jump to last post 1-4 of 4 discussions (48 posts)

What's Excessive Force in Crowd Control?

  1. ptosis profile image78
    ptosisposted 2 weeks ago

    Long Range Acoustic Device (LRAD) 500X-RE can be heard 2 miles / 2,000 meters away. At 149 decibels the blasts is not only well past the 120-decibel discomfort mark but also above the 130-decibel threshold for potential hearing loss.

    And before you blast me with troll bias about how it is not used in peaceful demonstrations or some lackluster response of "I would not be the type of person who would not be found in such a situation", can we please just talk about the hearing loss? That is what I'm talking about.

    Hearing Loss Hearing Loss Hearing Loss Hearing Loss Hearing Loss Hearing Loss


    And it's not just the LRAD, how about that 90dB piercing sound on a kneeling bus? I know it's for the blind but do we all have to be deaf? It hurts. It hurts my ears.

    LRAD what ifs:

    a baby unable to cover it's ears is exposed
    a armless person unable to cover their ears
    A person incapacitated and is unable to leave the area.
    Any human being, young or old that gets hearing loss due to the LRAD.

    I just think it's wrong to use something that can cause disabling permanent hearing loss for something like 'crowd control''. It is not a directed thing like sniper fire. There are times when the police have to use force, and sometimes it goes too far.

    I just want to start a discussion on how the LRAD could cause permanent hearing loss seems to be an invitation to an excessive-force lawsuit - or class action  lawsuit - something taxpayers will have to pay it,  (not the Law enforcement officers themselves)

    From: The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette:

        The complaint said that the city violated Ms. Piper's rights to free speech and assembly by using the LRAD on her and other protesters. It also said the city was negligent by using "piercing, continuous, high-pitched sound . . . rather than short, intermittent blasts for a few seconds at a time that would have minimized the risk of bodily harm."


    http://usercontent2.hubstatic.com/13284483.jpg

    It even says in the operator manual not to use in tone mode if too close. "MAY CAUSE HEARING DAMAGE"


    http://usercontent1.hubstatic.com/13284484.jpg
    http://usercontent1.hubstatic.com/13284486.jpg
    http://usercontent1.hubstatic.com/13284488_f1024.jpg
    http://usercontent2.hubstatic.com/13284495.png
    http://usercontent1.hubstatic.com/13284496.jpg

  2. Live to Learn profile image81
    Live to Learnposted 2 weeks ago

    I agree with you. If it can cause permanent damage it should not be used unless the crowd is putting innocent people in imminent danger.

    1. wilderness profile image97
      wildernessposted 2 weeks ago in reply to this

      Would you feel the same about a riot in progress?  Attacking police, burning cars, breaking into and destroying businesses? 

      I'm tired to death of letting such actions continue for fear of hurting someone.  The only thing we accomplish is encouraging another episode.  People get hurt in riots, from losing their business/income to their lives, and we just let it happen!

      1. Live to Learn profile image81
        Live to Learnposted 2 weeks ago in reply to this

        She/he said crowd control not riot control. I would think there would be a difference. Are they using this technology on the riots currently going on?

        1. wilderness profile image97
          wildernessposted 2 weeks ago in reply to this

          Isn't a riot a crowd?  And this is the first I've heard of it. 

          I think the OP's quote of some woman complaining it was used on her but wasn't necessary has a lot more to it.  As in incipient riot or other physical disturbance.

          But let me toss this at you: when the cops move in and begin pepper spraying people, handcuffing them and manhandling them, that's often when the riot starts and people get hurt.  Is it better to send them on their way with (possibly) damaged hearing or to wait until someone is seriously injured before using it?

          1. Credence2 profile image86
            Credence2posted 2 weeks ago in reply to this

            But a crowd is not necessarily a riot, and that distinction has to be obseved even more careful in the current environment.

            1. wilderness profile image97
              wildernessposted 2 weeks ago in reply to this

              Well, they don't use water cannons, rubber bullets or even cops arresting people on "crowd control" when no laws are being broken.  So tell me, when is it necessary to "control" a crowd but noise makers should not be used?  And what effective means should be used if not noise?

          2. ptosis profile image78
            ptosisposted 2 weeks ago in reply to this

            That would be an individual  judgement call by the Captain of the police. It would be a different situation if have a sit-in of nursing mothers across the road as opposed to a riot of rampaging violence.

            Two extremes. The hard question is: what is the demarcation line of use?  Shouldn't there be a legal protocol? If this - then that.  I hoping for this discussion to mark out the use of lawful force versus excessive force because in the end the police are here to protect us.  That is part of their job.

            1. wilderness profile image97
              wildernessposted 2 weeks ago in reply to this

              I agree.  I just find that too much of the time we are NOT being protected, for fear of harming rioters intent on stealing and destruction.  Although it does happen, I don't see many police actions using what I would consider force. I DO see them sitting aside, watching, as illegal actions take place.

          3. Live to Learn profile image81
            Live to Learnposted 2 weeks ago in reply to this

            Well, I think this is probably where you and I come to an impasse. I think people have the right to peacefully protest, well beyond the boundaries the law has set. I think that if no property is being damaged and they aren't doing anything which can reasonably cause harm to other individuals they should be able to stand around and chant all day and all night. So, if law enforcement steps in to protect corporate interests by pepper spraying people one can reasonably assume panic will ensue. In that case, who is responsible for the riot?

            1. ptosis profile image78
              ptosisposted 2 weeks ago in reply to this

              I agree. Don't  treat people as the enemy for making noise and blocking traffic, the protesters freedom of expression is not infringing on other people's property rights. Being a driver on the road (other than ambulance / fire / police /utilities) does not give you precedence over pedestrians even if those pedestrians are a nuisance.

              Ramped up methods -at what point does the ramping stop?  Blowback are the consequences of not only excessive police force but overwhelming overkill. Need to have parameters defined before the incident. Protocols before the situation is out of control.

              Police are to keep to peace, that includes not escalating the situation. Basic tactics should be trained whether it's just a single unarmed autistic guy sitting in the middle of the road blocking traffic or a mass peaceful protest. But that is what is NOT done.

              The total opposite is done. Police infiltration of protest for the agitation and promotion of violence to hijack and discredit a political position.

              Just a quick Google:

              Provocateur Cops Caught Disguised As Anarchists At G20; [The officer] was saying ‘we need to take monkey wrenches and [damage construction] machinery,’” he said. “The occupation had a lot of support and he was talking about wrecking machinery, which tactically makes no sense.” (Sgt. Chamberland said officers can break the law, but only with “prior, specific” permission from higher-ups.)

              While most federal laws protecting our constitutional rights apply only to the actions of State actors, there are a few that apply to private citizens as well: 42 U.S. Code § 1985 – Conspiracy to interfere with civil rights

              http://www.dominionpaper.ca/articles/3919
              “It is wrong for a state to use its own security forces, police, provocateurs, undercover agents, to evoke violence. That's not democratic. We have a voice, we had a right to [speak], and we had a right to assemble,”  - Coles

              https://www.aclu.org/blog/speak-freely/ … pirit-camp
              And in the current trial by media,  Morton County Sheriff’s Office has activated the one of the most militant responses ever in North Dakota’s history. “It's highly problematic and is not a proper use of law enforcement resources. … Additionally, the use of militarized armored vehicles, riot gear, and tactics by law enforcement at protests that consist of peaceful prayer and nonviolent direct actions is a blatant misuse of these tools and will likely encourage police to use force against citizens when force is not necessary for the situation.” - Jennifer Cook,

              And that's all I'm saying about the LRAD. Just because it's 'another tool in the toolbox' doesn't mean it should be used. It should never be used other than in a battlefield war situation. Never in a civil protest. And that's all I have to say about that.

              I guess I want super-cops in charge who have professional law enforcement training that is federally standardized. Law enforcement officers' first priority is safety, not diplomacy - so perhaps this is an impossible wish.

              http://usercontent2.hubstatic.com/13284919.png
              http://usercontent1.hubstatic.com/13284920.png

              1. wilderness profile image97
                wildernessposted 2 weeks ago in reply to this

                "Being a driver on the road (other than ambulance / fire / police /utilities) does not give you precedence over pedestrians even if those pedestrians are a nuisance."

                Really?  Every town in the country has laws against jaywalking. 

                "Need to have parameters defined before the incident."

                Isn't the parameter that when the illegal activity stops, the ramping up stops? 

                "Basic tactics should be trained whether it's just a single unarmed autistic guy sitting in the middle of the road blocking traffic or a mass peaceful protest. But that is what is NOT done. "

                Oh, come on.  I've never seen 20 cops in riot gear and shields descent on a single unarmed autistic guy sitting in the middle of the road.  There may be 3 or 4 of them, trying to make sure the guy isn't hurt when removed, but that's about all.

                I like your quote by Coles, that cops may not take actions designed to evoke violence.  Of course, the claim is always made that enforcing the law is what evokes the violence, but that is false.  The rioters did it all on their own, without anyone forcing them.  100% their choice, and no action by cops "evoked" anything.  This idea of sitting back and watching the destruction so as not to "escalate" anything is BS.

                The one by Cook, on the other hand is absolute nonsense, for there is no "peaceful" protest at all. 

                If we are not willing to use non-lethal methods, what's left for cops outnumbered 1000 to 1?  Let the mob do whatever they want? Forget the law in favor of anarchy?  It's fine to say we should never use force, but until effective alternative options are offered that prevents harm to innocent people or property that concept isn't worth much.

                I agree that a cop's first obligation is safety...of people innocent of wrongdoing.  Not of those engaged in criminal activity.  They are not diplomats or negotiators, and we must stop requiring them to be.  When a crime is being committed, whether against people or property, stop the crime!  And that doesn't mean asking the criminal to pretty please with sugar on it stop burning the city.

                1. ptosis profile image78
                  ptosisposted 2 weeks ago in reply to this

                  what is the definition of crime? If a million people of are the same opinion and one lone person disagrees - should we kill that one person?

                  I'm still thinking about the DAPL here. Because it was considered  Eminent domain  - taking private property without recourse to the courts even though it was a for-profit private company-then what other recourse do they have?

                  Take away people's recourse via the courts leaves no other option.

                  http://www.acton.org/pub/commentary/200 … ent-domain

                  the Maricopa County Superior Court of Arizona ruled against Randy Bailey, who was fighting against the city of Mesa’s use of its power of eminent domain to take his family-owned brake shop in 2002 and replace it with a commercial hardware store. [5] In his decision, Judge Robert Myers said that the city of Mesa was justified in taking Bailey’s land because the city’s redevelopment plan called for improving its image and making it more economically and socially attractive. Furthermore, the judge calls for “putting land to its highest and best use to maximize its retail potential.” Judge Myers was way off base. These eminent domain cases are inconsistent with a principled view of land use, because they reduce the value of community to aesthetics, the value of land to fiduciary potential, and the value of human freedom to the coercive power of political influence.

                  1. wilderness profile image97
                    wildernessposted 2 weeks ago in reply to this

                    You are correct: if there is no legal recourse to simple capitulation then there is no recourse.  The matter is ended there, and neither murder or any other illegal activity is warranted.  The desires of the "injured" do NOT give the right to criminal activities no matter how strongly they feel.

                    I hear you on the matter of eminent domain.  I've seen examples that are abuse, plain and simple.   Examples I could never agree qualified for the taking of the land.  But that's why we have courts and judges: because no individual is above the law and those courts decide what the law is.  My opinion is worthless, and so is that of the victim.  And that is the way it must be if we are to have laws at all - mob rule must never, ever take the place of courts regardless of their feelings. 

                    Unless, of course, the overthrow of the government is the goal...

                2. ptosis profile image78
                  ptosisposted 2 weeks ago in reply to this


                  "Every town in the country has laws against jaywalking."
                  And every state driver's handbook states to treat pedestrians  like 5-year-olds - even if the driver has the right of way. BTW, In Honolulu  in  2008  in a city of less than 700,000 peope there were 17 pedestrian deaths: half of them were  in a marked cross walk with the white man showing.  And not a single citation was given.  So don't get me going on jaywalking. Please. Every time somebody died, the newspaper would blame the dead victim for "going to slow". One time a 75 year old was accused of 'going to fast' ACTUAL WORDS: saidthe dead man 'scampered' on a marked crosswalk.

                  Honolulu #1 pedestrian deaths in country for those over 75.  I became a militant pedestrian then. I beat 7 'jaywalking' tickets due to the fact the police was false ticketing for tax revenue enhancement. 

                  Oh, come on.  I've never seen 20 cops in riot gear and shields descent on a single unarmed autistic guy sitting in the middle of the road.  There may be 3 or 4 of them, trying to make sure the guy isn't hurt when removed, but that's about all.

                  How many in a SWAT team typically?

                  I was referring to this : http://www.cbsnews.com/news/police-in-f … he-street/

                  Charles Kinsey told the officers he and the autistic patient were not armed, and asked them not to shoot them. Miami-Dade Police Benevolent Association said the officer was a member of the SWAT team.

                  The excuse was "The police shooting of an African-American caregiver, who was lying in the street trying to help an autism patient, was accidental, according to the local police union representing the North Miami officer. The officer had intended to shoot the patient, whom he thought posed a danger, "

                  That piss-poor shooting or a piss-poor excuse. What do you think?

                  what's left for cops outnumbered 1000 to 1?  Let the mob do whatever they want? Forget the law in favor of anarchy?

                  Rather have peaceful anarchy than a massacre.
                  http://www.markedbyteachers.com/as-and- … chism.html
                  "SO, WHAT'S WRONG WITH ANARCHISM? Anarchy: chaos, confusion, disorder, lawlessness, rebellion, riot1. This is how the dictionary explains anarchism and without a doubt this is how most people understand it to be. However they forget that the ideology itself stands for peace, equality and the idea of a stateless society."

                  Isn't Heaven anarchy? Where everybody self-abides and live in peace forever without Police Enforcement?  Police are a necessary evil  on Earth. No police in Heaven not because cops are evil - they have all have been retired.

                  Hobo's Lullaby
                  Words and Music by Goebel Reeves

                  I know the police cause you trouble
                  They cause trouble everywhere
                  But when you die and go to Heaven
                  You'll find no policemen there

                  http://usercontent2.hubstatic.com/13286679.jpg

                  1. wilderness profile image97
                    wildernessposted 2 weeks ago in reply to this

                    "Rather have peaceful anarchy than a massacre."

                    We disagree here, for you forget that anarchy will result in many more deaths.

                    "However they forget that the ideology itself stands for peace, equality and the idea of a stateless society."

                    Anarchy stands for rule by the strong - it is not possible to equate that with peace and equality. 

                    "Isn't Heaven anarchy? Where everybody self-abides and live in peace forever without Police Enforcement?"

                    Heaven is a pipe dream, just as is peaceful anarchy.  To even think that because heaven has no cops, while the biggest, baddest, most genocidal cop ever presides over it, doesn't make sense even if you could know there are no cops there.

                    The bottom line is that you wish anarchy rather than laws, while pretending that anarchy works just fine for the weak and defenseless.  It doesn't.

            2. wilderness profile image97
              wildernessposted 2 weeks ago in reply to this

              OK - they are performing illegal acts.  Now, how do you decide what's OK and what's not if not by the law?  Who gets to decide that it's OK to block entrance to a store, stop traffic on freeways, trespass, etc.?  The law says it's illegal, but sounds like you're saying that it's OK - if so why have a law at all?  Doesn't that reject the notion of being a nation of laws rather than anarchy?

              As far as "protecting corporate interests" with pepper spray, can you give an example of where that is done when no laws were being broken?  It IS the cops job, after all, to enforce the laws, by pepper spray if necessary.

              1. Live to Learn profile image81
                Live to Learnposted 2 weeks ago in reply to this

                I suppose we could go item by item to determine what you think I'd accept but it would depend on the circumstances, the size of the protest, etc.

                There are times when protest is not only warranted but demanded.

                1. wilderness profile image97
                  wildernessposted 2 weeks ago in reply to this

                  Just so.  It would be an impossible job to do that.  So we have written laws that we expect everyone to live by.  Not to pick and choose which ones we like, or the circumstances we personally think a law should be followed and when it should not.  No, we either accept that laws are to be followed by everyone, all the time, or that there are NO laws that need to be followed.  Realize that there will always be someone, somewhere, that thinks a law should be broken, and there opinion is just as important as yours or mine.

                  1. Live to Learn profile image81
                    Live to Learnposted 2 weeks ago in reply to this

                    I agree that their opinions are just as important and, inasmuch as they are, if they feel strongly enough on an issue to assemble in protest I believe they have that right without being intimidated by excessive force in response.

      2. ptosis profile image78
        ptosisposted 2 weeks ago in reply to this

        Have no problem with tear gas, water cannons, but normally nobody would taze an infant for fear of being sued. This is a new technology and should be examined and proper training should be mandatory. What is the worth of a broken glass compared to being maimed for life? Unable to get a job that requires hearing well?

        Please limit the discussion to the general principle of using LRAD without bringing in a particular current situation that merely hijacks the meaning of the thread.

        1. wilderness profile image97
          wildernessposted 2 weeks ago in reply to this

          What training is used before they can operate the sonic thingie?

          "What is the worth of a broken glass compared to being maimed for life?"

          If it encourages a riot, with people getting hurt, buildings and cars burned, businesses (and incomes) destroyed, quite a bit.  But then I can't see it being used solely because someone broke a window...

  3. colorfulone profile image89
    colorfuloneposted 2 weeks ago

    The police used a Long Range Acoustic Device on the Dakota Access Pipeline peaceful protesters.  I watched it on live streaming.  I don't know if anyone suffered hearing lose because of it.  People said it hurt even with ear plugs. 

    Added: Lawmakers want to make blocking traffic and endangering public safety a felony. Hard to believe it isn't already.

    1. wilderness profile image97
      wildernessposted 2 weeks ago in reply to this

      Not a problem for me. 

      "fires were set on a highway and improvised fire bombs were thrown at law enforcement, the Morton County Sheriff's Department said in a statement."

      "One woman allegedly fired three shots from a revolver at police, an emergency services official said."

      "The protesters were ousted from the camp that authorities said was on private property in the path of the pipeline late Thursday afternoon, Morton County Sheriff Kyle Kirchmeier told the AP."

      "Protesters allegedly started two fires on the Backwater Bridge protest site and threw Molotov cocktails at law enforcement Thursday night, Fong said."

      "Protesters on horseback galloped toward the law enforcement line before wheeling around and some had begun throwing objects at the officers, Fong said. "

      "Demonstrators also allegedly set four DAPL construction vehicles ablaze, Fong said Thursday evening."

      "The protesters also set an area on fire near a bridge on a county road, according to a statement from the sheriff's department."

      "The arrests came during a five-hour conflict with police and around 300 protesters, some of whom stubbornly parked cars on the highway near the camp to block authorities from reaching them <or anyone else from using the road>, according to the AP."

      "Protesters' escalated unlawful behavior this weekend by setting up illegal roadblocks, trespassing onto private property and establishing an encampment, has forced law enforcement to respond at this time,"

      "We cannot have protesters blocking county roads, blocking state highways, or trespassing on private property."

      http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/dakota … mp-n674066

      It's long past time that this "peaceful demonstration" ended.  If it takes a noisemaker, it takes a noisemaker.

      1. ptosis profile image78
        ptosisposted 2 weeks ago in reply to this

        </or>

        Yeah. That was a real box canyon they were in.  Flat land for miles, and miles. Have you ever been to ND?

        1. wilderness profile image97
          wildernessposted 2 weeks ago in reply to this

          Nope!  But I've driven across Kansas several times and it can't be any flatter than that! smile

          But what does that have to do with blocking roads from use by anyone else?  Co-opting the public highway for their personal use only?

          1. ptosis profile image78
            ptosisposted 2 weeks ago in reply to this

            http://blogs.findlaw.com/blotter/

            " Blocking traffic is not legal and is not a new practice for protesters. When protesters block traffic, they are engaging in civil disobedience, a term coined by one of America's earliest freethinkers and intellectuals, Henry David Thoreau.

            While nearly everyone caught in a traffic jam caused by protesters becomes upset due to the delay, it is important to recognize that reporting on traffic conditions is a mainstay of local news stations across the country, while protests often get ignored. Blocking traffic means at very least making the local traffic report."

            https://www.quora.com/Why-are-protester … d-highways

            " ... whether a demonstration can block an intersection, if law-enforcement knows in advance as to the time place and manner of the demonstration, it may permit the intersection to be blocked by the group, but also create a reasonable detour for traffic to go around the blocked intersection. Ideally, there would be a presence of law-enforcement in order to assure that the assembly remains peaceable and to direct traffic around at the intersection to some alternate route so that traffic is not unreasonably hindered by the group's  assembly."


            https://popularresistance.org/in-protes … -highways/
            "Blocking major roads in the United States, however, is much more rare. Most notably, the Selma to Montgomery marches that were pivotal in the Civil Rights movement of the 1960s used U.S. Route 80, a move that was upheld in a ruling by Federal District Court Judge Frank M. Johnson, Jr. His opinion was deeply controversial at the time: “The law is clear that the right to petition one’s government for the redress of grievances may be exercised in large groups,” said the judge, “and these rights may be exercised by marching, even along public highways.”


            http://usercontent1.hubstatic.com/13284624.png
            http://usercontent2.hubstatic.com/13284627.jpg

            1. wilderness profile image97
              wildernessposted 2 weeks ago in reply to this

              So do you think that a sonic gun is a reasonable level of force to prevent indefinite blocking of public highways?  Especially if there IS no reasonable alternative?  And if those roads are being intentionally damaged by the blockade? 

              If not, and considering that asking politely isn't working, what level of force IS both reasonable and effective?

              1. ptosis profile image78
                ptosisposted 2 weeks ago in reply to this

                An escalating  one perhaps, Ramping it up in notches.  Leaving only the hardcore protesters after all the fair weather friends leave. IMHO that is what Obama is doing  - since he is lame duck - just let that ND freezing wind get to them. But what if people start dying from exposure?  It would create Martyrs which would only have the movement grow from fireside supporters safe and comfy in their heated homes.

                Reminds me of the Buddhist who set himself on fire in protest of Vietnam.  Some people will give all. Are we going to accept that as normal?

                Thinking to myself about how through out history how many peaceful people were murdered, Jesus, Ghandi, MLK,   but can't kill an idea.

                http://usercontent1.hubstatic.com/13284646.jpg

                1. wilderness profile image97
                  wildernessposted 2 weeks ago in reply to this

                  I could go for ramping it up in stages...as long as the equipment will do that and as long as those stages are minutes/hours and not long enough to create a defense which then requires bullets to breach.

                  Are we going to accept that as normal? "

                  If that is their wish, it is their choice to make.  But that does NOT mean that it needs affect my thoughts or actions, for being willing to die for a cause does not mean that cause is good.  Witness the jihadist dying for his virgins.

      2. colorfulone profile image89
        colorfuloneposted 2 weeks ago in reply to this

        The things is I didn't see any violence like that on live stream. I saw the barricade on the road and the fire. I'm not fully sure that what officials reported is correct.  I saw two people get shot and a horse, but they were not being violent at the time.  I'm not going to argue, but from the people I know they said they were not violently protesting.  Clearly they were passionately in the wrong legally, but for a noble cause.  Water is life!

    2. ptosis profile image78
      ptosisposted 2 weeks ago in reply to this

      Yup, that was a real city situation there (sarcasm) blocking ambulances and fire trucks (not!) The place is in the middle of nowhere - where they were assigned to after land stolen to be penned up in a reservation. Yup, that sounds totally fair, (not!).

      1. wilderness profile image97
        wildernessposted 2 weeks ago in reply to this

        Sorry, but that private land is not on reservation ground.

      2. colorfulone profile image89
        colorfuloneposted 2 weeks ago in reply to this

        I think you miss-read, and can understand why.  I was talking about the pipeline protesters...I watched that on live stream and know where it was. I had friends there. 

        Then I added about the other bit about what lawmakers want to do. "Lawmakers want to make blocking traffic and endangering public safety a felony."  Sorry if you were confused.

  4. ptosis profile image78
    ptosisposted 12 days ago

    I WAS  WRONG
    I WAS  WRONG
    I WAS  WRONG
    I WAS  WRONG
    I WAS  WRONG

    I assumed the burnt out and blocked road was done by the protesters. Found out that was not the case.

    http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nati … story.html

    Sunday's clashes between authorities and protesters started in the early evening, when some protesters tried to move trucks blocking the Backwater Bridge, saying they were preventing emergency services from accessing the reservation. Authorities say they have left the bridge closed since late October because they are concerned about its structural integrity.

    It seems highly insincere reasoning by the police who are standing on the bridge with armoured weaponry if such a rickety bridge.  The corporate trolls are calculating the blocked bridge will allow the construction to continue. And they are doing it with reckless disregard of human safety and dignity.

    Sophia Wilansky had been hit by a concussion grenade. The Morton County Sheriff's dispatcher said that police only used nonlethal weapons against the protesters. So didn't deny using concussion grenades.

    http://usercontent2.hubstatic.com/13289615.png

    She was handing out water.

    This is what nonlethal looks like:  Doesn't mean noninjury:

    I was WRONG when I assumed the police the serve and protect. I was being naive and living in a fantasy world. I was clearly wrong to think that.

    The police do not neutrally enforce the law because the law itself is not neutral. We live in a world of Hegel , where  is not the the state that serves the people but that the people are a means to and end to serve the state.  (Nationalism)

    http://usercontent1.hubstatic.com/13289642.jpg

    1. wilderness profile image97
      wildernessposted 12 days ago in reply to this

      You need to read a little better.  First, the article does not have a word to say about the protesters blocking the highway, OR that it is shut down for structural reasons (although it might be after the protesters set a fire on it).

      Second, the article states multiple times that no concussion grenades, "flash bangs" were used, while you say there is no such statement.  On the other hand, the protesters that have consistently lied about being peaceful claim they were.  And the cops found propane tanks on the scene.  You make your judgement, and I'll make mine, but what you cannot do is claim the cops never said they didn't use grenades.

      And third, an unfair law may still be enforced neutrally.  It is the cops job to enforce laws, and whether they personally think it is a good or bad law, right or wrong, it is still their job.  You do understand that the police are the enforcement end, not the legislature, judge or jury?

      1. ptosis profile image78
        ptosisposted 11 days ago in reply to this

        @wilderness

        Fact: Bridge is shut down  - perhaps you should be a more widely reader.

        Fact:  Show me a link that says the protesters set the bridge on fire, because you are becoming a fake news source now - making things up to prove your point.

        Fact: Calling protesters liars and police truth-tellers  is propaganda without substance.

        Fact: grenade bits pulled out of arm,

        Fact Check: cops SAID they found propane tanks - well if that was true -- wouldn't the cops have pictures of this to bolster their position?

        Fact: Saying we agree to disagree, means no matter what evidence is shown you -  you have already made up your mind and you are committed to that position forever without change which means there is no point arguing or discussing this with you.

        Your Orwellian doublespeak  begs the question: How can a bad law be enforced neutrally?

        I surmise you are a pipeline construction troll putting out propaganda and fake news as part of your agenda to totally discredit the protesters in any way possible.

        Goodbye and Have a Happy Thanksgiving.


        http://usercontent1.hubstatic.com/13291016.jpg

        1. wilderness profile image97
          wildernessposted 11 days ago in reply to this

          Fact: the only one of these opinions to come from the link you provided is that cops found propane tanks.  Should you wish people to believe them, provide evidence they are true.

          "Your Orwellian doublespeak  begs the question: How can a bad law be enforced neutrally? "

          That's an easy one - enforce the law regardless of who is involved.  That should not be so difficult to understand.

 
working