Non-lethal weapons, a moral hazard?
-
0:00 - 0:02What I want to talk to you about today
-
0:02 - 0:06is some of the problems that the military of the Western world --
-
0:06 - 0:09Australia, United States, U.K. and so on --
-
0:09 - 0:11face in some of the deployments
-
0:11 - 0:14that they're dealing with in the modern world at this time.
-
0:14 - 0:16If you think about the sorts of things
-
0:16 - 0:19that we've sent Australian military personnel to in recent years,
-
0:19 - 0:22we've got obvious things like Iraq and Afghanistan,
-
0:22 - 0:24but you've also got things like East Timor
-
0:24 - 0:26and the Solomon Islands and so on.
-
0:26 - 0:28And a lot of these deployments
-
0:28 - 0:31that we're actually sending military personnel to these days
-
0:31 - 0:33aren't traditional wars.
-
0:33 - 0:35In fact, a lot of the jobs
-
0:35 - 0:38that we're asking the military personnel to do in these situations
-
0:38 - 0:41are ones that, in their own countries, in Australia, the United States and so on,
-
0:41 - 0:44would actually be done by police officers.
-
0:44 - 0:46And so there's a bunch of problems that come up
-
0:46 - 0:48for military personnel in these situations,
-
0:48 - 0:51because they're doing things that they haven't really been trained for,
-
0:51 - 0:53and they're doing things
-
0:53 - 0:56that those who do them in their own countries
-
0:56 - 0:58are trained very differently for
-
0:58 - 1:00and equipped very differently for.
-
1:00 - 1:02Now there's a bunch of reasons why
-
1:02 - 1:04we actually do send military personnel
-
1:04 - 1:06rather than police to do these jobs.
-
1:06 - 1:09If Australia had to send a thousand people tomorrow
-
1:09 - 1:11to West Papua for example,
-
1:11 - 1:13we don't have a thousand police officers hanging around
-
1:13 - 1:15that could just go tomorrow
-
1:15 - 1:17and we do have a thousand soldiers that could go.
-
1:17 - 1:20So when we have to send someone, we send the military --
-
1:20 - 1:22because they're there, they're available
-
1:22 - 1:24and, heck, they're used to going off and doing these things
-
1:24 - 1:26and living by themselves
-
1:26 - 1:28and not having all this extra support.
-
1:28 - 1:30So they are able to do it in that sense.
-
1:30 - 1:33But they aren't trained in the same way that police officers are
-
1:33 - 1:36and they're certainly not equipped in the same way police officers are.
-
1:36 - 1:38And so this has raised a bunch of problems for them
-
1:38 - 1:40when dealing with these sorts of issues.
-
1:40 - 1:42One particular thing that's come up
-
1:42 - 1:44that I am especially interested in
-
1:44 - 1:46is the question of whether,
-
1:46 - 1:48when we're sending military personnel to do these sorts of jobs,
-
1:48 - 1:50we ought to be equipping them differently,
-
1:50 - 1:52and in particular, whether we ought to be giving them access
-
1:52 - 1:55to some of the sorts of non-lethal weapons that police have.
-
1:55 - 1:57Since they're doing some of these same jobs,
-
1:57 - 1:59maybe they should have some of those things.
-
1:59 - 2:01And of course, there's a range of places
-
2:01 - 2:03where you'd think those things would be really useful.
-
2:03 - 2:06So for example, when you've got military checkpoints.
-
2:06 - 2:08If people are approaching these checkpoints
-
2:08 - 2:10and the military personnel there are unsure
-
2:10 - 2:12whether this person's hostile or not.
-
2:12 - 2:14Say this person approaching here,
-
2:14 - 2:16and they say, "Well is this a suicide bomber or not?
-
2:16 - 2:18Have they got something hidden under their clothing? What's going to happen?"
-
2:18 - 2:20They don't know whether this person's hostile or not.
-
2:20 - 2:22If this person doesn't follow directions,
-
2:22 - 2:24then they may end up shooting them
-
2:24 - 2:26and then find out afterward
-
2:26 - 2:28either, yes, we shot the right person,
-
2:28 - 2:30or, no, this was just an innocent person
-
2:30 - 2:32who didn't understand what was going on.
-
2:32 - 2:34So if they had non-lethal weapons
-
2:34 - 2:36then they would say, "Well we can use them in that sort of situation.
-
2:36 - 2:38If we shoot someone who wasn't hostile,
-
2:38 - 2:40at least we haven't killed them."
-
2:40 - 2:42Another situation.
-
2:42 - 2:44This photo is actually from one of the missions
-
2:44 - 2:46in the Balkans in the late 1990s.
-
2:46 - 2:48Situation's a little bit different
-
2:48 - 2:50where perhaps they know someone who's hostile,
-
2:50 - 2:52where they've got someone shooting at them
-
2:52 - 2:55or doing something else that's clearly hostile, throwing rocks, whatever.
-
2:55 - 2:58But if they respond, there's a range of other people around,
-
2:58 - 3:01who are innocent people who might also get hurt --
-
3:01 - 3:05be collateral damage that the military often doesn't want to talk about.
-
3:05 - 3:07So again, they would say, "Well if we have access to non-lethal weapons,
-
3:07 - 3:09if we've got someone we know is hostile,
-
3:09 - 3:11we can do something to deal with them
-
3:11 - 3:13and know that if we hit anyone else around the place,
-
3:13 - 3:15at least, again, we're not going to kill them."
-
3:15 - 3:17Another suggestion has been,
-
3:17 - 3:19since we're putting so many robots in the field,
-
3:19 - 3:21we can see the time coming
-
3:21 - 3:24where they're actually going to be sending robots out in the field that are autonomous.
-
3:24 - 3:27They're going to make their own decisions about who to shoot and who not to shoot
-
3:27 - 3:29without a human in the loop.
-
3:29 - 3:31And so the suggestion is, well hey,
-
3:31 - 3:33if we're going to send robots out and allow them to do this,
-
3:33 - 3:36maybe it would be a good idea, again, with these things
-
3:36 - 3:38if they were armed with non-lethal weapons
-
3:38 - 3:41so that if the robot makes a bad decision and shoots the wrong person,
-
3:41 - 3:43again, they haven't actually killed them.
-
3:43 - 3:46Now there's a whole range of different sorts of non-lethal weapons,
-
3:46 - 3:48some of which are obviously available now,
-
3:48 - 3:50some of which they're developing.
-
3:50 - 3:52So you've got traditional things like pepper spray,
-
3:52 - 3:54O.C. spray up at the top there,
-
3:54 - 3:56or Tasers over here.
-
3:56 - 3:59The one on the top right here is actually a dazzling laser
-
3:59 - 4:01intended to just blind the person momentarily
-
4:01 - 4:03and disorient them.
-
4:03 - 4:05You've got non-lethal shotgun rounds
-
4:05 - 4:07that contain rubber pellets
-
4:07 - 4:09instead of the traditional metal ones.
-
4:09 - 4:12And this one in the middle here, the large truck,
-
4:12 - 4:14is actually called the Active Denial System --
-
4:14 - 4:17something the U.S. military is working on at the moment.
-
4:17 - 4:20It's essentially a big microwave transmitter.
-
4:20 - 4:23It's sort of your classic idea of a heat ray.
-
4:23 - 4:26It goes out to a really long distance,
-
4:26 - 4:28compared to any of these other sorts of things.
-
4:28 - 4:30And anybody who is hit with this
-
4:30 - 4:32feels this sudden burst of heat
-
4:32 - 4:34and just wants to get out of the way.
-
4:34 - 4:37It is a lot more sophisticated than a microwave oven,
-
4:37 - 4:39but it is basically boiling the water molecules
-
4:39 - 4:41in the very surface level of your skin.
-
4:41 - 4:43So you feel this massive heat,
-
4:43 - 4:45and you go, "I want to get out of the way."
-
4:45 - 4:48And they're thinking, well this will be really useful
-
4:48 - 4:50in places like where we need to clear a crowd out of a particular area,
-
4:50 - 4:52if the crowd is being hostile.
-
4:52 - 4:55If we need to keep people away from a particular place,
-
4:55 - 4:58we can do that with these sorts of things.
-
4:58 - 5:00So obviously there's a whole range of different sorts
-
5:00 - 5:03of non-lethal weapons we could give military personnel
-
5:03 - 5:05and there's a whole range of situations
-
5:05 - 5:08where they're looking a them and saying, "Hey, these things could be really useful."
-
5:08 - 5:10But as I said,
-
5:10 - 5:12the military and the police
-
5:12 - 5:14are very different.
-
5:14 - 5:16Yes, you don't have to look very hard at this
-
5:16 - 5:18to recognize the fact that they might be very different.
-
5:18 - 5:20In particular,
-
5:20 - 5:22the attitude to the use of force
-
5:22 - 5:24and the way they're trained to use force
-
5:24 - 5:26is especially different.
-
5:26 - 5:28The police --
-
5:28 - 5:31and knowing because I've actually helped to train police --
-
5:31 - 5:34police, in particular Western jurisdictions at least,
-
5:34 - 5:37are trained to de-escalate force,
-
5:37 - 5:39to try and avoid using force
-
5:39 - 5:41wherever possible,
-
5:41 - 5:43and to use lethal force
-
5:43 - 5:46only as an absolute last resort.
-
5:46 - 5:49Military personnel are being trained for war,
-
5:49 - 5:52so they're trained that, as soon as things go bad,
-
5:52 - 5:55their first response is lethal force.
-
5:56 - 6:00The moment the fecal matter hits the rotating turbine,
-
6:00 - 6:03you can start shooting at people.
-
6:03 - 6:05So their attitudes
-
6:05 - 6:07to the use of lethal force are very different,
-
6:07 - 6:09and I think it's fairly obvious
-
6:09 - 6:12that their attitude to the use of non-lethal weapons
-
6:12 - 6:15would also be very different from what it is with the police.
-
6:15 - 6:17And since we've already had so many problems
-
6:17 - 6:20with police use of non-lethal weapons in various ways,
-
6:20 - 6:23I thought it would be a really good idea to look at some of those things
-
6:23 - 6:25and try to relate it to the military context.
-
6:25 - 6:27And I was really surprised when I started to do this,
-
6:27 - 6:29to see that, in fact,
-
6:29 - 6:32even those people who were advocating the use of non-lethal weapons by the military
-
6:32 - 6:34hadn't actually done that.
-
6:34 - 6:36They generally seem to think,
-
6:36 - 6:38"Well, why would we care what's happened with the police?
-
6:38 - 6:40We're looking at something different,"
-
6:40 - 6:42and didn't seem to recognize, in fact,
-
6:42 - 6:44they were looking at pretty much the same stuff.
-
6:44 - 6:46So I actually started to investigate some of those issues
-
6:46 - 6:48and have a look
-
6:48 - 6:51at the way that police use non-lethal weapons when they're introduced
-
6:51 - 6:53and some of the problems that might arise
-
6:53 - 6:55out of those sorts of things
-
6:55 - 6:57when they actually do introduce them.
-
6:57 - 6:59And of course, being Australian,
-
6:59 - 7:01I started looking at stuff in Australia,
-
7:01 - 7:04knowing, again, from my own experience about various times
-
7:04 - 7:07when non-lethal weapons have been introduced in Australia.
-
7:07 - 7:09So one of the things I particularly looked at
-
7:09 - 7:11was the use of O.C. spray,
-
7:11 - 7:13oleoresin capsicum spray, pepper spray,
-
7:13 - 7:15by Australian police
-
7:15 - 7:17and seeing when that had been introduced, what had happened
-
7:17 - 7:19and those sorts of issues.
-
7:19 - 7:21And one study that I found,
-
7:21 - 7:23a particularly interesting one,
-
7:23 - 7:25was actually in Queensland,
-
7:25 - 7:28because they had a trial period for the use of pepper spray
-
7:28 - 7:31before they actually introduced it more broadly.
-
7:31 - 7:34And I went and had a look at some of the figures here.
-
7:34 - 7:36Now when they introduced O.C. spray in Queensland,
-
7:36 - 7:38they were really explicit.
-
7:38 - 7:41The police minister had a whole heap of public statements made about it.
-
7:41 - 7:43They were saying, "This is explicitly intended
-
7:43 - 7:45to give police an option
-
7:45 - 7:48between shouting and shooting.
-
7:48 - 7:51This is something they can use instead of a firearm
-
7:51 - 7:54in those situations where they would have previously had to shoot someone."
-
7:54 - 7:57So I went and looked at all of these police shooting figures.
-
7:57 - 7:59And you can't actually find them very easily
-
7:59 - 8:01for individual Australian states.
-
8:01 - 8:03I could only find these ones.
-
8:03 - 8:05This is from a Australian Institute of Criminology report.
-
8:05 - 8:07As you can see from the fine print, if you can read it at the top:
-
8:07 - 8:10"Police shooting deaths" means not just people who have been shot by police,
-
8:10 - 8:14but people who have shot themselves in the presence of police.
-
8:14 - 8:16But this is the figures across the entire country.
-
8:16 - 8:18And the red arrow represents the point
-
8:18 - 8:20where Queensland actually said,
-
8:20 - 8:23"Yes, this is where we're going to give all police officers across the entire state
-
8:23 - 8:25access to O.C. spray."
-
8:25 - 8:28So you can see there were six deaths sort of leading up to it
-
8:28 - 8:30every year for a number of years.
-
8:30 - 8:32There was a spike, of course, a few years before,
-
8:32 - 8:34but that wasn't actually Queensland.
-
8:34 - 8:37Anyone know where that was? Wasn't Port Arthur, no.
-
8:37 - 8:39Victoria? Yes, correct.
-
8:39 - 8:42That spike was all Victoria.
-
8:42 - 8:44So it wasn't that Queensland had a particular problem
-
8:44 - 8:48with deaths from police shootings and so on.
-
8:48 - 8:50So six shootings across the whole country,
-
8:50 - 8:52fairly consistently over the years before.
-
8:52 - 8:55So the next two years were the years they studied -- 2001, 2002.
-
8:55 - 8:58Anyone want to take a stab at the number of times,
-
8:58 - 9:00given how they've introduced this,
-
9:00 - 9:03the number of times police in Queensland used O.C. spray in that period?
-
9:03 - 9:05Hundreds? One, three.
-
9:05 - 9:08Thousand is getting better.
-
9:10 - 9:12Explicitly introduced
-
9:12 - 9:14as an alternative to the use of lethal force --
-
9:14 - 9:17an alternative between shouting and shooting.
-
9:17 - 9:19I'm going to go out on a limb here
-
9:19 - 9:22and say that if Queensland police didn't have O.C. spray,
-
9:22 - 9:25they wouldn't have shot 2,226 people
-
9:25 - 9:28in those two years.
-
9:28 - 9:30In fact, if you have a look
-
9:30 - 9:32at the studies that they were looking at,
-
9:32 - 9:35the material they were collecting and examining,
-
9:35 - 9:38you can see the suspects were only armed
-
9:38 - 9:40in about 15 percent of cases
-
9:40 - 9:42where O.C. spray was used.
-
9:42 - 9:45It was routinely being used in this period,
-
9:45 - 9:47and, of course, still is routinely used --
-
9:47 - 9:49because there were no complaints about it,
-
9:49 - 9:52not within the context of this study anyway --
-
9:52 - 9:54it was routinely being used
-
9:54 - 9:56to deal with people who were violent,
-
9:56 - 9:58who were potentially violent,
-
9:58 - 10:00and also quite frequently used
-
10:00 - 10:02to deal with people who were simply
-
10:02 - 10:06passively non-compliant.
-
10:06 - 10:08This person is not doing anything violent,
-
10:08 - 10:10but they just won't do what we want them to.
-
10:10 - 10:12They're not obeying the directions that we're giving them,
-
10:12 - 10:14so we'll give them a shot of the O.C. spray.
-
10:14 - 10:18That'll speed them up. Everything will work out better that way.
-
10:18 - 10:20This was something explicitly introduced
-
10:20 - 10:22to be an alternative to firearms,
-
10:22 - 10:24but it's being routinely used
-
10:24 - 10:26to deal with a whole range
-
10:26 - 10:28of other sorts of problems.
-
10:28 - 10:30Now one of the particular issues that comes up
-
10:30 - 10:33with military use of non-lethal weapons --
-
10:33 - 10:36and people when they're actually saying, "Well hey, there might be some problems" --
-
10:36 - 10:39there's a couple of particular problems that get focused on.
-
10:39 - 10:41One of those problems
-
10:41 - 10:44is that non-lethal weapons may be used indiscriminately.
-
10:44 - 10:47One of the fundamental principles of military use of force
-
10:47 - 10:49is that you have to be discriminate.
-
10:49 - 10:52You have to be careful about who you're shooting at.
-
10:52 - 10:55So one of the problems that's been suggested with non-lethal weapons
-
10:55 - 10:57is that they might be used indiscriminately --
-
10:57 - 10:59that you use them against a whole range of people
-
10:59 - 11:02because you don't have to worry so much anymore.
-
11:02 - 11:04And in fact, one particular instance
-
11:04 - 11:06where I think that actually happens where you can look at it
-
11:06 - 11:09was the Dubrovka Theatre siege in Moscow in 2002,
-
11:09 - 11:11which probably a lot of you, unlike most of my students at ADFA,
-
11:11 - 11:13are actually old enough to remember.
-
11:13 - 11:16So Chechens had come in and taken control of the theater.
-
11:16 - 11:19They were holding something like 700 people hostage.
-
11:19 - 11:21They'd released a bunch of people,
-
11:21 - 11:24but they still had about 700 people hostage.
-
11:24 - 11:27And the Russian special military police,
-
11:27 - 11:29special forces, Spetsnaz,
-
11:29 - 11:31came in and actually stormed the theater.
-
11:31 - 11:34And the way they did it was to pump the whole thing full of anesthetic gas.
-
11:34 - 11:36And it turned out
-
11:36 - 11:39that lots of these hostages actually died
-
11:39 - 11:42as a result of inhaling the gas.
-
11:42 - 11:44It was used indiscriminately.
-
11:44 - 11:47They pumped the whole theater full of the gas.
-
11:47 - 11:49And it's no surprise that people died,
-
11:49 - 11:51because you don't know how much of this gas
-
11:51 - 11:53each person is going to inhale,
-
11:53 - 11:55what position they're going to fall in
-
11:55 - 11:57when they become unconscious and so on.
-
11:57 - 12:00There were, in fact, only a couple of people who got shot
-
12:00 - 12:02in this episode.
-
12:02 - 12:04So when they had a look at it afterward,
-
12:04 - 12:06there were only a couple of people
-
12:06 - 12:08who'd apparently been shot by the hostage takers
-
12:08 - 12:10or shot by the police forces
-
12:10 - 12:12coming in and trying to deal with the situation.
-
12:12 - 12:14Virtually everybody that got killed
-
12:14 - 12:16got killed from inhaling the gas.
-
12:16 - 12:18The final toll of hostages
-
12:18 - 12:20is a little unclear,
-
12:20 - 12:22but it's certainly a few more than that,
-
12:22 - 12:24because there were other people who died over the next few days.
-
12:24 - 12:26So this was one particular problem they talked about,
-
12:26 - 12:28that it might be used indiscriminately.
-
12:28 - 12:30Second problem that people sometimes talk about
-
12:30 - 12:32with military use of non-lethal weapons,
-
12:32 - 12:35and it's actually the reason why in the chemical weapons convention,
-
12:35 - 12:37it's very clear that you can't use riot control agents
-
12:37 - 12:39as a weapon of warfare,
-
12:39 - 12:42the problem with that is that it's seen that sometimes
-
12:42 - 12:45non-lethal weapons might actually be used, not as an alternative to lethal force,
-
12:45 - 12:48but as a lethal force multiplier --
-
12:48 - 12:50that you use non-lethal weapons first
-
12:50 - 12:53so that your lethal weapons will actually be more effective.
-
12:53 - 12:55The people you're going to be shooting at
-
12:55 - 12:57aren't going to be able to get out of the way.
-
12:57 - 13:00They're not going to be aware of what's happening and you can kill them better.
-
13:00 - 13:03And in fact, that's exactly what happened here.
-
13:03 - 13:06The hostage takers who had been rendered unconscious by the gas
-
13:06 - 13:08were not taken into custody,
-
13:08 - 13:11they were simply shot in the head.
-
13:11 - 13:13So this non-lethal weapon
-
13:13 - 13:15was being used, in fact, in this case
-
13:15 - 13:18as a lethal force multiplier
-
13:18 - 13:20to make killing more effective
-
13:20 - 13:23in this particular situation.
-
13:23 - 13:25Another problem that I just want to quickly mention
-
13:25 - 13:27is that there's a whole heap of problems
-
13:27 - 13:29with the way that people actually get taught
-
13:29 - 13:31to use non-lethal weapons
-
13:31 - 13:33and get trained about them and then get tested and so on.
-
13:33 - 13:36Because they get tested in nice, safe environments.
-
13:36 - 13:39And people get taught to use them in nice, safe environments
-
13:39 - 13:42like this, where you can see exactly what's going on.
-
13:42 - 13:45The person who's spraying the O.C. spray is wearing a rubber glove
-
13:45 - 13:47to make sure they don't get contaminated and so on.
-
13:47 - 13:49But they don't ever get used like that.
-
13:49 - 13:51They get used out in the real world,
-
13:51 - 13:55like in Texas, like this.
-
13:55 - 13:58I confess, this particular case
-
13:58 - 14:00was actually one that piqued my interest in this.
-
14:00 - 14:03It happened while I was working as a research fellow at the U.S. Naval Academy.
-
14:03 - 14:06And news reports started coming up about this situation
-
14:06 - 14:09where this woman was arguing with the police officer.
-
14:09 - 14:11She wasn't violent.
-
14:11 - 14:13In fact, he was probably six inches taller than me,
-
14:13 - 14:16and she was about this tall.
-
14:16 - 14:18And eventually she said to him
-
14:18 - 14:20"Well I'm going to get back in my car."
-
14:20 - 14:22And he says, "If you get back into your car, I'm going to tase you."
-
14:22 - 14:25And she says, "Oh, go ahead. Tase me." And so he does.
-
14:25 - 14:27And it's all captured by the video camera
-
14:27 - 14:31running in the front of the police car.
-
14:31 - 14:34So she's 72,
-
14:34 - 14:38and it's seen that this is the most appropriate way of dealing with her.
-
14:38 - 14:40And other examples of the same sorts of things
-
14:40 - 14:42with other people where you think
-
14:42 - 14:45where you think, "Is this really an appropriate way to use non-lethal weapons?"
-
14:45 - 14:47"Police chief fires Taser into 14 year-old girl's head."
-
14:47 - 14:50"She was running away. What else was I suppose to do?"
-
14:50 - 14:53(Laughter)
-
14:53 - 14:55Or Florida:
-
14:55 - 14:58"Police Taser six year-old boy at elementary school."
-
14:58 - 15:00And they clearly learned a lot from it
-
15:00 - 15:02because in the same district,
-
15:02 - 15:04"Police review policy after children shocked:
-
15:04 - 15:072nd child shocked by Taser stun gun within weeks."
-
15:07 - 15:09Same police district.
-
15:09 - 15:12Another child within weeks of Tasering the six year-old boy.
-
15:12 - 15:14Just in case you think
-
15:14 - 15:16it's only going to happen in the United States,
-
15:16 - 15:18it happened in Canada as well.
-
15:18 - 15:20And a colleague of mine
-
15:20 - 15:22sent me this one from London.
-
15:22 - 15:25But my personal favorite of these ones, I have to confess,
-
15:25 - 15:28does actually come from the United States:
-
15:28 - 15:31"Officers Taser 86 year-old disabled woman in her bed."
-
15:31 - 15:35I checked the reports on this one.
-
15:35 - 15:38I looked at it. I was really surprised.
-
15:38 - 15:41Apparently she took up a more threatening position in her bed.
-
15:41 - 15:43(Laughter)
-
15:43 - 15:45I kid you not. That's exactly what it said.
-
15:45 - 15:48"She took up a more threatening position in her bed."
-
15:48 - 15:50Okay.
-
15:50 - 15:52But I'd remind you what I'm talking about,
-
15:52 - 15:54I'm talking about military uses of non-lethal weapons.
-
15:54 - 15:56So why is this relevant?
-
15:56 - 15:58Because police are actually more restrained in the use of force
-
15:58 - 16:00than the military are.
-
16:00 - 16:03They're trained to be more restrained in the use of force than the military are.
-
16:03 - 16:06They're trained to think more, to try and de-escalate.
-
16:06 - 16:09So if you have these problems with police officers with non-lethal weapons,
-
16:09 - 16:11what on earth would make you think
-
16:11 - 16:14it's going to be better with military personnel?
-
16:15 - 16:18The last thing that I would just like to say,
-
16:18 - 16:20when I'm talking to the police
-
16:20 - 16:22about what a perfect non-lethal weapon would look like,
-
16:22 - 16:24they almost inevitably say the same thing.
-
16:24 - 16:27They say, "Well, it's got to be something that's nasty enough
-
16:27 - 16:29that people don't want to be hit with this weapon.
-
16:29 - 16:31So if you threaten to use it,
-
16:31 - 16:34people are going to comply with it,
-
16:34 - 16:36but it's also going to be something
-
16:36 - 16:40that doesn't leave any lasting effects."
-
16:40 - 16:43In other words, your perfect non-lethal weapon
-
16:43 - 16:45is something that's perfect for abuse.
-
16:45 - 16:47What would these guys have done
-
16:47 - 16:49if they'd had access to Tasers
-
16:49 - 16:51or to a manned, portable version
-
16:51 - 16:53of the Active Denial System --
-
16:53 - 16:56a small heat ray that you can use on people
-
16:56 - 16:58and not worry about it.
-
16:58 - 17:01So I think, yes, there may be ways
-
17:01 - 17:03that non-lethal weapons are going to be great in these situations,
-
17:03 - 17:05but there's also a whole heap of problems
-
17:05 - 17:07that need to be considered as well.
-
17:07 - 17:09Thanks very much.
-
17:09 - 17:11(Applause)
- Title:
- Non-lethal weapons, a moral hazard?
- Speaker:
- Stephen Coleman
- Description:
-
Pepper spray and tasers are in increasing use by both police and military, and more exotic non-lethal weapons such as heat rays are in the works. At TEDxCanberra, ethicist Stephen Coleman explores the unexpected consequences of their introduction and asks some challenging questions.
- Video Language:
- English
- Team:
- closed TED
- Project:
- TEDTalks
- Duration:
- 17:11
Brian Greene edited English subtitles for Non-lethal weapons, a moral hazard? | ||
Krystian Aparta commented on English subtitles for Non-lethal weapons, a moral hazard? | ||
Krystian Aparta edited English subtitles for Non-lethal weapons, a moral hazard? | ||
Krystian Aparta edited English subtitles for Non-lethal weapons, a moral hazard? | ||
Brian Greene edited English subtitles for Non-lethal weapons, a moral hazard? | ||
TED edited English subtitles for Non-lethal weapons, a moral hazard? | ||
TED added a translation |
Krystian Aparta
The English transcript was updated on 10/3/2016.