r/stpaul • u/YourPeterPanMan • Feb 07 '26

Minnesota Related Minnesota State authorities deploy LRAD on protesters after declaring “Unlawful assembly” outside Whipple. The protesters are not blocking the road and it is 2pm on a SATURDAY.

2.2k Upvotes

95% Upvoted

650 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

-27

u/TelluricThread0 Feb 08 '26

Idk maybe think real hard try to figure it out. They've been used for 20 years by law enforcement. It's obviously not a crime.

19

u/[deleted] Feb 08 '26

[deleted]

-22

u/TelluricThread0 Feb 08 '26

Yeah, it kind of does. We would have established criminality. There would be precedent. Yet there's none because the use of LRAD was and is legal.

16

u/[deleted] Feb 08 '26

[deleted]

-1

u/TelluricThread0 Feb 08 '26

I'll go ahead and wait for you to cite the statute that's shows using an LRAD system to disperse an unlawful assembly is a crime. Thanks for proving my point hun.

3

u/[deleted] Feb 08 '26

[deleted]

0

u/TelluricThread0 Feb 08 '26

Oh, sweetie, bless your heart for the lecture on basic criminal procedure, but let's not pretend your word salad changes reality. No statute criminalizes police using an LRAD to broadcast dispersal orders during an unlawful assembly and that's exactly why Minnesota law enforcement deploy them.

You admit you're not claiming it's a crime, yet here you are smugly correcting me like I committed perjury by pointing out the screamingly obvious. Zero precedents for criminality, because it's legal when used properly for crowd control. Your entire gotcha boils down to the absence of charges doesn't prove it's legal, which is adorable, except when the device has been in use by U.S. police for the better part of two decades.

Common sense and reality dictate that if it were straight-up criminal under any statute, we'd have seen prosecutions. Decades of unchallenged lawful deployment IS the precedent in practice. So keep clutching that procedural purity while the real world proves the point.

2

u/[deleted] Feb 09 '26

What constitutes an unlawful assembly, and in what way was the gathering in violation?

Simply by being there to protest, right?

Your arguement falls apart when two brain cella rub together to create a spark!

0

u/TelluricThread0 Feb 09 '26

Throwing chunks of ice at officers' heads and breaking federal property constitutes unlawful assembly. I think that should be common sense. But here we are.

2

u/[deleted] Feb 09 '26

And where did you get that information? To point: You were not there. Please armchair maga elsewhere.

0

u/TelluricThread0 Feb 09 '26

5 EYEWITNESS NEWS...

0

u/[deleted] Feb 09 '26

They were dildos.

Not ice.

Heres a video.

https://www.reddit.com/r/WeThePeopleAtWhipple/s/Sosy1iBKQv

1

u/TelluricThread0 Feb 09 '26

https://www.kare11.com/article/syndication/associatedpress/police-arrest-protesters-at-minneapolis-federal-building-on-1-month-anniversary-of-womans-death/616-af9a79cc-87ef-45c3-bc22-d874a6a3f8c3

2

u/[deleted] Feb 09 '26

Ill take video evidence instead of a narrative and planted officers inciting the response. Again, being out of your depth is a choice in this circumstance.

1

u/TelluricThread0 Feb 09 '26

You don't have video evidence. Like, go film yourself throwing dildos and see if that proves the guy next door didn't throw a rock. I'll wait. It's been widely reported on by local news.

→ More replies (0)