In a message dated 10/1/1999 12:46:09 AM Eastern Daylight Time, retroman@turbont.net writes:
<< a) an armed law abiding civilian at a crime scene is five times less
likely to kill an innocent person than a cop at the same scene. While I
have heard of numerous occasions where a cop shoots or kills an innocent
at a crime scene, I personally have not heard of any civilian doing so.>>
I can't think of a case myself, but I don't really know either way. Anyone else out there know of a case of a civilian shooting the wrong person?
<< b) considering the stats show that the Death Penalty, as a policy of
punishment under a judicial system, involving due process, right of
appeals, trial by jury, etc. has no impact on violent crime, while death
penalties meted out by law abiding individuals at the scene of a crime
do have a measurable impact, I would rather that we see more of the
latter and less of the former.>>
I agree that the current legal system does not act as a credible deterrent to violent crime at present, but I think it could be made to work. How about a speedy trial followed by an immediate extra-jurisdictional review to guarantee there were no improprieties, followed by cryosuspension until such time as the court can guarantee that the perpetrator can be certified as not a danger to others and the victim deems to it appropriate to have the perpetrator thawed out? Or if later evidence is found which exonerates the prisoner they can be reanimated as soon as technology allows. It might be a hot day on Pluto before they get released (if ever).
I think it too early to say what the effects of nonlethal weapons on
crime rate, but I would suspect that it would be strongly related to the
efficacy of the weapon, just as I suspect that it is for lethal weapons. If
my gun only successfully kills or incapacitates an attacker one-in-ten
times,then it is likely to be less of a deterrent. Of course, lethal weapons
as a general deterrent can be less effective overall due to the increased
devastation that success brings (of course, making sentences tougher and
surer would offset this advantage--though just how tough they'd have to be to
do so might be an issue).
<< I know. The evidence from the Waco incident show how difficult it is to
control the dosage a target receives. The CS gas (a chemical weapon
banned under international treaty for use in warfare, but quite legal
for a government to use against its own people under that same treaty
for police purposes (i.e. we aren't that much better than Saddam
I am not familiar with the information about CS toxicity in overdose, do you have any references on that I could look up?
<>
<< While I share your sentiment with regards to reducing harm to victims,
the danger is that reducing harm also reduces evidence. While use of DNA
evidence might counteract this, it is still highly suspect by most
typical jurors (i.e. those too dumb to find an excuse to get out of jury
duty). Reducing evidence in real crimes makes it either extremely hard
to convict, or you must lower the burden ov evidence to the point that
many innocent persons will go to jail based on false or incomplete
cases.>>
I've been thinking about this, and I think there really might be some
options to reduce this problem. One idea would be to have the nonlethal
weapon incorporate GPS technology and a transmitter which would notify the
authorities when the weapon was fired and where (of course this would make
doing a little target practice with your weapon hard...could probably go to a
firing range which would be deemed a free weapons release zone during
operational hours). Also could build in a small camera that could upload
pictures of what was being shot at. Of course, these probably could be
circumvented, but it adds one more hurdle for the criminal use of the weapon
(there have also been some ideas mentioned for raising a hue and cry with
special effects like smoke, light, etc). One idea that I think might put a
serious crimp in the usage of the liquid firing taser and perhaps some other
types of nonlethals would be to include a malodorous, long-lasting substance
like skunk musk to the stream. This would have a couple benefits: marking
fleeing criminals who only received a glancing blow, providing a physical
sign of the weapon's use upon a victim (and this may make it more difficult
to sneak the victim away), and likely providing a big deterrent for would-be
rapists (be difficult to sexually assault someone when you feel like puking
your guts out from the smell). Of course, since this marker would not be an
intrinsic part of the weapon, it would likely be possible to mix up a batch
of ammo without the added scent, but again it would make it harder on
criminals. And as opposed to lethal weapons, it would be a lot harder to
coerce a victim into compliance with the threat of use (what yah gonna do,
stink me up and carry me off?...go ahead and try).
<<The only other possibility I see is to forcibly embed ID chips in people
that have a transponder that transmits body mass, ID, and legal status
information. Of course this is highly problematic from a civil rights
perspective, so much so that I would be highly opposed to such schemes.>>
I don't think I would like that to be in effect either.
<< I've also envisioned bullet that would be rubber coated, with a very
soft core of lead or other dense but soft material (to maintain
momentum). Using high twist rates on the barrel rifling or other means
of imparting high spin rates, such bullets would flatten out from
centripetal force within 10-30 yards, and strike the target as a large
flat object, like a big slap. Such an impact would not break the skin
but would be significant enough to stun an attacker as much as a punch
from mike tyson.>>
I think the problem with kinetic energy weapons is that they are designed to disable by doing damage (granted mild damage) to the body. But unless you use overkill (lethal) levels of kinetic energy, I think it would be difficult to name a precise level of kinetic energy that will guarantee immobilizing an attacker.
Thanks for the input, Mike.
Glen Finney