Slashdot Mirror
Incapacitating Chemical Agents: Coming Soon To Local Law Enforcement?
Lasrick writes To this day, Russian authorities refuse to disclose the incapacitating chemical agent (ICA) they employed in their attempt, 12 years ago, to save 900 hostages held in a theater by Chechen fighters. Malcom Dando elaborates on a new report (PDF) that Russia, China, Israel, and a slew of other countries are continuing research into ICAs, and the apparent indifference of the international community into such research. Proponents of ICAs have long promoted their use in a variety of scenarios, including that of law enforcement, because in theory these chemicals incapacitate without permanent disability. Critics, however, point out that these weapons rely on exact dosage to prevent fatality, and that the ability to 'deliver the right agent to the right people in the right dose without exposing the wrong people, or delivering the wrong dose' is a near-impossible expectation. ICAs represent the further misuse and militarization of the life sciences and a weakening of the taboo against the weaponization of toxic substances, and the idea that they could be used in law enforcement situations is a disturbing one."
Also, if you can save 400 of 500 in a hostage situation and catch all the 10+ terrorists. Go for it. The terrorists would kill them anyway and if they escape, they can continue their business.
"if you can save 400 of 500 in a hostage situation " - Is this the best way to save them? Is this the way to save the most of them?
"catch all the 10+ terrorists" - Who judged them? Who decided they are terrorists?
"The terrorists would kill them anyway" - Are you a Oracle? Do the police employ oracles or futurologists?
"if they escape, they can continue their business" - Are you sure?
So, your scenario is:
1 - The official "police judge" condemns the terrorists with his judging powers that don't require lawyers, juries nor all that hassle.
2 - The official "police oracles" see the future to know how many innocents would the terrorists kill.
3 - Based on the police judge's decision and the police oracle's prediction, the best possible result "killing just a few of the innocents to capture the guilty" is selected and applied with the new weapon.
with this law, if your third cousin that you have never met, doesnt even live in the same country, does some kind of shit then you wouldt mind paying for that?
In fact Foxnews uses the federal definition of terrorist. The exceptions are when they are quoting or taling with people who don't.
However thanks for sharing your hate and ignorance.
Until a proper stun setting is found, it must at least be given up to law enforcement to for researching non-lethal means of control. Even the recent events in Ferguson demonstrate the desperate need here. And perhaps, when lethal weapons are done away with those who don't belong in law enforcement will leave?
The argument for non-lethal weapons is that they can be used instead of lethal weapons. Unfortunately that isn't how they are being used now. Police use non-lethal weapons where it would never have been acceptable to use lethal weapons before.
For example it would never be acceptable to shoot a person who argues about his constitutional rights with the police officer in a non-violent manner but refuses to back off but still police wouldn't hesitate to use a taser gun against such a person.
Of course the police officer couldn't possibly know that this person happened to have a pacemaker or any other medical condition and can not possibly be blamed for the persons death.
This stuff wouldn't be allowed in warfare, why is it allowed in use by civilian agencies?
Liberty - Security - Laziness - Pick any two.
Your concern for the hostages is appropriate. While a crime is in progress, the police should be concerned with reducing the number of victims, as well as reducing the suffering of the remaining victims.
The concern for the criminals during the time of the crime is misplaced. The legal process is how we deal with the aftermath of a crime, not the crime itself. You're right is being careful with the label "terrorist"; that relates to motive. Wed need a trial to establish that. I use "criminal" because that broader label is appropriate during any crime. " Hostage takers" would have worked too, here. Condemning them isn't necessary - they're in the act of committing a crime.
It's incredibly naive to assume hostage takers won't kill the hostages, so force is always appropriate. The relevant question then becomes how much force to apply, as any form of force also places the hostages at a risk. The single relevant question thus is, what is the lower risk to the hostages? The best bet is to look at historical outcomes in comparable situations. This is complex. It depends on the number of hostage takers and hostages, the site, time, the background of the hostage taker, etcetera.
That said, negotiation helps with an ill-prepared bank robber turning hostage taker. 10 hostage takers and 500 hostages indicates a lot of preparation, and strongly points at a lack of negotiation options.
Protestors should be able to protest WITHOUT the police using either lethal or non-lethal weapons against them.
Except that you are not doing that.
You are providing the police with pain-compliance (aka "torture") devices.
And as can be seen in many news reports, once the police/government has them, they will use them. And that use will not be INSTEAD of more lethal options. They will be used when the victims do not IMMEDIATELY follow the orders of the police. Even if those orders are illegal to begin with.
Those weapons will be treated as a "force multiplier". Not as a preferred option over lethal force.
As the USA nears bottom in its slide toward becoming a complete corporatist police state, I see no surprises in any new "law enforcement tool". Hell, the cops have AFV's, drones, and crew-served weapons. Why not chem warfare, right?
Scruting the inscrutable for over 50 years.
We should be able to protest without a large police force always quickly descending on us. Police see protests like shooting galleries at a state fair and break out the riot gear and anti-mine vehicles as fast of possible. The best way for police to win is to not even show up unless looting or actual rioting happens. But guess what? You can't have a riot with only one side there! It's Art of War 101. It's easy to to turn a protest into a riot by showing up looking like an invasion force and screaming at everyone over bullhorns. When the PD does that, their still attacking first just via psychological means instead of physical. Once the general melee is going THEN the looters show up to take advantage of the chaos. The PD uses this as an escalation point, going after everyone including members of the press, teargassing citizens who are complying and staying inside...there must be a manual somewhere probably written by the CIA.
Also, if you can save 400 of 500 in a hostage situation and catch all the 10+ terrorists. Go for it. The terrorists would kill them anyway and if they escape, they can continue their business.
Meanwhile, if you have 5000 peaceful protesters refusing to clear out of a park, hey, so a thousand accidentally die. Meh, go ahead and gas 'em, Lou!
I think you underestimate the mindset of the police. The People had it way better when a cop needed to decide whether you posed enough of a threat to actually shoot you, and then need to justify that decision later. Now, they tase first and ask questions later. 6YO girl crying because you arrested mom? Tase. 85YO confused grannie in a panic over a situation she doesn't understand? Tase. Passenger in a car peacefully insisting you respect his civil rights? Tase.
ICAs will just make it easier for police to apply the same reasoning to large groups, rather than to individuals.
BTW, a clarification on the FP - The "unknown" agent used by Russia consisted of a fentanyl analog - An ultra-strong opiate. For reference, as high as 9% of people have a potentially fatal allergic reaction to opiates; on top of that, individuals have a wide range of responses even when given a known dose; some people can take enough morphine to kill an elephant, while others take half of a Tylenol-II and drool on themselves for the next six hours. Using opiates as crowd control will both cause needless deaths and leave a significant fraction of the crowd basically unimpaired.