Ferguson inspired idea

[NHT3]

Just use regular rounds. The "protesters" have their own dye packs.

I just got up but definitely my laugh of the day, possibly the week.. thanks

[FONT=&quot] [/FONT][FONT=&quot]NRA Life Member[/FONT][FONT=&quot]-- [/FONT][FONT=&quot]GSSF member[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]Ruger MK III, M&P & 1911mechanic [FONT=&quot][/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]NRA Basic pistol instructor[FONT=&quot] –[/FONT] Certified Glock armorer

 

[KittySlayer]

Basically you're just shooting them with paintball guns which would work till a innocent gets their eye shot out

Get a good marksman so you only hit the guilty ones.

 

[Kutnupe14]

My brother came up with an idea for a crowd control measure while watching the complete chaos that was Ferguson ,Missouri.

Ingo seems like a natural place to hash out the details, or discuss whether or not it could even be done.

His idea is simple.
You know the dye that banks put in their "dye-packs" that mark the bad-guys?
What if you could load dye-filled rounds into police sniper rifles? Deploy them on roof-tops around the problem area(s).
Police see a problem? Mark 'em
Let the guys on the ground sort them out after they flee the scene.
I'd bet the crowd might disperse more quickly if they start seeing the people around them being "marked".

Seems like it would be easy to do, but then again, how do you make basically a paint-ball round for a high-power rifle?
You would need to reach a reasonable distance to make it worthwhile.

Terrible idea. Some hooligan causing trouble and someone uses tags them with a paint round from a sniper rifle? And then when the crowd disperses, officers can collect people who have been tagged in such away, without actually knowing what crime they committed, other than fact they have paint on their person. Good luck trying to reconcile that with the 4th Amendment.

 

[cobber]

Terrible idea. Some hooligan causing trouble and someone uses tags them with a paint round from a sniper rifle? And then when the crowd disperses, officers can collect people who have been tagged in such away, without actually knowing what crime they committed, other than fact they have paint on their person. Good luck trying to reconcile that with the 4th Amendment.

That's why my tranquilizer dart concept is superior. We're not prosecuting them, just collecting metadata on the movement of protesters. And it's targeted collection, unlike the NSA umbrella surveillance.

Since it's not a collection of evidence, and the time required to tag would be minimal, it's barely an imposition on their liberty interest. And the po-pos can also microchip them to be sure they're enrolled in the ACA, in addition to giving them a salubrious vitamin shot.

 

[ChalupaCabras]

Terrible idea. Some hooligan causing trouble and someone uses tags them with a paint round from a sniper rifle? And then when the crowd disperses, officers can collect people who have been tagged in such away, without actually knowing what crime they committed, other than fact they have paint on their person. Good luck trying to reconcile that with the 4th Amendment.

In real life you tag a limited number of people for a limited number of highly specific reasons, but this is INGO, so lets not think about it at all, and just throw out the craziest thing we can think of.

For the two of you who are serious about learning something - Marking systems like this are used to mark crowd leaders or instigators who would be too difficult or dangerous to arrest at the moment. Example: a crowd is yelling and posturing, but not yet being violent or destructive; then some jerk several yards deep in the crowd starts smashing windows or burning something. The crowd control officers are not going to break rank for him - instead you mark him, record his general description, and pick him up at a later date for arson / destruction of property. Its safer for the officers, safer for the protesters in the crowd, and safer for the perpetrator.

 

[Kutnupe14]

That's why my tranquilizer dart concept is superior. We're not prosecuting them, just collecting metadata on the movement of protesters. And it's targeted collection, unlike the NSA umbrella surveillance.

Since it's not a collection of evidence, and the time required to tag would be minimal, it's barely an imposition on their liberty interest. And the po-pos can also microchip them to be sure they're enrolled in the ACA, in addition to giving them a salubrious vitamin shot.

That pesky 4th Amendment would also thwart that idea, unless you had a judge and prosecutor on the rooftops signing off on warrants to track these people.

 

[Yup!]

So imagine being in the crowd, you hear gunshots, you see the guy next to you go down and run in a panic becazuse he's been hit.m you don't thin the rest of the thugs will fire back with real rounds in a panic.

nice try, but this will not work. IMO it will cause MORE panic.

 

[Alamo]

In real life you tag a limited number of people for a limited number of highly specific reasons, but this is INGO, so lets not think about it at all, and just throw out the craziest thing we can think of.

.

...and you VIDEO the process so you can match up the painted ones with their deeds on video later. The paint just makes it easier to nab the right ones when you find them two streets over from the incident.

However, I think this is really just nibbling at the edges. Once things turn violent, you're still going to need a ton of cops or national guardsmen empowered to thump rioters to protect property. And directly capture people in the act. Another reason for cops to have bodycams.

Or do this: ARMED GUARDS WITH AR-15?s Save North St. Louis Businesses From Looters | The Gateway Pundit
In Ferguson, black residents stand guard at white-owned store | Reuters

 

[ChalupaCabras]

...and you VIDEO the process so you can match up the painted ones with their deeds on video later. The paint just makes it easier to nab the right ones when you find them two streets over from the incident.

Yes. Many traditional crowd control units employ a camera man, whos job is to video tape the engagements. Many also use ammo carriers, who run back and forth and resupply other officers. I am attempting to keep things brief to avoid complicating the discussion.

So imagine being in the crowd, you hear gunshots, you see the guy next to you go down and run in a panic becazuse he's been hit.m you don't thin the rest of the thugs will fire back with real rounds in a panic.

nice try, but this will not work. IMO it will cause MORE panic.

Please tell me what your opinion is based on? Mine are based on years of working in this specific field. You never send out a crowd control unit without LETHAL weapons. Even if it is just the supervisors, there will be multiple AR-15s behind the line of gas guns and less lethal weapons. This is a leason learned 60+ years ago - even old dated manuals from the 60's and 70's warn against going into the field without some form of lethal force option.

The moment the "thugs fire back with real rounds" is the moment a supervisor will come over the shoulder of the officers on line and start shooting REAL bullets from a REAL AR-15 and / or the officers on line draw their REAL duty weapons and fire REAL bullets back at them. Some units may also employ snipers whos primary task is survailance of the crowd, but can also intervene in a lethal force situation.

This is an art that has been studdied ad nauseam by LEO and security agencies since the 1950's. If you think you have thought of something that has been overlooked, then please do let me know.

 

[gundoc111]

Though it is not P.C. in Israel I have read that the police have 10/22's with suppressors and they take out a knee cap of the leaders. That seems to break up riots pretty quick.

 

[cobber]

That pesky 4th Amendment would also thwart that idea, unless you had a judge and prosecutor on the rooftops signing off on warrants to track these people.

Wrong, the 4th doesn't have any bearing on scientific research, only on a search leading to arrest and prosecution. I think we're good.

 

[Kutnupe14]

Wrong, the 4th doesn't have any bearing on scientific research, only on a search leading to arrest and prosecution. I think we're good.

So just so I'm getting this straight, you think it's ok for the govt to track the movements of persons of interest, via tagging their personal effects or their persons, without their knowledge or permission? And somehow you think the 4th Amendment allows for this. "1984" much?

 

[kjf48197]

I am going along with regular rounds. Those would tranquilize and mark them to make it easy to find them later. Also save tax dollars on court costs, prevent more riots, save buildings and cars from being burnt, and I would be able to save my ammo for hunting and target shooting.

 

[rhino]

You guys are just a bunch of racist . . . racists!!!

 

[BehindBlueI's]

So just so I'm getting this straight, you think it's ok for the govt to track the movements of persons of interest, via tagging their personal effects or their persons, without their knowledge or permission? And somehow you think the 4th Amendment allows for this. "1984" much?

Do you suppose maybe, just maybe, he's joshing you a bit?

 

[Yup!]

Yes. Many traditional crowd control units employ a camera man, whos job is to video tape the engagements. Many also use ammo carriers, who run back and forth and resupply other officers. I am attempting to keep things brief to avoid complicating the discussion.



Please tell me what your opinion is based on? Mine are based on years of working in this specific field. You never send out a crowd control unit without LETHAL weapons. Even if it is just the supervisors, there will be multiple AR-15s behind the line of gas guns and less lethal weapons. This is a leason learned 60+ years ago - even old dated manuals from the 60's and 70's warn against going into the field without some form of lethal force option.

The moment the "thugs fire back with real rounds" is the moment a supervisor will come over the shoulder of the officers on line and start shooting REAL bullets from a REAL AR-15 and / or the officers on line draw their REAL duty weapons and fire REAL bullets back at them. Some units may also employ snipers whos primary task is survailance of the crowd, but can also intervene in a lethal force situation.

This is an art that has been studdied ad nauseam by LEO and security agencies since the 1950's. If you think you have thought of something that has been overlooked, then please do let me know.

I have no experience here, but I am a registered user on INGO.

All I'm saying is if you are shooting a non lethal round into the crowd, the crown coukd over react. As soon as you meet their force with force it gets ugly. Who started it?

 

[cobber]

So just so I'm getting this straight, you think it's ok for the govt to track the movements of persons of interest, via tagging their personal effects or their persons, without their knowledge or permission? And somehow you think the 4th Amendment allows for this. "1984" much?

Okay. You clearly did not read any of my posts very closely. It's not a search. It's not an attempt to garner evidence to be used in any criminal prosecution. The government wouldn't be looking for evidence of a crime. There is nothing to exclude or suppress. Since there is no crime being investigated.


Person of interest? Your term, not mine. I'm studying migratory habits of demonstrators using metadata. Just like migratory wildfowl. I guess PETA might agree with your concern. Stop banding the birds!

And did the government track people in 1984? Given all the snitches running about, I don't think it was necessary. And I'm guessing the .gov has pretty well infiltrated the Ferguson demonstrators, despite the sympathies of the golfer-in-chief.

 

[cobber]

Do you suppose maybe, just maybe, he's joshing you a bit?

 

[ChalupaCabras]

I have no experience here, but I am a registered user on INGO.

All I'm saying is if you are shooting a non lethal round into the crowd, the crown coukd over react. As soon as you meet their force with force it gets ugly. Who started it?

The phrase "reading the riot act" should ring a bell.

The crowd will be told to disperse multiple times over a lound speaker or a bullhorn... They will be dirrectly informed of what laws they are breaking, and what laws give the police power to remove them. They will be told that force will be used if they don't disperse. The entire process takes a significant period of time, and the entire thing will be on video tape.

The police don't just show up and start shooting into the crowd. That's fantasy.

 

[Kutnupe14]

Do you suppose maybe, just maybe, he's joshing you a bit?

Lol, I've been had...