8 ms·

Rubber bullets have steel cores, and are aimed indiscriminately. Imagine getting hit by a steel paintball. Without a mask or protective clothing. People get hit

Rubber 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 ago
The 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 ago
  Yeah. 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 ago
    It 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
      > 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 These two proposed policies are contradictory.
      - Zak 6y ago
        They're not, because legal justification and department policy are different. If, for example, someone is threatening people with a knife and is close enough to use it, the law usually allows a police officer to shoot that person without taking any other actions. Department policy can require the use of specific tactics to maximize opportunities to resolve situations with minimal force. An example policy would be to attempt to separate the subject from bystanders, delay until backup arrives, negotiate verbally, then use less lethal weapons, only resorting to firearms if someone is about to be stabbed.
        MaxBarraclough 6y ago
        I see what you're saying now, I'd misread you.
- closeparen 6y ago
  “When force is absolutely necessary” generally means a life-and-death situation, where police are going to use deadly force anyway.
  - User23 6y ago
    The potential use of force is absolutely necessary for the enforcement of any law, otherwise it's just a polite suggestion that can and often will ultimately be ignored by antisocial individuals. Now, personally, I would love to live in a society populated solely by considerate, thoughtful, and polite people who always follow polite suggestions and don't need to be forcefully coerced. However we don't live in that society and the claim that we don't because of law enforcement using force is very much an example of wet streets causing rain.
amalcon 6y ago
A woman was killed by a pepper bullet in Boston in '04, when it missed its intended target and struck her in the eye. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shooting_of_Victoria_Snelgrove https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shooting_of_Victoria_Snelgrove
Strang 6y ago
I don't doubt anything you are saying here, and I agree with the idea that "nonlethal" weapons are often used irresponsibly. But what is the alternative? What are police supposed to use for crowd control? (This is not a rhetorical question. Are there other theories, strategies, or technologies available?) And just to state explicitly: I believe it is unjust and counterproductive to allow a crowd to seize control of a common area, even if they are motivated by grievance or message.
- jasonwatkinspdx 6y ago
  Your last sentence is what you've got wrong. I've been down to the protests in pdx. The police escalate pointlessly every 15 min or so. Our chief resigned, which briefly led to the police backing off for a bit. What did these super dangerous protestors do? They tore down the stupid fence around the justice center that's been so obnoxious. But then after discussion decided that might seem too confrontational, so they re-assembled it. Well apparently that really pissed off the police, because shortly after the fence was restored they came charging out as a group firing rubber bullets indiscriminately. The police's actions during this protest have nothing to do with public safety. It's entirely about them abusing their authority to try to silence and suppress legal protests attempting to hold them accountable.
  - Strang 6y ago
    I don't doubt that police escalate unnecessarily either. I'm not even making reference to any current situation. I'm just assuming that there exists a scenario in which it would be reasonable and necessary for the police to dissipate a crowd. Is there a way to do that without rubber bullets and tear gas? Will this create a gap in the "use of force continuum" that will now be filled with something more unjust?
    - deleted 6y ago
      [deleted]
    - Nursie 6y ago
      In the UK crowds are contained until they can be dispersed, without the use of this stuff. I don't have all the answers, but perhaps studying other countries with lesser police violence problems might help.
tw04 6y ago
I'm not sure I think they should be outlawed, but I absolutely think the use of them should have extremely radical laws controlling them. For instance: if these "non-lethal" weapons are to be used, the Mayor of the city should be required to sign-off on their use, and there should be a mandatory election held no less than 1 month later. Right now there's basically 0 downside/accountability to them being deployed, which is why they're used indiscriminately.
- inetknght 6y ago
  > Right now there's basically 0 downside/accountability which is why there's protests
  - systemvoltage 6y ago
    How do you control huge crowds if they go violent, go into neighborhoods and start killing/robbing/raping ______ people? Edit: I am raising a hypothetical question which people are responding with the current reality. Yes, I know that it is not happening currently, which is why I am raising the what-if question. I've even left the race or sides off of the question to talk about the objective ways of dealing with a situation like this.
    - paulmd 6y ago
      the point is that they are being used to suppress speech rather than control violent crowds. things usually don't get violent until the police escalate and start trying to disperse the crowds (which is unconstitutional but again, no accountability, which is exactly what's being protested). That's consistently been the pattern with the current wave of protests. When the police start kettling and tear-gassing and firing rubber bullets, things get violent. Where the police do their jobs and stand back and surgically remove instigators/violence, things stay peaceful. at the end of the day I don't think anyone disputes that these should be in police arsenals (as opposed to some of the heavier weaponry), but they shouldn't be used to suppress speech or demonstrations. There needs to be much more restraint with their use, and there needs to be way more oversight and accountability when they are used.
downerending 6y ago
The "targeted medical tents" part sounds rather dubious, but yes, "less lethal" most certainly does not mean "harmless". What would be better, though? How do you get people to obey the law, in a way that is safer for all concerned?
- williamdclt 6y ago
  > How do you get people to obey the law, in a way that is safer for all concerned? Start by not shooting at them, especially when the protest is legal. Escalation is the big problem here, nobody is complaining about using rubber bullet against dangerous armed people. They're complaining about using rubber bullet against people in a non-violent protest. If the police is using significantly more force than their "targets", there's an escalation problem
  - downerending 6y ago
    I don't think they are using significantly more force. Looking at the riots across the US, the police appear in general to be showing an almost saintly level of restraint, and being killed and severely injured as a result. This is simply too much to ask.
    - Nursie 6y ago
      This has to be trolling. The whole thing started because of the police literally committing murder, and in most cases closing ranks and getting away with it.
    - qaz_plm 6y ago
      You seem to be confusing “protests” and “riots”
    - Pfhreak 6y ago
      I strongly disagree. Footage from protest after protest shows police firing weapons into crowds, causing permanent injuries with zero accountability. As far as I am aware, no active police officers have been killed by protesters. (One was killed by a right wing extremist.) Meanwhile, several protesters have been killed by police at these protests. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Floyd_protests#Violence_and_controversies https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Floyd_protests#Violence...
tehwebguy 6y ago
Several protestors have had an eye shot out by US police in the last 2.5 weeks, it's time for an eye-for-an-eye law for police (or anyone) that use these weapons on protestors. There is no excuse that someone could shoot someone's eye out and then not be required to replace it.

throw1234651234 6y ago

The 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 ago
Yeah. 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 ago
  It 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
    > 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 These two proposed policies are contradictory.
    - Zak 6y ago
      They're not, because legal justification and department policy are different. If, for example, someone is threatening people with a knife and is close enough to use it, the law usually allows a police officer to shoot that person without taking any other actions. Department policy can require the use of specific tactics to maximize opportunities to resolve situations with minimal force. An example policy would be to attempt to separate the subject from bystanders, delay until backup arrives, negotiate verbally, then use less lethal weapons, only resorting to firearms if someone is about to be stabbed.
      - MaxBarraclough 6y ago
        I see what you're saying now, I'd misread you.
closeparen 6y ago
“When force is absolutely necessary” generally means a life-and-death situation, where police are going to use deadly force anyway.
- User23 6y ago
  The potential use of force is absolutely necessary for the enforcement of any law, otherwise it's just a polite suggestion that can and often will ultimately be ignored by antisocial individuals. Now, personally, I would love to live in a society populated solely by considerate, thoughtful, and polite people who always follow polite suggestions and don't need to be forcefully coerced. However we don't live in that society and the claim that we don't because of law enforcement using force is very much an example of wet streets causing rain.

amalcon 6y ago

A woman was killed by a pepper bullet in Boston in '04, when it missed its intended target and struck her in the eye. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shooting_of_Victoria_Snelgrove https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shooting_of_Victoria_Snelgrove

Strang 6y ago

I don't doubt anything you are saying here, and I agree with the idea that "nonlethal" weapons are often used irresponsibly. But what is the alternative? What are police supposed to use for crowd control? (This is not a rhetorical question. Are there other theories, strategies, or technologies available?) And just to state explicitly: I believe it is unjust and counterproductive to allow a crowd to seize control of a common area, even if they are motivated by grievance or message.

jasonwatkinspdx 6y ago
Your last sentence is what you've got wrong. I've been down to the protests in pdx. The police escalate pointlessly every 15 min or so. Our chief resigned, which briefly led to the police backing off for a bit. What did these super dangerous protestors do? They tore down the stupid fence around the justice center that's been so obnoxious. But then after discussion decided that might seem too confrontational, so they re-assembled it. Well apparently that really pissed off the police, because shortly after the fence was restored they came charging out as a group firing rubber bullets indiscriminately. The police's actions during this protest have nothing to do with public safety. It's entirely about them abusing their authority to try to silence and suppress legal protests attempting to hold them accountable.
- Strang 6y ago
  I don't doubt that police escalate unnecessarily either. I'm not even making reference to any current situation. I'm just assuming that there exists a scenario in which it would be reasonable and necessary for the police to dissipate a crowd. Is there a way to do that without rubber bullets and tear gas? Will this create a gap in the "use of force continuum" that will now be filled with something more unjust?
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  - Nursie 6y ago
    In the UK crowds are contained until they can be dispersed, without the use of this stuff. I don't have all the answers, but perhaps studying other countries with lesser police violence problems might help.

tw04 6y ago

I'm not sure I think they should be outlawed, but I absolutely think the use of them should have extremely radical laws controlling them. For instance: if these "non-lethal" weapons are to be used, the Mayor of the city should be required to sign-off on their use, and there should be a mandatory election held no less than 1 month later. Right now there's basically 0 downside/accountability to them being deployed, which is why they're used indiscriminately.

inetknght 6y ago
> Right now there's basically 0 downside/accountability which is why there's protests
- systemvoltage 6y ago
  How do you control huge crowds if they go violent, go into neighborhoods and start killing/robbing/raping ______ people? Edit: I am raising a hypothetical question which people are responding with the current reality. Yes, I know that it is not happening currently, which is why I am raising the what-if question. I've even left the race or sides off of the question to talk about the objective ways of dealing with a situation like this.
  - paulmd 6y ago
    the point is that they are being used to suppress speech rather than control violent crowds. things usually don't get violent until the police escalate and start trying to disperse the crowds (which is unconstitutional but again, no accountability, which is exactly what's being protested). That's consistently been the pattern with the current wave of protests. When the police start kettling and tear-gassing and firing rubber bullets, things get violent. Where the police do their jobs and stand back and surgically remove instigators/violence, things stay peaceful. at the end of the day I don't think anyone disputes that these should be in police arsenals (as opposed to some of the heavier weaponry), but they shouldn't be used to suppress speech or demonstrations. There needs to be much more restraint with their use, and there needs to be way more oversight and accountability when they are used.

downerending 6y ago

The "targeted medical tents" part sounds rather dubious, but yes, "less lethal" most certainly does not mean "harmless". What would be better, though? How do you get people to obey the law, in a way that is safer for all concerned?

williamdclt 6y ago
> How do you get people to obey the law, in a way that is safer for all concerned? Start by not shooting at them, especially when the protest is legal. Escalation is the big problem here, nobody is complaining about using rubber bullet against dangerous armed people. They're complaining about using rubber bullet against people in a non-violent protest. If the police is using significantly more force than their "targets", there's an escalation problem
- downerending 6y ago
  I don't think they are using significantly more force. Looking at the riots across the US, the police appear in general to be showing an almost saintly level of restraint, and being killed and severely injured as a result. This is simply too much to ask.
  - Nursie 6y ago
    This has to be trolling. The whole thing started because of the police literally committing murder, and in most cases closing ranks and getting away with it.
  - qaz_plm 6y ago
    You seem to be confusing “protests” and “riots”
  - Pfhreak 6y ago
    I strongly disagree. Footage from protest after protest shows police firing weapons into crowds, causing permanent injuries with zero accountability. As far as I am aware, no active police officers have been killed by protesters. (One was killed by a right wing extremist.) Meanwhile, several protesters have been killed by police at these protests. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Floyd_protests#Violence_and_controversies https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Floyd_protests#Violence...

tehwebguy 6y ago

Several protestors have had an eye shot out by US police in the last 2.5 weeks, it's time for an eye-for-an-eye law for police (or anyone) that use these weapons on protestors. There is no excuse that someone could shoot someone's eye out and then not be required to replace it.