> (3) In the event of a battle with the police, protesters would also need to be armed to defend themselves against the police with similar type weapons as the police are deploying against protesters. For example, if the police are using their truncheons then it is only fair that protesters can avail themselves of similar type weapons - baseball bats, crowbars etc.
I can't imagine this making the situation better for either party.
The basic problem with this theory is that the government will always send forces better armed than protestors are by several steps, unless the protesters are so well equipped (which usually means foreign state sponsorship of what is intended as an armed revolution, or just an internal armed revolution that has already gotten backing of a sizable chunk of the military and/or internal security forces) that this is impossible. So, of it's possible to implement this theory at all, you are already outside of the scope of mere protest and into civil war, or at least the imminent direct threat of it.
The alternatives are the police tasing portestors, the police shooting portestors, the military bombing portestors...
If you want to protest "police brutality" or an "oppressive regime", you might as well sit there and take it, as long as you make sure to get recorded by some journalists, and hope for public opinion to support you. At least you maybe won't die, which is better than the alternatives.
I was cracking a joke in another comment on the apparent fetish this guy seemed to have, but after reading that page you can kind of understand where he was coming from. He does put in the effort to reference relevant journalistic material (like the police officer in training that was abused and succesfully sued), not exactly what you expect from some prolonged teenage angst doomsday prepper...
so what is your advice? forget about your right to protest? give up democracy?
Ghandi et.al. did it according to what ive read in history texts, exactly how it happened only ghandi knows, but history says non violent passive resistance with great sacrifice [allowing gov to beat the crap out of them] until everyone realized it was out of hand.
I don't see this going well in most US domestic scenarios, but the ongoing events in Hong Kong (where we see videos of police persuing fleeing prorestors) comes to mind as a use case.
> (where we see videos of police persuing fleeing prorestors)
Because in the US they'd just shoot them?
Actually, have there been cases of police opening fire on protestors? I know it happens in "regular" cases from time to time leading to much reported news stories (which I hope indicates it's uncommon enough to be newsworthy), but has it happened during protests?
While in some circumstances it can be "legal" to resist an illegal arrest by police, that isn't something you want to rely upon. The rule is there so that people who are illegally arrested aren't charged with resisting arrest, else the police would have an open door to arrest anyone anytime. It would encourage police brutality as that would lead to inevitable resistance and then arrest for said, nullifying the illegality of the initial arrest.
Handcuffs are there not to restrain prisoners but to calm the police. The use of cuffs is far from universal. They are used by police in the west because they are afraid of those they arrest. Being un-handcuffable will mean that the police, who will still arrest you, will be afraid of you. When cops get scared they get aggressive. Instead of sitting quietly in handcuffs, you will probably find yourself underneath five or six officers as they invent some other way of restraining you. It will hurt.
I think he solves that with his page on how to convert a hydration pack for fire breathing, including a "taxi driver - you talkin' to me?!" ignition gadget
This looks like a truly awful idea. Once police have decided that you need to be immobilized, they will do whatever they feel is necessary to achieve that goal. After handcuffs, their next option is going to be tear gas ... if you're lucky. I'm not saying that's how it should be, but in the US at least that's how it is.
What an odd page. I wonder if it would be considered conspiracy to resist arrest. Either way I bet if they can't handcuff you there are batons and pepper spray in your future.
Surely, choosing to wear a specific article of clothing beforehand can't be equated to resisting arrest, can it? That rings a ton of dystopian alarm bells for me.
No meeting of the minds unless the author can be proven to have solicited the attention of specific suspects, so no conspiracy charge. That's not to say the author of this site wouldn't be made example of if their advice ever became a nuisance to the police; show them any given soul and they'll find you the crime.
I can't imagine this making the situation better for either party.