Is this still America?
 

I don't even know what to say. This is so Orwellian I can't even describe it.

The last 2 minutes or so are so crazy. Is anyone for this type of police action?

I don't even care what they are saying, they are nonviolent and this is the outcome...

The police action was even-handed enough.

The problem I have with videos such as these is that you don't get the full picture. Were these people in an area that posed a security risk? Were they being disruptive?

They were protesting near the G20 summit, right?

I'm glad no violence broke out. This is where we need a bunch of monks, nuns, or children to go sit down in front of the police as they are advancing.

The worst part is that this is nothing new and has been going on since long before the US was founded.

I kind of have to agree with Baraka_Guru on this. Unless or until we have more information, it's impossible to say whether the police action was justified.

We don't see any of the events that preceded the arrival of the police force on the scene, for one. I don't know how they do things in Pittsburgh, but it's my assumption that if police are arriving in riot gear it's because they have concerns that the situation may escalate.

A quick Google search turns up an MSNBC article detailing the events of Thursday, Sept 24 in Pittsburgh -- according to them, over $50 000 in property damage was caused by rioters, and four unnamed individuals were charged with aggravated assault.

Boisterous protesters at G-20 summit - Life- msnbc.com

I think there's more to this story than is available in either the article or video. Given that, I really don't feel like I have enough information to comment on the propriety of the officers involved.

The sonic weapons being used on US soil make me nervous. I can defend against sonic weapons (which can cause permanent ear damage) to a point with noise canceling headphones and earplugs, but what's next? The "lightning gun"? The ADS? I don't know how to protect myself from a microwave weapon without having a large piece of grounded metal, and I think they might figure me out carrying around one of those.

I think in situations like this, with the large scale protesting, it is completely prudent to assume that 75% of the justifications the police give for their actions are complete fabrications meant to cover for the fact that they blatantly violated somebody's civil rights.

I think the Saint Paul police department is still dropping charges against folks whom they mistakenly arrested during last year's RNC.

I know nearly all here can't come to the conclusion that is necessary, but the ONLY way to prevent this sequence of events from becoming the norm is to use lethal force. Most of America are either too ignorant and stupid or too cowardly to come to this conclusion.

What other police action would be acceptable? Teargas, pepper spray, beatings with batons and/or water cannons? That's what you typically see in other countries...

IMO - this looks staged. Seriously? - Action News 69? A squad of troops against a small crowd?
As previously stated, it is only half of the story. Lawful assembly is allowed, w/a permit. Excessive force? Doubtful. Since I do not live in the area, I cannot say. I do know that any agency in SoFL would not use that many officers for such few people.

Maybe these protesters should take a tip from the recent republican demonstrations and have their attendees strapped with assault weapons. (legal weapons of course) Maybe then the police would be less willing to push them around. The makers of the constitution put the second amendment in for pretty much that very reason.

Seriously ? - the 2nd Amendment was for people to stand up against the police?
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
Sorry, don't see where that fits.

did you see a free state in that video? no, you saw a totalitarian state.

The 2nd Amendment was written to prevent the government from being more powerful than the citizenry.

This is what i meant, William. It was written to keep the power in the hands of the people. The police in this case are infringing upon the rights of the citizenry on behalf of the government. It may be the local government but last i checked Pittsburgh was still part of America. A government is less likely to act against it's citizens if those citizens are well armed.

So, yes.. this is pretty much the exact reason the 2nd amendment was written. It may not be against federal officers or the army... but in this day and age its kinda hard to tell the difference between the police and the army.

What are you talking about? They were free to leave. The videos were free to be distributed. They were free to say what they did without arrest.

This did not look like a totalitarian state. Most of us don't know what that looks like, and there's a reason for that.

This is not to say there weren't plays of governmentality and power at work, but we are familiar with these things, especially when groups of people toy with the boundaries.

This was not Orwellian. This was Althusserian...or maybe Foucaultian.

I can't help but think this will ONLY make things worse. I think it's ignorant and possibly stupid for one to come to this conclusion without demonstrating one has explored all other options. Again, we don't know the circumstances surround the video. Are you saying both lawful and unlawful people should use lethal force against the police as a deterrent to future police action?

But they weren't free to peacably assemble in that spot, were they?

totalitarian, authoritarian, or whatever. It wasn't a free state. I don't care how liberal or conservative you are, any time you have police lined up 3 deep with heavy riot gear, nightsticks, and shields marching towards you while you are being told that if you do not leave the area, you will be arrested is not a free state. It was a clear cut violation of the peoples right to peacably assemble.

dk... there was serious potential for violence and property damage based on past Seattle violence and the recent London riots. Violence and vandalism eventually occurred in Pittsburgh. There was more than enough evidence for the potential of violence from various groups (in their own words and materials). The city is responsible to the taxpayers... their safety and the protection of property. I'm sure they were hopeful that the protesters would act peacefully...but that didn't happen. The violence was minimal compared to other G20 events... perhaps this is because of Pittsburgh's preparation.

I heard there were episodes of violence in Pitt. There generally is going to be at almost any gathering of this significance throughout the world, some even started by undercover law enforcement. The video in the OP didn't appear to show any violence perpetrated by this group but it certainly didn't stop the riot police from their domination though.

so the protestors should have shot and killed the police?

Yes, but only if they were wearing Che' shirts... then all violence is justified.

did the police violate the right to peacably assemble?

..

But that's the thing. We don't know if they were peacefully assembled. We don't know if they were violating laws, disturbing the peace, etc.

If it were totalitarian/authoritarian state, we'd probably not be talking about it right now. Actually, we wouldn't even know about it.

so you rank their right to peaceably assemble higher than the police officers' lives? REALLY?

yes, I do. The founders of this nation put their rights and freedoms above their own lives. I'm willing to do the same. If an agent of the government (who is supposed to uphold the constitution) isn't going to do his job and protect my rights, why should I value their life?

I can't even wrap my mind around this mindset

why? is your right to protest or assemble not important to you? what if others feel that it is? does that make them less than you?

Dk worries me. Seems like every major debate lately, he either wants people to respond with arms, or warns that people might, or will be pushed to respond with arms. Stuff like "don't push us, we have guns, and it's not a threat, but seriously, there's been blood spilled before, and we don't like being pushed."

Do you really think it always boils down to that, dk? I mean, contrary to what the title suggests, this is still America. We can still resolve things through other ways than by pointing big guns at each other.

Can we though? I admit, it can happen. Look at the response after all the town halls. Those politicians eventually listened to their constituents, which is good, but it doesn't always happen like that. The different levels of governments (fed, state, locals) most of them hate your protesting because it interferes with their agenda. They'll let you so you think you're accomplishing something, but when it comes to a point that you're impeding on what they want to do, you see the results like the video in the OP. If you are happy being ignored while you still get to protest, good for you. But if your government is not only ignoring you, but denying you your intent and will, what are you going to do?

Name me one successful violent revolution in this country since the Constitution was enacted.

The Constitution has been violated on a daily basis more or less since the day it was ratified, so why hasn't the citizenry revolted at any point in the past 200+ years?

they did. it was called the civil war. maybe you've heard of it. There has also been several local revolts in this country after the civil war. These were not successful because it ended up being one small group of citizens against a superior armed military contingent. It was for these specific reasons that the 2nd was written. It is also the very same reason why the government has infringed upon it and the less concerned citizens allow it.

It's been over 100 years since the last serious revolt. history dictates that it's almost time for another one.

dk was first chair saber rattler in his high school band

I'm living in Pittsburgh. And the protesters most definitely did not have guns. Some may have been violent, but the police overreacted terribly. I'm always in the Oakland area, where the police basically gassed, arrested, and beat many students simply hanging around their dorms - they weren't protesting in any way.

And I say this as someone who thinks the protesters were a bunch of ineffectual hippies and anarchists that piss me off. But the police were even worse.

The Civil War was successful for the south?

far from it actually. I didn't develop this attitude and mindset until about 8 years ago.

---------- Post added at 02:11 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:10 PM ----------

I did not say that. I said it was the largest one since the constitution was ratified.

As I stated before, I do not know the whole story of the situation. Nor do you. How are the police infringing on anyone - by quieting a rebellion?
And no, this is not why we have the 2nd Amendment. Our Constitution and Amendments were written after the Revolutionary War - against another Country. One that our forefathers chose to cede from.

A government is less likely to act against it's citizens if those citizens are well armed.
Really? Then why isn't Cuba a State?

What is this thug like mentality from the cops? This is uncalled for. Where do they find these guys they don't even sound or look human. I have zero respect for these police due to the way they are behaving. It's savage.

Here's the big brother tank again shouting orders on a different street:

G20 2009: Police Attack Students at University of Pittsburgh

While I agree that the police force displayed at 4:00 seems excessive, I reserve judgment until I get a full story. It seems like the chief of police declared an "unlawful assembly" for a reason. (An unlawful assembly is usually described on the books as something likely to lead to riot....seems as if some vandalism/arson *may* have occurred prior to the video).

Friendly reminder...
Taser defense: taser-proof vest and pants aren't difficult to make at home. All you need to do is layer conductive and nonconductive materials. An outer layer of cotton to camouflage, middle layer or two of very thick aluminum, and inner layer of thick rubber would likely short out your average taser. If you're shot with this on, pretend to be shocked and drop to the floor unmoving so they don't figure to shoot you in the head.
Bullet/projectile defense: concealable ballistic armor can be purchased online and will stop certain guns, and will drastically reduce the damage done by non-lethal rounds such as rubber bullets, sand bags, and H2O rounds. If someone is opening fire in your area, protect your head at all costs as nonlethal munitions can and have caused fatalities when they hit an individual in the head. You may want to keep a helmet in a backpack.
Sonic weapon defense: aside from the obvious ear protection—ear plugs and noise canceling headphones—sound can also be deflected or absorbed. When I was a little kid I visited NASA's Ames research center at Moffett Field. Among the things I got to see was a sound room, in which cones of foam lined the entire surface and prevented nearly all sound from reflecting. While I don't think this can be exactly duplicated, there is a certain kind of mattress cover which may be able to replicate (to a lower degree of success) the same noise canceling effect. They look like this:
http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/...500_AA270_.jpg
I've not had a chance to test this, but in theory it should decrease the dangerously high decibel levels.
Microwave weapons: I've been thinking about this one for the past few days, and I think the best defense would be a bit complex. Emergency foil blankets can be found at most hiking supply stores, so I'd pick up one of those. Sew onto one side a nonconductive material such as cotton with handles on the cotton side. Attach to the aluminum insulated test jumper leads, and on the other side crimp on a grounding clamp. If you're worried that the microwave weapon is about to be activated, clamp onto something grounded like a fire hydrant and wrap yourself in the blanket aluminum out and cotton in. I've obviously not had a chance to test this, but it could work in theory. Do not deploy the blanket until you're 100% sure it's properly grounded.
Dazzler (laser blinding weapon): Don't think I'm paranoid, this has already been used in Iraq for several years. It would seem the best way to deal with this would be to have welding goggles. If the weapon is activated, flip down the lenses.

Why go through the trouble? Because as soon as you run, you've failed at whatever you're attempting by protesting.

If I've missed anything, let me know.

the 2nd was written because the framers knew first hand how oppressive a government could be, especially against a disarmed populace. That is why they always wanted the citizens to be armed.

when it knows that those arms will be used against them, yes.
are cuban citizens allowed arms?

---------- Post added at 07:15 PM ---------- Previous post was at 07:02 PM ----------

to protect and serve, right? pfffft. imagine the attitude shift they'd have if they faced armed citizens. much more polite than being told to 'get that camera out of my face'.

You don't think cops face armed citizens? Of course not, crooks don't carry guns, they carry carrots, and point them at the cops, stop shooting you fuckin pig or I'll whip my carrot at you. A little less gun crazy a little more common sense maybe is in order. But carry on, I enjoy this carry guns, kill a cop chatter, it's good top see how many crazy's there are out there.