4 ms·

Before I'm willing to condemn this I'd want to know a lot more about how it was actually used. Was it used as a weapon or simply as an available bullhorn or ann

Before I'm willing to condemn this I'd want to know a lot more about how it was actually used. Was it used as a weapon or simply as an available bullhorn or announcement/PA system? I don't recall any press at the time about serious crowd control problems or the "weapon" use of LRADs, and a quick bit of searching now also doesn't show anything like that. Even the article notes "military grade versions that can send voice communications up to 5.5 miles away, and slightly less powerful versions like the LRAD 500X or 300X which are what police departments generally use." A less powerful system that can send voice communications sounds an awful lot like a PA system to me. Given the described use "to assist in instructing the crowd flows on continuing to flow away from the entrances of the stations" that also sounds like a PA system. This sounds like a lot of sensationalism on something pretty mundane.

therein 9y ago
You can watch this video as an example. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QSMyY3_dmrM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QSMyY3_dmrM
- fencepost 9y ago
  That video shows it being used as a crowd dispersal tool at a much more confrontational protest (G20, in 2009) along with a bunch of police in body armor. Do you have any video showing the same kind of thing at the "pink pussy hat" Women's March in DC in 2017? I understand that a LRAD can be used as a weapon, but was it or is the headline and article over the top?
Broken_Hippo 9y ago
The very next section if the article describes what the police version can do: "There are various models of LRAD, with military grade versions that can send voice communications up to 5.5 miles away, and slightly less powerful versions like the LRAD 500X or 300X which are what police departments generally use. All can produce a sound somewhat akin to a high-powered car alarm that can cause intense headaches, nausea, loss of balance, and potentially permanent hearing loss." Now, their particular model might not have that last capability or it might have options to avoid it, I don't know. But I don't know if I trust police to use it after less violent methods have been tried, including simple conflict resolution and non-combative crowd control. This is the same reason I dislike police departments to have military weapons - most states aren't training their police in basic interpersonal communication with mentally ill citizens - How can we trust the training on this? Doesn't matter to me what version of the weapon they have or how they are using it - to me, anyway. I'm more worried about the potential harm, regulations on use, and the training the cops receive so they can be trusted with such a thing.
- fencepost 9y ago
  > The very next section if the article describes what the police version can do I understand what it can do. What I care about is what it did do. You might just as well complain about police use of military-style armored vehicles. Did you know they can mount guns on those or even run people over? The way in which things are used matters. In this case, a tool (effectively a high-tech speaker system) that has both offensive and non-offensive uses was used in what appears to be a non-offensive way as an announcement system, but because the same equipment can be used offensively someone's trying to do what I'll call "crap-stirring" here. "Crap-stirring" like this reflects badly on both the people doing it (e.g. Muckrock) and the people who fall for it.
  - anigbrowl 9y ago
    I disagree. You're arguing that it's OK to deploy, it depends on how its used. But that normalizes the use of LRADs, APCs and so on, and by the time they're used in a repressive fashion it's too late to do anything about it.
qbaqbaqba 9y ago
It's a very good question. In Poland police was also said to have used this device during an oppositions protest. However, it turned out it was used as a speaker. It wasn't used as a crowd control device because it isn't included in our Law about Police as a legal mean of enforcement. To make things more interesting it shouldn't have been bought at all (because it's usage is illegal), but it was bought anyway by our previous government that is our current opposition protesting today.

therein 9y ago

You can watch this video as an example. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QSMyY3_dmrM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QSMyY3_dmrM

fencepost 9y ago
That video shows it being used as a crowd dispersal tool at a much more confrontational protest (G20, in 2009) along with a bunch of police in body armor. Do you have any video showing the same kind of thing at the "pink pussy hat" Women's March in DC in 2017? I understand that a LRAD can be used as a weapon, but was it or is the headline and article over the top?

Broken_Hippo 9y ago

The very next section if the article describes what the police version can do: "There are various models of LRAD, with military grade versions that can send voice communications up to 5.5 miles away, and slightly less powerful versions like the LRAD 500X or 300X which are what police departments generally use. All can produce a sound somewhat akin to a high-powered car alarm that can cause intense headaches, nausea, loss of balance, and potentially permanent hearing loss." Now, their particular model might not have that last capability or it might have options to avoid it, I don't know. But I don't know if I trust police to use it after less violent methods have been tried, including simple conflict resolution and non-combative crowd control. This is the same reason I dislike police departments to have military weapons - most states aren't training their police in basic interpersonal communication with mentally ill citizens - How can we trust the training on this? Doesn't matter to me what version of the weapon they have or how they are using it - to me, anyway. I'm more worried about the potential harm, regulations on use, and the training the cops receive so they can be trusted with such a thing.

fencepost 9y ago
> The very next section if the article describes what the police version can do I understand what it can do. What I care about is what it did do. You might just as well complain about police use of military-style armored vehicles. Did you know they can mount guns on those or even run people over? The way in which things are used matters. In this case, a tool (effectively a high-tech speaker system) that has both offensive and non-offensive uses was used in what appears to be a non-offensive way as an announcement system, but because the same equipment can be used offensively someone's trying to do what I'll call "crap-stirring" here. "Crap-stirring" like this reflects badly on both the people doing it (e.g. Muckrock) and the people who fall for it.
- anigbrowl 9y ago
  I disagree. You're arguing that it's OK to deploy, it depends on how its used. But that normalizes the use of LRADs, APCs and so on, and by the time they're used in a repressive fashion it's too late to do anything about it.

qbaqbaqba 9y ago

It's a very good question. In Poland police was also said to have used this device during an oppositions protest. However, it turned out it was used as a speaker. It wasn't used as a crowd control device because it isn't included in our Law about Police as a legal mean of enforcement. To make things more interesting it shouldn't have been bought at all (because it's usage is illegal), but it was bought anyway by our previous government that is our current opposition protesting today.