CROWD CONTROL TECHNOLOGIES - Omega Research Foundation

OPTIONS BRIEF
)Crowd Control Technologies - An Assessment Of Crowd Control Technology Options For
The European Union(
(EP/1V/B/STOA/99/14/01)
[1] The status quo option could be maintained whereby alleged non-lethality of any crowd control weapon is
dependent on its purported technical specification presented by the manufacturer.
[2] The manufacture, supply, distribution, brokerage and licensed production of crowd control weapons should all be
licensed. All products should be subject to common criteria of quality control. In the event of malpractice or lax quality
control, licenses should be withdrawn, production curtailed and legal sanctions initiated against those responsible. A
publicly available harmonised coding system should be adopted across the European Union .
[3] Legal force should be given to the terms of engagement which would make any officers who breached their codes
of conduct and guidelines for using crowd control weapons, open to prosecution.
[4] The status quo option could be maintained where government and company research, often undertaken after
chemical irritant weapons have been authorised, continues as the main approach to justifying alleged harmlessness.
[5] Research on chemical irritants should be published in open scientific journals before authorization for any usage is
permitted and that the safety criteria for such chemicals should be treated as if they were drugs rather than riot control
agents; Research on the alleged safety of existing crowd control weapons and of all future innovations in crowd
control weapons should be placed in the public domain prior to any decision towards deployment;
[6] That deployment of OC (pepper-gas) should be halted across the EU until independent research has more fully
evaluated any risks it poses to health. A further precautionary measure would be to ask Member States to tag the
health records of all those affected by the spray who seek medical treatment, in case common health problems
emerge in the future.
[7] The Status quo option could be maintained which allows potentially lethal crowd control weapons to be used on
our streets which because of their inaccuracy could be targeted on to innocent bystanders, children etc. However, no
European State has the death penalty for public order offences.
[8] New legal limits as suggested by the Patten Commission in Northern Ireland should restrict inherently unsafe
technology which because of its technical and design characteristics is potentially lethal in many of the operational
circumstances where it might realistically be deployed. Any Kinetic Impact Weapons with an energy greater than 122
joules should be considered as a lethal firearm and their use should be regarded as illegal if the use of lethal firearms
in the same context would be illegal. For example, where innocent bystanders may become unwitting targets. In this
context, steps should be taken to ensure that all Kinetic Energy munitions are ballistically traceable to the weapon and
security unit.
[9] The Status quo option on the role, deployment, trade and certification of electroshock weapons could be
maintained and the European Commission could continue to give CE quality control markings for such weapons.
[10] Alternatively, the European Union could terminate the practice of giving CE quality control marks to electroshock
instruments and give consideration to taking up the formal request of the British government made on the 28 th July
1997, which asked all of member States to follow their example in taking )the necessary measure[s] to prevent the
export or transhipment of )Portable devices designed or modified for riot or control purposes or self-protection to
administer an electric shock, including electric-shock batons, electric-shock shields, stun guns, and tasers, and
specially designed components for such devices....(.
[11] The status quo option can be maintained which will enable the policing assumption of the United States to
organise, militarise and market public order options for the European Union without public debate or accountability.
[12] Alternatively, technical data in regard to the 2 nd . Generation of crowd control weapons from the US, discussed in
this report, should not be taken at face value. All such weapons should be subject to independent testing and licensing
control and, until and unless such a checking regime is in place, a moratorium should be considered on accepting any
of this technology into European military and police crowd control arsenals. This would mean that no US made or
licensed 2nd. generation chemical irritant, kinetic, acoustic, laser, electromagnetic frequency, capture, entanglement,
injector or electrical disabling and paralysing weapons, should be deployed within Europe unless legally binding
x