9 ms·
What ‘less lethal’ weapons do
- ed25519FUUU 6y agoI’m surprised no localities have rolled out an ADS[1] yet to deal with crowds. These systems always gave me an ominous feeling, and I don’t want to be around when they start doing trial runs on Americans. https://youtu.be/kzG4oEutPbA https://youtu.be/kzG4oEutPbA
- dashundchen 6y agoThey have (also known as an "LRAD") https://genasys.com/video/buffalo-ny-pd-acquire-lrad-500x-for-crowd-communications/ https://genasys.com/video/buffalo-ny-pd-acquire-lrad-500x-fo... I know it was deployed in the past month Buffalo, Portland, Seattle, New York and Washington DC at least, and I'm sure many more police departments have used it. These should be banned along with tear gas, rubber bullets and flash grenades. The indiscriminate nature and damage these weapons cause is the definition of excessive force. EDIT: Sorry, was mistaken. ADS is not the same as LRAD - though neither should be in the hands of local police departments.
- phonypc 6y agoDifferent systems. LRAD is acoustic, ADS is radio frequency heating.
- ed25519FUUU 6y agoFortunately not the same devices. The ADS gives people the sensation their skin is burning. From wikipedia: > The ADS works by firing a high-powered (100 kW output power) beam of 95 GHz waves at a target, which corresponds to a wavelength of 3.2 mm. The ADS millimeter wave energy works on a similar principle as a microwave oven, exciting the water and fat molecules in the skin, and instantly heating them via dielectric heating. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Active_Denial_System https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Active_Denial_System
- klyrs 6y ago> The ADS gives people the sensation their skin is burning. Waterboarding gives people the sensation of drowning. This is an instrument of torture.
- phonypc 6y agoI think using the word "sensation" is even downplaying things. Their skin is burning. People are drowning. It just (usually) stops before permanent injury or death.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- SketchySeaBeast 6y agoIs that a microwave cannon? What happens if people don't move?
- kawfey 6y agoTheir skin burns. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microwave_burn https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microwave_burn
- ed25519FUUU 6y agoHopefully they're not wearing any metal earrings, piercings, etc that are exposed to the waves.
- minikites 6y agoTo cops that's a feature, not a bug.
- SketchySeaBeast 6y agoThat's horrifying. And it yet again feels irresponsible to be selling this as a somehow safe method of crowd dispersal when in reality it's just a low power long range flamethrower.
- ArtDev 6y agoOr if they are trapped their skin gets literally cooked.
- kawfey 6y agoCompared to less-than-lethal means like rubber bullets, beanbags, and tasers, acute RF exposure at reasonable distances and safety margins causes quite a bit less physical damage while making those exposed very, very uncomfortable. However, the video demonstration shows testing on volunteers, with the ADS at a great distance, following strict safety protocols. In the wrong hands, things could quickly change. I don't want to imagine what 100kW of directed 95GHz RF can do to skin at a distance of tens of meters on trapped or immobilized targets for long exposure durations. It could not only be lethal, but an instrument of torture.
- ArtDev 6y agoThe ADS is way worse than anything else because its potential for abuse. Police appear to abuse any tool they are given. They shoot protestors directly with tear gas grenades, aim for the face with rubber bullets, and pepper spray people in the face that are already prone and in handcuffs. From the wikipedia page on the ADS: "..may lead those who use them to become "trigger-happy", especially in dealing with peaceful protesters. Others have focused on concerns that weapons whose operative principle is that of inflicting pain (though "non-lethal") might be useful for such purposes as torture, as they leave no evidence of use, but undoubtedly have the capacity to inflict horrific pain on a restrained subject. According to Wired, the ADS has been rejected for fielding in Iraq due to Pentagon fears that it would be regarded as an instrument of torture.[54]"
- Pfhreak 6y agoRubber bullets have steel cores, and are aimed indiscriminately. Imagine getting hit by a steel paintball. Without a mask or protective clothing. People get hit in the face, losing eyes. Chemical weapons like CS gas are an aerosolized powder, dispersed using a burning canister. It was never meant for anyone who might be infirm, and it floods the area, getting into people's homes. Flash bangs will permanently damage hearing and create shrapnel that can cause injury. In Seattle, police were firing these weapons into packed crowds of peaceful protesters, and specifically targeted medical tents. Thankfully, the Seattle City Council just voted to outlaw the possession or use of crowd control weapons, including all the weapons in this article, by the police. Here's hoping other cities follow suit. (Contact your city council member! Get a friend to do the same!)
- throw1234651234 6y agoThe problem you are trying to underline is that these are meant to be an alternative when force is absolutely necessary, whereas a lot of users pretend they are "safe" options to be used in any situation without harm.
- Pfhreak 6y agoYeah. Maybe the root cause here is how to interpret 'absolutely necessary'. It's clear, however, that the police interpretation is overly broad, and they cannot be trusted to deploy these in the emergencies that might warrant them.
- Zak 6y agoIt can be made easy: these are alternatives to use of a firearm. They should only be allowed where deadly force is legally justified, though policies could call for using them before firearms when possible, e.g. to incapacitate a person who is brandishing a weapon, but not actively hurting people with it.
- MaxBarraclough 6y ago
- TACIXAT 6y agoI think protestors should be able to be armed with whatever police are. If they're alright firing it at someone they should be alright getting hit by it. This would be really cool because it would turn protests into paintball matches. Show the police that the citizens have the numbers and with equal weaponry they would be overpowered. Remind them who they answer to. Another thing, somewhat of an extension of the first, is that any less-lethal weapon the police carry for use on protestors should be legal to every day carry. I carry a pocket knife (legal in California) for emergencies. I really don't want to stab someone and deal with blood. It is illegal to carry a ton of less lethal alternatives like blackjacks, clubs, or batons. That has always struck me as strange. I'd much rather give someone a few bruises if it comes down to it.
- augustt 6y agoFunny how as soon as they have their less-than-lethal weapons turned on themselves they suddenly need to use deadly force (Rayshard Brooks).
- minikites 6y agoIt's fascinating to watch the crowd that crows so heavily about "government tyranny" and the second amendment stay strangely quiet about police (and by extension, The State) abuse of power.
- antepodius 6y agoRed tribe members see people who are clearly part of blue tribe fighting the police. Blue tribe generally wants to take away red tribe's guns and expand the power of the state. Now a subset of blue tribe is protesting or rioting, fighting a subset of the state. Why should your average red tribe member think that if they helps these people, they won't turn around and stab them in the back with the same policies they've been loudly pushing (while loudly calling red tribe members nonpersons) for years? What rational person would risk their life for their tribal enemies who loudly proclaim how much they hate them and want to end their way of life? It would be (somewhat) like antifa showing up on the side of those people protesting the corona lockdown earlier this year because the lockdown is a fascist policy that overwhelming economically harms marginalised people.
- 082349872349872 6y ago> “One of the reasons it’s a complete misnomer to call [a weapon] ‘nonlethal’ or ‘less lethal’ [is] if it’s being used to force people into the [attack range] of cops with batons" Note that "kettling" does not occur anywhere in https://fas.org/irp/doddir/army/fm3-19-15.pdf https://fas.org/irp/doddir/army/fm3-19-15.pdf and in fact 2-90 clearly states "A crowd on the move should not be hurried to avoid panic. At no time should the crowd be cornered in a position where there is the perception of no escape. This invokes the “fight-or-flight” syndrome, possibly escalating violent activity." Fig 2-2 includes "Indicate the method, streets, and direction that the crowd should use when dispersing." Todd Winn was right to say that problematic police need "accountability for failed TTPs and EOF abuse." (Tactics, Techniques, Procedures) (Escalation of Force)
- tomnipotent 6y agoThis manual is for the U.S. Army and military police. Civilian police are more likely using FEMA's Field Force Operations training.
- 082349872349872 6y agoThank you. Looks like "Field Force Operations PER-200"[1]? https://twitter.com/CDPfema https://twitter.com/CDPfema hasn't been very active this year. If FEMA promotes kettling, then maybe they should pay more attention to the TTPs and EOF of people who attempt to win hearts and minds in even more dangerous situations, outside CONUS. Cattlemen would say "don't crowd a mob", because stampedes don't make anyone's life better. [1] seems like a reasonable document. have the problematic police departments attended the course? 2.d.(11) Use low-profile tactics. Don't become the focus of the demonstration. 3.i ... establish escape routes so protesters can safely leave the area. Annex A 10 and 12 (case studies) may be of interest.
- 082349872349872 6y agoor maybe not so reasonable. not sure if "encirclement" may be related to "kettling." - application of force will be judged under https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graham_v._Connor https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graham_v._Connor , not the 4A. - in principle a jurisdiction can be sued for "failure to train" its justice officers but City of Canton v Harris and Brown v Bryan indicate it's difficult in practice. - states that the vast majority of a protest is composed of everyday citizens protesting, neither "professional protesters" nor "anarchists."
- whiddershins 6y agoI think there is an unrealistic but understandable desire to have some way giant disorderly masses of people can be managed with perfect safety. Crowds are intrinsically dangerous, even fully peaceable people following every instruction can crush or trample individuals. To whatever degree a crowd is more antagonistic to control measures, the risk increases. I, personally, can’t figure out a way for any of this to be safe. Every intervention injured and upsets people, while zero intervention runs a risk of many injuries and property damage. It just seems so difficult.
- badRNG 6y agoIf you have a group of people upset and disenfranchised enough to leave their homes to protest, it doesn't seem like beating them, shooting their eyes out or gassing them is going to defuse or better the situation. It seems that rarely does this disincentive the protesters. This isn't making anyone more safe though I'm not sure that's the purpose of the riot police. They are already out protesting because they don't feel they have a voice any other way. If the state they feel doesn't hear them decides to attack them (in many cases unprovoked) they'll run to the next block and burn the city down. What else are they to do?
- kqr 6y agoThe way I understand the social dynamics at play, it's classic longtermism vs shorttermism. But first: many of these crowds the police are trying to control were not in need of being externally controlled. They might look scary if you're part of the establishment they're protesting against, but the vast majority of people are not out to cause harm -- it's the opposite. Now, as you say, zero intervention does run a risk of injuries and property damage. What you left out is in the short term. Intervention might prevent that, but it will (as I understand it) greatly increase public sympathy for the protester's cause. In the long term, it runs a risk of causing even greater number of injuries and property damage. So as Deming might have said, the US and its police force are a system that's already set up for injuries and property damage. You can't force your way out of that without causing more injuries and property damage. The course has been set, even if not all the events are played out yet. The only thing that can be done is absorb the blow, listen to the people, and build something great out of the ashes to replace the old system. But the system needs to be rebuilt. It cannot be tweaked into working. It cannot be fixed by force.
- sitkack 6y ago"Less Lethal" weapons are a cover by the police in their ability to escalate the use of force and when they do injure or maim they can say it was "unintended" and a random accident, thereby covered by immunity.
- coronadisaster 6y agoBean bags should be renamed to lead bags... it would be more appropriate
- timwaagh 6y agoi think its good to have them. far beats the way it used to be done before these inventions (police opening fire, killing a few, hoping the rest runs away).