
56 Bills Have Been Introduced in 30 States to Restrict Protests - mcone
https://www.thenation.com/article/photos-since-standing-rock-56-bills-have-been-introduced-in-30-states-to-restrict-protests/
======
prepend
“when Humvees with snipers on their roofs rolled into camp, a helicopter
buzzing above them.”

“Officers wearing military fatigues walked through the camp with assault
rifles and knives, ”

There were helicopters, but no snipers. Those were officers with machine guns
on the Humber. And those aren’t assualt rifles but rather machine guns.
Actually more powerful than assault rifles that are only semi-automatic.

So the author both over inflated and under inflated their description of the
response. Which was way more overpowered than required for the eviction.

~~~
hentrep
Just to clarify, assault rifles are select fire and NOT purely semi-automatic.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault_rifle](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault_rifle)

------
crankylinuxuser
Here in Bloomington, IN, we are dealing with militarization of our own police
department.

The story: 2015, Chief of Police and Mayor went in private talks about armored
vehicle. Over course of time, decided on a Lenco BearCat
([https://www.militarytimes.com/flashpoints/2017/09/10/us-
back...](https://www.militarytimes.com/flashpoints/2017/09/10/us-backed-
kurdish-fighters-get-lenco-bearcat-armored-vehicles/)) . Everything was hidden
from public view. No discussion was made or attempted. 2 week ago in our
newspaper, announced the purchase of it.

After that announcement, the Police department scrambled for a Tuesday @ Noon
for an "informational meeting". Chief had no information about it, options
purchased, considerations of other non-military vehicles - nothing.

This Thursday @ 7p was the State of the City address. BLM organized and
started actively protesting _after_ the Mayor made remarks that this is
happening and meetings can be made to explain how it's used. Protest then
commenced causing the State of the City to be forcefully cancelled.

[https://www.reddit.com/r/bloomington/comments/7xvie2/bloomin...](https://www.reddit.com/r/bloomington/comments/7xvie2/bloomington_state_of_the_city_meeting_forced_to/)

[https://indianapublicmedia.org/news/protesters-shut-
hamilton...](https://indianapublicmedia.org/news/protesters-shut-hamiltons-
state-city-address-141151/)

Edit: We all can talk about Standing Rock, which is a national disgrace. But
the militarization of police is a front that's happening everywhere, including
little towns in flyover parts of the country, and at liberal college campuses.
This is our effort of trying to stem this tide - and so far the fruitlessness
of trying so.

------
username223
You're not living in a developed country when the police are dressed like
this: [https://www.thenation.com/wp-
content/uploads/2018/02/TW_Feed...](https://www.thenation.com/wp-
content/uploads/2018/02/TW_Feed-The-Flame-1_LEAD-IMAGE_WEB.jpg)

I expect combat-ready troops in places where "laws" only matter as much as the
guns behind them, but I expect the US to be better than this. "SHERIFF?" A
sheriff is "an elected officer in a county who is responsible for keeping the
peace." I see no peace being kept here.

~~~
ComputerGuru
Yes, I was also severely disturbed by that photo. There are _really_ good and
important reasons for the separation of military and police, and the blurring
of that line over the past two decades is going to have massive ramifications
that I don’t think American society fully appreciates.

As an aside, I have severe qualms about the article (see my other comment) but
that doesn’t mean there isn’t truth in that photo, nor does it mean that
someone highlighting that such as yourself should be downvoted.

~~~
noir_lord
A problem with having your police look like a miltary occupation force is that
people who oppose the police (for political and other reasons) will treat them
like that.

That and it separates them from the community they are supposed to serve,
that's why I hate it when I see police call members of the public civilians,
_police_ are civilians.

Robert Peel understood this nearly 200 years ago.

------
ComputerGuru
It’s an inflammatory title and it’s clearly purposely blown out of context.
I’m not familiar with the site, but it looks to be pushing an agenda very
hard, which is a shame since it appears that the article has a lot of
potential otherwise.

Apparently bills in a dozen states that protect drivers who unintentionally
(only that word is in scare quotes) hit protesters count as laws restricting
protests. Other laws counted include laws for tampering with power equipment
and laws that merely raised the fines for trespassing on restricted grounds.

~~~
jessaustin
It's one thing to protest knowing you could be arrested. It's quite another to
know that you could be killed by a giant machine, and its operator could be
"protected" from the consequences of that negligence. Of course that is to be
expected in USA, since drivers are constantly so protected, unless they are
poor.

~~~
dominotw
> constantly so protected

huh? Can you cite some examples where drivers are protected where they
wouldn't be if it was not for USA( or not poor).

~~~
JonnyNova
I can't find the source right now, but drivers have been privileged versus
pedestrians since around 1900 when vehicles were given the right of way
instead of the pedestrian who had it before. Legislation was also introduced
to change committing homicide with a vehicle to be vehicular manslaughter to
reduce the severity of the penalty to increase adoption of automobiles.

~~~
dominotw
> Legislation was also introduced to change committing homicide with a vehicle
> to be vehicular manslaughter to reduce the severity of the penalty to
> increase adoption of automobiles.

And that applies only if you are not poor?

Also that seems wrong ( see United states vs other countries)
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vehicular_homicide](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vehicular_homicide)

~~~
bdamm
The poor can't afford good lawyers. Much is then left to the district
prosecutor to file correct charges - a practice with a long history of abuse.

~~~
dominotw
> The poor can't afford good lawyers.

No one is disputing that well known fact.

I am asking why this applied to "because USA". Do other countries not let rich
people choose better lawyers?

------
LorenPechtel
And there's something wrong with laws that make tampering with the equipment a
serious crime??? Protest, fine, but don't mess with the equipment, especially
since the people messing with it are unlikely to know how to do it safely.

------
pishpash
The façade is coming down. It took less than expected to prove the thesis that
an open society would ever only be tolerated when everybody already agreed
with each other.

------
marcoperaza
In this case, there was a significant possibility of danger to the
authorities. The protesters refused to leave voluntarily, so force had to be
used. They had no way of knowing what kind of resistance they could expect, or
if there were armed elements among the resistors. If you defy the lawful
authority of the state, don’t complain when the state has to resort to brute
force. It must be that way if we are to have the rule of law. And don’t be
surprised when they choose overwhelming force over putting themselves at risk.

There is a right to protest, not to obstruct the lawful functioning of
society. We’ve had plenty of debate, we’ve had elections, we legally decided
to build this pipeline. If you want to protest, find another place, one that
doesn’t physically block other people from doing what they are legally
entitled to do.

~~~
maxerickson
In the first picture you can see the one guy reaching for a feather.

I think in the case of the US doing something against the wishes of a tribe of
Native Americans, high minded arguments about legal authorities discard a
little too much history.

