
What ‘less lethal’ weapons do - LinuxBender
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/what-less-lethal-weapons-actually-do/
======
Pfhreak
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!)

~~~
downerending
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
> 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
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.

~~~
williamdclt
Wow, you'll have to provide extraordinary proof to this extraordinary claim
that goes against so much evidence.

What I've seen (from outside the US) is the exact opposite, police shooting,
beating and killing protestors while they were peacefully protesting (or
medics, or journalists, or people in their own homes).

------
TACIXAT
I 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.

~~~
downerending
> I think protestors should be able to be armed with whatever police are.

That's insane. A fundamental tenet of (US) law is that using a weapon while
committing a crime is itself a crime.

We're not at war. There are a lot of people breaking the law, and we need to
reduce that with as little harm as possible.

~~~
aspaceman
Protesting is a crime now?

What world am I in Christ. You got a bunch of people protesting. The cops put
their boots to their throats. And you’re hemming and hawing about them
“breaking the law actually” by protesting.

I can’t even begin to see your perspective. These jackbooted thugs suck and
all this deflection is weird as hell. You don’t need to beat the living shit
out of someone to arrest them that shouldn’t be radical.

~~~
User23
> Protesting is a crime now?

Arson and looting are, and that's what the post you're replying to meant.

------
082349872349872
> “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
This manual is for the U.S. Army and military police. Civilian police are more
likely using FEMA's Field Force Operations training.

~~~
082349872349872
Thank 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
or 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
I 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.

~~~
kqr
The 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
"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
Bean bags should be renamed to lead bags... it would be more appropriate

------
timwaagh
i 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).

------
ed25519FUUU
I’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
They have (also known as an "LRAD")

[https://genasys.com/video/buffalo-ny-pd-acquire-
lrad-500x-fo...](https://genasys.com/video/buffalo-ny-pd-acquire-
lrad-500x-for-crowd-communications/)

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.

~~~
ed25519FUUU
Fortunately 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
> The ADS gives people the sensation their skin is burning.

Waterboarding gives people the sensation of drowning. This is an instrument of
torture.

~~~
phonypc
I 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.

