Rubber Bullets Used on War Protesters in Oakland

[Guest]

Back during the WTO riots, one of my students, who happened to live on Capitol Hill in Seattle, brought some of those little nasties to class. "Rubber" ain't it. More like hard plastic, shot from a rapid-fire paintball gun. At least when a paintball hits you, it breaks and dissipates its energy - not so these little "party favors".

"The mouse does not know life until it is in the mouth of the cat."

[PhillyKev 0]

And for the record...I have no problem with the police dispersing an unruly mob. Or arresting violent protestors, and using force to subdue violent protestors/criminals. My opinion on this matter is that it sounds like, and every independent witness accounting I've read indicates that, the police used an unnecessarily violent and indiscriminate level of force.

[mnischalke 0]

Quote

And for those who felt those projectiles were used correctly...I guess you're right, they must have shot them past the protesters and made them ricochet to come back and hit them in the back. IN THE BACK!

The velocity of the 5 Multiple Wood Baton Rounds from CTS is 280 fps. If a launcher was raised in your direction, you wouldn't be able to out run the things, but you could certainly have a chance to turn. If you'll notice the hit in the person's upper right shoulder is a grazing shot, he was quartering and away from the origin of the shot. Actually, if you look at the prints of each shot, they tend to suggest he was at an angle. So, getting shot in the back with one of these things is not indicative of someone running away, or even walking away. Also, we don't get a chance to look at his front, and therefore, not much of an assumption can be made on his actions at the time.

Also, I hate the term NON-Lethal. None of the tactical ballistic crowd control items are NON-Lethal. They are Less-Lethal. Even CS/CN gas can be lethal.

mike

Girls only want boyfriends who have great skills--You know, like nunchuk skills, bow-hunting skills, computer-hacking skills.

[Guest]

If I were going to a disruptive protest like that, I'd have a flak jacket and hi-impact goggles on at the very least. A heavy leather jacket, like a motorcycle jacket, would be helpful too, methinks.

280 fps is nothing to sneeze at. That's pretty quick - as in, the projectile flies almost the length of a football (US) field in one second. Now put yourself 25-30 feet away. That means the projectile is going to strike you about 1/10th of a second after it leaves the muzzle - in less time than you can blink an eye. OW!

"The mouse does not know life until it is in the mouth of the cat."

[billvon 3,080]

>In other words, if the government decides it will oppress rather than
> represent the citizenry of the United States, there may be a call to
> arms to remove the cancer from the capital.

While I can understand this point of view, it seems somewhat opposed to this one:

>if you're going to protest and something like this happens, ya might
>want to go ahead and either run (speed walk) or beat the shit out of
> the guy who starts throwing shit at the cops.

To me, both armed insurrection and assaulting cops is bad if you feel that there is a 'cancer' in the capital that needs revision. However, throwing things (i.e. violent protest) is light years better than shooting cops (i.e. armed insurrection.) Peaceful protest is, of course, better than both.

[wmw999 2,550]

Quote

Mentioning the 1st Amendment within the Kent State reference is indicative that folks only know what they read in some 8th grade history book. Kent State was a fucked-up situation that clearly left no winners and did nothing to impact our withdrawal from Vietnam.

Comparing Kent State to what happened in the story which originated this post was reaching at best, but in my opinion, Kent State doesn't even come close to the government's atrocities from Wounded Knee to Waco.

Just a side note -- I agree with you here, the problems at Wounded Knee and Waco (howzabout Ruby Ridge?) were much more systemic than Kent State.

Something that concerns me in the current conflict is the parallel I see between that kind of heavy handed attitude in Ruby Ridge and Waco, and in Iraq.

"They have stuff the law says they're not supposed to"

"We told them so repeatedly"

"They don't care about our rules"

"We're going to take that shit away from them"

"Even if it takes violence"

It's not the same thing exactly because it's not the US, but it's definitely a parallel situation.

Wendy W.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[mnischalke 0]

Not opposed at all. You clip two totally different scenarios: One of protest and one of revolution.

You are throwing apples and oranges into the same pot and stirring them. Just reread the thread. While I enjoy your frequent twisting of situations and conversations, I am not playing today.

Btw, I protest with a ballot.

Peace out.

mike

Girls only want boyfriends who have great skills--You know, like nunchuk skills, bow-hunting skills, computer-hacking skills.

[billvon 3,080]

>One of protest and one of revolution.

Do you see them as separate? Does that particular second amendment defense envision a scenario where a relatively silent (but well armed) revolutionary force takes over a government by force, without protest first? Or is the process protest-violent protest-armed protest-armed rebellion more likely to be followed?

That particular defense of the second amendment (that a well-armed populace can defend themselves against a corrupt government) is an argument for violence as a way to change government. I find it interesting that armed violence seems easier to contemplate than lesser amounts of violence.

>You are throwing apples and oranges into the same pot and stirring
> them.

Is the first amendment the apple, and the second amendment the orange? Or vice versa?