blahblahblah
Newbie
- Joined
- Nov 16, 2003
- Messages
- 5,036
- Reaction score
- 0
CptStern - Do you even see any of the flaws in your logic?
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: this_feature_currently_requires_accessing_site_using_safari
CptStern said:at the summit of the americas in Quebec, undercover police made "pre-emptive" arrests of several group organisers. Thousands of teargas canisters were fired into the crowd, affecting thousands of people as far as 5 km from the protest. Hundreds of people (protestors and innocent bystanders) had to be treated for tear gas sickness. Several eye witnesses said police targeted medical staff as they tried teargas victems.
"4,709 canisters of tear gas over a 72 hour period, effectively filling downtown with gas. A month later, homes and other buildings in downtown were still contaminated by the gas, and calls for a public inquiry had been dismissed. "
police fired teargas into a peaceful crowd
Pitbul said:yeah but they were canadians so they dont count. also using a site name "monkeyfist" doesn't scream "To Be Taken Seriously".
Well we are not some to judge if they were right in the arrests or not. If (and remember, if) that group of organizers was a group that was planning something illegal for the protest, then they had the right to arrest them. I don't know the whole story of those arrested, so I can't come to a conclusion about that.CptStern said:at the summit of the americas in Quebec, undercover police made "pre-emptive" arrests of several group organisers
CptStern said:did you read the link? I dont think you did. This is meant to be a nonlethal weapon against dissent...but it doesnt mean they couldnt turn it up to "11"
Am I the only one who sees the potential use of such weapons? Makes activism a dangerous prospect. Fine! wallow in your complacency; allow your government to whittle away at your civil liberties...just dont complain when you finally realise the government serves corporate interests rather than private individuals which is what democracy is supposed to be about
Good point, I've actually seen this done before.One more thing... I am familier with Smokeless tear gas, and the MAIN reason for it is so the persons it is being used agianst can't see where the cannister is, or if it is being used at all...and throw it back...
I hear law enforcement officials call it, "less than leathal." They can't make it completely non-lethal. I mean hell, 9/10 household objects can probably kill if used improperly.They are doing everything they can NOT to kill people...I guarentee that it's not only for government protests..I believe you are distorting the facts...
Z|insane said:LOOKIE I GOT ONE OF THOSE... *Turns setting to high* MWAHAH FEAR THE VOICES INSIDE MY HEAD!
Dr.Spock said:Thats very lethal weapon, once the brain reaches 105 degrees or more the brain cells start to die. So, they could litterally faint and get fried to death. :x
Maybe it was 108degrees. I dont remember of the top of my head. So if the gun heats up water molecules to 130 degrees to make it feel like u r on fire, well they are boiling you from the inside out. Body ~75% water, mmmmmm smells like chicken.
Dr.Spock said:Also note that, the more pain u inflict on a person the more they feel threated and afraid. So, say ur a cop trying to disperse a crowd with invisible tear gas and shock weaponry. For 1, the cops should know better that 2 wrongs dont make a right, and the protestors might get carried away and fire back with pistols or rifles.
Z|insane said:LOOKIE I GOT ONE OF THOSE... *Turns setting to high* MWAHAH FEAR THE VOICES INSIDE MY HEAD!
ductonius said:Except the wavelength of microwaves they're uisng cant pass through the skin.
ductonius said:Wait, so the protestors are rioting AND carrying guns? And the police are the bad ones when they try to disperse the croud with non-lethal microwaves and tear gas?
CptStern said:I guess that makes it allright? excruciating pain is a fair consequence for excersing your democratic right to demonstrate?
CptStern said:riotors carrying guns? maybe in Iraq or perhaps the US but I seriously doubt the majority of protestors carry guns.
CptStern said:well then how else would it kill?
ductonius said:Thats the point. The microwave crowd control weapon they're developing can't kill. Its an effective, truely non-lethal means of controling an unruely crowd.
CptStern said:really?
"According to the Marine Corps Times report .............the amount of time the weapon must be trained on an individual to cause permanent damage or death is classified"
here's another quote:
"The weapon, which to date has cost taxpayers $40 million, already has its skeptics. William M. Arkin, the senior military adviser to Human Rights Watch, described it as a "high-powered microwave antipersonnel weapon" that should be more carefully studied before it is used on crowds containing elderly people, children or pregnant women."
further reading on "non-lethal" weapons
CptStern said:The sensation of the weapon is comparable to touching a hot lightbulb ...anyone who's ever touched a hot lightbulb can attest it hurts like a mofo.
CptStern said:really?
"According to the Marine Corps Times report .............the amount of time the weapon must be trained on an individual to cause permanent damage or death is classified"
CptStern said:The sensation of the weapon is comparable to touching a hot lightbulb ...anyone who's ever touched a hot lightbulb can attest it hurts like a mofo.
ductonius said:Since non-lethal weapons must deliver some sort of energy to have an effect it is always possible for to turn them into lethal weapons by increasing the time/density of that energy. This is a matter of physics and scale. If your shot in the chest at point blank range with a 40mm riot control slug you will die - this has happened - but those slugs are not meant to be shot at point blank range since doing so would communicate more energy than the makers/users want them to.
The point of non-lethal weapons is that when used as intended, they will not cause permanent harm to those targeted.
The second quote is irrelivant since its just one mans opinion on the weapon.
Thats the point of the weapon, it hurts like hell when used as intended but causes no permanent damage.
ductonius said:Since non-lethal weapons must deliver some sort of energy to have an effect it is always possible for to turn them into lethal weapons by increasing the time/density of that energy. This is a matter of physics and scale. If your shot in the chest at point blank range with a 40mm riot control slug you will die - this has happened - but those slugs are not meant to be shot at point blank range since doing so would communicate more energy than the makers/users want them to.
The point of non-lethal weapons is that when used as intended, they will not cause permanent harm to those targeted.
.
CptStern said:I'm sure this person apreciated the subtle differences:
btw she was running away at the time she was shot
so was this guy
CrazyHarij said:It hurts like hell but doesn't cause any permanent damage?
I can honestly not believe that. Pain usually equals damage..
:hmph:
CptStern said:I'm sure this person apreciated the subtle differences:
btw she was running away at the time she was shot
so was this guy
ductonius said:If I were to stick microelectrodes into your nerves and stimulate them with electricity, I could put you in excutiating pain without causing the slightest bit of damage.
Similarly, if I were to stimulate those nerves by beaming microwaves onto them it would have the same effect.
ductonius said:If I were to stick microelectrodes into your nerves and stimulate them with electricity, I could put you in excutiating pain without causing the slightest bit of damage.
Similarly, if I were to stimulate those nerves by beaming microwaves onto them it would have the same effect.
You quoted an artical from the Marine Core Times saying the weapon can be lethal. I responed that of cource it can be lethal - just like many other riot control devices - but not when it is used as intended. You then followed that by pictures of wounds caused by riot control devices.
Im just wondering if you were actually going to respond to what I said.
The point of non-lethal weapons is that when used as intended, they will not cause lethal harm to those targeted.
ductonius said:The point of non-lethal weapons is that when used as intended, they will not cause lethal harm to those targeted.
CptStern said:my point is that they are not always used responsibly ...the link shows this ...she was shot in the face, and the other guy was shot in the back while running away. What more do you need? pics of dead protestors?
PunisherUSA said:One thing about the micr-gun killing, it heats the skin to 130 degress, right. Well, I'll just tie a volunteer against a wall, point the gun in his face and leave it on for, o , 5 hours? You guys do realize that serious burns CAN kill someone. Not to mention that serious burns alone are serious harm,
PunisherUSA said:Despite proper intention, th
[sniip]...[/snip]
ot always non-lethal.
I am having a hard time figuring out why you dislike it so
CptStern said:simple answer: I have a right to demostrate without fear of reprisal
the Quebec summit was an example of where civil liberties were abused. The pre-emptive arrests (they were never charged with anything), the police harrassed people who were trying to cover their faces, confiscating anything used to cover your mouth. The police fired tear gas into peaceful crowds.
CptStern said:I'm tired of going over points with a fine toothed comb
ductonius said:This explains quite a bit about you.
This also expalins quite a bit about you.
It is hard not to shoot a few people when they are in a crowd of 300 angry protestors.CptStern said:my point is that they are not always used responsibly ...the link shows this ...she was shot in the face, and the other guy was shot in the back while running away. What more do you need? pics of dead protestors?
Foxtrot said:It is hard not to shoot a few people when they are in a crowd of 300 angry protestors.
Foxtrot said:It is hard not to shoot a few people when they are in a crowd of 300 angry protestors.
That isn't true at all, I have seen lots of protests on TV and they are always very angry but never violent. If a protest has to be brocken up and they aren't cooperating too bad, it is their own god damn fault they didn't listen.CptStern said:I've been to at least 30 protests in the last 10 or so years. The only time I ever witnessed violence was in Quebec ...the "angry protestor" myth is just that: a myth. Most protestors are non violent; only a small percentage ever cause problems, but that's the only side the media protrays.