Menu
Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New profile posts
Latest activity
Vault
Time Travel Schematics
T.E.C. Time Archive
The Why Files
Have You Seen...?
Chronovisor
TimeTravelForum.tk
TimeTravelForum.net
ParanormalNetwork.net
Paranormalis.com
ConspiracyCafe.net
Streams
Live streams
Featured streams
Multi-Viewer
Members
Current visitors
New profile posts
Search profile posts
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Navigation
Install the app
Install
More options
Contact us
Close Menu
Forums
Time Travel Forum
John Titor's Legacy
John Titor's Non-lethal Weapon
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Judge Bean" data-source="post: 11010" data-attributes="member: 42"><p><strong>JT's non lethal weopon...</strong></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Repeatedly on these two forums I have heard the exact sentiments about the defense of the Constitution and the ultimate loyalties of soldiers and law enforcement officers as what you allude to; and I understand exactly what you mean. The government would find that Reservists, Guard, servicemen, and deputies in every county hold the same feelings, with perhaps even more conviction than is common among those whose professions do not call for carrying a gun at work.</p><p></p><p>But as for the riot situation, you need to understand that it is a primary tactic of the authorities in a politically tense moment-- such as when average people take their frustrations to the street in loud demonstrations-- to try to get people to "behave." It's called "crowd control." Why do American crowds need to be controlled? The fear is that the crowd will start wrecking property, and it often will. But the danger to property should never justify deadly force.</p><p></p><p>If you study famous modern riots closely, such as the one in Seattle a few years ago, you'll see that the crowd resorts to violence in reaction to police attitude and teargas; you trash a cruiser because of the frustration and rage at being attacked on a city street as though you are a dangerous criminal. The violence escalates until the unarmed crowd is compelled to be either brutalized or fight. The purpose of such tactics-- which are published in pamphlets for training-- is to force the crowd to submit to authority and do what it is told. Only the crowd members on the edge of the mass of people can actually flee; the rest are trapped.</p><p></p><p>What the authorities fear most of all is the spontaneity of violence, and because they are helpless against it, they accuse "organizers" of inducing it ahead of time. This is the basis of the infamous "Chicago 9" prosecution, in which they tried to prove in court that the 1968 riots were deliberately staged by Communists. The trial turned into a circus. The riot was eventually judged by history to have been a "police riot."</p><p></p><p>In Watts a few years before, the only reported deaths of looters were those who had been shot by the police; the National Guard killed scores, which anyone who worked in local courts in surrounding suburbs can verify, since the courts were used as morgues, and each one held at least as many bodies as were reported for the entire event. The Guard encountered armed civilians trying to defend their property and fought <em>them </em>and killed some of them. In the following summers, American cities suffered regular "race riots" involving snipers, handmade bombs, and gunfights in the streets-- I guess they'd call that a war against terrorists now, but it ought to be recognized for what it was: a race war. It ended because one side lost-- not because of expert police use of force, which was on the contrary one of the <em>causes </em>of the war.</p><p></p><p>What we should be most afraid of is the apparent willingness of the government nowadays to turn on its citizens in many different ways, and whether it can expect the cooperation and loyalty of its soldiers and police in suppressing freedom. I think it cannot.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Judge Bean, post: 11010, member: 42"] [b]JT's non lethal weopon...[/b] Repeatedly on these two forums I have heard the exact sentiments about the defense of the Constitution and the ultimate loyalties of soldiers and law enforcement officers as what you allude to; and I understand exactly what you mean. The government would find that Reservists, Guard, servicemen, and deputies in every county hold the same feelings, with perhaps even more conviction than is common among those whose professions do not call for carrying a gun at work. But as for the riot situation, you need to understand that it is a primary tactic of the authorities in a politically tense moment-- such as when average people take their frustrations to the street in loud demonstrations-- to try to get people to "behave." It's called "crowd control." Why do American crowds need to be controlled? The fear is that the crowd will start wrecking property, and it often will. But the danger to property should never justify deadly force. If you study famous modern riots closely, such as the one in Seattle a few years ago, you'll see that the crowd resorts to violence in reaction to police attitude and teargas; you trash a cruiser because of the frustration and rage at being attacked on a city street as though you are a dangerous criminal. The violence escalates until the unarmed crowd is compelled to be either brutalized or fight. The purpose of such tactics-- which are published in pamphlets for training-- is to force the crowd to submit to authority and do what it is told. Only the crowd members on the edge of the mass of people can actually flee; the rest are trapped. What the authorities fear most of all is the spontaneity of violence, and because they are helpless against it, they accuse "organizers" of inducing it ahead of time. This is the basis of the infamous "Chicago 9" prosecution, in which they tried to prove in court that the 1968 riots were deliberately staged by Communists. The trial turned into a circus. The riot was eventually judged by history to have been a "police riot." In Watts a few years before, the only reported deaths of looters were those who had been shot by the police; the National Guard killed scores, which anyone who worked in local courts in surrounding suburbs can verify, since the courts were used as morgues, and each one held at least as many bodies as were reported for the entire event. The Guard encountered armed civilians trying to defend their property and fought [i]them [/i]and killed some of them. In the following summers, American cities suffered regular "race riots" involving snipers, handmade bombs, and gunfights in the streets-- I guess they'd call that a war against terrorists now, but it ought to be recognized for what it was: a race war. It ended because one side lost-- not because of expert police use of force, which was on the contrary one of the [i]causes [/i]of the war. What we should be most afraid of is the apparent willingness of the government nowadays to turn on its citizens in many different ways, and whether it can expect the cooperation and loyalty of its soldiers and police in suppressing freedom. I think it cannot. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Time Travel Forum
John Titor's Legacy
John Titor's Non-lethal Weapon
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
Accept
Learn more…
Top