What's Excessive Force in Crowd Control?

Jump to Last Post 1-4 of 4 discussions (48 posts)

72
ptosisposted 7 years 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."

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

reply report
59
Live to Learnposted 7 years 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.
reply report
1. 89
  wildernessposted 7 years agoin 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!
  reply report
  59
  Live to Learnposted 7 years agoin 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?
  reply report
  89
  wildernessposted 7 years agoin 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?
  reply report
  80
  Credence2posted 7 years agoin 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.
  reply report
  89
  wildernessposted 7 years agoin 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?
  reply report
  72
  ptosisposted 7 years agoin 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.
  reply report
  89
  wildernessposted 7 years agoin 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.
  reply report
  59
  Live to Learnposted 7 years agoin 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?
  reply report
  72
  ptosisposted 7 years agoin 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.
  
  reply report
  89
  wildernessposted 7 years agoin 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.
  reply report
  72
  ptosisposted 7 years agoin 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.
  reply report
  89
  wildernessposted 7 years agoin 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...
  reply report
  72
  ptosisposted 7 years agoin 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
  
  reply report
  89
  wildernessposted 7 years agoin 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.
  reply report
  72
  ptosisposted 7 years agoin reply to this
  True, I was using that as a rhetorical device.
  
  Over the weekend, now using water cannons during 20F temps along with LRAD, concussion grenades and rubber bullets. The police are calling it an "ongoing riot" as their defense for using these tactics but in the video, (link below), I saw people standing around and not any evidence of violent and uncontrolled public behavior
  
  https://youtu.be/qZ0nHQupv3c
  
  https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/mor … g-weather/
  
  Goldtooth told the Tribune that some activists tried to remove the burned-out trucks to expose the heavily armed authorities behind them. “Folks have a right to be on a public road,” Goldtooth said. “It’s absurd that people who’ve been trying to take down the barricade now have their lives at risk.”
  
  The bridge has been closed since October because transportation officials were concerned about its structural integrity. {If that is true then why are the cops equipment and personnel on it?}
  
  http://indiancountrytodaymedianetwork.c … ght-166534
  
  The federal government ordered Energy Transfer Partners and state authorities to stand down during attempts to de-escalate the situation. The federal departments of the Army and Interior also announced that the final easements for tunneling under the Missouri River at Lake Oahe will not be granted until there has been further review.
  
  “The easement to build the unsafe Dakota Access Pipeline has not been granted,” said Standing Rock Sioux Chairman David Archambault II in a statement. “But under the cover of darkness, North Dakota law enforcement continues to engage in unlawful and dehumanizing tactics to subdue peaceful water protectors with tear gas and water cannons.
  
  Indeed, law enforcement’s actions may very well have broken international law, Amnesty USA said in its letter.
  reply report
  89
  wildernessposted 7 years agoin 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.
  reply report
  59
  Live to Learnposted 7 years agoin 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.
  reply report
  89
  wildernessposted 7 years agoin 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.
  reply report
  59
  Live to Learnposted 7 years agoin 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.
  reply report
  89
  wildernessposted 7 years agoin reply to this
  But "excessive" means anything that might break up a riot, doesn't it? Isn't that the point - that people can "demonstrate", and interfere in other peoples lives, whenever,however and wherever they want?
  
  Can people demonstrate police violence by taking over the police station? The jail? Can they demonstrate against high medical costs by shutting down a hospital? A giant sit in at the insurance company headquarters?
  
  When you assign the right to act however one wishes, allowing them to harm others through financial, physical or even time lost, what's left of our laws?
  reply report
  59
  Live to Learnposted 7 years agoin reply to this
  If they choose to take it to those extremes of course it won't be right.
  
  A riot and a protest aren't the same. To me. It sounds as if more than two people gather on the street and start grumbling you'd call it a riot.
  reply report
  89
  wildernessposted 7 years agoin reply to this
  Not at all. But I WILL say that violence isn't limited to physical harm to people. It can include destruction of property (both public and private), it includes theft of money, property and excessive time (having a flat tire in front of a line of cars is not violence).
  
  Which means that when a mob grossly interferes with other people's lives they have crossed the line into violence. When they chain themselves to a tractor, it is violence (stealing both time and money). When they block a public highway they are stealing from the people that own that highway and have a right to use it. When they stop customers from entering a store it is violence.
  
  And they need stopped, not coddled, begged pretty please or allowed to do as they wish.
  
  But that leaves us with the original comment; that sometimes it's OK to violate the law. Whenever they wish to, and you agree it's all right. A system obviously unworkable on the face of it as you cannot pre-define all circumstances when you would think it ok to carry out illegal activities.
  reply report
  72
  ptosisposted 7 years agoin reply to this
  Yes. As an American,that is true. I do not subscribe to The Philosophy Of Hegel. I do agree with you that public harm has to be physical and not mental.
  report
  59
  Live to Learnposted 7 years agoin reply to this
  All I've said is that people have a right to assemble in protest. You are the one saying that a protest automatically includes illegal activities.
  report
  89
  wildernessposted 7 years agoin reply to this
  From your own post:
  "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."
  
  Perhaps I misunderstood, but I took "beyond the boundaries the law has set" to mean illegal activities. And I suspect that the definition I gave of violence (harm) goes further than you would be willing to accept. That causing a person to detour off a freeway being blocked by demonstrators, for instance, and making a person lose a couple hours of work is violence and thus they are causing harm. Or even losing 5 minutes of their home time, for that matter, though that seems a little ridiculous.
  report
  72
  ptosisposted 7 years agoin reply to this
  detour ? 5 minutes? = violence? IDK but doesn't a regular traffic jam, road work, or an accident does the same thing to a person with a very short fuse? Road rage is the reaction of the situation. A person chooses to rage over something they can't control could also be considered a menace to society by driving road warrior style because late for 5 minutes.
  
  Here's a video, (top one), of the DAPL and a armed white male in a white truck: What do you think? 2 wrongs don't make a right. The guy shot off his gun in the air after driving away. Hard to believe the cell phone didn't fall off the runner.
  
  No video in Firefox, able to watch video on Chrome.
  
  http://bsnorrell.blogspot.com/2016/11/l … ctors.html
  
  report
  80
  Credence2posted 7 years agoin reply to this
  I agree, but I say to the larger gatherings to get a permit for your own protection.
  
  I suspect that the new regime is going to have problems with excessive demonstrations, peaceful or not because of the attention such give to media. I am sure that some excuse will be ginned up by the conservatives to make the very act of dissent criminal.
  reply report
  59
  Live to Learnposted 7 years agoin reply to this
  reply report
  72
  ptosisposted 7 years agoin 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.
  reply report
  89
  wildernessposted 7 years agoin 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...
  reply report
78
colorfuloneposted 7 years 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.
reply report
1. 89
  wildernessposted 7 years agoin 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.
  reply report
  72
  ptosisposted 7 years agoin 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?
  reply report
  89
  wildernessposted 7 years agoin reply to this
  Nope! But I've driven across Kansas several times and it can't be any flatter than that!
  
  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?
  reply report
  72
  ptosisposted 7 years agoin 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.”
  
  reply report
  89
  wildernessposted 7 years agoin 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?
  reply report
  72
  ptosisposted 7 years agoin 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.
  
  reply report
  89
  wildernessposted 7 years agoin 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.
  reply report
  78
  colorfuloneposted 7 years agoin 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!
  reply report
2. 72
  ptosisposted 7 years agoin 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!).
  reply report
  89
  wildernessposted 7 years agoin reply to this
  Sorry, but that private land is not on reservation ground.
  reply report
  78
  colorfuloneposted 7 years agoin 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.
  reply report
72
ptosisposted 7 years 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.

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)

reply report
1. 89
  wildernessposted 7 years agoin 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?
  reply report
  72
  ptosisposted 7 years agoin 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.
  
  reply report
  89
  wildernessposted 7 years agoin 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.
  reply report

Post a Reply

jump to first post

Necessary
HubPages Device ID	This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.
Login	This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.
Google Recaptcha	This is used to prevent bots and spam. (Privacy Policy)
Akismet	This is used to detect comment spam. (Privacy Policy)
HubPages Google Analytics	This is used to provide data on traffic to our website, all personally identifyable data is anonymized. (Privacy Policy)
HubPages Traffic Pixel	This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.
Amazon Web Services	This is a cloud services platform that we used to host our service. (Privacy Policy)
Cloudflare	This is a cloud CDN service that we use to efficiently deliver files required for our service to operate such as javascript, cascading style sheets, images, and videos. (Privacy Policy)
Google Hosted Libraries	Javascript software libraries such as jQuery are loaded at endpoints on the googleapis.com or gstatic.com domains, for performance and efficiency reasons. (Privacy Policy)

Features
Google Custom Search	This is feature allows you to search the site. (Privacy Policy)
Google Maps	Some articles have Google Maps embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
Google Charts	This is used to display charts and graphs on articles and the author center. (Privacy Policy)
Google AdSense Host API	This service allows you to sign up for or associate a Google AdSense account with HubPages, so that you can earn money from ads on your articles. No data is shared unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
Google YouTube	Some articles have YouTube videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
Vimeo	Some articles have Vimeo videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
Paypal	This is used for a registered author who enrolls in the HubPages Earnings program and requests to be paid via PayPal. No data is shared with Paypal unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
Facebook Login	You can use this to streamline signing up for, or signing in to your Hubpages account. No data is shared with Facebook unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
Maven	This supports the Maven widget and search functionality. (Privacy Policy)

Marketing
Google AdSense	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Google DoubleClick	Google provides ad serving technology and runs an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Index Exchange	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Sovrn	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Facebook Ads	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Amazon Unified Ad Marketplace	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
AppNexus	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Openx	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Rubicon Project	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
TripleLift	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Say Media	We partner with Say Media to deliver ad campaigns on our sites. (Privacy Policy)
Remarketing Pixels	We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.
Conversion Tracking Pixels	We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.

Statistics
Author Google Analytics	This is used to provide traffic data and reports to the authors of articles on the HubPages Service. (Privacy Policy)
Comscore	ComScore is a media measurement and analytics company providing marketing data and analytics to enterprises, media and advertising agencies, and publishers. Non-consent will result in ComScore only processing obfuscated personal data. (Privacy Policy)
Amazon Tracking Pixel	Some articles display amazon products as part of the Amazon Affiliate program, this pixel provides traffic statistics for those products (Privacy Policy)
Clicksco	This is a data management platform studying reader behavior (Privacy Policy)

What's Excessive Force in Crowd Control?

Arts and Design

Autos

Books, Literature, and Writing

Business and Employment

Education and Science

Entertainment and Media

Family and Parenting

Fashion and Beauty

Food and Cooking

Games, Toys, and Hobbies

Gender and Relationships

Health

Holidays and Celebrations

Home and Garden

HubPages Tutorials and Community

Personal Finance

Pets and Animals

Politics and Social Issues

Religion and Philosophy

Sports and Recreation

Technology

Travel and Places

About Us

This website uses cookies

What's Excessive Force in Crowd Control?

Related Discussions

This website uses cookies