Air Cannon Ties Pirates In Knots 770
Hugh Pickens writes "Numerous high-tech devices have been proposed to help ships cope with piracy on the high seas. Now a company has developed a ship-borne launching device that fires a net or coiled rope into the path of pirate vessels using compressed air with a range of up to a range of 400m. The payload net or rope, which has a parachute attached to the end, will unravel and lay out across the surface of the water so that as the pirate boat travels through the water its propeller shaft will pick up the line and become entangled. 'With the trials and testing we've done, it has taken us some 45 minutes to cut and disentangle the line from the propeller itself,' says Jonathan Delf. 'Within that time of course, the target ship is on its way and hopefully help has arrived in the form of naval forces or helicopter support.' The system can be fired up to five times off just a cylinder of air like a simple scuba tank." The video mentions that the device can also fire a payload of golf balls. The systems have recently been sold to "several large shipping companies that travel near the oil-rich Nigerian Delta, which, like the Somalian coast, is rife with piracy."
And what happens.. (Score:1, Insightful)
when the pirates use this on ships themselves?
Golf balls? Ropes? Parachutes?! (Score:5, Insightful)
Just shoot the fuckers already. Pretty soon there won't be any more of them.
Why not real guns? (Score:3, Insightful)
I think the number of pirates would be reduced if the shipping vessels had small autocannons mounted on them. No jalopie fishing trawler can take a burst of 35mm AP shells for very long. Problem solved.
Pro-tip: Shoot them dead. (Score:5, Insightful)
Are we really that politically correct now that even killing a pirate is wrong?
Pirates. Not a down-trodden minority.
Kill them. All of them.
It's the right thing to do.
Re:What is to keep the pirates from using this? (Score:5, Insightful)
What is going to keep the pirates from using something like this to their advantage?
The same thing that keeps car thieves from slashing the tires of cars they plan to steal.
Re:Why not real guns? (Score:5, Insightful)
And if you shot fishermen or other innocent people by accident?
Re:Pro-tip: Shoot them dead. (Score:1, Insightful)
Many countries have laws against commercial ships carrying weapons under their flag. And even more countries have laws against armed foreign-flagged ships docking at their ports. It gets real complex real fast. Non-lethal weapons keep a captain or shipping line's options open.
Re:Why not real guns? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Pro-tip: Shoot them dead. (Score:5, Insightful)
Self defense its self is politically incorrect these days...
Re:Why not real guns? (Score:3, Insightful)
If you're in a small single-engine craft, in waters off the coast of Somalia, and you continue to approach any large commercial vehicle despite repeated auditory warnings, you deserve to be obliterated.
Sometimes being the devil's advocate is quite a useless and stupid exercise.
Re:Pro-tip: Shoot them dead. (Score:4, Insightful)
No, but most countries aren't going to let your ship in their waters let alone to dock in their ports if it is loaded out with machine guns and torpedoes.
And shooting fisherman whom you mistake for pirates in generally frowned upon.
Re:And what happens.. (Score:4, Insightful)
I like the idea that the "good guys" can use expensive high tech to "stun" the bad guy's vessels, but if I were a captain of a ship being raided, I doubt I would prefer gumming up their motors to blowing them out of the water. Not only that but if you just mess with the pirates equipment they will just go on to do the same again later once they repair it. Sure the helicopter support might arrive in time and kill all the pirates, but at that point why not just kill the pirates from the boat int he first place?
It would seem like a limited lethal weapon system mounted on the transports would be the most efficient option.
Re:Golf balls? Ropes? Parachutes?! (Score:4, Insightful)
Just shoot the fuckers already. Pretty soon there won't be any more of them.
If it's always clear weather, and daytime, and all the boats have transponders so that you never make errors in identifying which boats are pirate and which aren't, that might be reasonable.
If you are, say, reliable 99% of the time... and, say, one boat out of two hundred is a pirate-- you'll be shooting two innocent fishermen for every pirate.
And it's always harder to identify the bad guys in the real world than it is in the movies.
Re:Pro-tip: Shoot them dead. (Score:5, Insightful)
No.
There's no trick to it.
If you're approaching a large commercial ship of any kind, plying its trade in the waters off the coast of East Africa, and you continue to ignore the many and varied warnings to do otherwise, you deserve to get shot. The innocent people you're concocting out of thin air for the sake of juvenile, devil's advocate, argumentation... is breathtakingly naive.
I have a feeling you're a part of the Confetti Generation.
Re:Pro-tip: Shoot them dead. (Score:5, Insightful)
The tipoff would probably when they start coming at you with highspeed boats (they only use slower larger "fishing boats" as motherships, they need small highspeed boats to catch their prey) and start firing warning shots with machine guns and RPGs.
The real reason they are not using real weapons against the pirates isn't because the couldn't be sure they were shooting the right people, but rather because docking at ports becomes much more complicated legally when you are carrying weapons.
Re:And what happens.. (Score:3, Insightful)
Well, I haven't made my mind with regards to the efficiency of this tool yet but I wander what will be the effects of the left overs on sea wildlife.
Also, it seems all the pirates will have to do to avoid the line is use water jet propulsion boats, no external propeller on these boats. If it becomes widely used, pirates should upgrade rather quickly.
Why are we playing games with these thugs? (Score:2, Insightful)
Arm the crew when they get into hostile waters. Put the arms under lock and key when they leave hostile waters.
Announce before entering a port that you have weapons, but they are locked up. Let the harbor pilot have the key and verify weapons are secure before allowing the vessel into port. Then get the key back when existing the harbor.
Re:Why not real guns? (Score:5, Insightful)
I'd say that if the people in a small boat are shooting Kalashnikovs at you, it would be safe to assume they are not innocent people.
Re:Pro-tip: Shoot them dead. (Score:3, Insightful)
Browning M2 - Accept No Substitutes (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Golf balls? Ropes? Parachutes?! (Score:1, Insightful)
You say that as though (a) the pirates didn't already bring weapons into it, and (b) there really are no other options for the pirates. (a) they have, and (b) I don't know the situation well enough to comment (and I doubt that you do, either). However, you also seem to skip something: if one enters priracy - the use of deadly force to steal stuff - one is explicitly accepting the risks that go along with it: death induced by those who fight back.
Re:And what happens.. (Score:3, Insightful)
might work once, if that (Score:3, Insightful)
A cheap, simple, easily fabricated cage around the prop solves this for the pirates.
Design it so the rope/net just slides below the prop. It'll add some drag, slowing them down a bit, which may help, but a larger engine solves that.
Just another corp' making money from fear, while providing no real protection.
Re:Browning M2 - Accept No Substitutes (Score:5, Insightful)
Tell me, at a glance, what makes a pirate vessel look different from a fishing vessel?
You alter course and they move to pursue or intercept? If the watchmen spots a suspected pirate ship approaching closer than 1,760 yards (about 1 mile), he can signal the bridge and the ship can alter course away from the suspected pirate ship. If they refuse communication, give chase, and attempt to close the distance then it is pretty obvious what their intentions are. Besides, what would Somali fishermen, who are not generally equipped with modern trawlers and towed nets, be doing more than 100 miles off the coast? No, I don't think that it would be a big problem, especially since most cargo ships these days are not looking to approach the Somali coast any closer than that anyway. You might even be generous and direct the first burst well out in front of them, as a warning, before destroying them if they continue to press the attack. This could all be worked out in the training protocols without too much difficulty.
Doesn't really matter who they are (Score:3, Insightful)
If they are firing on you, they are a legitimate target both from a moral standpoint but also in terms of maritime law. I'm not saying that cargo ships should urn around firing on any boat they see. However, if a boat fires upon them, which this pirates do, they should be allowed to return fire. Doesn't really matter who the people in the boat are or claim to be, there is no reason for them to open fire without provocation.
That's what you have to remember. It isn't as though the pirates show up with fishing rods and politely ask to come on board. Were that the case, well nothing would happen as the cargo ship would continue on its way. They come up and open fire on the ship, generally with AK47s and RPGs. This doesn't do much to the ship, a cargo ship's hull can take a hell of a lot more than that, but is rather dangerous to the crew. I think the crew should be able to shoot back.
Re:Also of use against Japanese whaling ships? (Score:3, Insightful)
Or against Japanese whaling protest ships.
Re:Pro-tip: Shoot them dead. (Score:4, Insightful)
Q: So - you saw the boat approach. It had people inside and you could see they were armed. They opened fire with warning shots over your boat. You looked through the scope of your rifle at the shooter. What did you feel?
A: The recoil of my rifle.
If I was in a 30ft yacht or a 500m container ship, if someone approached my ship on the high seas, I would be VERY wary, and the instant anyone tried anything rash, I would instantly perforate them with overwhelming firepower, especially if I was in a small boat, as I would feel much more vulnerable. If I'm in a small private boat, I am NOT in the mood for taking visitors in the middle of the ocean of any size or variety and would consider ANY such visitor a threat. If I am in a giant commercial ship, I am ONLY interested in properly flagged and responding government vessels coming for a visit. The rest are either pirates or Darwinbait.
RS
Re:And what happens.. (Score:5, Insightful)
Lunacy!!! (Score:5, Insightful)
So they had water cannons, noise makers, and now a flippin' rope cannon? Give those ships real guns with real bullets already! These pirates mean business. Any resistance these pirates meet is often returned with lethal force. Giving in to them and paying ransom is just calling for more of the same. Pay the Danegeld and you don't get rid of the Dane.
These ships need to have weapons that can match or surpass what the pirates have. Bolt a 25 mike mike to the deck if you must. Some little ship comes screaming up to your ship with guys carrying machine guns and rocket launchers shooting at you then its weapons free. They understand return fire. Make it too difficult to be worth their time and the piracy will stop.
All of this less than lethal crap has got to end. Give those ships real guns with real bullets!
Yep, I'm a bit perturbed over this. All this politically correct crap is getting people killed.
Re:Defective Solution in Search of a Problem (Score:5, Insightful)
If I commandeered a shipping vessel and if I had a choice between (1) some flying rope that can be shot out of an air cannon and (2) on-board artillery like a machine gun (or something that can blast a hole in an on-coming vessel), I would rather choose the artillery. The problem with this flying rope is that it might enrage the pirate, and he might aim his artillery at you and also signal for assistance. If his comrades arrive at the scene, then your flying rope will not stop the thugs from putting a bullet in your head.
I would too. Unfortunately, many countries into whose ports (and hence sovereign territory) you might with to sail might take issue with a cargo ship with a machine gun on it. They might even insist that you receive clearance as a military vessel or put other bureaucratic hurdles in the way. Remember, any delay costs you at least $50k an day in lost time, aside from the actual expense of dealing with it. It would be nice if there was a uniform agreement on the armament of cargo ships that exempted such things from local law* but there just isn't. A ship that makes multiple port calls is going to need to hire a lawyer from each country just to ensure compliance.
* For instance, if you were a crewman storing a rifle or pistol in your quarters while making a stop in the lovely Port of Boston, you would be guilty of possessing a firearm without a license. I'm sure the authorities aren't keen on enforcing that law but that such conduct is technically criminal since there is no exemption.
Re:Why not real guns? (Score:5, Insightful)
Foreign governments don't trust commercial ships to uses lethal weapons responsibly
Foreign governments have no jurisdiction in international waters, which is where these attacks are taking place.
Other governments may see an armed foreign ship in their waters as a threat
If a government feels threatened by small arms contained within a ship that wants to dock then that government is a lost cause. Please explain to me how a weapons locker aboard ship containing rifles, pistols and shotguns represents a threat. Nobody is suggesting arming merchant ships with 16" battleship guns. These pirates can be deterred (and if that fails, defeated) with small arms.
A few items to consider first (Score:5, Insightful)
Are we really that politically correct now that even killing a pirate is wrong?
Oh you can kill them but there are a few things to consider first:
That said if you can shoot them dead, I'm pretty sure no one will mind. Provided you are in international waters AND you can prove your case that you didn't just murder someone AND you can explain why your ship is armed AND you can somehow figure out a way to kill a group of pirates that out numbers yours and is probably better armed.
Re:Pro-tip: Shoot them dead. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Pro-tip: Shoot them dead. (Score:3, Insightful)
That's a bad idea. Typically the pirates don't kill the crew. If you started having hostile crews using lethal force against pirates, you may see the pirates escalate their attack and use more deadly force. In the end everyone loses.
On the other hand, escalating it so the pirates have the potential of a real consequence (death versus sent back to shore with a slap on the wrist) is exactly what needs to happen. It would discourage them from trying to make easy money by being pirates, and put pressure on the vritually non-exist govt of their contries to do something about the problem.
Re:Pro-tip: Shoot them dead. (Score:5, Insightful)
Most of the people doing the actual "pirating" have been pushed to it by their government. The source of the problem isn't greed, it's necessity (with a decent payoff, too).
No, Somalia hasn't had an effective government in almost 20 years. If they had, there would be police and coast guard and someone to answer for the pirates. Territories are controlled by warlords, plain and simple.
They may have been pushed into piracy by their local warlords - by the lack of government, if you will, but not by the Somalian government.
But no matter why they became pirates, they are still pirates, and they deserve the same fate as pirates throughout history. Swift, irreversible justice. Doesn't matter if they're volunteers or conscripts, on drugs, just kids, old fishermen, or whatever -- they've all proven themselves by heading out to sea to commit murder. For each pirate sent to the bottom of the sea, the people back home become a little more scared, and a little less willing to head out on another attack.
The sea is a lot more brutal and less policed than Central Park, and things don't turn out nice and neat like a cop booking a mugger.
Re:And what happens.. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Pro-tip: Shoot them dead. (Score:5, Insightful)
Before you attempt to kill them, you have to be certain that they are a pirate. Legally certain, not just Slashdot certain.
As a general rule of thumb, there are three things that need to happen before deadly force is justified:
Pirates approaching a boat armed with AK-47s have met all three of those variables. They have the ability and opportunity to do the crew harm and have demonstrated an intent to do so. Under the laws of most nations you are entitled to respond with deadly force in such a scenario.
Fouling their prop doesn't require quite such a high standard of proof, and gets the job done
Yes it does. You can't just disable boats on the open ocean and leave their crews at the mercy of the sea and elements.
Re:And what happens.. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Pro-tip: Shoot them dead. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Pro-tip: Shoot them dead. (Score:3, Insightful)
Yes, it would. A semi-automatic rifle is exactly what you want for this. You've got guys in an open boat within a few hundred yards of you. Nice clear line of sight. A fully automatic weapon is just going to waste ammo. The only real use for full auto is suppression -- and that really isn't in the cards on the open ocean.
Shotguns would also be useful. Sometimes the pirates like to sneak aboard ship in the dark or during bad weather. The shotgun is the perfect weapon for that type of fighting.
Re:And what happens.. (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:A simple yet wrong answer (Score:3, Insightful)
But internal polling among Nautilus members has indicated a "hardening of attitudes" in recent months, with more calling for armed protection, Linington said.
Meaning what? 5 people thought it was a good idea before and 10 do now? The article conveniently provides no actual numbers or data - merely a vague assertion about "hardening of attitudes" that could mean almost anything. Nice sound bite though.
There has always been discussion about it. Doesn't mean it's a good idea or that any reputable shipping companies are spending a lot of time on the problem. Right now it's pretty clear that arming merchant ships is a waste of resources on an insignificant problem. A problem to watch carefully I'll grant but nothing more.
Re:Browning M2 - Accept No Substitutes (Score:5, Insightful)
Because oil tankers and bulk carriers turn on a dime like Ferrari's right. There are good reasons these ships do not go into port under their own power, they require pilot vessels and the bigger your ship the more pilots are required. Turning a bulk carrier will take several minutes especially if the vessel is already going at a good clip (try accelerating to 120 Kph in a minivan and see how manoeuvrable it is, water makes this effect worse).
The freighter is moving at speed X, the vessel is moving at speed Y, find speed X and speed Y and tell me how long it will take before the vessel catches up with the freighter if the starting distance is 2 Kilometres (you will learn to love the metric system). This is assuming the freighter does not decelerate to turn and the vessel is already travelling at full speed.
No it isn't, their intention isn't clear until shots are fired.
umm... fishing.
We've had boats that could fish that far off shore for hundreds of years, there are a lot of old trawlers (40's 50's and 60's, commercial fishing is not a new thing you know) in that area and most of them aren't pirate vessels.
Except the legal difficulties of allowing armed vessels into port or the logistical difficulties of ensuring every merchant vessel in that area is armed or the cost of ensuring that each merchant sailor is capable of operating and caring for a firearm or the risk that untrained and undisciplined merchant sailors will freeze up when they come under rocket or AK 47 fire or pirates will learn to co-ordinate their attacks and outnumber the merchantmen.
Well, apart from that it should be a cinch.
The best solution is to stop paying them, but who would go along with a crazy idea like that. (one could also have their loot boobytraped so they get killed after receiving it, the MOSSAD approved solution but this would be semi-effective at best)
Re:A few items to consider first (Score:5, Insightful)
This would only really be a probelm with permanent mounts, such as the aforementioned deck guns, while the heavy machine guns could easily be offloaded...
Easily? You're going to offload heavy weaponry while in international waters? Yes you can do it but easy isn't the word I'd use. Never mind that many incidents of piracy do not occur in international waters.
This way, a crew of military contractors could be transferred from ship to ship, along with their armament, to escort them through the dangerous area without ever nearing an unfriendly port themselves.
They already do this. Guess what? There still are problems. In places like the Strait of Malacca there are narrow areas where there are effectively no international waters. 50,000 vessels a year go through. Those contractors are subject to the local laws if they chase a pirate.
There are ways to work out the logistics if the laws cannot be changed.
Perhaps but not the economics. Armed escorts are very, very expensive. Arming ships is very very expensive. Shipping companies are frequently unprofitable and might not be able to pass on the costs to their customers. Until piracy becomes a MUCH bigger problem, the economics of the problem will be the strongest argument against arming merchant ships.
You have a very simplistic view of this problem. Seriously, if it was simply as easy as arming a merchant ship, don't you think they would have done it already?
Re:Problem already solved (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Pro-tip: Shoot them dead. (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't understand why everybody is hung up on this fear of 'making mistakes'. Why is it every time that somebody suggests arming potential victims somebody else comes along and starts worrying about friendly fire? It rarely works out that way in the real world. It's even less likely in a maritime setting.
Just stop and think about it for a moment. Small craft do not follow merchant ships around for no reason. They have a pretty good incentive to steer clear of them. When approached, the merchant ship will respond with a hailing device. If it's some innocent situation then this fact will be discovered fairly quickly. If the small craft is filled with guys armed with AK-47s whom match every change in course then it's a fairly safe assumption that they have nefarious intent.
Putting arms in the hands of the good guys does not turn them into trigger happy nutjobs that kill random innocent people at the slightest provocation. The three concepts that I outlined above are standard operating procedure for police departments and armed civilians around the world. This isn't rocket science.
Re:Golf balls? Ropes? Parachutes?! (Score:4, Insightful)
Fortunately he found the only found the only merchant ship within 50 nautical miles and was sailing to it to ask for help.
With a rocket launcher?
Re:And what happens.. (Score:4, Insightful)
The convenient thing about being a pirate, is that you tend not to give a fuck about laws..
huh? (Score:4, Insightful)
"Just another corp' making money from fear, while providing no real protection"
when you stop thinking, and depend upon stereotypes of behavior to describe the world around you, you defeat your own ideology by making yourself look brainless. fact #1: prop fouling is a valid tactic that works, and you say as much in your own comment. fact #2: there are real threats in this world, such as pirates off somalia
are pirates off somalia baseless fearmongering by big media to scare clueless fools... or real entities? then what the hell is "Just another corp' making money from fear" suppose to mean? pffft
Re:Pro-tip: Shoot them dead. (Score:3, Insightful)
I think the weapons lockers would be just fine. Restrict access to the captain and one or two of the other senior crew. We trust these guys to pilot tens of thousands of tons of steel without killing anyone. We can trust them with a few small arms.
Re:And what happens.. (Score:5, Insightful)
Pirates are lazy cowards; they're in it for the money. Make it not only unprofitable but also NASTY dangerous, and they'll find other lines of work.
And what ther lines of work are they going to find in Somalia? The pirates are mainly ex-fishermen, but the fishing grounds have been destroyed by overfishing by foreign factory ships and by foreign dumping of toxic waste. It's a subsistence area, so there's no other work. Are you going to let them move to your country to find work? If not then they have a choice of crime or starve, and you're never going to make it "nasty dangerous" enough to put off the person who would starve to death otherwise. As for stories of pirates making a fortune out of piracy -- well, you can bet they're not the ones at sea risking their necks; they're the ones on land with a nice chain of plausible deniability to dissociate them from what's happening at sea.
Re:Golf balls? Ropes? Parachutes?! (Score:5, Insightful)
From now on, whenever you think "lethal weapons on civilian ships would stop piracy", I want you to consider that this is the same as "lots of armed Chinese marines in Los Angeles Harbor would stop piracy". Then put yourself in the shoes of a President trying to push some kind of international convention permitting that.
Thank you.
Re:armed commercial fishing vessels (Score:4, Insightful)
When will you yanks learn that just throwing guns at a problem always makes it worse not better.
When you bring guns, they just bring bigger guns. And bombs and missiles. Just remember, pirates aren't going to give a crap about the same rules that limit what firepower a legal vessel can carry.
You start firing back, the pirates will just tool up with bigger guns and perhaps with RPGs etc. They will also reduce risk to themselves by shooting first instead of giving the crew a chance to surrender. They could just adopt a strategy of sinking boats first then taking whatever survivors a.k.a hostages are left from the sea.
Explain how is that better?
Re:Pro-tip: Shoot them dead. (Score:1, Insightful)
A ... gunslinging person. Please don't interfere with international politics.
All outcomes in politics, international or otherwise, are determined by the gun slingers.
Ghandi was shot, India is now a nuclear armed country. Pacifist sentiments indicate a lack of real-world understanding. Pacifism is the stuff of fairy tales.
Re:Why not real guns? (Score:4, Insightful)
"Never go to party's with metal detectors,
Sure it feels safe inside, but what about all those guys waiting outside with guns...
They know you ain't got one" - Chris Rock
Re:D....waving on the Internet (Score:2, Insightful)
First, this isn't about war in the middle east. Nobody here is advocating starting a war while actively avoiding military service.
Second, the pirates are aggressors. Slashdotters aren't suggesting merchants go out and hunt pirates, they're debating the merits of shooting back, and with what.
Re:armed commercial fishing vessels (Score:3, Insightful)
When you bring guns, they just bring bigger guns. And bombs and missiles. Just remember, pirates aren't going to give a crap about the same rules that limit what firepower a legal vessel can carry.
It's not a matter of throwing guns at them, it's a matter of throwing money at them.
To capture an unarmed vessel with 30 to 50 people on it, you need what, 5 or 6 people with assault rifles loaded in a fast skiff?
If we can deter those 5 or 6 people, they need more boats. If we can sink their skiffs, they need bigger or armored attack vessels. That one jump in cost alone takes the investment from a few thousand dollars to tens of thousands of dollars, and smaller cuts for the pirates.
Granted, the simplest solution is to run convoys through the areas where pirates tend to congregate and give them armed escorts. If the pirates are fool enough to attack, well, that sounds like a problem solving itself.
You start firing back, the pirates will just tool up with bigger guns and perhaps with RPGs etc. They will also reduce risk to themselves by shooting first instead of giving the crew a chance to surrender. They could just adopt a strategy of sinking boats first then taking whatever survivors a.k.a hostages are left from the sea.
This reminds me of the accepted protocol for airplane hostage-taking about a decade ago. The idea was to just keep calm and wait for the government to pay the ransom or whatever. Have you noticed how people find that idea laughable post-9/11? One ship gets sunk by pirates and that game is quickly over. The force that will be applied against would-be pirates will be overwhelming and devastating.
Re:armed commercial fishing vessels (Score:4, Insightful)
"When will you yanks learn that just throwing guns at a problem always makes it worse not better."
You're so right. After all, guns did nothing to stop the Nazis. If the crews of the captured ships just sat down nicely with the duly elected pirate representatives and met their perfectly reasonable requests to kidnap you and take your ship and cargo then I'm sure any remaining survivors would walk away happy.
"When you bring guns, they just bring bigger guns. And bombs and missiles. Just remember, pirates aren't going to give a crap about the same rules that limit what firepower a legal vessel can carry."
Yes, and before you know it all the pirates will have nuclear dreadnoughts and orbital particle cannons. Oh the humanity!
Or maybe they'd realize that getting shot and drowning at sea is a lot more likely than getting rich. And, being poor and unable to buy the latest Stark Industries weapons technology from the local Pirates R' Us, they'd find something better to do.
Hey, maybe I'm wrong. Either way, your suggested strategy of letting violent criminals do anything they want because stopping them might make them angry seems, well, unproductive.