The moral dangers of nonlethal weapons Stephen Coleman

what I want to talk to you about today

is some of the problems that the

military of the Western world Australia

United States UK and so on face in some

of the deployments that they’re dealing

with in the modern world at this time if

you think about the sorts of things that

we’ve said Australian military personnel

  • in recent years we’ve got obvious

things like Iraq and Afghanistan but

you’ve also got things like East Timor

and the Solomon Islands and so on and a

lot of these deployments that were

actually sending military personnel to

these days aren’t traditional Wars in

fact a lot of the jobs that we’re asking

the military personnel to do in these

situations are ones that in their own

countries in Australia the knight

estates and so on would actually be done

by police officers and so there’s a

bunch of problems that come up for

military personnel in these situations

because they’re doing things that they

haven’t really been trained for and

they’re doing things that those who do

them in their own countries are trained

very differently for and equipped very

differently for now there’s a bunch of

reasons why we actually do send military

personnel rather than police to do these

jobs if Australia had to send a thousand

people tomorrow to West Papua for

example we don’t have a thousand police

officers hanging around that could just

go tomorrow and we do have a thousand

soldiers that could go so when we have

to send someone we send the military

because they’re there they’re available

and heck they’re used to going off and

doing these things and living by

themselves and not having all this extra

support so they are able to do it in

that sense but they aren’t trained in

the same way that police officers are

and they’re certainly not equipped in

the same way police officers are and so

this has raised a bunch of problems for

them when dealing with these sorts of

issues one particular thing that’s come

up that I am especially interested in is

the question of whether when we’re

sending military personnel to do these

sorts of jobs we ought to be equipping

them differently and in particular

whether we ought to be giving them

access to some of the sorts of

non-lethal weapons that police have

since they’re doing some of these same

jobs maybe they should have some of

those things and of course there’s a

range of places where you’d think these

things would be really useful so for

example when you’ve got military

checkpoints if people are approaching

these checkpoints and the

military personnel they are unsure

whether this person’s hostile or not so

this person approaching here and they

say well is this a suicide bomber or not

have they got something hidden under

their clothing what’s going to happen

they don’t know whether this person’s

hostile or not if this person doesn’t

follow directions then they may end up

shooting them and then find out

afterwards either guess we shot the

right person or no this was just an

innocent person who didn’t understand

what was going on so if they had

normally four weapons then they would

say well we can use them in that sort of

situation if we shoot someone who wasn’t

hostile

at least we haven’t killed them another

situation this photo is actually from

one of the missions in the Balkans in

the late 1990s situations a little bit

different where perhaps they know

someone is hostile where they’ve got

someone shooting at them or doing

something else that’s clearly hostile

throwing rocks whatever but if they

respond there’s a range of other people

around who are innocent people who might

also get hurt you know the collateral

damage that the military often doesn’t

want to talk about so again they would

say well hey if we have access to

non-lethal weapons if we’ve got someone

we know is hostile we can do something

to deal with them and know that if we

hit anyone else around the place at

least again we’re not going to kill them

another suggestion has been since we’re

putting so many robots in the field we

can see the time coming where they’re

actually going to be sending robots out

in the field that are autonomous they’re

going to make their own decisions about

who to shoot and who not to shoot

without human-in-the-loop and so the

suggestion is well hey if we’re going to

send robots out and allow them to do

this maybe it would be a good idea again

with these things if they were armed

with non-lethal weapons so that if the

robot makes a bad decision and shoots

the wrong person again they haven’t

actually killed them now there’s a whole

range of different sorts of non-lethal

weapons some of which are obviously

available now some of which they’re

developing so you’ve got traditional

things like pepper spray OC spray up the

top there or tasers over here the one on

the top right here is actually a

dazzling laser intended to just blind

the person momentarily and disorient

them you’ve got non-lethal shotgun

rounds that contain rubber pellets

instead of the traditional metal ones

and this one in the middle here the

large truck is actually called the

Active Denial system something the US

military is working on at the moment

it’s essentially a big microwave

transmitter it’s sort of your classic

idea of a heat

it goes out to a really long distance

compared to any of these other sorts of

things and anybody who is hit with this

feels this sudden burst of heat and just

wants to get out of the way it is a lot

more sophisticated than a microwave oven

but it basically is boiling the water

molecules in the very surface level of

your skin so you feel this massive heat

and you go I want to get out of the way

and then they’re thinking well this will

be really useful in places like where we

need to clear a crowd out of a

particular area if the crowd is being

hostile if we need to keep people away

from a particular place where we can do

that with these sorts of things so

obviously there’s a whole range of

different sorts of non-lethal weapons we

could give military personnel and

there’s a whole range of situations

where they’re looking at them and saying

hey these things would be really useful

but as I said the military and the

police are very different yes you don’t

have to look very hard at this to

recognize the fact that they might be

very different in particular the

attitude to the use of force and the way

they’re trained to use force is

especially different the police

and as I knowing because I’ve actually

helped to train police police in

particularly in western jurisdictions at

least are trained to de-escalate force

to try and avoid using force wherever

possible and to use lethal force only as

an absolute last resort military

personnel are being trained for war so

they’re trained that as soon as things

go bad their first response is lethal

force the moment the fecal matter hits

the rotating turbine you can start

shooting at people

so their attitudes to the use of lethal

force are very different and I think

it’s fairly obvious that their attitude

to the use of non-lethal weapons would

also be very different from what it is

with the police and since we’ve already

had so many problems with police use of

non-lethal weapons in various ways I

thought it would be a really good idea

to look at some of those things and try

and relate it to the military context

and I was really surprised when I

started to do this to see that in fact

even those people who are advocating the

use of non-lethal weapons by the

military hadn’t actually done that they

generally seem to think we’ll

why would we care what’s happened with

the police you know we’re looking at

something different and didn’t seem to

recognize in fact they were looking at

pretty much the same stuff so I actually

started to investigate some of these

issues and have a look at the way that

police used non-lethal weapons when

they’re introduced in some of the

problems that might arise out of those

sorts of things

when they actually do introduce them and

of course being Australian I started

looking at stuff in Australia knowing

again from my own experience about

various times when non-lethal weapons

have been introduced in Australia so one

of the things I particularly looked at

was the use of OC spray or lor is IAM

capsicum spray pepper spray by

Australian police and seeing when that

had been introduced what had happened

and those sorts of issues and one study

that I found a particularly interesting

one was actually in Queensland because

they had a trial period for the use of

pepper spray before they actually

introduced it more broadly and I went

and had a look at some of the figures

here now when they introduced OC spray

in Queensland they’re really explicit

the police minister and all whole heap

of other public statements made about it

they was saying this is explicitly

intended to give police an option

between shouting and shooting yeah this

is something they can use instead of a

firearm in those situations where they

would have previously had to shoot

someone so I went and looked at all of

these police shooting figures and it’s

you can actually find them very easily

for individual Australian states I could

only find these ones this is from a

Australian Institute of Criminology

report as you can see from the Friant

period if you can read it at the top

police shooting deaths means not just

people who have been shot by police but

people who have shot themselves in the

presence of police but this is the

figures across the entire country and

the red arrow represents the point where

Queensland actually said yes okay this

is where we’re going to give all police

officers across the entire state access

to OC spray so you can see there were

six deaths sort of leading up to it

every year for a number of years there

was a spike of course a few years before

but that wasn’t actually Queensland

anyone know where that was wasn’t Port

Arthur no Victoria yes correct that

spike was all Victoria

so it wasn’t the Queensland had a

particular problem with deaths from

police shootings and so on so six

shootings across the whole country

fairly consistently over the years

before so the next two years was the

years they study 2001 2002 anyone want

to take a stab at the number of times

given how they’ve introduced this the

number of times police in Queensland

used OC spray in that period hundreds 1

3 thousands getting better explicitly

introduced as an alternative to the use

of lethal force

an alternative between shouting and

shooting I’m going to go out on a limb

here and say that if Queensland Police

didn’t have OC spray they wouldn’t have

shot 2226 people in those two years in

fact if you have a look at the studies

that they were looking at that the

material they were collecting and

examining you can see the suspects were

only armed in about 15% of cases where

OC spray was used right it was routinely

being used in this period and of course

still is routinely used because there

were no complaints about it

you cannot within this in the context of

this study anyway it was routinely being

used to deal with people who were

violent who were potentially violent and

also quite frequently used to deal with

people who were simply passively

non-compliant right this person is not

doing anything violent but they just

won’t do what we want them to they’re

not obeying the directions that we’re

giving them so we’ll give them a shot of

the OC spray they don’t speed them up

everything will work out better that way

all right this was something explicitly

introduced to be an alternative to

firearms but it’s being routinely used

to deal with a whole range of other

sorts of problems now one of the

particular issues that comes up with

military use of non-lethal weapons and

people when they’re actually saying well

hey there might be some problems there’s

a couple of particular problems that get

focused on one of those problems is that

non-lethal weapons may be used

indiscriminately one of the fundamental

principles of military use of forces

that you have to be discriminant you

have to be careful about who you’re

shooting at so one of the problems

that’s been suggested with non-lethal

weapons is that they

be used indiscriminately that you use

them against a whole range of people

because you don’t have to worry so much

anymore and in fact one particular

instance where I think that actually

happens where you can look at it was the

Braga theater surge in Moscow in 2002

which probably a lot of you unlike most

of my students had ad for actually old

enough to remember so Chechens had come

in and taken control of the theater they

had were holding something like 700

people hostage they’d released a bunch

of people but they still had about 700

people hostage and the Russian special

Military Police Special Forces spec

Knapp’s came in and actually stormed the

theater and the way they did it was to

pump the whole thing full of anaesthetic

gas and it turned out that lots of these

hostages actually died as a result of

inhaling the gas right it was used

indiscriminately they pumped the whole

theater full of the gas and it’s no

surprise that people died because you

don’t know how much of this gas each

person is going to inhale what position

they’re going to fall in when they come

unconscious and so on they were in fact

only a couple of people who got shot in

this episode so when they had a look at

it afterwards there are only a couple of

people who’d apparently been shot by

armed by the hostage takers or shot by

the police forces coming in and trying

to deal with the situation virtually

everybody that got killed got killed

from you know inhaling the gas the final

toll of hostages is a little unclear but

it’s certainly a few more than that

because there are other people that died

over the next few days so this was one

particular problem they talked about

that it might be used indiscriminately

second problem that people sometimes

talk about with military use of

non-lethal weapons and it’s actually the

reason why in the chemical weapons

convention it’s very clear that you

can’t use riot control agents as a

weapon of warfare the problem with that

is that it seemed that sometimes

non-lethal weapons might actually be

used not as an alternative to lethal

force but as a little lethal force

multiplier that you used non-lethal

weapons first so that your lethal

weapons will actually be more effective

the people you’re shooting out aren’t

going to be able to get out of the way

they’re not going to be aware of what’s

happening and you can kill them better

and in fact that’s exactly what happened

here

the hostage takers who had been rendered

unconscious by the gas were not taken

into custody they were simply shot in

the head

so this non-lethal weapon was being used

in fact in this case as a non as a

lethal force multiplier to make killing

more effective in this particular

situation now the problem that I just

want to quickly mention is that there’s

a whole heap of problems with the way

that people actually get taught to use

normal ether weapons and get trained

about them and they get tested and so on

because they get tested in nice safe

environments and people get taught to

use them in nice safe environments like

this you can see exactly what’s going on

the person who’s spraying the OC spray

is wearing a rubber glove to make sure

they don’t get contaminated and so on

but they don’t ever get used like that

they get used out in the real world like

in Texas like this I confess this

particular case was actually one that

piqued my interest in this it happened

while I was working as a research fellow

at the u.s. Naval Academy and news

reports started coming up about this

situation where this woman was arguing

with the police officer she wasn’t

violent in fact he was probably six

inches taller than me and she was about

this tall and eventually she said to him

well you know I’m going to get back in

my car and he says if you get back in

your car I’m going to tase you and she

said huh

go ahead tase me he does yeah and it’s

all captured by the video camera running

in the in the front of the police car so

you know she’s 72 and it seemed that

this is the most appropriate way of

dealing with that and other examples are

the same sorts of things with other

people where you think well is this

really an appropriate way to use

non-lethal weapons yeah police chief

fires taser into fourteen-year-old

girl’s head she was running away what

else was I supposed to do

or Florida police tase a six-year-old

boy at elementary school and they

clearly learnt a lot from it because in

the same district police reviewed policy

after children shocked second child

shocked by Taser stun gun within weeks

same police district another child

within weeks of tasering the

six-year-old boy just in case you think

it’s only going to happen in the United

States it happened in Canada as well and

a colleague of mine sent me this one

from London but my personal favorite of

these ones I have to confess does

actually come from the United States

officers taser 86 year old disabled

woman in her bed

I checked the reports on this one I

looked at it I was really surprised

apparently she took up a more

threatening position in her bed I kid

you not that’s exactly what it’s it she

took up a more threatening position in

her bed okay but I’d remind you what I’m

talking about I’m talking about military

uses of non-lethal weapons so why is

this relevant because police are

actually more restrained in the use of

force in the military are they’re

trained to be more restrained in the use

of force in the military are they’re

trained to think more to try and

deescalate so if you have these problems

with police officers with non-lethal

weapons what on earth would make you

think it’s going to be better with

military personnel the last thing that I

would just like to say when I’m talking

to the police about what a perfect

non-lethal weapon would look like they

almost inevitably to say the same thing

they say well it’s going to be something

that’s nasty enough that people don’t

want to be hit with this weapon so if

you threaten to use it people are going

to comply with it but it’s also going to

be something that doesn’t leave any

lasting effects in other words your

perfect non lethal weapon is something

that’s perfect for abuse what would

these guys have done if they’d had

access to tasers or to a man-portable

version of the Active Denial system a

small heat ray that you can use on

people and not worry about so I think

yes there may be ways that non-lethal

weapons are going to be great in those

situations but there’s also a whole heap

of problems that need to be considered

as well

thanks very much

今天想和大家聊的,

是西方世界的军队,澳大利亚

,美国,英国等在现代世界的一些

部署中所面临的一些问题

,如果

你认为 关于

我们所说的澳大利亚军事人员

  • 近年来我们有

伊拉克和阿富汗等明显的事情,但

你也有像东帝汶

和所罗门群岛等这样的

事情,还有很多这样的部署

这些天实际上派遣军事人员到现在不是传统的战争

事实上,我们

要求军事人员在这种

情况下做的很多工作都是在他们自己的

国家在澳大利亚的骑士

庄园等会做的工作 实际上是

由警察来做的,所以

在这种情况下,军事人员会遇到很多问题,

因为他们正在做他们

没有真正接受过培训的事情,而且

他们正在做的事情 那些在自己国家从事这些工作的人

现在接受的培训

和装备

也大不相同,

如果澳大利亚明天必须派一千

人去 以西巴布亚

为例,我们没有一千名

警察可以

明天就去,我们确实有一千

名士兵可以去,所以当我们

必须派遣某人时,我们派遣军队,

因为他们在那里,他们有空

哎呀,他们习惯于离开,

做这些事情,

自己生活,没有所有这些额外的

支持,所以他们能够在这个意义上做到这一点

,但他们没有

像警察那样接受培训

,他们 ‘当然没有

像警察那样装备,所以

在处理这类问题时,这给他们带来了很多

问题

感兴趣

的问题是,当我们

派遣军事人员从事

此类工作时,我们是否应该为

他们配备不同的装备,特别

是我们是否应该让他们

获得

一些警察可以使用的非致命武器 有,

因为他们正在做一些相同的

工作,也许他们应该有一些

这样的东西,当然还有

很多地方你会认为这些

东西真的很有用,

例如,当你有军事

检查站时,如果人们 正在接近

这些检查站和

军事人员 他们

不确定这个人是否怀有敌意 所以

这个人接近这里 他们

说这是一个自杀式炸弹袭击者

他们有没有藏

在衣服下的东西

他们不知道会发生什么 不管这个人

是否敌对,如果这个人不

听从指示,那么他们最终可能会向

他们开枪,然后发现

要么猜我们开枪了

信不信由你,这只是一个

无辜的人,他不明白

发生了什么,所以如果他们

通常有四把武器,那么他们会

说,

如果我们射杀一个至少不是敌对的人,我们可以在那种情况下使用它们

我们没有杀死他们 另一种

情况 这张照片实际上来自

1990 年代后期在巴尔干半岛的一个任务 情况有点

不同,也许

他们知道有人怀有敌意,

有人向他们开枪或

做其他事情 显然是敌对的

投掷石块,但如果他们

做出回应,

周围会有很多无辜的人也可能

受到伤害,你

知道军方通常不想谈论的附带损害,

所以他们会

说好吧,嘿,如果我们

如果我们有一个

我们知道是敌对的人,我们可以使用非致命武器,我们可以采取一些措施

来对付他们,并且知道如果我们

至少再次击中这个地方的其他人

,我们不会去 o 杀死他们

另一个建议是,因为我们

在现场放置了这么多机器人,我们

可以看到他们

实际上将在现场派出自主机器人的时候到了

,他们

将做出自己的决定 关于

没有人工参与的情况下拍摄谁和不拍摄谁,所以

建议很好,嘿,如果我们要

派机器人出去并允许他们这样做,

也许用这些东西再次是个好主意

如果他们配备

了非致命武器,那么如果

机器人做出错误决定并

再次射错人,他们实际上并没有

杀死他们,现在有

一系列不同类型的非致命

武器,其中一些显然是

可用的 现在他们正在开发其中的一些,

所以你有传统的

东西,比如胡椒喷雾 OC 喷在

上面,或者泰瑟枪在

这里 上面右边的那个实际上是一个

令人眼花缭乱的激光,旨在

暂时使人失明并迷惑

他们 你有非致命的霰弹枪

子弹,其中包含橡胶颗粒

而不是传统的金属子弹,

而这辆在中间的

大卡车实际上被称为

主动拒绝系统,美国

军方目前正在研究

它本质上是一个大卡车 微波

发射器 这是您

对热量的经典概念,

与其他任何类型的东西相比,它的传播距离非常远

,任何被它击中的人都会

感觉到这种突然的热量爆发,

只想让开 它

比微波炉复杂得多,

但它基本上是在沸腾你皮肤

表层的水分子,

所以你会感觉到这种巨大的热量,

然后你就走了

如果人群

充满敌意,如果我们需要让人们

远离我们可以做到这一点的特定地方,这将非常有用。

这些东西很

明显,

我们可以给军事人员提供各种不同类型的非致命武器,

并且

在各种情况

下,他们看着它们并说,

嘿,这些东西真的很有用,

但正如我所说 军队和

警察是非常不同的,是的,你

不必非常努力地

认识到他们可能

非常不同的事实,特别是

对使用武力的态度以及

他们被训练使用武力的方式是

尤其是警察

,据我所知,因为我实际上

帮助培训了警察,

尤其是在西方司法管辖区,

至少接受过降低武力升级的培训,

以尽量避免使用武力,

并且仅在最后才使用致命武力

度假村的军事

人员正在接受战争训练,因此他们接受了这样的

训练:一旦

事情变糟,他们的第一反应就是

在粪便撞击旋转的涡轮机的那一刻起致命的力量

你可以开始

向人们开枪,

所以他们对使用致命

武力的态度非常不同,我认为

很明显,他们

对使用非致命武器的态度

与对警察的态度非常不同,因为我们 “

警察

以各种方式使用非致命武器已经遇到了很多问题,我

认为

看看其中一些事情并

尝试将其与军事背景联系

起来是一个非常好的主意

开始这样做是为了看到事实上,

即使是那些提倡军队

使用非致命武器的

人实际上也没有这样做,他们

通常似乎认为我们

为什么要关心

你知道的警察发生了什么 我们正在寻找

不同的东西,但似乎并没有

意识到他们实际上在寻找

几乎相同的东西,所以我实际上

开始调查其中一些

问题,并看看

警察使用非致命性的方式 武器,当

它们被引入时

可能会出现一些问题,

当他们真正引入它们时

,当然是作为澳大利亚人,我开始

在澳大利亚寻找东西,

从我自己的经验中再次知道,

当非 致命武器

已经在澳大利亚引入,所以

我特别关注的一件事

是澳大利亚警察使用 OC 喷雾或 lor 是 IAM

辣椒喷雾胡椒喷雾

,看看

什么时候引入的,发生了什么

以及这些问题和一个

我发现一个特别有趣

的研究实际上是在昆士兰州,因为

他们在

更广泛地引入胡椒喷雾之前

有一个试用期

在昆士兰,他们真的很

明确,警察部长和所有

其他公开声明都对此发表了声明,

他们说这是明确的 我

打算让警察

在大喊大叫和开枪之间

做出

选择 实际上很容易

在澳大利亚的各个州

找到它们 被警察开枪,但

有人在警察面前开枪自杀,

但这是

整个国家的数据

,红色箭头代表

昆士兰州实际上说是的点

整个州都可以

使用 OC 喷雾,所以你可以看到每年有

6 人死亡导致这种

情况,多年来

有一个峰值 c 我们是几年前的,

但那实际上不是昆士兰

任何人都知道那不是亚瑟港

没有维多利亚是正确的,

尖峰全是维多利亚,

所以昆士兰在

警察枪击事件等方面的死亡问题并不是特别严重 所以前几年

全国发生了六起枪击事件

,所以接下来的两年是

他们研究的年份 2001 2002

在那个时期使用过 OC 喷雾 数百 1

3 千 变得更好 明确

介绍作为

使用致命武力

的替代方法 大喊大叫和射击之间的替代方法

我要在这里四处走动

并说如果昆士兰警察

没有

事实上,如果你看一下他们正在研究的研究

他们正在收集和

检查你的材料,他们就不会在这两年中射杀 2226 人 n 看到嫌疑人

仅在大约 15% 的案例中武装了

OC 喷雾剂

在此期间

常规使用,当然仍然常规使用,因为

没有关于它的投诉,

您不能在此范围内

无论如何研究,它通常被

用来对付那些

有暴力倾向的人,他们可能有暴力倾向,

也经常被用来

对付那些只是被动

不服从的人,这个人没有

做任何暴力的事情,但他们只是

不会做 我们希望他们

不遵守我们给他们的指示,

所以我们会给他们

注射 OC 喷雾,他们不会加快速度

,一切都会好起来的,

好吧,这是明确

介绍的 作为枪支的替代品,

但它通常被

用来处理一系列其他

类型的问题,现在是

军事使用非致命武器和

peo的特殊问题之一 当他们实际上说得很好时

,可能会有一些问题,

有几个特别的问题需要

关注其中一个问题

是非致命武器可能被

不分青红皂白地

使用你认为的军事使用武力的基本原则之一

必须有辨别力,你

必须小心你在向谁

开枪,所以

非致命武器提出的一个问题

是,它们

被不分青红皂白地使用,你用

它们对付各种各样的人,

因为你不 不得不再担心这么多

,事实上

,我认为实际上

发生的一个特殊情况

是 2002 年莫斯科布拉加剧院的激增,

与我的大多数学生不同,你们中的很多人可能

有广告实际上已经

足够老了 要记住,车臣人

进来并控制了他们拥有的剧院,

他们扣押了大约 700

人作为人质,他们释放了

一群人,但他们仍然有大约 700 人

人质和俄罗斯特种

宪兵特种部队规范

克纳普进来了,实际上冲进了

剧院,他们这样做的方式是给

整个东西注入麻醉

气体,结果发现这些人质中的许多

人实际上是因为

正确吸入毒气

不分青红皂白地使用了他们将整个

剧院充满了毒气

,人们死亡也就不足为奇了,因为您

不知道每个人要吸入多少这种气体,

他们将要跌倒在哪个位置 当他们

失去知觉时等等,他们实际上

只有几个人在这一集中被枪杀,

所以当他们后来看的

时候,只有几个

人显然是

被劫持者武装枪杀的 或者被

进来并

试图处理这种情况的警察开枪打死,几乎

每个被杀的人都被你杀死了

肯定比这更多,

因为

在接下来的几天里还有其他人死亡,所以这是

他们谈论的一个特殊问题

,它可能会被不分青红皂白地使用

第二个问题,人们有时会

谈论军事使用

非致命武器和 这实际上是

为什么在化学武器

公约中非常清楚你

不能使用防暴剂作为

战争武器的原因,问题

在于,有时

非致命武器实际上可能

不会用作替代武器 致命的

力量,但作为一个小的致命力量

倍增器,你首先使用非致命

武器,这样你的致命

武器实际上会更有效

,你射击的人

将无法摆脱他们的方式

不会知道

发生了什么,你可以更好地杀死他们

,事实上,这正是这里发生的事情

,被毒气昏迷的人质劫持者

并没有 被

拘留他们只是被

击中头部

所以这种非致命武器

实际上在这种情况下被用作非

致命的力量倍增器以

在这种特殊

情况下使杀戮更有效现在我只想快速解决的问题

提到的是,

人们实际上被教导使用

普通以太武器并接受

有关它们的培训并接受测试等等的方式存在一大堆问题,

因为它们在良好的安全

环境中接受测试并且人们被教导

使用它们 像这样好的安全环境,

您可以确切地看到正在

喷洒 OC 喷雾的人正在发生什么,他

戴着橡胶手套,以确保

他们不会被污染等等,

但他们永远不会像

他们被用完一样被使用 在像德克萨斯这样的现实世界

中,我承认这个

特殊案例实际上

激起了我对这件事的兴趣

海军学院和新闻

报道开始出现这种

情况,这个女人正在

和警察争吵,她并不

暴力,事实上他可能

比我高 6 英寸,她大约有

这么高,最后她对他说,

你知道 我要回到

我的车里,他说如果你回到

你的车里,我会挑逗你,她

说,嗯,

继续挑逗我,他是的,这

一切都被在里面运行的摄像机捕捉到

了 警车的前部,所以

你知道她已经 72 岁了,这似乎

是最合适的

处理方式,其他例子

是与其他人相同的事情

,你认为这

真的是使用非的合适方式吗?

  • 致命武器 是的,警察局长用泰瑟枪

向 14 岁

女孩的头部发射泰瑟枪,她正在逃跑,

我还能做什么,

或者佛罗里达州警察在小学用电击枪对一个 6 岁

男孩进行电击,他们

显然从中学到了很多,因为 在相同的

在孩子们

在几周内被泰瑟电击枪震惊后,地区警察审查了政策 同一警察区在对六岁男孩进行泰瑟枪电击后几周内

又有一个孩子被电击

,以防万一你认为

这只会发生在

美国它发生在加拿大 同样

,我的一位同事从伦敦寄给我这个

,但我个人最喜欢

的这些我不得不承认

确实来自美国

军官泰瑟枪 86 岁的残疾

妇女躺在她的床上

我检查了关于这个的报告 我

看了 我真的很惊讶

在她的床上摆出一个更具威胁性的姿势我骗

你不是这正是它

在她的床上摆出一个更具威胁性的姿势

好吧但我会提醒你我在

说什么我 ‘我在谈论

非致命武器的军事用途,为什么

这很重要,因为警察

实际上

在军队中使用

武力时更加克制

在军队中使用武力是不是他们被

训练去思考更多来尝试和

降级所以如果你对

使用非致命武器的警察有这些问题,

那么到底什么会让你

认为军事人员会更好

最后一件事

我只想说,当我

与警察谈论完美的

非致命武器是什么样子时,他们

几乎不可避免地会说同样的话,

他们说得很好,这将

是令人讨厌的事情

想要被这种武器击中,所以如果

你威胁要使用它,人们

会遵守它,但它

也不会留下任何

持久影响,换句话说,你

完美的非致命武器

是非常适合滥用的东西

如果这些家伙能够

使用泰瑟枪或便携式

版本的主动拒绝系统

会怎么做?一个小型热射线,您可以在

人们身上使用而不必担心,所以我认为

是的,可能有一些方法可以 非致命

武器在这些情况下会很棒,

但也有

一大堆问题需要考虑

非常感谢