Jump to content

Talk:Non-lethal weapon/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2

Batons And Caltrops Are Considered Lethal

Under law, batons and caltrops are considered lethal weapons; They should be removed. (I’m sure there are others listed that I missed, that’s just what I caught.)174.25.49.236 (talk) 16:27, 31 March 2011 (UTC)A REDDSON

If a majority of sources classify them as non-lethal then they should stay. Out of interest, which policy considers them lethal? Marcus Qwertyus 16:31, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
Yeah, where are they considered lethal? I see a bunch of reliable sources discussing them as non-lethal. Binksternet (talk) 16:35, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
The legal definition for “lethal” is “Likely to cause death or serious injury” (the militry uses an even stricter standard, which runs something like “death, serious, or debilitative injury”). Both are likely to cause death (moreso batons; you can easily beat someone to death) or “serious/debilitate injury” (try running after stepping on a caltrop). I’m not saying they have no place, but not on a “less than” or “non-lethal” weaps page. Additionally, other than HERE, I have never seen batons referred to as anything other than a deadly weap.174.25.49.236 (talk) 17:00, 31 March 2011 (UTC)A REDDSON
Assault Deadly Weapon: “California Penal Code §245. (a) (1) Any person who commits an assault upon the person of another with a deadly weapon or instrument other than a firearm or by any means of force likely to produce great bodily injury shall be punished by imprisonment in the state prison for two, three, or four years, or in a county jail for not exceeding one year, or by a fine not exceeding ten thousand dollars ($10,000), or by both the fine and imprisonment.” I would like to have gotten Michigan, New Jersey, Oregon, and Washington’s applicable Penal Code §’s for you (the first three being other states I have lived in, and Washington being my current state of residence), but I couldn’t find them on-line (if anyone knows a source please tell me). At any rate, though, they DO qualify as “deadly” weaps by law (and common sense).174.25.16.197 (talk) 04:48, 9 April 2011 (UTC)A REDDSON
Your example does not show what you think it shows. You think that the "Assault Deadly Weapon" crime designation including "great bodily injury" instruments proves that such "great bodily injury" devices are the same as deadly weapons. This is wrong. The California statute is very clear when it declares "deadly weapons" and then includes other weapons that are not deadly in the crime statute. There are two kinds of weapons that are given the same criminal punishment in California: deadly and greatly harmful. The two types are not the same. Binksternet (talk) 05:01, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
Actually, it says EXACTLY what I think it says. It does mention certain specific deadly weaps as “exempt” under the code section, but only firearms as those are covered under another specific code (I do not know which ones are all included, but PC 417 “Brandishing a Weapon or Firearm” is one). I really can not fathom how you can read the text and not understand, but this really IS a simple concept; Death, permanent or debilitative injuries (broken bones, crippled feet), or other injuries likely to put you in hospital in and of themselves are considered “deadly” under the law. Tasers, pepperspray, and that “Dragon’s Breath” stuff are unlikely to put you in a hospital. Guns and batons can kill, with or without treatment, and caltrops DO injure their victims in a way to prevent them from walking (that’s exactly what they were designed for). Just because they aren’t guns doesn’t make them “non-lethal.”174.25.16.197 (talk) 18:44, 10 April 2011 (UTC)A REDDSON
The law does not define the "great bodily injury" weapons as deadly weapons, it defines the crime which is cited when such a weapon is used. If the law were interpreted the way you think it is, it would simply say "a deadly weapon such as a firearm and an instrument of great bodily harm." It does not include greatly harmful instruments under the term deadly weapon. Binksternet (talk) 20:54, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
This is also not a NPOV issue. What is the argument for the tag you've placed upon the article?
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 16:50, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
“Any person who commits an assault upon the person of another with a deadly weapon or instrument other than a firearm or by any means of force likely to produce great bodily injury…” Verbatim. Batons are considered deadly weapons. People beat each other to death with baseball bats. That’s a baton. Caltrops are designed to disable; Specifically to disable. There is no other purpose to them. That places them in deadly weaps category. There is NO ambiguity, it’s as simple as you are WRONG.174.25.16.197 (talk) 05:11, 11 April 2011 (UTC)A REDDSON
Now you're repeating your earlier argument. One of the problems here is that you are interpreting a California law. That job is for California judges, not Wikipedia editors. What we do instead is find WP:Reliable sources which define the term clearly, without the need for interpretation. One such source is the book Nonlethal weapons: terms and references, written by Robert J. Bunker, USAF Institute for National Security Studies, and published in 1997. It says about caltrops that they are a non-lethal barrier weapon, denying the enemy passage. The book goes on to describe a kind of thick foam that can be placed over barbed wire, caltrops or other non-lethal barrier weapons, for the purpose of impeding the enemy's work to remove the covered weapons. Other books which agree that caltrops are non-lethal weapons, comparing them to concertina wire or similar, include Future War: Non-Lethal Weapons in Twenty-First-Century Warfare, Aerospace operations in urban environments: exploring new concepts, An assessment of non-lethal weapons science and technology, Non-lethal weapons as legitimizing forces?, Nonlethal technologies: progress and prospects, Nonlethal weapons and capabilities: report of an independent task force sponsored by the Council on Foreign Relations and An introduction to military ethics: a reference handbook. This respectable mass of sources establishes at the very least that the mainstream view is that caltrops are non-lethal. At best, you may be able to find sources to back up a minority viewpoint that caltrops are lethal, and bring that to the article attributing the minority viewpoint to a prominent holder of that opinion. Binksternet (talk) 06:22, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
No, you're stonewalling; You say that becasue it's JUST the law, it doesn't count. Caltrops and batons can casue serious life-thretening and permenant injuries; That makes them letahl weaps under the law. Common sense is NOT a standard I'm asking you to take. That's why the law was written the way it was. They ARE lethal weaps, and should not be listed under "non-letahl."75.164.252.72 (talk) 22:18, 24 April 2011 (UTC)a REDDSON
I guess you could call a solid mass of very convincing mainstream sources "stonewalling" if you were trying to get past them. We are not, though, we are able to use them. Dude, a shovel or a can of hairspray can cause life-threatening, permanent injuries, but they are not lethal weapons. If used in violence, they are instead "instruments of great bodily harm" according to California law. That does not make them lethal weapons, it simply makes the offender a criminal under that statute. Binksternet (talk) 23:43, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
FWIW, there's some hopefully useful insight to be gleaned by looking at attempts to define what a Non-Lethal device/product/weapon/tools is. One such example explitly examines the intended application, which then logially excludes objects whose explicit design intent was for moving dirt (shovels) or cooking food (frying pan), etc. Granted, this doesn't directly reconcile the Coltrop issue, but it is still useful, particularly when we recall that varying institutions have varying interpretations - and priorities. The path forward should become evident when we recall that we at Wiki are not establishing policy, but merely documetarians, and that criminal law is not necessarily focused solely on the names of various widgets that may have been used in a conflict (particularly an illegal one at that). -hh (talk) 21:57, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
Hadn’t gotten that up yet. Thank you for overreacting and screwing me up.174.25.49.236 (talk) 17:00, 31 March 2011 (UTC)A REDDSON
...and how did I do that? You placed the tag 25 minutes before posting this response. I asked a simple question...and that's overreacting?
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 21:42, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
By commenting before I’d gotten the explanation up. Quit trying to “shape the argument” by getting it off-topic.174.25.16.197 (talk) 04:48, 9 April 2011 (UTC)A REDDSON

Wow… Gobbledygook to defend bull****. The concept here is simple- A Non-lethal (or less-than-lethal) weap is one not likely to cause death or great bodily injury. Listed were caltrops and batons; These DO cause death and great bodily injury (mostly respectively). That’s actually a simple concept. There are others listed (pepperspray and mace come to mind) that are NOT likely to cause death of great bodily injury. I simply do not understand how you don’t ‘get it’ but you’d better before somebody follows these directions and ends up on death row.Wikipedia- Best Source Of Information Since The Weekly World News. (talk) 01:34, 11 July 2011 (UTC)Andering J REDDSON

Sorry, but we follow definitions found in reliable sources rather than definitions given by insistent editors. Binksternet (talk) 01:42, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
I was unaware that the legal definition was insignificant. This “article” and I can hardly call it such) is so far below even “journalistic ethics” that it’s deplorable- Batons and Caltrops are deadly weaps, do NOT belong on the page, and this page deserves less than a “C” class until this is fixed. And if you don’t believe ME, ask a cop.01:28, 22 July 2011 (UTC)Andering J REDDSON
Cops are notoriously good editors? Truth is that you can be killed by anything...but that would be stretching the context beyond the scope of definition. As Binksternet has asked, do you have a reliable source to back up your assertions?
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 01:59, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
Cops can tell you if a baton is considered a deadly weap (as can your DA, give them a call if it's more convientent). I already DID cite my sorurce- Twice. By quoting- Verbatim. A REDDSON
As was forshadowed, different institutions can have different interpretations/opinions. For example, the Council on Foreign Relations published a 2004 report Nonlethal Weapons and Capabilities which on PDF page 58 has a listing of material which explicitly includes both batons and caltrops. Granted, this would appear to be just another individual position, although it does suggest otherwise, since on PDF page 60 (document page 51) it describes an action which explicitly states that they were using LAPD (Los Angeles Police Department) riot control tactics, including "...plenty of good old fashioned action with batons." Overall, the ramifications appear to be reasonably clear that these are tools for police/others to employ for when they desire a distinct alternative to the conventional 'lethal force' tool of a service pistol or shotgun, and from this perspective, it does not appear to be logical to then lump these NL's in with pistols to form a single category. -hh (talk) 20:24, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
I have no idea where THAT came from- But LAPD specifically lists “baton” as one of their deadly waeps. (As a matter of fact, IIIRC, only the Taser and chemical agents are NOT considered deadly; Even handcuffs are considered ‘deadly’ by general police definition.)Wikipedia- Best Source Of Information Since The Weekly World News. (talk) 21:29, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Mediation Results

While I am unhappy with the results, I am willing to hear your idea/s on how to ensure that the section in question is understood to be allegations, and not established fact. Just that the title is “allegations” in insufficient; It must be very clearly spelled out that these allegations are not proof of anything (unless an accaptable source is provided). A. J. REDDSON

Personally, I learned something about how to better support Wiki as an Editor and I'm satisfied with the results. To move forward (and I'll personally be re-reading TransporterMan's guidance several times), what I'd suggest is to rework the section starting with the title; perhaps Public Concerns or possibly Misuse Potential and Allegations of Torture. In general, this proposed format is to ID & address a public perception/concern and then discuss what's really known about it. So here specifially, we would document that misuses have indeed occurred - but then also any evidence that NL's are noteworthy in regards to misuse: do they have a greater potential to be misused, or does no such potential appears to exist? Similarly, we can examine the torture topic, again making it clear between what's someone's allegation and what has been actually proven one way or the other. In this regards, AI & UN should be included as noteworthies. So while they have expressed opinions/speculation that NL's might be illegal, what balances this is if there's been a formal court of law ruling that says yes/no/whatever. How does this sound as a general approach? -hh (talk) 21:59, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
There’s a few things in that I can’t answer directly (having just received several documents via Taser), but let’s look at this possibility:
Misuse Potential and Allegations of Torture
Both pepper spray and electroshock weapons have been misused in so-called "pain compliance" techniques against people attempting to practice non-violent civil disobedience. For instance, pepper spray has been swabbed directly into the eyes of protesters who were being held immobile with their eyelids forcibly pulled back.[1] Amnesty International in 1997 released a report titled USA: Police use of pepper spray is tantamount to torture. The document considers repetitive use of pain-inducing non-lethal weapons on humans cruel, if not torture. Such use is likely to be considered abusive or in violation of the 1984 United Nations Convention against torture and other cruelties.[2]
I believe to gain impartiality, however, the counterpoint must be presented, such as “News reports claiming that “one person dies for every 600 times pepper spray is used.” However studies repudiated such claims from the National Institute of Justice and the International Association of Chiefs of Police provided strong evidence that the claims were greatly exaggerated, if true at all. Follow-up studies further supported the use of pepper spray as an effective and relatively safe method of controlling violent people, especially when other alternatives were inappropriate or unavailable. As the evidence continued to accumulate, the controversy (and related news value) diminished.” (taken liberally from www.hendonpub.com/resources/articlearchive/details.aspx?ID=207224 as I think it needs work, and this is not the final product). As to TransporterMan’s conclusion, it read to me that he feels it correct to keep the current text, including the claims by AI that I found to be biased, but to ensure that it is clear that these are AI’s opinions, NOT established fact. (He went on to say that if AI had collected up statistics, and that was presented as fact, he might have swung more in their favor.)
There is a detail which has been overlooked that I would add, if I could find it; I know (beaceaue I’ve read part of) a document created by the FBI that essentially stated that NLW’s are being used a crutch to skip over Verbal Commands (also known as telling a suspect “Put the knife/baseball bat/victim down.”) but avoid deadly weapons (such as batons, which was the least lethal weap for many centuries). If someone knows where to find it, that would be ‘helpful.’Wikipedia- Best Source Of Information Since The Weekly World News. (talk) 06:09, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
I think that we can start to hammer out the finer details as we go along; there's really a lot of complexities to this subtopic - - for example (plus note my follow-on), the above mentioned protesters who got Pepper Spray juice swabbed in their eyes: I believe that the swabbing was done only after they refused to be compliant? (Cite needed). If my recollection is correct, I believe that if this counterpoint is included, it certainly makes the LEO's "swabbing" activity quite a bit less outragous sounding than the current description. Context helps aid understanding of historical events. ... And the first follow-on to this is to a broader question of why Law Enforcement are motivated to use NL technologies in the first place. I've seen reports (again, I'll have to relocate the cite) that found that NL employment reduces the quantity/severity of injuries received by Officers, and fewer workplace injuries --> cost savings. ... And a second follow-on is to examine the benefit-to-the-victim potential: has increased NL employment resulted in fewer conventional shootings by Police? -hh (talk) 16:43, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
“For example… the above mentioned protesters who got Pepper Spray juice swabbed in their eyes: I believe that the swabbing was done only after they refused to be compliant? (Cite needed).” I have seen a video of this happening. I will skip over who exactly was involved (because I can not remember the agency, the protestors, or exactly where it happened, and in fairness should hold all that back), but it was three protesters who’d arranged themselves in a disruptive but non-violent (by certain definitions) way. (I’m tellin’ ya, tha video’s out there- And it’s probably on YouTube by now.) As to the rest; That is EXACTLY the point. They use pepperspray, Tasers, etc to get people to do the things that end the problem “faster, quicker, easier” (pulled from what I remember for the FBI report; a point of VERY SHARP criticism, not support, for police), before something more serious gets used (baton, firearms, etc). A. J. REDDSON
Understood. What it seems that some of the NL critics don't want to recognize is that confrontations are inevitable which are going to have to have some outcome. As distasteful as a particular NL tool may be considered to be, what's the alternative? It isn't going to be to get rid of Law Enforcement or Militaries, so it becomes employment of those "more serious" tools you alluded to, which inevitably result in confrontations such as the MOVE#1978_shoot-out and MOVE#1985_bombing. The obvious question for us then includes to what degree this can/should be discussed without violating various Editorial guidelines such as WP:Editorializing, WP:NOR, etc. -hh (talk) 15:00, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

31 March 2Ø11 Neutrality Dispute

“Both pepper spray and electroshock weapons have been misused in so-called "pain compliance" techniques against people attempting to practice nonviolent civil disobedience. For instance, pepper spray has been swabbed directly into the eyes of protesters who were being held immobile with their eyelids forcibly pulled back. Amnesty International in 1997 released a report titled USA: Police use of pepper spray is tantamount to torture. The repetitive use of pain-inducing non-lethal weapons on a human may be considered cruel, if not torture by itself. Such use is likely to be considered abusive or in violation of the 1984 United Nations Convention against torture and other cruelties.”

¿How many KINDS of slanted is this “article”? Beyond AI’s well-documented history of supporting certain groups (amongst them the proto-Taliban) is the choice of wording (“torture and other cruelties”) and the context (for example, maliciously ignoring that these incidents are precipitated by orders to disburse). While I acknowledge that incidents have occurred, they need to kept in proper context, rather than populist propaganda.174.25.49.236 (talk) 17:00, 31 March 2011 (UTC)A REDDSON

And just to cover myself:

“Editing from a neutral point of view (NPOV) means representing fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources… This policy is non-negotiable and all editors and articles must follow it.”

AI is not considered a “relaiable source” due to their history of biased reporting, it is NOT proportional, and either the policy applies to everyone equally, or it applies to no one anywhere.174.25.49.236 (talk) 17:04, 31 March 2011 (UTC)A REDDSON

Amnesty International is biased, of course, but they are a reliable source. Binksternet (talk) 17:21, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
No, they’re actually NOT. They have a well-known and well-earned reputation for exaggeration, misrepresentation, and even lying. I propose removing anything referencing their “report” as the only acceptable corrective action (other sources should be addressed separately); Anything LESS, and you might as well use the White House Press Office’s briefings Oct 2ØØ2-June 2ØØ3 as “proof” of Saddam HUSSEIN’S WWMD program. 174.25.16.197 (talk) 04:26, 9 April 2011 (UTC)A REDDSON
Would require greater community involvement to decide whether it is a reliable source. You can bring it up at WT:MILHIST. Marcus Qwertyus 04:59, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
Amnesty International is used as a reliable source for more than a thousand Wikipedia articles, ones such as capital punishment, torture and human rights in the Islamic Republic of Iran. They deliver respected research and opinion. Binksternet (talk) 05:06, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
No, they don’t; They deliver propaganda. That they have been used in “more than a thousand Wikipedia articles” does say a lot, though…174.25.16.197 (talk) 18:03, 10 April 2011 (UTC)A REDDSON
Sources:
Do you have a source to offer a counterbalanced perspective? What do you propose?
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 21:45, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
TO CLARIFY: If another source, one that ISN’T biased, could be cited (I don’t know of one, but I also do NOT know that none exist), that would be acceptable; Simply transfer the citations to the new source and remove the dispute tag.174.25.16.197 (talk) 18:03, 10 April 2011 (UTC)A REDDSON
The removal of the neutrality dispute tag BEFORE the resolution of the dispute shows a bias in the matter- But I’m going to let that slide for now. No alternative to AI’s (who’s impartiality is disputed here at Wikipedia itself, as shown by the link above) has been presented. As only they can be cited I propose that, at very least, the line "“Amnesty International in 1997 released a report titled USA: Police use of pepper spray is tantamount to torture. The repetitive use of pain-inducing non-lethal weapons on a human may be considered cruel, if not torture by itself. Such use is likely to be considered abusive or in violation of the 1984 United Nations Convention against torture and other cruelties.”'' be removed. (The entire passage SHOULD be removed until an unbiased source can be identified under both neutrality and sourcing guidelines, but I will settle for at least removal of the overwhelming biased claims.) Do so or find an alternative source (and still remove the AI passage), and then the neutrality might be said to be re-established.Wikipedia- Best Source Of Information Since The Weekly World News. (talk) 01:52, 11 July 2011 (UTC)Andering J REDDSON
Uh...no. Try reading WP:DRIVEBY, & understand that if you aren't actively working to improve the article then tags are pulled off. If you don't have a source then you don't have a point.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 01:47, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
Uh... Yes. I have cited sources, including Wikipedia itself.Wikipedia- Best Source Of Information Since The Weekly World News. (talk) 00:49, 3 August 2011 (UTC)Andering REDDSON
Repeating myself: Wikipedia follows definitions found in reliable sources rather than definitions given by insistent editors. Binksternet (talk) 01:11, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
Repeating MYSELF: Wikipedia acknowledges that AI is not neutral.Wikipedia- Best Source Of Information Since The Weekly World News. (talk) 04:23, 17 August 2011 (UTC)A REDDSON

The debate over this issue appears to have fallen off. If there is still any interest in pursuing the mediation case at Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2011-08-20/Non-lethal weapon could someone please answer the questions I've asked there? Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 14:38, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

In reviewing this, I'm of the opinion that the AI quote in this section should be removed. I do believe that this specific AI article has evidence of bias that makes it an unreliable source, but that's not the primary reason for why it should be removed. What I see as the primary reason why it should be removed is because their underlying point lacks relevancy. Specifically, AI's article is simply stating that NL weapons are vulnerable to being misused. Yes, that's true, but so what? Did AI claim that NLW's are unique in the world as being the only physical objects that are susceptible to misuse? No, they did not. As such, their observations simply aren't noteworthy: it adds no value to the article. Because it is thus not germane, it should not be retained. I'll let this sit for a few weeks and if there's no additional comments or points worthy of consideration, update this part of the page accordingly. -hh (talk) 20:00, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Mediation case now open

The mediation case at MedCab is now open. I'm prepared to give my opinions about the matter, but before I do I would like to allow another chance for any interested editors to state any additional opinions that they may have about the matter (and if they do, I will give them serious consideration, as I have the opinions which are already there, before weighing in), to express any objections that anyone may have to the mediation, or to me as the mediator. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 20:15, 3 September 2011 (UTC) PS Everyone has until about 22:00 UTC on September 6, 2011. — TransporterMan (TALK) 20:19, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

I think the matter would have been easily solved by swapping other sources for the Amnesty International paper from 1997, or by adding those other sources to bolster the AI one. For instance:
I think all we needed here was some deeper research and more detail with augmented references. Binksternet (talk) 20:52, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
¿When did all this happen? No matter; If the original source are used, at least some of them pass the “smell test.” ¿Has anyone here seen the original UN report (rather than the CBS version of their report)? I’m personally loathe to use quotes of quotes; Much like copies of copies, they get twisted over time. Either way, the AI statement MUST be removed. A REDDSON
Not necessarily. If well-respected sources cite the AI report, using its data or conclusions, then it gains in stature to the point that we can cite it here. Binksternet (talk) 02:53, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
Copies of copies, biases of biases…. ¿Where would it stop? I accept that the original source could be used (that being the UN report), but the moment the second person has the report, they would have turned it to read the way they ‘wanted it to’ (as, I am finding, the disputed section may itself have been). These biases result in exaggeration of effect (“inflicting massive harm” when, in fact the report says “inflicting harm in the form of X volts through the body”), exaggeration of extent of use (“with massive use through the industry” when the report only says the number of specific times it is used which is in and of itself a large number, but then goes on to say that this is a minute percentage of types of incident), and of course manipulating the numbers the other way (just take the two examples above and flip them over). A REDDSON
I do not know you TransporterMan form Adam. Makes you as fair an option as any I can think of. Trying To Make Wikipedia A tLeast Better Than The Weekly World News. 17:12, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

In Review

Take a look at this and tell me what you think (bold used here for table of contents reasons alone)

Okay; I'm going to make my comments inline. -hh (talk) 21:56, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Misuse Potential and Allegations of Torture
Non-Lethal weapons have been misused, with pepper spray and electroshock weapons frequently being mentioned technologies. Some misuse instances have been newsworthy, as well as in the employment of so-called “pain compliance” techniques against people attempting to practice non-violent civil disobedience. (we will insert here the reference to eye-swabbing) In 1997, Amnesty International released a report titled USA: Police use of pepper spray is tantamount to torture, which considered the repetitive use of pain-inducing non-lethal weapons on humans to be cruel, if not torture, questioning if such use could be considered abusive or in violation of the 1984 United Nations Convention against torture and other cruelties.[3]
However, these criticism statements have themselves been subject to sharp criticism, with multiple studies repudiating such claims. (hh's .pdf file maybe?) The National Institute of Justice and the International Association of Chiefs of Police provided strong evidence that the claims were greatly exaggerated, if true at all (hh's .pdf files?). Follow-up studies further supported the use of pepper spray as an effective and relatively safe method of controlling violent people, especially when other alternatives were inappropriate or unavailable, (Source here.) and studies have found that properly employed NL weapons statistically reduce injury rates on Law Enforcement Personnel (another source here). While there are certainly concerns for overuse [4] there does not appear to be any clear evidence that any particular NL techology should be considered noteworthily more susceptible to potential misuse.
I still don’t ‘get’ how to do citations (I can copy and paste the material around, but I can’t get inserting it).A. J. REDDSON

I seem to muddle my way through it; just list the desired URL in parenthesis where it should be a ref and another Editor is sure to help.
BTW, please note the reference I've added for overuse, which is a bit improper since it really references the suicide of the Police Officer involved with the prior Iman Morales reference and mentions overuse as almost an afterthought...I doubt this is the best way to mention the consequences of human errors (misuse), but this is another aspect of the topic and having found the reference, I don't want to accidentally misplace it. Thoughts? -hh (talk) 21:56, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
I’m going to have to object to the Rodney KING reference at minimum on other grounds. As for the MORALES reference, he FELL to his death after being Tased; The Taser itself did not kill him, nor was it being specifically used for “pain compliance.” (That there were issues in this incident appear not to be in dispute.) A. J. REDDSON
On the KING reference, I have no problems with finding a replacement. My intent is that it is IMO a decent example of controversies and Police misconduct, which included excessive force that happened to employ Non-Lethals (versus other cases which involved lethal shootings). Next, on the MORALES case, what I think makes this one noteworthy was for the very reason that it wasn't for "pain compliance", yet there still was a bad outcome that can be attributed to misuse. IMO, I think that there's an implicit assumption that the primary purpose of a NL is merely to inflict pain (punishment). While many NLs certainly do happen to deliver painful effects, the NL employment's objective is to change outcomes. For example for an outcome of "compliance", can it not be achieved in different ways? Such as: "compliance through authority" (mere presence), "compliance through intimidation/fear" (show of force), "compliance through pain" (demonstration of force), "compliance through incapacitation" (Taser, Obscurants, etc). In some circumstances, the NL's modality may very well be nothing but a whack to cause pain, sure. However, in other instances, pain may merely be a side effect. For an example of the latter, Taser's incapacitation waveform has been improved between their M26 and X26 models,and the later one is more effective at temporary incapacitation while also being *less* painful. Sure, it is't totally pain-free yet (if ever), but the fact that its pain perception was reduced shows that the generation of pain was not the primary objective of the technology. Thoughts? -hh (talk) 20:51, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
I think you can find clear-cut examples of non-lethals being distinctly used in ways other than intended for the purpose of pain compliance. Multiple tasings of non-combative persons (that I can’t pull an example out of my anyhow DOES NOT mean there aren’t any), eye swabbing incidents (there was one, three protestors in some office, not really sure what it was about now since I saw it 10-plus years ago). In the interim, use the “Citation Required” tag where needed. A. J. REDDSON
We need reliable sources in order to discuss proposed article content. Placeholders are not enough. Binksternet (talk) 13:16, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
Clearly, if a particular reference is conveniently available, it should be included. However, placeholders are merely an Editorial tool, so that we don't inadvertantly overlook an attribution need. Sure, it would be nice to be Editorially perfect on the first draft, that's an unrealistic expectation to place upon volunteers. FYI, two references that may be considered as potential citations on LEO injury rates may include: this (a PhD disseration?) and this NIJ report. Neither is the one I was thinking of, but are nevertheless interesting; I'll keep looking for a more relevant (more direct) cite. -hh (talk) 17:20, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
Ahk. My computer hates PDFs. ¿Would you be kinds enough to summarize? (By what’s here, it appears to be a slightly biased document in favor of police, rather than taking them to task for abuse of these tools.) A. J. REDDSON
Due to circumstances, I have elected to add the passage immediately. I found [citation needed] tag on the page and have inserted it for the time being. A. J. REDDSON
As Binksternet has correctly stated, you need to have the citations before you insert material. We don't perform synthesis...that is one of our key policies.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 04:42, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
Actually, hh already provided those. See above. (That’s the reason I’ve been dealing with him.) A. J. REDDSON
Wikipedia is a collaborative project where we work with one another. You have made the claim that text here was agreed upon (in the 3RR report you have filed on me). Do other editors here believe that the text has been agreed upon? This issue is also at AN/I currently.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 00:34, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
The text added by Reddson is not satisfactory. It contains synthesis and original research. Binksternet (talk) 04:27, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
I agree that we are not yet ready to update this section on the main page. Optimistically, I believe that we are getting close, but we still clearly need to have all of the citations provided -- and vetted. Given the history of dispute on this topic, vetting is appropriate to minimize any individual Editor's personal interpretation where it is practical (yes, this includes myself). IMO, the cites should be read in full by each Editor, before we agree to if it should be included, etc. If we don't do this correctly, we're only going to perpetuate the disputes. -hh (talk) 12:49, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
Enough. I’m taking this back to Mediation. Thank you. A. J. REDDSON
Right now, I’m awaiting legitimate criticism of the text above. Other than stall tactics, there’s reason not to present.Trying To Make Wikipedia At Least Better Than The ''Weekly World News.'' (talk) 19:21, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
Unfortunately, personal & work commitments are impeding with my ability to contribute right now; if I don't get to it within the next week, my next free window will be 20 Nov. Hopefully, you've been able to make some progress in getting a PDF reader on your PC to read through that one long citation I provided so that we can discuss it's appropriateness. Also, have you been able to find any suitable replacement to the Rodney KING citation? I'm open to changing it, but need a concrete suggestion. -hh (talk) 20:28, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
Understandable. I would just put the cites in parenthesis as you suggested, but since I don’t know which goes where, that’s not really an option. (I could just make it up, but that’s not very nice…) I also found another source, sashley.com/articles/effectofpoliceofficerconfidence.htm, for review. (I actually have a copy as a .doc on my computer at home.)20:39, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Dispute

[I understand the process, this is FORMAL mediation request.]Trying To Make Wikipedia At Least Better Than The ''Weekly World News.'' (talk) 06:11, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Ok… Mr Stradivarius went a bit further than I thought (I am NOT complaining), but let’s try doing this RIGHT from here on, ¿ok? I have proposed (above) a preliminary text for presentation. Mr Stradivarius also stated one of the anti-NLW sources has issues; For the interim, I propose keeping that source until a better source can be presented, and in the interim using the “Citation Needed” tag behind it (I don’t know how to do that).
The source in question has been ruled not neutral, but I would not recommend using a neutrality dispute tag there; I “get it” there’s an issue and you have to use the sources available, not always the sources you WANT. (Hey, I wanted an FBI article as a source for misuse, but I can’t find it and apparently no one else can either.)
Ok, let’s get the section OFF in the meantime and get this thing fixed properly.Trying To Make Wikipedia At Least Better Than The ''Weekly World News.'' (talk) 16:16, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
The Amnesty International source, "USA: Police use of pepper spray -- tantamount to torture", has been cited in some 11 books and perhaps 200 scholarly works. It is a fine, high quality source perfectly useful to us in this article. Binksternet (talk) 16:37, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
Ok, let’s try this AGAIN. Go UP↑ and we’ll start the discussion on how to get the section back into compliance with Wikipedia standards on Neutrality. Then, we take the finished product and put that on the article page. (TransporterMan already settled that, I’m not even sure why you’ve brought it up.)Trying To Make Wikipedia At Least Better Than The ''Weekly World News.'' (talk) 20:39, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
I don't get you. When I look at the version rewritten by Stradivarius, I see a perfectly fine paragraph about pepper spray. That means when you say it must be brought into compliance, I cannot understand what you are talking about. Binksternet (talk) 22:12, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
Ok, other than the citations are not in-line, it is ready to roll. Unless the no pepperspray reference is ready to be replaced it’s actually ready to be replaced. I edited the section right where it was for simplicity.Trying To Make Wikipedia At Least Better Than The ''Weekly World News.'' (talk) 16:20, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
It is not "ready to roll" if there are placeholders for citations. Binksternet (talk) 16:54, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
¿Do I have to go BACK again? ¿Really? ¿Less than 24 hours after they closed the matter? Stop obstructing, stop stalling, and start acting in the good faith you’re supposed to be. Trying To Make Wikipedia At Least Better Than The ''Weekly World News.'' (talk) 17:05, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
I believe Binksternet is acting in good faith...there shouldn't be an assumption that he isn't. This may be miscommunication. If I'm understanding correctly, Reddson acknowledges that it needs citations before the text could be added to the article. (If I'm wrong, please say so).
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 19:33, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
That is mostly correct; hh supplied sources, I just can’t get them in-line; EDIT: Additionally, since I can read .pdf’s (and no, I don't know why), and as the lack of in-line citations is the ONLY OBJECTION (as hh has already supplied citations, and no objection has been made to them), the refusal to allow it to move forward (either with “citation need” tags as has been done in the past or otherwise) makes me strongly suspect I will have to go back again. You may believe what you like./EDIT21:08, 4 October 2011 (UTC)— Preceding unsigned comment added by Andering J. REDDSON (talk • contribs) 17:08, 4 October 2011‎ (UTC)

Page Lock Request

I’m requesting the page be locked due to the use of biased sources.Trying To Make Wikipedia At Least Better Than The ''Weekly World News.'' (talk) 04:42, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

I think you will find that page protection does not apply here. I am at a loss to understand what the issue is now. I would suggest that you create your sandbox and using the citations page and this example page learn to form citations. It isn't that hard really. When you have a suitable writeup bring it here into a new section and seek consensus. Placeholders will not work as a matter of policy.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 14:45, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
Now I think I see the issue — using ACLU as a source. When you disagree with someone's references, it would be normal protocol to first raise the issue here on the talk page and if a consensus can not be reached then you would pose the question asking for further comment on the Reliable Sources noticeboard. Hopefully helpful,
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 16:04, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
Right SO… ACLU has a financial agenda in promoting anti-cop rhetoric. There, it’s said. The new text adds nothing of real value to the piece nor does it address new ideas, but does “front load” the matter with additional anti-police material, which in view of how the Mediation and Arbitration went, strikes me a deeply counter-productive; It’s ballot stuffing (“Let’s get as many voted in now BFORE they catch us.” thinking). Until this whole thing is finally CLOSED, I’m asking the page be locked to prevent FURTHER vandalism.Trying To Make Wikipedia At Least Better Than The ''Weekly World News.'' (talk) 16:25, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
The ACLU source is used neutrally. It describes their conclusion about prone holds, which you were trying to put into the article anyway. You wrote, "To prevent against this, they advice peppersrayed suspects be kept out of a prone position once resistance ends, and to the greatest extend possible in open air." You implied that the IACP advised a restriction about the prone position but I could not find such a recommendation from them. You didn't include any cites and your English is nearly incoherent in the sentence but I puzzled it out and guessed that you wished for some text to be included about how bad the prone position is following pepper spray. The cite I found was not IACP but ACLU. I don't understand the problems you keep having with the article. Binksternet (talk) 17:06, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
It’s purely anti-police rhetoric form a corporation whose sole source of income is suing government agencies (police being only their largest single target), all other excuses aside. Further, both mediation AND arbitration said “Get the bias out.” (Had you included the other side of the story, I wouldn’t be making the complaint now; You didn’t. Take a hint.)
EDIT: Further, the “source” provided (currently #15) states: “The tons of tear gas and pepper spray munitions Seattle police used on demonstrators and bystanders alike at the anti-WTO demonstrations last December contained chemicals implicated in lung problems, eye damage and even death. Contrary to conventional wisdom, the effects of these chemical weapons are not always confined to 15 or so minutes of intense pain and incapacitation. According to manufacturers' documents, military research and medical literature, each of these agents carries short- and long-term health risks; various formulations contain potential carcinogens.” I’d like to see any evidence that it was “tons” or this documentation of long-term health effects; I’ve been peppersprayed TWICE (once in the service, and once in backspray after pepperspraying a combative drunk at a bar), and the worst that happened was a slight re-flash a couple hours later (when I rubbed my eyes). I acknowledge that things can happen (that’s why I left the positional hypoxia reference in there), but you’d better do better than some cop-bashing, muck-raking conspiracy nutjob as a “source.” (I left it in for the time being, but I’m liking it less and less the more I think about it.) Trying To Make Wikipedia At Least Better Than The ''Weekly World News.'' (talk) 19:38, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
I don't see bias in the information that you removed. The text is well cited by reliable sources, and is correct. Your personal experience is not evidence we can use. Research groups including police and military units have tested pepper spray and found in some cases negative effects lasting as long as a week. People are all different in their reactions to it. Binksternet (talk) 22:37, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
Using a source with a conflict of interest is bad enough, but stuffing such information in there to game the system is, really, quite despicable, especially after this matter had been addressed at Arbitration.
EDIT: If the BIASED section goes back up, the whole thing goes back to Arbitration.Trying To Make Wikipedia At Least Better Than The ''Weekly World News.'' (talk) 17:44, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
All I'm getting from you is WP:IDONTLIKEIT. The accusations of gaming the system and of stuffing the article with conflicted sources are without substance. Binksternet (talk) 18:00, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Badder Fish To Fry

¿When is the overall anti-police propaganda going to be removed? (Do not bother with “Well, ACLU isn’t anti-cop” my tolerance for this BS is long GONE.)
Interestingly, my original objection (caltrops and batons) are still there.Trying To Make Wikipedia At Least Better Than The ''Weekly World News.'' (talk) 21:14, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

All the sources are reliable ones. Your complaint is not actionable. Binksternet (talk) 21:44, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
I see problems in the caltrops section in that it may not be sufficiently clear in stating that contemporary application is (to the best of my knowledge) exclusive to vehicle-stopping today - - do we know of anyone who is actually using them as a counter-personnel weapon? -hh (talk) 22:50, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

and

Insofar as batons, I don't see any noteworthy mention of them that could be construed as incorrect or even anti-police - - can we have some more details on exactly what was said where and why it is a concern? -hh (talk) 22:50, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
What is the title of this thread supposed to mean? I like Battered fish to fry or Fried battered fish better.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 04:09, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
Actionable: Out of context quotes, use of fiscally and politically motivated biased sources (ACLU; anti-police AND is a private, for-profit corporation that makes it’s money by filing frivolous, often purely harassing lawsuits), inaccurate information (here’s a hint, when a car goes out-of-control, people often die- they’re called “deadly traffic accidents” for a reason, but yes, there IS a way to stop a car guaranteed not to cause the car to crash, and it’s not listed anywhere on Wikipedia that I could find). That’s just the starter categories of “actionable” issues- that is to say, the problems that existed LAST JUNE, as opposed to the malicious insertation of biased information (by Binksternet, not Berean Hunter). So ya. It is actionable.Trying To Make Wikipedia At Least Better Than The ''Weekly World News.'' (talk) 21:39, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
You know, I been sitting on this a while: I askeded myself, “¿Is it worth it?”
I answereded myself: Ya, it probably is.”
I took a look at one of your references, “Future War: Non-Lethal Weapons in Twenty-First-Century Warfare” (John B. ALEXANDER), and nearly sh** myself: “If a mere temporary flat tire is the objective, a simple caltrop of hollow tubes that let the air escape, even from self-sealing tires, is sufficient. However, if permanent damage is necessary, then improved caltrops are required.” Let’s start with the first line: ¿Does it occur to you what will happen if you impale THAT on your foot? Here’s a hint: ¿What do you thing will happen if you sharpen a metal pipe and impale it in yourself? Let’s address the second sentence: “Permanent damage” to a human being is within the definition of “serious injury” (indeed, is specifically in the definition in most jurisdictions). ¿Remember that thing I said about “Out of context quotes”? This was the FIRST one. A. J. REDDSON
Yes, stepping on a coltrop would probably be a pretty bad thing - - but (and this is a very important distinction) we have to look at the intended application of the NL tool: was it to have people step on it, or have a car run over it? Answer: the intent was to stop cars, not people. As such, the issue you point out is a risk, but it is basically a risk of unintended effects (ie, side effects) and not necessarily a primary risk from its intended method of use/employment. So the question basically comes back around to a key point: is the Wiki Page's discussion on coltrops talking about NL vehicle stopping only, or is it also referring to using coltrops as a NL counter-personnel too? Next, note that even if we are able to find organizations (police/military/etc) that are indeed using coltrops for counter-personnel, then there's one final hurdle: is their employment considered a NL engagement ... ie, being covered under non-lethal engagement policies ... or is it a "Not NL" engagement, where lethal engagement policies are being applied? We have to remember that Non-Lethals aren't the only legal tools out there: a lethal firearm is still a legal weapon of war, of civil law enforcement, and of personal protection (in most regions). -hh (talk) 23:08, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
This talk page is not a forum for your observations. Please suggest a workable change to make to the article. Binksternet (talk) 01:20, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
Interesting. I point out that the sources YOU have been hiding behind do not say what you claim they say, now you want to hide behind “not a forum” and “demand” that I present a “workable solution.” I did. A long time ago; Indeed, this whole thing started with a mere request to remove that section and one other (on batons). Stop dodging (I’ll wager there is a poicy on THAT, too, and “I Don’t Like It” would only be the FIRST one listed).Trying To Make Wikipedia At Least Better Than The ''Weekly World News.'' (talk) 18:34, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
Gentlemen, please. -hh (talk) 23:08, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Reddson still seems to be confused concerning the matter that went to mediation. Lest there be any doubts about the matter, the mediator has commented here that the AI source is/was fine.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 16:18, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

No, he did not: “However, for how it was intended, it clearly doesn't belong because all it is really doing is introducting the concept of item misuse, which is indisputably not unique to this topic only.” Copied and pasted from the Mediation report on this specific issue (with spelling mistakes included). Additioanlly, EVEN MORE bad-faith edits have been made while my back was turned. ASAP I will be putting the page BACK the way it was after the arbitration was complete (at which point, the neutrality of the article was intact).

This is clearly a bad-faith attempt to dodge the ruling, which stated that AI was “inappropriate.” AI has a financial stake in the matter; ¿Would you ask BP to report on DWH? Equally, ¿would you allow a DA to serve as Judge in a matter? Clearly, when a conflict of interest (especially a financial conflict of interest) exists, you can NOT expect a “fair and balanced” assessment.
The matter here: I acknowledge abuses HAVE occurred: I haven’t said ANYTHING about the Oakland incident, even though there is more to the story than just the “rogue cops beating innocent protestors” propaganda that has been perpetuated (there WERE issues, and I haven’t gotten all the facts because it appears BOTH sides are lying to some degree, so neither can be believed at all). I myself even alluded to an incident (though I can’t recall when or where the exact incident occurred, so I really can’t reference it).
The use of AI’s reporting, however, is unacceptable- Many other reliable (that means unbiased) sources exist, ones that do not have an agenda (financial or otherwise) to repeat flat out falsehoods, which AI has been caught doing. Going back to the analogy- If you asked BP, DWH was an “accident” (there was even talk of them trying to pawn it off as a terrorist attack at one point, but this was laughed off). That would have them off the hook for the clean up, which would have been in their financial interests. AI makes their money by filing lawsuits on behalf of people who’ve had confrontations with police and other government agencies, to the point that even frivolous and harassment suits have been filed (as defiend by having been thrown out specifically for those grounds, most especially I remember one such case in the wake of the King Riots)- Therefore it is in their financial interest to cast as wide a net against the actions of any government agent as possible.Trying To Make Wikipedia At Least Better Than The ''Weekly World News.'' (talk) 00:14, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

I just went back and read the mediation report again. What I get from it is that citing AI is reasonably permissible for documenting their opinions on the subtopic of Allegations, but what would probably more effective (and less controversial) would be to cite the more original UN report (TransporterMan provided the link). However, this does hearken back to a far-older discussion we've had with this page, which is to what degree do we want to allocate time/space to the far more generalizable question of misuse? I'll see if I can find some time to dust off my old attempt to write a reasonably NPOV paragraph on this subtopic area, for editorial consideration. -hh (talk) 18:26, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

vehicles

I don't think caltrops are effective against vehicles since they remain embedded in the tire nearly closing the hole created. and I have seem demonstrations where they were not effective at all--Commander v99 (talk) 20:37, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Good to know, but this borders on a question of what constitutes an acceptable level of effectiveness. We do know that the technology is marketed as & employed by some organizations as a NL vehicle-stopping technology, and it seems to work a TBD reasonable percentage of the time, so we can't really conclude that it is a snake oil fraud. -hh (talk) 13:29, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
On a related note:

I took a look at one of your references, “Future War: Non-Lethal Weapons in Twenty-First-Century Warfare” (John B. ALEXANDER), and nearly sh** myself: “If a mere temporary flat tire is the objective, a simple caltrop of hollow tubes that let the air escape, even from self-sealing tires, is sufficient. However, if permanent damage is necessary, then improved caltrops are required.” Let’s start with the first line: ¿Does it occur to you what will happen if you impale THAT on your foot? Here’s a hint: ¿What do you thing will happen if you sharpen a metal pipe and impale it in yourself? Let’s address the second sentence: “Permanent damage” to a human being is within the definition of “serious injury” (indeed, is specifically in the definition in most jurisdictions). A. J. REDDSON 01:51, 3 November 2012‎ (UTC)

Sorry, I'm not familiar with ALEXANDER's book. Nevertheless, it appears that the point that you're overlooking is one of context: a device's intended employment is a very important consideration in trying to determine if it meets the defintions of Non-Lethal. Coltrops are confusing because they happen to be an example of a device which pedantically is both a NL and not a NL: this is where the intended employment comes in, because the answer to which it is is based on if we are trying to stop vehicles, or people. If we're trying to stop people, then a conventional coltrop simply is not a NL by today's standards. And yet the very same coltrop is a NL when it is intended to be employed against a vehicle. Yes, this seems very confusing, but when you keep the context of intended employment included, it isn't as bad. Simply do not neglect context or employment when contemplating a piece of hardware. -hh (talk) 22:36, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Criticism/political debate

This article hardly covers the political implications for society and the ongoing debate about this issue. Plus, the section on terrorism concerns seems to be awfully biased towards United States security perspective.

On the other hand, the technical details dominate the article in a way that, I think, does not appropriately reflect the significance of this topic.

I presume that there are lots of sources available to improve this. Has anyone thought about this? I'm not quite sure, what this ACLU fuss is all about but I guess having some NGO perspective, human rights perspective and some scholarly work (philosophical, sociological, etc.) in here would be a good start. I might put myself up to the task some day, if nobody objects. -- Aepsil0n (talk) 20:51, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

You're correct that the scope of the page currently does not discuss much of these. It is IMO clear that the original scope of the page (and as it still mostly exists) is from a technical "What Is It?" perspective. IMO, you're welcome to take a stab at drafting something up for these subtopics, although my advise is that they're potentially controversial (politics usually are) and merit publishing a draft proposed change here to the Talk page first so that NPOV tenants can be discussed before it goes live. The other pragmatic question would be one of scope creep: if the added work become large, then we should contemplate - preferably in advance - if Wiki would be better off organizationally to manage it as two well-scoped pages rather than one broad one. For example, the current "What Is It?" could be revised to be even more purely technically focused and a second "What About It?" (is that a good scope definition summary of what's intended?) page would then focus on these non-technical and often more topical (and dynamic) elements. Better to plan a path than to wander! Hope this helps. -hh (talk) 11:19, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

General Administration

FYI, I've just administratively deleted the addition of the "BIP" commercial product, which was done under the guise of a supposed category of NLWs.

Additionally, I suspect that this editor probably fails NPOV, as they chose to identify a +1400 character addition as a "m" (minor edit). Further, some of the claims made are factually incorrect. It claims to be 'unique', in that its head is collapsible which mushrooms upon impact, but this is the same engineering design concept which has been in use by the 40mm M1006 'sponge' grenade (Type-Classified 1999), as well as functionally similar to the saboted flour bag that was developed for the Alsetex "Cougar" 56mm grenade launcher circa 2004. As such, if the BIP is notable, and NPOV'ed, there's still a lot of other shortcomings that need to be addressed before it can be incorporated, which makes it an item that should be discussed here prior to adding it to the main page. -hh (talk) 19:40, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Lede pic concern

I'm wondering if anyone has taken a close look at the lede pic. The pepper spray spreads out as it leaves the can, but when it reaches the man's face, it creates a curiously straight line at the top and bottom (download it, zoom in and see for yourself). There is also no evidence of the rest of the spray staining his clothes. On top of that, to the left of the pepper spray can, under the window, you can see the lines where they chopped it (the colors don't even match up). Someone will probably cite WP:OR to me on this, but this is probably photoshopped and should be replaced. Any thoughts? Mophedd (talk) 18:34, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Maybe it was based on the real picture but the Navy did a bad photoshop job to bring out the color of the spayed agent. Would another picture like the one on the right be a better picture? Z22 (talk) 19:10, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
As long as the new pic isn't copyrighted, it works for me. I say add it. Mophedd (talk) 05:46, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
Added. It's a public domain image already on Commons. Z22 (talk) 11:12, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Minor history correction

Section 1 Recent history of non-lethal weapons development for military use "Before the general availability of early military non-lethal weapons in the mid 1990s, . . ." is contradicted by Riot control use which states that rubber bullets (baton rounds) were used in Northern Ireland as early as 1970, plastic bullets (PVC baton rounds) were used starting in 1973 and less accurate and less safe wooden rounds were used in Singapore in the 1880's. These were "less lethal" (almost always non-lethal when used as training directed).

If these were overlooked because they were considered police actions (with military training), then the next section on police use should be changed. These could also have been overlooked because only Britain used these bullets before the 1980s.

Comment: Based on several pages in this Wiki, non-toxic, low impact projectiles hitting below the ribs are almost always non-lethal. Instructions are usually to aim for the extremities or abdomen. Their danger increases considerably with head impacts and age. Many of the fatalities have been caused by firing a warning shot above a crowd, which often results in a head impact or firing at the heart, which often results in broken ribs.

Comment: The section on directed spray chemicals should note that a "permanent" skin dye in the spray greatly helps police capture the person sprayed and aids in prosecution.Drbits (talk) 18:48, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Non-lethal weapon. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:20, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Move part of 9.2.1 Anti-Personnel caltrops section to 9.1.1 Anti-vehicle caltrops section or merge caltrops sections?

"In modern times, special caltrops are also sometimes used against wheeled vehicles with pneumatic tires. Some South American urban guerrillas as the Tupamaros and Montoneros called them "miguelitos" and used these as a tactic to avoid pursuit after ambushes." These two sentences are included in the Anti-Personnel section for caltrops, when they should probably be in the Anti-Vehicle section for caltrops. In addition, having two caltrops sections is, in my opinion, repetitive and unnecessary. 2603:9001:4706:D2:5839:792F:E6B0:85A2 (talk) 20:38, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Removal of section

Removed section entitled "mace" under chemical sprays. "mace" is not a substance or weapon, it is a brand name which started in the 1970s. 98.178.179.240 (talk) 17:38, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

  1. ^ "No Pepper Spray on Nonviolent Protesters!, Lundberg v. County of Humboldt]
  2. ^ USA: Police use of pepper spray - tantamount to torture. Amnesty International, 4 November 1997.
  3. ^ USA: Police use of pepper spray - tantamount to torture. Amnesty International, 4 November 1997.
  4. ^ N.Y. policeman commits suicide after Taser death Reuters, 2 October 2008,
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Non-lethal_weapon/Archive_2&oldid=1140242794"