Crowd control

[grilkip]

I came across this article on digg: http://news.bbc.co.uk/cbbcnews/hi/ne...00/7454594.stm

It is about those devices that deliver a high pitched squeak to scare of teenagers. Personally I detest the very idea. Not simply because at 27, I can still hear it.

But, I wanted to talk about devices like these in general, we've all seen videos of futuristic weapons on youtube. A gun that emits sound waves that make your tummy hurt, foam guns, tazers, rubber bullets, etc.

I do not like the thought of these weapons being in the hands of the law (/private guards). The threshold for using them is much lower than real weapons so a "zap them to be sure" mentally could occur more easily. The law is there to balance crime, not eliminate it. A society with no crime is not a free one. When the law intervenes I'd like it to require real effort and a hard decision from those executing it. I can imagine cops thinking these things are great as they partly relieve them of the burden of deciding over another's life, I for one would like them to keep that burden, to keep them using their own conscience.

Would the Tiananmen massacre have made any impact if all those victims where simply 'zapped' and went home with a headache? Most people I imagine would think it was pointless and not try again. And self censorship enters your life, you are whipped.

[SurfDemon]

It's a tricky one. Up here in Canada there is a lot of discussion about the over-use of Tasers by police. A recent government enquiry found that they were originally introduced as a non-lethal option instead of shooting someone.... so it was a last ditch, this is the point where I'm going to shoot the guy dead with my gun sort of option. But the report concluded that it has become incredibly common-place amongst the police to taser people who do not pose any threat. They recommended that the whole use of Tasers be re-evaluated.

I have to say I agree with this. Tasers should be a replacement for shooting someone with a gun, not as a means to make sure that the hand-cuffed prisoner doesn't give you any more lip.

[honeybee]

In a way it's better that science allows the law to invent weapons that don't kill. When you kill someone, it's the end of a life, period. So the decision to kill someone is not an easy one. You might argue that a serial killer or a similar criminal should be killed, but then it's a relatively easy choice. What happens when the police are facing demonstrations on the roads where the people are otherwise ordinary citizens, but agitating at the moment for some wrong done to them? Do they really deserve to be shot with real bullets and either permanently injured or killed? Or do they deserve to be given a milder dose of law, such as water hoses or tear gas or any other non-lethal weapons?

I remember reading a very good novel that deals with a similar situation with people. I think it was titled "Men among men" or so. It proclaims that the corruption of a man starts when he has the power to decide over the lives of others. When you give the power to kill or not to kill to the police, some of them will fall for its temptation and turn the power to their own private means.

.

[Nightwalker83]

Would the Tiananmen massacre have made any impact if all those victims where simply 'zapped' and went home with a headache? Most people I imagine would think it was pointless and not try again. And self censorship enters your life, you are whipped.

While never having experienced the effect of those sound devices, because I'm 24 they seem better than tasers. A high-pitched noise would be better then being shocked I reckon. After all the tasers deliver a high voltage from close range but the sound devices I imagine would deliver a short burst at a high frequency from some distance.

Sorry if what I have said completely missed the point but the above quote seems as if you're now saying the opposite to what you said earlier.

[grilkip]

While never having experienced the effect of those sound devices, because I'm 24 they seem better than tasers. A high-pitched noise would be better then being shocked I reckon. After all the tasers deliver a high voltage from close range but the sound devices I imagine would deliver a short burst at a high frequency from some distance.

Sorry if what I have said completely missed the point but the above quote seems as if you're now saying the opposite to what you said earlier.

This is not about which is worse; tazers or sound waves. This is about dumbing down a populace using non-lethal weapons.

[zaza]

While I appreciate the argument, I don't think this is the key point in the march to the police state. I can't speak for Holland, but here in the UK there is definitely an attitude at the highest level that we, the population, need to be told what is best for us by an army of civil servants / govt ministers / etc. Surveillance in all shapes and forms is at an all time high. We need ID cards for this, ID cards for that. Every piece of information must be centrally collected and collated. Now we've agreed to lock people up without charge for up to 6 weeks, due to the imminent terrorist threat.
I suspect that a lot of governments start out full of ideas about upholding the rights of their citizens/subjects. Unfortunately, as time goes by they realise that letting all these pesky people do as they please just creates a headache, and wouldn't it be so much easier if they would just do as they're told in this one instance. From there, it's a short step to convincing yourself that what you're doing really is in the best interests of the country, and the next thing you know there's a national curfew.

Erosion of civil liberties is the worst of the non-lethal weapons, and we seem all too content to let it happen.

[Nightwalker83]

This is not about which is worse; tazers or sound waves. This is about dumbing down a populace using non-lethal weapons.

I thought that might have been the case but wasn't sure because of the quote in my last post!

I agree that it is better to find no lethal ways to combat the problem. However, where is the line when it comes to how much force is deemed acceptable?

[grilkip]

I agree that it is better to find no lethal ways to combat the problem.

What problem is that? And with who are you agreeing?

.

While I appreciate the argumen....................................

Erosion of civil liberties is the worst of the non-lethal weapons, and we seem all too content to let it happen.

I agree, I can rant about this as well.

Freedom > (perceived) Safety.

As far as Holland goes, we're probably a bit behind because we haven't had a Northern Ireland. And this is funny: The Americans have unrestricted access to Dutch phone records and the ability to tap a landline by pressing a button, where the Dutch Intelligence Services need to go to court or have very special reasons that can be verified later. Obviously we have ourselves to blame for this.

I was going to rub a spelling error in your face, but apparently "realise" is ok.

[Foxer]

I won't travel to America because my civil rights will be stripped at the border. It's a bizarre thing to say but I get treated better in Asia than I would in the USA (Aussie white fella).

While the zappers do tend to be over used, I think I'd rather a zapper to be abused many times before a fire-arm is misused once.

[Nightwalker83]

What problem is that? And with who are you agreeing?

That problem of violence! I was aiming that post at you.

[homer13j]

The Americans have unrestricted access to Dutch phone records and the ability to tap a landline by pressing a button

Huh? I have no ability to tap phones, and I certainly have no interest in Dutch phone records... Where are you getting this info?

[grilkip]

Huh? I have no ability to tap phones, and I certainly have no interest in Dutch phone records... Where are you getting this info?

Somewhere sometime in the media. Don't have a citation, sorry.

[homer13j]

You really shouldn't believe everything the media tells you.

And my post should read:

I certainly have no interest in Dutch phone records unless I can get the numbers of hot Dutch girls.

Glad we cleared that up.

[grilkip]

You did understand I meant the US intelligence service(s)? They are very active in Europe and it is not really that far fetched.

[homer13j]

You did understand I meant the US intelligence service(s)?

You only said "the Americans" - forgive me for assuming you meant the American people and not the American government. Apparently in other countries these are considered to be the same thing?

[grilkip]

No, I just thought it would be obvious.

[honeybee]

You only said "the Americans" - forgive me for assuming you meant the American people and not the American government. Apparently in other countries these are considered to be the same thing?

It's actually one and the same thing, at least in the so called "democratic" countries. The people have the responsibility to elect the right type of government.

.