Barack Obama is fortunate that these demonstration repression technologies did not exist during the time of Martin Luther King, because who knows if the civil rights movement would ever have succeeded if they did.
Were lucky? I guarantee you they would much rather have had to deal with sound cannons than the batons, dogs, and fire hoses that they did have to deal with.
don't think so, batons/dogs/hoses put their struggle into a visual perspective, you see a cop whaling on someone you'll start asking if the reason they are doing it is justified.
You see someone running away from a sound cannon, you just shrug it off since you aren't experiencing it yourself
The fact that Sachin's response was understandable is ample evidence that this post is toxic to HN.
A post about how sound cannons work? Edgy for HN, but fair game. But a post about sound cannons used at a G20 protest written up in The Guardian and routed by way of Slashdot?
What's happening in this thread is a perfect example of When Bad Posts Happen To Good HN Members. _FLAGGED_.
I think in general it helps to be more polite in general, especially in forums or discussion boards.
At least the respondant was good enough to quote a source.
However, in my view as the civil rights protesters were 1 arguing for a greater (or at least closer to home) cause, 2 were set upon by dogs and 3 weren't going around breaking windows, the OP can quite rightly be called stupid for not looking into the facts a bit more rather than just mouthing off.
"You wouldn't dare say that in person" isn't much of an argument. There's no shortage of uncomfortable truths I don't trust Joe Average to take rationally.
You know what? You're right. I would probably have also used profanity in person. If I were feeling frisky, I absolutely would have taken a swing.
If you are an adult and you don't know about the lynchings, fire hoses, attack dogs, and other atrocities during the civil rights movement in the States, and you make an off-hand comment about Dr. King, you deserve less than my contempt.
Why do you assume he didn't know about these things? All he said was that with all these additional high-tech weapons at the disposal of police, it would have been that much harder.
For example, pictures of protesters being attacked by dogs and firehoses, when published in the north, did a lot to increase support for the civil rights movement. The insidious thing about a lot of the newer anti-protest weapons is that they are designed to produce boring photographs.
This was the most interesting thing about the "Don't tase me, bro" incident - tasers and clubs are roughly equivalent, yet a picture of someone being tasered isn't nearly as provocative as a picture of someone being beaten with nightstick. Indeed, it's hard to imagine that police would have bludgeoned that kid, but they were perfectly willing to taser him.
Thus, weapons like tasers and sound cannons increase the number of situations in which police are willing to use dangerous-though-not-usually-lethal force. Using them to quell protests is only one area where this is true, though it's probably the most notable.
Demonstrations like Rosa Parks on the bus and the Woolworth's sit-ins wouldn't have been affected. Fewer shocking pictures in the paper might have slowed down the movement but I don't think by much.
Honestly, that would be worse. To knowingly say that a non-lethal instrument like a sound cannon is morally equivalent to dogs, hoses, and god-knows-what-else is crazy. (And I read the OP as saying sound cannons would be worse, and I don't even know how to begin to express my emotions to that.)
Look, you can have your issues with the police's response to a small group of protesters in Pittsburgh, but you know what the nice thing is about boring photographs? No one there is bleeding to death. No one has been singled out for humiliation and treated as less than human based on the color of their skin.
Thank you. What I wrote was, in fact, what I meant.
It's precisely the success of the civil rights movement and other popular movements that have prompted the development of weapons intended to disperse demonstrations that don't create martyrs or inflame people who aren't actually present at the demonstration.
Nobody but you has claimed they're "morally equivalent". These are on the market because they're thought to be more effective (even if only because they can be used indiscriminately). If that's true we should all be glad the little Eichmanns of the 1960s didn't have them to set back civil rights even farther.
That is a bit of an overreaction to an innocent comment. He made a valid point (better non-lethal crowd control could have stopped the civil rights movement) and you chose to take it a wrong way.
What is worse is that the Civil Rights movement happened quite a while ago. I doubt that you were personally involved. This is like someone getting frisky about the Second World War or the Vietnam War. What is the point?
> If I were feeling frisky, I absolutely would have taken a swing.
One problem with hitting people for what they say is that each instance of it contributes to a social norm of hitting people for what they say. Maybe you only hit people justifiably, but those who see you do it, and who are hit by you, might have worse judgment than you.
This is also a problem with incivility. Maybe you are a sufficiently good judge of character and intelligence that you single out idiots with perfect accuracy. But others who see your words, and especially those whom you call idiots, might have worse judgment than you, and they'll replicate your actions. This leads to a world where people are rude to each other rather than having level-headed arguments. So I don't think you should call someone an idiot, even when you're confident that they're an idiot. It has indirect harmful effects.
I live in Pittsburgh, about a mile from the University of Pittsburgh. I have an enormous amount of anger towards the police and the university administration. The danger was created by the police and the university administration bears responsibility for the failure to close the university and adequately warn students about the dangerous police action. There's a reason they call them less-lethal munitions.
However, I have no anger with regards to the use of the LRAD device. It's obviously a slippery slope (a greased volume control?), but it was used with the volume all of the way down. The LRAD is safer and more effective than OC gas, police batons, and rubber bullets. Unfortunately, on Thursday and Friday nights, they stuck to the OC gas, batons, bullets, and lots of flex-cuffs.
I would be happy to answer specific questions about the G20 police action in Pittsburgh. You can also see my comments on New Mogul. Also see my comments on New Mogul. http://www.newmogul.com/threads?id=rms
"Officials of the company that manufactures the sound cannon say that ear damage is only possible if someone manages to stand directly in front of the device for an extended period."
So in other words they are trying to say if the protester gets hurt it's their own fault not ours. That just seems wrong.
That's an obvious lie, you suffer permanent hearing damage every time you go to a rock concert without earplugs. I would strongly recommend fans of live music invest in a pair of these. http://www.etymotic.com/ephp/er20.aspx
I assume the reasoning goes: if you want to stand around, you need to have a permit to do so... and you are free to apply for a permit, so there's your freedom to peaceably assemble.
Here's what the Pittsburgh Police have to say about it:
II.k. First Amendment Activity. “First Amendment Activity” includes all expressive and associative activity that is protected by the United States and Pennsylvania Constitutions, including speech, press, assembly, and/or the right to petition. For purposes of Chapter 471 and these Regulations, commercial advertising that is regulated by the Zoning Ordinance or elsewhere in the City Code is excluded from this definition.
II.p. Public Assembly. “Public Assembly” means a group activity including but not limited to a demonstration, march, meeting, parade, protest, rally, or vigil which involves the expression of opinions or grievances of persons for a common purpose as a result of prior planning and which interferes or has a tendency to interfere with the normal flow or regulation of pedestrian or vehicular traffic upon the streets, parks, sidewalks, or other public grounds within the City or does not comply with normal and usual traffic, regulations or controls; or which occupies any public area open to the general public to the exclusion of others.
So it seems like the kids standing around in the video would not have been breaking the law if:
1) they were organized
2) someone applied 14 days in advance
3) they paid $125 for the application
But wait! On page 22, Exhibit A-3 provides examples:
"First amendment activity that does not constitute a Special Event (e.g. does not block a sidewalk or close down a street). Example: Sidewalk protest in front of the County Courthouse; Leafleting or gathering petition signatures on Grant Street. Permit Required? No. Fee Required? No."
So, perhaps if those kids were standing on the grass instead of the sidewalk? In that case, they wouldn't even need a permit. i.e. they wouldn't need permission... i.e. they would be _free_ to assemble...
...and in fact, they would be free to assemble even if they were on a sidewalk, according to Exhibit A-3.
So I'm confused here. In the video I linked, did they require permission to stand around like that? Were they breaking any laws at all? Would it have somehow been _more_ legal if they were organized, and had applied for a permit?
Essentially, the question is: how could they have continued to stand around without the police shooting them with the sound cannon?
EDIT: ...and another question: is it really freedom if you need permission? For example, you never need to ask permission to say something, irrespective of there potentially being consequences for certain kinds of speech (e.g. slander, which might land you in court).
If your freedom to assemble is contingent upon anything (e.g. permission, which isn't guaranteed) then it's not really "free as in libre," is it? ...and if your freedom to assemble is contingent upon an application fee, then it's not "free as in gratis" either. So is it free at all?
pretty much you can peacefully assemble as long as noone causes trouble, the second someone starts shit, you lose your right.
i.e. this whole thing started because a couple of anarchists lit a garbage can on fire and rolled it towards the cops. At that point the cops pretty much got open season to do whatever they could to everyone around. So a peaceful protest of thousands of people can get disbanded because of a few assholes. Which would make it obvious that getting a few provocateurs is the best way to disband any protest you don't agree with.
The "agent provocateurs" got a whole thread on the slashdot link - it's a tactic that has been used more and more frequently, it seems. I was one of the bloggers who identified the agents in the Quebec SPP protest (look up "put the rock down man") - in that case, the ONLY violent actors were undercover police officers. It ended up being pretty funny, in a gut wrenching sort of way, with the protesters actually pacifying the police.
...but in the CMU TV video, there were no "anarchists." There were no burning trash cans. That was a different part of town, on a different night.
Well - and I'm not implying that you necessarily subscribe to that justification, but - I don't buy it.
There are already laws that grant the authority to shut down a town if it erupts into riots. I can't cite those laws, but I bet the LA riots or Hurricane Katrina would be cases where they were used.
In this specific case, the action in Oakland, on the campus of the University of Pittsburgh, on Thursday and then repeated almost exactly on Friday night, unfolded because Schenley Plaza officially closes at 11PM. I have never heard of this before and the Plaza certainly sees use after 11PM on a weekend night.
The protestors/students/bystanders were forced away from Schenley Plaza at 11PM, pushed deeper on campus. This led to an actual assault on the dorms of the University of Pittsburgh. See this note about a poor, brave student arrested for trying to keep her comrades safe from the police. http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=847898
yeah but those are full out riots. Here we have a few people acting out and the police using that as a justification to crack down on peaceful bystanders.
