No, not ‘hosers’. I said ‘hoses’.
Scenario: there is an unruly crowd outside a nightclub early on a Sunday morning in Boise, ID. Short of police officers to control the crowd and get them to disperse, the OIC called the local fire station to see if they could get an engine out there to whip out the firehoses and try to calm down the situation.
The Fire Captain on duty says no.
What is it about spraying people with firehoses and nearly everyone being afraid to use them as such?
Cold water works on mobs just like it does on teenage boys who could only get to second base; it takes all the testosterone goes right out of ya, yet no one gets hurt.
Oh sure, if you’re close enough, you could get some bruises, but I’d rather that than a P-38 nightstick upside the noggin.
Is it the whole Bull Connor thing?
Help me out here, I’m at a loss. The ACLU “cry to mommy” types are always screaming for the police to use non-lethal methods to deter violence, yet everyone is afraid to use this one?
It’s been that way for a long time. Even in Europe, where water cannons have been used for generations to control rioters, the cops man the cannons.
That’s the solution here: water cannons, not fire hoses attached to fire engines.
The problem with hoses is that they can be flanked, and are fairly static, so you will eventually get the spectacle of rioters in control of a fire wagon, which is undesireable as they cost almost a half-million each.
The water cannons are mounted on heavy armored car chassis, so they are mobile, and if necessary, can be defended from inside the armor with stronger measures (guns).