Slashdot Mirror


The Vortex Gun Coming Soon To a Protest Near You

An anonymous reader writes "Vortex technology has been used in everything from rocket-powered fire extinguishers to Nerf guns, but neither of those things are capable of giving the beat-down to hapless protesters. By giving spinning vortices an electric charge, though, pepper spray can be sent over 150 feet at between 60 and 90 mph. A vortex gun uses a pressure wave and a carefully designed barrel to fire donut-shaped rings of air that can hold themselves together over long distances. The military (starting with the German military during World War II) has been running experiments with using vortex canons to knock things over, but it's not a particularly efficient or effective way to go. What the gas rings can be used for is transporting other gasses (like pepper spray or tear gas or pesticide) long distances with a decent amount of accuracy, holding their cargo inside the calm center spinning vortex."

295 comments

  1. "Starting with the Nazi military during WWII" by decora · · Score: 0

    there, fixed that for ya.

    1. Re:"Starting with the Nazi military during WWII" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

      ya funny how tech that was designed for the nazi saucer craft is now being used to suppress free speech isn't it...WONDER are nazi scientists cheeringy et?

    2. Re:"Starting with the Nazi military during WWII" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The nazi scientists are all dead or senile, that's why NASA hasn't been doing much except reruns ;).

    3. Re:"Starting with the Nazi military during WWII" by ZankerH · · Score: 5, Informative

      The German Wehrmacht (and the other regular branches of the German military in WWII) had little to do with the Nazi party. The only "Nazi" military was the Waffen-SS, whose notable accomplishments include running death camps and overall pathetic performance in actual combat. The American stereotype of branding anything related to Germany in the 1933-1945 era as "Nazi" is just wrong.

    4. Re:"Starting with the Nazi military during WWII" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

      Ze German Wehrmacht (und ze other regular branches of ze Heer in WWII) had little to do mit ze Nazi party. Ze only "Nazi" military vas ze Waffen-SS, whose notable accomplishments include running ze death camps und overall pathetic performance im actual combat. Ze American stereotype of branding anything related to Germany in ze 1933-1945 era als "Nazi" is just wrong.

    5. Re:"Starting with the Nazi military during WWII" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      Gotta' love the attempted spin there by tying it to the Nazis... except that pretty much ALL of the tech in use today was also researched by the Nazis. You know: jet engines, radar, rockets, remote guidance, computers, cryptography, etc etc etc lol

    6. Re:"Starting with the Nazi military during WWII" by Nidi62 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      The German Wehrmacht (and the other regular branches of the German military in WWII) had little to do with the Nazi party. The only "Nazi" military was the Waffen-SS, whose notable accomplishments include running death camps and overall pathetic performance in actual combat. The American stereotype of branding anything related to Germany in the 1933-1945 era as "Nazi" is just wrong.

      Even the Wehrmacht had to at least toe the party line. If I remember correctly, Rommel, arguably the best general of WWII(on either side) was punished for not being a Nazi. It is important to remember that the assassination plot that came closest to killing Hitler was planned out and executed by Wehrmacht officers. But yeah, your average Wehrmacht grunt was not a Nazi. And the Waffen-SS actually had a fairly strong reputation on the Eastern front, and were known as very effective and fierce fighters.

      --
      The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
    7. Re:"Starting with the Nazi military during WWII" by ZankerH · · Score: 2

      And the Waffen-SS actually had a fairly strong reputation on the Eastern front, and were known as very effective and fierce fighters.

      Effective and fierce at killing unarmed peasants, yes.

    8. Re:"Starting with the Nazi military during WWII" by ZankerH · · Score: 1

      Allright, I laughed. I speak English without an accent though.

    9. Re:"Starting with the Nazi military during WWII" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The only "Nazi" military was the Waffen-SS, whose notable accomplishments include running death camps and overall pathetic performance in actual combat

      One of the Waffen-SS officers, Werner von Braun, had a few other notable accomplishments too.

    10. Re:"Starting with the Nazi military during WWII" by SuricouRaven · · Score: 1

      Their computer tech sucked - the British pwned them on that front. Likewise with radar. They did excel in rocketry, rocket guidance and Really Big Guns.

    11. Re:"Starting with the Nazi military during WWII" by Nidi62 · · Score: 1

      And the Waffen-SS actually had a fairly strong reputation on the Eastern front, and were known as very effective and fierce fighters.

      Effective and fierce at killing unarmed peasants, yes.

      They did that, yes, but they also often fought against and defeated Soviet forces that not only outnumbered but also out-equipped them.

      --
      The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
    12. Re:"Starting with the Nazi military during WWII" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Even the Wehrmacht had to at least toe the party line. If I remember correctly, Rommel, arguably the best general of WWII(on either side)

      |cough|El Alamein|cough|

    13. Re:"Starting with the Nazi military during WWII" by okooolo · · Score: 1

      Although Waffen SS did include camp guards and such it also had elite panzer & infantry divisions.. we're taking about over 900 000 soldiers that fought in all major battles of war world 2.Waffen SS divisions were some of the best trained military units in the conflict.

    14. Re:"Starting with the Nazi military during WWII" by paiute · · Score: 2

      The German Wehrmacht (and the other regular branches of the German military in WWII) had little to do with the Nazi party. The only "Nazi" military was the Waffen-SS, whose notable accomplishments include running death camps and overall pathetic performance in actual combat. The American stereotype of branding anything related to Germany in the 1933-1945 era as "Nazi" is just wrong.

      I know, right? I mean, when we got there we couldn't find a single person who was a Nazi.

      --
      If Slashdot were chemistry it would look like this:Cadaverine
    15. Re:"Starting with the Nazi military during WWII" by CoderFool · · Score: 2

      During the time the Nazis were in power, you had to be a member of the Nazi party just to have a job, so technically every working german at the time was a Nazi. So it makes it confusing to disentangle the real Nazis who did all the horrible things and the ones that just said they were 'Nazi' just to keep a job.

    16. Re:"Starting with the Nazi military during WWII" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Well duh, you already killed all of them on the way there.

    17. Re:"Starting with the Nazi military during WWII" by betterunixthanunix · · Score: 1

      Computers and cryptography you say? That's interesting, because when last I checked, it was an English mathematician who laid down the theory of computation, general purpose computers, software defined computation (as opposed to building a machine to compute problems or classes of problems), it was a Dutch linguist whose theory about secret keys became central to cipher design and an American engineer whose work on information theory became the basis of cipher design (at least for symmetric cryptography). I guess the Germans did an OK job with the Enigma machine, but they certainly did not invent computers or cryptography (not even modern cryptography).

      --
      Palm trees and 8
    18. Re:"Starting with the Nazi military during WWII" by avgjoe62 · · Score: 1

      One bad game does not mean that the other quarterback is necessarily better in EVERY game.

      --

      How come Slashdot never gets Slashdotted?

    19. Re:"Starting with the Nazi military during WWII" by mpe · · Score: 1

      During the time the Nazis were in power, you had to be a member of the Nazi party just to have a job, so technically every working german at the time was a Nazi. So it makes it confusing to disentangle the real Nazis who did all the horrible things and the ones that just said they were 'Nazi' just to keep a job.

      Much the same happens anywhere you have a totalitarian political system. e.g. in Iraq with the Ba'ath Party.

    20. Re:"Starting with the Nazi military during WWII" by fnj · · Score: 1

      That is just an idiotic statement. The concentration and labor camps were run by the SS-Totenkopfverbände. The Waffen-SS were fighting units, and the two organizations were distinct. The Waffen-SS had elite training and indoctrination, but their duties were straight combat, which they conducted for the most part as honorably as regular army fighting units in Germany and other countries. Only someone truly clueless would characterize Waffen-SS combat performance as "pathetic". They were highly effective, They were respected and feared by all opponents. They were arguably the finest elite troops anywhere in the history of the world.

    21. Re:"Starting with the Nazi military during WWII" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I didn't say the Nazis were the best or invented it, just that they also researched it and most other useful technologies. Gotta' love watching people get defensive lol

      I was simply pointing out that trying to paint a tech as evil because the Nazis were involved with it is ridiculous

      As for computing, you might want to look up Konrad Zuse as his work was interesting

    22. Re:"Starting with the Nazi military during WWII" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      German Wehrmacht (and the other regular branches of the German military in WWII) had little to do with the Nazi party

      Bullshit. After they helped kill millions of civilians and invade peaceful countries in the name of Hitler and the 3rd Reich, there just wasn't any point in differentiating. "We were just following orders" doesn't mean it wasn't still murder and genocide.

    23. Re:"Starting with the Nazi military during WWII" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Was not the Waffen-SS originally formed from SS-Totenkopfverbände personnel, and later in the war (1942ish) was was not S-Totenkopfverbände folded into its offspring the Waffen-SS ?

      As to the fighting prowess of the Waffen-SS they were originally formed to provide "police and security operations" behind the front lines not as combat troops, early in the war the Waffen-SS had a very poor combat reputation however they did mature on the Eastern front into a very effective fighting unit all be it one with a reputation for brutality.

    24. Re:"Starting with the Nazi military during WWII" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      No, it was all alien technology that the Nazis got from a crashed flying saucer in 1936! I saw it on the History Channel, so it must be true!
      Then another spaceship crashed in Roswell after WW2 and gave the Americans all kinds of stuff - the transistor, fiber optics, and tang.

    25. Re:"Starting with the Nazi military during WWII" by jpapon · · Score: 1

      Didn't he also kind of screw the pooch on the whole D-Day thing?

      --
      -- Let us endeavor so to live that when we pass even the undertaker shall be sorry. -- M. Twain
    26. Re:"Starting with the Nazi military during WWII" by Gideon+Wells · · Score: 1

      Nazis wore clothes and ate food. You know what we must now outlaw.

      --
      by Anonymous Coward: I, for one, welcome the shift from car analogies to pizza analogies. um.. overlords?
    27. Re:"Starting with the Nazi military during WWII" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Quit your whining princess, the Russians did the same thing. And the Romans and the huns and most likely your father.

    28. Re:"Starting with the Nazi military during WWII" by Nidi62 · · Score: 4, Informative

      Didn't he also kind of screw the pooch on the whole D-Day thing?

      No, he didn't. The Germans had several Panzer units stationed only a few miles from the coast in France. However, Hitler would not allow them to be released because he was convinced the invasion would be at Calais, where the Channel is actually the thinnest. By the time he allowed the tanks to be released, the Allies had already established a beachhead and moved inland. Had they been released when the request was made, the landings would have failed.

      --
      The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
    29. Re:"Starting with the Nazi military during WWII" by couchslug · · Score: 1

      It bears reminding that the Wehrmacht was fighting to implement the National Socialist vision, and that their advances secured areas allowing the Gestapo, SS, Todt Organisation, and various other German and Axis police, slave labor, and extermination groups to operate.

      There is no logical reason to believe that educated members of a modern society like Germany didn't know what was going on. Just because it was EXPEDIENT to pretend that so West Germany could be integrated into NATO doesn't mean one should buy the excuses.
      Ask any G.I. (there are some left) who served during and after VE Day about the amazing number of "good Germans". :-)

      "overall pathetic performance in actual combat"

      "Overall"? Bullshit. The Waffen SS combat record, often against superior odds, was frequently outstanding and they were employed accordingly, often spearheading attacks. (Some units were less effective as standards slipped due to casualties.) Even the divisions from occupied countries often fought well. Physical courage and military prowess are orthogonal to conventional morality.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2nd_SS_Panzer_Division_Das_Reich

      --
      "This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
    30. Re:"Starting with the Nazi military during WWII" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There is no logical reason to believe that educated members of a modern society like Germany didn't know what was going on.

      There also is no logical reason to believe that educated members of the Soviet Union didn't know about gulags and educated members of the US didn't know about the gross rights violations of their Japanese citizens, or about said gulags.

      Just because it was EXPEDIENT to pretend that so West Germany could be integrated into NATO doesn't mean one should buy the excuses.

      Just because it is EXPEDIENT to pretend that the allies didn't have their own share of dirt, or that they didn't ally with Stalin knowing full well what kind of horror he was running, doesn't mean one should buy the excuses.

    31. Re:"Starting with the Nazi military during WWII" by hairyfeet · · Score: 4, Funny

      That's why we need more money spent on cloning tech dammit, we're out of Nazis! Everybody knows we kicked them Ruskies only because our Nazis was better than their Nazis, and now we're all out of Nazis! We'll start with a dozen copies of everyone on Operation paperclip and go from there, starting with a dozen Von Brauns, that'll show the world who leads in Nazis!

      --
      ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
    32. Re:"Starting with the Nazi military during WWII" by Chrisq · · Score: 4, Funny

      Although Waffen SS did include camp guards ....

      its all that black leather and tight trousers

    33. Re:"Starting with the Nazi military during WWII" by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      The German Wehrmacht (and the other regular branches of the German military in WWII) had little to do with the Nazi party.

      Wehrmacht units burned down plenty of villages in Belarus. And, while not every soldier was a Nazi, plenty were, and plenty more were sympathetic.

      E.g. this picture depicts Wehrmacht soldiers holding a blackboard saying "The Russian must die, so that we may live" - a clear reference to Lebensraum.

      The only "Nazi" military was the Waffen-SS, whose notable accomplishments include running death camps and overall pathetic performance in actual combat.

      Waffen-SS never ran death camps, that was the job of "general" SS. Some Waffen SS units (e.g. Totenkopf) were formed from death camp guards, yes. Most were not.

      As for performance, it was actually higher than regular army units in those divisions that were formed from Western European volunteers - pretty much all German ones except for Totenkopf, and especially Das Reich and Leibstandarte; but also Wiking, Nordland, Charlemagne etc. The remains of Nordland, for example, were defending Reichstag in the final battle right until the point where they learned of Hitler's suicide, and they did real well there, effecting casualties far in excess of what they have themselves sustained.

      Divisions which did have poor performance, and a particularly nasty war crime record, were usually those recruited among collaborationists in Eastern Europe - Croatian, Albanian, Baltic, Russian, Ukrainian, Belorusian, and various legions from Caucasus. Reason being, those guys were more eager to settle old scores (i.e. Croatians and Albanians against Serbs, Ukrainians and Belorusians against Poles and Russians etc) than to fight the common "war on bolshevism" that Axis promoted

    34. Re:"Starting with the Nazi military during WWII" by Vectronic · · Score: 2

      Our Nazi scheme cost us just a small fraction of what we had been spending on defense in a single year. The deciding factor was when we learned that your country was working along similar lines, and we were afraid of a Nazi gap.

    35. Re:"Starting with the Nazi military during WWII" by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      Gotta' love the attempted spin there by tying it to the Nazis... except that pretty much ALL of the tech in use today was also researched by the Nazis. You know: jet engines, radar, rockets, remote guidance, computers, cryptography, etc etc etc lol

      Radar was researched by many different people in different countries. The first working prototype was done by US Army, and the first use for real-world purposes was by the Brits.

      Jet engine was similarly being researched by several countries, and successfully put into production independently by Germans and Brits.

      Modern crypto was developed after the war, and largely came out of British and American research during the war.

      Germans can claim the first computer (Z3), but they didn't really understand the importance of what they had. Meanwhile, US and UK have independently developed their own machines - which were fully electric rather than electromechanical - and actually put them to good use.

      About the only thing you can give to Nazis are rockets, though even there von Braun borrowed a lot from Goddard, so it was not a clean room design.

    36. Re:"Starting with the Nazi military during WWII" by sco08y · · Score: 1

      The German Wehrmacht (and the other regular branches of the German military in WWII) had little to do with the Nazi party. The only "Nazi" military was the Waffen-SS, whose notable accomplishments include running death camps and overall pathetic performance in actual combat. The American stereotype of branding anything related to Germany in the 1933-1945 era as "Nazi" is just wrong.

      Conversations between captured soldiers of the Wermacht were recorded by the Allies, and the recordings prove that they knew about the death camps and that many of them had taken part in war crimes themselves. Source.

    37. Re:"Starting with the Nazi military during WWII" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Hitler would not allow them to be released because he was taken in by a massive counter-intelligence plot designed to imply that the invasion would be at Calais.

      It wasn't exactly an unfounded belief.

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

      Captcha: Furious, brilliantly fitting.

    38. Re:"Starting with the Nazi military during WWII" by PopeRatzo · · Score: 3, Funny

      I speak English without an accent though.

      That's what they all say. My wife sounds like Natasha from the Rocky and Bullwinkle show, but she thinks she speaks unaccented English.

      When she writes a math paper, I have to go over it and put in all the articles before she submits it. Slavs are allergic to "the" and "a".

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    39. Re:"Starting with the Nazi military during WWII" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No but killing jews isn't murder or genocide. It's just good business.

    40. Re:"Starting with the Nazi military during WWII" by grcumb · · Score: 1

      No, he didn't. The Germans had several Panzer units stationed only a few miles from the coast in France. However, Hitler would not allow them to be released because he was convinced the invasion would be at Calais, where the Channel is actually the thinnest. By the time he allowed the tanks to be released, the Allies had already established a beachhead and moved inland. Had they been released when the request was made, the landings would have failed.

      In fairness, the allies went to pretty extreme lengths to convince him that they were in fact aiming at Calais.

      --
      Crumb's Corollary: Never bring a knife to a bun fight.
    41. Re:"Starting with the Nazi military during WWII" by cavreader · · Score: 1

      Rommel was "punished" because he was accused of participating in the attempt to assassinate Hitler. Most historical records raise serious doubt about his involvement but back then just being accused was an automatic death sentence. He was lucky to be given a choice between being executed and committing suicide and he accepted suicide to safe guard his family. A public executoin would have been bad press in Germany so the government promised not to harm his family if he took the suicide choice which could be blamed on natural causes or even battle injuries. As far as being one of the best generals on either side goes he retreated from Africa in defeat and failed to stop the invasion of France. He was a good officer but calling him the best is a stretch.

    42. Re:"Starting with the Nazi military during WWII" by Nidi62 · · Score: 2

      As far as being one of the best generals on either side goes he retreated from Africa in defeat and failed to stop the invasion of France. He was a good officer but calling him the best is a stretch.

      A lesser General would never have had the successes he had in Africa in the first place. To steal from Wikipedia: "Rommel is regarded as having been a humane and professional officer. His Afrikakorps was never accused of war crimes. Soldiers captured during his Africa campaign were reported to have been treated humanely. Furthermore, he ignored orders to kill captured commandos, Jewish soldiers and civilians in all theaters of his command." And like I said, he didn't lose France. Hitler's ever increasing need to control the military and dictate strategy is what cost the Germans France (and also hundreds of thousands of lives on the Eastern Front).

      --
      The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
    43. Re:"Starting with the Nazi military during WWII" by billakay · · Score: 1

      I can attest to this as well. My wife is Armenian, but was raised in Russia. While her accent is much "softer" than Natasha's it is definitely there, and she thinks she has very little to no accent. I have also become accustomed to adding articles to papers :) Also, for some reason Slavic-language-speaking people tend to be able to understand Ws, but repeat them as Vs.

    44. Re:"Starting with the Nazi military during WWII" by Meeni · · Score: 1

      Herm...

      "All the women and children were locked in the church while the village was looted. Meanwhile, the men were led to six barns and sheds where machine-gun nests were already in place.
      [...]
      The soldiers proceeded to the church and placed an incendiary device there. After it was ignited, women and children tried to escape through the doors and windows of the church, but they were met with machine-gun fire. A total of 247 women and 205 children died in the carnage. Only two women and one child survived;"

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oradour-sur-Glane

      "The massacre at Oradour-sur-Glane involved men, women and children, some as young as one week, and some as old as ninety. Oradour-sur-Glane was not the only collective punishment reprisal action committed by the Waffen SS: other well-documented examples include the French towns of Tulle, Ascq, Maillé, Robert-Espagne, and Clermont-en-Argonne; the Soviet village of Kortelisy (in what is now Ukraine); Lithuanian village of Piriupiai; the Czechoslovakian villages of Leáky and Lidice (in what is now the Czech Republic); the Greek towns of Kalavryta and Distomo; the Dutch town of Putten; Serbian towns of Kragujevac and Kraljevo; Norwegian village of Telavåg; and the Italian villages of Sant'Anna di Stazzema and Marzabotto. "

      Yeah, the finest of the finest......

    45. Re:"Starting with the Nazi military during WWII" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You might google Konrad Zuse.

    46. Re:"Starting with the Nazi military during WWII" by betterunixthanunix · · Score: 1

      Yeah, the first function Turing complete computer in 1941, it's not like the concept is named for work done by Alan Turing, a Princeton-educated Englishman who published the idea of a universal computing machine in 1936.

      --
      Palm trees and 8
    47. Re:"Starting with the Nazi military during WWII" by cavreader · · Score: 2

      Rommel was indeed a honorable and military professional. All the documentaries and other sources of data seem to support this. His biography revealed a man devoted to protecting his country. He also had no direct association with those who committed war crimes. According to his biography he found out about the concentration camps and that led him to talk with some people about the plan to kill Hitler. He did not come out and support the assassination but did meet with some of the conspirators and that ultimately caused his downfall. And he did lose France. It was in his operational area and he was at home when the invasion started because he believed the weather would prevent any large scale invasion. He also fell for Montgomery's use of regular vehicles to create dust clouds that created the illusion that they were tanks which resulted in him retreating faster.

    48. Re:"Starting with the Nazi military during WWII" by hairyfeet · · Score: 4, Funny

      Damned Ruskies! I bet you're just laughing your asses off ain't ya? First we help you and the damned Limeys out in WWII only for you to get half of Europe, what did we get? Nothing, not a damned thing! Hell the tea swillers even stabbed us in the back and went with that Frog metric system! Then you build all these kick ass fighters for dirt cheap that can land on a fricking two lane while our MIC give us these technocrappers that have so many bugs you can't turn the damned things to the left without screwing up the stupid computers so now you can crank out a dozen SU27s for the cost of a single F35 and they still can't make the damned thing work!

      We should have listened to our greatest Hero, the great General Patton, hired them damned Nazis, put their asses in Sherman tanks and rolled right into Moscow! Would have showed your asses THEN huh? Instead that pussy Truman gives it all back, hell we didn't even keep the car building Nazis, bet they wouldn't have built no damned pintos or k cars that's for damned sure!

      --
      ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
    49. Re:"Starting with the Nazi military during WWII" by travbrad · · Score: 1

      Oh they weren't "Nazis"? I guess it was okay that they killed millions of people then..

    50. Re:"Starting with the Nazi military during WWII" by donscarletti · · Score: 1

      Rommel lost in Africa and France for the same reason Germany lost the war, completely outnumbered and out gunned. Germany had to garrison a hostile empire in Europe and fight on the eastern front while Britain, which was in every way a comperable military power had all of the resources from both its metropole and empire available to make life difficult from Germany in Africa and the Middle East.

      In France, American and British forces were storming over the beaches in massive numbers, while the Red Army had most of the Wermacht tied up in a costly war in Russia that had already killed pretty much all of Germany's best soldiers.

      The fault was wholly Hitler's for getting into that stupid, unwinnable war to begin with.

      --
      When Argumentum ad Hominem falls short, try Argumentum ad Matrem
    51. Re:"Starting with the Nazi military during WWII" by 0111+1110 · · Score: 1

      The fact is that most people around the world believe that WWII era Germans in general were some of the most pure evil mass murderers ever to walk the earth and that belief seems well founded to me. Pretty much everyone who was a member of the Nazi party can be held responsible for the gigadeathcrimes that took place during the war. The rest of the world is grateful though for creating such perfect opponents in video games. No one feels bad about killing Nazis. Although I must admit I enjoy killing cops more than Nazis. Either way they pretty much define pure evil. That (in)human bloodlust, the craving to snuff out as many lives as possible combined with ethnic cleansing.

      --
      Quite an experience to live in fear, isn't it? That's what it is to be a slave.
    52. Re:"Starting with the Nazi military during WWII" by 0111+1110 · · Score: 1

      The British had magnetrons and the Germans had klystrons. Klystrons had and still have much better frequency stability. Which is why the Germans (and presumably the Japanese) used them. Magnetrons were more compact and lighter and easier to use at higher power. The allies made due with the "inferior" magnetron frequency drift by synchronizing the receiver with the transmitter in a clever way. In the long run klystrons were seen as superior technology. The problem is the Germans just didn't have it figured out well enough at the time. The Germans, as always, loved precision and couldn't bear the thought of using the more practical magnetron technology. A decision they paid dearly for.

      --
      Quite an experience to live in fear, isn't it? That's what it is to be a slave.
    53. Re:"Starting with the Nazi military during WWII" by James_Duncan8181 · · Score: 1

      Waffen-SS [...] were arguably the finest elite troops anywhere in the history of the world.

      The SAS laugh at this claim.

      --
      "To any truly impartial person, it would be obvious that I am right."
    54. Re:"Starting with the Nazi military during WWII" by Sigg3.net · · Score: 1

      Hello,
      Studying German history atm (superficially for points) in German, and I would like to inform you that The Nazi "upbringing" were so permeated through the generations until Allied victory, that an estimated 90% of the population had some not insubstantial tie with the party.

      At least that's what my German history books say (Deutsche Geschichte in Schlaglichtern and Deutsche Kultur Geschichte), once I've deciphered them.

      Thus the Entnazifisierung, which unfortunately only bothered the true nazis like a fart in a dinner party.

    55. Re:"Starting with the Nazi military during WWII" by silentcoder · · Score: 1

      We frequently hear the same thing in South Africa today. Usually phrased by black people as "Ever noticed how you can never find any white person who supported appartheid anywhere ?"

      The truth of course, is a bit more subtle than that. In 1977 the University of Potchefstroom (arguably the most conservative university outside of the American South - a University that to this day teaches creationism as science) held an anonymous poll among it's all-white student-body. 87% of respondents voted that appartheid was unjust and should be dismantled.
      Despite that the National Party remained in power and didn't start the reforms that would ultimately end appartheid until 9 years later with the repeal of several of the worst appartheid laws including the racial classification law and the immorality act in 1986 by P.W. Botha.
      The last of the appartheid laws were not repealed until February 1989 when De Klerk freed Mandela and repealed them all in his very first speech as president - starting the negotiation process that would ultimately end in the first universal-vote elections of 1994.
      The date of De Klerk's speech is not a coincidence - it was just a few months after the fall of the Berlin Wall. While the ANC was communist funded, the majority of white people would not support a complete end to appartheid. When the wall fell, the risk of South Africa becoming a USSR sub-state went away -and they were suddenly much more willing to negotiate.
      In fact, in 1992 a small group of ultra-right-wing parties made a claim that the NP government had no mandate to end appartheid - leading to the very last whites-only election ever held in the country. The 1992 referendum where whites had to vote on whether to continue negotiations and end appartheid (yes), or revert back to the old system (no).
      The "yes" vote won by an absolutely overwhelming majority.
      This is important as it shows that the vast majority of white South Africans in 1992 did not believe in Appartheid as a just or workable system anymore - very much in line with that university poll from 1976.

      Then there is the final subtlety: the cruelest parts of apparthed were secret. I remember my dad watching the Truth and Reconciliation Commision hearings with tears in his eyes saying "that wasn't what we voted for ! How could they DO that ?"

      People were voting for seperate development out of a sincere (but misguided) belief that it was the best way to guarantee equal rights and freedom to all the people in South Africa, they believed the propaganda. The cruelty, the tortures, the massacre's happening on the ground were very carefully hidden by a propaganda machine that controlled the media very tightly with a very efficient censorship system.

      Just one example: South African television in the early 1980's, weather reports. The weather maps used showed all the TBVC states (so-called independent states established by the appartheid government for other races to live in). Except one: the state of Bophutatswana didn't show up at all.
      Why not ? Well because Bop was about 9 different patches of land that weren't even physically attached to each other. It was a screaming declaration that the theory of "people living in their ancestral land" wasn't working - so it was simply edited out of the official maps.

      So considering what I know of the history of the country where I grew up (I'm South African, I'm white, I'm Afrikaans and that first fully democratic election happend just a week after my 14th birthday) - I have a lot of sympathy with the Germans who said they really didn't know.

      Perhaps a part of it is "choosing not to see" - but I know how effective a government in the 70's and 80's could control the information citizens had, the propaganda that shaped their thinking, and the German's in the 1940's had much less media-technology to deal with.

      It seems to me utterly feasible that the vast majority of people who supported the NAZI party had no concept of the Holocaust happening. Indeed most of the government conferences where i

      --
      Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
    56. Re:"Starting with the Nazi military during WWII" by silentcoder · · Score: 1

      Wrong.
      Konrad Zuze's computers were the first programmable, Turing-complete computers (particularly the Z3) . They predated the first such computers built in Britain or the USA by over 15 years.
      The technology got lost during the war but they were rediscovered later and sorry - but they were Von Neumann architecture machines more than a decade before Von Neumann proposed it.

      Oh, did I mention Konrad Zuze was German ?

      --
      Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
    57. Re:"Starting with the Nazi military during WWII" by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      The German Wehrmacht (and the other regular branches of the German military in WWII) had little to do with the Nazi party. The only "Nazi" military was the Waffen-SS, whose notable accomplishments include running death camps and overall pathetic performance in actual combat. The American stereotype of branding anything related to Germany in the 1933-1945 era as "Nazi" is just wrong.

      Yes, well it's a shame that the apparently overwhelming non-Nazi majority in Germany didn't do a bit more to get rid of the half dozen rotten apples in the barrel, isn't it?

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    58. Re:"Starting with the Nazi military during WWII" by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      Amusingly, if you're American you probably also think you have no accent.
      Whereas as we all know, the only neutral accent is the one in Southern England, which coincidentally I possess.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    59. Re:"Starting with the Nazi military during WWII" by GameboyRMH · · Score: 1

      It is your duty as a man to initiate James Bond-themed role play XD

      --
      "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
    60. Re:"Starting with the Nazi military during WWII" by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      One of the Waffen-SS officers, Werner von Braun, had a few other notable accomplishments too.

      And he should have been executed, along with the rest of the SS, rather than given the chance to create weapons for destroying the red untermenschen.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    61. Re:"Starting with the Nazi military during WWII" by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      They were arguably the finest elite troops anywhere in the history of the world.

      Welcome to the world of the SS fanboy. And weren't there uniforms just so...butch!

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    62. Re:"Starting with the Nazi military during WWII" by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      their

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    63. Re:"Starting with the Nazi military during WWII" by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      I'm South African, I'm white, I'm Afrikaans and that first fully democratic election happend just a week after my 14th birthday) - I have a lot of sympathy with the Germans who said they really didn't know.

      Well it's a bit fucking odd that the whole of the rest of the world knew how evil the apartheid regime was, but all you poor white Afrikaaners didn't. Talk about blinkers.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    64. Re:"Starting with the Nazi military during WWII" by betterunixthanunix · · Score: 1

      Konrad Zuze's computers were the first programmable, Turing-complete computers (particularly the Z3) .

      Emphasis mine, because we do not call them "Zuse-complete computers" nor should we -- Alan Turing's work was more detailed than Zuse' and predated the Z3 by several years. Why don't you read what I wrote? It was an Englishman who developed the theory of computation and who demonstrated that stored-program computers could be as powerful as purpose-built computing machines. At best, you can credit the Germans for being the first to successfully build a general purpose stored-program computer.

      If it is a matter of dates, then this is the chronology you were looking for:

      1837 -- Babbage describes the Analytical Engine, a Turing-complete computer, but does not develop a theory of computation (which is why nobody speaks of "Babbage-complete" computers).
      1935 -- Church answers the Entscheidungsproblem with a theory of computation, the lambda calculus.
      1936 -- Turing answers the Entscheidungsproblem with a theory of computation which includes universal computing machines that can be used to implement algorithms "in software," by writing a description of an algorithm on the working tape of a computing machine and simulating the machine the algorithm describes.
      1936 -- Konrad Zuse writes about stored-program computers, but does not develop a theory of computation.
      1941 -- Konrad Zuse builds a general purpose electro-mechanical computer.
      1946 -- the first fully electric, general purpose computer is built in America: ENIAC

      In no case do the Germans get credit for general purpose programmable computers, except that they managed to build one first (and even then, it was many years before anyone demonstrated that the machine was Turing complete). If you want an ad-hoc, "it looks like you could compute anything you can describe" approach, then you credit Babbage and not Zuse. If you want a well-developed, "here is what you can build machines to do, and here is a machine that can simulate the operation of any other computing machine," then you credit Turing, not Zuse.

      It is easy to forget that before Turing's work, it was not clear if a stored program computer could be programmed to do anything that a purpose-built computing machine could do. Most of the computing machines in the 1930s and 40s were special-purpose, designed to compute specific functions or narrow classes of functions. That is exactly what the first digital computer, the Atanasoffâ"Berry Computer (1939), was -- a computing machine that could solve particular programs in linear algebra. Zuse did not answer the question of what the limitations of the Z3 actually were, beyond the physical limitations of its computational resources (not that he needed to, since Turing had already answered the question).

      So sorry, but Zuse was the one who "rediscovered" general purpose computation, and had a more limited understanding of the concept than the British or Americans did.

      --
      Palm trees and 8
    65. Re:"Starting with the Nazi military during WWII" by silentcoder · · Score: 1

      >Well it's a bit fucking odd that the whole of the rest of the world knew how evil the apartheid regime was, but all you poor white Afrikaaners didn't. Talk about blinkers

      1) I said I was 14 when it ended. I had nothing to do with it, nor could I have influenced it. I am speaking of the experiences of the previous generation.

      2) Indeed - because the rest of the world was NOT getting our censored media, when somebody from here went overseas and saw some of the news there they would be told "it's just communist propaganda".

      3) When that stopped working so well, the government actually banned camera's at protest events.

      Blinkers, yes, but not self-imposed. These blinkers were put in place by a government who had absolute control over every single aspect of life. Who literally WROTE every line in every school and university textbook (and wrote history books that matched their own desires over facts for example). Who controlled every single newspaper (what they did not own, they censored) and every television station and the entire radio network.

      It was easy among all that to get people to discount discenting voices as "communist propagandists".

      4) The rest of the world really wasn't much better. America still had laws that matched appartheid in both structure and intent until the 1950's ! The inspiration for appartheid came at least in part out of a conscience desire NOT to do to the black people in South Africa what Europe had done to the black people in the colonies (at that stage they were just starting to abandon them).
      Indeed South Africa did nothing the USA didn't do - including ban interracial marriages (though sometimes the USA did it on a state rather than federal level). The only difference from the voter's point of view was that they did it longer.

      5) You're wrong anyway. The tortures and massacres were mostly rumors worldwide. There wasn't any prove locally or abroad (you think the secret police was THAT useless ?) the occasional video - but the rest was hush-hush. A lot of rumor but no provable fact. When you control the media, you control which rumors your citizens hear.
      The rest of the world didn't get confirmation of the real atrocities until the same time WE got it- during the TRC hearings of the late 90's.
      See despite what you may think - killing or torturing a black man was NEVER legal in South Africa. The people who did those things were breaking the law - even under appartheid they broke them. Indeed if one of them fucked up badly enough for it to become publicly known he would have hanged with a big fanfare - the government would have made an example of him, to prove that such rogue ellements are NOT going to be tolerated.
      That it was actually a common practice in certain police departments WAS a carefully held secret - because admitting it would have been admitting to being criminals.

      The laws were bad, but the cruelty and torture that was done to sustain those laws were NEVER themselves legal. My ancestor were bad, but they weren't quite NAZI's, they never believed in legally sanctioned murder or slavery.

      --
      Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
    66. Re:"Starting with the Nazi military during WWII" by pnutjam · · Score: 1

      I don't know if it was unwinnable, if he could have reloaded from an earlier save after learning from his mistakes we might be speaking german.

    67. Re:"Starting with the Nazi military during WWII" by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      Whereas as we all know, the only neutral accent is the one in Southern England, which coincidentally I possess.

      Even more strange, as an American, I agree completely.

      I come from Chicago, but I do my best to imitate an elitist, Southern England Sloaney-speech accent. Needless to say, my fellow Chicagoans all think I'm a big fruit.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
  2. Great, what we really needed by Opportunist · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Another gun that lowers the inhibition of police to shoot at protesters.

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    1. Re:Great, what we really needed by sourcerror · · Score: 1

      "The Israeli military used a suppressed .22 LR rifle in the 1990s for riot control and to "eliminate disturbing dogs prior to operations", though it is now used less often as it has been shown to be more lethal than previously suspected."

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.22#Usage

      It's just a matter of perspective.

    2. Re:Great, what we really needed by GmExtremacy · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Exactly. Cops are perfect beings, unlike normal humans. They've never done anything wrong. Nothing to hide, nothing to fear.

    3. Re:Great, what we really needed by paiute · · Score: 1

      In the U.S, peaceful protester who abide by the law will have no problem with this!

      You just have to know your rights. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nPeWSpB_7w4

      --
      If Slashdot were chemistry it would look like this:Cadaverine
    4. Re:Great, what we really needed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Have you ever tried to stand up for democracy and protect peoples rights?

      Cops doesn't hesitate to fire lethal weapons at a violent protester. This weapon, like other "nonlethal", will only be used against the peaceful protesters.

    5. Re:Great, what we really needed by Gideon+Wells · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Yes, cops would never pepper spray point blank at protesters who are already effectively subdued.

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6AdDLhPwpp4

      --
      by Anonymous Coward: I, for one, welcome the shift from car analogies to pizza analogies. um.. overlords?
    6. Re:Great, what we really needed by jpapon · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Cops doesn't hesitate to fire lethal weapons at a violent protester.

      Uhh, yeah they do. If cops fired lethal weapons into crowds whenever there was a rock thrown at them, there would be many more casualties in protest situations. Non-lethal weapons were designed and are used specifically for stopping violent protesters without having to use lethal force.

      I'm not saying use of non-lethal weapons isn't abused, but come on. Very few (if any) cops want to be the guy who shot his sidearm into a crowd of protesters. Even if they don't wind up being prosecuted, it would make their life very shitty for a while.

      --
      -- Let us endeavor so to live that when we pass even the undertaker shall be sorry. -- M. Twain
    7. Re:Great, what we really needed by cloudmaster · · Score: 1

      University Police are no more "cops" than mall cops or anyone else dressed as "Officer Sexy" at a Halloween party.

      Not that I trust cops either, but Paul Blart there is no cop.

    8. Re:Great, what we really needed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "refusing to move out of the way" doesn't count as 'subdued'

    9. Re:Great, what we really needed by Bacon+Bits · · Score: 4, Informative

      Actually university police often are sworn police officers, making them peers to your municipal police department and giving them the ability to pursue, detain, and arrest. Many universities also operate security guard branches as well, and they are typically not sworn officers. However, those guys you see driving around in school-colored vehicles with CAMPUS POLICE emblazoned on the side are typically, in every respect, real police officers. Additionally, they almost universally have an understanding with municipal departments to work together cooperatively, so if they find themselves in a corner case (occurred on campus, detained off campus) they can simply contact dispatch and request a municipal officer.

      --
      The road to tyranny has always been paved with claims of necessity.
    10. Re:Great, what we really needed by Gideon+Wells · · Score: 1

      It depends. My immediate rural area was hit hard by the recession and is still feeling the pain as our state is cutting funds being sent to non-cities. This has drastically hit local police forces.
      * One town just outright laid off of its police.
      * Another is refusing to promote beyond part-time/temporary until the police give in on wage and pension increases.
      * A third apparently didn't realize they admitted that they thought paying their police minimum wage was outrageous and leading the town into ruin. Lesson learned, do the math before making public announcements.

      I agree, that "cop" may not have been a real "cop". I know my Big Ten school's main branch sometimes even hired students in the law enforcement program. However, my school's local branches and even some high schools are hiring displaced police officers.

      --
      by Anonymous Coward: I, for one, welcome the shift from car analogies to pizza analogies. um.. overlords?
    11. Re:Great, what we really needed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Yes it does. So long as they're doing it peacefully.

    12. Re:Great, what we really needed by anagama · · Score: 2

      There is a downside to this "non-lethal" weaponry, and that is that it mutes public outcry over the suppression of speech. There is video from the 60s of bloodied protesters during and after police brutality which helped win sympathizers to the causes and was in part responsible for necessary social changes. With the modern forms of police brutality, those images don't exist and the protesters have lost a valuable form of leverage. Images of kids crying because of pepper spray, are much less powerful than images of kids bleeding from the head, even if the actual physical harm was roughly equal.

      --
      What changed under Obama? Nothing Good
    13. Re:Great, what we really needed by ichthus · · Score: 2, Interesting

      With the modern forms of police brutality, those images don't exist and the protesters have lost a valuable form of leverage.

      No, the thing that the protesters have lost is anonymity and the ability to tell just one side of the story -- theirs. Now, with citizen journalism and the abundance of video, they can no longer cry, "police brutality!" at every encounter. This is why many at OWS have attacked those carring cameras and have refused to allow access to news media (see Oakland.) They want to be able to instigate, and then play victim to gain sympathy.

      You're right. The game has changed -- now the protesters can no longer have complete control of the narative.

      --
      sig: sauer
    14. Re:Great, what we really needed by cynyr · · Score: 1

      Care to show me a weapon that works that is non-lethal 100% of the time? otherwise please use the term "Less-Lethal". I'm pretty sure that even pepper spay can kill someone.

      --
      All of the above was encrypted with a Quad ROT-13 method. Unauthorized decryption is in violation of the DMCA.
    15. Re:Great, what we really needed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      maybe one day when shit gets bad enough and you're now the desperate one, you'll end up violating some code and end up being mauled for it..

    16. Re:Great, what we really needed by sco08y · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Very few (if any) cops want to be the guy who shot his sidearm into a crowd of protesters. Even if they don't wind up being prosecuted, it would make their life very shitty for a while.

      Not to mention, they are human beings and, with normal human variance, possess a conscience, possibly even slightly more than the average citizen given their affinity for a dangerous job that primarily involves protecting other people.

    17. Re:Great, what we really needed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      in the UC (University of California) system they are real police ie LEOs

    18. Re:Great, what we really needed by sco08y · · Score: 2

      Care to show me a weapon that works that is non-lethal 100% of the time? otherwise please use the term "Less-Lethal". I'm pretty sure that even pepper spay can kill someone.

      No. Non-lethal is a perfectly good term since it is explicitly designed to incapacitate the target without killing. After all, pistol rounds that are designed to be lethal and are almost invariably fired at "center mass" are only actually lethal in about 20% of cases. Should those be called "less than lethal"? Even rifle rounds are only about 35% lethal, going by battlefield casualty to KIA rates.

      And, of course, "unarmed" measures are generally far more painful and debilitating and have a much higher risk of causing death to both parties.

    19. Re:Great, what we really needed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I can shed a bit of light on this from a Texas view. As police districts can be chartered by both cities and states, the only police officers with jurisdiction across city/county lines are State police. While fairly common before, in the last 10 years with the rash of college shootings, new communication systems and plans of action were designed which allowed all campuses to immediately put any other on alert, or call in help. This required State chartered organizations. In Texas, the college Police are State Police.

    20. Re:Great, what we really needed by tomhath · · Score: 1

      They were asked to leave and refused. How does that count as being subdued? You expect the police to just shrug and walk away?

    21. Re:Great, what we really needed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Ahhh, yes, this is referenced again. This annoys me. Perhaps the officer could have handled things differently, perhaps not. But I am not upset that he used the pepper spray on them. People that use this as an example seem to forget that they were not on public property or property owned by the protesters. They were on the university's property. They had been asked to leave and they refused. The protesters were breaking the law. This isn't a case in which the police were violating the right to peaceful assembly on public land or on property owned by the protesters. The protesters were trespassing and refusing to leave.

      Look at it from the perspective of the police. It was their job to remove these people that refused to leave. They were surrounded by a large crowde that could _potentially_ turn hostile. They had a limited number of police officers to handle the situation. In one video I saw, it appeared that the number of police in the immediate area was about the same as the number of students sitting on the ground When you include the crowd in that count, the police were out numbered. That is potentially dangerous when dealing with the mob-mentality of a crowd. However, if you look at the video, as soon as they used the pepper spray on the people breaking the law, a lot of people, both in the crowd and in the line of students sitting on the ground, left the area. This made it safer for the police to do their job while keeping people safe (with the exception being those that simply dealt with some temporary discomfort caused by the pepper spray. I personally believe the police were justified in their use of a non-lethel deterent, such as pepper spray, in this situation.

      Before you ask why didn't the police officers just handcuff and lead the people breaking the law away, look at your video again. Even after the pepper spray, some of the people on the ground still resisted and required multiple officers to get under control and be lead away. Do you think they could have done that when they were out numbered by a crowd and dealing with illegal protesters that were not subdued in any manner? Also pepper spray at close range is not excessively cruel. Many police officers go through that in their training so they know exactly what they are doing.

      Don't use this situation as an example of police being cruel or using excessive force. The fact that videos exist does not suddenly make the illegal protesters victims.

    22. Re:Great, what we really needed by epyT-R · · Score: 4, Insightful

      what? talk about misrepresenting the truth. police lobbies are no better. they are pushing to make filming officers in public illegal so that the police can make up events in politically convenient ways. that way beat officers can play up the 'serve and protect' image while acting out their high school bullying days with state backing.. yeah, no thanks. at least with criminals, I know what they want, so they're easy to avoid. the bully cop just wants to get away with doing as little work as possible while having fun at citizens' expense when the opportunity arises. woe unto you if he's bored and/or lazy and you're the easiest target, or if your situation forces him to do some extra paperwork because he's just as likely to 'serve and protect' you right into an arrest. ..and yes this is a lot more common than police (or their sackriders) will admit because police work attracts bully mentalities, crusaders, and other mental delinquents. in cases like OWS, these mentalities go way overboard and more often incite violence than quell it.

      I don't know whether OWS is behaving like you say en masse, but the cops (and by ext public officials) are no better, and these new 'non lethal' weapons just loosen the ropes on these guard dog mentalities even more..

    23. Re:Great, what we really needed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      University Police are no more "cops" than mall cops or anyone else dressed as "Officer Sexy" at a Halloween party.

      Depends. Where I live, university cops DO have police powers when they are on campus property. Off-campus, they are just regular citizens.

      This made the news once when 3 campus cops drove a university police car to an off-campus donut shop during their lunch break. While there, they noticed a weaving driver who appeared to be intoxicated. They lit up the police car lights, pulled over the very intoxicated driver, and made the bust.

      All 3 cops were reprimanded by the university, because off-campus they are just regular citizens, and it is a crime to impersonate a police officer (wearing police uniforms, acting like police, and driving a police vehicle). They should have just called it in to city police & let them deal with it.

    24. Re:Great, what we really needed by gmhowell · · Score: 2

      In addition to speaking without prior restraint, the first amendment also guarantees the right to peaceable assembly. The cops should have just shrugged and walked away. In fact, they never should have made the request in the first place, provided that those assembled were not belligerent. NOTE: saying things you disagree with =/= belligerency.

      --
      Jesus was all right but his disciples were thick and ordinary. -John Lennon
    25. Re:Great, what we really needed by bertok · · Score: 1

      What I don't understand is why American universities even have campus police?

      The last couple of times I've been to an Australian University, including two of the biggest, the closest I've seen were two very bored looking security staff members who spent most of their day making student and staff cards from a tiny little office in the basement. They certainly didn't have guns, and probably didn't even have pepper spray -- none that I could see anyway.

      Just how bad is the crime situation on your campuses that you need both a dedicated police force and a security force on top of that?

    26. Re:Great, what we really needed by ichthus · · Score: 1

      I don't know whether OWS is behaving like you say en masse, but the cops (and by ext public officials) are no better

      Yes, because we see cops throwing bricks through windows and shitting in public all the time.

      woe unto you if he's bored and/or lazy and you're the easiest target

      So... you not only think cops are just as bad (or even worse) than the OWS idiots, you think the cause for their abuse of power is... boredom? O.... k?

      --
      sig: sauer
    27. Re:Great, what we really needed by dryeo · · Score: 2, Informative

      The cops are usually undercover when they promote violence as the idea is to make groups such as the OWS protesters to look bad. You've seen them and been suckered in by it judging how you're treating the OWS protesters,
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agent_provocateur

      --
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
    28. Re:Great, what we really needed by ichthus · · Score: 1

      So, the cops are the ones raping and murdering fellow protestors. Got it.

      --
      sig: sauer
    29. Re:Great, what we really needed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Some instances of protester violence being undercover cops is far from demonstrating that all instances are such, unless you a-priori assume that troublemakers won't use the anonymity of the crowd, which flies in the face of common sense and evidence of groups that go from protest to protest for no other reason than to don masks and break shit. Besides, the tactic only works because protesters assume the agents are part of them and shield them accordingly. Deliver the fuckers to the police when they start causing trouble and provocateurs are neutered. Never (almost?) happens because protesters are a tribe before they are peaceful. You know, just like they accuse the police of protecting their own before protecting the public. Log in one's eye and all.

    30. Re:Great, what we really needed by arose · · Score: 1

      It's like asking why a town has both it's own police force and county sheriffs. Sometimes it seems that the only reason is that the US enjoys splintering jurisdictions as much as possible.

      --
      Analogies don't equal equalities, they are merely somewhat analogous.
    31. Re:Great, what we really needed by phoebusQ · · Score: 1

      Between faculty, students and staff, my University had something like 60,000 people on campus each day. It makes sense to have a police force with ties to that community and an understanding of the unique nature of campus policing. The University police force performed just like any other city police force, for our "city" of 60,000. Doesn't have anything to do with a crime problem, other than the particular balance of crimes that any college sees (i.e. more drunken parties, fewer murders).

    32. Re:Great, what we really needed by freeze128 · · Score: 1

      Very few (if any) cops want to be the guy who shot his sidearm into a crowd of protesters. Even if they don't wind up being prosecuted, it would make their life very shitty for a while.

      Yeah, that's the kind of thing that gets you on The Running Man game show.

    33. Re:Great, what we really needed by Fjandr · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I'd disagree. I would suggest they possess slightly less conscience on average given that they voluntarily choose to engage in highly dangerous work which requires training in violent/hostile/confrontational positions. Their training is to take command of any situation through means of psychological and physical intimidation, followed by force if necessary. Positions which involve power and control attract people who desire power and control for their own sake, and those people are usually the last ones who should actually have it and the first to abuse it when they do.

      Positions where the members who hold them are held to far less account than they otherwise would in general attract those who are more likely to abuse power if they have the opportunity. It's hard to make a case that, in general, police are held to higher standards of accountability than the average person. It doesn't matter if you're talking about speeding or murder, police have a network which will seek to protect them, even in cases where it is crystal clear they have exceeded their authority. Your average person on the street has no such support network, so the situational pressures that work against abusive behavior act more strongly on the average person than on the average police officer.

      Police work does not primarily involve protecting other people. That is a secondary effect of how modern police organizations operate, almost universally. Their primary purpose is to investigate crimes after the fact, and courts have routinely held that police officers have no duty, whatsoever, to protect anyone. Their secondary objective, in practice if not in theory, is revenue production. This can clearly be seen by looking at organizational and funding choices of police departments across the country (talking from a US-centric point of view here). Those are: traffic fines and civil asset forfeiture. The departments which focus on those items are almost never cut.

    34. Re:Great, what we really needed by LordLimecat · · Score: 1

      Such videos are worthless with no context. What exactly is going on there?

    35. Re:Great, what we really needed by 0111+1110 · · Score: 1

      Actually you can recognize the cops because they would be the ones with body armor and firearms and stomping on people's heads before spraying chemical weapons in their eyes and using electric torture compliance devices on them, all with a huge stupid grin on their face. Those would be the cops.

      --
      Quite an experience to live in fear, isn't it? That's what it is to be a slave.
    36. Re:Great, what we really needed by 0111+1110 · · Score: 2

      Have you actually met a real police officer in the US? It sounds like you haven't. They have no conscience whatsoever. They are bullies. They took the job they have because they can beat people up without getting in trouble for it. When you are attuned to that kind of thing you can see it as soon as you meet them. They are the kinds of people who watch those stupid, unrealistic, violent movies and imagine they were the guy shooting and beating people up. That's their motivation. They want to be that badass. Any meeting you have with them as a civilian is a potential opportunity for them to feel that power that they crave so much. It's also a way to express their anger at whatever it is they are angry at. That's another cop characteristic: anger. The only people they care about defending are the other cops. They protect and serve only themselves.

      --
      Quite an experience to live in fear, isn't it? That's what it is to be a slave.
    37. Re:Great, what we really needed by cstacy · · Score: 1

      What I don't understand is why American universities even have campus police?

      Just how bad is the crime situation on your campuses that you need both a dedicated police force and a security force on top of that?

      They are sworn as State Police officers, which gives them superior jurisidiction over the local police in the town that the university is located in. This means that the town police officers do not have jurisdiction on the campus. It also means that when the local police make a radio call about someone who might be a student, in town, the campus police can rush over there and take charge over the situation. Rescuing the kids from the local police, basically. The universities here are located within towns -- all the university buildings are scattered around the town, rather than mostly being on a single central campus. The "Campus Police" are all over the town, exercising their police powers upon situations involving students, and doing so in a way that conforms to the sensibilities of the educational institution rather than those of the local police.

    38. Re:Great, what we really needed by Gideon+Wells · · Score: 1

      It was a dispersion event at an Occupy _______ site. Forgive me, I assumed that this event had reached total media saturation at this point. Here is some more information on the subject:

      * http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/22/us/police-officers-involved-in-pepper-spraying-placed-on-leave.html
      * http://gawker.com/5861688/its-a-food-product-essentially-fox-news-starts-spinning-pepper-spray-cops
      * http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/casually-pepper-spray-everything-cop

      --
      by Anonymous Coward: I, for one, welcome the shift from car analogies to pizza analogies. um.. overlords?
    39. Re:Great, what we really needed by AmiMoJo · · Score: 2

      Actually being part of a group in a position of power with a clear adversarial line between them and the protesters tends to reduce the influence of their conscience, not increase it. That's just an unfortunate aspect of human nature, and can apply to the protesters as well.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    40. Re:Great, what we really needed by Rogerborg · · Score: 1

      And off camera too. Punishment gassings from the grassy knoll.

      --
      If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
    41. Re:Great, what we really needed by operagost · · Score: 1

      No really-- there is a term "less than lethal" used in the industry to describe products which are designed to be nonlethal. A typical .22 LR cartridge, while low in stopping power, is designed to be lethal. Pepper spray is designed to not kill. Because sometimes products designed not to kill occasionally still do-- because nothing is certain in this world-- the term "less than lethal" was coined.

      --

      Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
    42. Re:Great, what we really needed by MrAngryForNoReason · · Score: 1

      My understanding of the term "less than lethal" is that it is a weapon which when used correctly will not result in serious injury or death if they are not treated. Rather than a bullet which may not be lethal if you rush the person to hospital a less than lethal weapon should not be lethal regardless if they are treated or not.

      That said they are described as "less than lethal" because they can kill in some circumstances. Tasers can kill people who have heart problems, plastic bullets can kill if they are aimed at the head and CS gas can cause death by asphyxiation or allergic reaction. Which is why even "less than lethal" weapons are normally tightly controlled and their use is restricted to certain circumstances and to people with specific training.

      That is the case in the UK at least where devices like tasers are only used by specially trained police officers. Not available to the general public and carried by untrained security guards and mall cops as in other areas of the world.

    43. Re:Great, what we really needed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Except that isn't the whole story...

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hhPdH3wE0_Y

    44. Re:Great, what we really needed by yarbo · · Score: 1

      Being pepper sprayed during police training is a very controlled situation. You're surrounded by friendly people who want you to do well. It's a bit of a formality. Being pepper sprayed at a protest is an intense experience. In addition to the intense pain, you lose your vision. You know things have just escalated and you have no way to know what's going to happen from there. Remaining there might lead to arrest, or beatings.

      In addition, complying after being pepper sprayed will not turn the pain off. Pepper spray continues to hurt for 2 hours, even with treatment. If you are unfortunate enough to be arrested after being pepper sprayed, don't expect treatment.

      The 9th circuit courts ruled that the use of pepper spray on passively resisting protestors constitutes excessive force, so this was not legal or justified.

    45. Re:Great, what we really needed by yarbo · · Score: 1

      Does the context even matter here? What would justify such egregious and casual use of force against those that are sitting down and not capable of being a threat against anyone, least of all a large group of police officers in riot gear?

    46. Re:Great, what we really needed by LordLimecat · · Score: 1

      Because I am suspicious enough of everything that ends up on slashdot that I wouldnt have been surprised if they werent actually cops, or it werent actually teargas, or anything else.

      The number of blatantly false statements, headlines, summaries, etc have all made me deeply skeptical about ANYTHING i see on this site.

    47. Re:Great, what we really needed by sco08y · · Score: 1

      Have you actually met a real police officer in the US? It sounds like you haven't.

      I'm ex-military. About a quarter of the guys from my unit became cops after they finished their enlistment. Some friends from school are cops. I also know guys in the Bureau, DEA, hell, I even knew a TSO. Laziest motherfucker I've ever met...

      They have no conscience whatsoever. They are bullies. They took the job they have because they can beat people up without getting in trouble for it.

      Tell me more about having no conscience. How do people without a conscience make you feel?

      When you are attuned to that kind of thing you can see it as soon as you meet them.

      What other things are you attuned to?

      They are the kinds of people who watch those stupid, unrealistic, violent movies and imagine they were the guy shooting and beating people up. That's their motivation. They want to be that badass.

      Tell me more about these violent movies, and how they imagine that they are shooting people and beating them up. How does that make you feel?

      Any meeting you have with them as a civilian is a potential opportunity for them to feel that power that they crave so much.

      Could you tell me more about craving power?

      It's also a way to express their anger at whatever it is they are angry at. That's another cop characteristic: anger. The only people they care about defending are the other cops. They protect and serve only themselves.

      Ah, anger is the issue. Tell me more about how angry these cops make you feel.

    48. Re:Great, what we really needed by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Watched it. Still zero reason for the reaction.

      Please don't tell me trained police men in full riot gear felt "threatened" by a bunch of unarmed teenagers in t-shirts and pants chanting some slogans. If this is how the US react, the whole collective shitting-your-pants due to a single attack a decade ago makes a lot of sense...

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    49. Re:Great, what we really needed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, cops would never pepper spray point blank at protesters who are already effectively subdued.

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6AdDLhPwpp4

      Agreed, like how many examples of abuse do we REALLY need in the context of this discussion, where that pepper spraying at UC Davis was totally uncalled for. It gives decent officers who recognize that they're workin' peeps too, a bad name ;) Is it really that difficult for anyone who's seen this or any other well-documented video evidence to come to the same conclusion? If so, whose interests do they represent?

  3. free speech by girlintraining · · Score: 5, Insightful

    They're coming up with ever-more creative ways to hurt peaceful protesters -- and let's be honest: Most of the time, they provoke, prod, cajoule, and taunt these people until one of them out of the dozen, hundred, or thousand there snaps, then they point and say "See! See! We're justified" and open up unholy horror on everyone nearby, including journalists, children, and anyone else, then seize or destroy the evidence of what went down, counting on their purchases media contacts to portray their victims as all manner of bad. But whether it's rubber bullets or real ones, the fact is this is a business of causing pain and misery... and it is because the people its being inflicted upon had the audacity to say "I think we can do better than this."

    I am the last person to suggest violence as a response to improper government action: I live in a democracy, and one of our main pressure valves to prevent violence is peaceful protest. They're busy stuffing that up now, and just like every other country that has tried it in the past, eventually public sentiment is going to shift. It'll be fine one day, and the next shit will be on fire and they'll be declaring martial law, and the bought-off press will be busy with headlines like "How did this happen?" ... Well, it happened because you stupid bastards didn't do your job and report the truth. It happened because people don't like being silenced.

    It happened... because human nature isn't all that different from an animal: Keep poking it with a stick and eventually it will stop hiding in the corner and come sink its claws and teeth into you. And why? Because it didn't have a choice.

    --
    #fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
    1. Re:free speech by Entropius · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Nonviolence comes from all sides acknowledging a non-aggression principle: you don't use violence against me or my property, I won't against you. The traditional role of police is to respond to violence with overwhelming violence (or the threat of such): you punch me or smash my shit, they'll arrest you, and if you punch them too they'll come with guns.

      But using weapons like this against peaceful protesters isn't what the police are for -- it's using violence against the nonviolent, and the victims (like any other victim of unprovoked aggression) have the right to respond in kind. Bullets, microwave-oven HERF guns, take your pick.

    2. Re:free speech by PeeAitchPee · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Most of the time, they provoke, prod, cajoule, and taunt these people until one of them out of the dozen, hundred, or thousand there snaps

      Not that I agree with deploying this type of technology against peaceful protesters, but what you're describing sounds * exactly* like the Occupy movement's tactics to provoke the police to assault them, thereby ensuring the incident ends up all over the news. Just sayin'.

    3. Re:free speech by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Recent videos show that no excuse is needed, any longer, for completely unprovoked pepper spray attacks (as well as bludgeoning) by senior police officers on completely peaceful protestors.

      I too believe in peaceful protest. THAT SHIP IS SINKING OR SUNK. Our political power, at this point, is limited to refusing paychecks (not following unethical orders.) The police, themselves, must stop using violence in their daily jobs. The use of pepper spray to hurt people who are not hurting you, is wrong. The use of a vortex cannon to squirt that pepper spray is no more, nor less, wrong.

      The US government system is so corrupt that the corruption is "trickle down" and I, for one, am having more trouble with corrupt corporations at the personal level. And hearing stories about corruption.

      A stolen credit card number? "No problem, provide us a list of suspicious charges. Oh, this suspicious charge on your list...you actually made."

      "I did? Sorry, they're hard to understand, these cryptic entries."

      "Too bad. Our policy is to force you to pay for all the fraudulent charges, if even one of those charges is mis-identified."

      "Fuck!" (My honest friend's story.)

    4. Re:free speech by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He was referring to the police....

    5. Re:free speech by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Obviously, shooting rings of pepper spray at protesters is the only application of this technology.

    6. Re:free speech by Nidi62 · · Score: 0

      Most of the time, they provoke, prod, cajoule, and taunt these people until one of them out of the dozen, hundred, or thousand there snaps

      Not that I agree with deploying this type of technology against peaceful protesters, but what you're describing sounds * exactly* like the Occupy movement's tactics to provoke the police to assault them, thereby ensuring the incident ends up all over the news. Just sayin'.

      They do, because they know they will always find that one cop that's had a bad day, or is tired and cranky because his kid was up all night, or something else that causes stress, and if they apply enough pressure, he'll snap. And during the Occupy protests the police and authorities showed an incredible amount of restraint, considering how many locations there were and how long the protests lasted. When police broke up the camps, they did so with court orders. Pretty much any other place besides the US and Europe would have called in military at the very least, if not use more violent and forceful measures to remove the protests.

      --
      The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
    7. Re:free speech by girlintraining · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The police are outnumbered by the citizens they protect a thousand to 1 at least and they can only be effective if the majority of those citizens trust them and cooperate with them. The social contract that all officers of the law have with its citizens is this: "We trust you, you protect us." It's a simple, straight-forward principle that depends on the officer's ethical conduct being at all times impeccable. Any unethical behavior observed and the officer should be quickly stripped of rank and authority to maintain public trust.

      That isn't happening anymore. Our country now has mock trials where they declare the officers innocent, or that the protesters were engaged in vague-sounding crimes like "resisting without violence"... which in most of those cases can be rightly called, "speaking one's mind." Officers seize and destroy evidence of their own misconduct. They preferentially attack people on the basis of race, sexual orientation, ethnicity (perceived or actual), or on social class. These are not isolated cases: They are widespread issues that regularly receive attention in the press, though heavily edited, redacted, and spun to appear less severe than it is. It does not take anyone long on google to find a current, relevant case of significant police misconduct involving many officers, often an entire department or city of them.

      The social contract of "We trust you, you protect us" is broken. And that's a problem. That's a big problem. That is in fact a super huge democracy-threatening problem... because if people don't assemble to protect out of fear, then that anger with the status quo isn't visible. We (as a society) don't know there's a problem, can't address it, and so the anger builds and builds until we start getting gunman in the bell towers, people marching into classrooms and blowing away everyone they see... We get sporatic acts of seemingly random violence because these individuals feel they cannot be heard. And then we have a society living in fear, more fear, terrible amounts of fear.

      And protracted anxiety and fear destroys economies, governments, and institutions. Democracy depends on freedom, and freedom depends on the confidence to use those freedoms. I cannot find anyone above the age of 21 who thinks they have the freedom of speech they were told they had in school. I have trouble finding anyone who's willing to attend a protest for something they believe in and support out of fear of "getting a record" or "getting on a list". They well and truly believe their livelihoods would be threatened by engaging in activities protected by the highest law in the land, activities that our founding fathers and every reputable scholar on the subject of civil liberty and democracy says are essential for the functioning of this society.

      F*ck terrorists: We've got a much bigger problem. We're rotting from the inside out.

      --
      #fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
    8. Re:free speech by Entropius · · Score: 3, Insightful

      If you're going to trust your police with guns then you need to be able to trust them not to use them in response to provocation. If you can't find someone that you can trust not to start shooting at people taunting them, then you should just take the guns away from them -- or arrest them for assault.

      The Arizona Criminal Code says, plain as day: "the use of force or deadly force is not justified in response to verbal provocation alone".

      I'm no fan of some of the shit Occupy has pulled -- in particular, squatting on public land in such a way that it reduces the value the public can get out of it. (I think a lot of their demands are naive and silly, too, but that's neither here nor there, since if being wrong negated the right to free speech we'd have to close all the churches -- and the Capitol, for that matter.) But the police get trigger-happy when provoked then you need some better police.

      (NB: Provoking them in a manner that makes them unable to do legitimate police work is a different story.)

    9. Re:free speech by clyde_cadiddlehopper · · Score: 4, Informative

      Keep poking it with a stick and eventually it will stop hiding in the corner and come sink its claws and teeth into you. And why? Because it didn't have a choice.

      "Terror" is the strategy for those with no other options. The best weapon against terror is blind and principled justice for all.

      --
      Obi-Wan: "I felt a great disturbance in the Force, as if millions of voices suddenly cried out in terror and were sudden
    10. Re:free speech by icongorilla · · Score: 0

      There is a lot of truth to this "not having a choice" thing.

      I ran away from home in NY about 6 months ago. I was working at Target for about $7.25 an hour with an artificial leg. Things weren't going too horribly for having to run around a store that huge being handicaped.

      Then the loan sharks started coming. The kept calling the company until they started upping my hours. I was biking into work 7 miles each way because I didn't have that much money.

      The extra load started causing mechanical problems with my fake leg and because of the extra hours, I lost my health medicaid health insurance because I was making too much money to keep the insurrance, but too little to pay for leg repairs, a car, and loans at the same time.

      So I left for Washington to hang myself at Nela (the student loan organization.)

      Over time and talking with people, I decided to give things another try because I do have a computer technical background. Casher again isn't an option since my leg is now cracking in half with no way to fix it.

      It looks like I may be getting a NOC Engineer job this week. Unfortunately, walknig 4-6 miles a day on crutches is making my fingers go numb on my left hand.

      I called the student loan organization not too long ago. If this doesn't work out because I can't type anymore, I will be hanging myself there. Because there isn't any other choice. That is what our current government is about.

      --
      The thought of hanging myself at my student loan organization doesn't bug me as much when I think it might make a differ
    11. Re:free speech by girlintraining · · Score: 4, Interesting

      There's so much I could say to this, but I'll try to be brief: There has never been a case of a political movement who's platform ended with "... and to achieve this, let's piss off a bunch of people with shotguns while we remain unarmed." The Occupy protests were creative and (when started) legal. They later had what they were doing declared illegal at the behest of the Department of Homeland Security, who whispered "terrorist" into the ears of dozens of municipal leaders, who then closed and locked the doors to city hall and passed all manner of legislation in any way they could to give the DHS the ability to coordinate directly with local law enforcement, who then turned hostile. When the protests started, the police didn't interfere. They didn't really have much to say beyond making sure the protesters and the general public near them were safe and living in sanitary conditions... a few arrests here and there, but nobody was making a big deal about it. It was just "the cost of doing business" in a democratic society. Then the goddamned gustapo showed up, ordered them to roll in the tanks and start with the mass arrests and surveillance.

      No, there was no provocation from the protesters... in fact, I've never once seen a historically accurate account of any protest who's stated goals were to get tangled with the police, who have a 1,500 win, 0 loss record against protest movements.

      --
      #fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
    12. Re:free speech by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      in particular, squatting on public land in such a way that it reduces the value the public can get out of it

      I take issue with this line of reasoning. These people are also members of the public and are getting tremendous value out of that land.
      If you follow that line of reasoning to its logical conclusion then any peaceful protest on any public land is "reducing the value the public can get out of it" and thus...wrong?

    13. Re:free speech by GmExtremacy · · Score: 2

      in particular, squatting on public land in such a way that it reduces the value the public can get out of it

      What does that even mean? We can kick anyone out of the public lands as long as most people don't want them there (because of some arbitrary, imaginary value people get out of the land)?

      There might be laws regarding doing certain things on supposedly "public" lands, but I take issue with this particular sentence.

    14. Re:free speech by paiute · · Score: 4, Interesting

      They're coming up with ever-more creative ways to hurt peaceful protesters -- and let's be honest: Most of the time, they provoke, prod, cajoule, and taunt these people until one of them out of the dozen, hundred, or thousand there snaps, then they point and say "See! See! We're justified" and open up unholy horror on everyone nearby

      "one of them" = police plant in the crowd, you mean

      --
      If Slashdot were chemistry it would look like this:Cadaverine
    15. Re:free speech by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      2/3 to 3/4 of all the cops I have ever know/had dealings with were decent people doing their very difficult job in a fair fashion, and thus providing the society with a vital service at great risk to themselves.

      The balance were, to one degree or another, violence loving authority freaks who hate everyone who doesn't play by their rules (not the law, their rules), and are more than happy to smash those folks' skulls in order to persuade them to do so, an act that they almost universally get away with.

      Until humans advance to the point to where such individuals are receiving treatment for those inclinations instead of entering a profession where they can act them out legally, nothing will change.

    16. Re:free speech by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It is only going to get worse. Europe had life very cheap for over a millennium from the fall of Rome and the tiny dukedoms and duchies. A starving person stealing a loaf of bread? It was likely they would get beheaded, hanged, or just hacked to death. Just being homeless was grounds for being thrown in the clink, shipped off to a penal colony, or perhaps just killed outright. Peasant results were always unsuccessful, and resulted in a ton of people being burned at the stake if they were leaders, or just run through and left where they were.

      The only reason that this brutal way of life isn't with us now is because of the plague. With the Black Plague taking out the backs for nobles to flail, they actually had to make concessions (Magna Carta) in order to keep order (this after they realized that they were running out of peasants to kill.)

      Same thing is happening now. Higher populations end up with brutal police states. I'm not going to be surprised if our kids are living in one room places like the main character out of Fifth Element, with the spots on the wall to put your hands during the random shakedowns, with permits required to ever leave a city, and with long prison terms being the norm (because there is a whole industry around locking people up.)

      People talk about revolution? In reality, revolution as we know it is impossible. What ends up happening is that there is a crackdown, a lot of people tortured and killed, the regime in power tightening its grip making life harder for everyone else, and things going on. A crowd protesting in the streets? A helicopter gunship full of napalm or high rpm chain guns is inexpensive, will take care of the job, and there will be no successive protests afterwards. Libya was overthrown not because of internal politics, but because the US invaded and bumped off its leader. Without external influence, what will happen in most countries is what is happening in Syria -- towns and villages turned into craters, and actually more stability for the people in charge since all the revolutionaries showed themselves and were killed.

      With the advent of social media, it is trivial for governments to take out would-be firebrands. Someone becoming popular with their speeches? A quick overnight disappearance takes care of that.

      One can credit the black plague for the Western Renaissance, but future generations won't be that lucky.

    17. Re:free speech by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He was referring to the police....

      Whooosh, right over your head.

      But GP is right, it goes both ways. Bait police into a response with the cameras rolling and you get what looks like an unprovoked attack (after a bit of editing of course).

    18. Re:free speech by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Of course, we're in a positive feedback loop now. Civil disobedience begets more police response and erosion of liberties in the interests of "freedom", which leads to more civil disobedience, which leads to more of a police response, etc. Add this to all the economic problems today with the accelerating concentration of wealth in an extremely small subset of the population exacerbating the problems of income inequality, coupled with the coming energy crises due to Peak Oil, and we're going to be having serious problems within a generation (if even that long).

      Things have gone too far for there to be any real compromise now. The United States government is on borrowed time. Anyone that isn't making arrangements to take care of themselves in the absence of government functions is being foolishly optimistic in my opinion. Many people laugh at the preppers and call them extremists, accusing them of having their "tin foil hats on too tight" but even simple logic dictates that it's better to be prepared for an event that never comes (although it's getting harder and harder to credibly believe it's won't) than assume it won't.

      My family will not be victimized due to a lack of preparedness on our part, regardless of who is doing the victimizing, whether they're wearing a badge, military uniform, or not. I am not a war-monger, and I don't want to hurt anyone...but I will defend myself, my family, and my neighbors if it comes to that. When the shit hits the fan all we're going to have to depend on is each other, so it's imperative you have serious conversations with your neighbors concerning these things as well. There's safety in numbers, obviously...

    19. Re:free speech by Beyond_GoodandEvil · · Score: 1

      unholy horror on everyone nearby, including journalists, children,
      Who the fuck brings children to a protest where there may be arrests or use of force for anything other than using said children as a human shield? That is pretty fucked up

      --
      I laughed at the weak who considered themselves good because they lacked claws.
    20. Re:free speech by tqk · · Score: 1

      Obviously, shooting rings of pepper spray at protesters is the only application of this technology.

      You didn't even make it to the end of the summary? "What the gas rings can be used for is transporting other gasses (like pepper spray or tear gas or pesticide) ..."

      Sigh.

      --
      "Tongue tied and twisted, just an Earth bound misfit ..." -- Pink Floyd.
    21. Re:free speech by houghi · · Score: 2

      we start getting gunman in the bell towers, people marching into classrooms and blowing away everyone they see... We get sporatic acts of seemingly random violence

      This is what the police andf politics will read. Yes, it is edited like a boss (or a /. editor, you decide) and their answer is to give MORE power to the police and tell all that want to listen: Doi you want to have terrorists in the towers? Do you want your kids killed in school?

      I do not agree with that. Unfortunately that is how things are at this moment. The only way is to have a revolution and that will come. Not sure when, but history has shown that it will happen.

      --
      Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
    22. Re:free speech by tqk · · Score: 1

      Keep poking it with a stick and eventually it will stop hiding in the corner and come sink its claws and teeth into you. And why? Because it didn't have a choice.

      "Terror" is the strategy for those with no other options. The best weapon against terror is blind and principled justice for all.

      I agree with the latter, but not the former. Terror, or terrorism, is the strategy of assholes (OBL, I'm lookin' at you). Civilized people don't attack unarmed civilians[*]. Full. Stop.

      Anyone wearing a Big Brother uniform, fair game, but beware they're just as armed as you and probably better trained, and their buddies'll get you if they don't. Have fun. :-)

      [* Dresden was an atrocity, as was Coventry, and those who perpetrated those crimes knew it at the time. They'd been worried it was eventually going to happen ever since the Wright Bros.]

      --
      "Tongue tied and twisted, just an Earth bound misfit ..." -- Pink Floyd.
    23. Re:free speech by CodeBuster · · Score: 2

      I have trouble finding anyone who's willing to attend a protest for something they believe in and support out of fear of "getting a record" or "getting on a list".

      People fear this because it can and does happen. The economy is tough enough for young people who've worked hard and kept their noses clean. They don't call the occupy crowd "unemployable" for nothing you know.

    24. Re:free speech by St.Creed · · Score: 1

      in fact, I've never once seen a historically accurate account of any protest who's stated goals were to get tangled with the police, who have a 1,500 win, 0 loss record against protest movements.

      I would like to point to the Black Panthers as an example of a movement doing precisely that. Yeah I know how that ended up - a state that can throw billions of dollars at a problem can always repress much better than a handfull of activists. Still, they did that. It didn't come out of the blue though, so to speak. The police had a long history of repression especially where the BP started.

      Also: the Stonewall riots (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stonewall_riots). It started with the routine shakedown of gay customers in a gay bar by police and ended up with huge riots as they finally couldn't stand it anymore and decided to fight the police. The movement that came out of that little incident did have a very lasting impact.

      Most protest movements don't start out that way though. But when they get repressed it doesn't take long to identify the police as the mailed fist of the state and react accordingly. Witness the Tahrir movement's response to the police in Egypt for a very recent example.

      --
      Therefore, by the (faulty) logic you're using, you're just a cow with a keyboard - osu-neko (2604)
    25. Re:free speech by sjames · · Score: 1

      Civilized people don't attack unarmed civilians[*]. Full. Stop.

      Tell that to Sgt. Pepper and his buddies.

    26. Re:free speech by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Most of the time, they provoke, prod, cajoule, and taunt these people until one of them out of the dozen, hundred, or thousand there snaps

      Not that I agree with deploying this type of technology against peaceful protesters, but what you're describing sounds * exactly* like the Occupy movement's tactics to provoke the police to assault them, thereby ensuring the incident ends up all over the news. Just sayin'.

      What your saying sounds *exactly* like a fascist-sympathizing fuck-tard.

      Just sayin'.

    27. Re:free speech by The+Master+Control+P · · Score: 2

      I cannot find anyone above the age of 21 who thinks they have the freedom of speech they were told they had in school. I have trouble finding anyone who's willing to attend a protest for something they believe in and support out of fear of "getting a record" or "getting on a list". They well and truly believe their livelihoods would be threatened by engaging in activities protected by the highest law in the land, activities that our founding fathers and every reputable scholar on the subject of civil liberty and democracy says are essential for the functioning of this society.

      As much as I hate to say it, that hits me dead on. And probably a whole lot of people like me who are on track to having secure positions, but don't have them yet. Even as I see what's going on, I commit the classic human mistake of taking a locally "optimal" step that globally is a step towards the failure of society.

    28. Re:free speech by sco08y · · Score: 1

      They're coming up with ever-more creative ways to hurt peaceful protesters -- and let's be honest: Most of the time, they provoke, prod, cajoule, and taunt these people

      I've watched plenty of protests. "Most of the time" the cops are the ones who stand around and get screamed at.

      The reality is that it _sucks_ to be screamed at. While I was in the Army, I was in OPFOR unit, so part of our job was to play the bad guys, and part of that meant participating in "spontaneous" demonstrations in the fake villages we had set up. (The majority of the demonstrators were locals, played by contractors brought in for the part.)

      And we were good at it. We'd rant and rave, whip up the crowd, and the soldiers being trained just had to stand there and suck it up. Even though it was all obviously fake, it was still extremely stressful and from speaking with them later, they really hated that part of the training.

      The doctrine was based on the Iraq and Afghan insurgencies, but it speaks to basic human nature: the vast majority don't care about politics, a smaller group are nonviolent partisans, and a very small number are violent more for violence's sake than anything else. The strategic goal to deal with us was to befriend the locals so they'd assist the coalition forces in eliminating us.

      and one of our main pressure valves to prevent violence is peaceful protest.

      Doubtful. Very few people protest because most people can't take days off work. Of those that do, most of them can't afford a criminal record. Most violent protestors are professional instigators who go to various protests to commit and incite acts of violence, rather than for any specific attachment to the issues.

      They're busy stuffing that up now

      Okay, back that up. I ran some searches, but can't find any stats on the number of permits granted nationally, but you made the claim. Organizers benefit from the permitting process because they need the police to protect their message from violent instigators.

    29. Re:free speech by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      http://public.wsu.edu/~brians/errors/who%27s.html

    30. Re:free speech by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      By some counts, 1/3rd of the working population of the USA is employed in guarding or protecting. A society of fear has many costs.

    31. Re:free speech by celle · · Score: 2

      "I'm no fan of some of the shit Occupy has pulled -- in particular, squatting on public land in such a way that it reduces the value the public can get out of it."

          Hate to tell you but Occupy is the public. So they have every right to squat on public land. This is part of the value the public gets out of it.

    32. Re:free speech by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Did your friend contact the OCC? Or am I wrong for suggesting this?

    33. Re:free speech by The+Master+Control+P · · Score: 1

      even simple logic dictates that it's better to be prepared for an event that never comes (although it's getting harder and harder to credibly believe it's won't) than assume it won't.

      Simple logic says that when the opportunity cost of whatever you believe "being prepared" is exceeds the loss due to the event times the probability of it happening you should start questioning if it's worth it. Or put another way, there are an infinite number of things that might happen so there must be some criteria that supresses a divergent response.

      Now we can start arguing about the evaluation of three independent nebulous, poorly-defined values (what being prepared is, the probability of disaster and the loss in the event of disaster), horray!

    34. Re:free speech by NateWhilk · · Score: 1

      Most of the time, they provoke, prod, cajoule, and taunt these people until one of them out of the dozen, hundred, or thousand there snaps, then they point and say "See! See! We're justified"

      Let's be totally honest. The "peaceful" "protesters" are doing the exact same thing.

    35. Re:free speech by 0111+1110 · · Score: 1

      Actually it is unprovoked in a sense. Physically unprovoked. Civilized human beings do not respond with violence to mere verbal taunts. Anyone who does so should not be wearing a police uniform. It is no different from a civilian responding with violence. If someone calls me a name and then I respond with my fists that is assault and battery or worse. I could easily go to jail for years for doing such a thing. And rightfully so. Whether I was baited or not is quite irrelevant. Those police should be in prison, not walking around with guns and nonlethal torture devices.

      --
      Quite an experience to live in fear, isn't it? That's what it is to be a slave.
    36. Re:free speech by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That ship has not sunk.
      Non violence is still a very effective tool. Probably more today than it ever was. But, and this is a very big one, it takes patience and courage of the greatest order to achieve your desired results.
      As is always the case, a powerful tool requires expertise in operating it. What I see lacking is a small group of people who knows how to use non violence.
      I can keep taking examples of Gandhi or Mandela, but I will just say this, they know how to play politics using non violence. We can start by recognizing that by protesting, we are directly threatening politicians, because we are actually playing politics.
      Enter the field, use the tool and win.

    37. Re:free speech by webheaded · · Score: 1

      No kidding. It's a protest...what the hell IS that supposed to mean? Reducing the value of public land by protesting on it for a few months? What? What the hell justification is that for anything? o_O

      --
      "Those who would sacrifice essential liberties for a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - BenF
    38. Re:free speech by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A stolen credit card number? "No problem, provide us a list of suspicious charges. Oh, this suspicious charge on your list...you actually made."

      "I did? Sorry, they're hard to understand, these cryptic entries."

      "Too bad. Our policy is to force you to pay for all the fraudulent charges, if even one of those charges is mis-identified."

      "Fuck!" (My honest friend's story.)

      Posting anonymously so my bank doesn't connect with my name:

      What bank does your friend bank with? I've never had this issue with HSBC Premier, or with CitiGold. In fact, HSBC has been very proactive in identifying fraudulant charges and issueing new card numbers (it's happened to me twice since moving to New York City). I've never been held responsible for a fraudulant charge by either bank (CitiGold was also good, though my most recent datapoint on that is several years old).

      It would be useful to know which banks do that shit, and which protect their customers. May the former be outed, the wise consumer switch, and the offending insitution go under. Wishful thinking, but at least if we know who they are we can make informed choices.

    39. Re:free speech by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      You gotta love how Americans justify themselves with lines that basically amount to, "at least we're better than Syria!!"
      I guess Americans don't care about setting a high bar any more.

    40. Re:free speech by operagost · · Score: 1

      A stolen credit card number? "No problem, provide us a list of suspicious charges. Oh, this suspicious charge on your list...you actually made."

      "I did? Sorry, they're hard to understand, these cryptic entries."

      "Too bad. Our policy is to force you to pay for all the fraudulent charges, if even one of those charges is mis-identified."

      "Fuck!" (My honest friend's story.)

      What does this have to do with protests? You're dealing with an unethical company, here. Get the BBB and your state's consumer protection department involved.

      --

      Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
    41. Re:free speech by mcgrew · · Score: 1

      The police are outnumbered by the citizens they protect a thousand to 1 at least

      I tried to get some numbers but google failed me. But here in Springfield, IL you can't drive two blocks without seeing a police car. And that doesn't count the sherriff's deputies, Illinois State Police, FBI, DEA, and all the other cops.

      However, despite whether or not the numbers are correct, I agree with your post.

    42. Re:free speech by Cytotoxic · · Score: 1

      "I'm no fan of some of the shit Occupy has pulled -- in particular, squatting on public land in such a way that it reduces the value the public can get out of it."

          Hate to tell you but Occupy is the public. So they have every right to squat on public land. This is part of the value the public gets out of it.

      Yeah! It's our land!!! .... soooo.... why don't I get to set up a Pizza and Beer tent on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial? I'm the public too, and we the public would get a great deal of value from having a slice and a frothy pint while touring the mall. Oooh, and one of those lobster-roll carts too. Those things are tasty!

      Or are some people more equal than others?

    43. Re:free speech by yarbo · · Score: 1

      You should tell the protestors in Syria they have it lucky, because in North Korea they would kill you and then send your family to the labor camps. In Syria, they just kill you.

    44. Re:free speech by yarbo · · Score: 1

      Martin Luther King Jr protested in places where he expected the police/sheriffs to overreact.

    45. Re:free speech by yarbo · · Score: 1

      Then are you saying that protesting in the US is so dangerous that only white males 18-30 can participate?

    46. Re:free speech by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sorry, but your comment is total crap. It is more often the protesters who barrage the police with abuse in an attempt to prompt them to act in some way that will make the protesters look like victims. The OWS groups have been engaged in that very tactic for months, trying to get their "Kent State Moment" so they can gain momentum for their marxist cause. The police have been warned about their attempts and have responded nation-wide with remarkable restraint.

      I've run into bad police myself, but the vast majority of them are decent, moral people who have to deal with the utter scum of society on a daily basis. Anyone subjected to that over the course of years is bound to become jaded, but as a whole I'd rather trust my child with a policeman than your "street protesters" any day, especially considering the crimes that have been reported daily occurring in the OWS encampments.

    47. Re:free speech by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What world do you live in? I saw no tanks... and the arrests made were often made in conjunction with Occupy protesters who illegally blocked streets to businesses, committed acts of vandalism (some crossing the line into felonies), and harassment. Most of the Occupy camps were illegal from the start. Like it or not, large public gatherings on public land usually require permits. Those nasty, hateful Tea Partiers the left likes to insult were always required to get permits, and those who did not were not allowed to hold their gatherings. The OWS protesters have in large refused to get legal permits and have broken many laws ranging from zoning, health regulations, and including assaulting police with thrown excrement.

      The "gustapo" you refer to showed up when the OWS groups pushed well beyond the line of peaceful, civil protest to become dangerous nuisances. I've seen plenty of video of OWS gangs harassing people going to work through their camps and even intimidating children trying to walk to school. Considering the media has embraced the OWS gang, I'm certain there is much worse out there that hasn't been aired...

    48. Re:free speech by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Free speech and hurling rocks/debris/explosives is different. Free speech is not what these are to stop, its for rioters. Those who wave their rights by refusing to be civil and instead devolving into their barbaric nature and committing CRIMES.
      Also yes they are always making more better ways to hurt people, that being said would you rather they stick to the old ways and just shoot them in the head with a revolver or club them with sticks? I would rather get blasted with a vortex of pepper-spray than either.
      you are narrow-mindedly looking at this, this is a new way to keep from having to hurt someone who in my opinion needs a good beating anyway if they are making more of a disturbance than shouting their ideas.

  4. The World's Most Badass Fart Gun by rossjudson · · Score: 2

    I've got a 14 month old boy. I need to warm up my fart joke capacity, so it'll be ready when I need it. I wonder if a positively-charged fart would be different from a negatively-charged fart.

    1. Re:The World's Most Badass Fart Gun by Sulphur · · Score: 2

      I've got a 14 month old boy. I need to warm up my fart joke capacity, so it'll be ready when I need it. I wonder if a positively-charged fart would be different from a negatively-charged fart.

      Farts with a range of 150 feet, what could go wrong?

    2. Re:The World's Most Badass Fart Gun by clyde_cadiddlehopper · · Score: 1

      Farts with a range of 150 feet, what could go wrong?

      That would be a biological weapon delivery system. "Fetchez la vache" is so 12 seconds ago. We don't have to launch a whole putrid carcass over the castle walls, just a few puffs of bad air.

      --
      Obi-Wan: "I felt a great disturbance in the Force, as if millions of voices suddenly cried out in terror and were sudden
    3. Re:The World's Most Badass Fart Gun by Dr_Barnowl · · Score: 2

      "I fart in your general... oh ... with extreme precision right in your face from 150 feet away!"

    4. Re:The World's Most Badass Fart Gun by GodGell · · Score: 1

      I've got a 14 month old boy. I need to warm up my fart joke capacity, so it'll be ready when I need it.

      I'm glad I don't live in the country you do.

      Have fun raising the next generation. :)

      --
      [SHOW SOME LENIENCY TOWARDS ... I mean, FUCK BETA] Eat. Survive. Reproduce. GOTO 10
  5. Go Ahead. It won't make any difference. by rbrander · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Typical of a certain mindset that sufficient force will stop a demonstration.

    And it will, of course. ONE demonstration. But if you don't want another twice as big, you can't stop it with force.

    Ghaddafi used anti-aircraft ammunition on human bodies. That tidied up the whole street in jig time. But where is he now?

  6. Re:Go Ahead. It won't make any difference. by Sique · · Score: 3, Insightful

    It worked for him for about 40 years. And it seems to work for Bashar al-Assad right now.

    --
    .sig: Sique *sigh*
  7. So...if the crowds... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Use a big fan and blow it back at police will tbey get charged with assaulting a police officer?

  8. Re:HA! take *that* by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Spoken like a true bootlicker.

  9. Re:Go Ahead. It won't make any difference. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Someone will get him eventually. Check back in a year or two. It's more likely to come from one of his own than a protestor, but it only takes one bullet.

  10. Dangerous Denial Of Brutality by Web+Goddess · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Police are supposed to be trained officers. They are being provoked by taunts? Throw those goddamn police out of their jobs, with a black mark on their records. What you say is (trolling?) bullshit. I have seen numerous videos of peaceful people blindsided by police with pepper spray and bludgeons. Overwhelming force, yet the police are provoked by taunts? You live in a world of hypocrisy and denial, previous poster.

    1. Re:Dangerous Denial Of Brutality by PeeAitchPee · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Wow, such vitriol directed towards someone that might have a different perspective than you. Yeah, I've seen the UC YouTube video, and I've also read stories about Occupy camps rigging booby-traps when threatened with eviction, throwing human shit at police, cursing at them, daring them to attack, threatening lawsuits, etc. As with most things, the truth is most likely somewhere in the middle, unless we choose to wear blinders that let us think one side can do nothing but good and the other is always wrong.

    2. Re:Dangerous Denial Of Brutality by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wait, you're calling THAT hypocrisy when you're the one saying that behavior is okay for one group but not another?

    3. Re:Dangerous Denial Of Brutality by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Care to point out the links to those stories you read, or are you indeed just spouting uninformed bullshit like the troll that you are?

    4. Re:Dangerous Denial Of Brutality by GmExtremacy · · Score: 2

      I'm sure it's true that at least some of the Occupyers weren't completely innocent, but the same applies to the police. And frankly, I expect far more restraint out of them than I do out of the (mostly) peaceful protesters.

    5. Re:Dangerous Denial Of Brutality by tqk · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Wow, such vitriol directed towards someone that might have a different perspective than you. Yeah, I've seen the UC YouTube video, and I've also read stories about Occupy camps rigging booby-traps when threatened with eviction, throwing human shit at police, cursing at them, daring them to attack, threatening lawsuits, etc.

      The protesters are civilians. Police are supposed to be trained professionals. If you're a cop at a protest, you're wearing a face shield and helmet, you're armed and dangerous, and you can change out of your uniform at the end of your shift. Why care about what's thrown at you by civilians? It's your job to take it and react reasonably. It's what you were hired for. If you can't handle that, you're in the wrong job.

      Why any policeman would think it's reasonable conduct to pepper spray a line of kneeling civilians is beyond me. I'd be looking around for a rifle if I saw that happening.

      --
      "Tongue tied and twisted, just an Earth bound misfit ..." -- Pink Floyd.
    6. Re:Dangerous Denial Of Brutality by ShieldW0lf · · Score: 1

      Why any policeman would think it's reasonable conduct to pepper spray a line of kneeling civilians is beyond me.

      Probably feelings of disgust, frustruation and anger

      I'd be looking around for a rifle if I saw that happening.

      They would respect that. They would kill you, but they would have more respect for you.
       
      Just saying... this is their brain.

      --
      -1 Uncomfortable Truth
    7. Re:Dangerous Denial Of Brutality by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Probably because they were blocking the right-of-way of others. I mean, sure, it doesn't seem such a big deal to block a sidewalk or park path... Until someone with a wheelchair or other need to use the actual paved walkway needs to get through.

      Just because you are upset and protesting doesn't mean you get to be a complete asshole.

    8. Re:Dangerous Denial Of Brutality by tqk · · Score: 1

      Just because you are upset and protesting doesn't mean you get to be a complete asshole.

      Just because you're wearing a uniform and carrying a gun doesn't mean you get to be a complete asshole. You were hired to protect civilians, not assault them, and especially when they're not resisting. Tell me how impossible it is for three cops to drag a kneeling civilian out of the way.

      Defending that cop's action is despicable. You should be ashamed.

      --
      "Tongue tied and twisted, just an Earth bound misfit ..." -- Pink Floyd.
    9. Re:Dangerous Denial Of Brutality by Mashiki · · Score: 2

      Here's the problem. Can you name one police college off the top of your head that trains using debasement? That's physical and verbal attacks. I doubt it, all of the ones that I know are in Canada. The ones in the US that used to removed that part of the program because of leftie hand-wringing that it was too "mean" and might "provoke a response". So to be honest, I'm not surprise that newer cops are being provoked by taunts. They're not being trained to ignore them.

      And yes debasement works. I've gone though it, the casual disregard of the idiots makes your day much easier.

      --
      Om, nomnomnom...
    10. Re:Dangerous Denial Of Brutality by gman003 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Have you *seen* the stuff they're packing? Kevlar body armor, riot shields, fall face masks... anything short of a rifle or a molotov cocktail isn't going to significantly hurt them.

      If your job is cashier at McDonalds, you're expected to be able to handle some irate customer yelling at you without flipping out. If your job is programmer at Ubersoft, you're expected to be able to handle a moronic boss yelling at you without losing your shit. And if your job is police officer armed up and suited for a riot, you're expected to be able to handle people yelling at you and tossing rocks without bringing out the shotguns and chemical weapons.

      The police don't need better weapons. They need better brains. Problem is, between shitty funding, politics, and a fundamentally broken sense of justice in America, most of the police don't actually know how to handle this sort of thing. They're just as scared as the protesters are, but hey, they've got a badge, and someone handed them a billy club and a can of OC, so they're going to use it the same way any undertrained, terrified person would.

    11. Re:Dangerous Denial Of Brutality by cold+fjord · · Score: 1

      Why care about what's thrown at you by civilians? It's your job to take it and react reasonably.

      Arresting people who throw things at police is quite reasonable. Just because you are protesting doesn't give you the right to assault police officers. (That's what throwing things at them is.) Just because you are a citizen who happens to be a police officer doesn't give other citizens the right to assault you without consequences. Or are you thinking, what's a brick in the head between citizens?

      Why any policeman would think it's reasonable conduct to pepper spray a line of kneeling civilians is beyond me.

      If the protesters, the kneeling civilians, are refusing to comply with a lawful order to vacate the area, the police can generally use force of some kind. They could pick them up, or use pepper spray, or other means. Or do you think that the law should be ignored if anyone can get a mob together?

      I'd be looking around for a rifle if I saw that happening.

      So, you threaten to use lethal force against law enforcement officers using generally non-lethal means that nearly everyone recovers from after a short period to enforce the law? Interesting. Two reactions:

      1. You would probably be setting up a police officer for a board of inquiry followed immediately by a finding of a justified shoot - target being you.
      2. You don't really seem to be up to non-violent protests. Maybe you should stick to letter writing. You could use vulgar language if it makes you feel more powerful.

      --
      much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
    12. Re:Dangerous Denial Of Brutality by kanto · · Score: 1

      Have you *seen* the stuff they're packing? Kevlar body armor, riot shields, fall face masks... anything short of a rifle or a molotov cocktail isn't going to significantly hurt them.

      If your job is cashier at McDonalds, you're expected to be able to handle some irate customer yelling at you without flipping out. If your job is programmer at Ubersoft, you're expected to be able to handle a moronic boss yelling at you without losing your shit. And if your job is police officer armed up and suited for a riot, you're expected to be able to handle people yelling at you and tossing rocks without bringing out the shotguns and chemical weapons.

      The police don't need better weapons. They need better brains. Problem is, between shitty funding, politics, and a fundamentally broken sense of justice in America, most of the police don't actually know how to handle this sort of thing. They're just as scared as the protesters are, but hey, they've got a badge, and someone handed them a billy club and a can of OC, so they're going to use it the same way any undertrained, terrified person would.

      Just because police wear body armor it doesn't mean that the crowds should be allowed to ramp up their offence accordingly, it's not a fricking peaceful protest when people are throwing rocks around.

    13. Re:Dangerous Denial Of Brutality by girlintraining · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I'd be looking around for a rifle if I saw that happening.

      I hope you consider a camera first. Whether it is justified or not, shooting or threatening another person with a gun over a threat or use of violence doesn't make you any better than they are. You shoot that officer and your life is over, he's elevated to martyrdom by Homeland, and thousands more will suffer under 'enhanced' police powers to keep that from happening. If you want to make a difference, you take a good picture of him. You make sure that picture of what he's doing gets in front of every person in his community. Everyone he's supposed to be responsible for protecting. You make sure they know that man cannot be trusted. You make sure his personal, home mailbox is so choked with letters from concerned citizens he has to pay to keep a special PO box just so he can get mail. You make sure the police department is spending more than his salary paying off journalists to paint him in a good light, paying more to squelch the letters to the editor, and still more because every person in that community files a complaint for every single thing he does. You make him ineffective, gimp, useless -- a liability to the department he works for.

      You make it so bad even his coworkers groan whenever they have to work with him. That's how you fight back: You don't pickup a damn weapon, you bury the bastards in their own bureauacracy. You make them beg to have everyone who sends a letter put on a special rectal exam at the airport list -- and each time they cross the line to protect this jerk, you're right there with a camera. You're right there with a letter, a pen, a microphone, a megaphone. You stay peaceful, you stay civil.

      And after you've done all of this... Then you sit down with 3 other people who feel the same way you do and you say, "Okay, here's what we're going to do..."

      --
      #fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
    14. Re:Dangerous Denial Of Brutality by tqk · · Score: 2

      Why care about what's thrown at you by civilians? It's your job to take it and react reasonably.

      Arresting people who throw things at police is quite reasonable. Just because you are protesting doesn't give you the right to assault police officers.

      I agree, and that's a perfectly reasonable reaction on the part of the police.

      Why any policeman would think it's reasonable conduct to pepper spray a line of kneeling civilians is beyond me.

      If the protesters, the kneeling civilians, are refusing to comply with a lawful order to vacate the area, the police can generally use force of some kind.

      Certainly, and I'd expect them to know what the meaning of the phrase "excessive force" is. Pepper spray used on non-violent, unresisting protesters is excessive.

      I'd be looking around for a rifle if I saw that happening.

      So, you threaten to use lethal force against law enforcement officers using generally non-lethal means that nearly everyone recovers from ...

      Given yourself enough weasel room there? Cops don't get a pass just because they're cops. If they act as bad as the tyrants who hired them, they are as bad as the tyrants who hired them. Civilization exists for civilians. Authoritarians go to the back of the bus. And no, I wouldn't use lethal force first. I'd plunk one down by their feet or off to their side; just enough to get them to duck or back off, or turn on me instead of the victim they're assaulting.

      You don't really seem to be up to non-violent protests.

      Roger that. Ghandi was a much better man than I'll ever be. Cops should worry about that. There's much worse people out there than me.

      --
      "Tongue tied and twisted, just an Earth bound misfit ..." -- Pink Floyd.
    15. Re:Dangerous Denial Of Brutality by sir-gold · · Score: 1

      I think you misread (it wasn't worded that well). She was accusing the police of taunting the crowd until one of the crowd members is provoked into attacking a police officer, at which point the police feel justified in beating and teargassing the crowd, because it was someone from the crowd that "threw the first punch"

    16. Re:Dangerous Denial Of Brutality by gknoy · · Score: 1

      This is the best comment I've read on a topic like this in a VERY long time. Thank you.

    17. Re:Dangerous Denial Of Brutality by tqk · · Score: 1

      I'd be looking around for a rifle if I saw that happening.

      I hope you consider a camera first. Whether it is justified or not, shooting or threatening another person with a gun over a threat or use of violence doesn't make you any better than they are.

      Very, very good point, thanks. As I just mentioned to another poster, I wouldn't have been shooting to harm, but to warn. Still, a cellphone camera plus the web is the smarter weapon for everyone concerned. It's too damned easy these days to believe you're back in 1939 on the streets of Berlin.

      I actually like cops and look up to them. I've met about two in my life that I didn't respect as individuals, but I still respected them for just having put on the uniform. I'm pretty much the least of their worries, and I'm grateful for them being there every day.

      Just stop pepper spraying civilians, 'kay? Thanks. :-)

      --
      "Tongue tied and twisted, just an Earth bound misfit ..." -- Pink Floyd.
    18. Re:Dangerous Denial Of Brutality by cold+fjord · · Score: 1

      Pepper spray used on non-violent, unresisting protesters is excessive.

      If it is the minimal force necessary to enforce the law, it is probably reasonable, not excessive, under the law.

      Given yourself enough weasel room there?

      Not so much "weasel room" as qualifying it since I expected exactly this sort of reaction if I didn't, but from the other direction. "Non-lethal! what about Randy M Somebody! He was pepper sprayed and died on the spot!" Pepper spray, like tear gas, tasers, and batons, are properly known as less lethal weapons. They are unlikely to kill if used properly, but on rare occasions it happens.

      Cops don't get a pass just because they're cops.

      And protesters don't get a pass, even if they are non-violent, if they don't comply with a lawful order to disperse. The difference is that the police are legally entitled to use force to compel compliance with the law. Demonstrators are not entitled to use force to defy the law, and being non-violent doesn't give you a pass to ignore the law and the police indefinitely.

      And no, I wouldn't use lethal force first. I'd plunk one down by their feet or off to their side; just enough to get them to duck or back off, or turn on me instead of the victim they're assaulting.

      Then you are a danger to yourself and everyone around you. You start shooting, even as you describe, and it would be both reasonable and lawful for the police to shoot you. Furthermore, how much better off do you think the demonstrators will be once shooting starts? The first thing that is going to happen is the officers will draw their sidearms and shotguns. Now the possibility for real harm is just beginning. You just aren't thinking this through.

      Roger that. Ghandi was a much better man than I'll ever be. Cops should worry about that. There's much worse people out there than me.

      Then my advice to you is stay completely away from protests. The "worse people than you" will be taken care of, one way or another. You should be clear that the law enforcement bench is a lot deeper than the local guy you meet in the donut shop, including state and federal agencies. When needed, state National Guards, the US Army, and the US Marines have all helped settle things down in various cities. No city is going to be left under threat or control of lawless protesters indefinitely. To believe anything else is fantasy.

      This is far more constructive, if ironic, than fantasies of violence: Occupy Gets Its Own PAC

      --
      much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
    19. Re:Dangerous Denial Of Brutality by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      NEVER shoot to warn if your adversary is armed (and rarely otherwise). That goes double if they're a cop who's already showing willingness to "misunderstand" the situation as one justifying greater force than it does. They will claim they thought you were shooting at them, and they will respond with lethal force -- though you may be able to surrender before they score a lethal hit (cops are notoriously bad shots IRL), it's not something I'd care to bet on.

      Now a "warning shot" in the sense of e.g. firing a shot to get people to scatter and get out of the way of an incoming train (i.e. warning of something other than you shooting) is OK, but a warning shot as a threat to shoot someone if they don't shape up is almost never a good choice. If you've got justification to threaten to kill, you've got justification to shoot to kill, and both tactically and legally you'll generally have less headaches if you stop the target immediately.

      What if the person takes it as the threat it is, fears for their life, and fires back in legitimate self-defense? (The fact that you'd have been justified in dropping them doesn't mean they're not justified in dropping you -- if, say, your fear for your life was reasonable but mistaken.)

      What if they cease all threatening behavior, then walk up in front of you, saying "watcha gonna do, shoot me?" Legally, once they stop threatening, your justification for shooting or even covering them is generally gone, and in some jurisdictions, even brandishing the weapon (pointed at the ground, say) at this point is illegal -- tactically, they've essentially neutralized the range advantage of your gun.

    20. Re:Dangerous Denial Of Brutality by cold+fjord · · Score: 1

      And if your job is police officer armed up and suited for a riot, you're expected to be able to handle people yelling at you and tossing rocks without bringing out the shotguns and chemical weapons.

      A rock is a dangerous weapon, either in the hand or thrown. Plenty of people have been killed by rocks. Throwing rocks is a form of execution still used in many parts of the world - maybe you've heard of stoning? (Hint: It not about the band of vaguely similar name, or getting high.)

      Throwing things at the police is assault. Protesters don't have the right to assault the police. The police do have the power under law of using force to compel compliance with the law and lawful orders.

      The police don't need better weapons. They need better brains. Problem is, between shitty funding, politics, and a fundamentally broken sense of justice in America, most of the police don't actually know how to handle this sort of thing.

      All things considered, the police generally handle these sorts of difficult situations pretty well. It tends to be the commentators that get it wrong. For example, you seem to think it is OK to assault police officers by throwing rocks, that they just have to take it because they have protective equipment. Wrong.

      --
      much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
    21. Re:Dangerous Denial Of Brutality by gman003 · · Score: 1

      No, I'm not saying it's OK to hurl stones at anybody. What I'm saying is that the response should be proportional: slap them in cuffs and haul their ass off to jail. Not launch tear gas grenades into the entire crowd, not charging in bashing everyone you can see. Shrug it off, go in, take care of the individual(s), then continue as you were.

      And, while I can't say I know how many times the police do their job properly (especially re: protesters), I *can* say that they get it massively wrong far too often. I recall, after the police went in to shut down Occupy Oakland, an active-duty Marine commented on how their tactics and actions would have gotten him court-martialed and discharged had he done the same in Iraq. Quite a few of their actions violated Geneva - and I remind you, this was in a "premeditated" incident. It wasn't a case of some jumpy rookie messing up, it was a case of either massive incompetence or massive malice. Possibly both.

    22. Re:Dangerous Denial Of Brutality by russotto · · Score: 2

      I hope you consider a camera first.

      Why bother? None of the "good citizens" of this country cares what the cops do to protesters or anyone else they want to go after.

      Cops doing bad things are filmed all the time. Nothing really comes of it, except maybe the charges against their victim are dismissed.

      You want something to happen to cops who do bad things? So far, the only proven way is to burn down part of the city, Los Angeles style. Then maybe a few cops will get some sort of punishment. That's what it takes.

    23. Re:Dangerous Denial Of Brutality by Man+On+Pink+Corner · · Score: 2

      If you want to make a difference, you take a good picture of him.

      That's exactly what was done. The result? A lot of badge-lickers log onto Slashdot and post messages justifying the actions of the police.

      When your advice to use cameras to address the problem fails, as it has here, what's your next recommendation for dealing with these steroid-addled Wehrmacht wannabees? Strongly-worded letters?

    24. Re:Dangerous Denial Of Brutality by girlintraining · · Score: 1

      There will always be more "badge-lickers" as you call them than citizens with critical thinking skills; That's just human nature. Ignore them, their definition of progress is having their leash handed to a new owner that only kicks them once a day instead of twice. And my recommendation wasn't strongly worded letters, it was waging a media campaign. Advertising and public awareness gets results. If you convince an extra 1% of people in a given city to, say, contest their speeding tickets... then even if all they do is show up, plead guilty, and walk back out the door, you've hammered the bureauacracy with thousands of extra man-hours over the course of a year that they didn't budget for.

      When you play this game, you aren't playing to "win" per se. They won't admit fault, ever. That's not the goal. The goal is to cost them as much economically as possible. To make the miserable... to compel other people to be less helpful and cooperative with their organization. The game is one of statistics... you don't need to convince the majority, just a very small minority, to do something different than what they have been doing.

      Slashdot is great at talking (and talking, and talking, and talking), but you don't need people to talk: You need people willing to act. If only people willing to act posted on this website, there'd be about 5-10 comments on each story. Many would have none. This... is not your audience.

      --
      #fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
    25. Re:Dangerous Denial Of Brutality by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, just no, and also fuck no. You do not "shoot to warn". You keep your firearm holstered unless you need it to defend your life or another's from actual or threatened harm, and if you draw it, shoot to stop the threat (not "to wound", which is risky and hence reckless, but also not specifically "to kill", if the threat to your life is stopped without killing).

    26. Re:Dangerous Denial Of Brutality by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wow, such vitriol directed towards someone that might have a different perspective than you. Yeah, I've seen the UC YouTube video, and I've also read stories about Occupy camps rigging booby-traps when threatened with eviction, throwing human shit at police, cursing at them, daring them to attack, threatening lawsuits, etc. As with most things, the truth is most likely somewhere in the middle, unless we choose to wear blinders that let us think one side can do nothing but good and the other is always wrong.

      You cannot sue a police officer. You can sue the department, but individually officers are untouchable for things that happen while they're on duty.

    27. Re:Dangerous Denial Of Brutality by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'd be looking around for a rifle if I saw that happening.

      I hope you consider a camera first. Whether it is justified or not, shooting or threatening another person with a gun over a threat or use of violence doesn't make you any better than they are. You shoot that officer and your life is over, he's elevated to martyrdom by Homeland, and thousands more will suffer under 'enhanced' police powers to keep that from happening. If you want to make a difference, you take a good picture of him. You make sure that picture of what he's doing gets in front of every person in his community. Everyone he's supposed to be responsible for protecting. You make sure they know that man cannot be trusted. You make sure his personal, home mailbox is so choked with letters from concerned citizens he has to pay to keep a special PO box just so he can get mail. You make sure the police department is spending more than his salary paying off journalists to paint him in a good light, paying more to squelch the letters to the editor, and still more because every person in that community files a complaint for every single thing he does. You make him ineffective, gimp, useless -- a liability to the department he works for.

      You make it so bad even his coworkers groan whenever they have to work with him. That's how you fight back: You don't pickup a damn weapon, you bury the bastards in their own bureauacracy. You make them beg to have everyone who sends a letter put on a special rectal exam at the airport list -- and each time they cross the line to protect this jerk, you're right there with a camera. You're right there with a letter, a pen, a microphone, a megaphone. You stay peaceful, you stay civil.

      And after you've done all of this... Then you sit down with 3 other people who feel the same way you do and you say, "Okay, here's what we're going to do..."

      Your line of thinking has been going on since the 70s ended. It doesn't work.
      How many times have we had complete and undeniable proof that cops/politicians/bankers/etc. are doing bad things?
      How many of those times has the undeniable proof resulted in behavioral changes?

    28. Re:Dangerous Denial Of Brutality by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Police are supposed to be trained officers.

      Peaceful protesters are supposed to be peaceful. If you don't hand over that rock thrower you lose all pretense of being a peaceful crowd and become a shield for rioters.

    29. Re:Dangerous Denial Of Brutality by Falconhell · · Score: 1

      Wow such a stupid post, get this It is a policemans job to not respond to taunts and provocation. If they cannot do that they should be fired.

    30. Re:Dangerous Denial Of Brutality by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So... How many police would stay on the force if they were required to have the discipline and physical fitness required to learn and effectively use martial arts necessary to subdue someone? Various joint locks, holds, and pressure points aren't something you learn overnight.

      But pointing a ranged weapon and pulling a trigger or pressing a button that causes pain or injury? Shoot, any shmoe can do that. And usually you don't even need to RTFM.

      What's needed is some better quality people willing to go through the rigors necessary to do proper law enforcement, but with current city budgets and such that isn't happening. Much easier to give a badge to somebody inept, but wanting the job. The kind of people you likely would want in law enforcement would be the last ones wanting to take the job.

    31. Re:Dangerous Denial Of Brutality by 0111+1110 · · Score: 1

      Why do you respect them for putting on a uniform? That's pretty strange. You respect someone for wearing a certain style of clothing? Or do you respect it as a license to kick the shit out of anyone who annoys them without any consequences?

      The sad truth is that, like most bullies, the police are cowards through and through. That's why they always use overwhelming force against unarmed foes. They storm someone's house in a team of 30 wearing state of the art body armor and ballistic helmets and assault rifles against some guy sleeping in his bedroom. They aren't brave men. They are just pathetic cowardly bullies whose sole aim in life is and always was to beat up the weaker kids who don't even try to fight back. That's the beauty of being a cop. They never face even odds. The odds are always stacked 1000:1 in their favor. Police are the most pathetic human beings in any society. They have the personality of a violent criminal without the courage of one to accept the risks.

      --
      Quite an experience to live in fear, isn't it? That's what it is to be a slave.
    32. Re:Dangerous Denial Of Brutality by 0111+1110 · · Score: 1

      And bootlickers like you seem to think it is okay for the police to start shooting into a crowd because a few unidentified people are throwing rocks at their riot shields. Well it's not okay. That's either murder or attempted murder. A serious crime. Police are supposed to be able to handle those situations without turning into death squads.

      --
      Quite an experience to live in fear, isn't it? That's what it is to be a slave.
    33. Re:Dangerous Denial Of Brutality by 0111+1110 · · Score: 1

      Pepper spray is almost never the minimum force necessary. The minimum amount of force is no force. Just discussion or warnings. Then would come grabbing the person's arms and handcuffing them. That's the minimum force. Chemical and electrical weapons were originally intended to replace firearms. That is, for when lethal force would otherwise be warranted. Of course none of this is warranted when the protesters have the right to be doing what they are doing as guaranteed by the United States Constitution. In such a case their only job is to make sure that no violence is used and only then against the specific person who was violent. One violent person is not a license to take down the whole crowd of people.

      Incidentally, even if the US armed forces were called in civilians could fight back if better organized. If we all had firearms and could equal or exceed their numbers we might prevail. Well at least until the government started bombing or even nuking its own cities and towns. I'm not sure the entire US Air Force would be comfortable with bombing their own cities though. At some point you would get mass defections from the military and a civil war. The boot lickers vs. the freedom fighters.

      --
      Quite an experience to live in fear, isn't it? That's what it is to be a slave.
    34. Re:Dangerous Denial Of Brutality by khipu · · Score: 1

      Police are supposed to be trained professionals. ... Why any policeman would think it's reasonable conduct to pepper spray a line of kneeling civilians is beyond me.

      Well, perhaps it is a result of their training. If you were ordered to remove these civilians, what would you do? Walk up to them and drag them away? Would that be safer either for police or the protesters?

    35. Re:Dangerous Denial Of Brutality by tqk · · Score: 1

      Why do you respect them for putting on a uniform? That's pretty strange. You respect someone for wearing a certain style of clothing?

      The uniform is an idea; a symbol. Cops are the modern version of the local sheriff; there to protect all of us from hoodlums. I realize it's fashionable these days to think of cops as mere automatons, doing the bidding of "The Man", but I've never thought of them that way. Cops I've had dealings with have always been good people doing their best to help. I didn't grow up in Watts, though. Even the tactical squad here is polite and considerate.

      Cops didn't write the stupid laws they enforce. I suspect they think some of them are even stupider than we think they are, but the law's the law. Changing that is via politicians, not cops. Blaming any of that on cops is the height of stupidity.

      --
      "Tongue tied and twisted, just an Earth bound misfit ..." -- Pink Floyd.
    36. Re:Dangerous Denial Of Brutality by Web+Goddess · · Score: 1

      Well put, girlintraining. Use a camera, and put the officer's face and actions in front of people who can personally shame him (or her) into remorse.

      My small vow: The next time I see someone stopped by numerous police cars, I am going to stop and take a few pictures. The police try to keep us from seeing their actions, on the street, but we can look. Be the mindful observer.

      WEIRD FACT ABOUT PICTURES: I have often seen, in a picture or video, brutality that was happening right under my nose...because it's often quick and quiet. TAKE A PICTURE. It will show more than the eye can see.

    37. Re:Dangerous Denial Of Brutality by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      When your publicizing of what these jackbooted thugs do fails to do anything but bring about plenty of support for their actions from the populace, my advice is to start looking for a new country to move to, because the one you're in is fucked.

      Remember, the Nazis came to power in Germany with plenty of popular support at the time. It wasn't until quite a bit later that the German people regretted their actions. All the smart people got the heck out of that place in the 30s before things got really bad.

      The problem with being an American is where to go to. Back in the 30s, there were plenty of other nice countries to move to, such as Britain and USA. Nowadays, most of the western countries seem to be following in America's footsteps. Britain, for instance, looks like it's even worse, with them privatizing their entire police force.

    38. Re:Dangerous Denial Of Brutality by operagost · · Score: 1

      So ethical behavior requires training? I think the responsible citizen should know not to throw feces at other people. Monkeys do that.

      --

      Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
    39. Re:Dangerous Denial Of Brutality by tqk · · Score: 1

      You do not "shoot to warn". You keep your firearm holstered unless you need it to defend your life or another's from actual or threatened harm, and if you draw it, shoot to stop the threat ...

      There's a difference between battlefield ethics and what's expected around civilians. Cops are civilians, not warriors. They're trying to save lives, at best, and protect us from each other.

      I would not want to harm a cop. "Soldiers deserve soldiers." Cops are not soldiers.

      --
      "Tongue tied and twisted, just an Earth bound misfit ..." -- Pink Floyd.
    40. Re:Dangerous Denial Of Brutality by tqk · · Score: 1

      If you were ordered to remove these civilians, what would you do? Walk up to them and drag them away?

      Yup, after cable-tieing their hands and feet (while suitably attired in a face shield, helmet, and gloves).

      What would you do? Lob a grenade in and drag the bodies away afterwards?

      --
      "Tongue tied and twisted, just an Earth bound misfit ..." -- Pink Floyd.
    41. Re:Dangerous Denial Of Brutality by mcgrew · · Score: 1

      Arresting people who throw things at police is quite reasonable.

      Yes, but gassing a peaceful crowd because one nut threw a rock is not. Arrest the guy who threw the damned rock.

      If the protesters, the kneeling civilians, are refusing to comply with a lawful order to vacate the area, the police can generally use force of some kind.

      IINM the protesters in the infamous case were not refusing to comply with a lawful order, they had every right to be where they were. It was the police who were breaking the law.

    42. Re:Dangerous Denial Of Brutality by mcgrew · · Score: 1

      Cops are the modern version of the local sheriff

      Yeah, the Sherriff of Nottingham.

      I didn't grow up in Watts, though.

      That's why you can't see the evil they do. Spend some time in a ghetto bar and your attitude towards cops will change quickly.

      Cops didn't write the stupid laws they enforce.

      Gassing nonviolent protesters isn't enforcing laws, it's breaking them.

    43. Re:Dangerous Denial Of Brutality by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It isn't a peaceful protest when the police plant agents provocateur to start violence to create justification for their use of force.

      Cops are a domestic threat to US citizens and need to be dismantled, and if necessary, with force.

    44. Re:Dangerous Denial Of Brutality by khipu · · Score: 1

      Look, I'm not defending what they did. I simply am not qualified to say whether what they did was reasonable or not.

      And neither are you nor most of the other people commenting on this.

      (I can tell you that using cable ties and then removing them would have risked seriously injuring their hands.)

  11. Re:Go Ahead. It won't make any difference. by tsotha · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Don't kid yourself. Daffy would still be in power if the Europeans (with American support) hadn't pushed him out. His response to protests and then later outright civil war was working very well.

  12. Re:Go Ahead. It won't make any difference. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's like the wildebeest and the lions. The lions normally can pick off the weak ones at will. But once in a while a lion pisses off too many wildebeest at a time and then it dies.

  13. Pissing people off by Omnifarious · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Getting people to disperse in a matter that will piss them off will only work if they wake up in the morning and think "Gosh, I'm kind of embarrassed I was there at all.". Otherwise, it will just make them angrier. And it may not even get them to disperse and go home like you want them to in the first place.

    The people who work at firms who make stuff like this should be ashamed of themselves for the world they help create.

    But, of course, there are enough people on Slashdot who think that might makes right, and that authority is always correct (most of whome paradoxically are against 'big government') that I suspect these people feel not a glimmer of guilt.

    1. Re:Pissing people off by Hentes · · Score: 1

      How do you suppose to disperse people without pissing them off? Every tool can be used for good and bad. Not all demonstrators are peaceful, and crowd control is necessary during riots, to prevent an aggressive minority from vandalising the city. Letting a mob do whatever they want leads exactly to that might-makes-right anarchistic scenario you seem to be against.

    2. Re:Pissing people off by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Examining and answering the root of why they're angry might be a suggested course of action.

    3. Re:Pissing people off by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Otherwise, it will just make them angrier. And it may not even get them to disperse and go home like you want them to in the first place.

      I totally agree with you. And if we assume that the organizations buying these weapons of provocation understand that fact, what conclusion can we draw? The only sensible conclusion is that there is an intent to provoke violent public reaction. Problem, reaction, solution:

      P. Increasing public protests & consequent violence
      R. Public outcry for government intervention
      S. Government tightens public regulations, removes rights, hires more poorly trained highly armed enforcers

      And this just keeps on coming. The system isn't breaking, it's long, long since broken. You can't fix a totally broken system from within, because it's broken on a fundamental level. Stop looking to government to solve your problems and quit reacting to the provocations of the very people trying to enforce their will over your own. Get out and learn how to live despite government, not with it.

    4. Re:Pissing people off by Omnifarious · · Score: 1

      There are a couple of jurisdictions that managed it during the OWS protests last fall. And they still kind of annoyed people, but not really very much.

      I can't remember exactly how they did it, but it was a combination of being nice to people and waging a bit of subtle psychological warfare by using people's expectations that they not be nice against them. It was clever, resourceful and it worked. I'm not entirely pleased that it worked, but I'm a heck of a lot more pleased than I am with the other police forces around the country who misbehaved in a way I consider intolerable.

  14. Re:Go Ahead. It won't make any difference. by JockTroll · · Score: 0

    Good luck expecting France will bomb the US to let you carry on your protest.

    --
    Geeks are so full of shit that "beating the crap out of them" takes a whole new meaning.
  15. Much earlier than WWII... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    American scientist Robert W. Wood experimented with vortex machines to stun his students long before WWII.

  16. Use this in war. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    High concentrations, great non-lethal suppression force for people to pop in and lay some phat beats on those turrurists.

    But really, it would be highly useful for that. They wouldn't know what hit them.
    Sitting there discussing the next plan to attack town X, suddenly they inhale a volcano of gasses and choke their lungs out their nostrils, then in pops the military.
    Better than explosive rounds or the like since that would require you to actually go up next to things, or fire a launcher of sorts that would be more noticeable.
    This would be a directed blast-wave that would be pretty much invisible against most landscapes until it hits a target.

    1. Re:Use this in war. by Vectronic · · Score: 1

      everything else aside... if you're creating a toroidal vortex that can travel 150± you're likely going to hear it before it gets there, you'll probably still hit your target, but anyone more than like 10 feet from the target will be like "oh, they're right there just 150 feet away" - boom dead... as apposed to grenade launchers which can be upwards of 1500 meters away. (MK19, MK47, etc).

      There also isn't too much chance of rapid fire since the vortexes will disturb the previously calm air, making them dissipate closer and closer to the cannon itself, or causing them to go off target from pressure differences, and turbulence.

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hDx-mQqzYNw

  17. We already have a good option by Charcharodon · · Score: 0

    "What the gas rings can be used for is transporting other gasses (like pepper spray or tear gas or pesticide) long distances with a decent amount of accuracy, holding their cargo inside the calm center spinning vortex" We already have an old school "vortex" gun that spins a piece of lead to delivery it with extremely high amounts of accuracy over much greater distances. It works on criminals, looters, politicians (what happens when the first two marry and have kids), and protesters equally well.

  18. Get an airzooka by goldcd · · Score: 1

    Now wondering if you spray an aerosol into the chamber *thinks*

  19. Wrong subject by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Vortex gun: coming soon to a free speech zone near you".

    Nuff said.

  20. One itty-bitty drawback: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Using weapons with a spread of 150 feet on protestors seems like a horrible idea. Why? Because protests take place in cities. Cities have homes. Homes sometimes have open windows(or windows smashed by bricks). Not only would you probably get sued by anyone who was gassed because his home was next to the protest, it could cause permanent damage to people with lung deficiencies, newborns or easily-damaged eyes.

  21. Vortex canon video by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
  22. Perfect for a variation on ARM by boddhisatva · · Score: 1

    It sounds perfect for a small variation on an ARM device. A very simple sensor could continuously detect the vortexes and their centers, a simple circuit programmed into an FPGA could adjust fins to keep it on course. An easily constructed device would fly straight down the concentric rings and at target radiate spherical pattern of jagged shrapnel, eliminating the device and killing or otherwise neutralizing anyone within about 10 meters. One could acquire the components off the shelf in a city of any size. If you spend a great deal of money developing this you would need to tell the operator to be sure there was no one with an engineering degree at the other end.

  23. Sounds Good by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm perfectly willing to take a 90 MPH torus of pepper spray to the face while sitting down for the cameras because I understand the greater effect that the pictures will have.

  24. Snipper! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Police snipers pepper spraying protestors from the inside of a building hidden and unseen. Oh yeah, Thats EXACTLY what this country needs......................

  25. Overly confrontational headline by tomhath · · Score: 2

    The article is basically a press release from a company in Ohio that filed a patent application for delivering electrically charged bubbles of gas with a vortex gun. Somehow Slashdot turned it into a rallying cry for Occupy Someplace for Some Reason protesters.

    You have a right to peaceful protest. You don't have a right to trespass and disrupt businesses or political gatherings. Respect others' rights and yours will be respected too.

    1. Re:Overly confrontational headline by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You have a right to peaceful protest. You don't have a right to trespass and disrupt businesses or political gatherings. Respect others' rights and yours will be respected too.

      I wish you were even close to correct.

    2. Re:Overly confrontational headline by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      No, we no longer have the right to peaceful protest. Last year showed that very well.

    3. Re:Overly confrontational headline by Trepidity · · Score: 1

      There's actually very little remaining peaceful right to protest anything, regardless of where on the political spectrum you are. Just about the only thing that's still legal is to show up to designated "free speech zones" and say your piece there.

    4. Re:Overly confrontational headline by St.Creed · · Score: 2

      Oh come on! If you leave the city and go straight north for 10 miles, you can still exercise that right in your designated "Free Speech Zone"(tm) :)

      --
      Therefore, by the (faulty) logic you're using, you're just a cow with a keyboard - osu-neko (2604)
    5. Re:Overly confrontational headline by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      When is the last time you had an opinion that wasn't agreed with by main stream culture?

      It sounds like what you're saying is that people have no right to protest once they reached a certain size in a certain place. Part of the reason Occupy got any media attention at all was the number of people in one location, and the fact that they were peacefully disruptive. I don't know how that doesn't translate to "if you don't have enough money to buy the airwaves, you have no ability to reach the world". Heaven forbid the people who control the airwaves disagree with you.

      I'm pretty sure Occupy was the last stand for freedom in our culture and it hasn't gone away, but I do not think it will recover to its pre-winter condition.

    6. Re:Overly confrontational headline by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    7. Re:Overly confrontational headline by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm pretty sure Occupy was the last stand for freedom in our culture and it hasn't gone away

      How exactly was the Occupy protest a stand for freedom? It was basically poor/lower middle class people out protesting that rich people were ripping them off economically. I'm not saying their cause wasn't legitimate -- it has some merit -- but it's only the latest in a long line of protests by a group of people with some grievance. Before that there was the Tea Party protests (a different group with a different grievance) and before that there was the Iraq war protest, etc. etc.... and none of these were a "stand for freedom".

      If you want to see what a stand for freedom looks like, go watch Braveheart.

    8. Re:Overly confrontational headline by Cytotoxic · · Score: 1

      Oh come on! If you leave the city and go straight north for 10 miles, you can still exercise that right in your designated "Free Speech Zone"(tm) :)

      Yeah! Freedom is great!!

      [this post issued from my designated 5'x5' Free Speech Zone in compliance with all applicable laws. $500 permit fee paid in full.]

  26. karl meinel begs to differ by decora · · Score: 1

    and a couple thousand other 'wehrmacht' people who suffered under the German High Command's alliance with hitler and the SS.

  27. the avg grunt wasnt making vortex cannons by decora · · Score: 1

    and the nazi scientific community was controlled and/or infiltrated by the SS, as were most other parts of society, universities, corporations, research labs, radio societies, the youth groups, the judiciary, the hospitals, the churches, etc etc etc

  28. What about Debifrillators pacemakers? by rhalstead · · Score: 1

    It'll be interesting about the time they use one on some one wearing a pacemaker or defibrillator. You can't even go through the X-Ray machine or let them use a wand on you in airports. A lot of younger people do have these devices now days.

  29. How about LPG or petrol vapour by Colin+Smith · · Score: 1

    Seems like it would make a good fireball thrower.

    Or paint aerosol to mark individual protestors.

    --
    Deleted
  30. Democratization of This Technology by Phoenix666 · · Score: 1

    There was a time, perhaps, when only the government had the shiny, new. Super secret facilities in Nevada or Los Alamos chock full of stolen nazi scientists with equipment only defense budgets could afford.

    But now I'm seeing massive computing power at the fingertips of most Americans, and amazing technologies like additive manufacturing on the brink of hitting the mainstream, and I wonder how long it will be before the people, getting hit with LRADs and vortex cannons for voicing their opinions, will turn all of it on the police and the elites they serve, whom they outnumber 10,000 to one.

    These "non-violent" weapons are not based on some crypto science Uncle Sam learned from aliens from the Kla'arg galaxy. They are not made out of solid platinum or unobtainium. The software needed to run them? Crap, there are probably open source packages out there to do so already (soon, also on BSD!).

    Why do they think that people, highly incensed at the injuries to their freedom, won't put all that together and employ it?

    I suspect someone among the elites is clear-eyed enough to see it, but clueless how to prevent it, and they're scared shitless and panicking.

    --
    Do what you can, with what you have, where you are.
  31. tell it to einstein by decora · · Score: 1

    the intelligentsia who were truly intelligent understood what was happening in the 1930s, and they left. or were kicked out. the people doing research on vortex cannons during wwii would not have been 'innocent bystanders', they were more like von braun , scientists who did not care about the social implications of their work or their relationship with mass murderers.

    1. Re:tell it to einstein by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      the intelligentsia who were truly intelligent understood what was happening in the 1930s, and they left. or were kicked out.

      You do realize that leaving one's country to settle elsewhere is not as easy as just boarding a ship? There are all those nasty things like visas and whatnot. Einstein could do as he did because he was a prominent figure, so he was rather welcome. But when large numbers of Jews who were not prominent wanted to leave the Reich, the only country that let them come in sufficient numbers was Dominican Republic.

    2. Re:tell it to einstein by dryeo · · Score: 1

      Sadly the refusal of most nations to take in the Jewish refugees was one of the reasons Hitler decided on the final solution as he thought other countries would support him. He started out just wanting them out of Germany and even considered shipping them all to Madagascar at one point.

      --
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
  32. idiocy happens to coincide with the evidence by decora · · Score: 1

    of which there are several tons at the US holocaust museum. the situation is not as simple as you make it sound.

  33. they were using American computers by decora · · Score: 1

    IBM, actually, but lets not nitpick ... this is slashdot after all

  34. But can it hold plasma? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    In the spirit of the all things capable of playing Crysis, I ask this. Just think of the short range lighting gun, or core dumps of a fictitious fusion reactor build as a chamber of a weapon.

  35. Re:Go Ahead. It won't make any difference. by ducomputergeek · · Score: 2, Interesting

    The only reason it didn't work for Ghaddafi this time was the fact that Europe wanted to shop it's fighter planes for export markets against the US F-35. A lot of countries will be replacing F-16's in the next 15 years and this was the perfect place to showcase the Typhoon and Rafael so they could earn their "proven in combat" badge to potential buyers. Now they can go to countries and say their planes are "combat proven now" while the F-35 is still in testing.

    It worked for Iran in 2008. It's going to work now for Syria unless there is a similar international movement to arm the Syrian resistance and provide air support.

    --
    "The problem with socialism is eventually you run out of other people's money" - Thatcher.
  36. Smoke rings by Culture20 · · Score: 1

    Just wait until they challenge Gandalf. He cheats with magic.

  37. In the Soviet US ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    those who oppose the Party line get what they deserve.

  38. SRL: Weird Weapons of WWII by __aapopf3474 · · Score: 1

    Here's video of a similar device: SRL: Weird Weapons of WWII from History Channel's Weird Weapons of WWII featuring Survival Research Laboratories' (SRL's) demonstrating the "shockwave cannon.' "

  39. Vortex canons? by reboot246 · · Score: 1

    Wow! The Catholic church is getting very high-tech!
    Ecclesiastical rules coming straight at you in a vortex.
    Duck, sinners, duck!!

    1. Re:Vortex canons? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, we're preparing to use it for the pope's Easter mass. Just atomize the holy water and he's good to go for 80% of the congregation of St. Peters. The initial tests are promising. And hopefully, by the end of lent, we'll be able to prevent the flying nun issue.

      - Sergio Marconi, Jr. Acolytical Assistant to Benny the 16th

  40. Re:Go Ahead. It won't make any difference. by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

    Ghaddafi used anti-aircraft ammunition on human bodies. That tidied up the whole street in jig time. But where is he now?

    The catch it, it took a considerable radical resistance movement - not peaceful protesters, but determined Islamists - to bring him down. And even then they were being steadily pushed back until UN intervened and started bombing Gaddafi's armor and shooting down his plains.

  41. Re:First post by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    It will be an invitation to retaliate with modern DIY weapons like EMP cannons, sneezing and itching powder mortars and good old fashioned stink bombs, R/C battlebots and superglue in aerosol cans.
    Gotta love riots.

  42. wonderful idea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Occupy This!"...KAPOW! Gotta love it!

  43. Not unlike... by Rademir · · Score: 1

    ... the warp drive recently mentioned.

    --
    ourpla.net is your planet
  44. Yeah, they do say it for nothing. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If you look at the demographics of the OWS crowd, what you'll find is most are students, employed or retired. Only a very small percentage lack employment.

  45. Nothing new under the sun. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Anybody who thinks that all this represents a new wave of police brutality that will lead to the coming downfall of democracy is white and has never read the history of the civil rights movement. Or of the labor movement for that matter.

    If anything, the modern use of pepper spray and tasers is something of an improvement over releasing the dogs and wading in with truncheons. People used to die for their peaceful protests. It's still wrong, but democracy has survived worse. No need for chicken little.

  46. Old Skool by qengho · · Score: 1

    Pffft. I had one of those when I was a kid.

    1. Re:Old Skool by esldude · · Score: 1

      I do believe that was a young Kurt Russell in that commercial. We know how he ended up. Snake Plissken, or that guy in 'Soldier' or the guy in Stargate or even (maybe worst of all) an Elvis Impersonator in "3000 miles to Graceland"

  47. Democracy? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You live in a country that gives you the right to vote for the person/party whose lobbyists will write the laws. Senators and Representatives no longer write laws. Their staff takes what is handed to them by lobbyists and cleans the wording up to make it acceptable. Your freedom has been replaced by an illusion of freedom.

  48. Does the federal government not regulate .... by Gimbal · · Score: 1

    Does the federal government not regulate local PD's measures in crowd control?

    I'm afraid we're about to turn some bad corners in development of such measures, nationally, and I don't know if we'll be able to turn back from those.

    The assaults on the Occupy protesters in Oakland - to speak only of one recent incident in Police abuse - it sets a bad precedent. The development of even more aggressive crowd control measures, if it would not be regulated, may lead to even further abuses - not a thing we should allow, as a democratic people, though I'm certainly not one to propose any rash responses to which.

    1. Re:Does the federal government not regulate .... by cstacy · · Score: 1

      Does the federal government not regulate local PD's measures in crowd control?

      What country are you from?

    2. Re:Does the federal government not regulate .... by Gimbal · · Score: 1

      Liliput. Have a nice day, and thank you for that aggressive question.

  49. Well said, though I wonder by Gimbal · · Score: 1

    I can respect that there's a distinction between the Nazi Party as a political movement and the German Military as a governmentally operated military body. Speculatively, though - and this could only be in speculation, I suppose, so, speaking only hypothetically - I wonder how easy it may be for a nation's military to not become wholly engrossed with an authoritarian agenda of the nation the military serves? ..speaking only hypothetically, as it were ;} I mean, cough nothing about Neocon ideology cough cough...

  50. Re:GET EM!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Do you even know what a scab is?

    Words have meanings, DUMBASS.

  51. Re:GET EM!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Words have meanings, DUMBASS

    For example, a dumbass is a bass with a particularly carefree attitude towards being fished. It's humming can sometimes be heard through the bottoms of fishing boats.

  52. Wham-O was there first by esldude · · Score: 1

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fxZu_Y_m8i4 I have, actually still have, one of these. Worked with a tight vortex at least over room distances. Didn't put pepper spray in mine though. In college worked on a larger version. Larger volume blast of air and more air over greater distances. Not too hard to scale up and optimize for pepper spray use. Probably not too bad a non-lethal weapon. All things considered maybe safer than tear gas grenades normally used. Less chance of injury, no fire hazard etc.

  53. Einstein was Jewish by makomk · · Score: 1

    Einstein was Jewish and therefore had more reason than most to be aware of the Nazis and to get out. Even then I don't think that the Jewish intelligentsia in general took the Nazi party seriously enough or left in time, for various reasons.

  54. that's not free speech by khipu · · Score: 1

    Sorry, but free speech and right of assembly does not give you the right to stage peaceful protests wherever you want. You do not have a right to protest on my private property, and you do not have a right to protest in a way that gets in the way of other people, like blocking public roads or places. If you do, police can remove you, if necessary by force.

  55. Contact the company by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why not contact the company developing this device with comments and concerns? Their website is www.battelle.org. Their phone numbers are listed on the home page as 1-800-201-2011 and 1-614-424-5853.

  56. Ah I've heard this NOT by 3seas · · Score: 1

    Anti-first amendment weapon.

  57. Minority Report by CosaNostra+Pizza+Inc · · Score: 1

    I'm surprised there was no reference to the movie "Minority Report" in the original post.

  58. Southern American Accent by Dareth · · Score: 1

    "Amusingly, if you're American you probably also think you have no accent. "

    Now why y'all think I don't know I have an accent? I once had a theater teacher from up North have me read from Tom Sawyer. She said, "No need to put on so much accent." I replied, "Pardon me ma'am but I grew up on the Mississippi River. That is not a put on accent."

    --

    I only look human.
    My mother is a halfling and my dad is an ogre, so that makes me an Ogreling