Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by cmn32480 on Thursday December 28 2017, @02:22PM   Printer-friendly
from the sounds-like-trouble dept.

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.


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 5, Insightful) by Grishnakh on Thursday December 28 2017, @04:26PM (16 children)

    by Grishnakh (2831) on Thursday December 28 2017, @04:26PM (#615149)

    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.

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +4  
       Insightful=4, Total=4
    Extra 'Insightful' Modifier   0  
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   5  
  • (Score: 3, Insightful) by khallow on Thursday December 28 2017, @06:13PM (15 children)

    by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Thursday December 28 2017, @06:13PM (#615187) Journal
    Why should that part of the electoral system change? The current system is based on approval of the states, not of the large populations in a handful of states. And funny how there's never an attempt to negotiate for fixing these perceived problems. What's in it for the small states that would become even more irrelevant in a popular election? It's like compromise is for the other people.
    • (Score: 2, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 28 2017, @07:48PM (8 children)

      by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 28 2017, @07:48PM (#615231)

      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)

        by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Thursday December 28 2017, @08:39PM (#615255) Journal

        is that the system treats the entity of a state as more important than the people in the states.

        Yes, and?

        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.

        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)

          by Azuma Hazuki (5086) on Thursday December 28 2017, @08:43PM (#615256) Journal

          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

            by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Friday December 29 2017, @02:08AM (#615358) Journal
            The other way? If Gary Johnson was pulling that many votes, even losing, I'd be ecstatic.
          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday December 30 2017, @03:10PM (1 child)

            by Anonymous Coward on Saturday December 30 2017, @03:10PM (#615858)

            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

              by Azuma Hazuki (5086) on Saturday December 30 2017, @05:03PM (#615885) Journal

              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

        by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 28 2017, @11:36PM (#615308)

        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]

        The National Popular Vote bill would guarantee the Presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states and the District of Columbia. It has been enacted into law in 11 states with 165 electoral votes

        (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

        by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 29 2017, @12:08AM (#615318)

        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.

        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

        by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Friday December 29 2017, @04:46AM (#615436) Journal

        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)

      by Grishnakh (2831) on Thursday December 28 2017, @09:10PM (#615268)

      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)

        by fustakrakich (6150) on Thursday December 28 2017, @09:31PM (#615273) Journal

        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)

          by Grishnakh (2831) on Thursday December 28 2017, @10:03PM (#615282)

          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

            by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 29 2017, @12:11AM (#615319)

            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

            by dry (223) on Friday December 29 2017, @03:28AM (#615399) Journal

            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

            by fustakrakich (6150) on Friday December 29 2017, @03:53AM (#615409) Journal

            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..