Sound can be excessive police force, federal court rules | Hacker News Reader

Sound can be excessive police force, federal court rules

fastcompany.com

15 pointsjohnshades12 comments

What citizens need is a bill protecting the natural right of proportional response. If the cops use a deafening or blinding device against protesters, then protesters should have the right to use a similar device against the cops.

Cops would think twice about injuring people if they had some skin in the game.

We used to have one called the "The First Amendment to Bill of Rights."[1] Maybe someone could see if that's still on the books. Was there anything in there about whether the govt could kick the crap out of you while you do it?

[1] “Congress shall make no law respecting (...) the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

Well in this case if, as the police claim, this device is merely a communication device, there is nothing stopping the protesters from communicating back. But obviously a device that is designed to instantly cause permanent injury is not just a communication device.

If police use firearms on the crowd, the crowd is entitled to shoot back?

Is there a solid legal distinction between protesters and other classes of people whom it is the police force's job to inhibit, like bank robbers and drug dealers?

Even if there is, I don't see this happening....

> If police use firearms on the crowd, the crowd is entitled to shoot back?

IMO the answer to this should be yes. The use of deadly force should carry significant risk.

Entitled or not, a crowd that’s armed is going to shoot back. When police fire tear gas, people throw the canisters back, they use Molotov cocktails, but they tend to be outnumbered and poorly equipped. If police are opening fire on a crowd, something has already gone critically wrong, and rights aren’t the issue.

In the case of a bank robber, any use of force is in pursuit of an arrest. When the cops use deafening/blinding devices to cause protesters to disperse, they are causing bodily injury without the intent to arrest.

If police shoot someone without probable cause, do they get booked for murder?

If it's that straightforward, yes.

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

History says no.

I may just be an irritable old man, but I'd be delighted to see more campaigning for the public right to a quiet environment.

The article should have made clear that 6 of the 9 counts were dismissed and that this was a 3-judge panel ruling, not en banc.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com