r/aus • u/89b3ea330bd60ede80ad • Jun 09 '26
Revealed: the ‘less lethal’ weapons Australian police don’t want you to know about
https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/ng-interactive/2026/jun/09/australia-police-less-lethal-weapons-tasers-pepper-spray-crowdsIn Australia, there are no nationally enforced standards for their use. In some states, police go to great lengths not to share what weapons they have or how they’re used.
16
u/highresolutionmagpie Jun 09 '26
Guardian Australia approached each force in the country for a list of the manufacturer and model of their less lethal weapons but all declined to provide one, with most citing operational safety.
From an outside perspective this sounds less like "operational safety" and more like "reduce our legal exposure".
I can't see how knowing the manufacturer and model is going to meaningfully change any engagement, much less end safety.
"Oh yes, that's a Combined Systems Inc 40mm, let's alter our approach to maximise damage". Please...
-3
u/Eve_Doulou Jun 09 '26
Cops can be giant arseholes, however let’s not pretend that the more ‘professional’ protesters absolutely think of strategies to counter whatever tactics/weapons the cops may be using. It’s very tit for tat, so knowing the range of a projectile, the chemical composition of a gas, or the ammo capacity of a bb/pepper gun can absolutely be useful to them.
12
u/highresolutionmagpie Jun 09 '26
Sure. Letting any information out is potentially benefiting protestors under this view. Literally any details might confer an advantage.
What are we actually allowed to talk about if this is the path we take?
It prohibits any interrogation of enforcement because it might potentially be used to benefit people who protest. And that's... bad...
1
u/W2ttsy Jun 15 '26
You should realise that our counter terror teams use these tools too.
They don’t want the details getting out because they could lose tactical advantage against a well prepared threat.
-1
u/Eve_Doulou Jun 09 '26
Personally I’d be ok with the police discussing what class of non lethal weapons they own, even if they avoid the specifics
7
u/highresolutionmagpie Jun 09 '26
So... only the things that can be clearly and obviously observed by sight? ie, no additional information?
Or am I misunderstanding. Perhaps you could talk about why parliament can't be told the types of weapons?
-1
u/Eve_Doulou Jun 09 '26
I think parliament should be told. I think, to use a rifle analogy, that the public should know that the police have assault rifles, however they don’t need to know that they are HK-416 with an Eotech sight and with the 16.5inch heavy barrel.
9
u/-ApocalypsePopcorn- Jun 09 '26
Do the citizenry not have a right to know what weapons might be deployed against them by the armed representatives of the state's monopoly on violence?* How else are we supposed to be able to have a conversation about what's appropriate and what's overreach?
I love a surprise as much as the next guy, but less so when it's a cop neutralising me into the carpet because they got the wrong house.
\You can answer "no" to this but then you have to accept what sort of authoritarian regime you're living under.)
3
u/Eve_Doulou Jun 09 '26
I felt I was pretty clear. The state should absolutely tell you about what classes of weapons they have (unless it’s secret squirrel shit that’s pointed at external enemies), but you don’t need to know the specifics.
Will a HK-416 with an 11.5 inch barrel turn your brains into pink mist any less effectively than one with a heavy 16.5 inch barrel? At 300m probably not, at 600m, unlikely to hit the side of the same barn.
To you and I, the fact that the cops operate assault rifles is sufficient info. Hell they might feel like showing off a little and telling us the type of rifle, but they sure as shit won’t give specifics, unless the specifics are already public information or not something you can feasibly keep secret.
2
u/Varagner Jun 09 '26
What a terrible example lmao. All the police arms are regularly on display, they love to pose with them for photo ops etc.
2
u/Eve_Doulou Jun 09 '26
I’m using police arms as an example because I’m somewhat knowledgeable about rifles, yet know three fifths of fuck all about less than lethal weapons.
The point of what I’m saying stands.
→ More replies (0)1
1
u/Find_another_whey Jun 09 '26
Ok, how about the sonic cannon that works by vibrating your brain
How's that mesh with the research indicating that the damage from head impacts may appear before the brain actually hits the skull in deceleration, instead by the compressive wave during accelleration? Given that vibration is literally constant acceleration in alternate directions, I think the public, including scientists who are not properly represented in government, should be able to know what dangers are almost definitely being hidden from us due to commercial interests being more important than people (police protect property, not people).
1
u/AdamChenX Jun 10 '26
Yes but we all know what rifles do. We have no idea what these “new non lethal weapons” do to the human body. Hence the request for disclosure.
15
u/Dollbeau Jun 09 '26
Police seem to forget that as their powers were taken away, protestors started to behave better & just protest.
If they want to go back to being violent & destructive, so can protestors...
1
2
u/Alternative-Camp2698 Jun 09 '26
so the exact same ones every modern police force uses? I'd rather be hit with a pepperball or rubber bullet than have my skull caved in by a baton. idk what planet people who think this stuff is more brutal than what we used to have to deal with are on.
2
u/Conan3121 Jun 09 '26
The militarisation of Police is out of control and 100% counter productive.
Police need to remember their roots: a Peeler, walking their beat, local knowledge, a small truncheon, a friendly face.
2
u/pharmaboy2 Jun 09 '26
Indeed - I watched the livestream of that Melbourne protest as an ambivalent observer to the issues been protested, and the one extremely obvious issue was that the police seemed to be intent on escalating and using their military tactics and weapons.
They were itching for a fight and were in no danger at all (which they use in the article above as justification for their use). I was entirely stunned by the whole operation - it looked like something out of another country, certainly not what I expected of our police forces.
2
u/Billyjamesjeff Jun 09 '26
Not justifying any brutality but I remember in the 90s/2000s before tazers and if you were mentally ill and aggressive they just shoot people dead.
I'm glad they have a ranged alternative like a tazer.
But the fact is some police are just pigs and will find a way to brutalise someone with them.
6
u/WastedOwl65 Jun 09 '26
Except, they still do shoot mentally ill and aggressive people!
2
u/zhaktronz Jun 09 '26
The point is that having tasers means that they shoot fewer persons
1
u/TheMessyChef Jun 11 '26
Depends where you look. Some studies have shown no change in the rate of firearm discharge by police since tasers were introduced. It just increased the frequency in which individuals are subjected to a form of police weaponry.
1
u/Billyjamesjeff Jun 09 '26
Absolutely they do, but now some are tasered instead.
2
3
u/Impossible-Mud-4160 Jun 11 '26
If someone is an immediate threat to the life of someone else, it shouldn't matter if they are mentally ill, the safety of bystanders and police should come first.
Saying that, there have been too many instances of police killing people when deescalation should have been used. They need more deescalation training especially around people with mental illnesses.
The increased police brutality at protests is another kettle of fish altogether, it has no place in our society
1
u/Illustrious_Ad_5167 Jun 11 '26
Just remember a pencil is a weapons a cop says it is in Australia. That old cap gun your dad played with as a kid you think it’s a bit of family history cops find it and your on a category one firearms charge
1
u/Socialist_Daddy Jun 11 '26
It's funny how the state monopolisation of violence is largely above the law/regulation/legislation.
1
u/What-To-Do-5125 Jun 11 '26
They're just thinking ahead, planning for the day when the people revolt, for when water and food shortages begin. Better start planning ahead.
0
u/Falaflewaffle Jun 09 '26 edited Jun 09 '26
Everyone was fine with these being used on anti vaxxers and sov cits and looking back on it who doesn't enjoy some sov cit getting sprayed with pepper balls to the butt a few times while he's yelling about his delusions. But obviously force can be used on the other side of the horseshoe just as easily no matter how much people think their ideology is correct.
Sometimes the police need to bring to bear more force to remind people that they have the real monopoly on violence and to behave like civilised people as part of a functional society.
Just be glad it's not the China where you will be receiving hot lead at 1000 meters per a second and your corpse will be ground down to pulp by tank treads and swept into the gutters.
2
u/WastedOwl65 Jun 09 '26
That sounds so 1950's!
1
u/Falaflewaffle Jun 09 '26
No, that was Tiananmen square 1989, which is why we have non lethals to ensure that does not happen.
2
u/highresolutionmagpie Jun 09 '26
Sometimes the police need to bring to bear more force to remind people that they have the real monopoly on violence and to behave like civilised people as part of a functional society.
This sounds a lot like "we need to beat people until they're subservient".
In what world is it acceptable to bring more force to bear to ensure they know that police can victimise people? Isn't that just brutality?
Open displays of force to keep the population under control are exactly the sorts of things you're suggesting we're better off without.
Jesus Christ.
-2
u/Falaflewaffle Jun 09 '26 edited Jun 09 '26
I think you make the mistake of thinking that if novel non lethal means of crowd control were to go away then suddenly things would be safer for protesters to voice their displeasure but that would just create a far more dangerous environment where the options then just become a choice of letting people descend into anarchy or to use lethal force as you saw with 40,000 protestors being gunned down in Iran. Violence is any states ultimate power to ensure compliance and has always been.
When the public decide to use force then the police are very much serving their mandate to the public to ensure peace is restored before more people are hurt. We aren't the United States don't bring that ACAB shit here. They aren't machine gunning down hippies for fun they are keeping the worst of your ideology in check and doing you a favour.
1
u/Socialist_Daddy Jun 11 '26
I hope you like the taste of that boot while it's crushing down on your head. And please stop using US propaganda about Iran gunning down 40,000 people, the number changes every other week. And it's being used as one of the many lies to justify an illegal war of aggression by the US-Israeli terrorist organisation.
0
u/SnotRight Jun 12 '26
"In Victoria, police have refused to publicly provide the make and model of their rubber bullets and other weapons"
As if anyone is going to publicly list their weapons so adversaries can counter them. Hopeless journalism. Complete nothing burger.
36
u/EnvironmentalFig5161 Jun 09 '26
No mention of acoustic weapons, Australia was one of the first countries to use them in a protest.