The Active Denial System

How about "We're moving in this direction, get out of the way."

It's not abuse if you aren't listening. They said move, you didn't move, ergo there are consequences. I'm not talking about the decision making behind the orders, that's an entirely different issue that I would probably see eye to eye with many of you on. What I'm saying is that I can't be sympathetic to all the butthurt that happens when the police tell people to do something, they refuse to do it, and suddenly they act surprised when something happens to them.

If a cop says "Move" you move or face consequences. It's a pretty simple equation. If the police have an objective, you aren't going to stop them, in most circumstances, they will use the minimum amount of force required to get that objective.

So first they use verbal commands. The people in question don't move. Words aren't working, so they move closer. Still no response, people ain't moving. That's when you go to things like pepper spray, or if there are particular agitators in the crowd, you move in and take them, pushing them the crowd away with an organized formation, detaining or arresting anyone who doesn't move out of the way. Being stubborn and refusing to heed the verbal warnings of the police isn't going to make them go "Oh shoot, he isn't moving, I guess we just gotta call it a day and leave." It's going to make them escalate.

The end result is that the people in question will move, it's just a question of what the cops have to do to make them move, which is completely up to the subjects.

edited 13th Sep '12 9:39:49 AM by Barkey

Peaceful protest —> violent response.

Seems legit :/

edited 13th Sep '12 9:36:04 AM by imadinosaur

^

There wouldn't be any need for use of force if they would move.

I was at a few of the occupy protests in my town(and not as a policeman) and everything went fine. Protestors were peaceful, had permits, and weren't obstructing traffic or really fucking with anybody or being a nuisance. We had a few cops just hanging out to make sure things stayed that way, but they even brought out water and things like that to hand out to people since it was summer in southern california. Things went fine.

Now if people in the crowd started yelling at the police, being assholes, or obstructing traffic, it could have gone very different.

I wasn't aware that yelling at a policeman was punishable by pepper spray in America. Sounds to me like you have deep-rooted institutional problems.

Hate to say it, Barkey, but... I've heard that before. In South Africa, on the news... as a kid... repeatedly. Believe me, you don't really want to follow the South African attitude to crowd control even by generalities. It's not improved any, even after over 20 years.

The stuff they can pull off, using that rationality... is astounding.

edited 13th Sep '12 9:50:22 AM by Euodiachloris

Back on-topic: as a military weapon, these are definitely an improvement over shooting anyone who gets too close, or the use of landmines. However, given the track records of various militaries, this will be used to torture prisoners. Though, of course, with the amount of dehumanisation of Muslims and the nature of armies, torture will happen anyway. So I guess I'm just about positive.

If it needs to be used in a prison, that is a sign of wider problems both in that prison, and probably in the wider prison system. So I'm definitely opposed to the use of these high-tech gadgets: the money would be better spent on reform of the system.

I'm not clear on this "protesters must move" concept. Sounds exactly like the problem that brought about violence in the Quebec student protests. Police marched right up to the protesters and then said "THIS PROTEST IS ILLEGAL" and then proceeded to attack the protesters leaving many injured, mixed in innocent bystanders and damaged property. They also used high powered pepper spray right in people's faces, the kind that immediately and permanently blinds you if used up close. They did this by driving armoured vehicles into crowds and then firing pepper spray into them. They also fired tear gas into enclosed spaces, such as bars, where protesters would retreat to after being dispersed. Which of course has the threat of choking people to death or causing fire.

So I'm not clear how this ADS helps. I understand the desire for a "non-lethal stun" weapon but this isn't a Star Trek phaser set on stun. It's a lethal weapon that's toned down.

As for military situations, that's where it completely breaks down. If it's merely "mildly irritating", that's not going to stop anybody. So you'll be forced to jack up the energy level until it's "excruciating pain" and there's no way for you to tell when you can turn it off or not, so you're likely just going to burn people to death by accident all the time, which is definitely far worse than just shooting them.

edited 13th Sep '12 10:15:53 AM by breadloaf

If the protest is illegal, it is illegal. If the demonstrators then choose to stay, despite being warned of the consequences, it is up to them how far the police will fuck them up. Barkey is completely right on that score.

That said, not all police riot control measures, or how those measures are carried out, can be justified. Especially if innocent bystanders get killed by cops. Especially if those cops get acquitted on the flimsiest of legal grounds, after post mortems are carried out by complete fucking idiots.

Look up what happened to Ian Tomlinson. It is not at all pretty.

Would low-tech gadgets be any better? For example, kicking, punching and pushing?

The law is the law — and yes, low-tech can be worse than high-tech, that's for sure...

edited 13th Sep '12 10:31:50 AM by Greenmantle

@ Barkley: Standard police tasers. Not everyone bounces right back from them even if you do.

Not getting in the situation where you would need to use such methods in the first place would be better.

Imadinosaur; You're assuming that the protestors can't ever be at fault. Given what I know of human nature, that's pretty false. When police are escorting someone that they've arrested, it's generally better for both the person who's been arrested and for the other protestors to just get out of the way of the police. I can't say all my sympathies are with the police, but in a riot situation the mob mentality that can take over a group of protestors is fucking scary.

Protestors can and have created dangerous situations. The way to not have that happen is to have cooler heads prevail. On both sides, generally. Which is what usually happens in America, but that's not exactly riveting news, is it?

Except I wasn't talking about riots, Barkley was acting as a apologist for pepperspraying peaceful protesters.

See, one of the things that signalled to me that the police were going way too far was attacking unarmed cameramen and stuff. These are people who are almost by default non-combatants on account of being busy recording things. And yet, slamming them headfirst into cars, shooting them with rubber bullets, etc. I mean what the fuck — reporters are assumed to be neutral bystanders.

edited 13th Sep '12 1:06:07 PM by Pykrete

Maybe decades of reactionary 'tough on crime' politics with the rhetoric of war have shaped American police institutions into ugly shapes?

How wholly unpredictable.

edited 13th Sep '12 1:09:15 PM by imadinosaur

Protestors that were refusing to move out of the way while they were escorting someone they had arrested. He's right, you don't get to refuse the order to move and then be surprised when they step it up. There comes a point where it may not be violent but it's definitely not peaceful.

In any case, I haven't heard anything about them using this on regular protesting crowds yet. It's all combat situations and a prison. What, exactly, are the actual chances of this system being used widely on protestors? (I'm taking into account the cost of building a bunch of these things, and the size some crowds can reach.)

Don't know about the police getting their grubby little mitts on it, probably depends how expensive it would be.

And sitting down, linking arms, is the very definition of peaceful protest. The police are obviously in the wrong for escalating right to pepper spray.

edited 13th Sep '12 2:06:52 PM by imadinosaur

I'm with Barkey on this one. Cops don't simply pepperspray folks for their own amusement, there's an escalation that has to occur in order for the police officer to use force. I get a random traffic stop for whatever, I'm not going to worry about the possibility of being tased, drug out of my car and having pressure placed on pressure points, handcuffed or peppersprayed - as I know that the only reason that the officer would have to do such things to me is if I gave him a reason to.

Don't give the officer a reason to mess with you. If that means getting a permit to protest, fine, go do that. You have a right to protest. Protesting something you don't like is a good way to have your voice heard. You don't have a right to break the law and act surprised when the cops don't play nice with you (well, actually, you can go ahead and act surprised, but you won't get any sympathy).

If cops walk up and tell you to move, would you rather they fishooked you under the chin and pulled you up, or OC sprayed you?

Pick your poison, but you're moving, willingly or not.

If the protesters have a permit, the officers can't do much but eye the area for troublemakers, yes?

Is there any reason to act so violently in lifting someone up? Three or four policemen should be able to lift someone up, unless they're punching and kicking (in which case the pepper spray could possibly be justified). The linked arms would obviously make this harder, but it's not an insurmountable problem.

The crowd would usually outnumber the police force.

That's nice, but you do realise that we're talking about a specific case, where protesters were peacefully protesting by sitting down?

Let's assume the protestors are preventing the police from getting certain individuals out of the area. It's likely these individuals are troublemakers and were harassing officers or just being a general nuisance and the officers decided they needed to leave. So the police go in and try to remove these people before they get too out of hand. The other protestors, who weren't necessarily engaging in the violence of their fellows, lock arms to stop the police from leaving. Such an action is essentially them saying the troublemakers should be allowed to stay which will likely lead to more trouble. In this scenario I would view the peaceful protestors as trouble makers since they're preventing the police from extracting the individual and being a nuisance to their attempts to establish order.

edited 13th Sep '12 3:31:44 PM by Kostya

^^ Care to link us to that?

^ Obstruction of justice, sounds like.

edited 13th Sep '12 3:32:53 PM by pvtnum11