Talk:Riot control

References?

This article presents a lot of information without verifiable references of any kind. Can we work to find some that support the information in the article?

I removed the reference to the use of water cannons to spray sewage since that was particularly inflammatory. If there's some sort of evidence to prove that such a thing happened, fine.

Lastly, the bit about the hunger riot in Vienna (also without a reference) is an interesting anecdote but seems oddly placed in the article.

Alanhaley01 20:27, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

---

These officers subdue rioters and subsequently allow the less heavily armoured, more mobile officers to arrest those that are unruly. Or whoever they feel like arresting. This sentence demonstrates the pov in this article. Where is the criticism of riot cops? I don't know enough to write a section on it, but someone should. In the meantime, I will be revising that sentence.

---

'bruises the size of an silver dollar' - but what size is a silver dollar? The silver dollar article doesn't say.

Could we replace this with a metaphor that's meaningful to non-Americans? Or maybe just 'Xcm in size' or something.

Or perhaps we could just omit the reference, the assumption that all readers know the size of US currency is kind of irritating...

--257.47b.9½.-19 17:34, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Great catch, 257.47b.9½.-19! Though I don't have one with me right now, I'd estimate that a modern Kennedy silver dollar is about three centimeters across. I hope you can do something with this information. Best regards, Woodrow 17:48, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Thanks Woodrow!

But - and I'm kind of confused here so please excuse me if I've got this wrong - that's the size of a dollar coin now in circulation, is that right?

Only the silver dollar article says that 'the current Sacagawea dollar is usually referred to as Golden'. It seems to suggest that a silver dollar is, or can be, bigger ('large size').

Past revisions of riot control refer to an 'Ike dollar', which is pretty meaningless to me...

Best, --257.47b.9½.-19 18:28, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)

"Ike" seems to mean that the coin had Ike Eisenhower's picture on it. The Eisenhower dollar was minted from 1971 to 1978 and was 38.1 millimeters in diameter. - Woodrow 18:53, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Urban planning

Are there any cities designed with crowd control in mind?--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 21:32, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Washington DC perhaps? Mike McGregor (Can) 20:51, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Good call, added a little something to kick it off. August B. 08:36, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't know how relevent it is, but in Australia Parlament House in Canberra is built into a hill either to protect the government inside or to defend as a last stand on raised ground. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 220.253.95.249 (talk) 13:58, 22 April 2007 (UTC).

Aust Parliment House is built on a hill as that was only land large enough for construction in the parlimentary triangle (the other option was the foreshore of lake Burley Griffin. I suppose in 1550 building on a hill might have been helpful but I don't think it was a consideration in 1988 MarkN0062 07:24, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Defense was part of the design of Washington DC, but not quite the type envisioned here. The diagonal Avenues meet at Circles, and the Circles were planned as artillery bases to fire on horse cavalry that would conveniently charge down the Avenues. Unfortunately, in the War of 1812, the British bounders chose not to charge into the muzzles of guns, saving that for the Crimea. Around 1970, however, they were used as staging areas, although the fountains and/or circles in the middle did interfere with their use by helicopters. Hcberkowitz 23:02, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Jargon

"Threat-dependent force deployment is easily visible" is pure jargon, and requires either explanation or complete rephrasing. --NcLean 8th Sepember 2006

Bias

Whoever wrote this article needs to get rid of personal bias if he wants to write for Wikipedia. I mean, what is this?

"The use of chemical weapons, such Lachrymatory agents (tear gas) and pepper spray in riot control is relatively common. Curiously, the specific use of such chemical weapons for civilian riot control is legal in many countries, whereas the use of chemical weapons in warfare is widely condemned."

That's not just bias, that's nonsensical. He's comparing PEPPER SPRAY to MUSTARD GAS here.

Any use of chemical weapons, be it pepper spray, cs-gas or mustart gas, is illegal in warfare, including the substances employed in riot-control.

POV Tags added. - Windows2142, 30 January 2007

I've tried to cleanup the article, refining it as well as trimming POV. I feel the tag could be removed now. Thoughts? --Eyrian 14:30, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Is it in fact legal to use nonlethal chemical weapons in war? I don't know. Subsolar 12:33, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

The police law in Mecklenburg-Vorpommern (I checked yesterday) designates tear gas not as a weapon, but as an auxiliary instrument of physical force ("Hilfsmittel der körperlichen Gewalt"). --129.13.72.153 14:19, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

This article is misleading somewhat.

The riot police redirects here. And in the non-democratic countries, the intention is not to "intentionally minimize harm and prevent additional violence", but to beat the hell out of demonstrators (including peaceful demonstrations), or even worse. --HanzoHattori 18:53, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

That's an unverified assertion. And almost certainly not the case in all non-democratic countries. If youve got a cite to indicate that in some countries, riot police can be used to cause deliberate harm, then by all means make that annotation. But breaking up strictly along governmental lines in unverifiable. --Eyrian 19:13, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

In can assure you, sometimes even in democratic countries, the intention is to beat up the peaceful protesters. I'm speaking out of direct experience. But I do feel that this is not official policy, more like some police officers that got carried away (fascist pricks). 217.136.127.52 12:21, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Oh. So, you think, say, Saddam's or Charles Taylor's "anti-terrorist" units were to protect citiziens from terrorism, and can't be said otherwise just because of the differences between democracy and authoritarian governments? The ZOMO would come around and beat little children and old grannies, sometimes to death. --HanzoHattori 19:31, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

What I think is irrelevant. The point is that you cannot verify what you're trying to claim. You are attempting to indicate that in non-democratic countries, riot police do not use less-lethal force. You're attempting to prove a negative across a broad spectrum of countries, which is very difficult. Again, if you want to claim that sometimes the term "riot police" is applied to forces that serve a very different purpose, and you can cite that, feel free to insert it. --Eyrian 19:37, 16 April 2007 (UTC)