3 ms·

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 vo

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.

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.