Audio Engineers Built a Shield to Deflect Police Sound Cannons
vice.com
vice.com
From the perspective of LRADs replacing other forms of PA, they should actually be an improvement in hearing safety, since the actual sound pressure should be lower for any given application.
There are forces that seek to stop such reviews or even skirt oversight in principle, such as police unions...
And for anyone not familiar with it, there was an excellent documentary on Netflix about the use of the Taser. It argued (and it argued well - I agree with it) that the Taser was attractive because it was less lethal than a gun, but it largely did not replace the gun, it replaced other submission methods. And it ended up being MORE lethal than those submission methods. And that's a problem if you misrepresent that.
Now, I still think police should carry tasers because they're effective on a large spectrum of intermediate / gray area in the use of force continuum and it's much safer for police than many alternatives. But my point is that it's really bad to just think "less than lethal" is a cure-all. "Less lethal" can be lethal (or in this case, permanently disabling). There should still be a high threshold for deploying it.
I don't necessarily think that these kinds of non-lethal weapons can't be used in a "safe" or situationally appropriate way. The problem is that all of these non-lethal weapons have safety guidelines that need to be followed or else they're actually quite dangerous and have high rates of injury (even severe injury). As US law enforcement has shown repeatedly over recent weeks, they're not following any of these guidelines. People are being blinded because they're shooting rubber bullets at people's heads (against guidelines). They can't be trusted with these tools.
I don't think it's solely a US problem either. French police is incredibly eager to liberally apply pepper spray to defenseless protesters (who've committed the heinous crime of exercising their right to free speech and their right to assemble). People are also injured whenever German police use water cannons.
But the thinking is that if you use things against someone using deadly force on you, that's a bad strategy and you might die. If you use these things against someone not using deadly force on you, you're escalating, risking their life, and you're risking assault charges yourself. You need to be completely peaceful, de-escalate (and in some states, retreat), and then when it's time to use force, you make it deadly.
Now police officers are in a different situation but I think the continuum of force here needs to be at least a little more similar than it is. The way they're reacting to these protests is like they're trying to illustrate the protester's point for them. And one may say they're reacting to the riots and the looting, but for the most part they're not immediately present for all that anyway. There is no reason (except to simply submit a general population into not resisting them overall - and honestly that's exactly what they're doing) for you to be using "less-lethal" projectiles out of a firearm against crowds of unarmed people.
The inconvenient thing about guns is that they leave dead bodies behind. If police use guns in inappropriate situations, the bodies will be there to incriminate them even though the law in some jurisdictions makes it difficult to prosecute police for murder.
With a LRAD, there is no body. An inappropriately targeted victim has to come forward and press charges. They may not want to do that for a variety of reasons and, if they do press charges, wantonly causing someone hearing damage is a less serious charge than murder.
If you're a police officer, it's a lot easier and less risky for you, personally, to fire a LRAD at someone than a rifle, even though they were designed to be used in similar situations.
The law needs to treat the inappropriate discharge of "less than lethal" weapons much more seriously than it does now. The police, evidently, need serious consequences to be in place.
There was also a Twitter from a field medic describing the woman's heart stopped repeatedly. I'll look if I can find it but, frankly, there's a lot of noise about protests.
Edit: it was a Reddit thread, not a Twitter thread. [1]
Also edit: there might have been other instances too. This is just what I remembered seeing the other day.
[0]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3eA27bZl_8Y
[1]: https://www.reddit.com/r/Seattle/comments/gywxhz/folks_i_nee...
Officially the use of rubber batons (bullets in common parlance) in Northern Ireland killed 17 people; although one would be wise in doubting the veracity of English reports on English behavior in Northern Ireland.
These tools are quite dangerous.
This passive voice enrages me, it is more appropriate to say the police murdered a woman with tear gas. There were people with agency who actively made decisions which directly caused this woman's death.
I am starting to think a certain, broad class of Americans is less litigious than, perhaps, the other.
The law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich as well as the poor to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal bread. - Anatole France
This needs a real world citation.
Wiki seems to me missing it too.
"This article is missing information about non-loudspeaker / anti-personnel uses and hearing damage. (June 2019)"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Long_Range_Acoustic_Device
Then, if there are any actual facts not political facts, we can talk about refusing police access to non-lethal weapons and only giving access to guns and what that might mean.
The problem with less lethal crowd control tools is that police use them in situations where they would never use a real firearm, creating injuries that wouldn’t happen otherwise. This is really problematic when the police are angry at the protestors, as it gives them a way to inflict revenge pain without the PR fallout of opening fire with rifles.
There is evidence that even on a regular basis, tasers have not replaced firearms, but instead have replaced other means of de-escalation and constraint. The result is that more americans might be dead because we’ve handed out tasers to cops without a second thought.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corner_reflector
Wikipedia claims that the LRADs operate at ~2.5 kHz, which corresponds to ~13 cm wavelength. If a corner-cube is about the size of a protest sign, it might be sufficient? As a rule of thumb, if it is about as big as the LRAD device itself, it'll probably have some efficacy. The more-directional the LRAD is, the more effective the corner-cube will be.
In Seattle, at least during "normal" protests, there are restrictions on the materials used in constructing protest signs (no wood bigger than 1", etc.) in order to limit the extent to which they can be used as weapons. One ought to be able to pretty-readily test whether or not foam-core-board corner-cubes (or any design) are effective reflectors with relatively low-intensity sound sources.
Focusing the energy of an instrument that is designed to approach dangerous sound-intensity levels is certain to make the situation more dangerous. Non-violent action is predicated on the idea that hurting anyone, including an aggressor, is counterproductive. A corner-cube reflector won't hurt an LRAD operator any more than the LRAD operator is hurting others. A parabolic reflector could.
If the golden rule isn't sufficient motivation to avoid a focal instrument, perhaps friendly-fire will be: A parabolic reflector will always bring parallel waves/rays to a focus at the focus. If the reflector is more than a focal-length inside a crowd, it is going to destroy the ears of a protestor.
Like glass bottles that start fires in the Australian Outback by concentrating sunlight, anything that concentrates sound energy in an environment with an LRAD is a recipe for unintended consequence.
When and where violence should be resisted with violence is a question for the ages, perhaps with an answer that varies with time and circumstance.
I suspect that for the protests in America today to succeed, taking the highest-possible road of non-violence will yield the greatest dividend. The real battle is playing out in the minds of a multitude of quiet observers. The city streets are just one stage.
If I had armor that ricocheted bullets back at the shooter, I wouldn't consider myself culpable if someone who tried to shoot me shot themselves.
It is difficult to find an analogy -- it is as if the LRAD operator has thrown a punch and the reflector turns that punch into the stab of a rapier. If and only if the reflector is properly aligned will the redirected-and-concentrated beam have the reflector-bearer's desired effect. If not, someone else may get harmed. The reflector-bearer must accept responsibility for the change in consequence between the punch and the rapier.
There is a third option -- one can readily design reflectors that disperse the energy or generically attempt to reflect it upward. Those are the tools of true pacifists.
Yes, violent retaliation is still violence.
Violence only in retaliation and/or self-defense may be a valid approach to protest in some circumstances, but it's not non-violent protest.
I will agree that the proposed device might (if targeted appropriately) be more defensive than retaliatory, though the fact that it only causes harm to the focussed-on target if someone attacks it doesn't make it purely defensive or non-retaliatory, in fact, if not carefully targeted it makes it quite indiscriminate retaliation.
It is not. The idea is not to provide political cover for violent escalation by the establishment. Now, if that escalation nevertheless occurs, one response is to make lemonade out of those lemons, but it's not the goal of nonviolent protest.
“Nonviolence is a powerful and just weapon, which cuts without wounding and ennobles the man who wields it. It is a sword that heals.”
“Nonviolence is absolute commitment to the way of love. Love is not emotional bash; it is not empty sentimentalism. It is the active outpouring of one’s whole being into the being of another.”
The point is to sway the very opponent who is harming you, to convince them that hurting you is wrong. It takes great strategy, tactics, and courage. The point is not to be a martyr, it is to create change that makes a difference.
prepared to get shot and/or charged with "assaulting a police officer"
Those who stand by idly while America does this to other people should remember that what we're inflicting on them will be inflicted on us tomorrow.
The US military used B2 bombers in Iraq. Do you expect these to be deployed in Seattle any time soon?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MOVE#1985_bombing
>From a Pennsylvania State Police helicopter, Philadelphia Police Department Lt. Frank Powell proceeded to drop two one-pound bombs (which the police referred to as "entry devices") made of FBI-supplied Tovex, a dynamite substitute, targeting a fortified, bunker-like cubicle on the roof of the house. The resulting explosions ignited a fire from fuel for a gasoline-powered generator stored in the rooftop bunker. The fire spread and eventually destroyed approximately sixty-five nearby houses.
Still, this looks like an improvised explosive device was used by the police, and it's not an off-shot of the US military programs.
So my point still stands - just because something is deployed by the US military abroad does not mean it will be deployed at home. To suggest otherwise is to spread needless gloom and panic.
Maybe not necessarily in 100% of the cases but once something is manufactured it is likely that the manufacturer will look to expand its customer base. Hence (imo) the militarization of police across the US and indeed the world.
For crowd control?
>According to a detailed teardown of the LRAD 300X posted by another audio technician, the LRADs produced by Genasys, the company that pioneered the devices, do not use an ultrasonic beam to project sound.
It's an art piece. Someone figured out a way to get news coverage with minimal effort (and it really was very little effort). Check out their site:
Because the hypocrisy of American policing wasn't obvious enough already.
> He also was arrested for what police say was “assault with a deadly weapon on a police officer” and resisting or obstructing an officer. The deadly weapon apparently was a tear gas canister that police tossed toward him and other protesters and alleged he tossed back in their direction.
https://www.mercurynews.com/2020/06/06/protester-recounts-ge...
The only reason they get away with it is that they are unwilling to enforce the law against themselves.
The problem is that QI rulings are insanely narrow, to the point where minor differences get cops off scot free. The differences can be as minor as the difference between setting dogs on a surrendering suspect in a “wooded creek” vs. in a “shrubby ditch”. And every single time this happens, a specific precedent is denied for future incidents.
You may not like their enforcement, and in some cases they are clearly going too far, but there is no real argument on the legality of the tools they are using in the situation. We gave them the right to act as the state's expression of force.
If this is your takeaway from the last two weeks, we won't be able to agree. My position is that the police are shooting rubber bullets at random citizens, and that protestors "pushing the line between peaceful and rioting" is a mostly–manufactured narrative to give them post–hoc justification for doing so.
Even when police are behaving exactly by the book, they are absolutely allowed to take actions that would otherwise be considered a crime when undertaken by a private citizen. It is not accidental that they are empowered with more authority than an average citizen.
It was deemed ok because the man spit at the officer and spitting is considered assault where I live.
Man I can only imagine what would happen to me if I beat the hell out of a guy and told the judge it was self defense becausehe spit at me.
Rubber/plastic bullets have cost how many eyes at this point?
There IS NO justification for LE to use this stuff, as their charter in the case of protests is about maintaining peace and de-escalating any confrontational violence that may occur.
The very notion of being a force confronting/opposed to protesters is WRONG, as they should be de-escalating things, and THIS is the greater issue. LE is waging war upon protesters instead of providing security services.
FTFY.
But you just said you couldn't prove this above... Which is it?
Given that we live in a constitutional republic that provides rights to all citizens, any use of force on them that lacks justification is therefore unjustified.
Cops might have the legal right to use force, but they must have clear justification for that application. Indiscriminate application of tools designed to injure people by the police should be a crime, but in practice it does not appear to be so.
Aside from reversing the burden of proof, I can’t prove a negative, such an attitude hands the police a carte Blanche to strip citizens of their rights until the citizens can argue for their rights back. This is not how functioning democracies are supposed to work.
1. that the police used force at all
2. that the civilian on which force was used did something to justify it
For claim 1, the police absolutely have the presumption of innocence. But once they concede that they did use force, the burden of proof flips around. Otherwise, you're placing a presumption of guilt on the civilian by asking them to prove that they weren't threatening a cop.
This is essentially an affirmative defense [0]: it concedes the unlawful action (e.g. police use of force) but alleges a specific set of circumstances that would shield the person from repercussions. The burden of proof lies with the one using the affirmative defense.
> that the civilian on which force was used did something to justify it
When was that proven like you demanded?
> I never said anything about self–defense.
If it isn't self-defense, then they just illegally assaulted one or more officers and deserve to be punished.
> If they are unjustified, then you should be able to prove that. Otherwise what you're talking about is the police having to prove their innocence.
If I allege that a police officer used force on me, they have the presumption of innocence. However, if they admit to using force, that presumption vanishes. We can assume they did it, because they just admitted to it!
The question then becomes whether or not that force was justified. In answering that question, the burden of proof shifts to them: I am presumed innocent of threatening them, and they must affirmatively prove that I did something to justify their use of force.
Edit: I never said anything about self–defense because your original comment was about the burden of proof for use of force by the police, not against them. You are moving the goalposts.
But for some reason the moment the police are involved, that presumption is reversed. Why?
Because the testimony by police is treated as a proof more reliable than nearly any contrary evidence, short of very clear video.
When did the tear gas throwers show they were justified in throwing tear gas at the police?
Throwing tear gas back (important word) at the police when you feel it’s unjustified is an interesting question. Arguably such an act could be an act of self defense, but that gets very complicated when the police are involved.
What right do citizens have to defend themselves against what they feel is unlawful police violence? Against non-state actors, you have the right of self defense, obviously. Against state actors it is obviously complicated, since nominally they have a monopoly on the legal use of force, and we don’t want everyone with a valid warrant to feel justified in shooting at the police.
But to assume that there is no force that the state can apply that would not justify self defense is to accept a complete erosion of all civil liberties once the police are involved. Not all wrongs perpetuated by the police are amenable to court restitution; if you lose out on your right to peacefully assemble, then can a court give that back after the fact? What happens if the police apply lethal force without justification; you can’t sue to get your life back.
It is obvious that some right to self defense against state action exists, but exactly where the line is seems quite fuzzy to me.
On top of that,the effectiveness of a single point-source falls with the inverse square of the distance so the effectiveness of this "assault" would likely be minimal.
" a reasonable officer could have believed that beating a subdued and compliant Mr. Davis while causing only a concussion, scalp lacerations and bruising with almost no permanent damage did not violate the Constitution,” the district court ruled in tossing out the case."
With even federal judges like that i wonder what hope can be there at all.
Another judge rubber stamped an subpoena against reason for mean but non-threatening comments against the FBI (“go to hell” I believe was the phrase), and a gag order preventing reason from talking about it.
Do not underestimate the willingness of the courts to rubber stamp shocking abuses by the police. They are, after all, the ones that made up QI.
https://www.al.com/news/2020/06/alabama-protester-arrested-f...
https://www.stltoday.com/news/local/crime-and-courts/ferguso...
That's putting it mildly.
That is ofcourse a very limited and subjective observation, however: sound is sound, the laws of physics still hold.
[1] http://scienceandglobalsecurity.org/archive/sgs09altmann.pdf
From the article:
> According to a detailed teardown of the LRAD 300X posted by another audio technician, the LRADs produced by Genasys, the company that pioneered the devices, do not use an ultrasonic beam to project sound. However, Rife and Liberti say their design would still be effective against these hyper-directional blasts.