It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

What happens when everyone shows up to protest wearing one of these?

page: 1
2

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 25 2009 @ 08:06 PM
link   
My question to ATS is what would happen if everyone at a peaceful protest showed up wearing THIS.

Do you think it would send a message? Is it illegal?




posted on Sep, 25 2009 @ 08:09 PM
link   
if you can buy it how would be illegal?



posted on Sep, 25 2009 @ 08:13 PM
link   
I don't know, all I know is china will become richer even more.



posted on Sep, 25 2009 @ 08:16 PM
link   
No, it wouldn't be illegal, but if you showed up on the street in that suit, they would consider you an immediate threat and decidedly shoot to kill.

If many people showed up in the suits, to face-off against the police. Well, they would probably shoot every single person or at least a handful until everyone dispersed. Then the media would spend a grand-total-whopping 5 minutes making up a short story how all of these people were involved in a right-wing militia group who's intent was to incite violence and combat the police.

They would just wash their hands in (your) blood and move on, just as they have for hundreds of years.



posted on Sep, 25 2009 @ 08:22 PM
link   
The reason I ask, after watching this video below I realized the intimidation factor these riot police attempt to use. Was just thinking how one could counter that peacefully.




posted on Sep, 25 2009 @ 08:24 PM
link   
You cannot buy certain items of police equipment and clothing unless you show proof that you are a law enforcement officer. Body armor in general is a touchy subject, and many crimes carry additional penalties if you are wearing any type of armor at the time of arrest.



In general, the bill requires a court to impose a mandatory prison term upon an offender convicted of a felony when the offender is also convicted of a body armor specification created in the bill that charges the offender with wearing or carrying body armor during the commission of the felony. Body armor is defined as any vest, helmet, shield, or similar item designed or specifically carried to diminish the impact of a bullet or projectile upon the offender’s body.

If an adult offender is convicted of such a body armor specification, then the court must impose a mandatory prison term as follows:

· If the court does not impose upon the offender a mandatory firearms specification prison term under existing law, an additional prison term of one, two, or five years;

· If the court also imposes a one-year mandatory firearms specification prison term as a result of the offender being convicted of a firearms specification in which the offender had a firearm during the commission of the offense, an additional prison term of one year;

· If the court also imposes upon the offender a six-year mandatory firearms specification prison term as a result of the offender being convicted of a firearms specification in which the offender had a firearm equipped with a silencer during the commission of the offense, an additional prison term of six years;

· If the court also imposes upon the offender a three-year mandatory firearms specification prison term as an offender being convicted of a firearms specification in which the offender used a firearm to facilitate the offense, an additional prison term of three years;

· If the court also imposes upon the offender a five-year mandatory firearms specification prison term as a result of the offender being convicted of a firearms specification in which the offender used a firearm in a drive-by shooting, an additional prison term of five years.

Mandatory prison terms imposed by this provision of the bill may not be reduced by judicial release or earned credits; however, an offender may become eligible for judicial release after the offender has served the required mandatory prison term for a body armor specification. Mandatory prison terms imposed on offenders using or possessing body armor must be served consecutively to any other prison term imposed upon the offender.


In many states, it bumps the offence up to the next higher level. Therefore, for example if you were at a protest and were charged with a first-degree misdemeanor, it would be bumped up to a third degree felony.



posted on Sep, 25 2009 @ 08:27 PM
link   
reply to post by defcon5
 


Good information. I wonder if gas masks qualify as body armor under that law.



posted on Sep, 25 2009 @ 08:33 PM
link   
Here in America people protest quite politely. Nobody shoots at the police or throws molotov cocktails or rocks and bottles. When you look at protests in other parts of the world you have to think "What the heck is wrong with Americans?". "Do they really want to protest? Or are they out for an afternoon lark?"



posted on Sep, 25 2009 @ 08:46 PM
link   
How about suits of "shining armour" - like the knights of olde once wore! Surely one wouldn't need a special permit for those?



posted on Sep, 25 2009 @ 08:46 PM
link   
reply to post by ExPostFacto
 


This stuff varies from state to state, they are state laws or statues. The example above was the body armor law from Ohio, which just happened to be the first one I found on a google search. Here in Florida, there is a similar law with different penalties:

775.0846 Possession of bulletproof vest while committing certain offenses.—
(1) As used in this section, the term "bulletproof vest" means a bullet-resistant soft body armor providing, as a minimum standard, the level of protection known as "threat level I," which shall mean at least seven layers of bullet-resistant material providing protection from three shots of 158-grain lead ammunition fired from a .38 caliber handgun at a velocity of 850 feet per second.
(2) No person may possess a bulletproof vest while, acting alone or with one or more other persons, he or she commits or attempts to commit any murder, sexual battery, robbery, burglary, arson, aggravated assault, aggravated battery, kidnapping, escape, breaking and entering with intent to commit a felony, criminal gang-related offense under chapter 874, controlled substance offense under chapter 893, or aircraft piracy and such possession is in the course of and in furtherance of any such crime.
(3) Any person who violates this section commits a felony of the third degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.



Here is an article on the subject:

Soft body armor: the legal issues
CRIMINAL STATUTES
The State statutes creating criminal offenses that prohibit the wearing, use, or possession of body armor can be divided into two broad categories: 1) Statutes creating substantive offenses and 2) statutes enhancing sentencing. Most of the statutes fall into the first category; that is, these statutes create separate criminal offenses for which defendants can be charged, convicted, and sentenced. However, two States (California and Wisconsin) opted not to create separate substantive offenses, but rather, adopted enhancing statutes that impose an additional sentence when an individual is convicted of committing a crime while wearing body armor.


Gas masks would also vary from state to state, here it would fall under wearing a mask in public, which is a crime:


876.12 Wearing mask, hood, or other device on public way.--No person or persons over 16 years of age shall, while wearing any mask, hood, or device whereby any portion of the face is so hidden, concealed, or covered as to conceal the identity of the wearer, enter upon, or be or appear upon any lane, walk, alley, street, road, highway, or other public way in this state.

Wearing mask, hood, or other device on public property.--No person or persons shall in this state, while wearing any mask, hood, or device whereby any portion of the face is so hidden, concealed, or covered as to conceal the identity of the wearer, enter upon, or be, or appear upon or within the public property of any municipality or county of the state.

Wearing mask, hood, or other device on property of another.--No person or persons over 16 years of age shall, while wearing a mask, hood, or device whereby any portion of the face is so hidden, concealed, or covered as to conceal the identity of the wearer, demand entrance or admission or enter or come upon or into the premises, enclosure, or house of any other person in any municipality or county of this state.

Wearing mask, hood, or other device at demonstration or meeting.--No person or persons over 16 years of age, shall, while wearing a mask, hood, or device whereby any portion of the face is so hidden, concealed, or covered as to conceal the identity of the wearer, hold any manner of meeting, make any demonstration upon the private property of another unless such person or persons shall have first obtained from the owner or occupier of the property his or her written permission to so do.



posted on Sep, 25 2009 @ 08:51 PM
link   
So the lesson here today is that when you and 10,000 of your friends all show up to "protest" wearing these suits, do it in the winter time so you can wear clothing over them and make it hard to tell.



posted on Sep, 25 2009 @ 08:53 PM
link   
reply to post by serendipitynow
 


I assume you are joking, but I believe they rank somewhat differently because they cannot stop a bullet. Bulletproof vests are made of a flexible impact resistant weave that catches the bullet in flight like a net, and spreads the impact over a large area, thereby stopping penetration. An actual historical type suit of armor is rigid, and the bullet will normally penetrate it.

If you notice the law above from Florida, it specifically says "Bulletproof" vest. So I believe that if you were going to the renaissance festival that is fine, but still if you commit a crime along the way you could possibly receive enhanced charges for wearing it. They can stretch just about any law to nail you for something if they want to.

[edit on 9/25/2009 by defcon5]



posted on Sep, 25 2009 @ 09:00 PM
link   
Yeah yeah yeah.


"Only we can have all the big guns. Only we can have the body armor to protect us against your peashooters. And if you try to wear any armor to protect yourself against the onsite justice-without-jury we will bring to bear on you, then you will REALLY pay the price with increased sentences and penalties. We are the law. You are the guilty."

Total BS.



posted on Sep, 25 2009 @ 09:04 PM
link   
reply to post by TrueAmerican
 


Most of these laws went into effect because of the North Hollywood Shootout.

The North Hollywood shootout was an armed confrontation between two heavily-armed and armored bank robbers, Larry Eugene Phillips, Jr. and Emil Matasareanu, and patrol and SWAT officers of the Los Angeles Police Department in North Hollywood, California on February 28, 1997. It happened when responding patrol officers engaged Phillips, 26 [2] and Matasareanu, 30 [3] leaving a bank which the two men had just robbed. Ten officers and seven civilians sustained injuries before both robbers were killed.[4] Phillips and Matasareanu had robbed several armored vehicles prior to their attempt in North Hollywood and were notorious for their heavy armament, which included automatic rifles.



posted on Sep, 25 2009 @ 09:15 PM
link   
reply to post by defcon5
 


Yeah I remember watching the video of that, and it was pretty surreal! But man, since when has that ever happened again? And you think it was because of all those laws? I doubt it. Old saying: "Laws and locks are only good for honest people."

The bottom line is with every baby step, the system has taken monumental leaps in controlling its population to the point of tyranny. I don't buy it for one minute. And why is one incident again, the sole catalyst for these broad sweeping laws, rendering any defense against group police brutality useless? If this was happening all over the place constantly maybe, but it isn't. But worse, no recourse for the little man. I don't like it one bit.



posted on Sep, 25 2009 @ 09:19 PM
link   
I still say they should have all locked arms and held firm.



posted on Sep, 25 2009 @ 09:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by serendipitynow
How about suits of "shining armour" - like the knights of olde once wore! Surely one wouldn't need a special permit for those?


lol yeah that would certainly get some attention. Not only that but it protects from blows by police brutality. Problem would be they could push you and you would fall over.



posted on Sep, 25 2009 @ 09:41 PM
link   
reply to post by TrueAmerican
 


I know that a lot of stuff changed because of that incident, and my friends started carrying AR-15’s in the trunks of their squad cars after it. Before that incident, heavy armament was limited to SWAT teams only, because it was “too military looking”:

The ineffectiveness of the pistol rounds and shotgun pellets in penetrating their body armor led to a trend in the United States towards arming selected police patrol officers with semi-automatic 5.56 mm AR-15 type rifles. Seven months after the incident, The Pentagon gave 600 surplus M16s to the LAPD, which were issued to each patrol Sergeant;[25] other cities, like Miami, also moved to supply patrol officers, not just SWAT teams, with heavier firepower.[26] LAPD patrol vehicles now carry AR-15s as standard issue, with bullet-resistant Kevlar plating in their doors as well.[27]


Believe me I know what you are saying; however, the police could just as easily argue that the reason why it has not happened again since is due to their enhanced equipment, and the laws to back them up.



posted on Sep, 25 2009 @ 10:20 PM
link   
i think kilns would be perfect.



brutal!

[edit on 25-9-2009 by randyvs]




top topics



 
2

log in

join