Slippery Slime Developed to Control Crowds 589
powlow writes "Southwest Research Institute (press release )developed a non-hazardous chemical spray system that spreads a highly slippery, viscous gel (which the lab designated a "mobility denial system" and dubbed "banana peel
in a can") to inhibit the movement of individuals or vehicles on treated surfaces. Marines Corps believes it can be used for crowd control. (Defense Technical Information Center's PDF Report) In tests, volunteers attempted in vain to walk across a lawn sprayed
with the slime, and in fact, had they not been safety-harnessed during the tests, many would have broken bones."
Many would have broken bones? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Many would have broken bones? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Many would have broken bones? (Score:5, Insightful)
Even if they design the stuff to wear off after a certain amount of time, you're going to have some bruised and pissed off rioters on your hands.
Like I saw mentioned in another post, what happens if someone gets seriously injured? This just seems to be one giant lawsuit waiting to happen. I think they should focus their energy and time more on preventing riots than dealing with them, especially in manners like this.
Re:Many would have broken bones? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Many would have broken bones? (Score:2, Insightful)
And just how is a government going to prevent riots? This seems like a naive wish. I think the cure would be worse than the disease, while the disease is always a symptom of something which no amount of well wishing will cure.
Re:You forgot the most important one. (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Many would have broken bones? (Score:3, Informative)
How often do you see a police blockade for things like this? No need for an entire police batallion carrying large shields--just a bit of goo and a couple of warning cones is all ya need!
Re:Many would have broken bones? (Score:5, Interesting)
Not always. During the WTO demonstrations in London last summer, the response to a very small proportion of violent demonstrators was to box large numbers of (overwhelmingly peaceful) people in and stop them leaving. We're talking all day here, until the demonstraters were cold, hungry and just wanted to go home. Illegal detention, say the detractors; screw the damn hippies, say proponents (when translated from Weaselese).
Any device that gives control is going to be looked on favourably.
To give some perspective, credit where credit is due: British riot police have learned some long, hard lessons, and are, I think, the finest in the world.
I participate in fairly large scale historic reenactments including shield wall and mixed infantry and cavalry actions. In fact, reenactors were solicited as police extras in a recent film about the 1984 British miner's strike, because we are used to doing shieldwalls and charges.
But our level of expertise stops at the 1984 level, when the British riot police used haphazard tactics and made a lot of mistakes. Eighteen years later, they are simply astonishing to watch in action, and they do it (largely) without using chemical weapons or firearms or even batons, they do it through slick manouvres and integrated foot and horse actions that put the right amount of deterrent in the right place at the right time, to stop conflicts before they start.
Argue the morality of controlling political demonstrations, but don't forget that crowd control also involves preventing injury at otherwise good natured public events. And you can definitely do that without fancy chemical weapons, you just have to invest in training. Crowd control is about people, not about technology.
Re:Many would have broken bones? (Score:4, Funny)
Not if they are rioting on a steep hill.
Re:Many would have broken bones? (Score:3, Informative)
"Riots, protests, noncombatant evacuations, and sanction enforcement are just a few of the situations where this kind of tactical barrier would be most useful," says Capt. Andrew B. Warren, MDS project officer for Marine Corps Systems Command, headquartered in Quantico, Va.
...
"The concept of employment for this system is to be part of a barrier or obstacle plan that will provide stand-off distance and force protection for U.S. military personnel," says Warren. "The MDS will be applicable in many different missions to include checkpoint operations, denying avenues of approach, and dealing with confrontational crowds."
Not for crowd control. Not for encouraging dispersal. It's purpose is as a quickly deployed barrier against incursion by people or vehicles that they need to be kept out.
And people get injured in riots and attacks all the time. Current old-fasioned non-lethal weapons are, in fact, _designed_ to injure, in preference to killing outright. There are some circumstances where you have to stop people from doing violent things, particularly in millitary situations.
Re:Many would have broken bones? (Score:3, Interesting)
id say the process of using it would be considered "non-lethal", but i suppose that certainly somebody could crack their skull open in a fall, but the site does say it "will help the Marines stop or deter threats without the use of deadly force."
beats the heck out of shootin people, but could really could cause a lot of injuries too it sounds like
Ask your local black bloc (Score:3, Informative)
The mass anti-corporate globalization protests over the past three years have seen the development of some fairly effective, DIY defense tactics against "non-lethal" crowd control measures.
Tear gas and pepper spray? Bandanna soaked with cider or vinegar on the low end, gas mask on the high end, full-coverage clothing. Gas masks are especially preferable if the riot troopers are especially teargas-happy.
Batons and rubber bullets? Shields, helmets, padding, and loads of backup.
I haven't learned of any reasonable defenses against taser attacks yet, and they have been used on occasion (I'm specifically thinking of a few incidents during the Ottawa G20/IMF/WB protests last November). Something would be needed to block the electrodes; hockey pads, perhaps? Sometimes, dogs will also be used (again, Ottawa G20), and there's just not much you can do when a well-trained Fido decides to gnaw on your leg. Again, padding, perhaps sports pads.
This stuff? Skis, high-traction footwear, maybe carry something to dissolve the slime. Perhaps sandbags might become the next big thing at protests?
Re:Many would have broken bones? (Score:3, Interesting)
Non-lethal is ver relative. CS (tear) gas is one of the least lethal and hurtful ways of dispersing a crowd but rarely used. I went through the CS test in the military, not comforable but not very painful.
Re:Many would have broken bones? (Score:3, Funny)
(ot) In the Dominican Republic, I saw the strangest thing. There was a huelga (translates as strike, but more resembels a riot). There were rocks and molitov cocktails being thrown by protestors, and tear gas and rubber bullets being shot by police. At noon, everyone went home for lunch and then siesta, at 2:00 everyone came back and resumed the protest.
As for the goo, I tend to doubt it will be used ON protestors. More likely it will be used to prevent passage across a particular area. Slime a nice perimeter around something, and it makes it very difficult to get through. It would be a good substitute for a fence when you need a barrier in a few seconds.
Re:Many would have broken bones? (Score:3, Funny)
This was rejected half a century ago. (Score:4, Informative)
"Liquid banana peel" - either this or another one - was invented in the late '60s (as a water-cannon additive) and rejected at that time.
Test subjects wearing helmets and knee/elbow pads were shown in promos, but even some of them were injured.
Imagine a crowd down, many with compound fractures, and the paramedics trying to fish them out and patch them up before they bleed to death.
Then imagine the paramedics too slippery to help - or to go help anyone else.
Then imagine the floor of the emergency room with slick spots from stuff transferred from patients.
Then imagine it during a city-wide riot, with burning and looting.
skating? (Score:3, Insightful)
Ralf
Re:skating? (Score:2, Funny)
Those shoes are also quite nice to step on any policeman that happens to have fallen over (should not be that rare, if they stepped on the goo themselves in the heat of the moment...)
Marine Corps? (Score:2)
Is there something I'm missing?
Re:Marine Corps? (Score:2, Informative)
"Throughout the past decade, the U.S. Marine Corps has been tasked with establishing and maintaining law and order, countering civil disturbances, and responding to various threats around the globe."
""Riots, protests, noncombatant evacuations, and sanction enforcement are just a few of the situations where this kind of tactical barrier would be most useful," says Capt. Andrew B. Warren, MDS project officer for Marine Corps Systems Command"
Re:Marine Corps? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Bad guys (Score:2)
Re:Marine Corps? (Score:3, Interesting)
Our elected officials have this notion in their head that the Marine Corps is the world's 911 force. Somalia was a hell of a wake up call for the Marines. Until that time, they didn't really spend any time training for crowd control or less than lethal methods of controlling or attacking people. Why should they? It wasn't their job to do so. Let the MPs deal with that shit!
Well, they've since woken up and realized that it is now their job to do so, for good or bad. I've been to Quantico during the phase of The Basic School (the officer training program through which *all* Marine Corps officers go and learn to be rifle platoon leaders) which they are taught riot control. It's quite impressive.
Should the Marines should have to deal with this shit? That's another discussion all together (and I'm sure that you can guess my opinion). But the reality is that as long as our elected officials keep sending them into giving them missions where crowd control is required, the Marine Corps will keep training for it.
Kevin
Re:Marine Corps? (Score:2, Funny)
In that case it'd be better to use high pressure, large diameter hoses and spray the hungry rioters with a delicious mixture of mashed potatoes, sausage gravy, syrup, and Jell-O. Of course you'd want to heat it to around 150-180 degrees first, so it might not be practical.
Re:Marine Corps? (Score:3, Funny)
There is no such thing as a mixure of those four ingredients that can be qualified with the characteristic "delicious".
--
Evan
Field tests (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Field tests (Score:2)
Personally, I could't get the old Slip'NSlide [thetoyguy.com] commercial's song out of my head. Adding in a nice mardi gras orgy does wonders for the visual image though. Thx man.
"Sliiiii-IP! Slip-'N-Slide! Sliiiii-IP! Slip-'N-Slide!.."
Re:Field tests (Score:2)
Re:Field tests (Score:3, Funny)
Kintanon
Broken Bones?? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Broken Bones?? (Score:2, Informative)
However, with falls like this onto a city street, paralyis and getting one's eye poked out may be a danger too.. i'm not really sure how probably that is, anyone know the facts?
Re:Broken Bones?? (Score:5, Informative)
Weeeelllllllll....
One, two, five canisters, you might be OK. Once you're downwind of twenty-plus canisters, things start getting iffy.
Numerous women reported early periods after the April 2001 Quebec City protests, which saw over 1000 canisters of tear gas being lobbed at peaceful, boisterous protesters from behind a 4km-long fence. It is thought that three different varieties of gas were used during the actions.
Less-Lethal Technology (Score:3, Informative)
- Rubber Bullets / Bean Bag Rounds (can cause permanent damage, although if used properly rarely do)
- "Pepperball"-type products. Fabrique Nationale has a new one on the way that is a purpose-built CO2 launcher (not a paintball gun) that shoots chemical mace, a hard-nosed projectile, and my personal favorite, a "malodorant" that causes the target to puke himself into giving up
On the mass-of-people front, there isn't much to do besides tear gas grenades, or making an example out of some with the above options. This gel could prove to be very useful, especially as a deterrent BEFORE riot-type activities start (anyone for slicking down the sidewalk in front of the WTO meeting?) A few skinned knees are MUCH more desirable than broken teeth cause some cop got jostled when he fired the rubber baton launcher.yet another.. (Score:5, Funny)
Future uses.... (Score:3, Funny)
Problem with this stuff (Score:3, Insightful)
If it's not deadly, its more okay to use...Now this, people can break bones...great....
My issue with this. (Score:4, Insightful)
"What? Dr. King? You're planning to march where? You and those nigger troublemakers can get the hell out of Selma. You can walk back to the bus, because you aren't going to make it into town. You'll break every fibula in the group if you walk past this slippery line."
Because it's non lethal. Why would anyone make a big deal about it?
If it's not serious enough for them to use force, that means that the event isn't serious.
Re:My issue with this. (Score:4, Insightful)
The only thing that works against non-violent protest is a populace that refuses to acknowledge their humanity. When Ghandi took on the British Empire, and MLK took on the US, they confronted peoples who admitted their fundamental humanity but had ignored it for economic and cultural reasons. Conversely when the Jews protested against the Nazis, and the Blacks against the Afrikaaners in South Africa, they were much less successful because the populations there regarded them as subhuman.
It's still chemical warfare (Score:2, Insightful)
Though "chemical warfare" readily brings WWI chlorine-gas warfare to mind, agents don't simply have to asphyxiate or burn opponents to death to qualify as inhumane. One may wonder whether there is such a thing as humane war, but it is certainly more fair to attack healthy and active combattants than it is to attack incapacitated ones. And don't believe for a second that the Pentagon is interested in this stuff just for non-combat activities.
Besides, one has to wonder how good this stuff can be at crowd control anyway. Immobilizing foam has its uses, because it can transform a chaotic situation into one where the actors -- rioters, for example -- can no longer continue their disturbances. It hardly seems prudent, however, to create a situation where everyone is sliding all over the place.
Re:It's still chemical warfare (Score:2)
"Toxic Chemical: Any chemical which through its chemical action on life processes can cause death, temporary incapacitation [etc]"
That was the only occurrence of the phrase "temporary incapacitation." Is making the ground slippery really something they intended to catch? after all, wouldn't ice then be a toxic chemical? I think they're going for things that directly affect the human body.
Re:It's still chemical warfare (Score:5, Insightful)
While I skimed thrue the OPCW and was not able to find it I am sure there must be something regarding excemptions for riot control agents, the simple definition you gave would also outlaw Mace, Pepper spray, and other devices commonly used by police forces.
I did notice an excemtion for small quanities and I'm sure there is a way to get it under that, the purpose of the OPCW is warfare weapons, Non-leathel riot control is not something they want to ban, name a single country that would not be interested in a non-leathel chemical to use in case of domestic riots. Worst case an amendment is made, there are provisions for that.
get real mate (Score:5, Insightful)
Since when was war fair? If slippery-slime will help bring home more troops, slime away. It's pretty easy for you to sign on to 'fair war' when your sitting behind your computer under the delusion that you will never be called out. I sure as hell bet your attutude would change if your where the one of the front line.
Re:get real mate (Score:2, Insightful)
And how much would YOUR attitude change when you are clawing helplessly in the slime, trying to move, without result, that *one* extra foot into the river while the the burning napalm slick over the slime creeps closer and closer...
The game is played both ways, and as a result, the majority of players feel that war should be as fair as possible.
Re:get real mate (Score:3, Insightful)
To be fair if you want more troops to survive then not sending them into other countries to meddle would be the most efficient idea.
On the domestic front I can't help but feel this would be too convenient to use on protests.
sorry, but that's not right (Score:2, Insightful)
If you are worried about people sitting behind desks condemning soldiers and civilians to death, worry about the politicians that start these wars. None of the wars the US has engaged in since WWII have had much justification in US "defense", nor have they been particularly effective.
dihydrogen monoxide is chemical warfare (Score:5, Informative)
From YOUR link:
1. "Chemical Weapons" means the following, together or separately:
(a) Toxic chemicals and their precursors, except where intended for purposes not prohibited under this Convention, as long as the types and quantities are consistent with such purposes;
(b) Munitions and devices, specifically designed to cause death or other harm through the toxic properties of those toxic chemicals specified in subparagraph (a), which would be released as a
result of the employment of such munitions and devices;
(c) Any equipment specifically designed for use directly in connection with the employment of munitions and devices specified in subparagraph (b).
2. "Toxic Chemical" means:
Any chemical which through its chemical action on life processes can cause death, temporary incapacitation or permanent harm to humans or animals. This includes all such chemicals, regardless
of their origin or of their method of production, and regardless of whether they are produced in facilities, in munitions or elsewhere.
(For the purpose of implementing this Convention, toxic chemicals which have been identified for the application of verification measures are listed in Schedules contained in the Annex on
Chemicals.)
From YOUR link:
5. Each State Party undertakes not to use riot control agents as a method of warfare.
From YOUR link:
7. "Riot Control Agent" means:
Any chemical not listed in a Schedule, which can produce rapidly in humans sensory irritation or disabling physical effects which disappear within a short time following termination of exposure.
From YOUR link:
9. "Purposes Not Prohibited Under this Convention" means:
(d) Law enforcement including domestic riot control purposes.
As for combat uses... if they can hit an adversary with foam or slime, why can't they equally easily hit them with a bullet or a bomb?
I just thought you might want to reread this sentence on the definition of a toxic chemical: "Any chemical which through its chemical action on life processes can cause
If you say it's a physical effect causing the normal life process of walking to result in incapacitation, why are lead bullets not considered chemical weapons? I'd say a bullet piercing flesh is a very chemical action. Any good chemist could explain to you the atomic chemistry of why the lead bullet traveling at considerable speed can pierce a less rigid entity such as a human's skin and internal organs.
This is specifically *not* covered. (Score:2)
Also look to Article II.9.d where it clearly states that "[a purpose] not prohibited under this convention" is "law enforcement including domestic riot control."
Re:It's still chemical warfare (Score:2)
No, but it would be funny wouldn't it??
Broken Bones.. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Broken Bones.. (Score:2, Funny)
crowd control (Score:2, Insightful)
Another issue being, how can the person who apply this stuff not affected it? Police officers can wear a mask while using tear gas, I wonder if there's any way to avoid it. Maybe a spike show, like those a spinter wear to run in grass would do. Demonstrators and rioters would probably come prepared if it's just as simple as wearing a different type of shoes.
Having said that, I guess this material is probably going to be useful in some other industrial applications. It's interesting nonetheless.
Re:crowd control (Score:2)
Once again, we end up talking about the p0rn industry.
Can't you guys just shut up with this kind of joke???
In the immortal words of Ray Stantz... (Score:2)
C-X C-S
What happens when the demonstrators are right? (Score:5, Insightful)
No suffragette movement? No civil-rights movement?
Re:What happens when the demonstrators are right? (Score:2)
I'm sorry, but by demonstrating they have already proven themselves unwilling to partake in the consensus reality designed for them by their corporate guardians. Appropriate measures will be taken.
Move along, citizen... nothing to see here.
Re:What happens when the demonstrators are right? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:What happens when the demonstrators are right? (Score:4, Insightful)
Right or wrong has nothing to do with it. This is about the power to suppress. It would be very important for the police to have the power to suppress crowds during a soccer riot. It is less useful when they wield it to protect the WTO's oppression. It is downright wrong to use it to prevent participation in national election conventions. The tool is agnostic, the people are not.
Unfortunately, history has shown that people hardly ever protest unnecessarily, and those that should get gassed usually aren't the ones that do. (when was the last time you heard of a KKK demonstration getting the mustard?). The police are looking for tools that they can use besides the threat of death. While rubber bullets may occasionally kill people, their general "safety" record is an encouragement to turn them on crowds. This looks to be another tool that may occasionally lead to fractured skulls and death, but the not-directly-lethal nature (and the inevitable corporate hype) will seduce many in law enforcement to turn to this when property / rules are challenged.
They have been turning the firehoses on protesters since the civil rights movement. Somehow this seems nicer.
Re:What happens when the demonstrators are right? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:What happens when the demonstrators are right? (Score:3, Insightful)
If you have a just cause, and no other way to obtain your goals, e.g. through being denied access to appropriate power or influence, then you either have to resort to violence or give up.
That applies equally to individuals, groups and nations. Notice that I'm not advocating violence at all. Just pointing out that it sometimes is necessary and even "The Right Thing".
The biggest danger of course is the stifling of debate and freedoms to the extent that resort to violence occurs. Alarmingly, this is a growing trend in the world today. I confidently predict an upswing in violence as a result.
How can the crowd disperse? (Score:3, Insightful)
This is an ancient idea! (Score:2)
Won't do much to crowds... (Score:5, Funny)
Cop2: "They aren't moving, slime em."
SPLOTCH!
Cop1: "NOW EVERYONE DISPERSE!"
Hippie: "Ok, ok, we're moving... um, wait a second, we CAN'T MOVE!"
Cop1: "Bill, you go out there and drag a few out."
Cop2: "You got it Bob..."
(Bill slips on the slime halfway down the street)
Cop1: "Damn... Hey, Charlie, get you but out there and help Bill!"
... hours pass
Cop1: "Steve, you go and try and help Jim help Greg help Monica help Charlie help Bill."
Cop7: "Sure thing boss!"
Very funny, but on a more serious note (Score:5, Insightful)
Phillip.
Re:Very funny, but on a more serious note (Score:4, Insightful)
Wow, that gave me the heebie jeebies! It doesn't even have to be protesters throwing fire, it could be Africanized bees, somone having a heart attack, tear gas, heck ANY chemical spill, an ambulance that needs to get through, anything realy...
If I were a terrorist, I would be tickled pink to see this used. I'd be in a 5 star hotel one block from the protesters, and when they get hit with the slime, I'd start dropping the chloring gas canisters...
Or even scarier, imagine if the bad guys actually got ahold of thier own version. Since it's non-toxic, it won't be guarded well, but imagine, a little sprayed down a few streets on Nob Hill in San Francisco one dark and stormy night and every passing fire truck (and there are a lot) becomes a kinetic bomb racing down into the financial district.
You are hereby arrested for aiding terrorists (Score:2)
You will be placed under arrest, put before a kangaroo court and never be heard from again.
Been nice to know you Mr. Gnovos.
Re:You are hereby arrested for aiding terrorists (Score:2)
You will be placed under arrest, put before a kangaroo court and never be heard from again.
Been nice to know you Mr. Gnovos.
Hee hee, you'll never catch me as long as I've got my slippery slime... Well, the kangaroos might.
Re:Won't do much to crowds... (Score:3, Funny)
Did you *have* to use the names Bill and Monica in a story about lubricant?
Re:Won't do much to crowds... (Score:3, Funny)
Cop1: "Steve, you go and try and help Jim help Greg help Monica help Charlie help Bill."
Did you *have* to use the names Bill and Monica in a story about lubricant?
I would have to call that a true Freudian slip . Hee hee!
Crowd control != disabling friendly protesters (Score:4, Insightful)
There is more to crowd control than just keeping the people protesting against globalisation | industrialisation | pollution calm. While it is a Bad Thing(tm) that protesters / rioters can smash up a city or disturb the peace there's rarely a need for really strong force in those situations simply because few of the people at the scene want to cause really serious damage to the people wearing blue
Now, since this has been developed primarily by the USMC, I'm thinking that the kind of crowd control they're talking about is a large scale right out attack on US installations or personel by a large group. Example (which might not be a perfect one, but you get the idea) Mogadishu in Somalia 1993, 2 choppers go down and are stranded in the middle of a highly volitile situation, more personel gets stuck in the city, enter a few choppers carrying this slime spraying the surrounding streets and access ways to block a couple of thousand hostiles immediate and easy access to the scene. This could buy the personel some time without having to use deadly force against such a large group. (And if you read the accounts of the entire thing, they were more or less forced to open fire indiscriminately to get the hell outta there alive).
There is a strong difference between civilian protesters and a hostile crowd gathering, hopefully, the slime is intended to be used against the latter.
Re:Crowd control != disabling friendly protesters (Score:2)
I'll make an exeption and reply to an AC post for once...
Nope, (and btw I'm not american), but there's a world of difference between a crowd that's more or less unarmed apart from a selct few intent on causing a lot of noise and getting media attention, and a large mob carrying guns, knifes etc intent on killing you and those around you. While a select few in a "normal" protest can be violent, the main point is to get media attention, not to kill everyone on the other side.
Now, all we need is... (Score:2, Funny)
Riot-foam and Stumm-gas!
Help! I've Fallen and I can't Get UP! (Score:2)
Twister! (Score:2, Funny)
As usual, the innocent get hit (Score:3, Insightful)
Right -- all the peaceful people will slide around helplessly, while the rioters will wear metal-spiked soccer shoes and escape unscathed.
Great idea, folks. Reallygreat. :-(
Non lethal weapons encourage use. (Score:3, Insightful)
Example. In London the other day a domestic was ended by the police shooting the bloke with one of these anti-riot guns. It may well have been warranted but I think the precendent is dangerous.
I forsee the use of stun guns for giving a bit of lip back to officers. Peacefull protests will be broken up with whichever weapon they have in their arsenal.
Not all technology is good technology. (Score:3, Insightful)
Technology has consequences, and sometimes those consequences are awful. Take, for example, recent engineering advances in weapons design. It used to be that because of how much a gun weighed and how much kick it gave when you fired it, you probably had to be at least a teenager to use it. U.S. gun manufacturers saw a market opportunity, so they told their engineers to design guns that were simpler to maintain, less mass, and less kick. Engineers succeeded, through their earnest ingenuity and resourcefulness. And now the streets of Sierra Leone are full of 8-year-old children who have been pulled away from their families and forcefully recruited into fighting a civil war. Hooray for science!
I don't mean to say we should go back to living in caves, or to say that those engineers were evil people. But we shouldn't blindly accept everything in the name of progress. An advanced way of killing or incapacitating another human being doesn't seem like progress to me.
equalization (Score:3)
Aside from the sheer fright of such military weaponry being beta-tested on our citizens, I'm a little concerned about second order effects. Asphixiating bubbles? Does it melt or what happens if you are breathing this stuff at the bottom of a football-style pileup? Instant freezing on cold sidewalks? Heart attacks? Could people slide into traffic or babies fall into sewers? etc.
Also this could be a nasty transport mechanism for gel-capsules of other substances maybe irritants. Is there any chance this could be used frm a height like poorman's napalm?
This sickening line of thought launched by wondering what the protesters might do if they had some with them. It might be very nasty with a Moltov thrown on it, or mixed with gasoline or acetone. You couldn't just drop and roll, you can't run away, and it could be aspirated. A terrifying catastrophe waiting to happen.
Crampons. (Score:2)
Where there's tech, there's counter-tech.
Re:Crampons. (Score:2)
//rdj
Re:Crampons. (Score:3, Insightful)
The rest of us law abiding folks would toe the line and slither around from place to place on our bellies as any law-abiding, God-fearing, American would do.
heh (Score:2)
I guess... (Score:2)
This is a real slippery slope... (Score:2)
'nuf said.
-josh
Mace... (Score:2)
What about winter conditions? (Score:2)
It freezes everything solid and there are a couple of hundred hypothermia cases to deal with at the local hospital...
Interesting possibilities...
Have any of you ever WORN cleats? (Score:2)
So you're a smart bastard and you bring a change of shoes with you... hehe, I'd love to see that, guy sprayed with goo, police closing in.. hold on a sec, lemme change my shoes here... oops, (starts sliding away from his packpack) plop! aaahhh, my mp3 player full of warez!
Anyway, I applaud anything non-lethal that can be used to control OUT of control crowds and rioters. It is a Good Thing(TM) to have options contrary to shooting or beating people when they are out of control.
This is humane and shows the great lengths we go to to try NOT to hurt/kill those among us would would destroy our property or create mayhem and in many cases cause the deaths of innocents (trampling, beating etc.).
Re:Have any of you ever WORN cleats? (Score:2)
You'd have to bring a different pair of shoes for every possible situation... besides, if you are protesting nike's labor practices in Southeast Asia, then you're sure as hell not gonna buy more shoes *G*.
Next showing in Afganistan: (Score:3, Funny)
Beats the crap out of the beauty and the beast. Reserve your tickets now!
ACME Labs? (Score:2, Interesting)
Are you sure this isn't just a new name for the old ACME Labs (like Enron, all names get old after a while)? I seem to remember something like this in Roger Rabbit.
Or maybe it's just Chuck Jones final legacy...bet the idea was found written in the margins between film frames: "My God, I've discovered slime!"
Turning the guns on ourselves (Score:3, Interesting)
Microwave pain devices, crowd stunners, directed painful noise producers, movement inhibitors, etc.
What's happening to our right to protest? Didn't we used to have a voice?
So How Is This New? (Score:5, Informative)
It was used a couple of times in anti-Vietnam war rallies/riots (definitions depend on who you talk to). The rally/riot organizers loathed it -- it turned their nice focused, angry gathering into a party. The stuff is fun.
Re:Knowing rioters.. (Score:2)
Especially if they're those 'anti-globalisation' protesters (whatever that means). For people supposedly fighting to ensure that 'the little guy. gets treated fairly they sure do love trashing the shops owned by small family businesses.
nice troll!
Mr and Mrs McDonald's (and their blind dog poopy) and their good friends, the Starbucks, surely appreciate you compassion.
Re:Knowing rioters.. (Score:2)
In the good old days, the police grabbed a bunch of shotguns (12 gauge riot guns), and fired at the rioter's legs or the ground in front of the rioters.
Re:Small family businesses? (Score:4, Insightful)
Of course. Without democracy, capitalism in itself has no controlling feedback. Democracy is the control. Democracy is essential.
In the US the government is controlled by the corporations so democracy is no longer a check on capitalism.
Nothing is stopping us from having this discussion. Nothing is stopping you or anyone else from creating real, effective, meaningful political movements that could effectively correct flaws. Not smash windows! Correct flaws! Nothing is stopping you people.
But you don't. And that's the problem in my view.
Somebody's got to do it! But who? Why not the people? Who are you waiting for?
Smashing windows will not make a Savior appear. The people must do it. From the bottom up. Through hard work. Blood, sweat and screaming running tears! Not some hero. Nobody but the people.
Definitely not the "media attention" that the so-called Anarchists so crave with their smashups, even though they complain about the evil media corporations.
If the media corporations are evil, then don't wait for the media to save you! Do it yourselves for goodness' sake!
I can also see another problem. Martin Luther King and Nelson Mandela made real sacrifices. The rioters don't even dare show their faces demonstrating in democratic countries. Their sympathisers don't even dare risk a few damn slashdot karma points showing their nick in discussions like this.
I realize that you don't see any importance in this. But it's really absolutely essential. Those who are not willing to stand for their views, wether it costs them some sacrifice or not, those cannot get political gains. It's not just that they don't deserve it. It simply isn't attainable.
Give a man a fish and he eats for one day. Teach him how to fish, and though he'll eat for a lifetime, he'll call you a miser for not giving him your fish.
Re:Small family businesses? (Score:2, Interesting)
My discussions with rioters [slashdot.org] showed that in Gothemburg last summer this was very clearly not the case.
Sure, the Black Block did whine a lot about police provocation, but it was very, very clear that they came to Gothemburg intent on rioting. Out of principle. The thrown rock is a Political Statement. Just listen to their arguments. It's very, very clear.
the powers that be want ruthless, violent psychopaths there to control the populace.
Control the populace? In this context the police are pawns. They have no more say in the general political directions of the country than any other voters. They are not your adversary. They control riots, not national political directions, nor corporations. Pawns. Forget about them.
The idea that the police provoke riots by repressing the crowd is pitiful. When the police tells you to stop, or to go that way, or whatever, then just do what they say and that's it. Going this street or the other street will not change the political directions of the country.
Do you realize that there are strong political forces that stand to gain a lot by the riots? You can't have a strong, purposeful, universally respected political movement of the people, respected so that everybody listens, if at the same time you have football-hooligan clowns smashing up the streets.
The broken windows costs pennies compared to the enormous gains that some interests have from the riots.
So if the police says stop, just stop. They're not your adversary.
The propaganda of the so-called Anarchists is rife with vested interests of those who profit by two things: The riots, and the national protectionsm that holds down the economies of the developing countries. (Keep the countries from trading so they stay poor, just like a guy who can't find a job stays poor. It's almost exactly the same thing.)
No, it's not a conspiracy. I don't believe in conspiracies. It's just a few books, and after that simple human gullibility. It's really very, very sad.
Just open your eyes. Just listen to what they say.
Give a man a fish and he eats for one day. Teach him how to fish, and though he'll eat for a lifetime, he'll call you a miser for not giving him your fish.
Re:Trombone slides (Score:3, Interesting)
One of those silicone pastes and water is still probably the best bet for you. (Please don't tell me you're still using oil!)
Re:Stupid waste of resources (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Stupid waste of resources (Score:3, Insightful)
I am quite *pleased* (Score:2)
They aren't "silencing critics" they're protecting violent mobs from themselves and the police who deal withthem, all to save *you* personal and finacial harm.
It doesn't matter what your politics are, if you're violent, you deserve to face the consequences. Personally, being slimed wouldn't be as bad as bullets.
Re:I am quite *pleased* (Score:3, Insightful)
Oh, if only that were true...
However, your comment is filled with naivety. This won't be limited to use on violent protestors/rioters, it will be used on ALL protestors. Watch footage from the WTO protests in Seattle, or the Republican National Convention protests in Philadelphia; peaceful protestors, those who were doing SIT-INS, and who had PERMITS to be there, were beaten by police, maced, & tear-gased. In the case of the RNC, Philadelphia police arrested hundreds of the PEACEFUL protestors, and held them for days without just cause. (Btw, the city is now facing dozens of lawsuits for that. My best friend was one of the peaceful protestors locked up.)
All of these new "crowd-control" devices, crowd foam, slippery slime, and the microwave-gun developed at Quantico last year (Which can give a person 3rd-degree burns in a matter of seconds), are going to be used on peaceful protestors, who have a right to protest. These aren't black-bloc anarchists, these are regular people who are trying to make a difference through nonviolence.