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

Department of Orwellian Reasoning

[CubeNudger]

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

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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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]

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

[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.

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

[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

[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:Next step:

[Rising Ape]

Already there.

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?

[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.

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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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: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: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?

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

[maxume]

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

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.

Re:Testing the limits of repression

[assemblerex]

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

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...

[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...

[selven]

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

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...

[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...

[ChienAndalu]

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

the projected sound?

[Cyko_01]

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

Re:Good.

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

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

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.

What?

[SpudB0y]

What?

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: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.

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:Good.

[Anonymous Coward]

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

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: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:Extremely annoying sound

[drinkypoo]

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

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.

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.

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.

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: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: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: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: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: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.

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

[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

[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.

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

[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

[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.

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.

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?

[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: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: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.

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

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: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: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.

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.

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.

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.

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: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.

"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.

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.

[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: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.

[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: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: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: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.

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.

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: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: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...

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: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.

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: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: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.