The effectiveness of tear gas as a mob dispeller received the emphatic endorsement of 200 stalwart Philadelphia policemen today after the gas had thrice sent them into hasty and wet-eyed retreat during an official test here. The results of the experiment were reported on 20 July 1921 in The New York Times newspaper article. Mills, choreographed a high-profile experiment in which 200 “volunteers” from the Philadelphia police force would be gassed. On 19 July 1921, MAJ Stephen Delanoy, who was assigned to the CWS, and his friend, Philadelphia Police Superintendent William B. In 1921, the CWS offered a CN device to the Philadelphia police for an experimental trial. Army conducted more research on CN than any other chemical agent. ĭuring the 1920s, the Chemical Warfare Service (CWS) within the U.S. military leaders were most interested in demonstrating the potential of tear gas in locations like Philadelphia. Months before the Treaty of Versailles (which was signed on 28 June 1919), U.S. Tear gas had become an accepted law enforcement tool and one which demonstrated a fairly successful technology transfer from the battlefields of World War I to urban America. Army became interested in the irritant chemical agent chloroacetophenone (CN) toward the end of World War I. Irritant chemical agents (referred to as tear gas, riot control agents, or lacrimators) were first used in 1912 by the French police in Paris and were the first chemical agents to be used during World War I. Interest in NLW by law enforcement has been ongoing since 1912 and by the military since World War I (1914–1918). NLW are intended to have relatively reversible effects (see Glossary) and minimize risk of fatalities, permanent injuries, or permanent damage to materiel however, they shall not be required to have a zero probability of producing these effects in accordance with DoD Directive 3000.03E. DoD Instruction (DoDI) 3200.19 that NLW shall not be required to have a zero probability of producing adverse effects. Department of Defense (DoD) policy for NLW states in U.S. Thus, in the weapons context, non-lethal means substantially less lethal-designed to avoid the creation of a high risk of death or permanent injury as a primary objective and less likely to do so, in fact, than a device (such as a firearm) intended to have the capability of killing.Įven the U.S. Weapons not intended to kill or create permanent injury, if used with any degree of regularity, would undoubtedly cause some deaths because of physiological differences among those whom they are employed, physical malfunctioning, improper utilization, and other circumstances. The probable seriousness of their effects (their lethality) depends upon a number of factors, not all of which are determined by their design. All weapons, and a wide variety of objects that are not intended to serve as weapons, create some primary or secondary risk of death or permanent injury. However, it has been acknowledged that no weapon can be entirely non-lethal, as discussed in a 1972 published report to the National Science Foundation (NSF) regarding non-lethal weapons (NLW) for law enforcement. Over the past 50+ years, a number of terms (e.g., non-lethal, less-lethal, less-than-lethal, sublethal) have been used to describe weapons that are intended to incapacitate targeted personnel or materiel immediately while minimizing fatalities or permanent injury to personnel.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |