Even Newer Fun From Taser - Look Out Protesters!
Deep Kimchi
17-02-2006, 02:30
http://www.engadget.com/2006/02/15/tasers-electrifying-new-xrep-shotgun-fired-projectile/
Yah, it's going to be very, very hard to be a protester. The police are going to have weapons that can't kill you, but make you wish you had never gone to the march.
he response from the 35 lucky folks who field-tested (read: got shot by) the XREP was overwhelmingly positive: 100% said they would not recommend the sensation to friends and family. Protesters worldwide should start seeing these new superbullets whiz by sometime next year.
Man in Black
17-02-2006, 02:32
http://www.engadget.com/2006/02/15/tasers-electrifying-new-xrep-shotgun-fired-projectile/
Yah, it's going to be very, very hard to be a protester. The police are going to have weapons that can't kill you, but make you wish you had never gone to the march.
I can't wait for the next State of the Union address! :p
Neu Leonstein
17-02-2006, 02:34
Well, I like non-lethal weapons (would be nice if the military did some honest research into that stuff).
But what's wrong with protesters? Don't people have a right to assemble and protest?
Why would the police be using this on protesters? I am assuming, of course, that one lives in a country where one has the freedom to assemble and to protest.
Man in Black
17-02-2006, 02:41
I'm assuming it is for the protesters who choose to go beyond the legal definition of protest. (i.e. Embassy torchers)
Terrorist Cakes
17-02-2006, 02:42
Well, I like non-lethal weapons (would be nice if the military did some honest research into that stuff).
But what's wrong with protesters? Don't people have a right to assemble and protest?
I second that statement.
The Black Forrest
17-02-2006, 02:43
Just send Cheney!
Wasqually qwails! ehehehehe!
I'm assuming it is for the protesters who choose to go beyond the legal definition of protest. (i.e. Embassy torchers)
The proper moniker for them would then not be "protesters," but "rioters."
Man in Black
17-02-2006, 02:49
The proper moniker for them would then not be "protesters," but "rioters."
I was actually thinking the same thing. I think the article should have been a bit more specific.
Although, as an afterthought, I wouldn't call protesters assembled in an illegal manner, and refusing to disperse "rioters" per say. I reserve that term for a group of persons bent on violence. Though "Embassy torchers are rioters, people standing on my front lawn yelling through my windows wouldn't be. They would be "illegal protesters" And if they didn't disperse, I'd enjoy watching them argue with this new device, as opposed to police being in unnecessary harms way.
hey would be "illegal protesters"
No, they'd be trespassers. What is it with you people in the US and having to invent silly terms like "illegal protester" or "illegal combatant?" No one is fooled as to what those people are.
100% said they would not recommend the sensation to friends and family.
:p
UberPenguinLandReturns
17-02-2006, 03:15
No, they'd be trespassers. What is it with you people in the US and having to invent silly terms like "illegal protester" or "illegal combatant?" No one is fooled as to what those people are.
Don't worry, it's not all of us. Just most. *SIGH*
http://www.engadget.com/2006/02/15/tasers-electrifying-new-xrep-shotgun-fired-projectile/
Yah, it's going to be very, very hard to be a protester. The police are going to have weapons that can't kill you, but make you wish you had never gone to the march.
ROCK ON! We are getting closer and closer all the time to tactically reasonable non-lethal self-defense loads. Soon there will be no practical objection to owning a (non-lethal) firearm for self defense!
"US MARSHALS" here we come!
Deep Kimchi
17-02-2006, 03:57
Why would the police be using this on protesters? I am assuming, of course, that one lives in a country where one has the freedom to assemble and to protest.
You haven't noticed the proliferation of "less lethal" weapons amongst the police around the world, especially in Western nations?
Are you telling me that Swedish police don't have pepper spray instead of mere clubs?
Hey! If violent protesters can't die at the hands of the police, there's no really bad PR.
And, since they are "less lethal" the police are far, far more likely to use them with far, far less provocation.
Bobs Own Pipe
17-02-2006, 04:05
... yeah, and?
Look to see armor-plating come back into vogue. Problem solved.
Fascist pigs.
Are you telling me that Swedish police don't have pepper spray instead of mere clubs?
Why would they be using it on protesters?
Deep Kimchi
17-02-2006, 04:12
Why would they be using it on protesters?
Current trends in law enforcement in Western countries shows that police will immediately use a "less lethal" weapon at a far lower threshold than previous weapons like clubs and batons.
It is a regular sight to see police in the US use pepper spray on protesters who are merely pushing up against a riot barrier - no warning, just spray them in the face.
In fact, a lot of the manufacturers of less lethal weapons give this sort of advice during sales demonstrations - you can temporarily stun or spray someone, and suffer no consequences - not even bad PR.
When you beat people with sticks, or shoot them dead with guns - that's bad PR.
Current trends in law enforcement in Western countries shows that police will immediately use a "less lethal" weapon at a far lower threshold than previous weapons like clubs and batons.
It is a regular sight to see police in the US use pepper spray on protesters who are merely pushing up against a riot barrier - no warning, just spray them in the face.
In fact, a lot of the manufacturers of less lethal weapons give this sort of advice during sales demonstrations - you can temporarily stun or spray someone, and suffer no consequences - not even bad PR.
When you beat people with sticks, or shoot them dead with guns - that's bad PR.
You just gave an excellent reason to be opposed to this, as it lowers the threshold for the police to resort to brutality. You still fail to explain why the police would use it on protesters, though.
New Granada
17-02-2006, 04:21
I guess when they revoke our right to free assembly they'll have something to put us down with.
Why, after taking the first step, they wouldnt just kill the protesters like most countries is beyond me.
Lacadaemon
17-02-2006, 04:33
You just gave an excellent reason to be opposed to this, as it lowers the threshold for the police to resort to brutality. You still fail to explain why the police would use it on protesters, though.
Because they are protestors. Sweden is only a tiny fraction of the global market for protestor suppression devices.
And if one thing was made clear by the Metropolitan Police two weeks ago, is most places, you are only allowed to protest if the government gives you approval.