SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Authorities used rubber-coated steel bullets, concussion grenades, tear gas, and water cannons against unarmed protesters near the Dakota Access oil pipeline in 26°F (-3°C) temperatures over the weekend.
Indian Country Today reports
"We have seen four gunshot wounds, three of them to the face and head", said Leland Brenholt, a volunteer medic.
[...]400 protesters, or "water protectors", attempted to dismantle a police-enforced barricade on State Highway 1806.
[...]"Water protectors are done with the military-style barricades. We are done with the floodlights and the armored military trucks. We are are done with it!" declared organizer, Dallas Goldtooth in a mid-evening Facebook post.
Their action was met with the same militarized response that the Morton County Sheriff's Department has demonstrated on protesters for weeks: the use of armored trucks, less-than-lethal ammunition, tear-gas, mace, and on this below-freezing night, water cannons.
[...]Reports from a coalition of advocacy groups near Standing Rock report hundreds of water protectors were receiving treatment for contamination by tear gas, hypothermia, and blunt traumas as a result of rubber bullets. One person, an elder, was reportedly revived after suffering cardiac arrest, organizers said.
"As medical professionals, we are concerned for the real risk of loss of life due to severe hypothermia under these conditions," read a statement from the Standing Rock Medic and Healer Council.
A more measured take is available from the AP.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 23 2016, @04:06PM
What does "done with it" mean?
(Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Wednesday November 23 2016, @04:59PM
As far as I can tell it's equivalent to "had enough of it" or "had it up to here with this shit."
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 23 2016, @05:17PM
They're the "water protectors"! Water Protector powers ACTIVATE!
I wonder what the next level of self-anointed titling is going to be?
(Score: 2, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 23 2016, @07:19PM
.....
They are literally protecting their water rights, what do you call yourself? Shillers for Profitz?
The problem with a blind "rule of law" is that money can buy laws and people can then be "legally" oppressed. But hey, the US has been brainwashed into blindly following authority and even edgy libertarian types often fall into the obedience trap while imagining they are free.
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 23 2016, @08:53PM
Hey Definer of Morals, the First Earl of Douchbaqginess, I'm just making a few observations and not living out my secret Hero Saga fantasies as the Great Protector of Social Justice (though it would give me a real sense of satisfaction and elevate my feelings of worth to morally look down my nose at people from the lines of morality that I impose upon others, but I digress (and I'm not you, your Earlship)). First they were protesters. Then Native American protesters. Wait, there was another one in there. Now they are the Water Protectors (TM). I'm just saying their self-anointed titles keep growing in stature and self importance.
It is fuckwits like yourself who do more harm than good for these things. You're the skinny, nerdy white guy who goes to the African-American Student meetings and awkwardly tries to fistbump everyone and you call them "brother" and how you can totally relate to them. Or that suburban white guy who goes up to the pipeline protest, gives themselves a "spirit" name while secretly feeling resentful that they weren't born a "cool" oppressed minority, you know, not one of those poor central African people, but an American black born in the 50's maybe, or a TV native American, not one on a real reservation with the rampant poverty and alcoholism, but one of those cool reservations where everyone dresses in buckskin and opines in deep philosophical thoughts while smoking peyote.
Didn't you every wonder why so many people roll their eyes when you enter a gathering? No? Well, I'm doing you a favor by pointing this out.
You're welcome.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by khallow on Wednesday November 23 2016, @08:59PM
The problem with a blind "rule of law" is that money can buy laws and people can then be "legally" oppressed.
Then it's not rule of law by definition.
But hey, the US has been brainwashed into blindly following authority and even edgy libertarian types often fall into the obedience trap while imagining they are free.
Let's not forget that the point of the protests is to outright block the pipeline in order to hinder usage of oil. These protesters would have found some pretext to protest.
The problem here is that the pipeline is a lawful activity which jumped through the proper hoops. So why should we side with the protesters who don't care about rule of law rather than the pipeline owner who did?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 23 2016, @09:45PM
money can buy laws
Then it's not rule of law by definition.
I'm kinda taken aback when we agree on something.
Yeah, the word "majority" seems to be missing in this context.
...or would that be "Democracy"?
the pipeline is a lawful activity
No, it's not.
It violates a treaty signed by USA.gov.
which jumped through the proper hoops
I haven't seen the renegotiation of the treaty mentioned anywhere in the press.
Link?
the point of the protests is to outright block the pipeline in order to hinder usage of oil
There was previously a perfectly cromulent route plotted out.
The thing about that was the it was through a place where WHITE people people lived and might have poisoned -their- water supply.
Can't have that.
So, they came up with a different route.
**Let's put it through the Redskins' land. They're real easy to push around.**
Your Reactionary narrative missed a few salient points.
-- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday November 23 2016, @11:40PM
Yeah, the word "majority" seems to be missing in this context. ...or would that be "Democracy"?
Where's the standing? I don't believe, for example, that the majority should have even the slightest say in my personal life.
the pipeline is a lawful activity
No, it's not.
It violates a treaty signed by USA.gov.
And that violation is?
There was previously a perfectly cromulent route plotted out. The thing about that was the it was through a place where WHITE people people lived and might have poisoned -their- water supply.
A route which ran very close to the watershed of 71,000 [wikipedia.org] people in Bismarck versus merely veering near the territory of 8250 [google.com] in Standing Rock Indian Reservation. I realize that white people just aren't as good as American Indian people, but there are still, according to Wikipedia, roughly 3,000 American Indians in Bismarck too.