A Modern Plague of Pirates, Essay Example

Identify and analyze potential legal claims of a private citizen seriously injured by the use of the LRAD’s if the decision is made by the Sub-Committee to purchase them after relying solely on the manufacturer’s claims and instructions as to their use. Assume there was insufficient time to test the device and train officers in their use before the Convention. Assume that the Sub-Committee concluded that the value of the LRAD’s use in crowd control outweighed any risk of harm caused by their use. Discuss the potential liability of the individual officer using the device, the potential liability of the officer’s supervisor (in this case, Duncan) and the potential liability of Chairperson Selerno. Finally, what is your recommendation to Chairperson Salerno regarding this issue?

According to the reading, LRAD stands for long range acoustic device. Hayes recommended this weapon because someone lost an eye during the FTAA using the SuperSock. The manufacturer of LRAD, LRAD Corporation explains that the LRAD is a system to send loud messages to the public in addition to high pitched painful tones that can non-lethally control a large crowd (Corbett, 2009). The approximate frequency of the system is 2.5 kHz. In the scenario, Hayes explains the system more simply as a “sound magnifier”. He states that this system would have helped them in the past to clearly get their message across to protesters, which is applicable in their current situation because the protesters provide a major security threat to the DNRC. He explains that using the system could have prevented several lawsuits that were a direct result of the crowd being unable to hear the dispersal order.

Despite the advantages of using the LRAD system, there is still potential for members of the crowd to file lawsuits as a direct result of the device’s use. This possibility must be seriously considered because even Direct Robert Water’s admits that one use of the system is to induce pain in order to break apart crowds. He cites a specific example where the NYPD used the system and some members of the crowd suffered from hearing loss. Due to its dual use as a megaphone and a non-lethal weapon, the sub-committee must consider the proper use of this equipment. Even if they use this machine exactly as the LRAD Company directs, human error is still possible. In addition, members of the crowd may have overly sensitive ears and be affected even if the LRAD is set to a supposed less painful frequency.

In situations like these, where it is important to make a quick executive decision, it becomes even more important to ensure that the decision being made is effective and safe for everyone involved. Even though there have been reports of the LRAD system causing crowd members and even officers to become deaf, Major Warren insists that they need to make the decision quickly because they only have a few months remaining before the DNRC. On the other hand, Director Duncan says that more information needs to be collected before the units are purchased. Since this project is being rushed, if private citizens in the crowd become seriously injured by the use of the LRADs after the sub-committee relied solely upon the information presented to them by LRAD Corporation, the private citizens will be able to sue the police department on the points of neglect during the initial discussion and misconduct concerning the physical used of the LRAD.

If the sub-committee ultimately decided that the advantages of using the LRAD ultimately outweighs the potential problems it could cause and initiates its use, several people will get in trouble. The first person to consider is the individual officer using the device. His liability depends on several factors. If this officer relies on the instructions given to him by his supervisor and follows them exactly, and private citizens go deaf, he would not be at fault because he is simply following orders and would not know enough about the equipment to make his own operational decisions. In addition, he likely would not have even been told about the potential this equipment has for causing someone to become deaf. The officer’s supervisor, Duncan, would be liable in this situation. Duncan was fully aware that the sub-committee wasn’t given enough time to determine whether or not the LRAD would have a negative impact on the hearing of the crowd, and despite this, he agreed along with the others that it should be used. It was his duty to inform his officer of the possible repercussions because not only could it harm members of the crowd, but his officer as well. Despite this, Chairperson Salerno is the most liable regarding this issue. She was barely involved in the conversation regarding the LRADs, and if she had been educated on the issue it could have been avoided. Since she is the head of this event, she should be aware of all decisions made by the sub-committees and carefully consider whether their decisions should be approved or not.

Since Chairperson Salerno has the ability to overturn the sub-committees agreement, she should either demand that the sub-committee perform the research they were considering or find an alternative device to use. It isn’t safe to simply trust that the LRAD won’t cause deafness, and this could lead to a host of legal issues for the whole event team. Therefore, she needs to insist that the sub-committee comes up with an improved list of pros and cons of using the device and only then come to the decision as to whether or not it should be used.

Identify and analyze any legal claims that might be triggered if the Sub-Committee decides to deny permission to Amnesty International to stage a protest at the Torch of Friendship which has been identified as the second First Amendment Zone. As a result of your analysis, what recommendation(s) would you make to Chairperson Salerno regarding the request?

If the sub-committee decides to deny permission to Amnesty International to stage a protest at the Torch of Friendship, they will be violating the first amendment rights of the protesters. By definition, a First Amendment zone is a place specifically put aside location for people to express their rights to free speech (Warren, 1988). While it is important to protect the members of the DNRC, it is equally important for the group to respect the rights of the civilians. It would be completely unlawful to break up or not allow the protest and they should not use any form of force to do so. Therefore, the entire previous discussion of whether or not the LRAD systems should be implemented is irrelevant because no one has the legal authority to deter the crowd.

Since it is Chairperson Salerno’s priority to ensure the safety of the DNRC, she should recommend a different location for the event to be held. On top of getting in the way of the first amendment rights of the protesters, the American Airlines Arena in Downtown Miami is very close to the Port of Miami which is high in traffic and it will affect the local merchants. Therefore, it is important for Salerno and the committees to study local places that have enough space to accommodate the members of the DNRC and are located in low key areas where there wouldn’t be a large degree of security threats or hindrance of the daily activities of civilians.

Identify and analyze any legal claims that might arise if the Committee grants a permit to Greenpeace to conduct a protest at the shopping mall. If the permit is granted, can police lawfully conduct pat-downs and search bags of anyone in the area? Present the arguments for and against. As a result of your analysis, what recommendation(s) would you make to Chairperson Salerno regarding this permit request?

Although the Committee doesn’t need to legally permit Greenpeace to conduct a protest at the shopping mall, they should because they’ve allowed several other protests to go on during this area at the time of the DRNC. If the Committee grants the permit to Greenpeace, they are worried that the protest would spill over onto the roadway blocking the Port and also be too close to the American Airlines Arena. If the port is closed down, many of the shop keepers will feel a financial impact and could potentially sue the group for allowing a decision that will block their businesses.

If the permit is granted, the police are legally able to do a stop and frisk of the occasional protester if they feel that there is just case, but they will be unable to conduct searches and pat-downs of everyone in the area due to lack of manpower and unreasonable cause in many situation. In addition, many people in the area will be average civilians rather than protestors.

I feel that Chairman Salerno should allow the group to protest anyway. They are allowing several other groups to protest during the DNRC, and preventing them from expressing their opinions would be going against their first amendment right. It is possible that the group would have an illegal protest if the permit were not granted, which would cause the commotion around the arena to become even greater than the police had anticipated. Therefore, so that the police is able to at least fully expect and predict the events that will occur during the DNRC, Greenpeace should be given the permit.

References

Corbett, Peter. (2009). A Modern Plague of Pirates. Retrieved from http://books.google.com/books?id=E0kUYUOtG0AC&pg=PA65#v=onepage&q&f=false

CRJ 550 DNRC Worksheet.

Warren, Susan. (1988). Protests cause Young to boost police presence. Houston Chronicle. Retrieved from www.chron.com/?