Protesters Are Met by Tear Gas at G-20 Conference
These people are anarchists, they engage in violent physical acts, they are obnoxious in the extreme and their efforts are counterproductive to their cause. They create a significant cost to the city, fear and inconvenience to the public on the streets and private citizens in their homes. They are a danger to life and property. So, this is how we react . . .
In the afternoon, protesters trying to march toward the convention center where the gathering is being held encountered roaming squads of police officers carrying plastic shields and batons. The police fired a sound cannon that emitted shrill beeps, causing demonstrators to cover their ears and back up, then threw tear gas canisters that released clouds of white smoke and stun grenades that exploded with sharp flashes of light.
City officials said they believed it was the first time the sound cannon had been used publicly. “Other law enforcement agencies will be watching to see how it was used,” said Nate Harper, the Pittsburgh police bureau chief. “It served its purpose well.”
The protesters, who did not have a permit to march, rolled a large blue metal trash container down 37th Street. It stopped short of police vehicles and in front of a women’s clothing and shoe boutique called Pavement.
“It was scary,” said Alissa Martin, the shop’s owner. “You feel like you’re living in a war zone.”
In every way I strongly support the idea these people must be stopped from destroying property and presenting a risk to life and limb. The city and police have a public responsibility to react; so what is my problem here? I do have a constitutional problem with the idea that they should not be allowed to protest because they do not have a PERMIT to march.
A permit means we, the citizens of the United States need the permission of the government to peacefully assemble to protest that government and to demand a redress of grievances. Yes, these people are not peacefully assembling, I am not talking about what they are doing which is wrong and the response which is probably appropriate. I am solely talking about the narrowly defined idea that a permit by the government is required to engage in free political speech in the public square against that government. It is the permit that offends me and my idea of liberty and our freedom to protest against our government.
