Incapacitating Chemical Agents: Coming Soon To Local Law Enforcement? 152
Lasrick writes To this day, Russian authorities refuse to disclose the incapacitating chemical agent (ICA) they employed in their attempt, 12 years ago, to save 900 hostages held in a theater by Chechen fighters. Malcom Dando elaborates on a new report (PDF) that Russia, China, Israel, and a slew of other countries are continuing research into ICAs, and the apparent indifference of the international community into such research. Proponents of ICAs have long promoted their use in a variety of scenarios, including that of law enforcement, because in theory these chemicals incapacitate without permanent disability. Critics, however, point out that these weapons rely on exact dosage to prevent fatality, and that the ability to 'deliver the right agent to the right people in the right dose without exposing the wrong people, or delivering the wrong dose' is a near-impossible expectation. ICAs represent the further misuse and militarization of the life sciences and a weakening of the taboo against the weaponization of toxic substances, and the idea that they could be used in law enforcement situations is a disturbing one."
Fentanyl (Score:3, Informative)
Isn't it common knowledge that the chemical they used was Fentanyl? A very powerful synthetic opiate. And isn't it also well known that a significant percentage of the hostages died as a result?
So much for 'incapacitate without permanent disability.' Another overkill weapon in the untrained hands of local law enforcement. Yay.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, the Russian government was not forced to pay any reimbursements for the survivors, as there were no physical disabilities as the result of using the agent on them.
TL;DR, dead people don't count as disabilities
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Well, the Russian government was not forced to pay any reimbursements for the survivors, as there were no physical disabilities as the result of using the agent on them.
dead people don't count as disabilities
To be fair, Putin might have changed that in 2013.
Now in Russia, the immediate families of terrorists are financially liable for the damages their family members caused [rt.com]. It's just too bad we don't have a law like that in the US, or the Bin Laden [wikipedia.org] family would have had Osama Bin Laden killed, or imprisoned, as a financial precaution for preserving its billions of dollars.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Third cousins cannot be argued to be "immediate family".
Re: (Score:1)
It's just too bad we don't have a law like that in the US, or the Bin Laden [wikipedia.org] family would have had Osama Bin Laden killed, or imprisoned, as a financial precaution for preserving its billions of dollars.
Ah, hereditary guilt. It is practiced in North Korea.
Well, some people still argue like that when they blame currently living Germans for things done by a previous generation. Then again, the same reasoning is used to argue for the extermination of all Jews since they are responsible for killing Jesus. (Never mind that Jesus was a Jew.)
Hereditary guilt is a barbaric custom and regarding Osama, CIA had more to do with him going nuts when they gave him terrorist training, helped him built up al-Qaida and used
Re: (Score:2)
Because you like it when the US goes full retard? Punishing people for the actions of their family members is stupid when Israel does it and it'd be equally stupid if America did it. There's no rational reason to restrict it to just terrorism offences, the only reason it would be is because people are completely irrational when it comes to terrorism.
Re: (Score:2)
And that right there is another argument against holding relatives accountable for the actions their family members take. Let's say today it is only applied to terrorism. A couple years down the road, someone shoots up a bunch of people and kills himself. There's a big push for his family to be held accountable (perhaps they are part of an unfavorably viewed minority) and they are. The next crime is less heinous but now there's a preced
Re: (Score:2)
The 3rd Reich was also doing this excessively. That is why the German Constitution has a specific, non-changeable, provision against it.
Re: (Score:2)
That is contrary to fundamental legal principles.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Fentanyl (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
That's because you have a soul.
Re: (Score:1)
And wait for them to use that like some officer with its pepper spray against peaceful protesters, or some other officer tasing a student during a forum in an university for asking too much questions to a senator... Double yay.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, it was fentanyl. It kills by stopping the automatic breathing pattern. Victims suffocate.
My wife is on a low dose of it for her back pain. She used to be on a much higher dosage, and on bad days, I didn't sleep at night. I had to stay awake to shake her every few minutes to get her breathing again. But it did make the pain go away.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, insisting on using the exact derivative of fentanyl is being over pedantic.
Bad Russians... baaaaad (Score:5, Funny)
US-Americans would NEVER do such things.
Re: (Score:2)
Joe Biden for 2016 (Score:1)
Joe Biden is a square shooter. Joe Biden for 2016
Re: (Score:2)
They'll get some of those famous non-US-Americans (or US-non-Americans) from Gitmo to do the job for them. With implausible deniability, of course.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Funny this. I live in an urban part of Texas in a city of over a million people. Yes, Texas... where the gun ranges have single's nights, and where possession of more than four dildos is considered a felony.
In the past 20 years, I've yet to hear a single gunshot in the city other than the shots fired at ranges. The local PD isn't lining up people on the wall and executing them. The prisons are actually winding up slowly being emptied (due to judges not slapping long sentences on some goob caught with hi
Re: (Score:2)
The exodus is happening, but only by people that spent some time in Europe. I happen to know a few. The others still think that the US is the pinnacle of creation. That belief vanishes surprisingly fast when people get a good look how things really are elsewhere.
The right track? (Score:1)
Until a proper stun setting is found, it must at least be given up to law enforcement to for researching non-lethal means of control. Even the recent events in Ferguson demonstrate the desperate need here. And perhaps, when lethal weapons are done away with those who don't belong in law enforcement will leave?
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Until a proper stun setting is found, it must at least be given up to law enforcement to for researching non-lethal means of control. Even the recent events in Ferguson demonstrate the desperate need here. And perhaps, when lethal weapons are done away with those who don't belong in law enforcement will leave?
The argument for non-lethal weapons is that they can be used instead of lethal weapons. Unfortunately that isn't how they are being used now. Police use non-lethal weapons where it would never have been acceptable to use lethal weapons before.
For example it would never be acceptable to shoot a person who argues about his constitutional rights with the police officer in a non-violent manner but refuses to back off but still police wouldn't hesitate to use a taser gun against such a person.
Of course the polic
I guess you missed Kent State? (Score:1, Interesting)
Non-lethal weapons would allow protestors to protest without getting killed. It is fair easier for a live person to argue their case in court than a corpse. The important thing here is to take away the governments ability to kill.
Re:I guess you missed Kent State? (Score:5, Insightful)
Protestors should be able to protest WITHOUT the police using either lethal or non-lethal weapons against them.
Except that you are not doing that.
You are providing the police with pain-compliance (aka "torture") devices.
And as can be seen in many news reports, once the police/government has them, they will use them. And that use will not be INSTEAD of more lethal options. They will be used when the victims do not IMMEDIATELY follow the orders of the police. Even if those orders are illegal to begin with.
Those weapons will be treated as a "force multiplier". Not as a preferred option over lethal force.
Re:I guess you missed Kent State? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Thanks for your insightful post. It makes sense and I agree, except that I understand from first hand accounts that sometimes protests and demonstrations attract people that are there expressly to get into fights with the police, so it's not always only AFTER the melee starts that they act. Sometimes these elements actively incite the conflicts. However, that doesn't take away from your point that the police showing up in riot gear is starting with an escalation.
NPR had an article a few weeks back about exa
Re: (Score:2)
A) so would a fence
B) cops have no interest in keeping kids off your lawn.
Re: (Score:2)
The counter argument though is the non-lethal weapons lower the hurdle for use of weapons at all. Any cop knows the outcome of using his service pistol against someone is likely that someones death. Most cops being decent people don't WANT to kill people.
Most cops however like all people value their own safety if you give them a tool like a taser and tell them it won't likely cause serious injury they become very likely to use it anytime the situation gets "tense" its the safe way out for them. They won'
Re: (Score:1)
Again, I hold Kent State up as an example where non-lethal force would have benefited the protestors. Once dead, their said of the story can't be heard.
Just another trolley problem (Score:1)
Exact dosage is impossible, so how many civilian casualties are acceptable per knocked out assailant? Will you passively let people be killed by not using the gas, or actively kill a few to save more?
I don't understand how this situation can be interesting enough to dedicate newspaper articles to it over and over. It never changes. The answers never change. People arguing that theirs is the only correct one never change. Maybe condemning the actions of others of a different ethical persuasion never gets old
Geneva Convention? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Because the Chemical Weapons Convention [opcw.org] explicitly allows it:
My guess is that countries wanted to prohibit an opponent from using it on them (in case TPTB weren't prepared) but wanted to reserve the right to use it on citizens (when TPTB are prepared).
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
It's not the Geneva Convention, it's the Chemical Weapons Convention.
Re: (Score:2)
Why do governments need this ? (Score:1)
At what point do we decide that giving the ruling classes more and more technological weapons to use against its citizens is a sign that our system of government has failed ? i think that happened a while ago to be honest. If your government needs weapons to stay in power its not leadership its tyranny.
I reject the assumption that the worlds need weapons to be safe , we need NO weapons to be truely safe.
VICTORIA SNELGROVE (Score:5, Informative)
In 2004, VIctoria Snelgrove was hit in the eye with a pepper spray bullet by the Boston Police as part of crowd control (for a non-riotous crowd that was not responding to their commands). She subsequently died of her injury.
Non-lethal ICA? No such thing.
Re: (Score:2)
They seem to have moved to the description "less lethal" when talking about weapons of this class, especially projectile weapons like pepper spray pellet guns and the "rubber" bullets used in extreme riot control circumstances.
Re: (Score:2)
Wait, do you mean to say someone DIED from GETTING SHOT IN THE EYE? What the fuck? That doesn't make any sense at all.
A tragedy, but stretching the bounds of relevance (Score:2)
Look, even the summary above makes it clear that "lethality" is usually dose-dependent, and that dosage control is practically impossible in most real-world crowd-control situations. The Snelgrove tragedy is completely unrelated to that issue.
Whether the police are shooting rounds of pepper spray, lead, VX, or candy-canes, if one of them enters your eye socket at high enough velocity, it's unlikely to be "non-lethal". Let's stay focused on the real issue here, the mythology of "non-lethal" chemical incapaci
Re: (Score:2)
It wasn't the chemicals, as you point out, but the penetrating object that killed her. She bled out. If she hadn't bled out, she would have likely suffered severe brain damage as skull and projectile fragments entered her cranium.
The relevance being, also as you point out, that shooting anything into the face is a bad idea when non-lethality is the intent. But any chemical that is going to be delivered in such a way has exactly that potential, as do rubber bullets (have you seen what those do? non-letha
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
My first thought was -- what if it hits a kid or small adult? I'd guess their dosage assumes a roughly 150 pound adult, because that way it'll stop the "more dangerous" persons. I guess anyone under the presumed body mass had better not get hit, eh?
Only To Be Expected (Score:5, Insightful)
As the USA nears bottom in its slide toward becoming a complete corporatist police state, I see no surprises in any new "law enforcement tool". Hell, the cops have AFV's, drones, and crew-served weapons. Why not chem warfare, right?
Re: (Score:3)
What we are seeing is the US and China becoming more like each other:
China turning into a consumerist, polluting, financial behemoth, while the CCP keeps control
The US turning into a self-censoring, pseudo-police state.
LOL at "Chechen fighters"... (Score:1)
Surely you meant MUSLIMS? Afraid to tell the truth? Who needs the truth, when we can lie about reality, and allow thousands more people to be killed by muslims?
Scary Stuff (Score:5, Interesting)
During the raid, all 40 of the attackers were killed, with no casualties among spetznas, but about 130 hostages died due to adverse reactions to the gas (including nine foreigners).[3] All but two of the hostages who died during the siege were killed by the toxic substance pumped into the theater to subdue the militants.[4][5] The use of the gas was widely condemned as heavy-handed, but the American and British governments deemed Russia's actions justifiable.[6] Physicians in Moscow condemned the refusal to disclose the identity of the gas that prevented them from saving more lives. Some reports said the drug naloxone was successfully used to save some hostages.[7]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Within days it was widely reported in both US and Russian media that the aerosol used was Fentanyl or some related/derivative agent.
No, Russia has never said specifically what it was that they used, but I wouldn't expect any country to disclose the tools they use for anti-terror operations.
Re: (Score:1)
I recall that, makes sense if they used Naloxone to revive a few, hard to say what would have happened if they hadn't used the gas but the body count was far to high.
The thing that troubles me is the Western governments acceptance of the use of it.
Research in this area is probably a good thing. (Score:2)
Research in this area is probably a good thing if done right. Mace, tear gas, and stun guns are not
very effective in a large crowd or hostage situation. I agree with the article that current methods
rely on exact dosage to prevent fatality but it's highly probable that we can find better chemicals that don't.
Marijuana is one of many known substances where the effective dose and the lethal dose are orders of
magnitude apart. Research into incapacitating substances with very low effective doses but very high
Re: (Score:2)
You could also quickly and easily negate any sort of protest... including protests against using chemical restraint on the public.
Who are the "bad guys" is generally dependent on what laws you have and who enforces them. YOUR side won't always be in charge.
Re: (Score:2)
You could also quickly and easily negate any sort of protest... including protests against using chemical restraint on the public.
Who are the "bad guys" is generally dependent on what laws you have and who enforces them. YOUR side won't always be in charge.
Regardless of which side I was on, I would prefer something safer than the current solutions. Anything has the potential to be
abused but that doesn't mean we should ban research on it just because of a potential. The bar is pretty low. It should be
relatively easy to find something better than mace, tear gas, and mustard gas. Finding something safer would benefit you
regardless of which side of the conflict you are one.
Re: (Score:2)
Safer is good (and more information via research is good too), but I think what will happen is more use against the public for more trivial reasons, because after all, it's "safe".
Kinda like how pepper spray and tasers were safer than being shot, and LEOs became inclined to use them against the most trivial or even no resistance.
Re: (Score:2)
Unfortunately this is part of human nature. It's why many safety devices like child resistant medicine bottles
don't actually give as good as result as they should. I've actually seen multiple different parents give their
child a prescription pill bottle to play with as a rattle to keep them quiet. There are plenty of other safety devices
like anti-lock brakes where changes in behavior negates most if not all of the gain in safety.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, I remember someone mentioned how requiring bicycle helmets correlates with an increase in serious car-vs-bike accidents, presumably because of the false sense of security (but also probably because it impacts peripheral vision -- we use that far more than we're consciously aware).
Or as someone's sig says, "Safety is a tyrant's tool; no one can oppose safety."
With enough such tools, it becomes possible to oppress the citizenry in complete "safety".
Re: (Score:2)
Biology doesn't work that way. juts because a substance would be really convenient doesn't mean it's chemically possible for it to exist.
I might agreed with you except that we already have substances with a large spread between effective dose and lethal dose.
Rendering someone incapacitated is inherently dangerous because simply banging your head as you fall from standing to prone can be deadly.
I didn't say it would be 100% safe but that the bar is extremely low and it should be possible to improve on what we have now.
Let's be clear (Score:3)
"... their attempt, 12 years ago, to save 900 hostages held in a theater by Chechen fighters."
In fact, 130 of those hostages died due to the gas. Is that a victory? Is that considered an effective tactic?
Re: (Score:1)
Considering the shrapnel embedded in suicide belts (worn by the women terrorists) that could have gone off, that 130 could have been the whole 900, so most likely a net positive.
Re: (Score:2)
To the Russians....absolutely. The point of hostages is to prevent authorities from storming the building. The Russians tend to respond to this by saying: "Doesn't matter, we'll kill everyone if we have to, but we will make damned sure we kill you..."
Makes hostage taking much less effective as a tactic.
The Russians/USSR did the same thing to Arabs during the 70's/80's when taking hostages was the fad...
So the story goes, some Soviet Diplomats were kidnapped in Lebanon. The Soviets send in an Alpha team,
Evolutionary pressure (Score:2)
Evolutionary pressure will tend to select for individuals who can survive and resist these agents.
Five generations, maybe ten, and we'll have a sub-population of insurgents who drink incapacitant agents from breakfast.
How about using pot? (Score:3)
It calms people down, and since there are no THC receptors in the brainstem, high doses aren't life-threatening. You might need a lot of it though, and an unintended consequence may be that people would deliberately try to get police to use it on them.
Gaseous Fentanyle (Score:2)
The mysterious gas is Fentanyle, in gaseus form, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F... [wikipedia.org] .Fentanyle is 100 times more potent than morphine
This particular Fentanyle has been manufactured and supplied by one pharmaceutical manufacturer in Kaunas, Lithuania, albeit prior to 1991. There were investigative journalists who have covered this topic exhaustively, in details several years ago.
Fentanyle has been used in Nord Ost operation and it was not a success. Hundreds of hostages died from overdose and Russians do not
Memory (Score:3)
" A gas, it is presumed, based on a derivative of fentanyl was used in 2002 in the Moscow theatre hostage crisis to incapacitate Chechen terrorist attackers (and their hostages) too quickly for them to retaliate. More than 15% of those affected died, including 117 of the 800 hostages. "
As far as I'm concerned, the police forces of the United States do not need any further toys to play with / test out on their " battlefield ". We already have more than enough evidence of less than lethal devices ( read that Tasers ) being used as compliance devices instead of the non-lethal alternatives they were supposed to be.
In other words, if the officer has no justification in drawing his firearm, he also has no justification in pulling the Taser either.
Until we have a full blown independent system that polices the police, we don't need to provide them with any more means to terrorize the citizens of this country. Trust in Law Enforcement is already at an all time low in this country. If they keep pushing, they may soon get the " battlefield " they've always wanted. Unfortunately for them, battlefields are rarely one-way affairs. If they consider us the enemy, ( any non-LE typically is the enemy in their eyes ) then they had best realize we vastly outnumber and outgun them in every aspect.
For you LE's out there, imagine a job where you are in harms way every moment of every day from every citizen of this country. If you don't start culling the bad apples out, we'll simply start viewing you as you do us.
As the enemy.
When that day comes, (insert your favorite deity here) help you.
"They died resisting arrest & disregarding ord (Score:2)
"We ordered them to freeze and stop all movement. They kept breathing. They brought their deaths on themselves."
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
However thanks for sharing your hate and ignorance.
Re:die by taser or gas? (Score:5, Informative)
FYI, the federal definition of terrorism:
- - - - - - - -
18 U.S.C. 2331 defines "international terrorism" and "domestic terrorism" for purposes of Chapter 113B of the Code, entitled "Terrorism”:
"International terrorism" means activities with the following three characteristics:
* Involve violent acts or acts dangerous to human life that violate federal or state law;
* Appear to be intended (i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; (ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or (iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping; and
* Occur primarily outside the territorial jurisdiction of the U.S., or transcend national boundaries in terms of the means by which they are accomplished, the persons they appear intended to intimidate or coerce, or the locale in which their perpetrators operate or seek asylum.*
"Domestic terrorism" means activities with the following three characteristics:
* Involve acts dangerous to human life that violate federal or state law;
* Appear intended (i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; (ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or (iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination. or kidnapping; and
* Occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the U.S.
18 U.S.C. 2332b defines the term "federal crime of terrorism" as an offense that:
* Is calculated to influence or affect the conduct of government by intimidation or coercion, or to retaliate against government conduct; and
* Is a violation of one of several listed statutes, including 930(c) (relating to killing or attempted killing during an attack on a federal facility with a dangerous weapon); and 1114 (relating to killing or attempted killing of officers and employees of the U.S.).
FISA defines "international terrorism" in a nearly identical way, replacing "primarily" outside the U.S. with "totally" outside the U.S. 50 U.S.C. 1801(c).
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
Re: (Score:1)
domestic or foreign?
Re: (Score:2)
Those sound like pretty decent definitions, apart from the use of the word "appear", which means those definitions are entirely subjective, and allow someone who had no political motive behind their heinous crimes to be labelled a terrorist when they were not trying to coerce public opinion.
They also clearly define plenty of actions by the US government as terrorist in nature, but I'm sure Fox News wouldn't discuss that...
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3)
I didn't know Occupy, the Tea Party, gun owners, and people who buy stuff with cash were "barely anybody."
All groups that were put on a terrorist watch list at some point or another, and I know I left a bunch out.
Re:die by taser or gas? (Score:4, Insightful)
Also, if you can save 400 of 500 in a hostage situation and catch all the 10+ terrorists. Go for it. The terrorists would kill them anyway and if they escape, they can continue their business.
"if you can save 400 of 500 in a hostage situation " - Is this the best way to save them? Is this the way to save the most of them?
"catch all the 10+ terrorists" - Who judged them? Who decided they are terrorists?
"The terrorists would kill them anyway" - Are you a Oracle? Do the police employ oracles or futurologists?
"if they escape, they can continue their business" - Are you sure?
So, your scenario is:
1 - The official "police judge" condemns the terrorists with his judging powers that don't require lawyers, juries nor all that hassle.
2 - The official "police oracles" see the future to know how many innocents would the terrorists kill.
3 - Based on the police judge's decision and the police oracle's prediction, the best possible result "killing just a few of the innocents to capture the guilty" is selected and applied with the new weapon.
Re: (Score:2)
Do the police employ oracles or futurologists?
It certainly seems so. [oracle.com]
Re:die by taser or gas? (Score:5, Insightful)
Your concern for the hostages is appropriate. While a crime is in progress, the police should be concerned with reducing the number of victims, as well as reducing the suffering of the remaining victims.
The concern for the criminals during the time of the crime is misplaced. The legal process is how we deal with the aftermath of a crime, not the crime itself. You're right is being careful with the label "terrorist"; that relates to motive. Wed need a trial to establish that. I use "criminal" because that broader label is appropriate during any crime. " Hostage takers" would have worked too, here. Condemning them isn't necessary - they're in the act of committing a crime.
It's incredibly naive to assume hostage takers won't kill the hostages, so force is always appropriate. The relevant question then becomes how much force to apply, as any form of force also places the hostages at a risk. The single relevant question thus is, what is the lower risk to the hostages? The best bet is to look at historical outcomes in comparable situations. This is complex. It depends on the number of hostage takers and hostages, the site, time, the background of the hostage taker, etcetera.
That said, negotiation helps with an ill-prepared bank robber turning hostage taker. 10 hostage takers and 500 hostages indicates a lot of preparation, and strongly points at a lack of negotiation options.
Re: (Score:1)
The concern for the criminals during the time of the crime is misplaced.
What about my concern on who decides they are criminals? What if I don't trust the police to make such judgement?
Condemning them isn't necessary - they're in the act of committing a crime.
A crime which sentence is to be decided by judges. Otherwise we might as well replace cops with snipers.
The relevant question then becomes how much force to apply, as any form of force also places the hostages at a risk. The single relevant question thus is, what is the lower risk to the hostages? The best bet is to look at historical outcomes in comparable situations. This is complex. It depends on the number of hostage takers and hostages, the site, time, the background of the hostage taker, etcetera.
That said, negotiation helps with an ill-prepared bank robber turning hostage taker. 10 hostage takers and 500 hostages indicates a lot of preparation, and strongly points at a lack of negotiation options.
I fully agree on the question, but not on the answer. I simply do not wish the police to have the right to decide how many hostages it's ok to kill in a hostage situation. And giving them the weapons to apply the result of that decision is too close to implying they have the right to take it.
I
Re: (Score:2)
Until individual state legislatures start passing laws allowing their local jurisdictions to declare individuals (and groups) terrorists, your "cop judge" theory is a none-starter (for now).
Re: (Score:1)
What about my concern on who decides they are criminals? What if I don't trust the police to make such judgement?
If people with guns are pointing them at other people without guns, and state they will kill them unless 'x', I'd say the room for error in judgement is rather small, probably so close to 0 that error is impossible.
I fully agree on the question, but not on the answer. I simply do not wish the police to have the right to decide how many hostages it's ok to kill in a hostage situation. And giving them the weapons to apply the result of that decision is too close to implying they have the right to take it.
I think everyone reasonable agrees that the decision in such a situation is an extremely hard one. For me, that's precisely the reason to place the burden of making that decision far from the people we use to protect us from common criminals. Because those people are the most biased on precisely the taking of that kind of decisions.
In the case of the Russians, I believe that decision was made all the way at the top circles, if not the top. Israel, as well, was at the top. Do you have a case where such a decision was made by a local street policeman? Or even a sergeant? Instead of attacking windmills, how about focusing on s
Re: (Score:1)
Problem is, if you start placing that kind of restriction, the process becomes so bureaucratic that no decision will be made in time, and your hostages might be butchered while you wait for the authorized decision maker to answer his fucking cellphone and greenlight the appropriate course of action.
So, it becomes a situation with no optimal solution. Whatever you do, you are going to compromise.
Re: (Score:1)
"The relevant question then becomes how much force to apply"
This is not the relevant question at all. During a hostage situation the use of force is far more likely to escalate the situation into one that would result in the death of hostages. A better solution would be to see if the hostage takers could be talked down. This is normally the first response of any decent policing unit.
As you yourself point out negotiation is relevant for small bank robbers, and it is also true for large hostage situations.
Re: (Score:2)
Yay, thanks for explaining for me. This is exactly what i meant. When there are 500 people held by a largeish number of hostage takers, it is not normal crime but terrorism. Sharpshooters or negotiations won't help. Obviously, i didn't meant to gas a bank building during a botched bankrobbery, but meant obvious terrorist acts, like the russian case.
In such cases, saving 400 out of 500 is actually a victory.
Re: (Score:2)
Also for once the summary is spot on: "these weapons rely on exact dosage to prevent fatality, and that the ability to deliver the right agent to the right people in the right dose without exposing the wrong people, or delivering the wrong dose' is a near-impossible expectation". Maybe you should have read it. Or remembered that in the russian vs Chechen situati
Re:die by taser or gas? (Score:4, Insightful)
Meanwhile, if you have 5000 peaceful protesters refusing to clear out of a park, hey, so a thousand accidentally die. Meh, go ahead and gas 'em, Lou!
I think you underestimate the mindset of the police. The People had it way better when a cop needed to decide whether you posed enough of a threat to actually shoot you, and then need to justify that decision later. Now, they tase first and ask questions later. 6YO girl crying because you arrested mom? Tase. 85YO confused grannie in a panic over a situation she doesn't understand? Tase. Passenger in a car peacefully insisting you respect his civil rights? Tase.
ICAs will just make it easier for police to apply the same reasoning to large groups, rather than to individuals.
BTW, a clarification on the FP - The "unknown" agent used by Russia consisted of a fentanyl analog - An ultra-strong opiate. For reference, as high as 9% of people have a potentially fatal allergic reaction to opiates; on top of that, individuals have a wide range of responses even when given a known dose; some people can take enough morphine to kill an elephant, while others take half of a Tylenol-II and drool on themselves for the next six hours. Using opiates as crowd control will both cause needless deaths and leave a significant fraction of the crowd basically unimpaired.
Re: (Score:2)
That's a bit unnerving, given the prevalence of smoking in Russia. Ether's therapeutic index isn't terrible, but when mixed with air and exposed to an ignition source, it turns into a fuel-air bomb, significantly impairing its "non-lethality".