Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Politics Government

Police Disperse Bush Protesters with Pepper Paintballs 259

Posted by michael from the welts-will-fade-in-a-week-or-two dept.
help_cecil_help writes "The AP has this story on how Bush protesters in Jacksonville Oregon were dispersed by local police using 'pepperballs.' The Jacksonville City Administrator described the projectiles as 'like a paintball filled with cayenne pepper'."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Police Disperse Bush Protesters with Pepper Paintballs More

Police Disperse Bush Protesters with Pepper Paintballs

Comments Filter:

  • to all Americans out there (Score:3, Insightful)

    by xutopia ( 469129 ) on Friday October 15, 2004 @03:31PM (#10539433) Homepage
    wether you support Bush or not this is fascism.
    • I agree. This is absolutely disgusting.

      Does the first amendment even apply anymore? I can't tell.
    • Welcome to the United Police States of America. Papers, please!

      • Re:to all Americans out there (Score:4, Funny)

        by EnronHaliburton2004 ( 815366 ) on Friday October 15, 2004 @04:50PM (#10540268) Homepage Journal
        "Papers, please!"

        RTFA!

        "PEPPERS please!"

        (As someone who has been peppered sprayed by cops during protests, I have a right to make a joke!"

      • The U.S. government is FAR more corrupt than people want to believe.

        Here is a list of 3 movies and 35 books that say that the Bush administration is corrupt: Unprecedented Corruption: A guide to conflict of interest in the U.S. government [futurepower.org].

        Table of U.S. Parties and Economics [bovik.org]

        Government data shows Democrat and Republican spending patterns. [hevanet.com]
        • Wow, two troll moderations for saying something every U.S. citizen should know!

          • Re:Not 1, but 2. (Score:4, Interesting)

            by TheLink ( 130905 ) on Saturday October 16, 2004 @09:44AM (#10544233) Journal
            That's what worries some of us in the rest of the world.

            The US people don't want to know or seem to care. Look at the response to Diebold, Iraq + "WMD".

            When we say we don't support Bush, they say stupid stuff like: "That's because we don't want a strong America". Or we are lying/just-as-evil "Democrats". Doh! Just look at many of the postings here.

            There was a strong America for gulf war I and AFAIK much of the world was fairly supportive up till the US gov did some dubious stuff post sep 11.

            Dunno why so many US ppl don't seem to get it when/why the very same allies/neutrals that said "Go ahead, attack Iraq" when Iraq attacked Kuwait, said a very different thing when the US wanted to start Gulf War II.

            AFAIK many of us don't mind a strong America. A "stupid/evil and strong America" is what worries us.

            The US playing "World Police" is OK. It's when the US starts heading down the path towards "World Dictator" that scares us.

            Face it US folk. We were right to say there was no justification for the 2nd Iraq war based on the official reasons given - we could see your leaders were not being _honest_ about the war. Whether they lied is another matter - but the lack of honesty was obvious to us, we don't understand fully why it wasn't obvious to you. EVEN NOW, the US Gov gets away with: "aw shucks, oops looks like the info wasn't good, oh well aren't you glad Saddam is out of power now?".

            Doh. When the World Most Powerful Nation goes against the most of world opinion, unilaterally attacks an already hamstrung nation ruled by a evil dictator and most importantly doesn't give honest reasons for doing so, it's missing the point completely to swallow the "aren't you glad Saddam is gone" line.

            Remember: being honest is not the same as not telling lies. When very many people say "you're wrong", if you really care about the truth, you should at least recheck the "facts", rather than keep massaging them till they look good to you.

            I don't see how people can conclude Bush and the US Gov were honest.

    • Teachers' T-shirts bring Bush speech ouster (Score:5, Informative)

      by Seumas ( 6865 ) on Friday October 15, 2004 @03:41PM (#10539547)
      Another story from the same event. There were three women that were kicked out of the gathering and threatened with being arrested for wearing obscene tee-shirts to tht event. What did the tee-shirts say?

      "Protect our civil liberties"

      http://www.bend.com/news/ar_view%5E3Far_id%5E3D187 12.htm [bend.com]

      From Bend.com news sources
      Posted: Thursday, October 14, 2004 10:24 PM
      Reference Code: PR-18712

      October 14 - MEDFORD - President Bush taught three Oregon schoolteachers a new lesson in irony - or tragedy - Thursday night when his campaign removed them from a Bush speech and threatened them with arrest simply for wearing t-shirts that said "Protect Our Civil Liberties," the Democratic Party of Oregon reported.

      The women were ticketed to the event, admitted into the event, and were then approached by event officials before the president's speech. They were asked to leave and to turn over their tickets - two of the three tickets were seized, but the third was saved when one of the teachers put it underneath an article of clothing.

      "The U.S. Constitution was not available on site for comment, but expressed in a written statement support for "the freedom of speech" and "of the press" among other civil liberties," a Democratic news release said.

      The Associated Press and local CBS affiliate KTVL captured Bush's principled stand against civil liberties in news accounts published immediately after the event.

      The AP reported:

      Three Medford school teachers were threatened with arrest and escorted from the event after they showed up wearing T-shirts with the slogan "Protect our civil liberties." All three said they applied for and received valid tickets from Republican headquarters in Medford.

      The women said they did not intend to protest. "I wanted to see if I would be able to make a statement that I feel is important, but not offensive, in a rally for my president," said Janet Voorhies, 48, a teacher in training.

      "We chose this phrase specifically because we didn't think it would be offensive or degrading or obscene," said Tania Tong, 34, a special education teacher.

      Thursday's event in Oregon sets a new bar for a Bush/Cheney campaign that has taken extraordinary measures to screen the opinions of those who attend Bush and Cheney speeches. For months, the Bush/Cheney campaign has limited event access to those willing to volunteer in Bush/Cheney campaign offices. In recent weeks, the Bush/Cheney campaign has gone so far as to have those who voice dissenting viewpoints at their events arrested and charged as criminals.

      Thursday's actions in Oregon set a new standard even for Bush/Cheney - removing and threatening with arrest citizens who in no way disrupt an event and wear clothing that expresses non-disruptive party-neutral viewpoints such as "Protect Our Civil Liberties."

      When Vice President Dick Cheney visited Eugene, Oregon on Sept. 17, a 54-Year old woman named Perry Patterson was charged with criminal trespass for blurting the word "No" when Cheney said that George W. Bush has made the world safer.

      One day before, Sue Niederer, 55, the mother of a slain American soldier in Iraq was cuffed and arrested for criminal trespass when she interrupted a Laura Bush speech in New Jersey. Both women had tickets to the event.

    • Re:to all Americans out there (Score:5, Interesting)

      by tid242 ( 540756 ) * on Friday October 15, 2004 @03:46PM (#10539600) Homepage
      Jacksonville City Administrator Paul Wyntergreen said the protest was peaceful until a few people started pushing police.

      99% of the time this is utter bullshit, reminds me of when a cop calls someone a "stupid fucking nigger" and when someone points out that the cop's a racist asshole, he/she's arrested for "harassing an officer" or some such other nonesense.

      -tid242

      • Comment removed (Score:4, Insightful)

        by account_deleted ( 4530225 ) on Friday October 15, 2004 @03:50PM (#10539656)
        Comment removed based on user account deletion

        • Bloody Sunday. (Score:5, Interesting)

          by tid242 ( 540756 ) * on Friday October 15, 2004 @04:20PM (#10539977) Homepage
          You find it hard to believe that anyone of the hundreds of protestors was being violent or aggressive with the police? Hell when you get that many angry people together I would find it hard to believe.

          Have you ever BEEN in a protest? There are always people who just want to fuck things up and make a scene.

          Yes, like Bloody Sunday, where the word of the paratroopers *totally* justified the 27 people they shot, 13 of which were killed... Police PR tactics typically play the "blame the victm" game, which i'm just saying is fallacious, and generally untrustworthy.

          -tid242

        • Have you ever BEEN in a protest? There are always people who just want to fuck things up and make a scene.

          Arrest them, but dont turn your guns on the peaceful. If you cant tell the difference, maybe you are the problem.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by account_deleted ( 4530225 )
      Comment removed based on user account deletion
      • Really, what country are you in where cops are perfectly ok with protesters pushing them and instigating a fight (or did you not read the article?)

        Did you read the part where they fired on the whole crowd? That is not acceptable. Whats next, 1 guy throws a rock, so mow them down with a machine gun?

        This isnt IRAN or China, we dont have tanks in the street, stop acting like it.

        Getting really tired of the cops using someones bad actions to cover their own against innocents.

        Until the police loose lawsuits
        • Tin soldiers and Nixon's coming
          We're finally on our own
          This summer I hear the drumming
          Four dead in Ohio

          Gotta get down to it
          Soldiers are gunning us down
          Should have been done long ago
          What if you knew her and
          Found her dead on the ground
          How can you run when you know?

    • Quashing of dissent (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Engineer-Poet ( 795260 ) on Friday October 15, 2004 @04:05PM (#10539815) Homepage Journal
      I remember speeches by pols where protest signs held up in the auditorium were taken in stride. Hell, I attended a speech by President Ford which was punctuated by cries of "What about Nixon?" from somewhere off to my right. (This was before I was able to vote, natch.)

      I have never, ever seen anything like the reflexive hostility of this administration to normal political opposition. This Bush should expect it; he got into office on a hugely controversial court decision and with fewer votes than his opponent, and has proceeded to embark on an extreme right-wing program targetting access to and even information about birth control, gutting of pollution regulations and the doctoring of scientific information on government websites to conform to a partisan agenda.

      Nothing can excuse this. Nothing. And then we read about the arrest and harassment of people whose only act is to register their discontent with the acts of the President, over and over and over.

      I have few beefs with the President over the most controversial of his actions, over in a hot, tired and dusty land far away... but the rest of this stuff threatens the very soul of America if it is allowed to continue. So the only thing I can do is to vote the rascal out, as a lesson to him and any who would follow him:

      Thou shalt not abridge the freedom of speech, or of the press, or tell falsehoods about the conclusions which our taxpayer-financed research has given us, or let anyone contaminate my air and water for the bonuses of the corporate executive class. Not In My Name.

      (And that goes for anyone pandering to the postmodern PC idiotarians on the other side too; throw sops to them, and you've declared yourself my enemy.)

      • I have never, ever seen anything like the reflexive hostility of this administration to normal political opposition.

        Apparently you missed the '60s...
        • I did miss the 60's, but the tactics detailed in TFA remind me of the firehoses used against the civil rights activists in the old South or King Dailey I's police abuses at the Chicago Democratic Convention of 1968. Our government has already gone too far in that direction.

          Which is not to praise the Weathermen or any of the leftist nutcases of the time, but I'm talking about what the people in the government do with the power they're supposed to be using on my behalf.

          • Actually, there are large differences with prior "crowd dispersal" techniques. The police in recent times have invested lots of money and time into 'less than leathal' weapons for dealing with crowds. Sure, a few people may get some welts (I've paintballed myself and they can sting), but far from the days of students being clubbed, or pushed with high-pressure hoses.

            500 or so people from strongly opposing camps yelling at each other with the cops in the middle and the President in town staying at the

            • Actually, there are large differences with prior "crowd dispersal" techniques. The police in recent times have invested lots of money and time into 'less than leathal' weapons for dealing with crowds.

              ... which makes it that much easier for the government to use them to squelch political discourse and peaceful (if noisy) protest, because the consequences are so much less likely to create martyrs (tin soldiers and Nixon coming, anyone?). Notice how much anti-speech action we're seeing?

              And what's with the

              • I'm curious, exactly what anti-speech actions are you talking about?

                And as far as protesting in the streets is concerned, I consider it to be the lowest form of protesting. Holding signs and yelling at the president is quite possibly the least effective means of getting your point made. Yes, I still support it as legal, but such situations are often dangerous, and rarely lead to any good...
                • And as far as protesting in the streets is concerned, I consider it to be the lowest form of protesting. Holding signs and yelling at the president is quite possibly the least effective means of getting your point made. Yes, I still support it as legal, but such situations are often dangerous, and rarely lead to any good...

                  I would be curious to hear how you think people would better protest. How else should they be heard?

                  I'm curious, exactly what anti-speech actions are you talking about?

                  He's probab
                  • I would be curious to hear how you think people would better protest. How else should they be heard?

                    Petitions, special interest groups, holding 'talks' on subjects in public forums, etc. 'Course they're more difficult to arrange, but I think they're much more effective in the long run. Most people just ignore folks who stand and yell at them.

                    being cordoned off into a "free speech zone" blocks away from events.

                    You seem to associate this with Bush... Might I remind you this happened at the DNC in
                • A quick search [google.com] turns up an article on the arrest of people [sfgate.com] whose "crime" was to desire to hold signs critical of Bush's policies where they would be visible from his motorcade. This policy of arresting and jailing people who criticize Bush in public appears to be official policy of the "Justice" Department under Bush [ucr.edu].

                  A government which is abiding by the law would be firing and prosecuting the Secret Service agents and police officials responsible for these outrages, rather than institutionalizing the viola

            • Re:You pegged it (Score:3, Insightful)

              by dtfinch ( 661405 ) *
              Those weapons are meant for "riot dispersal". There are some differences between an angry crowd and a riot. If you're acting within your rights, your constitutional rights, and a police officer under orders from your government shoots you in the face with a paintball, filled not with paint but with cayenne pepper, to restrain you from further practice of your consitutional rights, guaranteed to you as a protection against government abuse, intentionally worded to allow no exceptions, is that a success? For
    • Jacksonville City Administrator Paul Wyntergreen said the protest was peaceful until a few people started pushing police

      That is NOT Fascism it is called stopping a riot before it starts.
    • And you just figured this out? People have been warning about this for years.

      I'm sure you're familiar with the famous quotation:

      First They Came for the Jews

      First they came for the Jews
      and I did not speak out
      because I was not a Jew.
      Then they came for the Communists
      and I did not speak out
      because I was not a Communist.
      Then they came for the trade unionists
      and I did not speak out
      because I was not a trade unionist.
      Then they came for me
      and there was no one left
      to speak out for me.
      Pastor Martin Niemöller

    • is it fascism when revelers (after superbowls, world series, etc.) are dispersed in the same manner? or is it for protection for property/person?

      granted it seems like the response by local authorities was over the top. but remember bush supporters where present too. even musilini (and stalin) didnt attack those who supported them.

      just overzealous cops here, move along.

  • According to TFA... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by droid_rage ( 535157 ) on Friday October 15, 2004 @03:35PM (#10539479) Journal
    The police didn't start firing pepper balls until people in the crowd started pushing them.

    Is it excessive? Definitely. But rather than calling this fascism, I'd call this hyper-sensitivity by law enforcement, probably mostly due to the constant terror warnings and the much higher than normal tension over this election.
    • But rather than calling this fascism, I'd call this hyper-sensitivity by law enforcement, probably mostly due to the constant terror warnings and the much higher than normal tension over this election.

      In other words, a fascist action on behalf of a fascist government.

      Thanks for clearing that up.

      The sort of "hyper-sensitivity" that leads to excessive police force is a symptom of fascism. It's like you're saying, "I wouldn't call it the flu, I'd call it coughing and sneezing and a fever," or, "I wouldn't

    • Who to believe? (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Bowling Moses ( 591924 )
      From TFA: "Jacksonville City Administrator Paul Wyntergreen said the protest was peaceful until a few people started pushing police. Police reacted by firing pepperballs, which he described as projectiles like a paintball filled with cayenne pepper. Two people were arrested for failing to disperse. There were no reports of injuries."

      Police were pushed, then responded or: "He [Richard Swaney] said he was walking with the crowd away from the inn when he was hit in the back with three separate bursts, one

  • ummm... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Tanktalus ( 794810 ) on Friday October 15, 2004 @03:35PM (#10539484) Journal

    Fascism? No. This is a bunch of cops who would rather inflict than be inflicted upon. I highly doubt either candidate would tell the cops to do this!

    From the article:

    We were being loud, but I never knew that was against the law.
    Yeah, most cities have noise ordnances. And:
    ...the protest was peaceful until a few people started pushing police. Police reacted...
    You start pushing them, they get worried about their safety, and respond. An earlier protest didn't get the news coverage, so I assume there were no pepper bullets fired there. Just a bit of a mob mentality (two opposing sides yelling at each other - it'll get heated!), and a few self-preserving cops.

    Nothing to see here. Move along.

    • Re:ummm... (Score:2, Flamebait)

      by pbox ( 146337 )
      Fascism? No. This is a bunch of cops who would rather inflict than be inflicted upon. I highly doubt either candidate would tell the cops to do this!


      Don't we sound retarded!

      IT is not a question who or wether anyone told the police to use excessive force.

      IT is more of a question who did not tell the police not to use excessive force. (Which has always been the pattern, the police force need to be controlled by overview, otherwise it becomes fascist...)

    • Unfortunately, there are always a few people in a protest crowd who are there not because they give a shit about what's going on, but because they want to pick a fight.

      So it is always the case that if the police decide that they want to fire on you with non-lethal weapons, or arrest you, or whatever, they can do so, because they can claim that the rabble rousers were representative of you.

      Courts generally don't uphold these arrests, but the hassle factor is pretty significant, and of course getting hit wi

    • Re:ummm... (Score:4, Insightful)

      by node 3 ( 115640 ) on Friday October 15, 2004 @05:07PM (#10540452)
      Fascism? No. This is a bunch of cops who would rather inflict than be inflicted upon. I highly doubt either candidate would tell the cops to do this!

      They don't have to tell them what to do, they just set up the situation and let things unfold "naturally".

      Yeah, most cities have noise ordnances.

      You can't let local ordinances (your misspelling is quite amusing in context) trump democracy. If you do, that's just the sort of sign to look for to warn you that you're in a fascist state.

      Just a bit of a mob mentality (two opposing sides yelling at each other - it'll get heated!), and a few self-preserving cops.

      "Self-preserving"? They were pushed. That's what they're there for. To provide a wall between the people and the President. In a democracy, walls aren't supposed to shoot people who "push" against it. Shooting people with chemical weapons (they've one-upped the normal mace cans with this one, now they've combined chemical and projectile weapons into one!) is excessive.

      • Re:ummm... (Score:2, Insightful)

        by Rayonic ( 462789 )
        > You can't let local ordinances (your misspelling is quite amusing in context) trump democracy.

        So...

        Undemocratic: Having your elected officials pass laws, and having some kind of police force enforce said laws.

        Democratic: Letting a small group of people break what laws they want and intimidate the greater populace.

        Gotcha.
        • Undemocratic: Having your elected officials pass laws, and having some kind of police force enforce said laws.

          Inherently so, but not unacceptably so. We accept the Republican format of government because it approaches Democracy. Ie: as long as our elected leaders serve our interests and wills, it's "democratic enough", if you will.

          Democratic: Letting a small group of people break what laws they want and intimidate the greater populace.

          You are generalizing a specific case. I never suggested that people
          • What's more important, enforcing some random law, or protecting the ideals and virtues of democracy? I imagine there are some laws from time to time which trump democratic action, from time to time, but I can't accept that as a general, default, rule. And when you look at this specific case (as posited by the poster, and now yourself) that a noise ordinance justified shooting people voicing their political views in the shadow of a visit by the President, there is no rational justification for the law trumpi
        • U.S. Constitution: Created to preserve the country and its democracy.

          Last I checked, local ordinances are no match for the U.S. Constitution.

          Undemocratic: Denying the right to peaceful protests.
          Undemocratic: Paying $600000 to tear up registrations opposition voter registrations.
          Undemocratic: Lying to get reelected.
          Undemocratic: Censoring independent media.
          Undemocratic: An unfair electoral system.
          Undemocratic: Keeping the unfair electoral system because it keeps the dominant party in power despite ma
    • ...the protest was peaceful until a few people started pushing police. Police reacted...

      The correct reaction would be to grab the person who pushed and arrest him/her.

      This takes the few violent individuals out of the general protest.

      Instead, the cops reacted by shooting at everyone.

      Just a bit of a mob mentality (two opposing sides yelling at each other - it'll get heated!), and a few self-preserving cops.

      Rather, cops who know they won't face repercussions for excessive use of force and have seen one

  • Knocked down by a paint ball...? (Score:4, Funny)

    by BurritoJ ( 75275 ) on Friday October 15, 2004 @03:38PM (#10539517)
    Geez, is this guy made of tissue paper and popsicle sticks? Or is the reporter being a little melodramatic?
  • "Well we actually didn't shoot them before we shot them with cayenne pepper balls."
  • Politicians and elected officials would never hurt anyone. And they must respect the individual and the minority group because to do anything else would hurt their chances of being re-elected. ...Unless, of course, Public Choice theory is correct and the bureaucrats are actually just humans like everyone else, looking out for their own self interest.

    Bob-

  • Hmmm (Score:4, Funny)

    by Otter ( 3800 ) on Friday October 15, 2004 @03:47PM (#10539615) Journal
    You can tell I didn't eat enough at lunch as my first thought was "That would be good with some melted Monterey jack..."

  • Sounds bad (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Psmylie ( 169236 ) on Friday October 15, 2004 @03:51PM (#10539666) Homepage
    But it's difficult to say what really happened. When you have that many people together, in an emotionally charged environment, small things can trigger large incidents.

    I've personally seen this happen before, during Critical Mass (an event where a large number of bicyclists essentially take over the streets). The police were keeping an eye on the situation, and 99% of the participants were well-behaved. Then a few people broke the law (ran a red light) and suddenly the police began chasing people down, yanking them off their bikes (which were tossed onto a flatbed truck) and arresting a few who protested the unfair treatment.

    At this particular protest, there may have been a few hotheads in the front (there usually are) who decided to push the police. Then the police (who were probably just waiting for an excuse anyway) treated the whole crowd as potentially hostile, instead of just the agitators. Did the police over-react? I'd say yes. But I wasn't at that protest, so I can't say for sure. My advice is, if you are holding a protest, always have someone who is some distance away film the entire event. Heck, have several, from different vantage points. That way, if the police aren't justified in their actions, you have the proof right there, and proper steps can be taken.


    • My advice is, if you are holding a protest, always have someone who is some distance away film the entire event. Heck, have several, from different vantage points. That way, if the police aren't justified in their actions, you have the proof right there, and proper steps can be taken.

      Good idea, just make sure that possible crowd "hothead" behaviour is also documented. It often takes only one or two agitators to motivate a crowd, and doing so is a pretty simple technique.

  • Working theory (Score:5, Insightful)

    by BrynM ( 217883 ) * on Friday October 15, 2004 @03:53PM (#10539682) Homepage Journal
    I've been tempted in the last few elections to just vote for the cantidate who actually talks to his/her protestors or the cantidate with the least protestors. How you treat someone who doesn't agree with you is a good measure of leadership skills in my opinion. This quieting of dissent by force really scares me as an american. I watched as my city turned into a police state during a WTO protest that happened here. None - I repeat: NONE - of the protestors were violent, but many of them and many bystanders were arrested anyway for edicts passed the night before by our city council which were breaching the constitutional right to assemble (They've been taken off the books now, but their intent was carried out). The Republican party has been way overreaching this year. I'm not voting for a single republican.

    So Republican slashdotters: go and tell your party that an independant voter won't even consider your cantidates because of this. Change this from within because they certainly aren't listening to us external voices.

    • Re:Working theory (Score:2, Flamebait)

      by Atzanteol ( 99067 )
      Which democratic candidate is talking to their protestors? The ones who put them in a cage in Boston during the DNC?

      This is bipartisan folks. A few 10s of police facing 500 people (half protesting - half in support of the President), with the President staying in the area? You're damn right the cops are gonna be nervous. This has "Powder Keg" written all over it...
      • A few 10s of police facing 500 people (half protesting - half in support of the President), with the President staying in the area? You're damn right the cops are gonna be nervous. This has "Powder Keg" written all over it...

        I'd agree with that- would you agree though that perhaps this President *deserves* such behavior for being such a prick?

      • Which democratic candidate is talking to their protestors? The ones who put them in a cage in Boston during the DNC?

        The third party cantidates are. The DNC was locked down and I expect that in conventions after what happened to the DNC in the 60s. Kerry at least will acknowledge the protestors though (example [usatoday.com], example [myway.com], example [sptimes.com], example [209.157.64.200]) After all, he was once a protester himself.

  • Safety Issues? (Score:5, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 15, 2004 @03:54PM (#10539695)
    I've been playing paintball for 10 years, 3 of which I spent working in the business, and the one thing the sport stresses the most is safety.

    At normal playing velocities, a paintball will just feel like a firm slap when it hits your skin. However if one hits you in the eye, you'd better learn to walk with a white cane, because you're going to lose the use of that eye. This is why players wear a mask at all times unless off the field. Even assuming the police were trained to fire low in order to avoid hitting someone in the face, there's still the fact that paintballs aren't accurate past about 40 feet, and firing into a milling crowd would only make that worse.

    Also note that I said normal velocities. I doubt the police had their markers set that low, since a few paintballs hitting you at 250 to 280 feet per second is not going to deter anyone. More likely they'd be set to at least the mid 300's, at which point they easily tear holes in clothing, not to mention the skin underneath.

    Paintballs may sound nice and safe, but if they're used against people who aren't properly protected then it's only a matter of time before someone is permanently blinded.

    • About the pepperball. (Score:5, Informative)

      by cryptor3 ( 572787 ) on Friday October 15, 2004 @04:27PM (#10540065) Journal
      Incidentally, pepperball.net [pepperball.net] appears to be a manufacturer and seems to be informative in how these may be applied. 350-380 fps is the nominal pepperball muzzle velocity.

      [From FAQ] All PepperBall launchers can target accurately at distances up to 30 feet.For PAVA (Capsaicin II) area saturation, projectilescan be broken against a hard surface such as a car or wall at distances up to 150 feet.

      In other words, they can still be effective even if you don't aim for the target individual.

      [Training FAQ] PepperBall projectiles can be shot at point-blank range, although the kinetic impact will be slightly greater at close range. Suspects can be accurately targeted up to 30 feet away with the enough kinetic impact to shatter the projectile and leave a welt or bruise. PepperBall projectiles should never be aimed at a suspect's eyes, face, throat, and spine. Instead, aim below the neck at the suspect's torso or center of mass area.

      There are multiple other statements that the pepperball is safe at point blank range. (what exactly "safe" means, I will leave to the reader's judgement.)

      You are probably right; it's only a matter of time before someone bends down and gets hit in the eye. Then again, same thing for rubber bullets. Note that most riot control weapons are called "less lethal weapons," because they always have the potential of causing serious bodily injury if placed (in-)correctly. The difference with pepperballs is that you can still incapacitate your target if you hit the ground in front of them or the wall behind them.

      It appears that pepperballs can be considered as a way of saturating the air of the target zone with a strong irritant. This option is completely unavailable in paintball (or with rubber bullets), and so really this method appears no worse than rubber bullets (or even hoses with water [since people will get knocked down].) I would also argue that a misplaced baton to the face would also cause permanent damage.

  • In Southern Oregon (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Marxist Hacker 42 ( 638312 ) * <seebert42@gmail.com> on Friday October 15, 2004 @03:59PM (#10539746) Homepage Journal
    The protestors were lucky the police weren't firing grenade launchers.

    I protested the first Gulf War in Klamath Falls, and while the police weren't out in force, pro-Bush (I) protesters were there with shotguns- and the next night I skipped the protest to do homework only to hear my roommate's watercolor peace sign pulled off the door. When I opened the door, I got a ring in my eye and 7 stiches.

  • "Freedom is On The March!" (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Cryofan ( 194126 ) on Friday October 15, 2004 @04:11PM (#10539877) Journal
    I can hardly wait until we can spread American freedom all over the world.....

  • Best reaction (Score:4, Insightful)

    by korny69 ( 132030 ) on Friday October 15, 2004 @04:17PM (#10539952) Homepage
    Probably the best reaction from the police that could have been made was to instead grab and arrest the offending few and allow the rest to protest peacefully.

    Instead, like said above, they decided to take it out on everyone. I can see where past thoughts would have said to stop the entire protest because it could errupt into something very large. But, the police could have arrested the few perps and allowed the rest to go on. Anyone at the protest, who would have seen the people pushing their luck, probably would have supported the arrests and spread the word throughout.

    Problem is that Americans see on TV how fast a crowd of peaceful people protesting can errupt into a mob of car-pushing, fire-lighting persons. Probably without even thinking, and going on what they have seen in the past, the police made the wrong decision.

    It is time that police organizations around the country start to re-think the idea of crowd control. From the RNC to this situation, we have too much policing and not enough protesting.

    • Re:Best reaction (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Atzanteol ( 99067 ) on Friday October 15, 2004 @05:23PM (#10540598) Homepage
      Probably the best reaction from the police that could have been made was to instead grab and arrest the offending few and allow the rest to protest peacefully.

      That often doesn't happen though. While you're arresting those few, the people around them sometimes get angry and begin to resist the arresting.

      Anyone at the protest, who would have seen the people pushing their luck, probably would have supported the arrests and spread the word throughout.

      Again, very naive IMHO. Police tactics are setup the way they are for a reason. They used pepper to avoid injuring anybody (in the past all they had was guns and hoses). The mob was broken up, and nobody was seriously hurt. If this is fascism, it's changed over the last 100 years (reply not to you here, but others who are way over-reacting)

      It is time that police organizations around the country start to re-think the idea of crowd control. From the RNC to this situation, we have too much policing and not enough protesting.

      (don't forget the DNC too). There are people who make a living trying to figure out the solution to this problem. You think it's an easy one? 500 people with maybe 20 cops to control them? It would be nice if we could trust the protesters to be 'nice' and to not destroy things. History shows they are prone to do otherwise though. Mobs get angry, and *very* out of control. If it gets out of control the police are blamed, if they stop it early the police are blamed. If you're so friggin' smart, what's your solution?

  • Pepperballs? (Score:3, Funny)

    by mhesseltine ( 541806 ) on Friday October 15, 2004 @04:41PM (#10540192) Homepage Journal

    While the idea of getting shot by one of these doesn't sound that appealing, I would like to know:

    1. Do these fit in a normal paintball marker?
    2. If so, where can I get some of these?

    Not that I'd use these in a paintball game, but this could be an interesting addition to the home defense arsenal.

  • Pepperball brief / Miami November 2003 (Score:4, Informative)

    by ickypoo ( 568859 ) on Friday October 15, 2004 @04:57PM (#10540349)
    These pepperballs were used in Miami last November at the FTAA Ministerial protests. Police fired a whole lot of these things [benfrank.net] at protestors from guns like these [benfrank.net] - not at all unlike a normal paintball gun. They apparently can only be shot a short distance, but police would fire a whole lot into the crowd at once. Wounds generally look like this [benfrank.net] or this [ftaaimc.org] - red welts with a small chemical burn surroundinng it, but it isn't any consolation for this guy [benfrank.net] who got one in the face.

  • crowd control (Score:5, Insightful)

    by zxnos ( 813588 ) <zxnoss@gmail.com> on Friday October 15, 2004 @04:58PM (#10540353)
    i would chalk this up to the police begin stupid. since political emotions are really high right now. i find it really hard to believe bush (or kerry should roles be reversed) or his people would tell the cops to start peppering people, for this very reason, it will get reported.

    the cops started to move the crowd for 'security reasons', i am sure. one cop was probably green and got jittery.

    i have seen cops stand there and ignore people screaming at them during new years parties or when the local team wins a huge game. i have even seen them wrestle down the few trouble makers and let everyone go about there business. sometimes the crowd gets dispersed w/ pepper/gas. usually once some morons flip over a car or something.

    what are cops going to do? let property get destoyed or pepper some people.

    in summary, more likely jittery cops than political.
  • ...is where can I get some pepper paintballs?
  • why the hell would the Jacksonville police have pepper paint balls?
  • The Jacksonville City Administrator described the projectiles as 'like a paintball filled with cayenne pepper'.

    And here was I imagining the police armed with these [amazon.com] [Amazon link].

  • People lie. People spin. I'm too tired to try piece together a picture of protest violence that allows me to confidently condemn either party and spew righteous indignation so I can feel better.

    These are PROTESTS. They're outside. There are lots of people there. Didn't anybody bring a fucking video camera?

  • Theres no way not to condemn the story as written (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Crashmarik ( 635988 ) on Friday October 15, 2004 @09:50PM (#10542308)
    The right to peacefull protest is enshrined in everything we are about.

    I would like something a little better than just the written word of the mainstream press that something happened. The AP has been doing alot of silent retractions on stories lately. The most infamous when they falsely reported that a republican rally had booed President Clintons good health.

    This election has raised the question of the honesty of the press to a new level, while I am loathe to recomend curtailing freespeach the current libel/slander laws are clearly insufficient to curtail abuse. Perhaps Something like an honesty bond or bounty is neccesesary to keep the process honest.

  • Dunno (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Erwos ( 553607 ) on Monday October 18, 2004 @12:35AM (#10554281)
    I'm always reminded of the paper I wrote on the World Bank and IMF riots in Seattle and DC - specifically on the topic of riot control.

    "The Battle of Seattle" happened because there were inadequately trained cops confronted by a huge number of unruly protesters. They _didn't_ take steps to crack down on the situation, and things spiralled rapidly out of control.

    A good account from the BBC:
    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/54 7581.s tm

    The part to take away from there is that, indeed, some people come to these events for violent reasons.

    Compare this to DC. In DC, the situation was almost as intense, but the cops raided a bunch of organizations the day before, and made quite a few arrests on the first day. While this was of dubious legality, DC didn't experience massive rioting, either.

    In case you didn't follow my logic, "excessive force" can often prevent an unruly protest from turning into a full-blown riot. No, this is not a blanket statement intended to justify everything the police do - but /.'ers hundreds or thousands of miles away are not really in the position to say whether or not the situation calls for it.

    Now, the measures taken here don't compare to Seattle or DC. I've seen the cops shooting pepperballs at people who were rioting after the Maryland-Duke game, and while they hurt, they're hardly going to permenantly injure people. Bullhorns don't work for this sort of thing, and pepper balls are a damned sight better than nightsticks and fire hoses.

    Most likely, the cops got shoved around a bit and over-reacted. I am sympathetic to the protesters, but the cops are always put in a bad situation by these sorts of events, too.

    Crying "FASCISM!" because some county cops were scared and probably somewhat badly trained is laughable. No one even got hurt, for crying out loud!

    This is no Kent State, in other words. Not even close.

    -Erwos

Slashdot Top Deals

Understanding is always the understanding of a smaller problem in relation to a bigger problem. -- P.D. Ouspensky

Close