Start by reading here here and the post I didn't like here
I have a couple issues with the way that this post is worded, and a couple factual issues with the way these are worded, and a couple of factual issues with the way the post is presented.
First, the factual issue:
at a deafening 150 decibels (50 times the human threshold of pain).
If the threshold of pain is commonly quoted at 120 decibels, then the sound pressure level would be 1000 times the threshold of pain!
So what? The instantaneous threshold of damage is up above 180 decibels.
http://en.wikipedia.org/...
http://en.wikipedia.org/...
And for some background on the noisiest machines in use by the military, you can take a quick read here:
http://www.epa.gov/...
Notice that the noise levels are permissible for people to be exposed to on a regular basis are quite high, even without hearing protection.
Sound pressure is much like radiation. It is based on a dose and time effect. Momentary exposure to sound levels far above the threshold of pain won't necessarily cause permanent hearing loss, while long term exposure to noise levels well below the threshold of pain can cause permanent hearing loss. (The big difference, of course, is that sound doesn't cause cancer)
Second, the presentation and implication issue.
First, I take issue with the implication that that which has been developed by the military is bad or dangerous. While the military is an organization that spends a lot of time developing and (unfortunately) using systems that can efficiently kill and main huge numbers of people, that is only part of the story. The military is an organization that spends far more money, time and effort figuring out how to feed, care for, and protect in harsh environment millions of people, and deliver them the things they need.
No one has an issue when MRE's are delivered to disaster survivors. No one has an issue when a blackhawk rescue helicopter plucks them out of rough seas from a capsized ship.
Let's be clear on nonlethal military tools:
- Without development of nonlethal tools, there are only two options available to a soldier or a police officer when dealing with a person or crowd: The butt or the barrel of the rifle. (or the billy club or barrel of the pistol)
- Beating the snot out of someone with a club or a stick is dangerous. People die from it; suffer serious complications, and can be permanently disfigured by it.
The fact that the military has recognized the need to kill fewer people is important. I don't have a problem with this. If the military develops a tool that lets police do their jobs better, I see no reason why police shouldn't have access to it.
Finally, I agree with the unstated premise that we should be suspect about how these devices will be used. However, the author of the article uses a tactic I more often associate with the GOP, that of an ad-hominem attack on the sheriff who had the LRAD devices in reserve, as a reason to question the devices themselves. Whether the sheriff should have been in charge of crowd control is separate from whether he should have had a given tool at his disposal.
As an afterthought, I also have an issue with the way we as progressives talk about less-than-lethal tools when used by police:
The only way we can have an intelligent discussion about less-lethal police tactics is to compare them to the historical baseline. (bullets and billy clubs)
When evaluating a given less-lethal tool when used in a particular context, (think "don't tase me bro!") always ask two questions:
- Is the less-lethal technique more dangerous or less effective than beating the snot out of a person than a billy club?
- Was the device used on someone who was already compliant/secure, to the point that a properly trained officer should have been able to recognize that fact?
If the answer to both of those questions is 'no', then, from an impact on society standpoint, the use of the less-lethal too was probably justified and sound policy.
If the answer to the first question is 'yes' then we must look carefully at the tool and the training associated with it. Anything that offers an option short of assuredly lethal force may be worth considering.
If the answer to #2 is 'yes', then we have a police training issue.
Just because "someone could be injured" by something is no more useful an argument for society than "you could be hit by a drunk driver; ban cars!".
**Update**
Pulled Tasers from the title since they're not mentioned in the diary or the posts I'm responding to.