The Active Denial System

Or you could stand the fuck up. If you stand up when I say "Please leave." then the whole fish hook option never has to present itself. The police don't really have a motivation to make it easy for them as they are the ones not following directions.

The UC Davis case in particular was completely justified. The people sitting in the way were obstructing justice. If it was a traffic stop, and some guy stood in front of the door to my squadcar so that I couldn't put the subject in the back, they would be breaking the law. It's no different here.

edited 13th Sep '12 3:35:06 PM by Barkey

The thing is, I could argue that any form of protest-be it peaceful sit-ins or armed riots-need not necessarily be perfectly legal, but all it needs to do is generate an image that lasts in the public consciousness. The sight of thousands of college students with drums, the sight of the poor and oppressed taking up rifles and fire bombs, the sight of riot police tear-gassing crowds-all of it indicative of the surrounding political climate.

So, if you want to use the ADS against protesting crowds, fine-but be prepared for the ramifications of using it.

edited 13th Sep '12 3:45:01 PM by RocketDude

"Hipsters: the most dangerous gang in the US." - Pacific Mackerel

That's pretty much why I lack sympathy, nobody likes the police in these situations regardless, so there isn't much of a reason to use kid gloves. For every 1 person who appreciates it, there are 10 more who could give a shit.

"Then let me be a monster"? That's...not a good way to deal with that kind of thing.

That and "breaking the law gives me the right to beat the shit out of you" rings a little sour when they're being protested and broken because they're unjust.

edited 13th Sep '12 4:08:15 PM by Pykrete

It isn't beating the shit out of people for its sake alone, it's called pain compliance. Cause pain until you get compliance.

That can be everything from grabbing someone to higher measures like the ADS, depending on what the on-site commander thinks is appropriate given the situation.

The closest thing to just outright dragging someone that is taught is what's known as a "come-along" which is a grip that essentially puts the arm joint in a position to where pulling back against the officer is painful, but not pulling back and just going with the motion the officer is pulling the arm in is painless.

Here's a link to a big of a description of what a come along constitutes.

From a police perspective, the goal is compliance, and the means is the minimum amount of force required to achieve compliance, the subjects involved determine what constitutes the minimum amount of force, based on what it takes to gain that compliance. Come Alongs and apprehension techniques are great for individuals. Less than lethal shotgun rounds, OC canisters/sprayers, and measures like the ADS are for mass situations where numbers are an issue.

Hate to beat a dead horse but the goal is compliance, and the police will get it, what it takes to get it isn't up to them, they'll just escalate until they get what they want.

edited 13th Sep '12 4:29:03 PM by Barkey

To head back to being on topic. The dangers of the ADS are linked to range, position in the beam, power of the beam, and exposure time.

Items like integrated range finders that adjust power based on range and possibly duration of beam bursts and automatic interuptors that have a time lock between firings could easily increase the safety of these weapons.

Add in properly structured training and you will hvae a tool that is a lot safer to use than any of our current gen riot weapons.

Some more testing would be fine but I am very sure we are going to get the same results. Even the military crowd control version which is what the humvee mounted dish is for, takes a bit to even be potentially lethal.

Energy weapons are nothing new either. We are still tinkering with laser weapon tech for use a military combat weapon. The ADS is not designed as a combat weapon. The range, power output, and exposure time, plus the big freaking targets make it's use as a weapon prohibitive. There is also signifigant difference between a riot control weapon and combat weapon.

Shima: I have seen lots of peole get up very shortly after getting tased as well. Nothing new there. It hurts and your muscles might twitch a bit but i have seen most people get up just fine. I have experienced a test with a "stun gun" contact zapper. They freaking hurt. I think barkey wants to know which model or type of taser you guys got hit with. Was it projectile or contact? Do you know the model etc?

Also you shouldn't confuse or equate an experimental lethal weapon in the high energy weapon program with a developed and highly tested crowd control weapon or device.

---

Quick check. Even five years ago the ADS was designed as a non-lethal weapon. In fact they were looking for ways to make it smaller and lower power for use in home protection and police use. 5 years ago.

The early versions of this device needed a military tractor and a trailer.

There is general research as part of the high energy weapons effort that includes technology the ADS is based on but not the ADS itself.

It is also not the only energy weapon for crowd control or repelling hostiles

This one causes small explosion via ablation and rapid heating of surface material

edited 13th Sep '12 5:26:50 PM by TuefelHundenIV

Who watches the watchmen?

Barkey, your argument amounts to "if a cop does it, it's correct". Nobody is questioning your own integrity here, so there is no reason for you to place yourself personally into situations that you are not in. Police conducted a cavalry charge against a cyclist protest who were doing the most evil thing in the world... cycling down a street in Toronto far outside of the "safety zone" of the summit the police were protecting.

If authorities came up to you and said "we're going to fuck you up if you don't move", that by itself is not justification for anything. Do murderers get acquitted in court because they told their victim "if you don't give me ten million billion dollars, I'm going to kill you."? Might makes right is not the law.

Murderers aren't given the lawful authority to hold people for ransom. Cops are given the lawful authority to enforce the peace and when the situation demands, ask people to move.

I guess I should make my position clear, the decision to have the police break up a protest is an entirely independent issue, what I'm specifically talking about is the situation of what constitutes a legitimate use of force. If cops are breaking up a protest, and people are told to move and do not, there are consequences based on the situation and the behavior of the protestors. If the police are justified in being told to break said protest up is something entirely different.

Using these tools, such as the ADS, is justified if people don't disperse after being told to. The police telling people to disperse is another issue.

^^ A Law Enforcement Officer telling you to correct your possibly illegal behavior or face the consequences is not the same thing as a criminal violating your personal safety and sanctity of person... or face the consequences (and the criminal will probably leave you with lasting permanent damage to your body, if you're lucky).

You have every right in the world to resist the second option, you are quite possibly already in the wrong on the first.

Happiness is zero-gee with a sinus cold.

@ Tueful:

Yep, combat lasers are being developed in the US and Russia, at least. And yes, you wouldn't take a Water Cannon into battle...

Keep Rolling On

Not to derail the topic, especially since what I'm about to bring up is currently being discussed on another thread on this same forum, but here goes: What would you think if the U.S. started using the Active Denial System as a means to defend their embassies? A device with such a large spread and radius would be rather effective at defense, deterrence, and clearing paths, since you could quickly incapacitate a large mob, while at the same time minimalizing deaths. Yet, it's current reputation leaves something to be desired, especially in the West. At this point I'm no longer concerned with the opinion of the locals, since it's obvious they'll find fault in us using pain-inducing riot control gear no matter what. The way I see it, it's actually the better option since it's not likely to lead to any deaths, just a bunch of typical brutality complaints.

Assuming, of course, that it doesn't lead to any deaths. And are there any long-term risks from this, like skin cancer?

What's precedent ever done for us?

It's difficult to say how well it would defend bases against angry mobs like the ones that just happened. Those are not stopped by anything less than lethal force I imagine.

Plus, by all accounts, that embassy attack was pre-planned and well organised. The riots over that cartoon were just a useful opportunity they took advantage of.

What's precedent ever done for us?

Mobs are usually cocky, up until the point where you start applying pressure. Then it becomes a matter of how determined they are, or how many radicals are present.

You're correct that the guys who attacked the embassy in Libya had planned it out and would have likely accounted for the ADS system as well, but I imagine it would've made things much easier in Egypt and Yemen. The moment the pain started, the crowd would've panicked and backed off, especially since I doubt they'd know what the heck was burning them (at least the first time around).

Hm, I dunno if there'd be skin cancer. Isn't the em radiation range similar to the kind used in microwaves? I'd think that would put it as a "no".

Fight smart, not fair.

The chance of cancer is probably low.

And as for the crowd in Egypt, it would all depend on who was in the mob and behind the mob. I doubt anybody is quite clear on that. I mean, Egypt is also the same country had people standing up against snipers and cavalry charges, so I don't think an ADS makes a difference.

I believe that the discussion is overlooking a point raised by many others here. It's not going to be the ADS that matters. If it's a civil rights movement march and the police deploy ADS to disperse it, I really doubt anybody would be discussing whether the ADS was successful or not versus the issues raised by the protesters. Are we so far removed from democratic thought processes that the presence of a protest is a discussion about protesting rather than the issues they raise?

The situations I'd use a system like the ADS for would be ones where the mob has already become violent and uncontrollable, in which case you're probably saving the lives of the police as well as the target of the mob from harm. If it's just Occupy Wall Street Protesters or the Westboro Baptist Church, there's really no need, because the mob themselves are just trying to make a point and it's a good chance that the few that do get violent are in the minority, or just hooligans (though TBH, I'd LOVE for a situation to pop up where the ADS would be necessary to use against the Westboro Church, nor would I ever lose a wink of sleep over it).

ADS on Westboro?

Nah.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microgun

Please tell me you're not advocating using guns on people.

They're people. Don't think people are immune to acting stupid or doing something that brings insults.

^

Sure, they are people, but that doesn't mean it isn't a great idea to kill them with sustained high RPM fire.

Unless they're actually inciting active violence, I will have to disagree with you.

Have you actually read what the signs those sick fucks take to military funerals actually say?

Incitement to violence is the LEAST of it.