Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by on Wednesday November 23 2016, @03:48PM   Printer-friendly
from the as-not-seen-on-tv dept.

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.


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This discussion has been archived.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: 2, Insightful) by StarryEyed on Wednesday November 23 2016, @04:56PM

    by StarryEyed (2888) on Wednesday November 23 2016, @04:56PM (#431913)

    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."

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +1  
       Insightful=1, Total=1
    Extra 'Insightful' Modifier   0  

    Total Score:   2  
  • (Score: 2) by iamjacksusername on Wednesday November 23 2016, @05:00PM

    by iamjacksusername (1479) on Wednesday November 23 2016, @05:00PM (#431919)

    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

      by jmorris (4844) on Wednesday November 23 2016, @05:28PM (#431946)

      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

        by bob_super (1357) on Wednesday November 23 2016, @05:57PM (#431975)

        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

        by J053 (3532) <{dakine} {at} {shangri-la.cx}> on Wednesday November 23 2016, @11:38PM (#432202) Homepage
        There's also the issue that the DAPL was originally planned for a route north of Bismarck, but the residents objected due to fears that their water supply might be contaminated, so it was moved. Of course, the residents of Bismarck who were complaining were not Native Americans, so...
  • (Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Wednesday November 23 2016, @05:00PM

    by Azuma Hazuki (5086) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday November 23 2016, @05:00PM (#431920) Journal

    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

      by The Mighty Buzzard (18) Subscriber Badge <themightybuzzard@soylentnews.org> on Wednesday November 23 2016, @05:22PM (#431941) Homepage Journal

      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: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 23 2016, @09:07PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 23 2016, @09:07PM (#432111)

      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

        by Azuma Hazuki (5086) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday November 23 2016, @09:46PM (#432144) Journal

        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

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 23 2016, @07:06PM (#432016)

    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

    by PinkyGigglebrain (4458) on Wednesday November 23 2016, @07:47PM (#432046)

    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

      by dry (223) on Thursday November 24 2016, @05:22AM (#432284) Journal

      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

    by Kromagv0 (1825) on Wednesday November 23 2016, @08:10PM (#432062) Homepage

    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

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 23 2016, @09:50PM (#432148)

    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!"