Talk:Bean bag round

Article improvement
the bean bag article needs improvement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.92.103.204 (talk • contribs) 08:11, 25 January 2009

Deaths and injuries
Here is an article found linked from the less-lethal.org website:
 * The Risks Associated with Utilizing Less-Lethal Weapons. By Dr. Rick Parent (emphasis added).

Beanbag projectile to the spleen can also kill. See news articles about Lester Zachary death in 2005:
 * http://www.prisontalk.com/forums/showthread.php?p=1295224
 * http://demopedia.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x1379987
 * Google News archive search.

Washington Post, NATION IN BRIEF, Saturday, April 9, 2005; Page A24:
 * "COLUMBUS, Ga. -- A man who telephoned a hotline to say he had a gun and was dreaming of killing children died after police shot him with supposedly nonlethal beanbag projectiles, officials said. Lester Zachary, 45, died of internal bleeding caused by a bullet hitting his spleen area, a coroner ruled."

I may or may not have time to edit the article. I can share some info and references, though, that could be used in some way in the article. --Timeshifter (talk) 15:45, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Suggestions on things to add to the "dangers associated with bean bag projectiles" section:
Death can also result from a strike around the heart. There have been numerous cases with sports-related injuries where an athlete is accidentally impacted between the ribs directly over the heart. This causes arrhythmia and can eventually lead to asystole (a flatline on an Electrocardiogram). Like with those injuries, an impact with the high-velocity bean bag rounds in that similar area can have the same results. If someone can actually bring up an article showing this type of death from a bean bag round, I believe it could help out this article.

I believe that the article does mention this type of injury, but it specifies the type of injury where parts of the surrounding ribcage are actually shattered and splinters of bone pierce the heart itself. A specific example can definitely add to this article.

Secondly, there is one type of potentially fatal impact area that I do not see listed, and that would be a bean bag round striking a victim in the head. An impact to the side of the head, specifically the temple area and just above the ear, would more than likely cause blunt force trauma in the region of the impact. There are cases where people playing baseball without protective gear have been struck by a foul pitch in the head and have slipped into a coma and subsequently died. I would imagine that the same could happen here. It would be more likely if the shot was from close range, but an unfortunate combination of events could also lead to death from mid to relatively long range. Again, if anyone knows where an article is (I am not sure that a death has been caused from this type of injury yet, that is why I am asking), it would improve this article.

Finally, there are less-than-fatal dangers associated with these types of rounds. An impact to the ear could cause enough damage to render that ear partially or totally deaf. Similarly, a strike to an internal organ in the gut could cause liver damage and malfunction, kidney damage and the associated problems with that, or possible alveolar damage to the lungs (it could potentially also cause edema and fluid buildup in that particular lung, but it would probably be temporary rather than permanent). In women, an impact from one of these projectiles could cause anything from a miscarriage in a pregnant female to potential reproductive problems in the future if it struck the uterus or ovaries. For males, an impact to the prostate could cause it to swell. This would result in trouble urinating and could result in a loss of potency, at least for the short-term. An impact to the groin would be far more damaging and could cause permanent reproductive problems in males.

These are just some suggestions for anyone who wants to look into them. I'm adding this to the talk page because I am not sure if all of these risks belong in the area I mentioned. I'm pretty sure that some of the first couple of things I listed would belong, but I am not too sure about the final part (less than fatal risks). That would more than likely require a new section to deal with other problems. It could also necessitate an entire new page to be created; it wouldn't be just for bean bag projectiles and their dangers, but would encompass all of the dangers associated with less-than-lethal weapons. This is the part that I really do want feedback on, because there isn't any one page that would best fit all of the problems associated with these types of weapons. The "Less than Lethal" article might work, but it would be more difficult to break down the risks that come from each type of less than lethal weapon (tasers, rubber bullets, bean bag rounds, tear gas, etc.).

What do you guys think? --TR1N3TY (talk) 11:52, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Non-police sources
More independent data on the dangers of bean bag rounds is needed, since the studies cited are both from policeone.com, a resource for police, and from US Department of Justice. This obviously makes the article biased, or at least appear biased. Does anyone know of other studies by academics without police or manufacturer ties or journalists? --MechanusSunrise (talk) May 23, 2012 —Preceding undated comment added 22:32, 23 May 2012 (UTC).

Broken link
Link #3 is broken.--Mideal (talk) 12:15, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Bean bag round. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080905235252/http://www.policeone.com/writers/columnists/SteveIjames/articles/118328 to http://www.policeone.com/writers/columnists/SteveIjames/articles/118328/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 09:05, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

Dangers: rupture of one of her eyeballs
https://www.thestandard.com.hk/section-news/section/50031877/230589/Reward-raised-to-$1m-for-info-on-eye-girl-who-fled-to-Taiwan https://www.scmp.com/news/hong-kong/politics/article/3134828/hong-kong-protests-controversial-woman-centre-eye-injury

These two English articles questions whether K was had her eye rupture as a result of a suspected bean bag round strike. SCMP claims: "hospital source previously told the Post the woman was not blind, although she had sustained fractures to her nasal and maxilla, or upper fixed jaw, bones." If taken at face value, she may not have lost her vision per se, but the damage to the orbital bones *can* threaten vision impairment.

I found the corroborating appeal under justice.hk https://legalref.judiciary.hk/lrs/common/search/search_result_detail_frame.jsp?DIS=135102&QS=%24%28protest%7Cmedical%29&TP=JU but cannot find a copy of the actual report. Most likely because this might be a criminal investigation and the medical report would not be released to the public, but only in confidence for the police investigation.

Attempts have been made to scour the press releases for Hong Hong Hospital Authority, but I could not find a direct statement, probably because they were complying with the lost appeal and sent the medical records only to the police.

First article from The Standard HK claims NYT had corrected the caption, dated Nov 23, 2019. NYT site does not allow for search that far back for list of corrections. Attempt to look for "Hong Kong: A City Divided" correction has been futile thus far. Curiously the wayback machine did not have a copy of the National edition of NYT dated Nov 23, 2019. Emailed the NYT correction department, to see if they would respond.

Is there a way to note that there's some contention to "rupture"? I don't see enough firm evidence to refute completely.

Update: NYT got back https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/23/pageoneplus/corrections-nov-23-2019.html

In case that page goes away: https://web.archive.org/web/20210526175546/https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/23/pageoneplus/corrections-nov-23-2019.html

NYT does not claim to have made a correction in wording that The Standard HK claimed otherwise, at least not with the specific article https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/11/23/world/asia/hong-kong-protesters-photos.html