SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Arthur T Knackerbracket has found the following story:
Despite risks which include permanent hearing loss, LRADs are increasingly part of police's crowd control arsenal
After a wait of nearly ten months, MuckRock has finally received documents from the D.C. Metropolitan Police Department regarding their response to the protests surrounding President Donald Trump's inauguration early this year. Surprisingly, while we didn't receive any records related to the J20 protests, we did receive documents relating to January 21st's Women's March, which in Washington D.C. alone attracted by conservative estimates between 450,000 and 500,000 people. While it was the largest protest in the city since the anti-Vietnam War protests of the '60s and '70s, no arrests were made.
The After-Action Report provided by the DCMPD, under the header "Improvements," contains the information that the department utilized both a D.C. National Guard Jump Team, and a Long Range Acoustical Device, better known as an LRAD. The LRAD was used "to assist in instructing the crowd flows on continuing to flow away from the entrances of the stations."
Since the first documented use of an LRAD sound cannon on protesters by Pittsburgh Police during the 2009 G20 summit, LRAD use by police against activists appears to be on the rise. The Pittsburgh Police Bureau used it again in 2011 during the Super Bowl, the New York Police Department has used it several times including the Eric Garner protests and during Occupy, the Oakland Police Department also used it against Occupy protesters, and more recently and perhaps most prominently, an LRAD was deployed during the Ferguson unrest and the Standing Rock protests.
There are various models of LRAD, with military grade versions that can send voice communications up to 5.5 miles away, and slightly less powerful versions like the LRAD 500X or 300X which are what police departments generally use. All can produce a sound somewhat akin to a high-powered car alarm that can cause intense headaches, nausea, loss of balance, and potentially permanent hearing loss.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by BsAtHome on Thursday December 28 2017, @03:43PM (26 children)
FWIW, congress did not make a law in conflict with this constitutional amendment. The executive branch only "instructed" the enforcement branch to look the other way regarding these rights. You know, terrorism and other straw-men for a good excuse. It is all for the sake of <fill-in-current-excuse>.
I know it is cliche, but you get what you vote for. That is how our western democracies work. The fact that so many split opinions go through the population (polarization) is a good indication of why the spiral of more extreme measures is more frequent, on both sides. What you need is a charismatic moderator. A real moderator who is able to bridge sides. But it seems that many countries are far from becoming more balanced (the USA is not the only one suffering from this).
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 28 2017, @04:10PM
This right here is why liberals get the bullet immediately after the bourgeois.
(Score: 0, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 28 2017, @04:23PM (18 children)
I know it is cliche, but you get what you vote for.
Hilary Clinton won with over 3 million more votes than Donald Trump. We didn't get what we voted for. We got who Putin, Assange, and their minions skewed the election for, by exploiting flaws in our aging electoral system, in particular the absurdity that is the electoral college.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Grishnakh on Thursday December 28 2017, @04:26PM (16 children)
Then maybe you should have worked on fixing the aging electoral system. When have the Democrats *ever* tried to do that, even when they controlled both Congress and the White House?
As I always say in these threads, "every nation gets the government it deserves". We're getting exactly what we deserve.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by khallow on Thursday December 28 2017, @06:13PM (15 children)
(Score: 2, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 28 2017, @07:48PM (8 children)
So what you're telling us (correctly) is that the system treats the entity of a state as more important than the people in the states. This is manifest in that a voter's power in one state is not equal to a voter's power in another state. Non-proportional voting power.
I don't actually think that's a good thing.
The people chose Clinton. They didn't get who they chose. That's a bad thing.
What we have is a representative system where the representatives aren't representative of the people. Undermines the entire idea of "electing" representatives. As in, we the people chose Clinton by a very significant majority, and we didn't get Clinton.
The thing is broken.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by khallow on Thursday December 28 2017, @08:39PM (4 children)
Yes, and?
Not feeling the pain over here. It was quite representative, just not quite in the way you preferred. Fix the two party system first else we wouldn't get Clinton and Trump. I don't feel like giving freebies to the Democrat party (who are the ones who would benefit from this shift in power) any more than I feel like giving freebies to the Republicans (who despite this win are probably going to lose in the end). You can lecture me sanctimoniously about what the people "chose", but in the end they voted for shit either way. Not going to expend effort to fix the parts that aren't seriously broken.
(Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Thursday December 28 2017, @08:43PM (3 children)
Oh fuck you, if it had been the other way around you'd be wetting yourself twice daily on here over it. Do you think we can't tell? You're only sanguine about this because "your guy" "won."
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 1) by khallow on Friday December 29 2017, @02:08AM
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday December 30 2017, @03:10PM (1 child)
Fuck you too ya piece of shit. As if Clinton would have been a good thing. You're so god damn stupid.
(Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Saturday December 30 2017, @05:03PM
You don't read my post history obviously. I don't trust Clinton, either of them, especially because Bill's "welfare reform" has done more to harm the poor than anything either party has ever done (or, well, HAD ever done before this fucking tax scam...) in the last 70+ years. She would still have been better short term.
I'm actually wondering if America "needs," or at least deserves, a term of Trump in office. It might be just the wakeup call the country needs to get it to join the rest of the civilized world. The problem, of course, is that we may not survive it.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 28 2017, @11:36PM
Be careful what you wish for.
Killery would have given us (at best) a bunch more years of do-nothing, just like O'Bummer.
(With Trump, at least Progressive folks are getting active.)
If Hillary Clinton Had Won, We’d Be Even Worse [googleusercontent.com] (orig) [counterpunch.org]
In November, Jimmy Dore [google.com] reminded us that Donna Brazile's "revelations" didn't really tell us anything we didn't already know about Crooked Hillary.
DNC/DNCC/The Dumbocrat Party are thoroughly corrupt and need reform from the inside.
Are you attending party meetings locally?
Have you signed up for committees?
...or do you think that change just happens through osmosis?
The people [...] didn't get who they chose. That's a bad thing
What's particularly bad is that USAians don't get to hear more than 2 voices because of Lamestream Media (though every USAian is ostensibly an owner of the airwaves).
Remember how CBS's CEO said out loud that Trump was crap for the country but great for his company's profits?
...and because of The Commission on Presidential Elections, which is a monopoly, wholly-owned by The Big 2, whose sole business is exclusion.
(The League of Women Voters, who had run the debates for several years, let you hear more voices.)
the system treats the entity of a state as more important than the people in the states
On his weekly radio show, [ralphnaderradiohour.com] Ralph Nader repeatedly talks about The National Popular Vote bill. [nationalpopularvote.com]
(34 states are necessary to change the Constitution.)
Is your state on the list?
If not, what are you doing about that?
-- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 29 2017, @12:08AM
That is not exactly true. [soylentnews.org] Just getting rid of the electoral college system would only make the US slightly more democratic; it is insufficient. We need voting reform for all levels of government.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Runaway1956 on Friday December 29 2017, @04:46AM
You ARE exaggerating that "win" of the popular vote. The difference in the vote count was LESS THAN, not more than, 3 million.
But, we don't live in a democracy, we live in a republic. The republic has a set of laws and procedures for picking our "representatives". Don't like those laws? Then address those laws, one by one, and work on changing them.
I've pointed out before that the very same laws and procedures that put Trump in the White House also put Obama and Clinton there, before Trump. You who whine about how unfair the laws are were perfectly happy when you were able to make those laws work for you.
And, finally, I question the competence of the voting public. I'll admit that there were no "good" candidates available for this election - but - fact is, about half of the voters voted for the LEAST COMPETENT candidate, while another half voted for the second least competent. FFS, I can't say that either Johnson or Stein are competent, but they both seem to be more competent than either of the leading contenders.
What's that you say? Most voters didn't even know about Johnson or Stein? You make my case for me. Voters aren't competent to vote, so STFU.
(Score: 2) by Grishnakh on Thursday December 28 2017, @09:10PM (5 children)
The main problem is the voting system, which forces a two-party system. No one in either party has done a damn thing to fix the voting system in any way whatsoever, be it the first-past-the-post system, or the Electoral College, or anything else.
The EC is wrong because it makes votes in some states worth more than votes in other states, and that's inherently anti-democratic. It shouldn't matter if I live in Wyoming or New York; one vote per person should be the rule in a race where everyone votes. But eliminating the EC isn't going to fix the even worse problem which is the two-party system caused by FPTP. We need a better election system that allows people to choose other parties without fear of their vote being "wasted".
(Score: 1) by fustakrakich on Thursday December 28 2017, @09:31PM (4 children)
We need a better election system
Everybody keeps saying that over and over. Nobody says how to do it.
La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
(Score: 2) by Grishnakh on Thursday December 28 2017, @10:03PM (3 children)
Huh? That's not true at all. Getting rid of the Electoral College system would require a Constitutional Amendment, and the process for that is certainly well-understood, and has been done many times, though none that recently.
But just fixing the election system (getting rid of First Past The Post) is much easier: the Constitution (IIRC) doesn't specify that FPTP must be used in any particular election, and in fact I think States are free to use whatever system they want to choose electors for the Presidential election (including having the electors be chosen by the state legislature rather than popular vote). So if you want to use a different voting scheme than FPTP, all you have to do is pass a law. This could even be done at the state level.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 29 2017, @12:11AM
See my comment (above) [soylentnews.org] about the National Popular Vote bill.
Once enough states, representing 218 electoral votes, sign on, The Electoral College and a constitutional amendment become moot.
getting rid of First Past The Post
Amen. Australia has a working model.
They also fine people who don't show up at the polls.
(You don't have to vote, but you do have to sign your name.)
...and while we're at it, WTF is it with Election Day being on Tuesday, a workday?[1]
A proper country would make Election Day a holiday--perhaps even holding elections on weekends.
[1] Is it clear to you yet that USA was set up as an Oligarchy?
-- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2) by dry on Friday December 29 2017, @03:28AM
Another weird thing with your government (Federal) is having the numbers of representatives capped at 535. For such a big country it seems weird to have the representatives so diluted. Canada with 1/10 the population has about 3/5ths the representatives. Your founders thought it was important too, which is why the amendment to fix it is still out there and can be passed by 27 more States. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congressional_Apportionment_Amendment [wikipedia.org]
People do want a better system, at least in Canada, where we aren't that much different. It's the politicians who don't want to lose the chance of having a monopoly on power. Here the last federal election was won partially on the promise of no first past the post elections. The government went back on its promise pretty quick, claiming it as too divisive.
Same with the last Provincial election here, except the third party, the Greens, won enough seats to hold the balance of power and made a deal that they'll support the government as long as we change the voting system, probably with a referendum on how.
(Score: 1) by fustakrakich on Friday December 29 2017, @03:53AM
I'm just saying it takes voter initiative to do it. I doubt the current crop of politicians want to change anything that threatens their gravy train..
La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 28 2017, @11:50PM
Even if Hillary Clinton had won, that still would not reflect what people want, since most voters simply vote for the lesser of two evils. We need a complete reform of our voting system before we can make any claim about representing the people. Get rid of winner-take-all and implement something like instant run-off voting or range voting (either one is far better than our current system), and then remove all the barriers that alternative parties frequently encounter. Neither Hillary Clinton nor Donald Trump would want any of those reforms.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by fyngyrz on Thursday December 28 2017, @07:41PM (2 children)
The following may seem pedantic, but no. It's not:
What you get is what the plurality of voters vote for.
As long as the government and the various minions-in-pulpits and minions-on-pedestals can convince the public that they don't really need to look at the wizard behind the curtain, we're going to keep getting it, too. Good and hard. No lube. No reach-around. No prophylactic.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 29 2017, @12:20AM (1 child)
Yup.
Democracy is "majority rules".
That's not what we have.
-- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Friday December 29 2017, @04:59AM
Again - the US is not a democracy.
http://www.ourrepubliconline.com/Author/21 [ourrepubliconline.com]
What we actually have is a democratic republic - that is, you have a say in government, but your say is not binding. The republic is a representative form of government, but precious few of your representatives actually represents anything other than his own interests.
Stop whining about some mythical democracy. If you are a US citizen, stop believing that you live in a democracy. It's all bullshit, and I don't see anything changing n the foreseeable future.
You are a citizen of a REPUBLIC. Get that one single fact through your head, and some of your bellyache will be relieved.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Thexalon on Friday December 29 2017, @02:28AM
I sure haven't: In a substantial majority of elections I've been able to vote in, I either voted for a candidate that ended up losing, or the election was not even contested. So I do not in fact get what I voted for. I continue to vote, and I continue to do my best to make my preferred candidates win, on the advice given by Eugene Debs: "It's better to vote for what you want and not get it, than to vote for what you don't want and get it."
Also, LRADs have been (probably illegally) deployed against protesters since at least the 2004 Republican National Convention in Philadelphia, and have been used by law enforcement agencies under the control of both Republicans and Democrats. Neither major party is in favor of unrestricted right of protest, which means that you have a very hard time voting for a government that supports what I want.
I view it as a symptom of something very different:
Most people basically want the government to create an environment that allows them to get the following: A comfortable-enough home. Decent food. A doctor when they get sick. A job that doesn't abuse them too badly and pays them enough to manage reasonably well. Streets safe from crime. A decent chance their kids' lives will be better than their own. An ability to have some kind of leisure life, whether that's a couple of drinks at the pub on Thursday night, a religious community they find fulfilling, or a show or sports team they can watch.
When the "moderate" politicians get most people most of that, they dominate (e.g. the US in 1956, when Dwight Eisenhower was easily re-elected but both Democrats and Republicans were quite moderate). When the "moderate" politicians fail to get most people most of that, they lose out to the "extremists" as the public thrashes about looking for anyone offering any hope of getting what they want (e.g. Germany in 1930, when the Nazis made substantial electoral gains in the wake of massive unemployment and inflation).
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Friday December 29 2017, @04:04AM (1 child)
Are you *REALLY* sure of that? I would like to direct your attention to the Homeland Security act. I'll remind you that the preparation of that act had been performed years in advance. It had zero chance of being passed by any previous congress, but it was kept on a shelf, ready for some emergency. At an opportune moment, it was pulled down from the shelf, the dust blown off of it, and presented to a congress that was frightened to death. Remember, 9/11/01, the anthrax in the mail, the beltway shooter, all in addition to the myriad problems that any other congress faces. In effect, the evil mastermind waited until all the schoolchildren were running amok in terror, THEN stepped in, and promised to protect them.
I've got to disagree with you, without even considering all the infringements on state's rights, under a bullshit interpretation of commerce laws.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 29 2017, @05:24AM
If the people in the USA weren't ALL COWS, those politicians would have all been voted out.
Instead COWS GO MOOOOO!