Grasping the nettle: Ending Europe’s Trade in Execution and Torture Technology 45 © Robin Ballantyne/Omega Research Foundation. Left: LRAD-RX, Right: portable LRAD mately 10:00 p.m., following the reported throwing of bottles at police and the refusal of a group of protesters to move away from the police line, law enforcement personnel activated a LRAD that was mounted on top of an armoured truck at the intersection of W. Florissant and Ferguson Avenues.213 The LRAD was pointed at a group of stationary protestors on the street approximately 15 feet away. Law enforcement personnel gave no warning to protesters that an LRAD would be used. After providing earplugs to a member of Amnesty International, a St. Louis County police officer said, “This noise will make you sick.” Certain members of the media and observers who were about the same distance from the device as the targets reported feeling nauseous from the noise of the LRAD until it was turned off at approximately 10:15 p.m.214 Amnesty International further stated that, “Used at close range, loud volume and/or excessive lengths of time, LRADs can pose a serious health risk which range from temporary pain, loss of balance and eardrum rupture, to permanent hearing damage. LRADs also target people relatively indiscriminately, and can have markedly different effects on different individuals and in different environments… Further research into the use of LRADs for law enforcement is urgently needed.”215 The LRAD Corporation has subsequently contested the concerns raised by Amnesty International, stating that, “LRAD broadcast levels are purposely kept below the threshold that could cause permanent hearing damage from instantaneous exposure. When activated at close range, people experience audible discomfort and cover their ears or move away. Just the act of covering the ears with hands reduces the sound pressure level (SPL) by approximately 25 decibels. By covering their ears, the maximum SPL protestors or members of Amnesty International’s delegation could have been exposed to would’ve been approximately 95 decibels, 10 decibels less than an MP3 player at maximum volume.”216 At least one U.S. city, Pittsburgh, has previously been sued by a claimant for alleged hearing loss caused by exposure to an LRAD.217 In 2010 a Canadian court limited the use of a sound cannon by the Toronto Police Department prior to that year’s G-20 summit in that city, due to concerns about the lack of training received by law enforcement on its use and the lack of studies on its effects.218 213 Amnesty International USA Section (24 October 2014) op.cit., p.14. 214 Amnesty International USA Section, (24 October 2014) op.cit., p.14. 215 Amnesty International USA Section (24 October 2014) op.cit., p.14. 216 LRAD Response to the Amnesty International 24 October 2014 report ‘On the Streets of America: Human Rights Abuses in Ferguson’, 29 October 2014. 217 ACLU of Pennsylvania, City of Pittsburgh Settles G-20 Lawsuits, Press release, 14 November 2012, available at http://www.aclupa. org/news/2012/11/14/city-pittsburgh-settles-g-20-lawsuits (accessed 1 February 2015). The case was brought by an academic who claimed to have suffered hearing loss as a result of LRAD use against her and others protesting at the time of the G20 summit in September 2009. The case was reportedly settled out of court with the city of Pittsburgh paying the professor $72,000 but not accepting liability. See: Bowling, B. Pittsburgh to pay researcher who suffered hearing loss during G-20 summit, Tribe Live, 14 November 2012, http://triblive.com/ home/2957914-74/summit-police-protesters-agreed-lawsuit-settle-pay-civil-claims-lrad#axzz3QfulrDoS (accessed 6 February 2015). 218 CCLA v. Toronto Police Service, 2010 ONSC 3525, 25 June 2010, and report by the Canadian Civil Liberties Association, ‘CCLA welcomes court ruling further restricting LRAD use’, 25 June 2010. Index: EUR 01/1632/2015 Amnesty International May 2015