A PROTEST that turns nasty is a tough challenge for law enforcers. Violent rioters sow confusion by mingling with peaceful protesters. The police are left with limited options, such as baton charges to capture ringleaders or indiscriminate tactics such as firing tear gas. Enter a new generation of non-lethal weapons: guns that send 50,000 volts through a person up to 100 metres away (see 鈥淪tun weapons to target crowds鈥�). But do the makers seriously think their weapons should be used for crowd control?
It is already a scandal that there has been no large-scale, independent study of the health effects of the Tasers used by police forces today. At least 40 people have died and one pregnant woman has miscarried after being stunned. In no case has the shock itself been blamed, but this is hardly surprising since we know so little about the impact of high voltages on the body.
Now consider a law enforcer turning a long-range device on a crowd. It will inevitably strike peaceful protesters, pregnant women and people with heart problems; it will hit sensitive parts of the body, such as the eye, and some people will be shocked repeatedly. Nobody knows what injuries will ensue.
Advertisement
If these weapons are to be turned on the public, people have a right to know what the dangers are. Non-lethal weapons may well have their place. But we cannot decide without the facts.