Slippery Slime Developed to Control Crowds

powlow writes "Southwest Research Institute (press release )developed a non-hazardous chemical spray system that spreads a highly slippery, viscous gel (which the lab designated a "mobility denial system" and dubbed "banana peel in a can") to inhibit the movement of individuals or vehicles on treated surfaces. Marines Corps believes it can be used for crowd control. (Defense Technical Information Center's PDF Report) In tests, volunteers attempted in vain to walk across a lawn sprayed with the slime, and in fact, had they not been safety-harnessed during the tests, many would have broken bones."

Comments

Many would have broken bones?

[Xpilot]

So how is this "non-hazardous"? Are they going to hand out safety harnesses to crowds before they get sprayed with slime?

Re:Many would have broken bones?

[juventasone]

I wonder if they've developed a method for cleaning it up as well. That might prove entertaining.

Re:Many would have broken bones?

[FransUNC]

A major flaw with this is the fact that at most riots, the police want the suspects to leave, therefore ending the riot. With this, you're forcing the people to stay at the scene, which kind of defeats the purpose, doesn't it?

Even if they design the stuff to wear off after a certain amount of time, you're going to have some bruised and pissed off rioters on your hands.

Like I saw mentioned in another post, what happens if someone gets seriously injured? This just seems to be one giant lawsuit waiting to happen. I think they should focus their energy and time more on preventing riots than dealing with them, especially in manners like this.

Re:Many would have broken bones?

[Thrikreen]

That's the thing, people would notice the zone of the goo, but if they are still stupid enough to attempt to cross it even knowing what the goo does, it's their own damn fault if they get hurt. At least on the riot control's side, they're not hitting people with the batons or pepper sprays, etc., which could lead to lawsuits of excessive/unnecessary force.

Re:Many would have broken bones?

[Anonymous Coward]

I think they should focus their energy and time more on preventing riots than dealing with the

And just how is a government going to prevent riots? This seems like a naive wish. I think the cure would be worse than the disease, while the disease is always a symptom of something which no amount of well wishing will cure.

Re:Many would have broken bones?

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes right, we forgot that angry rioters are calm and we should be patting them on the head and telling them that it will be ok next time. You don't want guns so they go to rubber bullets. That's not enough so they go to pepper spray. That's too harsh so now we'll just develop this goo. I got an idea. Maybe they shouldn't be f'ing rioting in the first place. Your ability to swing your fist stops at my face. It's called self defense, even if you're a cop. Ought to be lucky you live in a country that tolerates this bs and doesn't just shoot you.

skating?

[RalfM]

I wonder if they can't just skate across it. I expect they'll just start to have a different type of shoe to deal with the problem soon (at least the professional protestors). What do the Hurling people wear? Nike Glide ;-)

Ralf

Broken Bones??

[Raul654]

Are they seriously pushing this as a crowd control product? I mean, tear gas is bad and not used often, but after a few hours, you're all back to normal. What's going to happen to a city that uses this on demostrators, many of whom will end up in the hospital with big doctor's bills. Would those demostrators not have a legitamit case against the city/county/state/fed goven't that did that?

Problem with this stuff

[Auckerman]

This is fine as long as "riot police" get the "sensitivity training". If it won't kill, it is more often used. Just look at the Seattle protests of over zealous used of tear gas and pepper spray. Yes, rioters were gased, but there is video of sit in protestors being gassed, hit with batons, etc.

If it's not deadly, its more okay to use...Now this, people can break bones...great....

My issue with this.

[Anonymous Coward]

Non-lethal, less than lethal, etc, all of these technologies lend themselves to abuse of law enforcement types. Civil disobediance will be curtailed by uses of this type of thing?

"What? Dr. King? You're planning to march where? You and those nigger troublemakers can get the hell out of Selma. You can walk back to the bus, because you aren't going to make it into town. You'll break every fibula in the group if you walk past this slippery line."

Because it's non lethal. Why would anyone make a big deal about it?

If it's not serious enough for them to use force, that means that the event isn't serious.

Re:My issue with this.

[flink]

But that was exactly what King et al wanted. They wanted the other side to look barbaric by attacking people. The problem was that the thousands of individual incidents doesn't have the same effect as the sight of a squad of police attacking a group of people sitting peacfully in a diner. Sometimes the only way to expose an unfair law is to force the governments hand. To stand up and and say, "Is this law worth killing me for? How about these 100 other people? How about in front of the national press?"

I know it's extereme, and no healthy person would want to martyr themself, but sometimes it's the only way to effect a change. The problem with these technologies are they allow the government a "sanitary" solution to a messy problem and weakens civil disobediecne, which is kinda the second-to-last resort of the people.

Re:My issue with this.

[cryptochrome]

You think slippery slime could have derailed the Civil Rights Movement by virtue of it being a non-lethal way of stopping a march? No way. When they turned the fire hoses and tear gas on the masses, people noticed. It only strengthened the movement. What mattered was that people were there demanding their rights, even when people were trying to stop them. Especially when people were trying to stop them. That just made them try harder to find way, which they did, and people noticed them more.

The only thing that works against non-violent protest is a populace that refuses to acknowledge their humanity. When Ghandi took on the British Empire, and MLK took on the US, they confronted peoples who admitted their fundamental humanity but had ignored it for economic and cultural reasons. Conversely when the Jews protested against the Nazis, and the Blacks against the Afrikaaners in South Africa, they were much less successful because the populations there regarded them as subhuman.

It's still chemical warfare

[alewando]

Though slippery slime is not as bad as some of the other so-called "non lethal" weapons being developed out there, it's still in violation of the Chemical Weapons Convention, which bans chemical agents producing temporary incapacitation.

Though "chemical warfare" readily brings WWI chlorine-gas warfare to mind, agents don't simply have to asphyxiate or burn opponents to death to qualify as inhumane. One may wonder whether there is such a thing as humane war, but it is certainly more fair to attack healthy and active combattants than it is to attack incapacitated ones. And don't believe for a second that the Pentagon is interested in this stuff just for non-combat activities.

Besides, one has to wonder how good this stuff can be at crowd control anyway. Immobilizing foam has its uses, because it can transform a chaotic situation into one where the actors -- rioters, for example -- can no longer continue their disturbances. It hardly seems prudent, however, to create a situation where everyone is sliding all over the place.

Re:It's still chemical warfare

[UnifiedTechs]

Though slippery slime is not as bad as some of the other so-called "non lethal" weapons being developed out there, it's still in violation of the Chemical Weapons Convention [www.opcw.nl], which bans chemical agents producing temporary incapacitation.

While I skimed thrue the OPCW and was not able to find it I am sure there must be something regarding excemptions for riot control agents, the simple definition you gave would also outlaw Mace, Pepper spray, and other devices commonly used by police forces.

I did notice an excemtion for small quanities and I'm sure there is a way to get it under that, the purpose of the OPCW is warfare weapons, Non-leathel riot control is not something they want to ban, name a single country that would not be interested in a non-leathel chemical to use in case of domestic riots. Worst case an amendment is made, there are provisions for that.

Broken Bones..

[TheCrunch]

I'm sure a crowd of people slipping around is a very amusing sight, but what happens if someone gets seriously injured? How would the ambulance crew get to them without being injured themselves?

crowd control

[doubtless]

many times a crowd control means dispersing the crowd, hence the application of tear gas and many other methods. Putting this slimy thing will just immobilize the crowd, and they'll just, stay there?

Another issue being, how can the person who apply this stuff not affected it? Police officers can wear a mask while using tear gas, I wonder if there's any way to avoid it. Maybe a spike show, like those a spinter wear to run in grass would do. Demonstrators and rioters would probably come prepared if it's just as simple as wearing a different type of shoes.

Having said that, I guess this material is probably going to be useful in some other industrial applications. It's interesting nonetheless.

I am quite troubled

[Edmund Blackadder]

I am quite troubled that my government pays for research for crowd control measures. (you may as well call them population control).

While some sports fanatics may be a problem, they can be dealt by the usual police methods, of wearing riot gear and restricting them until their highs decrease.

Sports riots are also not a federal problem (unless they happen in dc which is bnot very likely). Also the UIS doesnt really have a serious sports riot problem, as opposed to some european countries.

These methods are clearly aimed at protesters. Which means that the government is using our taxpayer money to research new ways to silence its critics.

And that is very troubling.

Whatever you may think of the anti-WTO protesters for whom this invention is clearly made, i hope you will agree that people like them have the right to criticize the government, and make their voices heard.

What happens when the demonstrators are right?

[JohnBE]

I'm all for non-lethal supression of demonstrations when they create a public nuisance without cause. But what happens when the demonstrators are right? Will non-lethal slime, sound waves etc. increase the likelyhood of police supression?

No suffragette movement? No civil-rights movement? ... etc.

Re:What happens when the demonstrators are right?

[zmooc]

Isn't there something like "the right to demonstrate" in your 1st amendment or whatever it is called? Not that the 1st amendment would even have any meaning in the USA to day (DMCA, SSSCA, this bloke that got fined $450000 for saying something in an online discussion). Anyway - here in the Netherlands we have this basic law that everybody has the right to demonstrate. There are some exceptions, but in general it is against the law for the police to stop a demonstration.

Re:What happens when the demonstrators are right?

[cgenman]

The purpose of non-lethal weapons is to stop someone from doing something when what they are doing is not threatening someone's life, only their property or rules. Police can, will, and are encouraged (by me) to kill anyone attempting to kill anyone else. They are not going to use slippery slime in a hostage situation.

Right or wrong has nothing to do with it. This is about the power to suppress. It would be very important for the police to have the power to suppress crowds during a soccer riot. It is less useful when they wield it to protect the WTO's oppression. It is downright wrong to use it to prevent participation in national election conventions. The tool is agnostic, the people are not.

Unfortunately, history has shown that people hardly ever protest unnecessarily, and those that should get gassed usually aren't the ones that do. (when was the last time you heard of a KKK demonstration getting the mustard?). The police are looking for tools that they can use besides the threat of death. While rubber bullets may occasionally kill people, their general "safety" record is an encouragement to turn them on crowds. This looks to be another tool that may occasionally lead to fractured skulls and death, but the not-directly-lethal nature (and the inevitable corporate hype) will seduce many in law enforcement to turn to this when property / rules are challenged.

They have been turning the firehoses on protesters since the civil rights movement. Somehow this seems nicer.

Re:What happens when the demonstrators are right?

[JohnBE]

My problem with it is that it could increase the likely hood of the police using these weapons against protestors. With tear gas, rubber bullets, bean bags etc. people are forced into making important choices, with technology like this the choice[of use] becomes less important and I think could lead to wider usage.

Re:What happens when the demonstrators are right?

[mikera]

Statements containing "NEVER" are often wrong.

If you have a just cause, and no other way to obtain your goals, e.g. through being denied access to appropriate power or influence, then you either have to resort to violence or give up.

That applies equally to individuals, groups and nations. Notice that I'm not advocating violence at all. Just pointing out that it sometimes is necessary and even "The Right Thing".

The biggest danger of course is the stifling of debate and freedoms to the extent that resort to violence occurs. Alarmingly, this is a growing trend in the world today. I confidently predict an upswing in violence as a result.

How can the crowd disperse?

[possible]

How could a crowd disperse if they were unable to move across slippery ground, or if they were themselves covered in slippery goo? Sounds like it would make it more difficult to disperse a crowd than, say, tear gas.

get real mate

[Pengo]

Since when was war fair? If slippery-slime will help bring home more troops, slime away. It's pretty easy for you to sign on to 'fair war' when your sitting behind your computer under the delusion that you will never be called out. I sure as hell bet your attutude would change if your where the one of the front line.

Re:get real mate

[gnovos]

I sure as hell bet your attutude would change if your where the one of the front line.

And how much would YOUR attitude change when you are clawing helplessly in the slime, trying to move, without result, that *one* extra foot into the river while the the burning napalm slick over the slime creeps closer and closer...

The game is played both ways, and as a result, the majority of players feel that war should be as fair as possible.

Re:get real mate

[perlyking]

If slippery-slime will help bring home more troops, slime away.

To be fair if you want more troops to survive then not sending them into other countries to meddle would be the most efficient idea.
On the domestic front I can't help but feel this would be too convenient to use on protests.

As usual, the innocent get hit

[smurfi]

So guess what happens when this stuff is used for the second time, on a demonstration with >95% peaceful people and <5% rioters??

Right -- all the peaceful people will slide around helplessly, while the rioters will wear metal-spiked soccer shoes and escape unscathed.

Great idea, folks. Reallygreat. :-(

Very funny, but on a more serious note

[horza]

Another scenario: lubricant sprayed, protestor slips trying to throw molatov, fire spreads and people try and get away but...

Phillip.

Re:Very funny, but on a more serious note

[gnovos]

Another scenario: lubricant sprayed, protestor slips trying to throw molatov, fire spreads and people try and get away but...

Wow, that gave me the heebie jeebies! It doesn't even have to be protesters throwing fire, it could be Africanized bees, somone having a heart attack, tear gas, heck ANY chemical spill, an ambulance that needs to get through, anything realy...

If I were a terrorist, I would be tickled pink to see this used. I'd be in a 5 star hotel one block from the protesters, and when they get hit with the slime, I'd start dropping the chloring gas canisters...

Or even scarier, imagine if the bad guys actually got ahold of thier own version. Since it's non-toxic, it won't be guarded well, but imagine, a little sprayed down a few streets on Nob Hill in San Francisco one dark and stormy night and every passing fire truck (and there are a lot) becomes a kinetic bomb racing down into the financial district.

Non lethal weapons encourage use.

[Colin Smith]

If the police have non lethal weapons, it will simply encourage them to use them.

Example. In London the other day a domestic was ended by the police shooting the bloke with one of these anti-riot guns. It may well have been warranted but I think the precendent is dangerous.

I forsee the use of stun guns for giving a bit of lip back to officers. Peacefull protests will be broken up with whichever weapon they have in their arsenal.

Not all technology is good technology.

[fhwang]

Can we stop a bit to consider the impact of these things, please? Yes, it's a cool engineering feat, and I'm sure the scientists are nice guys. But who's going to use this? I have friends who are very active in anti-globalization protests -- they don't break anything, they just march very loudly -- and I don't relish hearing stories from them about falling and breaking bones because SWAT teams hosed them down with slippery goo.

Technology has consequences, and sometimes those consequences are awful. Take, for example, recent engineering advances in weapons design. It used to be that because of how much a gun weighed and how much kick it gave when you fired it, you probably had to be at least a teenager to use it. U.S. gun manufacturers saw a market opportunity, so they told their engineers to design guns that were simpler to maintain, less mass, and less kick. Engineers succeeded, through their earnest ingenuity and resourcefulness. And now the streets of Sierra Leone are full of 8-year-old children who have been pulled away from their families and forcefully recruited into fighting a civil war. Hooray for science!

I don't mean to say we should go back to living in caves, or to say that those engineers were evil people. But we shouldn't blindly accept everything in the name of progress. An advanced way of killing or incapacitating another human being doesn't seem like progress to me.

sorry, but that's not right

[markj02]

So, you are saying that as long as our boys come home anything goes? Sorry, but that's not the way war works. Nations that don't stick to the ground rules of war are considered rogue nations, and the US does not want to fall into that category. If it ever did, the US would find itself at the receiving end of trade sanctions, embargoes, and worse. No nation, not even the US, can unilaterally decide what the ground rules for war are.

If you are worried about people sitting behind desks condemning soldiers and civilians to death, worry about the politicians that start these wars. None of the wars the US has engaged in since WWII have had much justification in US "defense", nor have they been particularly effective.

Re:Small family businesses?

[QuickFox]

Capitalism has no mechanisms for dealing with its own flaws. The only thing that keeps capitalism from getting out of control is democracy.

Of course. Without democracy, capitalism in itself has no controlling feedback. Democracy is the control. Democracy is essential.

In the US the government is controlled by the corporations so democracy is no longer a check on capitalism.

Nothing is stopping us from having this discussion. Nothing is stopping you or anyone else from creating real, effective, meaningful political movements that could effectively correct flaws. Not smash windows! Correct flaws! Nothing is stopping you people.

But you don't. And that's the problem in my view.

Somebody's got to do it! But who? Why not the people? Who are you waiting for?

Smashing windows will not make a Savior appear. The people must do it. From the bottom up. Through hard work. Blood, sweat and screaming running tears! Not some hero. Nobody but the people.

Definitely not the "media attention" that the so-called Anarchists so crave with their smashups, even though they complain about the evil media corporations.

If the media corporations are evil, then don't wait for the media to save you! Do it yourselves for goodness' sake!

I can also see another problem. Martin Luther King and Nelson Mandela made real sacrifices. The rioters don't even dare show their faces demonstrating in democratic countries. Their sympathisers don't even dare risk a few damn slashdot karma points showing their nick in discussions like this.

I realize that you don't see any importance in this. But it's really absolutely essential. Those who are not willing to stand for their views, wether it costs them some sacrifice or not, those cannot get political gains. It's not just that they don't deserve it. It simply isn't attainable.

Give a man a fish and he eats for one day. Teach him how to fish, and though he'll eat for a lifetime, he'll call you a miser for not giving him your fish.

Re:Crampons.

[fajoli]

In this legal environment, people circumventing the slime with crampons and cleats would lead to crampons and cleats being outlawed. This would of course lead to only the outlaw being able to stand up making them much easier targets.

The rest of us law abiding folks would toe the line and slither around from place to place on our bellies as any law-abiding, God-fearing, American would do.

Re:Stupid waste of resources

[SecurityGuy]

Sorry to burst your bubble, but it is hardly true that people only riot for good cause. Notable poor causes in the U.S. include your college team winning a sporting event. Woo hoo, we won, let's go flip someone's car over and set something on fire!

Re:I am quite *pleased*

[thesolo]

If anything, this will encourage peaceful protests and deter harmful ones.

Oh, if only that were true...

However, your comment is filled with naivety. This won't be limited to use on violent protestors/rioters, it will be used on ALL protestors. Watch footage from the WTO protests in Seattle, or the Republican National Convention protests in Philadelphia; peaceful protestors, those who were doing SIT-INS, and who had PERMITS to be there, were beaten by police, maced, & tear-gased. In the case of the RNC, Philadelphia police arrested hundreds of the PEACEFUL protestors, and held them for days without just cause. (Btw, the city is now facing dozens of lawsuits for that. My best friend was one of the peaceful protestors locked up.)

All of these new "crowd-control" devices, crowd foam, slippery slime, and the microwave-gun developed at Quantico last year (Which can give a person 3rd-degree burns in a matter of seconds), are going to be used on peaceful protestors, who have a right to protest. These aren't black-bloc anarchists, these are regular people who are trying to make a difference through nonviolence.

Environmental implications?

[Beelzebette]

What *really* makes me nervous about "spraying slime on the lawn"? They *say* it's nonhazardous, but do we really want this stuff in our drinking water? They can say it's safe all they life, but the Romans had lead in their aqueducts, we sprayed DDT on *everything*, PCBs were safe, MSG is harmless...you get the idea.