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: 4, Insightful) by iamjacksusername on Wednesday November 23 2016, @04:33PM
Sounds like the protestors should be better armed. Local LEOs and Feds are not going to risk their necks, and create a national incident, by going after the well-armed. That's why the Federal wilfelife preserve occupation went on as long as it did. Bottom line, if the protestors could defend themselves, the LEOs would not be subjugating the protestors like this. If you are going to go up against a group that you know is going to bring violence down on upon you and yours, you should come prepared to defend yourself in at least equal measure.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by StarryEyed on Wednesday November 23 2016, @04:56PM
What horrible advice! A circle of escalating violence is not a solution.
Instead, as long as you have media attention, you should look forward to them exercising disparate force upon the protesters, it gains public support for the issue.
"First they ignore you; then they abuse you; then they crack down on you and then you win."
(Score: 2) by iamjacksusername on Wednesday November 23 2016, @05:00PM
Sometimes that works, sometimes it does not. The point is, you do not want to the be the one who "took one for the team" when that kind of resistance does not work. It's about being able to protect yourself; you cannot protect yourself from inside a jail cell or under a boot.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by jmorris on Wednesday November 23 2016, @05:28PM
You pussies seem to be a bit confused on the whole issue of 'civil disobedience' here. The whole point is that you are so convinced that you are right that you are willing to break the law, accept the consequences and hope the public see this moral conviction and eventually come to agree with you.
1. You can't actually beat the government at the violence game.
2. You WILL get the shit beat out of you if you try.
3. You can win, but only if your cause is truly just AND the decisonmakers are basically just. Don't make the mistake that just because that in Western style governments the people rule in theory that they always do in fact. Especially in the short term.
The implications of these realities should be simple enough to grasp, especially with history as a guide.
MLK and Gandhi succeeded because they judged their situations rightly and they, along with their followers, were willing to pay the price required. They understood that the demands they were making were just, that most Americana (MLK) and Brits (Gandhi) would eventually see the violence, ask why people were willing to stand there and take it and eventually come to the right conclusion. They also understood that this understanding would likely take a while, and then take longer to work its way up to the policymakers. They understood the price they would have to pay and they paid it. This is why they are remembered as heroes.
Now lets look at these protesters. They are not even claiming to be non-violent protesters. They destroy things, they set fires, they intentionally get into fights with law enforcement. They act like they can win at the violence game; dumb move. Then they whine when they get beat up, when that should pretty much be the reason they are there. Dumb.
So now lets examine their cause and see if it us just, the sort of incandescent righteousness that can win in a non-violent resistance movement. This pipeline project is nearly completed. It first went through years of environmental impact study, permitting and other government red tape. These protesters have an inside track at EPA and an administration very friendly to their cause, and still they couldn't get this project killed. So they are resorting to violence when they lost a political process tilted very heavily in their favor. The claim of a risk doesn't stand up to scrutiny when we consider the 2.4 million miles of existing energy pipeline already in the ground with far fewer incidents per unit of energy / mile transported when compared to any other alternative.
Summary: Their cause is not just and their tactics are poorly thought out.
(Score: 2) by bob_super on Wednesday November 23 2016, @05:57PM
Dang! You almost made me agree with you...
So I have to nitpick:
> The claim of a risk doesn't stand up to scrutiny when we consider the 2.4 million miles of existing energy pipeline already in the ground with far fewer
> incidents per unit of energy / mile transported when compared to any other alternative.
I'm calling NIMBY. It doesn't matter if 99.99% of the pipelines were magically clean. What matters is that when a leak happens in my back yard, I'm 100% fucked. Nobody cares much unless it's also got explosions or a sad-looking endangered bird. Even then, it's years and years of paperwork, studies and counterclaims, lawsuits between companies, to get a shitty check which won't cover the destruction of the quality of life, nor moving to a place that won't poison the kids long-term.
Throw in the fact that Indians get the short end of the stick more often than not, and you know why they get pissed.
But I agree that taking on the militarized US cops while hoping not to get hurt isn't the smartest move.
(Score: 3, Informative) by J053 on Wednesday November 23 2016, @11:38PM
(Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Wednesday November 23 2016, @05:00PM
Jack['s] Username isn't entirely wrong though. Two wrongs might not make a right, but as I discovered in seventh grade when I grew a spine and started hitting back (yes, some girls physically bully, we're not all about just rumors and gossip), sometimes a second wrong can prevent a third, fourth, fifth, etc.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 3, Insightful) by The Mighty Buzzard on Wednesday November 23 2016, @05:22PM
Cheers on being mostly right for a change. The only bit you got wrong is it's never wrong to defend yourself.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 3, Touché) by Azuma Hazuki on Wednesday November 23 2016, @05:28PM
Oh, shit, if YOU'RE saying I'm right I must be wrong...ugh.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Wednesday November 23 2016, @05:47PM
Of course you're wrong. Have fun figuring out what to think now...
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Wednesday November 23 2016, @06:35PM
Awww, and you were just starting to act civil and friendly...damn, I knew that wasn't gonna last :(
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Thursday November 24 2016, @11:24AM
That were a logic joke, girlie. Don't get your knickers twisted.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 23 2016, @09:07PM
Beating up a bully only works because you are evenly matched and they've relied on your inaction.
Change the balance of power, as in trying to fight back against a gang of ten, and all you'll get is beat down and they will have fun doing it.
(Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Wednesday November 23 2016, @09:46PM
Yeah, I know > Really, really hate people sometimes.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 23 2016, @07:06PM
Indeed. This guy has crunched the numbers. [google.com]
He says that if you're going to do a protest, your chances are 1 in 2 that you will succeed if you do it peacefully.
Get violent and your chances go down to 1 in 4.
-- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2) by PinkyGigglebrain on Wednesday November 23 2016, @07:47PM
remember the four boxes:
Soap box : use free speech and Protests to make your message heard and make a change.
Ballot box: get laws passed or overturned.
Jury box: take your cause to court.
Ammo box: when all else fails make sure you can fight back against unjust laws/actions.
this kind of response by the LEOs is them going straight to the ammo box.
I find it sadly funny that when ever the government tries to limit/take away almost any Constitutional right everyone starts screaming about Free Speech, search warrants, etc., but then those same people support limiting or outright abolishing the Second amendment. The same one that is supposed to help protect all the other rights in the Constitution.
"Beware those who would deny you Knowledge, For in their hearts they dream themselves your Master."
(Score: 2) by dry on Thursday November 24 2016, @05:22AM
The Native American peoples have had really shitty luck using the ammo box to defend their rights. Come to think of it, so have most of the minorities in the States. As long as the majority (actually about 1/3rd, with over a 1/3rd not caring) agrees that the government is in the right to blow away certain people who actually use their 2nd amendment rights, those rights are just an invitation to get shot.
There has been very few, if any success stories of the ammo box being used against the powers that be.
(Score: 2) by Kromagv0 on Wednesday November 23 2016, @08:10PM
So then I shouldn't have ended every fight that others have started with me. I've never thrown the first punch, nor initially contacted anyone but being a bigger guy lots of people who are piss drunk want to try and show off. Being only 5' 9" makes me on the shorter side but being ~250lbs and a power lifter means that it has ended very badly for those who have chosen to start a fight with me. In those situations I have used overwhelming force to end it, and it really takes the wind out of someone's sails when you pick them up over your head and throw them.
With the government it might be different as you could end up in a Waco incident but on the other end of things you have the wildlife building occupation which I still think could have been ended better. Seriously just starve them out like what was common during medieval sieges. Shut off the water and power and prevent anyone from bringing in food. If someone wanders out grab and arrest them.
T-Shirts and bumper stickers [zazzle.com] to offend someone
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 23 2016, @09:50PM
I'm a Civ player, so it should go more like this: "First they ignore you; then they abuse you; then they crack down on you and then you use nuclear fire!"
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 23 2016, @05:04PM
And get charged for armed rebellion ... at best, or get sniped down with full-metal-jacket bullets, most likely.
You don't fight a prevailing force head on, never.
Don't ever respond with violence against their enforcers, even though they are provoking you to with their bestiality, because if they succeed in making you murderers, then you lose, big time.
If you have an important cause and you have numbers on your side, you fight guerrilla style, avoiding direct confrontation and going for the maximum damage to your enemies, in this case oil company, interest.
Think of a strategy to sabotage their operation along the long stretching route of the pipeline, where no police force or hired guards can always control every point, and keep doing it persistently until they give up or come to negotiations table.
Learn from history, resistance movements of WWII Europe, and others. When you are under attack in your own land, basically it means you are under occupation, no matter that aggressors are your own compatriots.
Keep close tabs on any enemy patrols movement, constantly do recon on police or any unknown vehicles or persons, and don't ever let any activist get captured!
Keep the thugs on the tips of their toes: scare, false threats, disinformation, is as important as actual sabotage, because it grinds them down and dulls their senses.
But actual damage to company bottom line must be done, it is the only way they feel pain.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by GreatAuntAnesthesia on Wednesday November 23 2016, @05:11PM
> Think of a strategy to sabotage their operation along the long stretching route of the pipeline, where no police force or hired guards can always control every point,
So these protesters who don't want the oil pipeline because they are worried it will poison their land should sabotage the oil pipeline, spilling oil and poisoning the land. I think I see a flaw in this plan...
(Score: 2) by sjames on Thursday November 24 2016, @01:51AM
Not all failures result in a leak.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 24 2016, @08:39AM
We are talking about pipeline being built. It carries no oil until it is completed and checked for leaks. Leaks cost money, especially large ones. Company should understand the reality of everything coexisting peacefully and in mutual accord, or not really existing for long.
(Score: 2) by iamjacksusername on Wednesday November 23 2016, @06:27PM
The point is to increase the marginal cost of the government suppressing a protest. Right now, an unarmed protest can be put down with a fractional ratio of government personnel and resources to protestors. By protestors being armed, the ratio moves in the direction of 1:1. The government can only afford to put down a one-off Bundy occupation. But imagine 5, 10 or 20 protests like that around the country? The government would have to expend a lot of personnel and resources. Those resources have to come from somewhere and that somewhere is ultimately the people. The point is to increase the price of extraction beyond the value of what is being extracted. That is how change happens.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 23 2016, @07:54PM
increase the marginal cost of the government suppressing a protest
Are you so young and ill-informed as to not be aware of Waco?
The Feds burned down the complex with children in it then concocted a "suicide" story that Lamestream Media swallowed whole.
...and Ruby Ridge?
There, a Fed fatally shot a woman in the head while she was holding an infant.
All charges against the Feds were dismissed.
Using weapons against the gov't is a losing strategy.
With them getting the USA military's surplus weapons gratis, the cops have you outgunned and they have no qualms about using all of their weapons as soon as you fire a shot.
The only chance protesters have is to get their story into the media.
It is shameful that Lamestream Media isn't even slightly interested in this story.
To get any kind of proper coverage, so far, you need to go to New Media.
...and even what made it to the S/N front page was heavily censored.
"Coverage" (AKA an Establishment whitewash) was added by a "news" agency that wasn't even on the scene.
Lamestream Media has been using words like "clash" and "confrontation" instead of "police assault" and "police attack".
To get more of the story, read the Original Submission [soylentnews.org]
...and, as has been mentioned in the (meta)thread, all gov't officials with the power to do something are pro-dirty energy and are doing nothing to uphold the treaty that USA.gov signed.
-- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 23 2016, @08:27PM
The S/N editor felt compelled to add "balance" to the story by including "coverage" by Lamestream Media (who weren't on the scene).
Jim Naureckas of Fairness and Accuracy In Reporting (FAIR.org) has this to say about that:
AP's story mentions 17 injuries.
Early reports from RESPONSIBLE reporters among the people on-scene said that injuries were over 200.
The medics tending to the wounded have upgraded that figure to over 300 injured.
-- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 23 2016, @08:59PM
And you felt the need to inflate the situation by promulgating "water cannon" for "water hose". Spraying water on people in that kind of weather is horrible. So is ratcheting up the rhetoric to gain sympathy and then blame the "lamestream media". Cripes, for a guy who railed on Trump so much, you sure learn from his shitty tactics.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 23 2016, @09:20PM
The term was used by numerous news outlets.
It accuracely describes a high-pressure device used to throw large volumes of water for long distances.
Used in freezing temperatures against people who are living rough, it is definitely a weapon with potential for health-altering consequences.
The medics specifically mentioned hypothermia.
I'm quite sure you wouldn't want it used against you under any circumstances (it has the potential to remove skin), especially while the temperatures are below freezing.
-- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Wednesday November 23 2016, @05:07PM
Truth. I say this as a vet myself: if someone looks like they even might be about to use deadly force on you, use it first on them. You as a civilian cannot be legally or otherwise expected to be able to tell if grenades are lethal or bullets are rubber.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by jcross on Wednesday November 23 2016, @05:44PM
Seems like that strategy hasn't worked out too well for people subjected to say, SWAT raids on the wrong house. Also these days it's likely to get you labelled a terrorist, making you politically toxic to almost all politicians, and potentially reducing your legal rights in the bargain. There was that article the other day about the vet who got his house raided. Do you honestly think the incident would have played out better for him if he'd shot at the cops to protect his home from a warrantless invasion?
(Score: 4, Funny) by Azuma Hazuki on Wednesday November 23 2016, @07:33PM
Yeah but see he wasn't as elite as The Uzzard. He must, somehow, have deserved that for being some kind of beta leftie pinko cuck. We ALL know TMB here would come out on top of any confrontation like that completely unscathed, with fireworks and spectral American flags exploding behind him as a flight of bald eagles screeches by, bullet casings falling like brass hail around his Liefield-esque silhouette.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: -1, Offtopic) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 24 2016, @02:32PM
What the fuck is your problem, you gigantic useless cunt? You and people like you are exactly why Hillary Clinton lost: demands for tolerance and respect for you with an endless stream of bitching and whining and namecalling and spite for anyone who disagrees with you. Fucking lose the act. It's over and you lost.
(Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Thursday November 24 2016, @09:41PM
Did you misfire this one? Prematurely extrapolate and aim badly, perhaps? I'm told they have medicine for that :)
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 2) by Kromagv0 on Wednesday November 23 2016, @08:21PM
Actually in at least one case [foxnews.com] it appears to have worked out fairly well [lacrossetribune.com].
T-Shirts and bumper stickers [zazzle.com] to offend someone
(Score: 2) by jcross on Wednesday November 23 2016, @11:12PM
I'm not sure I would call that working out well exactly, and to the extent that it did there was a lot of luck involved. If you were offering people the option of getting paid $600,000 to let someone invade their home and shoot 22 bullets at their family, I would hope most sane people would decline, but what do I know?
But to an extent I think you're right, in that if no shots had been fired I suspect it would've been less likely for the family to get compensation for their broken door and the trauma of a home invasion, and the officers may not have been suspended because "no harm done".
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 23 2016, @09:18PM
Nah, they didn't want the PR backlash like they got from shooting up the Ruby Ridge asshats (oh, who were btw white. this shit is OK all the time in non-white neighborhoods every day though).