|
Penn State Intercom......May 24, 2001 Non-lethal weapons
testing
|
| By
Tysen Kendig Public Information |
Research
debunks
|
In the five decades since the inception of the University's Applied Research Laboratory (ARL) as a Navy-sponsored research organization, priorities within the defense industry have gradually expanded from preparing for war to also keeping the peace.
As a visionary leader in national defense technologies, the ARL refocused some of its own efforts toward minimal force military options designed for conflict resolution and humanitarian assistance. However, lost in this initiative at an international level was the equally vital needs of law enforcement, as maintaining domestic law and order continues to be a more widespread and challenging task than many foreign peacekeeping military missions.
For police, non-lethal arms are integral in filling the gap between oral warnings and the use of deadly force when faced with violent offenders. Recognizing this, the ARL adapted yet again to the needs of society. The laboratory's Institute for Emerging Defense Technologies completed an attribute-based evaluation of the effectiveness of non-deadly munitions currently on the market for use by police agencies.
"Since the ARL's involvement with the study of non-lethal munitions, the focus -- both in terms of research dollars and in national conferences on the topic -- has been on the military," said John Leathers, interim dean of the Commonwealth College and special assistant to the provost. "The institute was the first to recognize law enforcement's stake in this, and bring attention to the issue of civilian applications for non-lethal weapons."
To map a course for increasing awareness and development in this arena, Leathers collaborated with the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department in bringing together top law enforcement practitioners who have extensive experience in the use of less-than-lethal weapons. Representatives from as far away as the United Kingdom joined in the three-day dialogue.
"The objective was to provide a forum for law enforcement professionals to address issues of interest to them concerning the employment of minimal force options," said Andrew Mazzara, retired Marine Corps colonel and current director of the Institute for Emerging Defense Technologies. "We're looking at this as an initiating activity toward larger efforts focused on law enforcement and its needs."
The ARL study was a centerpiece of discussion. It evaluated the effectiveness of extended-range minimal impact munitions, many of which have only been on the market since 1995. Examples of these devices include pellet-filled bean bags, rubber batons and bullets, pepper balls and other "soft" projectiles of varying shapes and sizes -- all intended to incapacitate resistant criminal suspects without causing permanent injury or death.
The tests helped determine the extent of force with which various devices strike a target and also their accuracy from varying ranges of deployment. The Los Angeles Sheriff's Department supplied the manpower, while the University provided the test equipment and the data collection and evaluation effort. The test site consisted of a shooting range with a ballistic pendulum target wired to computers to gauge force of impact and several high-speed cameras mounted at various angles to capture the instant of impact on film.
"We tested several non-lethal weapons to identify accuracy and imparted momentum," said John Kenny, associate research engineer in the ARL, principal investigator for the organization's Human Effects Advisory Panel, and the leader of this evaluation. "However, we are not able to predict injury or incapacitation levels to individuals from the results. Our intent is not to make recommendations on certain munitions, but to guide law enforcement in making their own decisions."
The tests revealed an overall deficiency in the accuracy of most weapon launchers fired from a comparatively close range of 21 feet, with some projectiles missing the target. As expected, accuracy decreased at greater distances; from 75 feet, only half of the munitions designed for that range hit the target.
"The good news is that we have a fairly good idea of what works and what doesn't work," summarized Capt. Charles "Sid" Heal, commander of the special enforcement bureau of the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department. "The bad news is that there isn't much that works."
The attribute study was the first of its kind worldwide and was received warmly by Heal and his colleagues in law enforcement, who have been clamoring for this type of information.
"We wanted some scientific data and measurements on less-than-lethal munitions, and we got that with Penn State's help. Previously, there had been no such comparison data for these types of munitions, but now for the first time we're able to fire a shot across the bow of the industry toward having a set of realistic standards for non-lethal weapons put in place," said Heal, adding that most non-lethal munitions actually are modified lethal weapons that are simply slower, bigger and softer.
Overseas representatives, including constables from England, Wales and Northern Ireland, agreed that the study and accompanying assembly of police professionals was a groundbreaking step in enhancing the development of these types of weapons.
"This is the first time to my knowledge that law enforcement practitioners and scientists have come together on an international level to review requirements and assign priorities for the use of less-than-lethal weapons," said Colin Burrows, superintendent in the Royal Constabulary of Northern Ireland. "The idea by Penn State to bring together people involved in officer safety, crowd control and weapons development was not only exciting, but important and valued."
Such feedback has not been lost on Leathers, who would like to see this forum evolve into an international symposium geared specifically toward law enforcement. Unlike existing conferences that emphasize military applications for minimal force and are inundated with vendors, special interest groups and other outside agents, Penn State organizers would like to keep the focus on the sharing of thoughts, concerns and ideas among the people directly charged with keeping the streets safe.
"Unlike groups that organize existing conferences in the field and include outside vendors, we're not in the business of buying, selling or advocating anything," said Leathers. "We're in the business of saving life, saving injury and saving property, and exploring the most effective means to accomplish this mission."
For information on the Institute for Emerging Defense Technologies and a link to the entire results of the attribute-based study on less-than-lethal, extended-range impact munitions, go to http://www.arl.psu.edu/areas/defensetech/defensetech.htmlon the Web.
By Tysen Kendig
Public
Information
Capt. Charles "Sid" Heal makes a living at the heart of urban maelstroms.
As commander of the special enforcement bureau and S.W.A.T. unit for the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department, Heal has seen the worst in disorderly crowd conduct -- ranging from occasional disturbances that boil into the streets, to the catastrophic destruction that shook Los Angeles and an entire nation one April evening in 1992.
Unfortunately, Heal is not alone in having to protect life and livelihood from mob activity. He and colleagues in law enforcement around the world are faced with the age-old dilemma of controlling lawless crowd behavior without inflicting unnecessary risk of injury upon participants and police alike -- and facing subsequent criticism for the levels of force used.
A recent gathering at University Park of selected police professionals from across the country and across the ocean examined the issue of crowd control. The three-day program touched on the results of a new study conducted by the Applied Research Laboratory's (ARL) Human Effects Advisory Panel, which researched the dynamics of crowd behavior.
The study, released in conjunction with a related attribute-based evaluation of less-than-lethal impact munitions used in law enforcement, was conducted by a panel of law enforcement professionals and scientists. The panel's research surprisingly debunked several stereotypical preconceptions of crowd behavior:
* Crowds are not made up of isolated individuals, but companion clusters -- groups that arrive and leave together;
* Crowds are not unanimous in nature;
* People in crowds do not necessarily assume anonymity;
* Crowds do not cripple an individual's cognition -- one still has responsibility for actions;
* Crowd behavior has a defined process -- a beginning, middle and end;
* Crowds are not uniquely distinguished by violence.
The panel also identified four different types of riots that help measure the emotional involvement and resolve of a crowd: communal, which is nationalist or religion based; commodity, centering around vandalism and looting; celebration, usually involving a sports result; and protest.
Awareness of the nature and motive behind a riot are helpful in police preparation for a disturbance and determination of the level of force that might be required to control it. However, the study recommends dialogue over force as the most effective means of quelling a volatile group.
"Crowd control continues to be a driving factor in the non-lethal weapons development initiative," said John Kenny, associate research engineer in the ARL and principal investigator for the study. "However, we believe effective crowd control relies on prevention and negotiation rather than confrontation."
Participants from the United Kingdom, who continue to witness revolt in the streets of Belfast, Northern Ireland and have seen countless post-soccer game melees, agreed with that assessment.
"A better course of action is negotiating and planning, not adding more police, barriers, and an overall sense of authority," said Graham Hatfield, superintendent and tactical operations commander for the Kent County Constabulary in Kent, UK. "The more people feel confined and suppressed by authority, the more emotional and incited they become."