From: Robert J. Bradbury (bradbury@aeiveos.com)
Date: Fri Aug 16 2002 - 22:23:06 MDT
Time has an interesting discussion of the development of non-lethal
weapons:
Beyond the Rubber Bullet
http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,322588,00.html
IMO, the article trys to slant this as a bad idea. However,
living in Seattle, a city that just paid $1.75M to a family
whose son was beaten to death in the Mardi Gras riot in 2001
(my very high tax dollars at work...), I have to ask wouldn't
non-lethal methods for crowd control be a good thing?
[The suit presumably was settled because the Seattle police
essentially did nothing while some members of the Mardi Gras
crowd turned on others.]
Of course one could argue that a few deaths associated with
political action (e.g. Kent State) may be necessary to promote
shifts in political winds. Would the U.S. have gotten out of
Vietnam if the National Guard been equiped with net throwing
guns?
Perhaps a more important question would be when it is justified
to cause an individual to experience pain (bad smells, burning
sensations, electrical shocks, etc.) within a context of the
protection of the "commons"? I for one want to be able to
walk (or demonstrate) in the public commons and feel safe
in doing so.
Robert
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:16:11 MST