When anti-war protestors refuse to disperse, what is the best non-lethal force to use? Batons? Tear Gas? Rubber bullets?
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0407-06.htm
2007-02-19 04:28:27 · 23 answers · asked by officer meeney 1 in Politics & Government ➔ Law Enforcement & Police
No force is necessary. Police just need to work smarter, not harder. Just schedule a "Greenpeace" rally, and "New World Festival" and a Ben & Jerrys "One World" festival and free ice cream givaway, Plus an "Alternative Energy and Organic Farmers Conferance" on the same day. The Libs will be so stressed out trying to decide which one to attend they'll just get stoned, stay home and watch PBS all night.
2007-02-19 09:27:13 · answer #1 · answered by SGT. D 6 · 2⤊ 1⤋
horses. i don't care how determined to protest something, you are gonna move when an officer on horseback is barreling down on you.
tear gas and water cannons work also. i am not a big fan of firing rubber bullets into a crowd, because it can be dangerous, but on a specific person rubber bullets or bean bag rounds work well.
as for the person above me, i love when protests get violent cause then innocent people and property get hurt, and KILLED. maybe if you hate cops so much you should leave the police section of this site alone. As an officer i don't want to hear your dribble and i am sure my comrades don't want to either.
2007-02-19 07:28:52 · answer #2 · answered by Kevy 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Yeah, on the telly I saw people throwing shoes. I think they were expressing disapproval of British government. People who join a march for peace can be eclipsed by people who are in the march because they are angry and violent. Peace is still the right thing to stand for. " BBC 24, yahoo news on internet check it imediately all over every paper " is very vague. Even one hotlink to a published article would make your case much more compelling.
2016-05-24 09:22:02 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Tear gas and bean bags from a shotgun. If they were crying about the war before, they'll really be crying after that.
Only if they are breaking the law, however. We cannot fight for someone else's right to freedoms such as speech while we are denying it to our own citizens.
2007-02-19 04:39:18 · answer #4 · answered by J.R. 6 · 3⤊ 0⤋
I think bringing the troops home and having them stand as a formidable presence in our own cities and towns would break up the anti-war protester crowds.
Perhaps shocking them with electric taser's instead of shocking them with the pictures of dead children and servicemen might help.
2007-02-19 04:42:28 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
What we did at Fort Lewis in 2003 was start having their cars towed.
BTW - just because it is a 'peaceful' protest does not mean that they can intimidate a soldier's family members. If your protest starts infringing on other people's rights - then you are breaking the law!
2007-02-19 06:46:25 · answer #6 · answered by MikeGolf 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Rubber bullets
2007-02-19 04:36:07 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋
Depends on several factors, how many are involved, are they using any kind of violence, what is the probability of innocent bystanders being hurt or property being damaged and of course what have you been instructed to use by your supervisors.
All three are great for crowd control but which one to use depends on these factors. Good luck and be safe.
2007-02-19 07:57:50 · answer #8 · answered by WhatTF 2 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Why does one need to use force in the first place? Perhaps tolerance and understand would be better.
Batons, Tear Gas and Rubber bullets can be and have been lethal in the hands of frightened or overzealous police.
2007-02-19 04:34:11 · answer #9 · answered by Mighty Oats 2 · 3⤊ 4⤋
I would use tear gas and if possible, a taser. Once the rest of them see someone else get tased, they'll think twice about protesting.
2007-02-19 05:56:00 · answer #10 · answered by Polamalu is God 5 · 0⤊ 1⤋