56 Bills Have Been Introduced in 30 States to Restrict Protests | Hacker News Reader

56 Bills Have Been Introduced in 30 States to Restrict Protests

thenation.com

68 pointsmcone42 comments

“when Humvees with snipers on their roofs rolled into camp, a helicopter buzzing above them.”

“Officers wearing military fatigues walked through the camp with assault rifles and knives, ”

There were helicopters, but no snipers. Those were officers with machine guns on the Humber. And those aren’t assualt rifles but rather machine guns. Actually more powerful than assault rifles that are only semi-automatic.

So the author both over inflated and under inflated their description of the response. Which was way more overpowered than required for the eviction.

> but no snipers. Those were officers with machine guns

With the right machine gun[0], the line starts to blur ;)

[0] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carlos_Hathcock#Weaponry

Just to clarify, assault rifles are select fire and NOT purely semi-automatic.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault_rifle

Here in Bloomington, IN, we are dealing with militarization of our own police department.

The story: 2015, Chief of Police and Mayor went in private talks about armored vehicle. Over course of time, decided on a Lenco BearCat (https://www.militarytimes.com/flashpoints/2017/09/10/us-back...) . Everything was hidden from public view. No discussion was made or attempted. 2 week ago in our newspaper, announced the purchase of it.

After that announcement, the Police department scrambled for a Tuesday @ Noon for an "informational meeting". Chief had no information about it, options purchased, considerations of other non-military vehicles - nothing.

This Thursday @ 7p was the State of the City address. BLM organized and started actively protesting after the Mayor made remarks that this is happening and meetings can be made to explain how it's used. Protest then commenced causing the State of the City to be forcefully cancelled.

https://www.reddit.com/r/bloomington/comments/7xvie2/bloomin...

https://indianapublicmedia.org/news/protesters-shut-hamilton...

Edit: We all can talk about Standing Rock, which is a national disgrace. But the militarization of police is a front that's happening everywhere, including little towns in flyover parts of the country, and at liberal college campuses. This is our effort of trying to stem this tide - and so far the fruitlessness of trying so.

You're not living in a developed country when the police are dressed like this: https://www.thenation.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/TW_Feed...

I expect combat-ready troops in places where "laws" only matter as much as the guns behind them, but I expect the US to be better than this. "SHERIFF?" A sheriff is "an elected officer in a county who is responsible for keeping the peace." I see no peace being kept here.

Yes, I was also severely disturbed by that photo. There are really good and important reasons for the separation of military and police, and the blurring of that line over the past two decades is going to have massive ramifications that I don’t think American society fully appreciates.

As an aside, I have severe qualms about the article (see my other comment) but that doesn’t mean there isn’t truth in that photo, nor does it mean that someone highlighting that such as yourself should be downvoted.

A problem with having your police look like a miltary occupation force is that people who oppose the police (for political and other reasons) will treat them like that.

That and it separates them from the community they are supposed to serve, that's why I hate it when I see police call members of the public civilians, police are civilians.

Robert Peel understood this nearly 200 years ago.

That what you get when there is constant glorification of military.

No. A police officer can politely and non-violently deal with a citizen.

As for the military... I've met some Special Forces officers. They were dedicated and crazy-smart (senior NCOs), and I'm happy to pay them to do their jobs, and possibly even call them friends, but they should not be police, and I don't think they would want to be.

I agree. It just seems that police is converting into a wannabe military force because it's cool to wear camouflage, helmets and big guns.

It’s an inflammatory title and it’s clearly purposely blown out of context. I’m not familiar with the site, but it looks to be pushing an agenda very hard, which is a shame since it appears that the article has a lot of potential otherwise.

Apparently bills in a dozen states that protect drivers who unintentionally (only that word is in scare quotes) hit protesters count as laws restricting protests. Other laws counted include laws for tampering with power equipment and laws that merely raised the fines for trespassing on restricted grounds.

The Nation is the oldest continuously published weekly magazine in the United States.

It's one thing to protest knowing you could be arrested. It's quite another to know that you could be killed by a giant machine, and its operator could be "protected" from the consequences of that negligence. Of course that is to be expected in USA, since drivers are constantly so protected, unless they are poor.

> constantly so protected

huh? Can you cite some examples where drivers are protected where they wouldn't be if it was not for USA( or not poor).

I can't find the source right now, but drivers have been privileged versus pedestrians since around 1900 when vehicles were given the right of way instead of the pedestrian who had it before. Legislation was also introduced to change committing homicide with a vehicle to be vehicular manslaughter to reduce the severity of the penalty to increase adoption of automobiles.

> Legislation was also introduced to change committing homicide with a vehicle to be vehicular manslaughter to reduce the severity of the penalty to increase adoption of automobiles.

And that applies only if you are not poor?

Also that seems wrong ( see United states vs other countries) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vehicular_homicide

Not that directly, but the US legal process definitely favors the wealthier because they have access to more resources, namely better lawyers.

> US legal process definitely favors the wealthier because they have access to more resources, namely better lawyers.

In which country does this not apply? What makes this apply only to US?

> Of course that is to be expected in USA, since drivers are constantly so protected, unless they are poor.

I am referring to this @jessaustin. How is rich getting lenient sentences across the board relevant here? What does that have to do with driving.

Did someone say this applied only to US?

You seem to have edited this after my reply. The time to edit that reply has now elapsed so I will reply again.

In USA, while crime in general is punished harshly, killing people with a car is a good way not to do any prison time and pay minimal fines. It's an issue of fairness, especially when poor people routinely see e.g. "taillight out" citations they can't afford to pay turn into years-long struggles with the criminal persecution system. If this topic interests you, look into the various reports about Ferguson MO.

Your questions in this thread, while aggressive, never hit upon exactly what troubled you about my initial short parenthetical comment that I only wrote to qualify the overall short post. Was it "USA", "drivers", "poor", "protected", or "negligence"? Was there any one word you would have removed?

The poor can't afford good lawyers. Much is then left to the district prosecutor to file correct charges - a practice with a long history of abuse.

> The poor can't afford good lawyers.

No one is disputing that well known fact.

I am asking why this applied to "because USA". Do other countries not let rich people choose better lawyers?

In the UK it's the other way around, heaviest defers to lightest,

In order of right of way, On Foot, On Bike, On Horseback, In Car.

It makes sense, the consequences to me as a cyclist to a car hitting me are far more severe than to the driver so the onus should be on the driver as the operator of the two tonne metal box.

On many trails in western USA, horseback comes first because you can't really trust another person's horse not to do something harmful.

Same here practically but the order of precedence I described applies to on the highway.

Do a quick search for basically any pedestrian killed in NYC in the last few years. Even when a driver hopped a curb and went up onto the sidewalk, it was ruled an accident and no major charges were made against the driver. In the US, for the most part, you can text and drive and mow down pedestrians and then just keep living your life.

I don’t get it. Why pick something so easily disprovable as your argument?

https://www.google.com/search?q=vehicular+manslaughter+ny&sa...

Did you even look up that “fact” before asserting it as your incontrovertible truth?

For starters, I specifically said NYC which is very different from NY state. I've lived here a while and the last year before a new law took effect was in 2013. Streetsblog covered the deaths of 134 pedestrians and cyclists in 2013 (out of a total of 178 killed city-wide). Of those 134 killed, the drivers were unknown in 19. "Of the remaining 115 crashes, nine motorists were known to have been charged with homicide. In five of those cases, the driver was also charged with driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs. One crash resulted from a police chase. In two cases, the driver was accused of running over the victim intentionally. Only once in 2013 was a sober driver charged with homicide for killing a pedestrian or cyclist in a crash that did not involve a personal dispute or fleeing police."

Source: https://nyc.streetsblog.org/2014/01/31/nypd-16059-pedestrian...

Of the 96 cases covered of a pedestrian being killed by a motorvehicle that didn't involve a DUI, a police chase, or premeditated murder, only a single one was charged with vehicular homicide. So yeah, it's been bad for a while. The most drivers used to get was a small fine and a moving violation and then go about their lives. Heck, I watched a woman get killed by a cab maybe 15 years ago and nothing happened to the driver at all.

A law finally passed in 2014 to address the legal precedent after a 9 year old walking with his dad in a cross walk with the light was run down by a cab and the drive got a small fine and a minor traffic infraction. Here are some details: https://www.citylab.com/equity/2014/10/the-outrageous-unjust...

In my original post, I should have said more than a few years ago rather than in the last few years, but I can't edit it now.

Ok but to try and pass it off as a law specifically intended to curb protests is intellectual dishonesty at best, and that is my gripe.

Do the laws mention protests or not? Why don't we have laws to protect drivers who kill other vulnerable people like road construction workers, hitchhikers, etc.?

Oh, right, because we don't actually want road construction workers to be killed...

ps. you left off the "half a" immediately before "dozen". It does change the meaning.

Yeah--the reality is there will be drivers trying to get through and there will be protesters trying to block the way. Sometimes a driver will see an opening and go for it and a protester will move to block the opening.

Too bad, you jumped in front of a moving car.

"Seeing an opening and going for it" sounds an awful lot like driving too fast when there are people around.

The website for tracking these bills [1] seems pretty good though. It makes sense to track bills that might affect protests whether or not they're specifically about protests. (And whether or not you agree with them.)

Summarizing a complicated, controversial situation with a single number is always going to get into disputes about definitions. I'd say don't focus on the count() query.

[1] http://www.icnl.org/usprotestlawtracker/

Yes, they are pushing the agenda of not living in a fascist state controlled by a few oligarchs very hard, as you should be as well.

Then misrepresenting the nature of passed laws to serve that worthy agenda only serves to hurt them and cheapen their delivery of an otherwise important message.

Disagreeing with the method of communication or cheap tricks employed does not imply disagreement with the original issue. I actually am severely disturbed and disillusioned by the not so creeping authoritarianism that is overtaking our country. I just don’t think FUD is ever an acceptable method of evangelism. I don’t see why people are having that hard of a time differentiating between the two.

And there's something wrong with laws that make tampering with the equipment a serious crime??? Protest, fine, but don't mess with the equipment, especially since the people messing with it are unlikely to know how to do it safely.

The façade is coming down. It took less than expected to prove the thesis that an open society would ever only be tolerated when everybody already agreed with each other.

In this case, there was a significant possibility of danger to the authorities. The protesters refused to leave voluntarily, so force had to be used. They had no way of knowing what kind of resistance they could expect, or if there were armed elements among the resistors. If you defy the lawful authority of the state, don’t complain when the state has to resort to brute force. It must be that way if we are to have the rule of law. And don’t be surprised when they choose overwhelming force over putting themselves at risk.

There is a right to protest, not to obstruct the lawful functioning of society. We’ve had plenty of debate, we’ve had elections, we legally decided to build this pipeline. If you want to protest, find another place, one that doesn’t physically block other people from doing what they are legally entitled to do.

In the first picture you can see the one guy reaching for a feather.

I think in the case of the US doing something against the wishes of a tribe of Native Americans, high minded arguments about legal authorities discard a little too much history.

Isn't the whole point of protests to make it inconvenient for the more powerful to ignore the needs of the less powerful?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com