5 ms·

There are legitimate (IMHO) uses for these. For example, a crowd panics and people start getting trampled. An LRAD can be used to communicate directions quickly

There are legitimate (IMHO) uses for these. For example, a crowd panics and people start getting trampled. An LRAD can be used to communicate directions quickly at long range to help stop the panic. The report sounds like the police were doing what they should be doing. Have the organizers of that March complained about police actions or disputed the report? If not, then I would tend to believe the report. If correct, then the use (or lack thereof) of the LRAD seems reasonable. I'm apposed to abuse of power. Not power in and of itself. I think there have been significant abuses by police lately and in years past. But I also believe that these abuses do not represent all police.

mrob 9y ago
These are weapons designed to maim. And they are particularly insidious because permanent hearing damage and tinnitus are invisible. You can ruin hundreds of lives at once with no messy blood spills. Damaging hearing is a great way to punish "undesirable" people while pretending you're not evil. I can't think of any argument for their use that doesn't also permit use of biological and chemical weapons. It's 100% unethical.
- rdtsc 9y ago
  Agreed. If given the choice I can see someone opting to have their arm broken than getting permanent hearing loss. Yet one seems more violent because it requires physical contact while other is invisible.
maksimum 9y ago
If you limit power you limit the potential harm of its abuse. I think the bigger issue is legality of protest and the police's role in governance.
omegaworks 9y ago
> I also believe that these abuses do not represent all police. The institution of police was created to undermine labor movements. It may behoove you to re-examine your assumption that they're there to keep you safe.
- tatersolid 9y ago
  Umm... not so much. Police forces pre-date the industral revolution by over 2000 years, dating back to ancient China, Greece, and Rome. Their common duty has always been enforcement if of natural law (prevention of theft and violence or investigation and capture of such criminals). Source: Wikipedia. My local sheriff and his crew actually do protect and serve the public. As do 99% of Police in the USA.
  - SauciestGNU 9y ago
    Not to get too into the weeds here but I've found that the sheriff is generally more responsive to the public and less abusive than police forces as the sheriff is a constitutional officer who must stand election, and therefore cannot wantonly abuse the public without consequence as police departments tend to do.
  - jjoonathan 9y ago
    Slave rebellions weren't labor movements?
    - tatersolid 9y ago
      Are you suggesting ancient police were created to stop slave rebellions and not created to prevent the far more common everyday crime? Source?
ohazi 9y ago
You're making the same mistake that everyone in this thread is afraid the cops are also making. A sound cannon is not a loudspeaker, it's a weapon. If you want a loudspeaker, get a loudspeaker. This thing is designed to inflict actual, serious, permanent damage to people mechanically, from a large standoff distance. It's used to paralize combatants approaching a convoy. It shouldn't be used against crowds at home.
- comex 9y ago
  If you look at LRAD's product guide [1], they primarily describe their devices as being for "communication", not as a weapon. Now, they apparently can also output "deterrent tones", which are potentially dangerous - and I wouldn't be surprised if the product guide 'sugarcoats' things by focusing on non-offensive use cases. But it seems like a leap to claim that it's incapable of being used safely as a loudspeaker (which seems to have been the police's intent in the DC march). [1] https://www.lradx.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/LRAD-Product-Guide-9.15.pdf https://www.lradx.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/LRAD-Produc...
  - zkms 9y ago
    That device is indeed for "communication" in the same way that a warning shot is a method of communication. This is not hyperbole, this is quite literally what the device was designed for, per the US military itself: "AHD is a non-lethal, counterpersonnel, long-range hailing and warning device capable of producing highly directional sound beams, allowing users to project warning tones and intelligible voice commands beyond small arms engagement range. This capability helps Soldiers more effectively determine the intent of a person, crowd, vessel, or vehicle at a safe distance, potentially deterring them prior to escalating to lethal force." (http://www.pica.army.mil/pmccs/combatmunitions/nonlethalsys/acoustichailingdev.html http://www.pica.army.mil/pmccs/combatmunitions/nonlethalsys/...) and "Acoustic Hailing Devices are designed to deny access into/out of an area to individuals, move individuals through an area, and suppress individuals." (http://jnlwp.defense.gov/Current-Non-Lethal-Weapons/Acoustic-Hailing-Devices/ http://jnlwp.defense.gov/Current-Non-Lethal-Weapons/Acoustic...) ("AHD" = "acoustic hailing device", the generic term for LRADs: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acoustic_hailing_device#Origin https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acoustic_hailing_device#Origin )

mrob 9y ago

These are weapons designed to maim. And they are particularly insidious because permanent hearing damage and tinnitus are invisible. You can ruin hundreds of lives at once with no messy blood spills. Damaging hearing is a great way to punish "undesirable" people while pretending you're not evil. I can't think of any argument for their use that doesn't also permit use of biological and chemical weapons. It's 100% unethical.

rdtsc 9y ago
Agreed. If given the choice I can see someone opting to have their arm broken than getting permanent hearing loss. Yet one seems more violent because it requires physical contact while other is invisible.

maksimum 9y ago

If you limit power you limit the potential harm of its abuse. I think the bigger issue is legality of protest and the police's role in governance.

omegaworks 9y ago

> I also believe that these abuses do not represent all police. The institution of police was created to undermine labor movements. It may behoove you to re-examine your assumption that they're there to keep you safe.

tatersolid 9y ago
Umm... not so much. Police forces pre-date the industral revolution by over 2000 years, dating back to ancient China, Greece, and Rome. Their common duty has always been enforcement if of natural law (prevention of theft and violence or investigation and capture of such criminals). Source: Wikipedia. My local sheriff and his crew actually do protect and serve the public. As do 99% of Police in the USA.
- SauciestGNU 9y ago
  Not to get too into the weeds here but I've found that the sheriff is generally more responsive to the public and less abusive than police forces as the sheriff is a constitutional officer who must stand election, and therefore cannot wantonly abuse the public without consequence as police departments tend to do.
- jjoonathan 9y ago
  Slave rebellions weren't labor movements?
  - tatersolid 9y ago
    Are you suggesting ancient police were created to stop slave rebellions and not created to prevent the far more common everyday crime? Source?

ohazi 9y ago

You're making the same mistake that everyone in this thread is afraid the cops are also making. A sound cannon is not a loudspeaker, it's a weapon. If you want a loudspeaker, get a loudspeaker. This thing is designed to inflict actual, serious, permanent damage to people mechanically, from a large standoff distance. It's used to paralize combatants approaching a convoy. It shouldn't be used against crowds at home.

comex 9y ago
If you look at LRAD's product guide [1], they primarily describe their devices as being for "communication", not as a weapon. Now, they apparently can also output "deterrent tones", which are potentially dangerous - and I wouldn't be surprised if the product guide 'sugarcoats' things by focusing on non-offensive use cases. But it seems like a leap to claim that it's incapable of being used safely as a loudspeaker (which seems to have been the police's intent in the DC march). [1] https://www.lradx.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/LRAD-Product-Guide-9.15.pdf https://www.lradx.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/LRAD-Produc...
- zkms 9y ago
  That device is indeed for "communication" in the same way that a warning shot is a method of communication. This is not hyperbole, this is quite literally what the device was designed for, per the US military itself: "AHD is a non-lethal, counterpersonnel, long-range hailing and warning device capable of producing highly directional sound beams, allowing users to project warning tones and intelligible voice commands beyond small arms engagement range. This capability helps Soldiers more effectively determine the intent of a person, crowd, vessel, or vehicle at a safe distance, potentially deterring them prior to escalating to lethal force." (http://www.pica.army.mil/pmccs/combatmunitions/nonlethalsys/acoustichailingdev.html http://www.pica.army.mil/pmccs/combatmunitions/nonlethalsys/...) and "Acoustic Hailing Devices are designed to deny access into/out of an area to individuals, move individuals through an area, and suppress individuals." (http://jnlwp.defense.gov/Current-Non-Lethal-Weapons/Acoustic-Hailing-Devices/ http://jnlwp.defense.gov/Current-Non-Lethal-Weapons/Acoustic...) ("AHD" = "acoustic hailing device", the generic term for LRADs: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acoustic_hailing_device#Origin https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acoustic_hailing_device#Origin )