6 ms·

G20 Protesters Blasted By "Sound Cannon"

21 points by gasull 17y ago

adriand 17y ago
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.
- sachinag 17y ago
  You are an idiot. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Selma_to_Montgomery_marches http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Selma_to_Montgomery_marches
  - PieSquared 17y ago
    I find myself doing this so often. Please, please, imagine yourself talking to someone and saying that. You do not say, in real life, "You are an idiot [because you didn't know this fact]" to people you have never met before. This is the Internet. There isn't enough civility on it anyway - at least do your part and don't detract from what exists.
    - redcap 17y ago
      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.
    - sachinag 17y ago
      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.
      - pg 17y ago
        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.
        sachinag 17y ago
        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.
        pg 17y ago
        No one has said either of the two things you say in the first paragraph would upset you. I read the OP as saying what he wrote.
        adriand 17y ago
        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.
        prodigal_erik 17y ago
        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.
    - tptacek 17y ago
      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_.
    - prodigal_erik 17y ago
      "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. http://paulgraham.com/say.html http://paulgraham.com/say.html
- abefortas 17y ago
  It's not a perfect comparison, but it's very true that civil rights protesters were lucky not to face some of the "less lethal" weapons available now.
  - sachinag 17y ago
    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.
    - vaksel 17y ago
      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
      - JulianMorrison 17y ago
        Also, it may be harder to "tough it out" versus modern repression toys.
pmorici 17y ago
"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.
- kf 17y ago
  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 http://www.etymotic.com/ephp/er20.aspx
idm 17y ago
Here's a video from CMU TV of the sound cannon in action: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TNcKexj2cYU http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TNcKexj2cYU 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: http://www.city.pittsburgh.pa.us/police/html/spec_event_permit_app.html http://www.city.pittsburgh.pa.us/police/html/spec_event_perm... From Regulations (http://www.city.pittsburgh.pa.us/police/assets/special_events_permit/Spec_Events_Regs_final_2009_fees_05-28-09.pdf http://www.city.pittsburgh.pa.us/police/assets/special_event...) 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?
christofd 17y ago
this isn't cool. in the last ten years civil rights have been diminished.
rms 17y ago
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. http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=847898 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=847898 is a note about a girl arrested for holding the door to her dorm open. Really. Please read it; it's a good one. 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 http://www.newmogul.com/threads?id=rms The Post-Gazette has balanced coverage from the perspective of the students/protesters/journalists. One of their journalists was arrested, along with two from the Pitt News. http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/09270/1001203-53.stm?cmpid=MOSTEMAILEDBOX http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/09270/1001203-53.stm?cmpid=MO... The Tribune Review covers the broader security picture from the perspective of security organizers. http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/news/pittsburgh/s_645208.html http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/news/pittsbur... In the scheme of these things, let's be glad no one died.

21 points by gasull 17y ago

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.

sachinag 17y ago
You are an idiot. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Selma_to_Montgomery_marches http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Selma_to_Montgomery_marches
- PieSquared 17y ago
  I find myself doing this so often. Please, please, imagine yourself talking to someone and saying that. You do not say, in real life, "You are an idiot [because you didn't know this fact]" to people you have never met before. This is the Internet. There isn't enough civility on it anyway - at least do your part and don't detract from what exists.
  - redcap 17y ago
    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.
  - sachinag 17y ago
    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.
    - pg 17y ago
      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.
      - sachinag 17y ago
        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.
        pg 17y ago
        No one has said either of the two things you say in the first paragraph would upset you. I read the OP as saying what he wrote.
        adriand 17y ago
        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.
        prodigal_erik 17y ago
        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.
  - tptacek 17y ago
    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_.
  - prodigal_erik 17y ago
    "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. http://paulgraham.com/say.html http://paulgraham.com/say.html
abefortas 17y ago
It's not a perfect comparison, but it's very true that civil rights protesters were lucky not to face some of the "less lethal" weapons available now.
- sachinag 17y ago
  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.
  - vaksel 17y ago
    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
    - JulianMorrison 17y ago
      Also, it may be harder to "tough it out" versus modern repression toys.

pmorici 17y ago

"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.

kf 17y ago
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 http://www.etymotic.com/ephp/er20.aspx

idm 17y ago

Here's a video from CMU TV of the sound cannon in action: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TNcKexj2cYU http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TNcKexj2cYU 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: http://www.city.pittsburgh.pa.us/police/html/spec_event_permit_app.html http://www.city.pittsburgh.pa.us/police/html/spec_event_perm... From Regulations (http://www.city.pittsburgh.pa.us/police/assets/special_events_permit/Spec_Events_Regs_final_2009_fees_05-28-09.pdf http://www.city.pittsburgh.pa.us/police/assets/special_event...) 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?

christofd 17y ago

this isn't cool. in the last ten years civil rights have been diminished.

rms 17y ago

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. http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=847898 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=847898 is a note about a girl arrested for holding the door to her dorm open. Really. Please read it; it's a good one. 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 http://www.newmogul.com/threads?id=rms The Post-Gazette has balanced coverage from the perspective of the students/protesters/journalists. One of their journalists was arrested, along with two from the Pitt News. http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/09270/1001203-53.stm?cmpid=MOSTEMAILEDBOX http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/09270/1001203-53.stm?cmpid=MO... The Tribune Review covers the broader security picture from the perspective of security organizers. http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/news/pittsburgh/s_645208.html http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/news/pittsbur... In the scheme of these things, let's be glad no one died.