TEDxCanberra
Stephen Coleman: Non-lethal weapons, a moral hazard?
Filmed:
Readability: 4.2
538,518 views
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.
Stephen Coleman - Ethicist
Stephen Coleman studies applied ethics, particularly the ethics of military and police force, and their application to human rights. Full bio
Stephen Coleman studies applied ethics, particularly the ethics of military and police force, and their application to human rights. Full bio
Double-click the English transcript below to play the video.
00:15
What I want to talk to you about today
0
0
2000
00:17
is some of the problems that the military of the Western world --
1
2000
4000
00:21
Australia, United States, U.K. and so on --
2
6000
3000
00:24
face in some of the deployments
3
9000
2000
00:26
that they're dealing with in the modern world at this time.
4
11000
3000
00:29
If you think about the sorts of things
5
14000
2000
00:31
that we've sent Australian military personnel to in recent years,
6
16000
3000
00:34
we've got obvious things like Iraq and Afghanistan,
7
19000
3000
00:37
but you've also got things like East Timor
8
22000
2000
00:39
and the Solomon Islands and so on.
9
24000
2000
00:41
And a lot of these deployments
10
26000
2000
00:43
that we're actually sending military personnel to these days
11
28000
3000
00:46
aren't traditional wars.
12
31000
2000
00:48
In fact, a lot of the jobs
13
33000
2000
00:50
that we're asking the military personnel to do in these situations
14
35000
3000
00:53
are ones that, in their own countries, in Australia, the United States and so on,
15
38000
3000
00:56
would actually be done by police officers.
16
41000
3000
00:59
And so there's a bunch of problems that come up
17
44000
2000
01:01
for military personnel in these situations,
18
46000
2000
01:03
because they're doing things that they haven't really been trained for,
19
48000
3000
01:06
and they're doing things
20
51000
2000
01:08
that those who do them in their own countries
21
53000
3000
01:11
are trained very differently for
22
56000
2000
01:13
and equipped very differently for.
23
58000
2000
01:15
Now there's a bunch of reasons why
24
60000
2000
01:17
we actually do send military personnel
25
62000
2000
01:19
rather than police to do these jobs.
26
64000
2000
01:21
If Australia had to send a thousand people tomorrow
27
66000
3000
01:24
to West Papua for example,
28
69000
2000
01:26
we don't have a thousand police officers hanging around
29
71000
2000
01:28
that could just go tomorrow
30
73000
2000
01:30
and we do have a thousand soldiers that could go.
31
75000
2000
01:32
So when we have to send someone, we send the military --
32
77000
3000
01:35
because they're there, they're available
33
80000
2000
01:37
and, heck, they're used to going off and doing these things
34
82000
2000
01:39
and living by themselves
35
84000
2000
01:41
and not having all this extra support.
36
86000
2000
01:43
So they are able to do it in that sense.
37
88000
2000
01:45
But they aren't trained in the same way that police officers are
38
90000
3000
01:48
and they're certainly not equipped in the same way police officers are.
39
93000
3000
01:51
And so this has raised a bunch of problems for them
40
96000
2000
01:53
when dealing with these sorts of issues.
41
98000
2000
01:55
One particular thing that's come up
42
100000
2000
01:57
that I am especially interested in
43
102000
2000
01:59
is the question of whether,
44
104000
2000
02:01
when we're sending military personnel to do these sorts of jobs,
45
106000
2000
02:03
we ought to be equipping them differently,
46
108000
2000
02:05
and in particular, whether we ought to be giving them access
47
110000
2000
02:07
to some of the sorts of non-lethal weapons that police have.
48
112000
3000
02:10
Since they're doing some of these same jobs,
49
115000
2000
02:12
maybe they should have some of those things.
50
117000
2000
02:14
And of course, there's a range of places
51
119000
2000
02:16
where you'd think those things would be really useful.
52
121000
2000
02:18
So for example, when you've got military checkpoints.
53
123000
3000
02:21
If people are approaching these checkpoints
54
126000
2000
02:23
and the military personnel there are unsure
55
128000
2000
02:25
whether this person's hostile or not.
56
130000
2000
02:27
Say this person approaching here,
57
132000
2000
02:29
and they say, "Well is this a suicide bomber or not?
58
134000
2000
02:31
Have they got something hidden under their clothing? What's going to happen?"
59
136000
2000
02:33
They don't know whether this person's hostile or not.
60
138000
2000
02:35
If this person doesn't follow directions,
61
140000
2000
02:37
then they may end up shooting them
62
142000
2000
02:39
and then find out afterward
63
144000
2000
02:41
either, yes, we shot the right person,
64
146000
2000
02:43
or, no, this was just an innocent person
65
148000
2000
02:45
who didn't understand what was going on.
66
150000
2000
02:47
So if they had non-lethal weapons
67
152000
2000
02:49
then they would say, "Well we can use them in that sort of situation.
68
154000
2000
02:51
If we shoot someone who wasn't hostile,
69
156000
2000
02:53
at least we haven't killed them."
70
158000
2000
02:55
Another situation.
71
160000
2000
02:57
This photo is actually from one of the missions
72
162000
2000
02:59
in the Balkans in the late 1990s.
73
164000
2000
03:01
Situation's a little bit different
74
166000
2000
03:03
where perhaps they know someone who's hostile,
75
168000
2000
03:05
where they've got someone shooting at them
76
170000
2000
03:07
or doing something else that's clearly hostile, throwing rocks, whatever.
77
172000
3000
03:10
But if they respond, there's a range of other people around,
78
175000
3000
03:13
who are innocent people who might also get hurt --
79
178000
3000
03:16
be collateral damage that the military often doesn't want to talk about.
80
181000
4000
03:20
So again, they would say, "Well if we have access to non-lethal weapons,
81
185000
2000
03:22
if we've got someone we know is hostile,
82
187000
2000
03:24
we can do something to deal with them
83
189000
2000
03:26
and know that if we hit anyone else around the place,
84
191000
2000
03:28
at least, again, we're not going to kill them."
85
193000
2000
03:30
Another suggestion has been,
86
195000
2000
03:32
since we're putting so many robots in the field,
87
197000
2000
03:34
we can see the time coming
88
199000
2000
03:36
where they're actually going to be sending robots out in the field that are autonomous.
89
201000
3000
03:39
They're going to make their own decisions about who to shoot and who not to shoot
90
204000
3000
03:42
without a human in the loop.
91
207000
2000
03:44
And so the suggestion is, well hey,
92
209000
2000
03:46
if we're going to send robots out and allow them to do this,
93
211000
2000
03:48
maybe it would be a good idea, again, with these things
94
213000
3000
03:51
if they were armed with non-lethal weapons
95
216000
2000
03:53
so that if the robot makes a bad decision and shoots the wrong person,
96
218000
3000
03:56
again, they haven't actually killed them.
97
221000
2000
03:58
Now there's a whole range of different sorts of non-lethal weapons,
98
223000
3000
04:01
some of which are obviously available now,
99
226000
2000
04:03
some of which they're developing.
100
228000
2000
04:05
So you've got traditional things like pepper spray,
101
230000
2000
04:07
O.C. spray up at the top there,
102
232000
2000
04:09
or Tasers over here.
103
234000
2000
04:11
The one on the top right here is actually a dazzling laser
104
236000
3000
04:14
intended to just blind the person momentarily
105
239000
2000
04:16
and disorient them.
106
241000
2000
04:18
You've got non-lethal shotgun rounds
107
243000
2000
04:20
that contain rubber pellets
108
245000
2000
04:22
instead of the traditional metal ones.
109
247000
2000
04:24
And this one in the middle here, the large truck,
110
249000
3000
04:27
is actually called the Active Denial System --
111
252000
2000
04:29
something the U.S. military is working on at the moment.
112
254000
3000
04:32
It's essentially a big microwave transmitter.
113
257000
3000
04:35
It's sort of your classic idea of a heat ray.
114
260000
3000
04:38
It goes out to a really long distance,
115
263000
3000
04:41
compared to any of these other sorts of things.
116
266000
2000
04:43
And anybody who is hit with this
117
268000
2000
04:45
feels this sudden burst of heat
118
270000
2000
04:47
and just wants to get out of the way.
119
272000
2000
04:49
It is a lot more sophisticated than a microwave oven,
120
274000
3000
04:52
but it is basically boiling the water molecules
121
277000
2000
04:54
in the very surface level of your skin.
122
279000
2000
04:56
So you feel this massive heat,
123
281000
2000
04:58
and you go, "I want to get out of the way."
124
283000
2000
05:00
And they're thinking, well this will be really useful
125
285000
3000
05:03
in places like where we need to clear a crowd out of a particular area,
126
288000
2000
05:05
if the crowd is being hostile.
127
290000
2000
05:07
If we need to keep people away from a particular place,
128
292000
3000
05:10
we can do that with these sorts of things.
129
295000
3000
05:13
So obviously there's a whole range of different sorts
130
298000
2000
05:15
of non-lethal weapons we could give military personnel
131
300000
3000
05:18
and there's a whole range of situations
132
303000
2000
05:20
where they're looking a them and saying, "Hey, these things could be really useful."
133
305000
3000
05:23
But as I said,
134
308000
2000
05:25
the military and the police
135
310000
2000
05:27
are very different.
136
312000
2000
05:29
Yes, you don't have to look very hard at this
137
314000
2000
05:31
to recognize the fact that they might be very different.
138
316000
2000
05:33
In particular,
139
318000
2000
05:35
the attitude to the use of force
140
320000
2000
05:37
and the way they're trained to use force
141
322000
2000
05:39
is especially different.
142
324000
2000
05:41
The police --
143
326000
2000
05:43
and knowing because I've actually helped to train police --
144
328000
3000
05:46
police, in particular Western jurisdictions at least,
145
331000
3000
05:49
are trained to de-escalate force,
146
334000
3000
05:52
to try and avoid using force
147
337000
2000
05:54
wherever possible,
148
339000
2000
05:56
and to use lethal force
149
341000
2000
05:58
only as an absolute last resort.
150
343000
3000
06:01
Military personnel are being trained for war,
151
346000
3000
06:04
so they're trained that, as soon as things go bad,
152
349000
3000
06:07
their first response is lethal force.
153
352000
3000
06:11
The moment the fecal matter hits the rotating turbine,
154
356000
4000
06:15
you can start shooting at people.
155
360000
3000
06:18
So their attitudes
156
363000
2000
06:20
to the use of lethal force are very different,
157
365000
2000
06:22
and I think it's fairly obvious
158
367000
2000
06:24
that their attitude to the use of non-lethal weapons
159
369000
3000
06:27
would also be very different from what it is with the police.
160
372000
3000
06:30
And since we've already had so many problems
161
375000
2000
06:32
with police use of non-lethal weapons in various ways,
162
377000
3000
06:35
I thought it would be a really good idea to look at some of those things
163
380000
3000
06:38
and try to relate it to the military context.
164
383000
2000
06:40
And I was really surprised when I started to do this,
165
385000
2000
06:42
to see that, in fact,
166
387000
2000
06:44
even those people who were advocating the use of non-lethal weapons by the military
167
389000
3000
06:47
hadn't actually done that.
168
392000
2000
06:49
They generally seem to think,
169
394000
2000
06:51
"Well, why would we care what's happened with the police?
170
396000
2000
06:53
We're looking at something different,"
171
398000
2000
06:55
and didn't seem to recognize, in fact,
172
400000
2000
06:57
they were looking at pretty much the same stuff.
173
402000
2000
06:59
So I actually started to investigate some of those issues
174
404000
2000
07:01
and have a look
175
406000
2000
07:03
at the way that police use non-lethal weapons when they're introduced
176
408000
3000
07:06
and some of the problems that might arise
177
411000
2000
07:08
out of those sorts of things
178
413000
2000
07:10
when they actually do introduce them.
179
415000
2000
07:12
And of course, being Australian,
180
417000
2000
07:14
I started looking at stuff in Australia,
181
419000
2000
07:16
knowing, again, from my own experience about various times
182
421000
3000
07:19
when non-lethal weapons have been introduced in Australia.
183
424000
3000
07:22
So one of the things I particularly looked at
184
427000
2000
07:24
was the use of O.C. spray,
185
429000
2000
07:26
oleoresin capsicum spray, pepper spray,
186
431000
2000
07:28
by Australian police
187
433000
2000
07:30
and seeing when that had been introduced, what had happened
188
435000
2000
07:32
and those sorts of issues.
189
437000
2000
07:34
And one study that I found,
190
439000
2000
07:36
a particularly interesting one,
191
441000
2000
07:38
was actually in Queensland,
192
443000
2000
07:40
because they had a trial period for the use of pepper spray
193
445000
3000
07:43
before they actually introduced it more broadly.
194
448000
3000
07:46
And I went and had a look at some of the figures here.
195
451000
3000
07:49
Now when they introduced O.C. spray in Queensland,
196
454000
2000
07:51
they were really explicit.
197
456000
2000
07:53
The police minister had a whole heap of public statements made about it.
198
458000
3000
07:56
They were saying, "This is explicitly intended
199
461000
2000
07:58
to give police an option
200
463000
2000
08:00
between shouting and shooting.
201
465000
3000
08:03
This is something they can use instead of a firearm
202
468000
3000
08:06
in those situations where they would have previously had to shoot someone."
203
471000
3000
08:09
So I went and looked at all of these police shooting figures.
204
474000
3000
08:12
And you can't actually find them very easily
205
477000
2000
08:14
for individual Australian states.
206
479000
2000
08:16
I could only find these ones.
207
481000
2000
08:18
This is from a Australian Institute of Criminology report.
208
483000
2000
08:20
As you can see from the fine print, if you can read it at the top:
209
485000
2000
08:22
"Police shooting deaths" means not just people who have been shot by police,
210
487000
3000
08:25
but people who have shot themselves in the presence of police.
211
490000
4000
08:29
But this is the figures across the entire country.
212
494000
2000
08:31
And the red arrow represents the point
213
496000
2000
08:33
where Queensland actually said,
214
498000
2000
08:35
"Yes, this is where we're going to give all police officers across the entire state
215
500000
3000
08:38
access to O.C. spray."
216
503000
2000
08:40
So you can see there were six deaths sort of leading up to it
217
505000
3000
08:43
every year for a number of years.
218
508000
2000
08:45
There was a spike, of course, a few years before,
219
510000
2000
08:47
but that wasn't actually Queensland.
220
512000
2000
08:49
Anyone know where that was? Wasn't Port Arthur, no.
221
514000
3000
08:52
Victoria? Yes, correct.
222
517000
2000
08:54
That spike was all Victoria.
223
519000
3000
08:57
So it wasn't that Queensland had a particular problem
224
522000
2000
08:59
with deaths from police shootings and so on.
225
524000
4000
09:03
So six shootings across the whole country,
226
528000
2000
09:05
fairly consistently over the years before.
227
530000
2000
09:07
So the next two years were the years they studied -- 2001, 2002.
228
532000
3000
09:10
Anyone want to take a stab at the number of times,
229
535000
3000
09:13
given how they've introduced this,
230
538000
2000
09:15
the number of times police in Queensland used O.C. spray in that period?
231
540000
3000
09:18
Hundreds? One, three.
232
543000
2000
09:20
Thousand is getting better.
233
545000
3000
09:25
Explicitly introduced
234
550000
2000
09:27
as an alternative to the use of lethal force --
235
552000
2000
09:29
an alternative between shouting and shooting.
236
554000
3000
09:32
I'm going to go out on a limb here
237
557000
2000
09:34
and say that if Queensland police didn't have O.C. spray,
238
559000
3000
09:37
they wouldn't have shot 2,226 people
239
562000
3000
09:40
in those two years.
240
565000
3000
09:43
In fact, if you have a look
241
568000
2000
09:45
at the studies that they were looking at,
242
570000
2000
09:47
the material they were collecting and examining,
243
572000
3000
09:50
you can see the suspects were only armed
244
575000
3000
09:53
in about 15 percent of cases
245
578000
2000
09:55
where O.C. spray was used.
246
580000
2000
09:57
It was routinely being used in this period,
247
582000
3000
10:00
and, of course, still is routinely used --
248
585000
2000
10:02
because there were no complaints about it,
249
587000
2000
10:04
not within the context of this study anyway --
250
589000
3000
10:07
it was routinely being used
251
592000
2000
10:09
to deal with people who were violent,
252
594000
2000
10:11
who were potentially violent,
253
596000
2000
10:13
and also quite frequently used
254
598000
2000
10:15
to deal with people who were simply
255
600000
2000
10:17
passively non-compliant.
256
602000
4000
10:21
This person is not doing anything violent,
257
606000
2000
10:23
but they just won't do what we want them to.
258
608000
2000
10:25
They're not obeying the directions that we're giving them,
259
610000
2000
10:27
so we'll give them a shot of the O.C. spray.
260
612000
2000
10:29
That'll speed them up. Everything will work out better that way.
261
614000
4000
10:33
This was something explicitly introduced
262
618000
2000
10:35
to be an alternative to firearms,
263
620000
2000
10:37
but it's being routinely used
264
622000
2000
10:39
to deal with a whole range
265
624000
2000
10:41
of other sorts of problems.
266
626000
2000
10:43
Now one of the particular issues that comes up
267
628000
2000
10:45
with military use of non-lethal weapons --
268
630000
3000
10:48
and people when they're actually saying, "Well hey, there might be some problems" --
269
633000
3000
10:51
there's a couple of particular problems that get focused on.
270
636000
3000
10:54
One of those problems
271
639000
2000
10:56
is that non-lethal weapons may be used indiscriminately.
272
641000
3000
10:59
One of the fundamental principles of military use of force
273
644000
3000
11:02
is that you have to be discriminate.
274
647000
2000
11:04
You have to be careful about who you're shooting at.
275
649000
3000
11:07
So one of the problems that's been suggested with non-lethal weapons
276
652000
3000
11:10
is that they might be used indiscriminately --
277
655000
2000
11:12
that you use them against a whole range of people
278
657000
2000
11:14
because you don't have to worry so much anymore.
279
659000
3000
11:17
And in fact, one particular instance
280
662000
2000
11:19
where I think that actually happens where you can look at it
281
664000
2000
11:21
was the Dubrovka Theatre siege in Moscow in 2002,
282
666000
3000
11:24
which probably a lot of you, unlike most of my students at ADFA,
283
669000
2000
11:26
are actually old enough to remember.
284
671000
2000
11:28
So Chechens had come in and taken control of the theater.
285
673000
3000
11:31
They were holding something like 700 people hostage.
286
676000
3000
11:34
They'd released a bunch of people,
287
679000
2000
11:36
but they still had about 700 people hostage.
288
681000
3000
11:39
And the Russian special military police,
289
684000
3000
11:42
special forces, Spetsnaz,
290
687000
2000
11:44
came in and actually stormed the theater.
291
689000
2000
11:46
And the way they did it was to pump the whole thing full of anesthetic gas.
292
691000
3000
11:49
And it turned out
293
694000
2000
11:51
that lots of these hostages actually died
294
696000
3000
11:54
as a result of inhaling the gas.
295
699000
3000
11:57
It was used indiscriminately.
296
702000
2000
11:59
They pumped the whole theater full of the gas.
297
704000
3000
12:02
And it's no surprise that people died,
298
707000
2000
12:04
because you don't know how much of this gas
299
709000
2000
12:06
each person is going to inhale,
300
711000
2000
12:08
what position they're going to fall in
301
713000
2000
12:10
when they become unconscious and so on.
302
715000
2000
12:12
There were, in fact, only a couple of people who got shot
303
717000
3000
12:15
in this episode.
304
720000
2000
12:17
So when they had a look at it afterward,
305
722000
2000
12:19
there were only a couple of people
306
724000
2000
12:21
who'd apparently been shot by the hostage takers
307
726000
2000
12:23
or shot by the police forces
308
728000
2000
12:25
coming in and trying to deal with the situation.
309
730000
2000
12:27
Virtually everybody that got killed
310
732000
2000
12:29
got killed from inhaling the gas.
311
734000
2000
12:31
The final toll of hostages
312
736000
2000
12:33
is a little unclear,
313
738000
2000
12:35
but it's certainly a few more than that,
314
740000
2000
12:37
because there were other people who died over the next few days.
315
742000
2000
12:39
So this was one particular problem they talked about,
316
744000
2000
12:41
that it might be used indiscriminately.
317
746000
2000
12:43
Second problem that people sometimes talk about
318
748000
2000
12:45
with military use of non-lethal weapons,
319
750000
2000
12:47
and it's actually the reason why in the chemical weapons convention,
320
752000
3000
12:50
it's very clear that you can't use riot control agents
321
755000
2000
12:52
as a weapon of warfare,
322
757000
2000
12:54
the problem with that is that it's seen that sometimes
323
759000
3000
12:57
non-lethal weapons might actually be used, not as an alternative to lethal force,
324
762000
3000
13:00
but as a lethal force multiplier --
325
765000
3000
13:03
that you use non-lethal weapons first
326
768000
2000
13:05
so that your lethal weapons will actually be more effective.
327
770000
3000
13:08
The people you're going to be shooting at
328
773000
2000
13:10
aren't going to be able to get out of the way.
329
775000
2000
13:12
They're not going to be aware of what's happening and you can kill them better.
330
777000
3000
13:15
And in fact, that's exactly what happened here.
331
780000
3000
13:18
The hostage takers who had been rendered unconscious by the gas
332
783000
3000
13:21
were not taken into custody,
333
786000
2000
13:23
they were simply shot in the head.
334
788000
3000
13:26
So this non-lethal weapon
335
791000
2000
13:28
was being used, in fact, in this case
336
793000
2000
13:30
as a lethal force multiplier
337
795000
3000
13:33
to make killing more effective
338
798000
2000
13:35
in this particular situation.
339
800000
3000
13:38
Another problem that I just want to quickly mention
340
803000
2000
13:40
is that there's a whole heap of problems
341
805000
2000
13:42
with the way that people actually get taught
342
807000
2000
13:44
to use non-lethal weapons
343
809000
2000
13:46
and get trained about them and then get tested and so on.
344
811000
2000
13:48
Because they get tested in nice, safe environments.
345
813000
3000
13:51
And people get taught to use them in nice, safe environments
346
816000
3000
13:54
like this, where you can see exactly what's going on.
347
819000
3000
13:57
The person who's spraying the O.C. spray is wearing a rubber glove
348
822000
3000
14:00
to make sure they don't get contaminated and so on.
349
825000
2000
14:02
But they don't ever get used like that.
350
827000
2000
14:04
They get used out in the real world,
351
829000
2000
14:06
like in Texas, like this.
352
831000
4000
14:10
I confess, this particular case
353
835000
3000
14:13
was actually one that piqued my interest in this.
354
838000
2000
14:15
It happened while I was working as a research fellow at the U.S. Naval Academy.
355
840000
3000
14:18
And news reports started coming up about this situation
356
843000
3000
14:21
where this woman was arguing with the police officer.
357
846000
3000
14:24
She wasn't violent.
358
849000
2000
14:26
In fact, he was probably six inches taller than me,
359
851000
2000
14:28
and she was about this tall.
360
853000
3000
14:31
And eventually she said to him
361
856000
2000
14:33
"Well I'm going to get back in my car."
362
858000
2000
14:35
And he says, "If you get back into your car, I'm going to tase you."
363
860000
2000
14:37
And she says, "Oh, go ahead. Tase me." And so he does.
364
862000
3000
14:40
And it's all captured by the video camera
365
865000
2000
14:42
running in the front of the police car.
366
867000
4000
14:46
So she's 72,
367
871000
3000
14:49
and it's seen that this is the most appropriate way of dealing with her.
368
874000
4000
14:53
And other examples of the same sorts of things
369
878000
2000
14:55
with other people where you think
370
880000
2000
14:57
where you think, "Is this really an appropriate way to use non-lethal weapons?"
371
882000
3000
15:00
"Police chief fires Taser into 14 year-old girl's head."
372
885000
2000
15:02
"She was running away. What else was I suppose to do?"
373
887000
3000
15:05
(Laughter)
374
890000
3000
15:08
Or Florida:
375
893000
2000
15:10
"Police Taser six year-old boy at elementary school."
376
895000
3000
15:13
And they clearly learned a lot from it
377
898000
2000
15:15
because in the same district,
378
900000
2000
15:17
"Police review policy after children shocked:
379
902000
2000
15:19
2nd child shocked by Taser stun gun within weeks."
380
904000
3000
15:22
Same police district.
381
907000
2000
15:24
Another child within weeks of Tasering the six year-old boy.
382
909000
3000
15:27
Just in case you think
383
912000
2000
15:29
it's only going to happen in the United States,
384
914000
2000
15:31
it happened in Canada as well.
385
916000
2000
15:33
And a colleague of mine
386
918000
2000
15:35
sent me this one from London.
387
920000
2000
15:37
But my personal favorite of these ones, I have to confess,
388
922000
3000
15:40
does actually come from the United States:
389
925000
3000
15:43
"Officers Taser 86 year-old disabled woman in her bed."
390
928000
3000
15:46
I checked the reports on this one.
391
931000
4000
15:50
I looked at it. I was really surprised.
392
935000
3000
15:53
Apparently she took up a more threatening position in her bed.
393
938000
3000
15:56
(Laughter)
394
941000
2000
15:58
I kid you not. That's exactly what it said.
395
943000
2000
16:00
"She took up a more threatening position in her bed."
396
945000
3000
16:03
Okay.
397
948000
2000
16:05
But I'd remind you what I'm talking about,
398
950000
2000
16:07
I'm talking about military uses of non-lethal weapons.
399
952000
2000
16:09
So why is this relevant?
400
954000
2000
16:11
Because police are actually more restrained in the use of force
401
956000
2000
16:13
than the military are.
402
958000
2000
16:15
They're trained to be more restrained in the use of force than the military are.
403
960000
3000
16:18
They're trained to think more, to try and de-escalate.
404
963000
3000
16:21
So if you have these problems with police officers with non-lethal weapons,
405
966000
3000
16:24
what on earth would make you think
406
969000
2000
16:26
it's going to be better with military personnel?
407
971000
3000
16:30
The last thing that I would just like to say,
408
975000
3000
16:33
when I'm talking to the police
409
978000
2000
16:35
about what a perfect non-lethal weapon would look like,
410
980000
2000
16:37
they almost inevitably say the same thing.
411
982000
2000
16:39
They say, "Well, it's got to be something that's nasty enough
412
984000
3000
16:42
that people don't want to be hit with this weapon.
413
987000
2000
16:44
So if you threaten to use it,
414
989000
2000
16:46
people are going to comply with it,
415
991000
3000
16:49
but it's also going to be something
416
994000
2000
16:51
that doesn't leave any lasting effects."
417
996000
4000
16:55
In other words, your perfect non-lethal weapon
418
1000000
3000
16:58
is something that's perfect for abuse.
419
1003000
2000
17:00
What would these guys have done
420
1005000
2000
17:02
if they'd had access to Tasers
421
1007000
2000
17:04
or to a manned, portable version
422
1009000
2000
17:06
of the Active Denial System --
423
1011000
2000
17:08
a small heat ray that you can use on people
424
1013000
3000
17:11
and not worry about it.
425
1016000
2000
17:13
So I think, yes, there may be ways
426
1018000
3000
17:16
that non-lethal weapons are going to be great in these situations,
427
1021000
2000
17:18
but there's also a whole heap of problems
428
1023000
2000
17:20
that need to be considered as well.
429
1025000
2000
17:22
Thanks very much.
430
1027000
2000
17:24
(Applause)
431
1029000
2000
ABOUT THE SPEAKER
Stephen Coleman - EthicistStephen Coleman studies applied ethics, particularly the ethics of military and police force, and their application to human rights.
Why you should listen
Dr. Stephen Coleman is Senior Lecturer in Ethics and Leadership and Vincent Fairfax Foundation Fellow in the School of Humanities and Social Sciences, UNSW@ADFA.
Coleman works in a diverse range of areas in applied ethics, including military ethics, police ethics, medical ethics, and the practical applications of human rights. He has published and presented in various forms in Australia, the United States, the United Kingdom, New Zealand and Hong Kong. He recently spent an academic year as the Resident Fellow at the Stockdale Center for Ethical Leadership at the United States Naval Academy, where he was part of a large research project examining the ethical implications of various new and developing military technologies. This project helped to brief the Department of Defense, the US Congress and the White House on these issues.
He can also make balloon and origami animals, juggle, breathe fire and ride a unicycle, though not all at the same time.
Stephen Coleman | Speaker | TED.com