BY: Harold Merrell
With national spotlights on Ferguson, MO and events like the ones that have been occurring there, a lot of concern has been created involving police force, the power that they have, and the means that they use to disperse crowds. We've all seen the headlines recently and the photos/videos of protestors in Ferguson being approached with heavy weaponry and apprehended with tear gas and the likes. Many have questioned why the authorities have first resorted to these methods and if they legally have the right to do so. There are a lot of technologies being developed, however, for the purpose of crowd dispersal, whenever authorities would deem it necessary. Many of them are very controversial, but may be seen on streets soon with approval by U.S. government.
One of those technologies is what has come to be known as the "Pain Ray" (technically named Active Denial System, or Assault Intervention System). This is a focused beam of electromagnetic radiation that produces a burning sensation to targets on the area of impact. The beam is invisible and penetrates clothing to make targets instinctively move out of the area that the beam is being fired at.
The Pentagon's Joint Non-Lethal Weapons Program has promoted this technology as an alternative to lethal force, and this weapon was tested in Afghanistan to examined by the U.S. Military. The military didn't accept it, however, because of fears that it would be used in torturing methods. Prolonged use can would cause second or third-degree burns to a target, and the initial introductions to the invention featured beams with diameters of 2 meters - well above the width of humans. Because of these facts, it has been urged that weapons having this capability hold a device that prevents triggering the same target repeatedly. Also, weapons have been developed focusing the millimeter waves into much smaller diameters.
Even though the technology was denied overseas, it made its way home and has been put to use. A detention center in Los Angeles has mounted pain rays in their facilities, controllable by a joystick, as a means to break up crowd riots and disperse inmate violence without sending officers into the middle of things. It is a very controversial issue, as some find it inhumane and unacceptable, and others see it as a perfect way to combat inmate violence without putting officers' lives at risk.
This post did not raise any eyebrows for me. The heat ray should be used by correctional officers, military, police, and even for safe defense. I believe that they have a ways to go before operational units are available to consumers, but the public sector must continue to pursue non-lethal options for deterring crime.
ReplyDeleteThanks Mr. Merrell. I really like that you brought attention to this device in light of recent events in Ferguson, and how their authorities over-responded to the peaceful and lawful assembly of protestors with assault rifles, tanks, tear gas launchers, and rubber bullets. Hopefully, hand held heat guns will eventually replace electricity-emitting tazers, high-velocity 9mm rounds, and tear-gas mortars.
I believe that any machinery or technology used to break up a peaceful protest or crowd is excessive use of force and should not be allowed not only here in America but, in anywhere else in the world. I also believe that officers have more than enough tools and techniques in order to break up crowds without using this inhumane technology. How many times have you seen the crowds beat down the authorities anyway? You don't because the authorities always win.
ReplyDeleteI appreciate this post. I remember thinking when watching news coverage about the different methods that police were using to try and keep the (oftentimes legal and peaceful) protestors at bay. I remember being confused by some of the jargon and descriptions, whether it would be the smoke bombs or rubber bullets. It's ironic to me that technology is promoted to be an alternative to lethal force, but I can't think of a better word than "lethal" to describe what's been going on in Ferguson.
ReplyDeleteI find this very interesting. I think it is an excellent step towards non-lethal weapons that can lower police-related death rates significantly. I agree that there are many benefits to this and I think less people are likely to be affected. There is no possibility of a ricocheting bullet that would hit an innocent bystander. However, I would be sacred of the misuse as stated in the post about continual use to the point where someone could get severe burns. I would also worry about the long-term impact it could have on someone because it is fueled by radiation.
ReplyDeleteThe use of the pain ray should be used commercially in the US with correctional officers instead of lethal weapons because of the rise of misuse of lethal weapons in the US. Yes, there are cases involving officers misusing non-lethal weapons against citizens, but it would create a much safer environment if we minimized the number of citizen's deaths caused by police.
ReplyDelete