The moral dangers of non-lethal weapons

Link

Stephen Coleman gives an interesting look at the dangers of the proliferation of non-lethal (or more accurately "less-lethal") weaponry.

I've always felt that it was a good thing. I mean, it gives police an alternative to lethal force. The controversy always seemed kind of silly to me; sure it sucks getting pepper sprayed but at least you're not getting shot, right? Coleman presents some interesting figures about that. He tracks the rate of police-related shootings (including suspect suicides in police presence) among the Queensland police department, before and after they're given less-lethal weapons. The number of shootings remains largely unchanged, in the low single-digits per year. The number of pepper sprayings goes from 0 (obviously) to 2,226. So either they got that stuff just in time, or the police are applying their new, consequence-free toys quite liberally.

Then he mentions that situation in Moscow from a while back, where 118 hostages were killed by CS gas because police flooded the building with it indiscriminately and the hostages had no way to get away from it. Even worse, he notes that the police actually shot unconscious suspects in the head.

Interesting stuff.

I know here in the US, the tendency is rather than an alternative to lethal force, these are more often used as an alternative to verbal force, low physical force-see the myriad crop dusting of sit ins, gazing verbally belligerent uncooperative people.

If the amount of lethal force hasn't changed than it seems the obvious conclusion is this just increased the amount of non lethal force. Like KingGorilla said, it's no longer an alternative to getting shot, it's an alternative to getting yelled at or getting a ticket or simply getting arrested without force.

gregrampage wrote:

If the amount of lethal force hasn't changed than it seems the obvious conclusion is this just increased the amount of non lethal force. Like KingGorilla said, it's no longer an alternative to getting shot, it's an alternative to getting yelled at or getting a ticket or simply getting arrested without force.

Not precisely.

More likely, it is an alternative to getting the old fashioned wood shampoo.

Paleocon wrote:
gregrampage wrote:

If the amount of lethal force hasn't changed than it seems the obvious conclusion is this just increased the amount of non lethal force. Like KingGorilla said, it's no longer an alternative to getting shot, it's an alternative to getting yelled at or getting a ticket or simply getting arrested without force.

Not precisely.

More likely, it is an alternative to getting the old fashioned wood shampoo.

Haha, right. That actually does bring up the question of whether or not the rate of non-lethal force has risen or if it's just changed form.

gregrampage wrote:
Paleocon wrote:
gregrampage wrote:

If the amount of lethal force hasn't changed than it seems the obvious conclusion is this just increased the amount of non lethal force. Like KingGorilla said, it's no longer an alternative to getting shot, it's an alternative to getting yelled at or getting a ticket or simply getting arrested without force.

Not precisely.

More likely, it is an alternative to getting the old fashioned wood shampoo.

Haha, right. That actually does bring up the question of whether or not the rate of non-lethal force has risen or if it's just changed form.

I think there are a lot of people who hide behind the technology of pepper spray and tazers who wouldn't have it in them to swing a baton at someone. One, because they have no balls. Two, because if you seriously injure someone by swinging a stick at them, you're going to have a much tougher time explaining that away than seriously injuring them with pepper spray or a tazer.

Using CS gas on the battlefield is a war crime. Using it on civilian protesters is a Tuesday!

Quintin_Stone wrote:

Using CS gas on the battlefield is a war crime. Using it on civilian protesters is a Tuesday!

Everyone knows that Mardi Gras can't start without the most crucial of all creole spices: 2-Chlorobenzalmalononitrile!

gregrampage wrote:
Paleocon wrote:
gregrampage wrote:

If the amount of lethal force hasn't changed than it seems the obvious conclusion is this just increased the amount of non lethal force. Like KingGorilla said, it's no longer an alternative to getting shot, it's an alternative to getting yelled at or getting a ticket or simply getting arrested without force.

Not precisely.

More likely, it is an alternative to getting the old fashioned wood shampoo.

Haha, right. That actually does bring up the question of whether or not the rate of non-lethal force has risen or if it's just changed form.

I know a lot of cops. I even know a lot of cops that have used less lethal force. Most of the ones I know would really sooner just have the ability to swing or poke someone with an espantoon than they would taze or pepper spray someone. And though the general public gets all up in arms when the mean, bad policeman jabs someone in the ribs with the end of a flashlight, they are much better able to modulate the amount of force with a blunt force weapon than they are with a tazer or chemical agent.

The public pretty much demanded this generation of less lethals through use of force committees, civilian complaints, lawsuits, and the such. A cop doesn't get to drag a perp out of a car and use his nightstick to get him to comply with directions for arrest anymore. He's pretty well just stuck with tasing him through the driver side window. Cops don't get to poke folks with the ends of sticks when they fail to get up off the sidewalk anymore. They're pretty well just stuck with spraying them with pepper spray.

I honestly think we were all better off when we 1) trained cops to the level of force a properly utilized baton could control and 2) as the public had a greater tolerance for the use of blunt force in police procedure.

Paleocon wrote:

I know a lot of cops. I even know a lot of cops that have used less lethal force. Most of the ones I know would really sooner just have the ability to swing or poke someone with an espantoon than they would taze or pepper spray someone. And though the general public gets all up in arms when the mean, bad policeman jabs someone in the ribs with the end of a flashlight, they are much better able to modulate the amount of force with a blunt force weapon than they are with a tazer or chemical agent.

The public pretty much demanded this generation of less lethals through use of force committees, civilian complaints, lawsuits, and the such.

This is very true. However, this is the public realizing that sometimes the solution to a problem can be counter-intuitive.

A cop doesn't get to drag a perp out of a car and use his nightstick to get him to comply with directions for arrest anymore. He's pretty well just stuck with tasing him through the driver side window. Cops don't get to poke folks with the ends of sticks when they fail to get up off the sidewalk anymore. They're pretty well just stuck with spraying them with pepper spray.

I honestly think we were all better off when we 1) trained cops to the level of force a properly utilized baton could control and 2) as the public had a greater tolerance for the use of blunt force in police procedure.

Sure, but you're leaving out 3) the public turned a blind eye to the mis-use of blunt force in police procedure. The move from blunt force to less lethal was an attempt to correct that. It seems its not working, and may even be making the situation worse.

That doesn't mean we were better off in the past though, because the past you're talking about did not exist.

And let's be honest...seeing someone get tazed really does have a high amusement value.

Give cops beat sticks. Its just so much easier.

Paleocon wrote:

I honestly think we were all better off when we 1) trained cops to the level of force a properly utilized baton could control and 2) as the public had a greater tolerance for the use of blunt force in police procedure.

Ah, the good 'ole days...

I'm certainly not saying that cops with sticks didn't abuse their power. I know many of them did. I know many continue to.

I think, however, that the addition of tazers and chemical agents to the equation hasn't made things better since it has reduced the gradation in the use of force. You can't just taze someone "a little bit" the same goes double for chemical agents. As a result, the default when dealing with non-compliance is to simply let the tool do the work and make the judgement call. There is simply no other option.

When faced with a bunch of peaceful protesters blocking rush hour traffic, you go nuts with pepper spray. When you are faced with rock throwing rioters, you go nuts with pepper spray. When you're faced with a drunken motorist who refuses to get out of his vehicle, you tase him. When you're faced with a belligerent drunk, you tase him.

We've replaced judgement and gradation with on/off switches.

I'd much rather be hit with a stick than tazed or pepper sprayed.

It does seem that tazers and pepper spray are designed specifically to appear less painful than a nightstick while actually being incredibly painful.

Do you think it would be possible to have 'mild' variants of pain spray and shock devices?

muttonchop wrote:

I'd much rather be hit with a stick than tazed or pepper sprayed.

I think I'd rather have a graduated response with a stick than to be tazed or pepper sprayed, but I'd rather be tazed or pepper sprayed than beat savagely. That seems to be the problem with sticks. You're giving a lot of leeway to the officer and, as such, you are relying on their judgement, training, and character (not to mention their strength and skill).

If I'm being an intransigent dick who refuses to leave the Taco Bell because they no longer serves the Cheezy Gordita, I'd much rather a cop poke me in the ribs with side handled baton than make me flop on the ground after juicing the hell out of me with a taser. But I'd prefer that to being Rodney Kinged.

Is this where this goes?

IMAGE(http://a.abcnews.com/images/US/ap_ows_pepper_spray_1_dm_111121_ssh.jpg)

In the picture above, would people have felt better if a group of cops had used sticks to poke pressure points and ribs and/or used batons as leverage devices to pull folks apart? It would be less painful in the aggregate, but it looks a whole lot more brutal and may very well have drawn a far more hostile response.

Well, Non-lethal weapon is just a synonym for torture device.

DanB wrote:

Well, Non-lethal weapon is just a synonym for torture device.

Not precisely. I sort of see what you're playing at in that a less lethal device is designed to cause discomfort or pain to derive compliance, but the word "torture" really must have a specific meaning or it simply loses its rhetorical value.

If I strap you to a compliance chair and beat you with a garden hose filled with ball bearings until you reveal the location of the your secret society meeting, I think we can agree that is torture.

But if you just tossed a brick through a store window and are resisting efforts by law enforcement to handcuff you and a cop uses the baton as a leverage device to crank your arm into position, most folks would probably not see that as "torture".

Paleocon wrote:

If I strap you to a compliance chair and beat you with a garden hose filled with ball bearings until you reveal the location of the your secret society meeting, I think we can agree that is torture.

That is certainly a definition of the process of torture. Not one that I'd dispute although I think people can be tortured for reasons other than extracting information; For malicious kicks, for the sake of punishment.

Paleocon wrote:

But if you just tossed a brick through a store window and are resisting efforts by law enforcement to handcuff you and a cop uses the baton as a leverage device to crank your arm into position, most folks would probably not see that as "torture".

Sure. I didn't say that there aren't arguably valid uses for devices that are essentially torture devices.

DanB wrote:
Paleocon wrote:

If I strap you to a compliance chair and beat you with a garden hose filled with ball bearings until you reveal the location of the your secret society meeting, I think we can agree that is torture.

That is certainly a definition of the process of torture. Not one that I'd dispute although I think people can be tortured for reasons other than extracting information; For malicious kicks, for the sake of punishment.

Paleocon wrote:

But if you just tossed a brick through a store window and are resisting efforts by law enforcement to handcuff you and a cop uses the baton as a leverage device to crank your arm into position, most folks would probably not see that as "torture".

Sure. I didn't say that there aren't arguably valid uses for devices that are essentially torture devices.

That's fine. I'm just saying that the word "torture" must not be used so freely lest we find it essentially being meaningless.

When, for instance, you have a holdout situation and the authorities cut off water and power to the building, the measure is clearly intended to cause discomfort and affect compliance. Most folks would disagree that this is torture.

When, in the same instance, the authorities escalate by illuminating the building with high intensity flood lights and/or bombarding it with a never-ending tape loop of "it's a small world after all", I'm pretty sure this still fails to meet the definition of torture.

Somewhere between these examples and waterboarding lies "torture", but where the line lies is, at least to me, of pretty significant importance. Otherwise the petulant complaints of every teenager in America that losing one's text messaging privileges is "torture" actually meet the definition.

Paleocon, directly inflicting pain to cause fear or compliance is torture. You can have lesser and greater amounts of it, but it's all torture.

Spraying those protestors was absolutely a form of torture; they were being noncomformist, and the cop was hitting them with pain spray to punish them, not because it was necessary in any way.

I mean, these people were not violent in any way. The police could have simply moved in and arrested them with zero fear of being hurt. Instead, they chose to inflict agony on them.

That's torture.

Paleocon wrote:
DanB wrote:
Paleocon wrote:

If I strap you to a compliance chair and beat you with a garden hose filled with ball bearings until you reveal the location of the your secret society meeting, I think we can agree that is torture.

That is certainly a definition of the process of torture. Not one that I'd dispute although I think people can be tortured for reasons other than extracting information; For malicious kicks, for the sake of punishment.

Paleocon wrote:

But if you just tossed a brick through a store window and are resisting efforts by law enforcement to handcuff you and a cop uses the baton as a leverage device to crank your arm into position, most folks would probably not see that as "torture".

Sure. I didn't say that there aren't arguably valid uses for devices that are essentially torture devices.

That's fine. I'm just saying that the word "torture" must not be used so freely lest we find it essentially being meaningless.

When, for instance, you have a holdout situation and the authorities cut off water and power to the building, the measure is clearly intended to cause discomfort and affect compliance. Most folks would disagree that this is torture.

When, in the same instance, the authorities escalate by illuminating the building with high intensity flood lights and/or bombarding it with a never-ending tape loop of "it's a small world after all", I'm pretty sure this still fails to meet the definition of torture.

Somewhere between these examples and waterboarding lies "torture", but where the line lies is, at least to me, of pretty significant importance. Otherwise the petulant complaints of every teenager in America that losing one's text messaging privileges is "torture" actually meet the definition.

Sure, and as I say I'm really not debating what processes are or are not torture.

To elaborate; when we call things like pepper spray and tasers "non-lethal weapons" it pulls focus away from the true nature of these devices. It's a little bit of PR to make them palatable and sellable to the public. It actively constrains and controls the discourse around their use; it's why the examples you've given me are about justifying why their legitimate uses aren't torture. But the discourse would be quite different if they were widely discussed in more descriptive and less euphemistic terms; 'electro-shock weapons', 'chemical weapons'. The link to torture device becomes a lot more tangible then. I'd imagine that The public's taste for them and their bar for use would likely be set much higher, you'd likely see much less of a public demanding their use that you alluded to.

DanB wrote:

Sure, and as I say I'm really not debating what processes are or are not torture.

To elaborate; when we call things like pepper spray and tasers "non-lethal weapons" it pulls focus away from the true nature of these devices. It's a little bit of PR to make them palatable and sellable to the public. It actively constrains and controls the discourse around their use; it's why the examples you've given me are about justifying why their legitimate uses aren't torture. But the discourse would be quite different if they were widely discussed in more descriptive and less euphemistic terms; 'electro-shock weapons', 'chemical weapons'. The link to torture device becomes a lot more tangible then. I'd imagine that The public's taste for them and their bar for use would likely be set much higher, you'd likely see much less of a public demanding their use that you alluded to.

I do think that there is value in a public discussion about the acceptable use of force in general, but I often wonder if the public has the attention span to really think through consequences when setting and articulating policies as complicated as the use of force. I have a visceral reaction just like everyone else when I see images of folks getting clubbed or sprayed or tased, but often the alternative course of action is simply unacceptable.

As for the terminology, I really don't have a problem with the description of these devices being called "less lethal weapons". They are still weapons and pretty much every police officer I know knows that they are very serious measures. They are, by definition, on the higher end of the force spectrum and their use automatically triggers a use of force investigation. You don't get to pull out pepper spray or a taser without serious repercussions. The moment it leaves the holster, you're making a career decision.

The below describes a typical police use of force spectrum:

Level One: Visible Police Presence
Level Two: Verbal Command
Level Three: Open Hands On (e.g.: pushing, nudging, restraining with hands)
Level Four: Open Hand Force (e.g.: striking, pressure points, restraint non-choking)
Level Five: Less Lethal Device (e.g.: baton, impact weapon, chemical agent, taser)
Level Six: Lethal

In just about every police jurisdiction I've ever been in and/or interacted with, the only time you ever even get to levels five and six is when life is threatened, dangerous people are apprehended, or the only acceptable outcome can not be achieved using a lower level of force without endangering the safety of law enforcement or the population at large.

In the above photo of the police sergeant pepper spraying demonstrators, the police were given a direct and lawful order by their duly empowered civil superiors to disperse the demonstrators. And as distasteful as it looked to spray non-violent folks, the level of force , imho, was appropriate. Once the order was given to disperse them, the outcome was inevitable. Force was going to be applied and the sergeant correctly determined that using a chemical agent was far less likely to result in a violent encounter than had he deployed his officers to judiciously use impact weapons.

You can state, if you like, that the order was bullfeces and I am not certain I would disagree, but once it was given, the police were not in a position to simply disregard it.

Well, let's remove the ambiguity, then.

When you have a tool that can inflict intense pain but causes little or no permanent damage (and indeed does not always even leave a mark), that tool is extremely useful to people who want to cause intense pain to other people without killing them or leaving them anything that would be admissible in court. Even if not all uses of less-lethal force amount to torture, it's the perfect tool for indisputable torture.

Ego Man wrote:

Is this where this goes?

Yeah! Take that peaceful protest! I don't know how that guy can return home to his family in the evening and feel proud of his work - he should be ashamed of himself.

Police brutality is nothing new. I would imagine a large portion of the increase in use of non-lethal weapons is down to the fact that they have started recording the stats now. It is worrying though - it sort of encourages the use of excessive force - and some police officers didn't need any more encouragement!

jibboom wrote:
Ego Man wrote:

Is this where this goes?

Yeah! Take that peaceful protest! I don't know how that guy can return home to his family in the evening and feel proud of his work - he should be ashamed of himself.

Police brutality is nothing new. I would imagine a large portion of the increase in use of non-lethal weapons is down to the fact that they have started recording the stats now. It is worrying though - it sort of encourages the use of excessive force - and some police officers didn't need any more encouragement!

I think that it can be demonstrated that police forces are far more professionalized today than they were even in the recent past. Standards regarding the use of force are far more codified into police policy and procedure than they ever were 20 years ago and deviation from those policies is far more likely to get you in trouble than at any time in the past.

Citizens have far greater control over the police use of force now than they have ever had before. And, ironically, that may very well be part of the problem. When faced with competing interests, the will of the people can very well be schizophrenic. We want to allow freedom of speech, but we want to be able to get to work in the morning. We get queasy around the use of force, but we demand outcomes that require that force be applied.

Ironically, this is what freedom looks like.

Paleocon wrote:

In the above photo of the police sergeant pepper spraying demonstrators, the police were given a direct and lawful order by their duly empowered civil superiors to disperse the demonstrators. And as distasteful as it looked to spray non-violent folks, the level of force , imho, was appropriate. Once the order was given to disperse them, the outcome was inevitable. Force was going to be applied and the sergeant correctly determined that using a chemical agent was far less likely to result in a violent encounter than had he deployed his officers to judiciously use impact weapons.

You can state, if you like, that the order was bullfeces and I am not certain I would disagree, but once it was given, the police were not in a position to simply disregard it.

I don't think we should allow government to play that kind of game. "Oh--I only gave the order: I didn't tell them how to accomplish it" the civil superior says; "oh--I didn't give the order: I only carried it out with the least amount of necessary force" says the cop.

If an order is given where the minimum level of necessary force is still unacceptable, the police should be in a position to simply disregard it; in fact, it should be mandatory that they do, just like while they can use deadly force to prevent a dangerous felon from fleeing, they can't shoot at jaywalkers. Same logic should apply to orders to disperse crowds--you don't go using pepper spray on trespassers causing less danger to the campus than the stoners with the frisbee who are usually in the quad.