Non-lethal weapons, a moral hazard? | Stephen Coleman | TEDxCanberra
-
0:08 - 0:10What I want to talk to you about today
-
0:10 - 0:15is some of the problems that the military
of the Western world -- -
0:15 - 0:17Australia, United States,
the UK and so on -- -
0:17 - 0:21face in some of the deployments
that they're dealing with -
0:21 - 0:23in the modern world at this time.
-
0:23 - 0:25If you think about the sorts of things
-
0:25 - 0:28we've sent Australian military
personnel to in recent years, -
0:28 - 0:31we've got obvious things
like Iraq and Afghanistan, -
0:31 - 0:34but you've also got things like
East Timor and the Solomon Islands, -
0:34 - 0:35and so on.
-
0:35 - 0:36And a lot of these deployments
-
0:36 - 0:40that we're sending
military personnel to these days -
0:40 - 0:41aren't traditional wars.
-
0:42 - 0:46In fact, a lot of the jobs
we're asking military personnel to do -
0:46 - 0:47in those situations
-
0:47 - 0:51are ones that, in their own countries --
Australia, the US and so on -- -
0:51 - 0:53would actually be done by police officers.
-
0:53 - 0:55So there's a bunch
of problems that come up -
0:55 - 0:57for military personnel
in these situations, -
0:57 - 1:00because they're doing things
they haven't really been trained for. -
1:01 - 1:06And they're doing things that those
who do them in their own countries -
1:06 - 1:09are trained very differently for
and equipped very differently for. -
1:10 - 1:14Now, there's a bunch of reasons
why we send military personnel, -
1:14 - 1:15rather than police, to do these jobs.
-
1:16 - 1:18If Australia had to send
1,000 people tomorrow -
1:18 - 1:21to West Papua, for example,
-
1:21 - 1:25we don't have 1,000 police officers
hanging around that could go tomorrow, -
1:25 - 1:27and we do have
1,000 soldiers that could go. -
1:28 - 1:30So when we have to send someone,
we send the military -- -
1:30 - 1:32they're there, they're available,
-
1:32 - 1:35and heck, they're used to going off
and doing these things -
1:35 - 1:36and living by themselves
-
1:36 - 1:38and not having all this extra support.
-
1:38 - 1:40So they are able to do it in that sense.
-
1:41 - 1:43But they aren't trained
the same way police officers are, -
1:43 - 1:46and they're certainly not equipped
the way police officers are, -
1:46 - 1:49so this has raised
a bunch of problems for them -
1:49 - 1:50when dealing with these issues.
-
1:50 - 1:53One particular thing that's come up
that I am especially interested in, -
1:53 - 1:55is the question of whether,
-
1:55 - 1:58when we're sending military personnel
to do these sorts of jobs, -
1:58 - 2:00we ought to be equipping them differently;
-
2:00 - 2:03and in particular, whether we ought
to be giving them access -
2:03 - 2:06to some of the nonlethal weapons
that police have. -
2:06 - 2:08Since they're doing some of the same jobs,
-
2:08 - 2:10maybe they should have
some of those things. -
2:10 - 2:13And there's a range of places you'd think
those things would be really useful. -
2:13 - 2:16For example, when you've got
military checkpoints. -
2:17 - 2:19If people are approaching
these checkpoints -
2:19 - 2:22and the military personnel are unsure
if this person's hostile or not, -
2:23 - 2:25say this person approaching
here, and they say, -
2:25 - 2:27"Is this a suicide bomber or not?
-
2:27 - 2:29Is something hidden under their clothes?
-
2:29 - 2:30What's going to happen?"
-
2:30 - 2:32They don't know if the person
is hostile or not. -
2:32 - 2:36If the person doesn't follow directions,
they may end up shooting them, -
2:36 - 2:39and then find out afterwards
either, yes, we shot the right person, -
2:39 - 2:41or, no, this was just an innocent person
-
2:41 - 2:43who didn't understand what was going on.
-
2:43 - 2:46So if they had nonlethal weapons,
then they would say, -
2:46 - 2:48"We can use them
in that sort of situation. -
2:48 - 2:50If we shoot someone who wasn't hostile,
-
2:50 - 2:52at least we haven't killed them."
-
2:52 - 2:55Another situation: this photo
is from one of the missions -
2:55 - 2:57in the Balkans in the late 1990s.
-
2:58 - 3:00This situation is a little bit different,
-
3:00 - 3:02where maybe they know someone is hostile;
-
3:02 - 3:04they've got someone shooting at them
-
3:04 - 3:06or doing something else
that's clearly hostile, -
3:06 - 3:07throwing rocks, whatever.
-
3:07 - 3:09But if they respond,
-
3:09 - 3:12there's a range of other people around
who are innocent people, -
3:12 - 3:13who might also get hurt.
-
3:13 - 3:14It'd be collateral damage
-
3:14 - 3:17that the military
often doesn't want to talk about. -
3:17 - 3:19So again, they'd say, "With access
to nonlethal weapons, -
3:20 - 3:21if we've got someone we know is hostile,
-
3:21 - 3:23we can do something to deal with them,
-
3:23 - 3:25and know that if we hit anyone else,
-
3:25 - 3:27at least we're not going to kill them."
-
3:27 - 3:29Another suggestion has been,
-
3:29 - 3:31since we're putting so many
robots in the field, -
3:31 - 3:33we can see the time coming
-
3:33 - 3:35where they're actually going
to send robots out in the field -
3:35 - 3:37that are autonomous.
-
3:37 - 3:40They'll make their own decisions
about who to shoot and who not to shoot, -
3:40 - 3:41without a human in the loop.
-
3:41 - 3:43So the suggestion is,
-
3:43 - 3:46if we're going to send robots out
and allow them to do this, -
3:46 - 3:50maybe it would be a good idea
if they were armed with nonlethal weapons, -
3:50 - 3:53so if the robot makes a bad decision
and shoots the wrong person, -
3:53 - 3:55again, they haven't actually killed them.
-
3:58 - 4:01Now, there's a whole range
of different sorts of nonlethal weapons, -
4:01 - 4:03some of which are available now,
-
4:03 - 4:04some of which they're developing.
-
4:04 - 4:07You've got traditional things
like pepper spray, -
4:07 - 4:09OC spray up at the top there,
-
4:09 - 4:11or Tasers over here.
-
4:11 - 4:14The one on the top right here
is actually a dazzling laser, -
4:14 - 4:18intended to just blind
the person momentarily -
4:18 - 4:19and disorient them.
-
4:19 - 4:21You've got nonlethal shotgun rounds
-
4:21 - 4:25that contain rubber pellets
instead of the traditional metal ones. -
4:25 - 4:27And this one in the middle
here, the large truck, -
4:28 - 4:30is called the Active Denial System,
-
4:30 - 4:33something the US military
is working on at the moment. -
4:33 - 4:36It's essentially a big
microwave transmitter. -
4:38 - 4:40It's sort of your classic
idea of a heat ray. -
4:41 - 4:44It goes out to a really long distance,
-
4:44 - 4:46compared to any of these
other sorts of things. -
4:46 - 4:50Anybody who is hit with this
feels a sudden burst of heat, -
4:50 - 4:52and just wants to get out of the way.
-
4:52 - 4:54It is a lot more sophisticated
than a microwave oven, -
4:54 - 4:57but it basically is boiling
the water molecules -
4:57 - 4:59in the very surface level of your skin.
-
4:59 - 5:01So you feel this massive heat,
-
5:01 - 5:03and you go, "I want
to get out of the way." -
5:03 - 5:05And they think this will be really useful
-
5:05 - 5:09in places where we need to clear
a crowd out of a particular area, -
5:09 - 5:10if the crowd is being hostile.
-
5:10 - 5:13If we need to keep people
away from a particular place, -
5:13 - 5:15we can do that with these sorts of things.
-
5:15 - 5:18So there's a whole range
of different nonlethal weapons -
5:18 - 5:20we could give military personnel,
-
5:20 - 5:22and there's a whole range of situations
-
5:22 - 5:24where they're looking at them and saying,
-
5:24 - 5:26"These things would be really useful."
-
5:26 - 5:27But as I said,
-
5:27 - 5:30the military and the police
are very different. -
5:33 - 5:34(Laughter)
-
5:34 - 5:37Yes, you don't have to look
very hard at this to recognize -
5:37 - 5:39that they might be very different.
-
5:39 - 5:40In particular,
-
5:40 - 5:42the attitude to the use of force
-
5:42 - 5:44and the way they're trained to use force
-
5:44 - 5:46is especially different.
-
5:47 - 5:49The police --
-
5:49 - 5:52and knowing because I've actually
helped to train police -- -
5:52 - 5:54police, particularly
in Western jurisdictions at least, -
5:54 - 5:58are trained to De-escalate force,
-
5:58 - 6:01to try and avoid using force
wherever possible, -
6:01 - 6:06and to use lethal force
only as an absolute last resort. -
6:07 - 6:09Military personnel
are being trained for war. -
6:10 - 6:13So they're trained that,
as soon as things go bad, -
6:13 - 6:15their first response is lethal force.
-
6:17 - 6:20The moment the fecal matter
hits the rotating turbine -- -
6:20 - 6:21(Laughter)
-
6:21 - 6:23you can start shooting at people.
-
6:24 - 6:26So their attitudes
-
6:26 - 6:28to the use of lethal force
are very different, -
6:28 - 6:30and I think it's fairly obvious
-
6:30 - 6:33that their attitude to the use
of nonlethal weapons -
6:33 - 6:36would also be very different
from what it is with the police. -
6:36 - 6:38And since we've already had
so many problems -
6:39 - 6:41with police use of nonlethal
weapons in various ways, -
6:41 - 6:44I thought it would be a good idea
to look at some of those things -
6:44 - 6:46and relate it to the military context.
-
6:46 - 6:50I was very surprised when I started
to do this to see that, in fact, -
6:50 - 6:53even the people who advocated the use
of nonlethal weapons by the military -
6:53 - 6:55hadn't actually done that.
-
6:55 - 6:56They generally seemed to think,
-
6:56 - 6:59"Why would we care
what's happened with the police? -
6:59 - 7:01We're looking at something different,"
-
7:01 - 7:02and didn't seem to recognize
-
7:02 - 7:05they were looking at pretty
much the same stuff. -
7:05 - 7:08So I started to investigate
some of those issues, -
7:08 - 7:12and have a look at the way
police use nonlethal weapons -
7:12 - 7:13when they're introduced,
-
7:13 - 7:16and some of the problems that might
arise out of those sorts of things -
7:16 - 7:18when they actually do introduce them.
-
7:18 - 7:21And of course, being Australian,
-
7:21 - 7:25I started looking at stuff in Australia,
knowing from my own experience -
7:25 - 7:28of various times when nonlethal weapons
have been introduced in Australia. -
7:28 - 7:32One of the things I particularly
looked at was the use of OC spray -- -
7:32 - 7:35oleoresin capsicum spray, pepper spray --
-
7:35 - 7:37by Australian police,
-
7:37 - 7:40and seeing what had happened
when that had been introduced, -
7:40 - 7:42and those sorts of issues.
-
7:42 - 7:45And one study that I found,
a particularly interesting one, -
7:45 - 7:47was in Queensland,
-
7:47 - 7:51because they had a trial period
for the use of pepper spray -
7:51 - 7:53before they actually
introduced it more broadly. -
7:53 - 7:56And I went and had a look
at some of the figures here. -
7:56 - 8:00Now, when they introduced
OC spray in Queensland, -
8:00 - 8:01they were really explicit.
-
8:01 - 8:05The police minister's and a heap
of public statements were made about it. -
8:05 - 8:08They were saying, "This is explicitly
intended to give police an option -
8:08 - 8:10between shouting and shooting.
-
8:12 - 8:14This is something they can use
instead of a firearm -
8:14 - 8:18in situations where they would have
previously had to shoot someone." -
8:18 - 8:20So I looked at all
of the police shooting figures. -
8:20 - 8:22And you can't actually
find them very easily -
8:22 - 8:24for individual Australian states;
-
8:24 - 8:26I could only find these.
-
8:26 - 8:29This is from an Australian Institute
of Criminology report. -
8:29 - 8:33You can see, in the fine print at the top:
-
8:33 - 8:36"Police shooting deaths"
means not just people shot by police, -
8:36 - 8:39but people who have shot themselves
in the presence of police. -
8:39 - 8:42But these are the figures
across the entire country, -
8:42 - 8:45and the red arrow represents
the point where Queensland said, -
8:45 - 8:47"Yes, this is where we're going to give
-
8:47 - 8:50all police officers
across the entire state -
8:50 - 8:51access to OC spray."
-
8:51 - 8:54So you can see there were six deaths
sort of leading up to it, -
8:54 - 8:56every year for a number of years.
-
8:56 - 8:58There was a spike a few years before,
-
8:58 - 9:00but that wasn't actually Queensland.
-
9:00 - 9:02Anyone know where that was?
-
9:03 - 9:04Wasn't Port Arthur, no.
-
9:04 - 9:06Victoria? Yes, correct.
-
9:06 - 9:08That spike was all Victoria.
-
9:08 - 9:10(Laughter)
-
9:10 - 9:12So it wasn't that Queensland
had a particular problem -
9:12 - 9:16with deaths from police
shootings and so on. -
9:16 - 9:19So, this was the point
where they introduced it. -
9:19 - 9:22So, six shootings
across the whole country, -
9:23 - 9:25fairly consistently over the years before.
-
9:25 - 9:28The next two years were the years
they studied -- 2001, 2002. -
9:28 - 9:31Anyone want to take a stab
at the number of times, -
9:31 - 9:32given how they've introduced this,
-
9:32 - 9:36the number of times police in Queensland
used OC spray in that period? -
9:37 - 9:38Hundreds?
-
9:39 - 9:41One? Three?
-
9:42 - 9:44A thousand is getting better.
-
9:47 - 9:51Explicitly introduced as an alternative
to the use of lethal force -- -
9:51 - 9:54an alternative between
shouting and shooting. -
9:54 - 9:56I'm going to go out on a limb here
-
9:56 - 9:59and say that if Queensland police
didn't have OC spray, -
9:59 - 10:02they wouldn't have shot 2,226 people
-
10:02 - 10:04in those two years.
-
10:04 - 10:05(Laughter)
-
10:06 - 10:09In fact, if you have a look
at the studies they were looking at, -
10:09 - 10:13the material they were
collecting and examining, -
10:13 - 10:17you can see the suspects were only armed
in about 15 percent of cases -
10:17 - 10:19where OC spray was used.
-
10:20 - 10:23It was routinely being
used in this period, -
10:23 - 10:25and, of course, still is routinely used --
-
10:25 - 10:28because there were no complaints about it,
-
10:28 - 10:31not within the context
of this study, anyway -- -
10:31 - 10:34it was routinely being used
to deal with people who were violent, -
10:34 - 10:36who were potentially violent,
-
10:36 - 10:39and also quite frequently used
-
10:39 - 10:42to deal with people who were
simply passively noncompliant. -
10:44 - 10:46This person is not doing anything violent,
-
10:46 - 10:48but they just won't do
what we want them to. -
10:48 - 10:50They're not obeying
the directions we're giving them, -
10:50 - 10:54so we'll give them a shot
of the OC spray -- that'll speed them up. -
10:54 - 10:56Everything will work out better that way.
-
10:56 - 10:59This was something explicitly introduced
-
10:59 - 11:00to be an alternative to firearms,
-
11:00 - 11:02but it's being routinely used
-
11:02 - 11:05to deal with a whole range
of other sorts of problems. -
11:08 - 11:10Now one of the particular
issues that comes up -
11:10 - 11:13with military use of nonlethal weapons --
-
11:13 - 11:16and people actually say,
"There might be some problems" -- -
11:16 - 11:19there's a couple of particular
problems that get focused on. -
11:19 - 11:24One of those problems is: nonlethal
weapons may be used indiscriminately. -
11:24 - 11:27One of the fundamental principles
of military use of force -
11:27 - 11:29is that you have to be discriminate;
-
11:29 - 11:32you have to be careful
about who you're shooting at. -
11:32 - 11:35So one of the problems suggested
with nonlethal weapons -
11:35 - 11:37is that they might be used
indiscriminately -- -
11:37 - 11:40that you would use them
against a whole range of people, -
11:40 - 11:42because you don't have
to worry so much anymore. -
11:42 - 11:47And in fact, one particular instance
where I think that actually happens -
11:47 - 11:48where you can look at it,
-
11:48 - 11:51was the Dubrovka Theater
siege in Moscow in 2002, -
11:51 - 11:54which probably a lot of you,
unlike most of my students at ADFA, -
11:54 - 11:55are old enough to remember.
-
11:56 - 12:00So, Chechens had come in
and taken control of the theater. -
12:00 - 12:03They were holding something
like 700 people hostage. -
12:03 - 12:05They'd released a bunch of people,
-
12:05 - 12:07but they still had
about 700 people hostage. -
12:07 - 12:13And the Russian military police
special forces, "Spetsnaz," -
12:13 - 12:15came in and stormed the theater.
-
12:15 - 12:18The way they did it was to pump
the whole thing full of anesthetic gas. -
12:19 - 12:25And it turned out
that lots of the hostages died -
12:25 - 12:27as a result of inhaling the gas.
-
12:28 - 12:30It was used indiscriminately.
-
12:30 - 12:32They pumped the whole theater
full of the gas. -
12:33 - 12:35And it's no surprise that people died,
-
12:35 - 12:39because you don't know how much gas
each person is going to inhale, -
12:39 - 12:43what position they'll fall in when
they become unconscious, and so on. -
12:43 - 12:46There were, in fact,
only a couple of people who got shot -
12:46 - 12:47in this episode.
-
12:48 - 12:50So when they had a look at it afterward,
-
12:50 - 12:53there were only a couple of people
who'd apparently been shot, -
12:53 - 12:56by the hostage takers
or by the police forces -
12:56 - 12:58trying to deal with the situation.
-
12:58 - 12:59Virtually everybody that got killed
-
12:59 - 13:02got killed from inhaling the gas.
-
13:02 - 13:06The final toll of hostages
is a little unclear, -
13:06 - 13:08but it's certainly a few more than that,
-
13:08 - 13:10because other people died
over the next few days. -
13:10 - 13:12So this was one problem they talked about,
-
13:12 - 13:14that it might be used indiscriminately.
-
13:14 - 13:16A second problem
people sometimes talk about -
13:16 - 13:18with military use of nonlethal weapons --
-
13:18 - 13:21and it's actually why,
in the chemical weapons convention, -
13:21 - 13:24it's very clear that you can't use
riot-control agents -
13:24 - 13:25as weapons of warfare --
-
13:27 - 13:30is that it's seen that sometimes
nonlethal weapons might be used -
13:31 - 13:32not as an alternative to lethal force,
-
13:32 - 13:35but as a lethal force multiplier:
-
13:35 - 13:37that you use nonlethal weapons first,
-
13:37 - 13:40so your lethal weapons
will actually be more effective. -
13:41 - 13:44The people you'll be shooting at
won't be able to get out of the way. -
13:44 - 13:48They won't be aware of what's happening,
and you can kill them better. -
13:48 - 13:50And that's exactly what happened here.
-
13:50 - 13:53The hostage takers who had
been rendered unconscious by the gas -
13:53 - 13:55were not taken into custody;
-
13:55 - 13:57they were simply shot in the head.
-
13:58 - 14:02So this nonlethal weapon
was being used in this case -
14:03 - 14:06as a lethal force multiplier,
-
14:06 - 14:09to make killing more effective
in this particular situation. -
14:11 - 14:14Another problem I want to quickly mention
-
14:14 - 14:17is that there's a whole heap of problems
-
14:17 - 14:20with the way people are actually
taught to use nonlethal weapons, -
14:20 - 14:23and get trained about them
and then tested and so on. -
14:23 - 14:26Because they're tested
in nice, safe environments, -
14:26 - 14:28and are taught to use them
in nice, safe environments -- -
14:28 - 14:32like this, where you can see
exactly what's going on. -
14:32 - 14:34The person spraying the OC spray
is wearing a rubber glove -
14:34 - 14:37to make sure they don't get
contaminated, and so on. -
14:37 - 14:39But they're never used like that.
-
14:39 - 14:41They're used out in the real world,
-
14:42 - 14:44like in Texas, like this:
-
14:47 - 14:51I confess, this particular case
was one that piqued my interest in this. -
14:51 - 14:54It happened while I was working
as a research fellow -
14:54 - 14:55at the US Naval Academy.
-
14:56 - 14:59News reports started
coming up about this situation, -
14:59 - 15:01where this woman was arguing
with a police officer. -
15:01 - 15:02She wasn't violent.
-
15:02 - 15:05In fact, he was probably
six inches taller than me, -
15:05 - 15:07and she was about this tall.
-
15:08 - 15:09And eventually she said to him,
-
15:09 - 15:11"Well, I'm going to get back in my car."
-
15:11 - 15:15And he says, "If you get back
in your car, I'm going to tase you." -
15:15 - 15:18And she says, "Oh, go ahead.
Tase me." And so he does. -
15:18 - 15:20And it's all captured by the video camera
-
15:20 - 15:22running in the front of the police car.
-
15:23 - 15:26So, she's 72.
-
15:26 - 15:30And it's seen that this is the most
appropriate way of dealing with her. -
15:30 - 15:33And there are other examples
of the same sorts of things, -
15:33 - 15:34where you think,
-
15:34 - 15:37"Is this really an appropriate way
to use nonlethal weapons?" -
15:37 - 15:40"Police Chief Fires Taser
into 14 year old Girl's Head." -
15:40 - 15:43"She was running away.
What else was I suppose to do?" -
15:43 - 15:45(Laughter)
-
15:45 - 15:47Or Florida:
-
15:47 - 15:50"Police Taser 6-year-old
Boy at Elementary School." -
15:51 - 15:55And they clearly learned a lot from it,
because in the same district: -
15:55 - 15:58"Police Review Policy
After Children Shocked: -
15:58 - 16:012nd Child Shocked by Taser
Stun Gun Within Weeks." -
16:01 - 16:03Same police district.
-
16:03 - 16:07Another child within weeks
of Tasering the six-year-old boy. -
16:07 - 16:11Just in case you think it's only going
to happen in the United States, -
16:12 - 16:14it happened in Canada as well:
-
16:15 - 16:17And a colleague sent me
this one from London: -
16:20 - 16:25But my personal favorite,
I have to confess, does come from the US: -
16:25 - 16:29"Officers Taser 86-year-old
Disabled Woman in her Bed." -
16:29 - 16:31(Laughter)
-
16:31 - 16:33I checked the reports on this one.
-
16:33 - 16:35I looked at it. I was really surprised.
-
16:35 - 16:39Apparently, she took up a more
threatening position in her bed. -
16:39 - 16:41(Laughter)
-
16:41 - 16:43I kid you not,
that's exactly what it said: -
16:43 - 16:46"She took up a more threatening
position in her bed." -
16:46 - 16:48OK.
-
16:49 - 16:50But I'd remind you --
-
16:50 - 16:53I'm talking about military
uses of nonlethal weapons, -
16:53 - 16:54so why is this relevant?
-
16:54 - 16:57Because police are actually
more restrained in the use of force -
16:57 - 16:59than the military are.
-
16:59 - 17:02They're trained to be more
restrained in the use of force -
17:02 - 17:03than the military are.
-
17:03 - 17:05They're trained to think more,
to try and De-escalate. -
17:05 - 17:08So if you have these problems
with police officers -
17:08 - 17:09with nonlethal weapons,
-
17:09 - 17:11what on earth would make you think
-
17:11 - 17:13it's going to be better
with military personnel? -
17:14 - 17:16The last thing that I would like to say:
-
17:17 - 17:19When I'm talking to the police
-
17:19 - 17:21about what a perfect nonlethal
weapon would look like, -
17:21 - 17:23they almost inevitably say the same thing.
-
17:23 - 17:26They say, "It's got to be something
that's nasty enough -
17:26 - 17:28that people don't want
to be hit with this weapon. -
17:28 - 17:30So if you threaten to use it,
-
17:30 - 17:31people are going to comply with it.
-
17:33 - 17:35But it's also going to be something
-
17:35 - 17:37that doesn't leave any lasting effects."
-
17:39 - 17:40In other words,
-
17:41 - 17:44your perfect nonlethal weapon
is something that's perfect for abuse. -
17:44 - 17:48What would these guys have done
if they'd had access to Tasers, -
17:48 - 17:51or to a manned, portable version
of the Active Denial System -- -
17:52 - 17:54a small heat ray that you
can use on people -
17:54 - 17:56and not worry about.
-
17:57 - 17:58So I think yes,
-
17:59 - 18:02there may be ways that nonlethal weapons
will be great in these situations, -
18:02 - 18:04but there's also a whole heap of problems
-
18:04 - 18:06that need to be considered as well.
-
18:06 - 18:07Thanks very much.
-
18:07 - 18:10(Applause)
- Title:
- Non-lethal weapons, a moral hazard? | Stephen Coleman | TEDxCanberra
- Description:
-
Pepper spray, Tasers, tear gas, rubber bullets -- these "non-lethal" weapons are being used by more and more local police forces, as well as military forces brought in to control civilian crowds and other situations. Despite their name, non-lethal weapons have been known to cause deaths ... and as Stephen Coleman suggests, there are other, more insidious hazards as well. He explores the complex ethics -- and the unexpected consequences -- of using non-lethal weapons to control civilians.
- Video Language:
- English
- Team:
- closed TED
- Project:
- TEDxTalks
- Duration:
- 18:18
TED Translators admin edited English subtitles for Non-lethal weapons, a moral hazard? | Stephen Coleman | TEDxCanberra | ||
TED Translators admin edited English subtitles for Non-lethal weapons, a moral hazard? | Stephen Coleman | TEDxCanberra | ||
TED Translators admin edited English subtitles for Non-lethal weapons, a moral hazard? | Stephen Coleman | TEDxCanberra | ||
Ivana Korom edited English subtitles for Non-lethal weapons, a moral hazard? | Stephen Coleman | TEDxCanberra |