Occupy Portland's Dec 3rd Tactic to Neutralize Police • Hacker News Board

Re: Occupy Portland's Dec 3rd Tactic to Neutralize Police

#91

Post by nosse » Mon, Jan 02, 2012, 1:10 PM UTC

WanderingEnder wrote: post #86

ms4720 wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Completely different situations: 1: worse case in current situation, I may break a bone or get a concussion followed with medical attention and bragging rights with my peers 2: fire bullets into crowd, lots of people die. Or think about using flame throwers for crowd control

As far as the less lethal situation, using impact rounds can result in death. Fluidity of the crowd, improper use of the launcher, pure dumb luck can all play a role in where rounds land. People can, and have, died from direct fire with less lethals including the FN-303 Paint Marking launcher, various 12 gauge skip fire and direct fire munitions, 37mm gas munitions, and 40mm direct fire less lethal and gas munitions.…

As some kind of thumb rule, less than lethal usually means that about 2% die and 5% don't get affected. You can make it more effective so that everybody is affected, but then the percentage of dead people rises. Or other way around. Usually police should use "less than lethal" weaponry only in situations where casualties are acceptable.

Re: Occupy Portland's Dec 3rd Tactic to Neutralize Police

#92

Post by oldstrangers » Mon, Jan 02, 2012, 1:14 PM UTC

po wrote: post #90

usaar333 wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wouldn't blame him if he is upset that one of his favorite parks has been "occupied".

He's clearly upset about the wasted effort on a cause he cares about, not losing access to a park.

You're right.

Re: Occupy Portland's Dec 3rd Tactic to Neutralize Police

#93

Post by nosse » Mon, Jan 02, 2012, 1:17 PM UTC

corin_ wrote: post #5

I don't know if this is a difference between UK and US police tactics, or if it's specific to Portland - I also don't know if it's the case that the difference was caused by not caring as much or just by not being as successful: UK police have done a much better job in the past, and rendered this article nonsense. The key difference: > Since we had no clear destination, the police were unable to get ahead of us and s…

In my home town they had some kind of occupy stuff going on lately. But the police used their superior Sun Tzu art of war strategy and picked their battle wisely. They didn't pick this one. The occupation faded away as winter came, no police resources wasted on nonviolent park-sitting.

Re: Occupy Portland's Dec 3rd Tactic to Neutralize Police

#94

Post by JoeAltmaier » Mon, Jan 02, 2012, 1:49 PM UTC

guelo wrote: post #74

JoeAltmaier wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

THe discourse is mainly limited to the crazy antics of the protesters. They have proven profoundly incapable of delivering any coherent message.

That is just wrong. The whole world now knows the 1% term now.

Sure; that was good. But so what? Now what? What does this mean for anybody? What does it mean to continue to doodle around in public parks?

The message now is, we're having a grand old time getting ourselves in the news, by distracting the police and annoying the public.

Re: Occupy Portland's Dec 3rd Tactic to Neutralize Police

#95

Post by ldh » Mon, Jan 02, 2012, 2:15 PM UTC

andrewflnr wrote: post #50

barrkel wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your argument seems to be that anything other than obedience of authority means destruction of civilization, and sounds hyperbolic and reactionary. Apply that principle to apartheid, British Raj, Tahrir, etc. and see how it looks.

Non-violent resistance to injustice is one thing. Indefinitely evading police for little other purpose, that I can see, of getting in the way is another. I'm not quite sure where the line is, but this kind of thing scares me. If a person or group deliberately incites law enforcement to escalate the level of violence in the performance of their duty, are they not partially responsible for that violence? Are their goal…

> Civilization hangs on a fine thread of voluntary compliance to the government.

That sounds pretty much exactly backwards from any society I want to be a part of. I don't exist in service of a government, but can choose to tolerate a government that provides value to me.

Re: Occupy Portland's Dec 3rd Tactic to Neutralize Police

#96

Post by [deleted] » Mon, Jan 02, 2012, 3:21 PM UTC

philwelch wrote: post #88

guelo wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That is just wrong. The whole world now knows the 1% term now.

And to what extent that's the case, the seeds of another Lenin or Robespierre, to slaughter the "1%" wholesale for the perceived greater good, have been planted. Scapegoating the rich, or "bankers", or some ethnic group that's associated with the above, is a tactic we've seen before, and never leads to anything good.

[deleted]

Re: Occupy Portland's Dec 3rd Tactic to Neutralize Police

#97

Post by tptacek » Mon, Jan 02, 2012, 4:21 PM UTC

oldstrangers wrote: post #83

jberryman wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> These people take themselves entirely too seriously. > ... > look at the Internet's success with GoDaddy and the few other companies changing their stance on SOPA. What exactly is your metric for success here? A sleazy company changed their stance on a bill that the public is completely unaware of and couldn't give two shits about? I think "the internet" is taking itself too seriously. Meanwhile a nation-wide prote…

The occupy camps have been largely impotent. Whatever immeasurable metaphysical success they've found thus far is more than likely purely coincidental. The collective attitudes of all individuals tend to shift in similar directions when shit gets bad enough. If the building is on fire, most people are going to head for the exits. Claiming that it was OWS that got people talking about income inequality is kind of sill…

You can't be detained indefinitely under the detainment provisions of the 2012 NDAA for arguing with a flight attendant.

Re: Occupy Portland's Dec 3rd Tactic to Neutralize Police

#98

Post by tptacek » Mon, Jan 02, 2012, 4:22 PM UTC

guelo wrote: post #74

JoeAltmaier wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

THe discourse is mainly limited to the crazy antics of the protesters. They have proven profoundly incapable of delivering any coherent message.

That is just wrong. The whole world now knows the 1% term now.

Is that the bar? Doesn't every popular Internet meme cross that bar too?

Re: Occupy Portland's Dec 3rd Tactic to Neutralize Police

#99

Post by pstuart » Mon, Jan 02, 2012, 4:30 PM UTC

nerfhammer wrote: post #84

ms4720 wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In the US I think that might come under false arrest or illegal imprisonment by the police.

Unlawful detainment, among other things I think.

They should definitely contact the police about that unlawful behavior.

Re: Occupy Portland's Dec 3rd Tactic to Neutralize Police

#100

Post by jdietrich » Mon, Jan 02, 2012, 5:24 PM UTC

What annoys me most about the Occupy movement is that they aren't even intellectually active enough to study other contemporary protest movements. I'm staggered at the number of people involved in Occupy who genuinely see police as a bunch of cretinous thugs and don't imagine that they might organise international conferences or share case studies.

Public order policing has been a game of cat-and-mouse for decades, following the movements of European anarchists around the usual circuit of Mayday protests, G8 conferences and arms fairs. It's a highly evolved field and there are extensive playbooks on both sides.

This strategy was devised years ago, in response to police lines being used to control and prevent marching. A core group, usually a Black Bloc, lead other protesters in a fast march, choosing their direction only at the last possible second. The goal is to move faster than police dispatchers can react, preventing the police from establishing organised lines quickly enough. The police response in the UK is pre-emptive kettling[1], in much of the rest of the world a mix of roadblocks and simple brutality. Unless the protesters are angry enough to run into a baton charge or prepared enough to run into CS gas, it's a completely ineffective tactic.

Some commenters seem to believe that kettling would be illegal under US law; It may well be, but that hasn't stopped the extensive use of "free speech zones"[2] to pre-emptively restrict the movement of protesters. Without a Supreme Court ruling, there's nothing to stop Portland PD or anyone else from using kettles.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kettling [2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_speech_zone