[pluma]

That list is terrible:

3: pillows may be considered passive weapons but that is irrelevant unless it is used as such or carried in a context where it is likely intended to be used as such (e.g. while participating in a demonstration). That said, assaulting random people in public with a pillow is probably still illegal because it involves assaulting random people (albeit with a weapon that's less likely to cause permanent injuries directly).

5: Both drilling and throwing bottles into containers cause noise pollution. It's not the act itself that's verboten, it's the noise it causes.

6: This is the same thing as 5. The law doesn't give an exhaustive list of activities that might be too damn noisy so I have no idea where these come from.

8: Calling a police officer "du" is a sign of disrespect. If you're new to the language and struggling with the distinction, the police officer will likely correct you or ignore it. Treating police officers disrespectfully is a misdemeanor and addressing them as "du" is one way to be disrespectful.

9: This is a widely held misconception. The "Deutschlandlied" is not illegal. The national anthem only has one verse and that's the third verse of the Deutschlandlied (or actually "Lied der Deutschen"). You can still sing the entire song but if you were going for singing the national anthem, you'll spend two verses singing something that isn't the national anthem. The reason people will still look at you in disgust is the same reason the anthem only uses the third verse: we don't take to jingoism too kindly after WW2.

10: I'm pretty sure it's not a law that you can't drink Export or non-Munich beer at the Oktoberfest, considering the Oktoberfest is in essence just a private event, but it's Bavaria so I'm not sure of this one.

[morsch]

Note that a "passive weapon" is not a weapon. It's odd legalese for defensive equipment, including helmets, gas masks amongst other things. So a passive weapon is not a weapon at all, and pillows might be included because of their property to shield yourself, not because of the damage they can cause others.

"Passive weapons" are not illegal; it is illegal to bring them to a demonstration with the intent to use them to avoid police interventions.

[dsfyu404ed]

So it's illegal to bring things that help you defend yourself to a situation where you, without personally doing anything wrong, may be attacked? Sounds great. /s

[pluma]

Yes, because the assumption is that the police protects you against any aggressors (i.e. criminals) that might attack you. In Germany (and most Western nations) the state has the monopoly of violence, so it's responsible for protecting you and you aren't allowed to do violence except as a self-defense (i.e. as a last resort and only within reason).

If you bring a shield to a demonstration it means you're expecting to be attacked, which either means you don't trust the police to protect you from aggressive counter-demonstrators (which presumably shouldn't be a reasonable concern) or you intend to start a fight.

I wouldn't say the worry is entirely misplaced, but the general idea is that if you were allowed to bring equipment that protects you from police violence the police would have to apply more violence to subdue you and nobody wants that.

IMO police violence and negligence should be prosecuted more thoroughly (see G20 vs the failure of police to uphold the law during nazi demonstrations in Chemnitz recently) but I don't disagree with the idea in general because at least it means we don't have stand-offs between white supremacists and black activists carrying (semi-automatic) assault rifles like recently in Texas, or shield formations like in Charlottesville.

EDIT: It's the same thing as with gun ownership, really: if guns are so widespread that you have to assume every suspect packs heat, you have to treat every suspect as a potential shooter and be ready to shoot first. If a cop stops your car in Germany, there's almost no chance a weapon will be involved.

[dragonwriter]

> In Germany (and most Western nations) the state has the monopoly of violence

And everywhere else, too, since “the State” is simply a label for whatever aggregate of actors exercises a monopoly on legitimate use of force.

[Tomte]

Yes, because it's a sign that you want to fight and it enables you to fight much harder.

I realize it's not the only reason possible to take body armor to a demonstration, but it is the reason for most people wearing them.