Non-lethal weapons for democratic convention

[ShadowFox]

Video - Breaking News Videos from CNN.com
(Note, may be a commercial before video)

This discusses some of the many non-lethal weapons that may be used to protect the convention.

There are two topics here:

1. Should these sort of weapons be used?

2. Should they be forced to reveal what weapons they are going to be used?

[Gods_Mercenary]

If I was the trouble maker, I'd prefer a sandbag or a taser to a bullet, so yes on 1

You'll have to elaborate on two.

[ShadowFox]

Quote by: Gods_Mercenary If I was the trouble maker, I'd prefer a sandbag or a taser to a bullet, so yes on 1 You'll have to elaborate on two.

Very well. What happened is the police and protection purchasing them weapons did not disclose what weapons they are actually going to purchase (except for the pepper bullets, which is for sure). Only what they might purchase. ACLU is currently suing them over this demanding to know what weapons were purchased. Do you think they should have to disclose what weapons they purchased to the public, or can it be kept secret?

[Gods_Mercenary]

Not sure why it matters, the purpose of a non- lethal weapon is always the same, to traumatize the body or take away its senses in a way that renders the victim immobile.

[grandpa]

Quote by: Gods_Mercenary Not sure why it matters, the purpose of a non-lethal weapon is always the same, to traumatize the body or take away its senses in a way that renders the victim immobile.

They want protesters to start screaming and run away, but some day the conventions will be immobilized. This is one show that must not go on.

Grandpa h.

[Gods_Mercenary]

Who protests a convention anymore anyways? thats so 1960's.

[shawmutt]

1. Should these sort of weapons be used?

If a crowd cannot control themselves, police should be able to use whatever is needed to control them. That non-lethal means are being developed should be complimented, not chastised.

2. Should they be forced to reveal what weapons they are going to be used?

Absolutely not. If troublemakers know what weapons are being used they can devise ways to circumvent them, and to what end? To create more trouble? Is it worth the drama? If a group feels strongly about an issue they should be able to gather and control themselves accordingly.

[grandpa]

Quote by: shawmutt If a crowd cannot control themselves, police should be able to use whatever is needed to control them. That non-lethal means are being developed should be complimented, not chastised.

As if it's always protesters getting "out of control."

Grandpa h.

[Gods_Mercenary]

Granted, police have been known to riot themselves if put under enough pressure, but in any case, the protesters like attention.

[grandpa]

Quote by: Gods_Mercenary Granted, police have been known to riot themselves if put under enough pressure, but in any case, the protesters like attention.

"If put under enough pressure?" No, they most often do it because elites hate dissent.

Grandpa h.

[Gods_Mercenary]

Please, most cops are anything if elite, and politicians know that violence is one sure thing that will get people to care about the protesters.

[grandpa]

Quote by: Gods_Mercenary Please, most cops are anything if elite, and politicians know that violence is one sure thing that will get people to care about the protesters.

Maybe not, but they are intended primarily to serve elite -- that is, ruling class -- interests. You're right that intelligent authorities aren't as quick to use force, that they are much more interested in controlling popular opinion. This may explain why, quite often anyway, we hear stories about hordes of anti-war protesters who ran around attacking soldiers returning from Vietnam. If soldiers devastate a country, that's forgivable, but if people protest violence it's supposed to be utterly contemptible. That's why many think it's always protesters who initiate the violence. To say differently is to veer away from the script.

Grandpa h.

[Hopscotch]

I think these types of weapons are good for crowd control etc. If a riot breaks out, it's always a bad idea to start throwin' bullets... the media never takes that well. The truth is though that riots often do get out of hand and need something to bring them down.

I don't think these are any replacement for real guns for the household. Like God's Mercenary said, A burgler is probably more scared of a real handgun than a beanbag gun. I think crime would rise somewhat if these replaced household guns only becasue they seem less threatening.

[grandpa]

Quote by: Hopscotch I think these types of weapons are good for crowd control etc. If a riot breaks out, it's always a bad idea to start throwin' bullets...

I suppose riot police help with crowd control, at least in the way a shark helps with swimming. Who knows? Some may need cops kicking their bodies after they hit
the ground.

Grandpa h.

[Gods_Mercenary]

I'm sure the people whose cars and houses are not totally destroyed because the crowd is pushed back would disagree.

[shawmutt]

Quote by: Gods_Mercenary I'm sure the people whose cars and houses are not totally destroyed because the crowd is pushed back would disagree.

Or the business fronts that are destroyed and looted.

[another day]

Oh please... every riot, except sports related ones, happen in response to state oppression, usually by the police force. The detroit riots for example. There may have been looting, etc but it was unjust, oppressive police that created such an anger within the people to lash out.

Now, for political protesters, they will not just start attacking old ladies and children who happen to walk by, or looting stores. Anytime violence breaks out, it is ALWAYS in response to an oppressive, intimidating police force, dressed like stormtroopers, trying to manipulate the people and control them with line formations, pushing with the shield etc.

Riot cops CREATE violence. They know this. It's the whole point. You said that violence "gets people to care about the protesters"... this could not be further from the case. Most people trust the government way too much. When they see violence against protesters by riot cops, be it teargas, baton assaults, rubber bullets, they, like you, assume the crowd was "out of hand" and consist of nothing but a "bunch of no-good trouble makers". This creates public apathy, and possibly even disdain for whatever cause the protesters champion. It also creates an atmosphere where protesting is seen as a fringe activity for only radical extremists, and not for the general public.

There should be NO police sent to protests. If someone calls 911 to report an emergency, then sent some, but I don't buy the argument that we need entire battalions of stormtrooper cops dressed like members of the military to surround and threaten peaceful sign waving citizens. It is an underhanded police state tactic to undermine dissenters of the state.

This is not even addressing the more serious tactics they use, such as inserting fake protesters into the crowd to throw rocks at the cops (on camera), so the cops can have an excuse to move in with tear gas, batons, and ramming shields. This is well documented and as been standard practice since the 60s.

[Gods_Mercenary]

Please, in 04 there were riots all over MA because the red sox won the series, riots happen for many reasons, sometimes out of happiness, out of anger, for the hell of it. The common denominator is things get destroyed, and they take a while to fizzle out on their own.

[grandpa]

Quote by: Gods_Mercenary Please, in 04 there were riots all over MA because the red sox won the series, riots happen for many reasons, sometimes out of happiness, out of anger, for the hell of it. The common denominator is things get destroyed, and they take a while to fizzle out on their own.

In some cases, riots are a sign we're "going to hell in a hand basket." At other times, they are signs of hope, of life.

Grandpa h.

[HelioPrime]

Quote by: another day There should be NO police sent to protests. If someone calls 911 to report an emergency, then sent some, but I don't buy the argument that we need entire battalions of stormtrooper cops dressed like members of the military to surround and threaten peaceful sign waving citizens. It is an underhanded police state tactic to undermine dissenters of the state.

What about protests where we know the protesters will run in and try to cause a scene on camera? I don't think we need telepathy to bet the protesters at both the republican and democratic conventions will have plenty of people seeking to rush inside and cause a massive media scene.

Don't the conventions and the guests deserve to be able to meet and hold an event in peace? This right has to be protected. There will obviously be door guards. Wouldn't these guards as well ignite the crowd? So then were left with either using police protection to keep a peace or letting the crowd run rampant.