New crowd control weapon

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

yeah but they were canadians so they dont count. also using a site name "monkeyfist" doesn't scream "To Be Taken Seriously".


im gonna buy one of those crowd tasers and go to a punk rock concert and shock everyone within moderate radius including the band then grab the mic and yell "y0u g0t serv3d"
 
We don't even need this pain stuff, take a tank, fill the shells so they they are blanks, fire them off into a crowd, at most people will get knocked back and then shoot blank MG rounds into a crowd, if that doesn't work, switch to the other stuff.
 
Pitbul said:
yeah but they were canadians so they dont count. also using a site name "monkeyfist" doesn't scream "To Be Taken Seriously".


I was there
 
CptStern said:
at the summit of the americas in Quebec, undercover police made "pre-emptive" arrests of several group organisers
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.

So, if the gas had been clear, nobody would have realized the police were gassing the protestors, and the police and Canadian government would have gotten away scat-free?

I wasn't there, so I don't know if the police were within their bounds or not. But just because police arrested some organizers pre-emptively, doesn't prove to me that they viciously attacked a peaceful protest out of nowhere, for no reason. Even in the most organized and professional protests, there are some bad apples who want to stir up trouble and start violence and riots. Once they start trouble, everyone gets involved, and the situation gets out of control very quickly. I'm guessing the entire situation deteriorated into chaos after some troublemakers got involved.
 
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

Law student Chiming in....as I had to take AJ-120 Indoduction to the administration of just a college course to get you to understand all aspects of Law Enforcement...9/10 non-leathel weapons can kill if not used properly..

Let's say the time to kill on this nonleathal weapon is 10 min if the police use it for 7 min People would be screamin Oh my god you coulda killed them if you used it for another 3 min...

notice it also said serious injury...serious in the meaning of law is anything requiring doctors attention, If it's a cut more than 6 stiches

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...

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...
 
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...
Good point, I've actually seen this done before.
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...
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.
 
LOOKIE I GOT ONE OF THOSE... *Turns setting to high* MWAHAH FEAR THE VOICES INSIDE MY HEAD! :borg:
 
Z|insane said:
LOOKIE I GOT ONE OF THOSE... *Turns setting to high* MWAHAH FEAR THE VOICES INSIDE MY HEAD! :borg:

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.

---------------------------------------------------------
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. I for one would not allow a government to threaten my life because of my opinions, so I would definately fire upon "peace keeping force".
Two wrongs don't make a right, they just cancel each other out.
 
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.

Except the wavelength of microwaves they're uisng cant pass through the skin.

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.

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?
 
Z|insane said:
LOOKIE I GOT ONE OF THOSE... *Turns setting to high* MWAHAH FEAR THE VOICES INSIDE MY HEAD! :borg:

Haha, sweet. Gotta get one of those.
 
ductonius said:
Except the wavelength of microwaves they're uisng cant pass through the skin.

I guess that makes it allright? excruciating pain is a fair consequence for excersing your democratic right to demonstrate?

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?

riotors carrying guns? maybe in Iraq or perhaps the US but I seriously doubt the majority of protestors carry guns.
 
CptStern said:
I guess that makes it allright? excruciating pain is a fair consequence for excersing your democratic right to demonstrate?

Ummmmm....what? I was responding to his comment that it would cook people alive. It wont since the wavelength of microwave cannot penetrait the skin.

Your quetion makes no sense.

CptStern said:
riotors carrying guns? maybe in Iraq or perhaps the US but I seriously doubt the majority of protestors carry guns.

In the scenario provided by Dr.Spock the protestors did.
 
CptStern said:
well then how else would it kill?

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.
 
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.

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:
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

Like you said, I doubt it is that non-lethal.. I mean, it's not really that healthy putting your hand into a microwave.
 
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:
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.

True dat. That was the first thing I got to think of when they said it's comparable to that.

Pet Shop Boys - What have I done to deserve this
 
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"

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.

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.

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.

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.

It hurts like hell but doesn't cause any permanent damage?

I can honestly not believe that. Pain usually equals damage..
:hmph:
 
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.
.

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:

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.

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

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:
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.

Aight, good to know, hehe. :)

Let's just hope they use the weapons for the right purpose.
 
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.

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?
 
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,


ductonius said:
The point of non-lethal weapons is that when used as intended, they will not cause lethal harm to those targeted.


Despite proper intention, things go wrong. Rubber bullet right, supposed to shoot people in the limbs give them a stinging welt.

[I am not part of riot control, "I" just makes it easier to write out and explain]
I aimed it at his leg, he was far away, so it wouldn't hurt much. Unfortunately, so fool runs in front , gets shot in the eye, falls on the ground and cracks his skull. Severe bleeding from the eye and skull fracture, in addition to severe impact to the brain, result in his death.

Did a perfectly non-lethal shot just kill him? Did I have the proper intention and use?
You may argue, I should have been more careful for surrounding people, but it was certainly not my intention to hit anyone else. Nor did I aim for a place that could cause serious harm or death.

As someone said before (too lazy too look), that's why they're called "less-than-lethal", because it is certainly better than using real bullets, but it is not always non-lethal.

edit: O yeah, Cpt Stern, I do agree that not all riot control/police officers use these weapons responsibly, and that is the major cause of the lethality of these weapons, making a mistake while using them.
 
It's kinda wierd that they would design these weapons for crowd control, usually the innovation comes from the military and is then downgraded for other purposes such as crowd control. Maybe in the next war you'll see marines with these shock rifles.
 
Yes, and soon they'll start using laser blasters and dress like stormies! Awesome! :D

sorry
 
No problem CrazyHarij, those guns don't shoot straight! :sniper: :sleep:

------------------------------------------------------------------------- :flame: :laugh:
 
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?

Well, why didnt you just say that then?

In any case, the supposition that it will be misued is not an argument against using it. It is an argument for training properly those who use it and punishing soundly those who misuse it.

In addition, the supposition that it will be misuded does not differentiate this riot control weapon from every other riot control weapon in existance. The possibility that it will be misued is not an unique property of this microwave weapon and thus arguing that it will be misued is not an argument against this riot control weapon but all riot control weapons.

So far you have not come up with any reason that makes this riot control weapon any worse than any other riot control weapon in existance. I am having a hard time figuring out why you dislike it so.


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,

Then again, doing that is not using it as intended.

Again, what I said from the beginning. If it is intended to be non-lethal and delivers energy, it can be misued to deliver too much and become lethal.

PunisherUSA said:
Despite proper intention, th
[sniip]...[/snip]
ot always non-lethal.

Again, this is not an argument against this particular riot control weapon but riot control weapons in general.
 
I am having a hard time figuring out why you dislike it so

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.

can we leave it at that, I'm tired of going over points with a fine toothed comb
 
I'm pretty much 100% agreeing with Cptstern here.
 
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.

This explains quite a bit about you.

CptStern said:
I'm tired of going over points with a fine toothed comb

This also expalins quite a bit about you.
 
ductonius said:
This explains quite a bit about you.



This also expalins quite a bit about you.

well I can say the same about you ....but I wont jump to any conclusions
 
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?
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.

Then don't shoot.

I'm sorry but crowd control is one thing, randomly firing into a crowd is another.
 
Well then screw this then. Lets go back to making guns.
 
Foxtrot said:
It is hard not to shoot a few people when they are in a crowd of 300 angry protestors.


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.
 
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.
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.
 
Back
Top