DC police used sonic cannon to direct crowd flow during Women's March
1–10 of 216 posts
Re: DC police used sonic cannon to direct crowd flow during Women's March
#2I wonder what kind of hearing protection the police use while this is active. I feel like it'd be a hazardous job to operate this frequently.
Also, is it illegal for a civilian to own and use one?
Re: DC police used sonic cannon to direct crowd flow during Women's March
#3I'd like to know the protocol for the deployment of these sound cannons. If they first try to apply officers on the ground to direct crowds, and then deploy sonic cannons afterwards when the aforementioned fails, then i personally feel that's justifiable. However i'm not sure I agree with the use of such tech as a first line option, it screams dystopian to me personally.
Re: DC police used sonic cannon to direct crowd flow during Women's March
#4I'd like to know the protocol for the deployment of these sound cannons. If they first try to apply officers on the ground to direct crowds, and then deploy sonic cannons afterwards when the aforementioned fails, then i personally feel that's justifiable. However i'm not sure I agree with the use of such tech as a first line option, it screams dystopian to me personally.
Since the article says nobody was arrested it seems unlikely that the cannon was only used as a last resort on unruly crowds.
Re: DC police used sonic cannon to direct crowd flow during Women's March
#5I wonder what kind of hearing protection the police use while this is active. I feel like it'd be a hazardous job to operate this frequently. Also, is it illegal for a civilian to own and use one?
If the police are operating it so often that this is a serious concern it raises bigger questions.
Re: DC police used sonic cannon to direct crowd flow during Women's March
#6I'd like to know the protocol for the deployment of these sound cannons. If they first try to apply officers on the ground to direct crowds, and then deploy sonic cannons afterwards when the aforementioned fails, then i personally feel that's justifiable. However i'm not sure I agree with the use of such tech as a first line option, it screams dystopian to me personally.
If police are unable to control the crowd, at what point is that simply because the crowd is so large that the police should be unable to control them?
If the DDR had this sort of technology, would the Berlin wall still be standing? And, if so, would that be a good thing?
Re: DC police used sonic cannon to direct crowd flow during Women's March
#7I'd like to know the protocol for the deployment of these sound cannons. If they first try to apply officers on the ground to direct crowds, and then deploy sonic cannons afterwards when the aforementioned fails, then i personally feel that's justifiable. However i'm not sure I agree with the use of such tech as a first line option, it screams dystopian to me personally.
If police are unable to control the crowd, at what point is that simply because the crowd is so large that the police should be unable to control them? If the DDR had this sort of technology, would the Berlin wall still be standing? And, if so, would that be a good thing?
When the crowd is large enough to show up at the polls and get more votes for the candidate of their choice than anybody else. This is a democracy.
Re: DC police used sonic cannon to direct crowd flow during Women's March
#8I wonder what kind of hearing protection the police use while this is active. I feel like it'd be a hazardous job to operate this frequently. Also, is it illegal for a civilian to own and use one?
> Also, is it illegal for a civilian to own and use one?
I doubt it, it's basically just a large beamforming loudspeaker. I'd consider deploying them if I had a property I wanted to secure against wildlife or criminal elements. Granted, in cases where you operate it in a way which caused illegal harm to a person's hearing, you may be subject to negligence litigation. It would be wise to operate it at the lowest level which generates the desired effect, I suspect the police are more haphazard with their deployment because (fair or not) they are subject to less strict standards of behaviour in practice.
Added: LRAD corp. markets the device mostly for law enforcement/public safety, military, and emergency notification, however they also market it for private users in wildlife control, and there doesn't seem to be anything said about legal concerns (though it's possible that there's an existing process controlling use of devices for similar purposes such as propane cannons). Obviously any law concerning the propagation of loud noises in general would apply with LRADs all the same. A civilian user would not likely have an opportunity to use an LRAD outdoors in a populated area.
Re: DC police used sonic cannon to direct crowd flow during Women's March
#9Earlier quoted context omitted.
If police are unable to control the crowd, at what point is that simply because the crowd is so large that the police should be unable to control them? If the DDR had this sort of technology, would the Berlin wall still be standing? And, if so, would that be a good thing?
When the crowd is large enough to show up at the polls and get more votes for the candidate of their choice than anybody else. This is a democracy.
With the way districts are Gerrymandered, the electoral college and the amount of money required to even come to the fight: This is an oligarchy.
More people DID vote for Hillary. Fat lot of good it's doing us.
Re: DC police used sonic cannon to direct crowd flow during Women's March
#10There are legitimate (IMHO) uses for these. For example, a crowd panics and people start getting trampled. An LRAD can be used to communicate directions quickly at long range to help stop the panic.
The report sounds like the police were doing what they should be doing. Have the organizers of that March complained about police actions or disputed the report? If not, then I would tend to believe the report. If correct, then the use (or lack thereof) of the LRAD seems reasonable.
I'm apposed to abuse of power. Not power in and of itself. I think there have been significant abuses by police lately and in years past. But I also believe that these abuses do not represent all police.