BOSTON (AP) - A college student died Thursday after suffering a head injury in a clash between police officers and a crowd of Red Sox fans who poured into the streets outside Fenway Park to celebrate their team’s victory over the New York Yankees.
Victoria Snelgrove, a 21-year-old journalism major at Emerson College, was among 16 people hurt in the revelry. The injured also included a police officer.
Most of the injuries were minor, but Snelgrove suffered a severe head wound as police tried to subdue the crowd, authorities said. Mayor Tom Menino told WBZ-AM that she was struck by a “non-lethal weapon,” but he did not elaborate.
Correct me if I’m wrong here. It seems to me that if a person is struck by a weapon, and that wound results in the death of that person, then it is no longer proper to call the device a “non-lethal weapon.”
Am I alone on this?
001 // jake // 10.22.2004 // 6:48 AM
I agree that it was not exactly, “non-lethal.” But I think the bigger problem was the officer handling the weapon. My understanding is the young woman was struck in the head by a tear gas canister. I’m not sure whether she was low to the ground or the officer was juist an idiot who shot eye level into the crowd of people. I don’t know the usual procedure, I assume the canister would be shot low to the ground, so it seems to be a bad judgment call coupled with a freak accident.
002 // Brian Ford // 10.22.2004 // 8:01 AM
Well, just to play Devil’s advocate, the assumption is that a weapon that is generally intended to stun someone but not necessarily kill them is “non-lethal” despite the fact that it is possible to use it innapropriately and result in an accidental death.
So, if the point of a tear gas canister were to aim at a persons head and fire, I suppose then it would be a lethal weapon. Since this is NOT the point, perhaps we should just call the cop who can’t aim his tear gun a lethal weapon.
003 // Jeff Croft // 10.22.2004 // 8:05 AM
I heard it was some kind of rubber bullet from a gun — not a tear gas canister.
Guns don’t kill people. Cops with rubber bullets do.
004 // Ryan // 10.22.2004 // 11:47 AM
With all respect, the bigger problem is not the officer handling the weapon. The officer’s were bravely serving the public with the best resources available to them. While the police department immediately accepted full responsibility for the tragic accident, it’s really those rioters at that scene at that moment who should be accepting full responsibility for that girl’s death. Yes, she died as a direct result of an officer’s action, however, that officer’s action was a direct result of a rioter’s action. Someone in the crowd threw a beer bottle, hitting the officer, who in turn fired a pepper bullet into that crowd, an action he was legally entitled, if not required, to take. I believe they should focus on that person, and if ever found, hold him/her directly responsible for that innocent girl’s death.
Regardless if it’s a non-lethal weapon or not, if you never want to find yourself on the receiving end of a lethal or non-lethal weapon, DON’T BREAK THE LAW. When did that fact become lost on so many people?
005 // Brady J. Frey // 10.22.2004 // 11:47 AM
Well a stick could be a non-lethal weapon, but if I jab it in someone’s eye ball, that changes it doesn’t it?
Just because the average use of the weapon makes it non-lethal, doesn’t make it so when you weild it improperly. A gun is non-lethal if I shoot you in the toe, but it’s potential is lethal, making it a lethal weapon.
The potential for a rubber bullet shot at high velocity makes it by definition, lethal. Thus, a lethal weapon.
Tear gas is also considered non-lethal, though according to Janet Reno, this was the cause of the Waco Texas fire — and done so because of the immoral actions in that event (which I don’t agree of - but did cause causalties). Off subject, but if that were the cause, I don’t see any Bradley tanks shooting tear gas into Catholic Churchs. For the record, I’m Catholic:)
But, I think we’re getting into a semantics arguement. Common sense says you are right — politics does not!
006 // Jeff Croft // 10.22.2004 // 11:49 AM
The girl broke the law? How do you figure?
007 // Jeff Croft // 10.22.2004 // 11:51 AM
I think you guys are taking my post too litteraly. I thought the reporting was funny. I wasn’t trying to make light of the girl’s death, just of the fact that the AP writer would actually use the term “non-lethal weapon” to describe the device that killed someone. That’s all.
008 // Brady J. Frey // 10.22.2004 // 12:09 PM
I figured it was meant as casual talk — but this is an old debate that’s been talked about for years, just not on design blogs — so you may not have known what you opened up:). You’d have to dig deeper somehow to understand why it’s odd to call a weapon that caused a death as non-lethal, wouldn’t you think?
009 // Brian Ford // 10.22.2004 // 12:30 PM
I was really intending my comment to be humorous too, though… I tend to not always assume that the cops are “doing the right thing,” as they often aren’t. That’s not to say that this one wasn’t… And I agree, if their were people around who were just “caught up” in the riot, it was irresponsible to fire into said crowd. I think a cop has to make this judgement, whether or not a third party should also be held accountable. (Which, you are right, the bottle thrower should, if caught, be punished.)
As for the rubber bullet gun being Non-lethal, I think your argument (Brady J. Frey) only works if you use the designation “non-lethal” in the wrong way. Non-lethal is a term used to describe any weapon that is not meant to be used in a way that will kill the person it is used against.
The argument is not, CAN it kill someone, but… is it SUPPOSED to kill someone (or something.)
Taken inversely, a Gun could be considered non-lethal, as it is possible to merely wound a person with one.
As such, you have to look at it like this:
A gun was designed to kill things… Therefore it is a lethal weapon.
Mace, Billy Clubs, Rubber Bullets, are designed to stop/hinder someone, and NOT kill them, therefore they are NOT lethal weapons.
I really don’t think there is any way to argue this if you want to employ the correct usage of the term “non-lethal”
Also, I vote that Brady should change his first name to “Phillip,” for obvious reasons.
010 // Jeff Croft // 10.22.2004 // 12:47 PM
My point wasn’t really to say that the rubber bullet gun isn’t non-lethal. I’m sure it’s intended to be non-lethal, and I’m sure it usually is. My ony point was that, if I had been the writer, I rpobably would have said so — like this:
Mayor Tom Menino told WBZ-AM that she was incidentially struck by a weapon intended to be non-lethal, but he did not elaborate.
It’s probably not actually wrong to call this a non-lethal weapon. But, after you’ve just read how it killed someone, it seems absurd to then label it non-lethal. It’s as if I’d said:
While giving a presentation, Brian Ford made everyone laugh hysterically. Brian Ford is decidedly not funny.
011 // Brian Ford // 10.22.2004 // 1:18 PM
Well, I was actually referring to another comment that was made by Phil… err.. Brady J. Frey when I discussed how the term non-lethal should be used… but you bring up another point.
I think using the term non-lethal to describe a weapon that “actually” killed someone sets up a bit of a morbid irony that highlights the absurdity of the whole situation. “Killed by a non-lethal weapon” is a pretty strong statement….
I would guess that there were legal interests being looked after which resulted in the mayor not elaborating. He was probably restricted to the facts. She was struck, and the weapon that struck her was classified as non-lethal.
You’re right, it could have been stated in a better way as “killed by a non-lethal weapon” seems to support the possible argument that the non-lethal weapons in use should be regulated and used more resposibly if it is possible, however unlikely, to kill someone with them.
And, I don’t agree with your analogy… A human isn’t “funny” or “not funny” by design. Everyone is capable of being one or the other at any given time, and doesn’t default to one or the other. A better analogy would be if Brian Ford were a robot designed and tested to be humorless but somehow made an audience laugh. That way, I would be an object intended to do one thing that happened to do another.