Should 'anti-teen' device be banned?

[Dradam]

Should 'anti-teen' device be banned?

A high-pitched device used to disperse teenagers should be scrapped because it infringes their rights, according to the Children's Commissioner for England. Do you agree?

There are estimated to be 3,500 of the devices, known as the mosquito, in use across the country.

Their sound causes discomfort to young ears - but their frequency is above the normal hearing range of people over 25.

Liberty director Shami Chakrabarti said the device had no place in a country which values its children: "Imagine the outcry if a device was introduced that caused blanket discomfort to people of one race or gender, rather than to our kids," she said.

Does the device breach human rights? Do you think it has worked in your community? Are teenagers being treated unfairly?

(Copied from BBC news site.)

Personally i am against it, being under 25 i find it discrimitory against young people. I am also deeply insulted by some of the comments left on the 'have your say section'

[dawin45]

They where all teen somethimes, but we all are at some point in our lifes, but inventing such a thing is conidered an idiotic thing, why use a weapon against tenagers, did they do somthing wrong?
Im agains this stupid idiotic device...

[Dradam]

Here are some of the comments left by other people. I think these annoyed me more than anything.

Added: Tuesday, 12 February, 2008, 12:01 GMT 12:01 UK

Im a young person myself and i feel that i think that these devices are a good idea. Why should the little brats be able to hang aound outside shops and harrass people.

How many more people do the Government want to die before they finally take some action?

Gemma, Winchester

Recommended by 78 people

Added: Tuesday, 12 February, 2008, 12:01 GMT 12:01 UK

If it helps disperse the low-life, benefit living scum then great.

Until Liberty and all the other pseudo-hippie smothering-mummy organisations wake up and smell the coffee, they will get nothing but disrespect from the rest of law-abiding society.

Perhaps if they started offering alternative, positive solutions instead of whining about effective ones?

Andrew, Stirling

Recommended by 46 people

I don't get benefits, yet i am under 25 and like going to the shop. Does that mean my rights should be infringed upon...

[Sendivoge]

They where all teen somethimes, but we all are at some point in our lifes, but inventing such a thing is conidered an idiotic thing, why use a weapon against tenagers, did they do somthing wrong?
Im agains this stupid idiotic device...
Well, yes they have done something wrong, that's the point. The device is used to disperse teenagers where they're not wanted. Very few shops want a mob of teenagers loitering outside their front entrance. What the teens are doing may not be against the law, but it's annoying to both customers and shop owners.

It's not a device made to torment teenagers wherever they go, neither is it something that would be turned on when it isn't needed. A completely harmless solution, the producers say, without any long term effects. The distance from which it can be heard is also quite small, meaning it's not hard to move out of it's range.

If it's not going to hurt people, and it's not going to annoy people without a few minutes exposure (meaning young customers are fine for going in and out in a short amount of time). Effectively, it's the same as being shooed away with a broom. Therefore, i say it's fine.

That isn't to say i expect people to agree with it. The country already has something like 1 camera surveillance system for every 15 people, which i think is frighteningly cool. I must say, i enjoy hearing about people's rights being trodden on in highly developed countries.

[Dradam]

Two words, Free country.
If i want to stand outside a shop and talk to a couple of friends why shouldn't i?
You don't see these devices outside churches to stop old woman congregating and babbling on about the best recipes? why should you discriminate against young people like this?
I admit there is a problem with society today in that some young people can cause problems, but why should you persecute all the youth simply because of a select fews actions.
Hey, it was a muslim guy that hit the twin towers. Do we put anti-muslim sirens on all towers and any prospective targets?

[deto]

one word: rules

every society is based on rules and if we want to live peacefully among eachother we have to live up to these rules. sure if you want to stand outside a shop and talk to some mates its fine but lots of them aren't there for just a little chat. imagine you being the shop owner and you have some hooligans in front of your store that insult potential customers, or maybe even damage your store. wouldn't you be pissed? You lose money and you need it otherwise you have to close your business and you have to find something else, hard time if you have to feed a family. but there is more, what about all those younglings that sit somewhere and empty one bottle or can of beer after the other? how does that look to tourists?

if i walk through the streets of my city on a friday around 7, especially near the trainstation which is somewhat of a central point because you have the train and the bus there, i feel ashamed. there are kids, around the age of 16, drinking beer and rolling on the floor like stray dogs, being rude and impolite. if i was a tourist i'd think twice of ever coming here again. but they can't see that far, they live in their own little world, being egoists and narrow minded to the core.

it is a shame that a few have to step down because many can't behave. but what else will you do? more police? that would be far more expensive.

[Sendivoge]

Two words, Free country.
If i want to stand outside a shop and talk to a couple of friends why shouldn't i?
You don't see these devices outside churches to stop old woman congregating and babbling on about the best recipes? why should you discriminate against young people like this?
I admit there is a problem with society today in that some young people can cause problems, but why should you persecute all the youth simply because of a select fews actions.
Hey, it was a muslim guy that hit the twin towers. Do we put anti-muslim sirens on all towers and any prospective targets?
If you want to loiter outside a person's place of business, with your friends, obstructing people and just plain intimidating others, why shouldn't you?

Free country doesn't come into it. You're annoying them, so they annoy you to get you to shove off. This is the same thing as someone fed up and physically asking you to move along. If you're not doing anything wrong, they're not going to ask you to go away. There are many places for teenagers to go and talk. I'm not saying you can't have a brief chat outside a store, but it's not somewhere you can hang out for periods of time beyond that. It has already been stated that the effect of the "mosquito" doesn't become annoying for at least a few minutes. That's plenty of time. The same standards would apply to any groups of people, just that teens are more often the culprits and there's now a safe solution.

There's a difference between your scenarios too. Firstly, old women don't just rock up to a church and stand outside, creating an intimidating presence for the community around them. Old women aren't likely to be littering, fooling around, inciting violence, obstructing people, or creating a noise disturbance. If they weren't wanted there, they'd be moved. The fact is, teenages are commonly a nuicence in large groups.

You seem to fail in comprehending that this device isn't something people use on every teenager they see, or constantly regardless. It's to disperse people who, in the eyes of the community, are hanging around where they're not wanted. There are still going to be people over 25 who can hear it too.

They wouldn't have sought out a specific solution if the problem wasn't a common recurrence. You walk out of the train station in melbourne, and they're everywhere.

[SoundWave]

Then you'll have these grumpy shop-owners and whatnot who will probably abuse these things..

"it is a shame that many will have to step down because a few can't behave."

[Dradam]

Is this what society has come to? I was under the impression justice and punishment was supposed to protect the rights of those who obeyed the law. Therefore why am i not being protected? why are my rights and those of my friends being taken from us because of these other people?
What happened to the idea of innocent untill proven guilty rather than assuming that we're all guilty and all should suffer for it?
These devices cause nausea and when i lived in Milton Keyenes there are several of them in the shopping area, when passing one i felt disorientated and struggled to focus properly. This inside the main shopping area in the city center.
If it had this effect on me, i can only imagine what it's doing to young babies, dogs, and young children far more sensitive than i am.
Currently there are similar domestic products available on the market, they target other common pests such as mice, rats and others dissuade cats from entering your garden. The only difference between the two is that these pest control units come with poison to eliminate them. Is that what's next? Not only a device to get rid of teenagers but a trap to exterminate them?

[deto]

unfortunately in the eyes of the community it's the many that can't behave. not only a few, if it was you could simply deal with it other than having to install such devices.

it is in human nature that some tend to abuse it, i don't consider it the right solution anyway, it's the parents mission to teach their children a common decency and discipline. it shouldn't be the governments duty to spend money because parents fail to do their job. if you can't handle your kids, don't have 'em. it needs dedication and will to raise a child, if you can't bring it up then don't even consider it. it's not a status symbol like an expensive car or whatever.

[Dradam]

@ Deto - i agree...
I have no problem with bringing capital punishment back in. I believe it was in another thread i stated me dad used that as a form of punishment and i believe in it.
The problem is that the people who misbehave are not brought up properly.

The mosquitos for me as soon as i went through the door of the shopping center affected me, and as for a small area, they are distributed throughout the center. Which meant that i couldn't go through it without discomfort. It made it a over 25 only area. Whats next putting it on the buses so that youth can't use them and mess them up? how bout we put them on seperate buses, and give the youths seperate shops...?

[SoundWave]

t's the parents mission to teach their children a common decency and discipline. it shouldn't be the governments duty to spend money because parents fail to do their job. if you can't handle your kids, don't have 'em. it needs dedication and will to raise a child, if you can't bring it up then don't even consider it.
That's what I was coming to..

People always want a shortcut to total control it seems.

[Dradam]

I seem to remember the milatary developing weapons with similar properties. In fact isn't tear gas designed to disorientate people.
This is a weapon, and if i ever find one and have the opputunity to, i will take it out. My argument will simply be self defence, i feel threatened by it.

[deto]

actually the idea is quite retarded so to say... the devices i mean. it's the desperate call of society because they failed to teach their children properly. we didn't need it back then so why would we need it now? cuz no rules are being set by some of todays parents. it's a sign of failure if you have to take such measures and it's pretty poor to submit to it and to even praise it.

the parents need to be brought to justice if their young ones don't behave, of course them too. but parents can't lean back and let everyone pay taxes which are then used for such a idiotic ideas as that device. our society is sick and foul, we want to have everything but we show no attention to it after a while. if something goes wrong we look for someone else that screwed up instead of starting with ourselves.

I seem to remember the milatary developing weapons with similar properties. In fact isn't tear gas designed to disorientate people.
This is a weapon, and if i ever find one and have the opputunity to, i will take it out. My argument will simply be self defence, i feel threatened by it.

yes and no, tear gas does not target a specific group of people. it is designed to stun people, as in... imagine you have someone with a gun and you want to arrest him alive, you use tear gas or flashbangs to make him disoriented and irritated. tear gas burnes in your eyes and the first thing you automatically do, rubbing your eyes, worsens the effect. a flashbang creates a loud bang and a terrible bright light, you you'll be blinded for a while and the loud bang is to cover other noises like the entering of a police task force.

[Dradam]

I am actually really stirred up bout this, its not just itself its the general comments added seems to be the general tone saying, good they all deserve it...
Its like nuking the whole of Afghanistan because the taliban are there.

[deto]

some people are exceptionally good in generalize things, it has been like that for ages and it is very unlikely to change.

[ulrich_wolff]

I'm for this, note I am under 25. At our local mall I see at least 15 teenagers standing outside 24/7, the exit for the local theater is nearby, most of them wait until the door opens and rush inside to get a free movie. Only see teenagers do this.

[Seff vi Britannia]

There's one of these in our mall - and it pisses me off. Of course, we can still walk around, etc.

There's two solutions
1. iPod
2. keep bugging the security gaurd and tell him you're sure there's a bee's nest nearby.

[Graffik]

Against.

Under 25, and it would sure be annoying as hell. Honestly, it may disperse any group of teens from loitering, but eventually they'll grow oblivious to it. Then there's the fact it'll bother peeps just hanging at the mall.

Also, there's no guarantee people will really just leave, when this thing turns on. We used to have some dudes in a tech class of mine who found a site with the m-ringtone, and put it on [speakers btw]. It didn't make us really aware of it until we stopped talking and when there was supposed to be silence heard it. We were able to keep doing our work and normal activity, albiet do it a little irritated.

The whole things stupid, it should be banned, since it won't make much of a difference anyway.

Like feeding air to a fire.

[MetalSpawn]

i am against the whole idea because not every teenager is at fault but if the teenagers in england were not so unruly they would have no need to put those things up.I really do understand the consept of having fun but not at the cost of harming others and there things

[Vampyrelord]

I'm a cold blooded utilitarian, but even I think this is a step too far:

Firstly, the mosquito device does not discriminate, all teens hear it, and the VAST MAJORITY of teens are not criminals. In this sense, it is demeaning and humiliating to teenagers, and also sticks the label of 'criminal' onto them from an early age, meaning some of them may begin to identify themselves as criminals and thus have no problem with committing crimes.

Secondly, shop owners will be driving away lots of their own customers, which is stupid - easily 99% of teenagers who approach a shop do not intend to commit a crime, at worst they just want to hang out there.

Thirdly it breaches basic human rights - the right of freedom of movement is restricted by these devices.

Fourthly, the uses of these devices does not remove the problem of teen criminality in an area, but simply moves it to another area, concentrating teenage troublemakers in a smaller space (the places that don't use the mosquito device) which is bound to cause more trouble.

Finally, the device isn't actually that effective because it only targets under 20's, and many criminals are older than that. Furthermore, CCTV is a far better repellant because it provides hard evidence that can be used in the identification, arrest and prosecution of criminals.

They should unquestionably be banned.

@ Deto - i agree...
I have no problem with bringing capital punishment back in. I believe it was in another thread i stated me dad used that as a form of punishment and i believe in it.
The problem is that the people who misbehave are not brought up properly.
The mosquitos for me as soon as i went through the door of the shopping center affected me, and as for a small area, they are distributed throughout the center. Which meant that i couldn't go through it without discomfort. It made it a over 25 only area. Whats next putting it on the buses so that youth can't use them and mess them up? how bout we put them on seperate buses, and give the youths seperate shops...?

Uh...capital punishment? You think the DEATH PENALTY should be applied to bring kids up better?!

I assume you mean corporal punishment, which is also stupid, because it teaches children from an early age that violence is acceptable.

[Dradam]

My bad, was talking to a friend bout hanging people...
I mean corporal punishment...
Violence is everywhere around us, i am not saying that we should teach it as being acceptable. But i'd rather be exposed to a certain level of violence at a young age and be de-sensitised rather than being shocked as soon as i go into the real world.
Violonce is inbuilt into nature, for example wolf cubs will fight and play with each other, siblings in any environment will fight. There is also a big difference between reasonable punishment and malicious random violence.

[Night Prowler]

I think the police should be given one and people who could be targets to Teenage Criminals 'specially in places like London/Liverpool/Glasgow/Manchester as crime rates are becoming to much to handle.

Damn chavvy kids ruining it for the rest of us ¬_¬.

[Dradam]

We are supposed to be free people to go where we choose?
Why should we have to suffer because some arrogant chav scum wuin it for the rest of us!?

[Harley Quinn]

I'm in two minds about it to be honest. I don't like it because I feel it's a substitute for police patrolling the streets.(Which we desperately need)

On the otherhand when I was a teenager DECENT kids didn't hang around outside shops, we went and did something CONSTRUCTIVE. If teenagers followed this example then it shouldn't be a problem for the "good" ones.

[SaberBlade]

Ban it? I want to buy one and invest money in the company that makes these things.

If you can see half the shit kids do around here, you'd want more than one. ASBO activities are getting worse, and the kids doing them are getting younger. On top of that, most of them hand outside shops, chippies, and other similar places that you need to walk through crowds of kids with **** all to do but cause problems.

[M-50]

I assume you mean corporal punishment, which is also stupid, because it teaches children from an early age that violence is acceptable.
Ill have to disagree with you there mate.
Being beaten does not teach you that violence is acceptable.
It teaches you that what you did is wrong.
If this was not true, then why back in the day, did kids never (or hardly ever if even) cause trouble? cus they knew if they did then the bobbies (coppers) would give them a clip round the ear and take them to their parents. Nowadays all the coppers can do is this.
''Are you causing trouble?''
''No officer.''
''Okay then. be careful''
pretty much to that if they see anything happening, or talk to them and give them a 'warning'


But answering the question, No the mosquito device should not be used as it is discrimination, segregation and against our human rights as children or young men and women.

[Sirius]

I don't see how it can be called a 'weapon', it's just sound, it has no stopping power. If somebody blasted me with a very loud sound wave it'd be more likely to piss me off than stop me.

If it's not a weapon then it's meant to be used as a disciplinary tool or a means of dispersing a large crowd of youths. If it's so loud that it's brings discomfort, then it's probably damaging their ears.

There are better ways to discipline people than permanently damaging their hearing.

Also if you're talking about dispersing a crowd of young protesters or something, what about those nearby who have nothing to do with the protest? You're going to blast them too. There are older people who retain their ability to hear this sound also, you're blasting them too. This 'weapon' is indiscriminate and travels in all directions.

I'm 23 years old and I know the frequency you're talking about. I can still hear it :Haha

[nova]

In listening to all of the points each poster has discussed I can't help but feel a bit distraught. Noting that I live in northern California and no such device has reared its ugly head in my every day environment, I would like to provide a possible solution or two.

btw - I'm 19 and I have fired guns for approx 7 years so one might think my hearing would have digressed to a point that these "high frequency devices" would be negligible...not the case. With about 3 minutes of exposure, they make me quite disoriented.

Would it be better and more suited for the situation at hand if these manufactures were to make a device that only uses such deterrents when it has sensed a group of people standing in one spot for more than ~5min?

Seeing that my previous idea will go unnoticed...could the inspired youth of the community at large in some ways boycott the respective businesses that use such devices?

[Kazmiz]

I'm a cold blooded utilitarian, but even I think this is a step too far:

Firstly, the mosquito device does not discriminate, all teens hear it, and the VAST MAJORITY of teens are not criminals. In this sense, it is demeaning and humiliating to teenagers, and also sticks the label of 'criminal' onto them from an early age, meaning some of them may begin to identify themselves as criminals and thus have no problem with committing crimes.

Secondly, shop owners will be driving away lots of their own customers, which is stupid - easily 99% of teenagers who approach a shop do not intend to commit a crime, at worst they just want to hang out there.

Thirdly it breaches basic human rights - the right of freedom of movement is restricted by these devices.

Fourthly, the uses of these devices does not remove the problem of teen criminality in an area, but simply moves it to another area, concentrating teenage troublemakers in a smaller space (the places that don't use the mosquito device) which is bound to cause more trouble.

Finally, the device isn't actually that effective because it only targets under 20's, and many criminals are older than that. Furthermore, CCTV is a far better repellant because it provides hard evidence that can be used in the identification, arrest and prosecution of criminals.

They should unquestionably be banned.


Vamps has pretty much summed up the problems with this device, as well as my own point of view.

:)

Also,


Ill have to disagree with you there mate.
Being beaten does not teach you that violence is acceptable.
It teaches you that what you did is wrong.


Well, my friend, many institutions and organizations, including but not limited to UNESCO, the American Academy of Pediatrics, as well as England's Royal College of Psychiatrists disagree with you, and I think it's very clear as to which of the two parties is the higher authority on the matter.

[David1983]

It's not just to disperse a group of teens that are loitering. What if there were teens in front of a business owner's store that were causing a disruption of the peace, trying to start a fight with somebody, or one of a dozen other things that they did not need to be doing? This device does not hurt anybody -- it takes 5-10 minutes to be merely an annoyance to someone under the age of 25. I think people are imagining that a button is pressed and everyone under 25 hits the floor holding their head and screaming "PLEASE MAKE IT STOP!!", and that's not how this device works.

[Dradam]

If you read the earlier posts then you will read people's experiences of this device first hand, the main problem occurs when they install them in main shopping areas near Cafés etc. so that you can't just sit and enjoy a cup of coffee. Its also not that it doesn't affect people for 10 - 15 mins, its that it should be bearable for that length of time and not affect sensory motor skills severely until that time expires.

[David1983]

Meh, sorry, I couldn't go through all of those posts, they were mostly five times as long as mine was.

It doesn't affect people over 25, though, just felt like that should be mentioned again. The way you are wording that makes it seem as if anybody that hears it will be incapacitated as long as it is active.

[Dradam]

Oh, so people under the age of 25 don't matter anymore?
You can have sex, get married, get drunk, fight and die for your country, but can't sit and enjoy a cup of coffee!?
That and if you read the originaly article on BBC news some people over the age of 25 can still hear it.

(after the intro thread, i can't help feel that you're being a bit hypocritical... "I couldn't go through all those posts" when most of what i made reference to was on the first page.)

[David1983]

How is me not reading anything but the initial post hypocritical? This thread has nothing to do with my introduction thread, so let's try staying on topic here this time. I followed the rules by reading the initial post and responding to in tandem. And for me, all of the posts are on one page, I show up to 40 posts per page. But I understand that you couldn't have known that.

So back to the subject, I didn't know about people over 25 being able to hear it. I had read two or three of the articles on BBC's Web site yesterday before posting and it didn't ever mention that...that's not to say that I think you are lying or wrong, just that I didn't know about it.

You have a good point, though, about people under 25 drinking coffee, I didn't think about that before about coffee shops having outside areas that could be near one of these devices. But in a case like that, there can be by-laws passed that restrict it's use within a certain amount of feet of particular such as that.

[Dradam]

The post about the over 25, was under the BBC Post your comments page, posted by a pensioner, who lives in Milton Keyenes, since i was born there, i have personal experience of where she was talking about, down that end there is a Games Workshop (warhammer shop) an O2 phone shop, and a Costa coffee shop all in close proximity to the device. And i am sorry but you have to admit locating one near to a games workshop where the majority of customers are under 25 is a bit stupid.
I dont think that this device should be used at all because it is a breach of human rights, by restricting people from a certain area.
There is also a high stereotype that states that black people are criminals? does this mean that we should find some sort of attribute that we should exploit in their physiology in order to repel them from that area?
It's discrimination against the younger population that i find sickening. And as for by-laws preventing them being used in certain areas, wont that just increase the cost of the devices and make them harder to install and use? To me they are not cost-effective and are in breach of human rights.
If i ever find one of these devices and am able to locate it, then i will attempt and do everything i can to destroy it, and simply claim that it was in self defence and that it was a device that caused me to feel extreme discomfort, which can be covered under the law of common assault in britain.

[David1983]

This wouldn't actually be categorized under the law of common assault...common assault is a crime when a person apprehends immediate use of unlawful violence (and it's legal, I understand), or actually commits a battery. Both in the common law and under statute, common assault is committed when one person causes another to fear that force is about to be used to cause some degree of injury. So unless the device actually physically injured you, I don't think "extreme discomfort" is actually covered under this law in Britain. I could be wrong, though, but that's the wording of the law.

But I do agree that putting a device like that in an area where people under 25 are sure to gather in large numbers because that's the obvious target market for an area is a bit ridiculous, but also stupid for that business owner in that they are inevitably going to scare away their own customers just by merely having the device, whether they use it or not.

[Dradam]

Common assault is the combination of assault followed by battery.
The mens rea and actus reus for assault, is to put someone in fear of immediate unlawful use of force (the device doesn't do this.) However the actus reus of battery, if i remember correctly is the application of unlawful use of force or to put someone in a position of reasonable discomfort or harm. This could be as little as poking someone in the arm, or touching someones coat without their permission.

[David1983]

The actus reus is not the actual application of harm or force, it's when a person is caused to apprehend or fear that they will be harmed or that unlawful use of force will be used, and I don't believe there's mention of "discomfort". It's sort of the equivalent of a threat, but it can go beyond that as well. Either way, the law doesn't state that you can destroy the offending object or party to my knowledge, or it would be lawful to destroy a chair that has caused you discomfort, or to go blow up someone's car because their music was too loud for your tastes. I'm only making examples, you understand.

[Dradam]

No, you are referring to the actus reus of assualt. Which is to put the victim in fear of immediate unlawful use of force. I was talking about Common assault, which is the combination of assault and battery.
Assault - actus reus: Causing the victim to fear the immediate inlawful violence. Requires an act but can be by silent phone calls or letters. (No physical injury need be sustained.) - mens rea: Intention of, or cunningham recklessness as to causing the victim to fear immediate unlawful violence.
(eg. R V Constanza, R V Ireland, Smith V Chief superintendent woking police, Tuberville V Savage.)

Battery - actus reus: Application of unlawful use of force, (No specific injury required - even the slightest may suffice.) - mens rea: Intention or cunningham recklessness as to, applying unlawful force.
(eg. Fagan V Metropolitan Police, DPP V K.)

(Assault and battery are jointly charged under s.39 of the offences against the person act 1861, as common assault.)

(Extract from s.47 OAPA 1861) : 'psychiatric illness, any hurt or injury calculated to interfere with the health or comfort of the victim.'
(eg. Miller 1954.)

I think that this can be linked to this device as it causes discomfort on a psychological level, however it is after a period of time and so i think it should be charged under s.39 (common assault) rather than s.47 (actual bodily harm). However looking at the case of DPP v Smith, in which they decided that a lad cutting off his girlfriends pony-tail amounted to ABH.

[David1983]

As I don't want to get a warning about getting too off topic, I will just ask one more question:

That still begs the question of where that says that you can destroy the offending object, which was really my question regarding that.

[Dradam]

It doesn't state that you can, but self-defence is a commonly used mitigating factor, and since the offence would be given leave to appeal, it can therefore be held before a crown court where a jury would make the decision. A call of self-defence is most likely to have appeal there, if not then there is naturally the ECJ who introduced the Human rights act, who should back it for the simple fact that it does breach my human rights. Its basic discrimination against the younger generation...

[David1983]

Ah, point taken.

Well here's a general question regarding the main topic of this thread: how is this any different than a car alarm?

[Dradam]

A car alarm does not disorientate people like this device does, that comment doesn't even merit a response. They are completely different uses!
A car alarm works when a crime is being committed and a car is being entered, when this device is used, there is no crime being committed they are simply in the wrong place at the wrong time.
How can you even think to compare the two!?

[David1983]

To my knowledge I have yet to compare the two myself. I was keeping the conversation/debate going by asking a general question regarding the original topic. Just wanted to get some feedback of opinions. Yours would have sufficed as "A car alarm does not disorientate people like this device does. They have completely different uses.
A car alarm works when a crime is being committed and a car is being entered; when this device is used, there is no crime being committed they are simply in the wrong place at the wrong time." See, not rude, and it continues the debate as usual.

[II Xion II]

As much as I think it infringes basic human rights (the person in the article said it best: would we use a similar device to discriminate based on gender or on race?), I still think it is rather cool. :p

The fact that we can use frequencies to now disperse people (I doubt its effectiveness though) strikes me as intriguing but I nevertheless feel that the device does violate basic human ethical codes for treatment of citizens, though I rather have it be used than pepper spray or tear gas.

Plus, there is always the possibility of it affecting people it was not intended to like very young children or older individuals with a better sense of hearing, or simply people not involved in the riot or whatnot. It would be unfair to them as well.

[Takeshi]

If they ever used this device on a person such as myself I would just sit and endure the noise.....THUS, STICKING IT TO THE MAN. I would too.

Vampy: Agreed, but this isn't really debating. Try to make your posts a little longer, yeah?

[Hueso Loco]

They where all teen somethimes, but we all are at some point in our lifes, but inventing such a thing is conidered an idiotic thing, why use a weapon against tenagers, did they do somthing wrong?
Im agains this stupid idiotic device...

Agree, this is such a stupid idea. I still can't believe people actually come up with these ideas. How about if they used something on old people?

[Takeshi]

Agree, this is such a stupid idea. I still can't believe people actually come up with these ideas. How about if they used something on old people?

Well we don't really see old people loitering around. But if sitting on benches in parks staring off into space is loitering, then by all means make one for old people, IMMEDIATELY. As for making it for teenagers, I believe it just takes a thought of freedom away from them, and like many teenagers, when they feel threatened, they'll usually fight back, thus causing a bigger problem. They're easier ways to solve loitering and what not, mention the cops and they'll be out of your hair 99.9% of the time. I find it barbaric just thinking about using it, I mean come on, we're not animals. And better yet, we should get rid of dog whistles as well!

[Shikaku]

Well we don't really see old people loitering around. But if sitting on benches in parks staring off into space is loitering, then by all means make one for old people, IMMEDIATELY. As for making it for teenagers, I believe it just takes a thought of freedom away from them, and like many teenagers, when they feel threatened, they'll usually fight back, thus causing a bigger problem. They're easier ways to solve loitering and what not, mention the cops and they'll be out of your hair 99.9% of the time. I find it barbaric just thinking about using it, I mean come on, we're not animals. And better yet, we should get rid of dog whistles as well!

I agree, i think that its torture. what bugs me is that it doesnt just affect the loitering teens it effects all of the teens that are within a block of the place that they put it. and the cop thing does work very well. i have to go do that like four times a day at work but the one at albertsons across the street bugs the crap out of me every time i go there.

[Hueso Loco]

Well we don't really see old people loitering around. But if sitting on benches in parks staring off into space is loitering, then by all means make one for old people, IMMEDIATELY. As for making it for teenagers, I believe it just takes a thought of freedom away from them, and like many teenagers, when they feel threatened, they'll usually fight back, thus causing a bigger problem. They're easier ways to solve loitering and what not, mention the cops and they'll be out of your hair 99.9% of the time. I find it barbaric just thinking about using it, I mean come on, we're not animals. And better yet, we should get rid of dog whistles as well!

I meant that in the sense that this is so stereotypical, and targets an age group as a whole and not just the individuals who are loitering or whatever. What if you are a regular teenager buying something from the mall, and they turn that crap on, wouldn't that be unfair? And even if you are loitering, so what, isn't that what teenagers do? Weren't these people teenagers at one time, and hung out with their friends too? I mean in today's world there are few safe places where teens can hang out with their friends, and now they want to stop them from being in the malls. Where the hell are teens supposed to hang out then in crackhouses? And it is as you say something that they use on animals, I mean who degrading. This whole idea is stupid, and I don't even know how it was actually taken into consideration.