most people don't notice because they're too busy playing with their IPhones or watching YouTube or TV.

A few people will get killed, but not that many. Because it's only ever small groups that get killed, the STS crew can simply label it terrorism and use that as their justification for murder, and the majority will go back to sleep, if they even batted an eyelid at all.

Wanting freedom in the context of past ages is not a realistically attainable goal, in today's society; because there aren't enough other people who care about it, and without the proverbial critical mass, all you'll get is your own head blown off for trying anything.

If you want some good advice; study survivalism, turn your TV off, get rid of your mobile devices as much as you can, and above all, keep your head down. Political freedom might not be possible any more, but if you play your cards right, a tolerable existence still is. If the guys at the top want to stay in power, they know they have to keep us quiet to an extent.

Re:Apathy, the next frontier

[maxume]

Dude, I've never seen 2 people successfully keep a secret, let alone 10. You're nuts.

Re:Apathy, the next frontier

[Anonymous Coward]

you are correct. we are too comfortable to respond with the pitchfork and torch brigade.

Re:Apathy, the next frontier

[petrus4]

Exactly the point.

Re:Apathy, the next frontier

[Jeian]

I'm assuming you're referring to the video of "military" troops grabbing somebody and shoving them into an unmarked sedan... they were police officers in military-style uniforms, not actual military personnel.

http://hotair.com/archives/2009/09/25/video-the-purported-military-arrest-at-the-g-20-protest/

Re:Apathy, the next frontier

[tibman]

"big guns"? No sir, those are just the toys.

Re:Apathy, the next frontier

[Xanavi]

Tell that to Palm. LOLF. Besides there is no secret, its open policy. These people believe in what they do. You don't need to hide when no one gives a fuck.

Re:Apathy, the next frontier

[Stormwatch]

Dude, I've never seen 2 people successfully keep a secret, let alone 10. You're nuts.

If they successfully keep a secret... how would you know of it?

Re:Apathy, the next frontier

[Anonymous Coward]

You're going to use that as a counter-argument? History has already proven you wrong, then. The Mafia and MK-ULTRA are two examples. Many insiders knew about these, but to the general public it was just a "nonsense conspiracy theory", yet it turned out to be true.

The key to a good conspiracy though is to keep those involved in your scheme unaware of the true nature of it. The cops don't know the agenda, they're just told to beat down the drug addicted hippies who are causing trouble to the good citizens. Nobody actually tells them "Hey, prevent the people from rising up against us after they've figured out that we're stealing everything we can from them and giving it to our banking buddies"

Re:Apathy, the next frontier

[jamstar7]

Best way to keep a secret is to compartmentalise it. If 30 people each have a small part of a secret, they might not even be aware it is a secret.

Re:Apathy, the next frontier

[Nazlfrag]

No need to worry about a militarized police state then, these were just state police in military uniform playing with experimental military technology.

Re:Apathy, the next frontier

[omfgnosis]

They may not have been part of an officially sanctioned military agency, but they were certainly (like their riot police cohorts) engaged in military action (neutralization of target), in military uniform. Nonetheless, even if they'd been "dressed in blue", the act performed was criminal abduction.

Re:Apathy, the next frontier

[Nathrael]

They never kill too many people at once, either. 9/11 was the big incident; you won't see the body count that high in one incident again for a long time.

A, 9/11 was an inside job, was it? And let me guess, next thing you're going to say is that they are dissecting aliens at Area 51, developing psychic weapons at Dulce and making sure Google Earth does not display the spaceship crashed onto Antarctica, and that Majestic 12 and the Illuminati are warring over who gets to control the world...

Conspiracy theories belong into books or awesome video games, not into the real world *rolls eyes*.

Re:Apathy, the next frontier

[Reservoir Penguin]

Are you implying a some kind of induction proof?

Re:Apathy, the next frontier

[petrus4]

Conspiracy theories belong into books or awesome video games, not into the real world *rolls eyes*.

The government really appreciates people like you. You're doing their work for them. After they commit attrocities against their constituents, they can rely on people like you to insist that those people who were killed really *were* terrorists.

We're just fine, guys; keep moving along. Nothing to see here. Our freedom is still perfectly intact. So a couple of people got waterboarded last week; who cares? We're still OK.

I know you think sneering, scoffing, pseudo-skeptical atheism makes you look brilliantly intelligent...but it really doesn't.

Re:Apathy, the next frontier

[hkmwbz]

Too bad there's no evidence for the insane 9/11 "gobirment dunnit" conspiracy theories. (Cue the Gish Gallop.)

Sounds fishy

[Wowsers]

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.

Extremely annoying sound

[Harold Halloway]

"The device projects a narrow beam of extremely annoying sound..."

Ah, I was wondering what had happened to Daphne and Celeste.

Re:Extremely annoying sound

[Anonymous Coward]

Really? I thought it'd be more like "Y... M. C. A."

Re:Extremely Annoying Sound

[Dunbal]

>The device projects a narrow beam of extremely annoying sound

This is great; Celine Dion can never have too much air-time.

No, if they were using Celine Dion, there would have been fatalities.

Re:Extremely Annoying Sound

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:Extremely annoying sound

[drinkypoo]

Actually, the project's name was originally "Musically Integrated Neuro-Mechanical Energy Interdictor."

Re:Extremely Annoying Sound

[Anonymous Coward]

I read awhile back that in Austrailia, music from Barry Manilow was played over a loudspeaker for hours every night (not 150 db, but loud enough that you'd have to raise your voice to talk) to clear out an area where teenage hoodlums used to gather. It seemed to work.

Neil Sedaka, Lawrence Welk, or KC and the Sunshine Band would probably work just as well. I like this type of approach, it has a certain elegance.

Re:Extremely annoying sound

[Stormwatch]

Imagine this device playing Lil Wayne's "A Milli"... *shudders*

Re:Extremely Annoying Sound

[jamstar7]

ASCAP, actually. RIAA sues for infringement of recordings. ASCAP collects for performances on radio, TV, etc, etc, etc.

But, IIRC, using Celine Dion recordings for anything constitutes a violation of the Geneva Convention.

Obligatory...

[Anonymous Coward]

DON'T SONIC BOOM ME, BRO!

Re:Obligatory...

[omfgnosis]

This meme makes me wonder if people used to jokingly say, "don't murder me bro!" after Kent State, or Fred Hampton, or the countless Pinkerton battles. Somehow I doubt it. Look, offensive humor is pretty funny, but it really makes me sad that some kid has become a laughing stock for basically asking not to be brutalized.

XKCD to the resuce

[ObsessiveMathsFreak]

Oh come on. You can come up with a lot better than that.

Re:XKCD to the resuce

[Anonymous Coward]

http://xkcd.com/316/

And guess what -- the sound level in the targeted room is exactly 151db.

OBAMA IN ACTION

[Anonymous Coward]

I can't wait to see what happens when they take over healthcare

Re:OBAMA IN ACTION

[node 3]

I can't wait to see what happens when they take over healthcare

Given that this isn't Obama in action, but the wealthy (the G20) in the process of doing whatever it takes to get wealthier, I imagine what will happen in healthcare will be similar when we take it out of the hands of the wealthy who are doing whatever it takes to get wealthier.

Or are you *really* suggesting that state paid for (not *run*, just *paid for*) healthcare will result in militarized police shooting sick people with sound cannons and tear gas?

You teabaggers are amazing. You overlook actual existing tyranny, but fear the hell out of some imagined tyranny that doesn't even make any damned sense.

Sonic weapons

[Heytunk]

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.

Re:Sonic weapons

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Dead right. They get away with this shit (including all collateral damage from it) by saying it's "not intended to cause death, though that may occur".

          If that's the principle, why can ordinary people not use devices "not intended to enable copyright violation, though that may occur"?

Wow...

[Facegarden]

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

Re:Wow...

[Anonymous Coward]

It's only a question of time before we see a video of somebody using a shotgun at the speakers. Or better yet, deploy the same sonic weapon INSIDE the G20 meeting... see how they like their own medicine.

This has got to be a violation of some national and/or international law. Since when is it illegal to peacefully protest!?!?!?!?!???????????

Re:Wow...

[Wonko the Sane]

By using these weapons they've pretty much guaranteed that future protests will turn violent. I expect that before the year is over we will learn if those sonic weapons are bullet proof or not.

Re:Wow...

[Anonymous Coward]

It isn't. But if you read more than one source, you'll see that people are shattering glass windows, vandalizing local establishments, various and assorted NON-peaceful protests.

Re:Wow...

[Dunbal]

Plus, seems like some $0.50 earplugs would be a good defense against this,

      Not really. There's something called bone conduction, and it actually accounts for around 70% of your hearing. Your skull literally conducts the sound to your inner ear. This is also why your voice always sounds weird when you hear a recording of it played back to you.

      So the 150 decibel annoying noise would probably only be around 95 decibels with earplugs, but even that is pretty loud. Especially if, as another poster noted, they were playing Celine Dion. Then it would be past the pain threshold.

Re:Wow...

[Hatta]

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.

Re:Wow...

[KonoWatakushi]

My earplugs are rated for 33dB of protection; bringing the sound level down from 151dB to 118dB will probably not make you much happier. I can't comment on the relative pain or ear bleeding, but both will cause hearing damage in short order.

To be fair, the absorption depends on frequency, and may be somewhat better at whatever frequencies they are using. Still, there is no way you will manage an ideal seal before you are on the ground with an aneurism. It takes me about 30 seconds per ear to get it right, with most of that time waiting for the foam to expand. That is way too slow.

Re:Wow...

[Anonymous Coward]

Since when is it illegal to peacefully protest!?

      What, you don't like the new world order, comrade? Your IP and proxy servers have been logged. Enjoy your freedom, American citizen. We'll be watching and listening to you more closely from now on.

      The best thing is, Americans think they WON the Cold War... cameras at every intersection, radar monitors automatically checking speeds on roads at intervals, abusive, arrogant police. Yes, victory is sweet indeed.

Re:Wow...

[selven]

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

Re:Wow...

[Anonymous Coward]

This is horrible. They should be dispersing these protesters with napalm instead.

Re:Wow...

[7 digits]

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.

Re:Wow...

[Anonymous Coward]

ok, what about earplugs and a well-padded motorcycle helmet ?

Re:Wow...

[mrcaseyj]

You seriously think only 30% of your hearing comes through the air into your ears but most - 70% comes in through your bones? That's absurd. Turn on your stereo and compare the volume with ear plugs in and with them out. Does that sound like only a 30% reduction in volume? It's less absurd to suggest that 70% of your own voice is heard by bone conduction, but I'd even be skeptical of that.

Re:Wow...

[Anonymous Coward]

you can actually see the video of the thing in action -- http://indypgh.org/g20/#k-5b04b9bb24211dd7 (plus another one you can find on the home page for now)

both models were vehicle mounted and manned by people in antiriot gear --

i think they sell for around $50K

Re:Wow...

[Maestro485]

I'm not sure how much national coverage it got, but I live in Pittsburgh and these protesters vandalized a lot of local businesses. The vandalism didn't even take place in the downtown area, but a few miles outside in Lawrenceville and Oakland, which aren't very high income areas to begin with. The protesters smashed storefront windows of some chains like KFC and Panera which were apparently the targets, but they also smashed windows from other small family businesses.

I'm not trying to defend the actions of the police. There is really no justification for employing a sound cannon in anything short of a riot. A lot of the people who live here were understandably pissed off about protesters flying in from all over and smashing up storefronts though, and the police were under a little bit of pressure.

Re:Wow...

[Facegarden]

You seriously think only 30% of your hearing comes through the air into your ears but most - 70% comes in through your bones? That's absurd. Turn on your stereo and compare the volume with ear plugs in and with them out. Does that sound like only a 30% reduction in volume? It's less absurd to suggest that 70% of your own voice is heard by bone conduction, but I'd even be skeptical of that.

Well, I can see louder sounds affecting your skull more than quiet ones.

Re:Wow...

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

First, cheap earplugs are meaningless against sounds at 151db. Second, there are already laws against showing up at a demonstration with a gas mask. It's taken as prima facie evidence of intent to resist "lawful control". These perverts can make nursing an infant into something evil which must be controlled.

Re:Wow...

[tibman]

You can put in earplugs if you want, that's ok too. It means you cannot communicate with others or via phone/radio. Makes it harder to organize anything on the spot.

As far as why they dispersed a crowd of a few hundred? My guess is the crowd wasn't peaceful.

Re:Wow...

[fermion]

Because recent data shows that the opposition and governments will always reduce the crowd count by a factor of two to minimize the importance. In this way an officially counted crowd of ten thousand become one million, and a counted crowd of one hundred becomes ten thousand. Since we know that the government and New York times like(which listed the protest size at several thousand peaceful protestors) lie, then we know that the defenses were reasonable against the near million person violent crowd.

Re:Wow...

[Entropius]

But bone conduction is most effective with low frequencies -- this device uses the higher frequencies where entrance through the ears is more important.

Re:Wow...

[jamstar7]

I'm not sure how much national coverage it got, but I live in Pittsburgh and these protesters vandalized a lot of local businesses. The vandalism didn't even take place in the downtown area, but a few miles outside in Lawrenceville and Oakland, which aren't very high income areas to begin with. The protesters smashed storefront windows of some chains like KFC and Panera which were apparently the targets, but they also smashed windows from other small family businesses.

So protesters downtown were also in Lawrenceville & Oakland at the very same time? Seems to me to be two different groups at work here. What good does it do to protest something miles away from the action? It's like the 'Free Speech Zones' the Old Regime put up, miles and miles away from the cameras, to make sure the protesters never got a second of airplay.

Re:Wow...

[halltk1983]

Texting and Twitter on your phone solve this quite nicely...

Re:Wow...

[Anonymous Coward]

Plus, seems like some $0.50 earplugs would be a good defense against this, if someone had the forethought to bring them...

What and give more profit to the capitalist pigs they're protesting against!!!

(If I can figure out how to make organic earplugs I'll make a fortune at these things)

Re:Wow...

[Philip_the_physicist]

If a large number of the protesters managed to get themselves trained in the correct technique for performing a citizen's arrest, and then handed these troublemakers over to the police, it would both undermine any such dirty tricks and legitimise the protest in the eyes of the public. Also, publicly posting photographs of anyone causing breaking the law, and anyone handed over to the police, would make dirty tricks harder to pull off.

The best part about that is that if they want such photos taken down, they have to admit who they are, even if they weren't caught at the time, which would be especially useful in places without a protection such as the Fifth Amendment.

Re:Wow...

[omfgnosis]

"Plus, seems like some $0.50 earplugs would be a good defense against this, if someone had the forethought to bring them..."

First, no one had the forethought to bring any defenses against a weapon which had never been deployed. Second, even if you find earplugs that protect you from hearing damage, that is not the extent of the harm the weapon can do, and it increases other risks.

Re:Wow...

[ChienAndalu]

Because it is unheard of that some people smash things just for fun.

Re:Wow...

[The Mayor]

These weapons work at ultrasonic frequencies, where sound beams from the source in a line (because the panel producing the sound is larger than 1/2 the wavelength). Set up two of the sound sources spaced slightly apart, and the interference between the two waves produces a sonic frequency. The ultrasonic frequencies are designed to resonate the bones, so earplugs are indeed ineffective. In fact, the bone resonating feature of these devices at much lower volume levels can cause the sensation that the sounds are coming from within one's head. Modulate a signal on the interference between the two waves, and one can broadcast a human voice, making it sound like voices are coming from within your head.

Re:Wow...

[Anonymous Coward]

Since the device uses a highly focused beam of sound wouldn't a "police riot shield" or something similar coupled with ear plugs makes this sound tolerable?

Re:Wow...

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeay, Reichstagfire :\

Re:Wow...

[Anonymous Coward]

Turns out that it was basically one guy from out of town doing all the smashing.

Re:Wow...

[Maestro485]

What good does it do to protest something miles away from the action?

That's exactly why people were pissed off about it. The businesses in the downtown area had taken precautions such as boarding up windows to prevent damage. The people outside the downtown area didn't bother.

Also, Pittsburgh is a fairly small city, so Oakland and Lawrenceville and downtown aren't really all that far apart.

Like I said though, I agree that the police had no right to use the sound cannon, and I'm not defending that action. People should not be subjected to that kind of treatment while trying to peaceably assemble and the police were flat out wrong. I was just trying to explain another side of the story that may not have really been covered in the national media.

Re:Wow...

[Anonymous Coward]

The very best earplugs can only lower the sound by 30dB, which would bring this sound down to 120dB, which is the equivalent of standing directly in front of the speakers at an extremely loud rock concert without earplugs.

Re:Wow...

[BlueCodeWarrior]

The protest started in Lawrenceville, as that's a neighborhood that's full of those sympathetic to the protesters, as well as having a great park for a gathering place. Then, when the police blocked off Penn Ave, the protest moved around them and into some other neighborhoods. The police regrouped, tear gas started to fly, the LRAD was activated, then the dumpster happened, the protest moved back up Liberty away from downtown, an ATM was vandalized, police started firing rubber bullets, the last gasps of that group bled through north oakland into oakland proper. A group of students had gathered to see Obama's motorcade pull into Phipps, but the police heard that the protest was coming down Craig, so they started attacking students with tear gas. Some storefronts got broken.

Easier solution

[zero0ne]

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.

Obivous...

[Anonymous Coward]

Developers, developers,developers....

the projected sound?

[Cyko_01]

it's gilbert gottfried doing a commercial for oxyclean with mariah carey shrieking away in the background

Re:the projected sound?

[Jon Abbott]

That certainly would make me run as quickly as possible in the other direction.

Better than a billy club?

[icebike]

"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.

Re:Better than a billy club?

[Anonymous Coward]

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 they sure are making their point! Whatever that is. Oh I know:

"The G20 is evil! Look at the horrible things they are doing to the World! See how good we are!" **SMASH**

I wonder if those assholes really believe they are making a difference in people's opinions.

Re:Better than a billy club?

[Fantastic Lad]

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

Re:Better than a billy club?

[agnosticnixie]

I think plain clothes officers have obviously made much of a difference in people's opinion since they convince tools like you.

Re:Better than a billy club?

[Rob the Bold]

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.

Good old agents provocateurs. Works every time. You'd think we'd catch on.

Re:Better than a billy club?

[Anonymous Coward]

This of course justifies the protesters to help themselves to TV's and burn cars and buildings and whatnot.

Re:Better than a billy club?

[indiechild]

One term for it is "agent provocateur":
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agent_provocateur

Re:Better than a billy club?

[Fantastic Lad]

This of course justifies the protesters to help themselves to TV's and burn cars and buildings and whatnot.

Protesters are protesters. Criminals are criminals. Please try to stay focused. Or perhaps get out once in a while to visit the real world away from your TV set. You'll find it's a good deal different and, oh, the wonders you will see!

-FL

Extremely Annoying Sound

[Anonymous Coward]

>The device projects a narrow beam of extremely annoying sound

This is great; Celine Dion can never have too much air-time.

Sound Cannon In New Yorker Article

[Anonymous Coward]

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

Re:Sound Cannon In New Yorker Article

[Anonymous Coward]

"He is probably the most knowledgeable figure in America on the civil uses of non-lethal weapons. Mentions Nicholas C. Nicholas. Manufacturers typically produce non-lethal weapons for soldiers, because the military has more money. Heal began urging inventors and manufacturers to design non-lethal weapons for policemen rather than soldiers, and whenever they made something he tested it. Over the years, about twenty-five ideas that inventors and manufacturers have approached him with have become products. Recently, Heal has attended tests of the Active Denial System (A.D.S.) made for the military by Raytheon, a âoepain rayâ which sends a beam of energy that heats a personâ(TM)s skin to a hundred and thirty degrees. When a non-lethal weapon is being tested for the police, Heal says, the critical standard is whether it creates a âoesaveâ â"that is, whether a person who would have been killed was instead apprehended. Healâ(TM)s field trials of new weapons last several weeks or months and involve sometimes just a few deputies and sometimes as many as five hundred."

Extremely annoying sound?

[K. S. Kyosuke]

"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.

Wasn't there an amendment...

[BlueBoxSW.com]

... in the constitution that said something about our right to gather?

Re:Wasn't there an amendment...

[Anonymous Coward]

Peaceably.
http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/Assembly/overview.aspx

Re:Wasn't there an amendment...

[Rob the Bold]

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.

Re:Wasn't there an amendment...

[Anonymous Coward]

I didn't hear about that on American Idol, or when they discussed Michael Jackson last month!

Seriously anyone who protests should know they stage riots on purpose and wind up hurting the very people who believe in peaceful gatherings. Better to stay inside your residence and be ready to detonate your house in the event of a martial law takeover. Die in honor by taking the whole fucking block out.

That's at least what my drug dealer told me when I used to buy LSD for myself. I don't endorse that behavior myself.

and I am joking right! I joke with a smile as well because I'm fucking crazy, probably too much LSD.

Re:Wasn't there an amendment...

[Anonymous Coward]

and I am on slashdot, so I really need to get laid as well, like all the readers here.

Re:Wasn't there an amendment...

[Hurricane78]

How so? Did you somehow miss that ominous fourth dimension called TIME? With its effects like the effect always coming *after* the cause?
Just have one filming the transformation of the crowd, and then sue the city for willingly and deliberately causing chaos and destruction, by mass-assaulting people on the level of torture. (That wording should help.)

No difference at all...

[Entropius]

... 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.

Re:No difference at all...

[selven]

Cops can now whack people with (virtual) batons without getting into physical danger. Also there's quite a bit of psychological disconnection when all you're doing is pressing a button and the technology is doing it for you. Even worse, some of the beam would fly by the intended victim and maybe hit someone in the background. The restrictions on the use of this thing should be HIGHER.

Re:No difference at all...

[Entropius]

Agreed -- it's the same with tasers, tbh.

Non violent defensive measures.

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:Non violent defensive measures.

[Rob the Bold]

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.

"The cops are massing, standby on the Honeypault!"

What?

[SpudB0y]

What?

Easily thwarted

[Eminor]

Protesters will start carrying ear plugs to events.

Re:Easily thwarted

[mister_playboy]

They'll have to be some premium earplugs to even manage getting the level down to 125dB, which is still very unpleasant. There is no mention of the frequency involved... very high and low frequencies are not attenuated very much by most earplugs.

This is human rights abuse, plain and simple.

Re:Easily thwarted

[petrus4]

If they're smart, they won't go to events at all.

Passive protest is not going to work, here. The people in charge of the globalist conferences will, in time, simply begin killing protesters where they stand; and it is only ever a few hundred protesters who ever turn up to these things.

The authorities depend on the fact that there is only a small turnout, because when only a few people get killed, that number is still small enough for governments to be able to claim that they are legitimately putting down civil unrest. The majority will then listen to that.

Pacifist activism only works when the enemy has a conscience. This one doesn't, so it is going to be ineffective. Whoever lies down will simply be slaughtered, and then the cabal will continue with what it was already doing anyway.

There is no hope. Absolutely none. I'd love it if there was, but heads they win, tails you lose.

Pacifist protest will fail, because the protesters will simply be killed.

Armed protest will fail, because the people attempting said protest will be civilians.

Even if we could somehow do something to revert the current political situation, the environment is now sufficiently screwed (especially given the fact that population is still increasing exponentially) that it is likely that we will be extinct within 100 years anyway, whether we have a fascist government or not.

Face it, people. As a species, we are at this point, totally and completely fucked. It is over. Roll over, do another raid in World of Warcraft, and open another bag of chips; because at this point, that is as good as it's going to get.

Re:Easily thwarted

[Entropius]

The sound level from this thing is not 150dB at working range.

It's 150dB at 1 meter away.

Ear protection *is* effective -- ever been to a shooting range? There's a reason people wear ear protection there.

Re:Easily thwarted

[jamstar7]

Face it, people. As a species, we are at this point, totally and completely fucked. It is over. Roll over, do another raid in World of Warcraft, and open another bag of chips; because at this point, that is as good as it's going to get.

Fuck that, I wanna colonise the Kieper Belt.

Oh, wait...

Economic Opportunity!

[JM78]

I can see it now... a hoard of ear-plug-peddlers sprouting up at any major protest...

The hedgehog

[Carra]

I agree. Nothing more terrifying then waking up and seeing an army of hedgehogs in your garden.

Re:The hedgehog

[Shadow of Eternity]

Being forced to play the 360 game and Heroes over and over... the horror.

right to peacefully assembly

[Anonymous Coward]

fuck our totalitarian government..

Simple fix.

[tengeta]

If they use military weapons on people, the people should bring weapons and respond in a militaristic style. This isn't fucking Europe.

Re:Simple fix.

[Ash-Fox]

If they use military weapons on people, the people should bring weapons and respond in a militaristic style. This isn't fucking Europe.

It isn't soviet Russia either, but guess what I experienced when visiting? A check point on a major road, where every car was stopped and people were asked for identification.

Guess what happened there?

Nothing.

Those things are still operating.

Re:Simple fix.

[Anonymous Coward]

That is the natural outcome... it is an arms race, plain and simple. Except this time it is with "non-lethal" weapons. Someone needs to invent the brown note cannon to end it all.

Re:Simple fix.

[Anonymous Coward]

where was this so we know what to blow up?

Re:Simple fix.

[C0R1D4N]

They have these in New Jersey every day. A police checkpoint set up to check your vehicle registration, inspection stickers, license, insurance and seat belt. NJ 101.5 (FM) usually announces them.

Sound cannon in action

[Stormwave0]

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.

Re:Sound cannon in action

[gmuslera]

That video will get lost there. Youtube is full of videos with extremely annoying sounds already.

Re:Sound cannon in action

[Stormwave0]

Here is the clip. YouTube is processing it now (might take a few minutes). The HD version should also be at the same link in an hour or so (again, YouTube processing time).

The footage is a bit rough since I just threw it together now. However you kind of get the idea. People were standing around just watching and the police decided to disperse the crowd with the sound cannon. Apologies for the bad camera work - we weren't filming anything in particular and the police refused to let us set up near the major news networks. Interestingly, they also pushed back another Japanese news network.

Re:Sound cannon in action

[mr_stinky_britches]

Wow, just wow. Is there any hope for our race? :(

Re:Sound cannon in action

[Anonymous Coward]

yes.

we have the 2nd amendment.

the great equalizer.

did you know that every american citizen is entitled to carry a gun? that would make the the police behave *much* more politely to any crowd.

Re:Sound cannon in action

[Anonymous Coward]

interesting that they would be using this device at about the same time the coup government of Honduras used it against the embassy of Brazil where the constitutional president is. In the clip they used the LRAD is used only for a few seconds at a time... maybe minutes. In Honduras they used it for most of a night. There were not witnesses since they beat back any press (even CNN), international observers, Red Cross, etc.

I think that American Technology Corp. the manufacturer of this thing, will see a boost in sales with all the publicity the device is getting throughout the world. It is a great thing to be able to deliver punishment at a distance, to "torture without touching." I can see US-friendly governments that like to dispense collective punishment, lining up to get a hold of these toys for their goons. Just lovely.

In all seriousness

[dkleinsc]

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.

It's over.

[n0nsensical]

Time to bring out the big guns and fight back obviously

Re:It's over.

[petrus4]

Time to bring out the big guns and fight back obviously.

Good luck. Also, what big guns would those be, exactly?

If the civilian population try anything at all, they will simply be slaughtered like animals.

You won't change the situation. You won't buy anything at all with your life.

You will simply die.

Re:It's over.

[Wonko the Sane]

There's something to be said for sheer overwhelming numbers. If the political establishment fails to keep the popular opposition internally divided they don't stand a chance.

Re:It's over.

[tibman]

Fight back against your neighbors? Because seriously the citizens that put down that riot ARE your neighbors.

Re:It's over.

[n0nsensical]

Allright I admit it, not only am I not going to fight back, I don't even have any big guns! But this is some 1984 shit and they should not be surprised if someone does! Should be a real "riot" when they replace the cops with robots. Military sonic weapons.. deployed in Pittsburgh. Say it.

Re:It's over.

[Entropius]

Police killing people tends to be viewed rather badly by the population. See Kent State, and note that we're *still* talking about it.

Re:It's over.

[dunkelfalke]

Not really.

The Maxim gun was first used by Britain's colonial forces in the First Matabele War in 1893-1894. In one engagement, 50 soldiers fought off 5,000 warriors with just four Maxim guns.

or

The airborne troopers were attacked by a coordinated and well-armed force of between 200 and 400 mujahideen. Attacks were made from two directions, indicating that the assailants may have been assisted by rebels trained in Pakistan.

[..]

The first attack at 1530 on January 7 was followed by 11 more attacks until just before dawn on January 8, when the mujahideen withdrew, leaving Hill 3234 still in the hands of the Soviet paratroopers. The exhausted and mostly wounded Soviets were nearly out of ammunition after the final attack and might not have been able to withstand a further assault.

The Soviet forces sustained 34 casualties (out of a force of 39 men), including 6 men killed and 28 injured.

Overwhelming numbers don't work against superior firepower and superior training.

Re:It's over.

[Stiletto]

Overwhelming numbers don't work against superior firepower and superior training.

Tell that to the insurgents in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Re:It's over.

[dunkelfalke]

Please, read carefully.
My second example was about insurgents in Afghanistan.

Re:It's over.

[cheesybagel]

Even before there were Maxim guns, Napoleon was promoted for "disbanding" masses of rebels with the use of cannon and grapeshot.

Where were they at the town halls?

[Wansu]

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.

Re:Where were they at the town halls?

[Anonymous Coward]

No one at the town halls were smashing windows or setting cars on fire.

At the 9/12 rally, they left Washington DC cleaner than it was before the rallies. The only threat the 9/12 people posed were to the jobs of the DC street cleaners.

Hard to justify this

[93 Escort Wagon]

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.

Why can't we protest a summit meeting?

[OrangeTide]

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?

Re:Why can't we protest a summit meeting?

[petrus4]

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.

Re:Why can't we protest a summit meeting?

[Rob the Bold]

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?

"Disperse, ye rebels. Disperse." Violence was the only thing the British would listen to. If the modern US Government copies that strategy by allowing legal protests only in isolated areas where no one can see or hear them, then yes, violence is the only form of protest that will work. We could accelerate the process by getting some of these tactics used on the cracker rebellion.

Re:Why can't we protest a summit meeting?

[istartedi]

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.

Re:Why can't we protest a summit meeting?

[phantomfive]

The G-20 protestors are being taken seriously, and it's backfiring on the cops.

I don't know that anyone's taking them seriously. There are protests at every big meeting. So what? I haven't even heard the protesters say what they want to change. Mostly they seem interested in catching footage of police violence. They are like real-life trolls or something.

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

I highly doubt the Pittsburg police care if the message of these protesters gets out. If they wanted to suppress a message, they would have used an entirely different strategy. But....what was there message again? It sure isn't very unified.

Re:Why can't we protest a summit meeting?

[OrangeTide]

The message the police are sending is: We don't want you here.

Re:Why can't we protest a summit meeting?

[phantomfive]

Yes, that's probably true, but it doesn't answer the question I asked.

Re:Why can't we protest a summit meeting?

[Anonymous Coward]

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

Or even better, shout 'look, there's a pedophile' or 'look, we've caught a terrorist' ...

Evil Genius

[Anonymous Coward]

This sounds suspiciously like it- just look for the AOE in Europe...

i miss the good old days

[JeanBaptiste]

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.

bean bags

[commodoresloat]

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 ....

Re:bean bags

[JLF65]

I LOVE your response. That would be an interesting way to try to deal with protesters. I wonder if anyone has ever tried it. :D

Dull info: Yes, bean bags like in the images, just much smaller so they can be fired by a hand-held weapon.
Google image link for dull info: http://images.google.com/images?hl=en&source=hp&q=police%20bean%20bag%20gun&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&tab=wi

puuh

[Anonymous Coward]

got louder noise with my marshall. noobs.

Well, there's an easy way to counter this...

[Anonymous Coward]

Scrap an old microwave and make a HERF gun. Short out all their shit, including their sound cannon.

Re:Well, there's an easy way to counter this...

[JockTroll]

Why bother to go all Macgyver on this, loserboy nerd? Get a hunting rifle and put a .35 Whelen through their expensive equipment. Hell, even a .22 can turn your average electronics into so much scrap.

What's it take to disable one of these gadgets?

[jcr]

Would a singe round of buckshot at the emitters do the trick?

-jcr

Re:What's it take to disable one of these gadgets?

[Anonymous Coward]

If everyone would just learn how easy it is to build a HERF gun out of a spare microwave and use it on every new high-tech toy of oppression these people whip out (and everything else they have, too, for good measure), it would suddenly be a very expensive proposition to use these things.

Re:What's it take to disable one of these gadgets?

[BlueStrat]

Would a singe round of buckshot at the emitters do the trick?

It would require getting far too close. A shotgun isn't exactly the most concealable weapon. The shotgun-toting protester would be spotted and gunned down long before they reached shotgun range.

Purely theoretically, it would be far more effective to position snipers in tall structures in advance just like the police & military do and simply decorate the nearby area with pieces of the $50K cannon. If they lost several of these very expensive units at every protest, their budgets would collapse.

Fear works both ways. They attempt to use terror against civilians to suppress protest against the government and its' policies. A cop with a family making ~$45K-$65K/yr would seriously consider a sudden career change if ordered to man/operate such crowd suppression devices after seeing a few devices ripped to very expensive confetti.

Ten to twenty competent radio-equipped snipers at an average-sized demonstration using 30-06 and similar long-reach high-velocity scoped rifles that easily penetrate body armor & helmets placed strategically around the area could even observe and suppress any police snipers or other Rambo wanna-be's that think using weapons on unarmed protesters is a good idea.

Again, this is purely a *theoretical* discussion of tactics. I do *not* advocate violence toward police or their weapons...err, their "crowd control devices" under normal circumstances.

Strat

Re:What's it take to disable one of these gadgets?

[Hijacked Public]

Where do you think you'd find 10 or 20 actual snipers willing to do this?

Re:What's it take to disable one of these gadgets?

[Gary W. Longsine]

Water might even do it.

Re:What's it take to disable one of these gadgets?

[BlueStrat]

Where do you think you'd find 10 or 20 actual snipers willing to do this?

Probably the same place the military and the police do...volunteers that will train for it or are trained (veterans). Why do you think that DHS is sending out domestic threat assessment reports warning against military combat vets, and why do you think street gangs are sending members into the military?

Strat

Re:What's it take to disable one of these gadgets?

[Hijacked Public]

DHS is sending out reports warning against pretty much anything anyone working for them can dream up, no matter how comic book.

I was an 0311/8541 in the USMC, and I don't think it is a legitimate threat.

Re:What's it take to disable one of these gadgets?

[HEbGb]

Ear plugs or headphones would work much better, and are obviously trivial to obtain and use. There is no magic about the sound, it's just a loud bullhorn.

Re:What's it take to disable one of these gadgets?

[BlueStrat]

DHS is sending out reports warning against pretty much anything anyone working for them can dream up, no matter how comic book.

I was an 0311/8541 in the USMC, and I don't think it is a legitimate threat.

Thank you for your service. Semper Fi. I have nothing but the utmost respect for the military and those who serve and have served. You and those like you put your lives on the line to protect the country and the people, and to defend the Constitution.

I agree, those who have served are the ones who most love the country and are the least likely to attack it, generally speaking. Of course there are nutcases, but there are nutcases from all walks of life and every vocation. Some of the worst nutcases hold the title of Senator or Representative.

DHS is a bad joke. Security theater with bad actors. I could see them fearing veterans if the "powers that be" plan to overthrow our Constitutional democratic republic and replace it with something else, however. In that case they would be fools not to. That would be, in my mind, the only reason to fear veterans any more than anyone else and why those reports are creepy.

Strat

Don't blame the protestors

[Hatta]

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.

Re:Don't blame the protestors

[maccodemonkey]

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.

Re:Don't blame the protestors

[Urkki]

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.

Well, there's a simple solution, if it's really a peaceful demonstration. If anybody in the crowd starts to riot, rest of the crowd should subdue them and tie them down (like with cable ties or duct tape). Problem solved.

Re:Don't blame the protestors

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:Don't blame the protestors

[awtbfb]

Is this what they look like?

Re:Don't blame the protestors

[Anonymous Coward]

Assaulting and falsely imprisoning a police officer? You'll be lucky if they stick to the rubber bullets.

Re:Don't blame the protestors

[extrasolar]

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.

That's hilarious. "Peaceful riot"--what kind of doublespeak is this? :) I could make a political point here, but that would be too obvious. Everyone make up your own witty comment bringing out the irony here. As for myself, I'll just point at you and say, "Hah hah!"

Re:Don't blame the protestors

[Dausha]

"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."

There's a self-serving, conspiracy mindset. When the Conservatives and Libertarians were protesting during the town hall meetings, and holding their tea parties, there wasn't nearly the same sort of wanton disregard for authority. The Washington D.C. tea party, contrasting the G20 riot, was incident free. A Democrat-run D.C. and Democrat-run Congress/Executive would have gotten a lot of traction if the tea party had a riot. Why weren't there agent provocateurs?

Perhaps there's a more fundamental issue here. Perhaps the nature of those protesting? Perhaps because disruption is the primary means these various protests employ to get attention? No need for a police-infiltrating agent provocateur. The protesters are effective on their own.

Re:Don't blame the protestors

[Anubis IV]

You can't legally break up a peaceful riot

What are you talking about? Of course they can. 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. The agents that they send in to rile up the crowds are not there to create a riot for the purpose of later dispersing it. Rather, they are there to make the protesters look bad to outside bodies, such as the media or other bystanders. The last thing they need is even more people showing up the next day because it looked like innocent people were getting repressed. Let's not confuse the two issues here. Legally, those protesters were in the wrong merely by assembling like that. In the eyes of others though...

Re:Don't blame the protestors

[Anonymous Coward]

[Citation Needed]

Re:Don't blame the protestors

[Stiletto]

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.

Re:Don't blame the protestors

[indiechild]

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.

Re:Don't blame the protestors

[indiechild]

That's what I was thinking. You'd have civilians arresting and subduing plainclothes police officers.

Re:Don't blame the protestors

[ChameleonDave]

There's a self-serving, conspiracy mindset. When the Conservatives and Libertarians were protesting during the town hall meetings, and holding their tea parties, there wasn't nearly the same sort of wanton disregard for authority. The Washington D.C. tea party, contrasting the G20 riot, was incident free. A Democrat-run D.C. and Democrat-run Congress/Executive would have gotten a lot of traction if the tea party had a riot. Why weren't there agent provocateurs?

That would be fine as a rhetorical question, but you actually don't know, do you?

Re:Don't blame the protestors

[falseflag911]

You really need to watch Police State 2: The Take Over. The city even housed the anarchists for free and let them go.

Re:Don't blame the protestors

[shutdown -p now]

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's a nice theory, but why, at least in my country, whenever I come to any online place where anarchists and the like gather, the discussion always turns violent in the wake of such events, and they don't just prepare for "peaceful assembly", but come with stones and bottles?

Or are you saying that they are they being incited there as well?

Re:Don't blame the protestors

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't buy it. Wouldn't it behoove the peaceful protesters to point out and encircle anyone they thought was there to make trouble? Round em up and hustle them off to a secluded place, take their photographs and ID them later, expose them to the world as agents provocateurs? Where is the proof? Until I see police employees identified on the news or on youtube or in a blog, I am going to chalk the violence up to the mob, and not the cops. The Chicago 7 didn't show up to sing 'kumbaya' and hold hands, they came to create a riot, no Agents Provocateurs needed. Reactionaries haven't changed much since the 60s.

Re:Don't blame the protestors

[Urkki]

I'm pretty sure that if somebody starts to damage property eg. by throwing brick, then in most countries it would be perfectly legal to stop him using minimal sufficient force. Four or more people can pretty much subdue one person without injuring him (enough to hold each arm and leg). And if a protesters are even 10% troublemakers, it certainly isn't a peaceful protest any more...

But even that wouldn't be necessary. Imagine a dozen peaceful protesters grouping around one or two troublemakers and telling them to stop and get lost, NOW, or else. What do you think the troublemakers would do?

It should really be a bit of same thing as in an airplane these days, when it's as likely as not to be flown into a building or something. If somebody tries to hijack the plane, it's in the best interest of the passengers to stop them at any cost. Though not quite as bad, the same applies to peaceful demonstrations: stop the troublemakers or risk getting blasted with "non-lethal" weapons.

Re:Don't blame the protestors

[BlueCodeWarrior]

It was. From Twitter: RT @G20IMC Epic Police Fail: http://bit.ly/3lJ6Z2 Undercover officers attempt to infiltrate a March Against Police Brutality #G20 #reportg20

Re:Don't blame the protestors

[BlueCodeWarrior]

There were infiltrators: http://bit.ly/3lJ6Z2

Agents provocateurs

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:Agents provocateurs

[easyTree]

And I also know some cops *personally* who have been ORDERED to do this shit

This is the real problem - certain groups within society who will shut of whatever brain they have when cash is waved in their general direction. They need to provide a natural counterbalance to the ability of their employers to act in an unchecked manner - their employers require it as much as anyone - if they are to stay sane, by which I mean being part of a fully-connected graph of common understanding.

Re:Agents provocateurs

[jamstar7]

This is the real problem - certain groups within society who will shut of whatever brain they have when cash is waved in their general direction. They need to provide a natural counterbalance to the ability of their employers to act in an unchecked manner - their employers require it as much as anyone - if they are to stay sane, by which I mean being part of a fully-connected graph of common understanding.

They talk about the 'training' you get in the military, but at the end of the day, you're still expected to pack a rifle and engage in live fire 'if needed'. My daughter was supposed to be a mechanic in Iraq, but spent her 18 month tour guarding the motor pool while civilian contractors did the actual wrenching. My nephew was a medic in Iraq, assigned to hang out with the Special Forces troops in Feluga(sp) 4 years ago and only bandaged up captured 'guerillas' rounded up for questioning, after needing to put bullets in them to begin with.

Back during my time (late Vietnam War era), a lot of combat troops came home and went to school on the GI Bill. Big Unc paid for up to 4 years of college, no payroll deductions during your active duty time, and if you were a draftee & out in 2 years, no biggie, you still got the full 4 year ride. The troops coming out today don't have that option, they have the Montgomery GI Bill which requires veterans to put aside money for college during their active duty and Big Unc coughs up 8x what the vet puts away for up to 36 months. It's only in the last year or so that they finally voted in something close to the GI Bill I knew when I got out.

Now, considering that Big Unc wants trained killers around and really doesn't do a lot to help them readjust to civilian life if they don't get stop-lossed back into uniform, and considering the almost double digit unemployment in the US today, is there any wonder combat troops sign up as cops as the only viable job they're halfways trained for?

Re:Agents provocateurs

[haruharaharu]

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.

Re:Agents provocateurs

[pete6677]

All this comment proves is that anyone can make any claim they want on the internet and some sucker (anyone who modded it up) will believe them. If this anonymous poster personally observed any of this stuff you would think he could have posted at least one credible link.

Re:Agents provocateurs

[falseflag911]

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 ;)

Re:Agents provocateurs

[ChienAndalu]

So the dudes who put up dozens of heavy-metal-scored riot porn videos are undercover cops too? And these people are undercover cops too?

Re:Agents provocateurs

[Hal_Porter]

If Alex Jones could get the guy to come forward and there was proof that 1) he was a cop and 2) he'd been ordered to attack stuff and rough people up, then it would be a big story.

So either Alex Jones is crazy and making stuff up or he's not doing the legwork, Woodward and Bernstein style, to find proof. Either way what he's saying is not going to be taken seriously.

Re:Agents provocateurs

[spvo]

The troops coming out today don't have that option, they have the Montgomery GI Bill [va.gov] which requires veterans to put aside money for college during their active duty and Big Unc coughs up 8x what the vet puts away for up to 36 months. It's only in the last year or so that they finally voted in something close to the GI Bill I knew when I got out.

I used the old GI Bill to pay for college, and it is a whole lot better than you are letting on. Yes, I did have to pay into it, but only a measley 1200 dollars. After getting out my monthly payment was about the same amount. Also, a traditional 4 year bachelors only requires 36 months of actual class time. The GI Bill won't pay for summer or time you aren't attending school, and there is no reason they should.

Re:Agents provocateurs

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:Agents provocateurs

[xappax]

While agent provocateurs are a very real phenomenon, and have been used to discredit political dissidents in the US countless times, you can't chalk everything up to them.

There are genuine, honest activists out there who sabotage storefronts, recruitment centers, police stations, etc during demonstrations. They do it because it's the only way to get the attention of the public and authorities. If it weren't for their actions, we wouldn't even be having conversations about whether the G20 summit and the policies of G20 countries are fucked up or not. Condemn them all you want, if you need, but they started a conversation that badly needs to be started about the path our nation and the global elite is going down.

These LRADs are pathetic

[mrcaseyj]

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.

Re:These LRADs are pathetic

[Turiko]

only 150 dB? that's plenty to cause irreversable damage.

Re:These LRADs are pathetic

[rev_g33k_101]

only 150 dB? that's plenty to cause irreversable damage.

That was a good attempt at spinning mrcaseyj's statement, but you fell short.

You know what he was saying is that the only place the device reaches the level of 150 dB is in a one meter range.

Not that 150 dB is a low amount.

The evidence is in the next statement of "The sound level will drop off rapidly according to the inverse square law as you get farther away"

But I have a suspicion that you are the type to not care about what the truth is, only how it can be twisted to fit whatever cause of the moment you are fighting for.

Re:These LRADs are pathetic

[Turiko]

"rapidly" is not exactly a precise amount. What if they mean 10 dB every 10 meters? Also, this device is made for crowd control. Sooner or later it will get used at close range, either by accident or because some idiot tought it was a good idea.

Re:These LRADs are pathetic

[rev_g33k_101]

"rapidly" is not exactly a precise amount. What if they mean 10 dB every 10 meters? Also, this device is made for crowd control. Sooner or later it will get used at close range, either by accident or because some idiot tought it was a good idea.

you chopped off the important part again.

the rest of the statement gave details, "The sound level will drop off rapidly according to the inverse square law as you get farther away"

A simple google search will show you that the inverse square law says

Acoustics The inverse-square law is used in acoustics in measuring the sound intensity at a given distance from the source. Example In acoustics, the sound pressure of a spherical wavefront radiating from a point source decreases by 50% as the distance r is doubled, or measured in dB it decreases by 6.02 dB.

meaning that every time the distance is doubled the power is halved.

so precise amount was given, you just ignored it or did not know what it was.

no, the Executive directed security

[Trepidity]

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.

Re:no, the Executive directed security

[node 3]

I highly doubt the President had any input into the operations other than (at most) telling his agencies to do what they saw best. I could be wrong, who knows? But he sure didn't do anything like this to the teabaggers.

Additionally, unless both the federal laws are severely more out of whack with the Constitution than I'm aware (and yes, I'm aware that the federal laws and the Constitution haven't seen eye-to-eye on many things for a rather long time), and the states and cities are far more spineless and corrupt than I imagined, any involvement by the Pittsburgh police beyond more or less a liaison role to facilitate the immediate logistical needs of the feds is completely voluntary.

To clarify, I can imagine the city of Pittsburgh may have an obligation to give the FBI, SS and DHS full access to the event venue, and provide a liaison to coordinate between the federal, state and city agencies, I don't believe the FBI or SS or DHS can order the Pittsburgh police to work overtime, gather at the event, and attack the protesters.

Re:no, the Executive directed security

[roguetrick]

The President didn't tell them to do it, but he didn't tell them not to do it either. I'm not arguing that its his job to tell them not to do it, or that he should have, however.

Re:no, the Executive directed security

[Anonymous Coward]

Where's Obama's denouncement on the way these students were treated? The videos are a sad sight - and reflect poorly on the US.

Ah, so you are for free immigration?

[Mathinker]

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?

Re:Ah, so you are for free immigration?

[cyberstealth1024]

if they came across legally or were refugees that's fine and dandy. if they ford across the Rio Grande in the middle of the night without going through the proper legal channels, then yeah, i have a problem with that. i live in the States and have a couple friends who got married to "foreigners"... and it was a long, difficult process to get their spouses to become citizens. they endured the process. it's not fair for all of the border jumpers to magically come live in the states or become citizens...they should go through the process as well. they cheat the system.

Re:Ah, so you are for free immigration?

[shentino]

So let me get this straight...

You want mexican refugees to go through legal channels that are just as full of bullshit as the ones they're trying to get away from back home?

Re:Ah, so you are for free immigration?

[mweather]

Immigration law isn't supposed to be fair. There are unequal quotas for immigrants from different countries. Why aren't you complaining about the unfairness of that? Why is it you only complain about unfairness when poor brown people walk across the border?

Re:Ah, so you are for free immigration?

[cyberstealth1024]

Immigration law isn't supposed to be fair. There are unequal quotas for immigrants from different countries. Why aren't you complaining about the unfairness of that? Why is it you only complain about unfairness when poor brown people walk across the border?

sure, i highlighted the mexicans ("poor brown people," as you put it), but i don't care what your nationality/race/favorite-rock-band is. (you could be canadian, british, chinese, ..) go back and do it again LEGALLY. I'm not saying that the quota-by-country thing is fair. ..if you don't like it, then change the system, don't let others cheat it (by coming over illegally).

Re:Ah, so you are for free immigration?

[manekineko2]

Yes, I expect them to obey the law like everyone else is expected. Rewarding anyone who breaks the law with something that those who do not break the law do not receive is a quick recipe for undermining the rule of law.

Re:Ah, so you are for free immigration?

[mweather]

Sure, you're against all illegals. The fact that 99.9% of them are Hispanics is just a coincidence...

Re:Ah, so you are for free immigration?

[xappax]

Your alignment: Lawful Neutral.

Constitution is optional; people don't care

[bussdriver]

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.)

Just use a clip of most slashdotter's singing

[rwwyatt]

That will cause violent and unstoppable retching from all bodily orifices

Pull your lens back a touch. . .

[Fantastic Lad]

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

no water cannons?

[sponga]

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.

Re:no water cannons?

[Anonymous Coward]

I had a friend who died from internal injuries from a water cannon. There is no safe way to defuse protest except hearing out the protesters' concerns.

Re:no water cannons?

[Microlith]

AK = Alaska
AR = Arkansas

Unless there is a Little Rock, Alaska that had race riots I wasn't aware of.

Re:no water cannons?

[sponga]

A simple Google search of 'Little Rock, Alaska'

City information for LITTLE ROCK, ALASKA
https://webappsprod01.exim.gov/apps%5Cusmap%5Cusmap.nsf/Cities/ALASKA.LITTLE_ROCK?OpenDocument

I think there is a Springfield in every state of America also.

Eh? Can you speak up?

[mnemotronic]

Dude, like I've seen Spinal Tap in concert like, about a million times. I use frikkin sonic cannons for earbuds.

Play by the rules...

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:Play by the rules...

[tibman]

Hopefully the businesses with broken windows and normal citizens with trashed cars can get some good lawyers too

Is protesting so bad?

[msimm]

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.

Why a sound cannon?

[mano.m]

Don't they have any of those old-fashioned ones that involve gunpowder?

Noise cancelling headphones

[Kardos]

Just turn them up to 11

Lunatic fringe

[Anonymous Coward]

All big change in history was started by a small lunatic fringe.

Speaking of Orwellian Reasoning

[NoYob]

From your own links, there is just an announcement of the summit and the other one just has some vague statements about who is going to be there, how they're going to be peaceful, how the police are overreacting, and an insistence that things will be peaceful.

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.

Re:Speaking of Orwellian Reasoning

[tsm_sf]

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.

Re:Speaking of Orwellian Reasoning

[Omestes]

[citation needed]

Re:Speaking of Orwellian Reasoning

[ChienAndalu]

"those people" are usually undercover policemen.

Bullshit.

Re:Speaking of Orwellian Reasoning

[tsm_sf]

The slashdot version of [citation needed] is [I spent a few minutes Googling the keywords and couldn't find anything]. Did you try that?

Re:Speaking of Orwellian Reasoning

[Omestes]

No, the universal version of "[citation needed]" is you said something that you expect other people to listen to, but supplied no evidence, or reason to believe you. The onus is on the presenter to provide some degree of evidence for their claims.

You stated something as a fact, but didn't me any reason to accept it as such.

Would you read an academic paper, or essay, which completely lacked sources and cites?

Re:Speaking of Orwellian Reasoning

[tsm_sf]

Would you read an academic paper, or essay, which completely lacked sources and cites?

A valid point, but it ignores two facts:

1) This isn't a paper or essay, it's an informal conversation.
2) You're connected to the internet, the largest and most easily searched assemblage of knowledge in human history.

[citation needed] is a valid comment on Wikipedia because of the site's stated objectives and editing rules. The whole point, in a nutshell, is to provide citations for statements of fact. Casual discussions on slashdot and elsewhere do not come with this sort of baggage or requirements, although they're certainly helpful. I wouldn't say that there is an onus on either of us to provide links or research links, but this entire conversation is certainly less useful than it could be. Lazy and argumentative is a powerful combination =)

Re:Speaking of Orwellian Reasoning

[^_^x]

In case some haven't heard of it, Montreal cops were caught red-handed doing exactly that.
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/montreal/story/2007/08/23/police-montebello.html

HERF gun and countermeasures

[assemblerex]

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.

Re:HERF gun and countermeasures

[RMH101]

The first guy that homebrews a man-portable HERF gun is just going to *vanish*. Far too much risk to established society - point it at a colo in a financial district full of servers, point it at a hospital, point it at an aircraft: the list goes on. Didn't Neal Stephenson cover this in one of his novels in depth?

Define Narrow

[Nemus]

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.

Re:Define Narrow

[Entropius]

30 degree arc, from TFA.

Re:Define Narrow

[HEbGb]

about 30 degrees, both directions. It's really not all that directional.

Re:Define Narrow

[Frogg]

hi - i read both the Guardian's article and the NYT's article - but i didn't see anywhere where it mentions the size of the arc / angle of effectiveness, in either of the linked articles (nor the Slashdot summary - although that's to be expected! ;)

maybe i missed something? i'd love to know what the arc actually is, because i'd like to correct some calculations i made which were based upon visual estimates of arc size from a diagram on the back on the unit (whereupon it shows it to be approximately 120 degrees).

would you mind telling me which article it was? and/or perhaps quoting the part of the article where it says the arc size?

(forgive me if i seem stupid and have missed the obvious here...)

thanks! x

Re:Define Narrow

[Frogg]

hi,

would you mind telling me where you got your 30 degree size for the front-facing arc from? i couldn't find that info in either articles - maybe i missed something?

from a diagram on the back of the unit (shown in a photograph referenced in another post), the front-facing arc of effectiveness looks to be approximately 120 degrees, with semi-safe zones being to the far right and far left (being approx 30 degrees in size each, arcing towards the forward direction from left and right right-angles / tangents) -- with a safe zone behind the unit (of course).

if there's something about arc size in either article, i missed it, and would love to know where it is?!

Make your own shield of reflection ...

[mikael]

Direct TV satellite dish converted into a solar reflector

photo of the sound cannon

[Anonymous Coward]

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/

Fascist Bastards

[SueAnnSueAnn]

Those pigs should have to be subjected to their own torture device.
I hope they burn in hell for what they are doing to the protesters.

Fascist Bastards

"Non-lethal"

[khasim]

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.

Re:"Non-lethal"

[Slavik81]

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.

That doesn't seem right to me. Use of a lethal weapon is definitely more serious, and should be treated as such. It's one thing to expect the use of non-lethal weapons to be treated seriously and investigated, but they shouldn't be treated equally when they are not.

As an analogy, it's important to investigate and punish petty thieves, but requiring an ongoing string of petty thefts to receive equal attention as an ongoing string of serial murders would be silly.

Re:"Non-lethal"

[Anonymous Coward]

There is a difference between not investigating and how much resources you put into an investigation. If anyone else was caught using a weapon on another person or an animal they would be investigated. The police should be no different, whenever they use a weapon they should be investigated.

The amount of resources used in the investigation should be determined by the preliminary investigation. If it becomes obvious in the preliminary investigation that there was an imminent threat to the officer or another citizen then what tool (weapon) they chose in the moment to eliminate the threat (gun, Taser, baton, fists, 2x4 that was nearby) is less important and should draw fewer resources. On the other hand if there is substantiated evidence that the officer was the one who escalated the situation by bringing a weapon into the situation, where it was unnecessary, then there should be a lot more resources for the investigation of abuse of power.

It should not be about what weapon the officer used, it should be about whether a weapon was appropriate or an abuse.

Re:"Non-lethal"

[fastest fascist]

What about, say, tasering a fleeing, unarmed suspect? I'd rather not see cops resort to lethal force just to stop someone from getting away, but it also seems odd that they would have to just watch them leave if they have a non-lethal option for stopping them. I realize there are risks with "non-lethal" weapons, but the point is there are border cases where lethal force is not justified but other weapons may be.

Re:"Non-lethal"

[Reservoir Penguin]

I don't understand. Cops still carry their regular lethal weapons exactly because tazers and such are useless in a situation when the cop would be authorized to use deadly force.

Re:"Non-lethal"

[mpe]

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.

This was the original claim behind issuing police with "less lethal" weapons.

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.

I don't think they should be simply "suspended". Instead they should be treated at least as harshly as a member of the public who who discharged a firearm in such a way.

Re:"Non-lethal"

[mpe]

There is a difference between not investigating and how much resources you put into an investigation. If anyone else was caught using a weapon on another person or an animal they would be investigated. The police should be no different, whenever they use a weapon they should be investigated.

Since police are issued with weapons and given training on appropriate use of weapons it makes sense that potential misuse by police officers should be something of a priority.

The amount of resources used in the investigation should be determined by the preliminary investigation. If it becomes obvious in the preliminary investigation that there was an imminent threat to the officer or another citizen then what tool (weapon) they chose in the moment to eliminate the threat (gun, Taser, baton, fists, 2x4 that was nearby) is less important and should draw fewer resources. On the other hand if there is substantiated evidence that the officer was the one who escalated the situation by bringing a weapon into the situation, where it was unnecessary, then there should be a lot more resources for the investigation of abuse of power.

In the latter case the "officer" should be treated as a "criminal suspect".

uhm...

[shacky003]

"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?

They outlawed masks during the WTO protests.

[khasim]

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.

Re:They outlawed masks during the WTO protests.

[Entropius]

Then get ten thousand people to show up with masks and cameras. Populist protest *does* still work -- look at the fall of the Berlin Wall, Solidarity in Poland, etc.

Re:They outlawed masks during the WTO protests.

[indiechild]

The police also tend to wear masks to hide their identity.

Sometimes they even take off their name badges, which is clearly illegal, but they never get punished for that.

Re:They outlawed masks during the WTO protests.

[Hurricane78]

Well you know... some animals are more equal...

So what was the name of that guy?

[khasim]

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.

Re:So what was the name of that guy?

[maccodemonkey]

Look, I lived in the city at the time, and I knew people there. I'm telling you, people showed up who's only intention was to cause trouble. I'll be the first to admit there were many innocent people down there. But there were people who totally weren't innocent. You can tell me Jesus himself was pulled from a car downtown and arrested. It doesn't change that there were people there who had stated intentions of destroying property.

It could be worse

[DaveAtFraud]

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

HELLO, IS THIS THING ON?

[Anonymous Coward]

So only protesters can use megaphones and make loud noises?

Why go to the trouble?

[ubrgeek]

Just play Lady Gaga really loud.

What would be the legality of doing the same?

[popo]

If the protesters were using the sound cannon on the police... would that be against the law?

Re:What would be the legality of doing the same?

[assemblerex]

Hahaha... ha...ho... sides hurt..
According to the police they are breaking the law just standing there. I am sure doing the same to them would probably lead to some sort of "unfortunate" fatality being delivered upon yourself.

Re:What would be the legality of doing the same?

[anagama]

Well, if your employer exposed you to 151 dB, it WOULD be against the law (scroll down for table G-16 and read the footnote, maximum impulse noise level is 140 dB):
http://www.osha.gov/pls/oshaweb/owadisp.show_document?p_table=standards&p_id=9735

Also note that OSHA standards are weak. Most otolaryngolgists will tell you that 80dB for an 8 hour period is injurious. OSHA allows for 90dB.

100 decibels 8 mins and you risk hearing loss

[c4t3y3]

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.

Ascertain frequency from the youtube videos?

[assemblerex]

So we can calculate optimal parabolic countermeasures?

Not a wepon?

[Anonymous Coward]

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?

Re:Not a wepon?

[shaitand]

A fist is a non-lethal weapon as well. But if a police officer walks up and starts beating the hell out of you with his stick and you even throw a single punch in return you will go to jail. He will get suspended with pay until the media stops watching.

Welcome to the USA.

100 DB is damaging to the persons

[Anonymous Coward]

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

Expirement IV

[AmsterdamConnection]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a6hvNe11r9U

Conspiracy Theory?

[shaitand]

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.

Assembling unlawfully?

[Anonymous Coward]

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...

Video of police agitators in Montebello...

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:Video of police agitators in Montebello...

[cyphercell]

Brilliant. Put some folks with signs up in front "take the ski mask off pig". How often do regular violent protestors wear ski masks? Unless they're planning on blowing things up there's no point, a ski mask won't save a protestor from charges.

Re:Video of police agitators in Montebello...

[Anonymous Coward]

note the standard police issue boots

just like the taser

[vaporland]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=trg3GkHXsYY

So do I.

[khasim]

Look, I lived in the city at the time, and I knew people there.

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.

Understanding

[Gary W. Longsine]

You don't need to understand why they are protesting. You need to understand the Constitution of the United States of America.

100% wrong.

[khasim]

Use of a lethal weapon is definitely more serious, and should be treated as such.

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.

It's one thing to expect the use of non-lethal weapons to be treated seriously and investigated, but they shouldn't be treated equally when they are not.

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.

Re:100% wrong.

[Desert_Scarecrow]

No. The whole point of non-lethal force is not to act in place of lethal force. The point of non-lethal force is to act along the continuum of force, gradually responding to physical resistance until the subject de-escalates into cooperation.

By your reasoning, a police officer who chooses to use a wristlock to subdue an agitated subject during a domestic violence call is no different than a police officer who shoots said suspect with a firearm. That's just patently ridiculous, and a statement of absolutism I hope you would care to rethink.

Re:100% wrong.

[Lunzo]

Tasers have a camera on it, which should help with investigating alleged misuse. Unfortunately the police here use a grip which co-incidentally blocks the camera with their hand. Funny how that works. It makes any investigations he said, she said. Guess who is seen as more trustworthy: a police officer or a potential criminal?

the wrong people

[Gary W. Longsine]

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.

Re:the wrong people

[mpe]

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.

That's too kind. They should at least be jailed if not gassed too.

The Second Amendment

[Gary W. Longsine]

Well, all the Tea Baggers ^h^h^h^h^h^h^h Party Protesters were busy with their guns attending speeches on health care.

Physics prevails over claims...

[Tastecicles]

...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.

agent x is marching next to you

[circletimessquare]

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

Re:agent x is marching next to you

[RMH101]

Scenario: peaceful protest taking place. Police struggling to disperse as no laws actually being broken. Small number of agitators then break a bank's window. Police witness criminal damage, now have excuse to disperse protest.

Huh?

[J_Omega]

As a conscientious observer from Pittsburgh, all I can ask is:

WHAT? SPEAK UP!

Also, Why are my ears ringing, and my nose bleeding?

MP3 file?

[hawkingradiation]

Does anyone know where I can download the mp3 file for this event? I hope the police were using ogg tho.

LRAD

[karl75771]

This crap is called a Long Range Acoustic Device. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Long_Range_Acoustic_Device May lead to hearing loss!

So you agree with me

[Mathinker]

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...

Dear Everyone...

[MacWiz]

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.

So?

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

One title....

[Anonymous Coward]

Harrison Bergeron

Fight tech with tech

[Anonymous Coward]

Break out the multi-watt diode lasers.

Just Protesting?

[nurb432]

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 .

orwellian sucks

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Complete nonsense

[brunes69]

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?

Brown Note

[Philip K Dickhead]

To go with Amerikkka's new uniform - the Brown Shirt.

Re:Brown Note

[Jeremy Erwin]

I feel obliged to point out that Mythbusters pretty well debunked the concept

calculation of beam width for given distances

[Frogg]

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?

Re:calculation of beam width for given distances

[Frogg]

oh, my bad - if the red pie slice is approx 120 degrees, then the yellow pie slices to the left and right are not 35 degrees each, but 30 degrees each.

but that mistake doesn't affect any of the maths that follow - and i'm hoping that's my only mistake.

approx calculation of beam width

[Frogg]

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!)

you could focus that sound beam back

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

what?

[aqk]

just a sec- lemme turn the radio down.

And I'm sure that any randomly chosen protester

[Anonymous Coward]

...would express that very objection. They're all out there protesting that the G-20 isn't allowing prices and wages to properly decline.

Agent Provocateurs

[TheLink]

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.

Re:Agent Provocateurs

[Anonymous Coward]

There are other videos linked from that video in which the police officially admit that those 3 guys were cops too.

What if we used one?

[Anonymous Coward]

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?

A simple question I haven't seen answered...

[AugstWest]

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.

Police training ??

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

all of which can be documented

[circletimessquare]

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

Think Pirates

[bodazzle]

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.