I believe the issue is when "yougnsters" "hang out" on private property. Admittedly, I haven't followed the saga too much, but there are plenty of cases where I have read about specific groups of [insert here: teenagers/homeless/what-have-you] that have been politely asked to leave property and refused. The requests become less and less polite, until the police are called to manage the invasion of groups of people onto private property.
The issue becomes having to call the police every single time, most especially since these groups of individuals take quite a bit of offence to being shooed away. They tend to purposefully return to make their point, and it quickly escalates from “hanging out” to “stubbornly being a pain in the ass.”
Depending on how badly the property owner wants these individuals off their land, the rousting and removal may become a regular occurrence, at which point the Police simply cease caring and refuse to help. Once this has happened, the landowner can try private security, but most likely doesn’t have the funding for it. IN many cases I have seen things turn ugly and violent at this point.
Both parties know the police aren’t going to respond to any more calls to this location, and so the group of individuals takes it upon themselves to exact a little retribution. Usually this in in the form of vandalism, though I know several people who have been assaulted to within inches of their lives.
It usually starts with a small business owner, say a mechanic or a convenience store owner who is afraid of vandalism or trouble from a gang of what to his eyes are bored individuals looking for trouble. A few bad choices on his part, stubbornness and a desire to “damn the man” from the gathered group of individuals as well as eventual (or immediate) apathy from law enforcement have the scenario typically end badly for one party or the other.
So what then? Something like the Mosquito? It’s a little indiscriminate, but in the above situation might be seriously considered by the relevant small business owner. (It is probably a terrible idea, as it will immediately draw retribution, but that’s another story entirely.)
Individuals have the right to gather on public property and loiter if that’s what they choose to do. They don’t have the same privileges on private property, which is where this whole fiasco usually comes to a head.
If any “groups of people” regardless of age, race, gender, ethnicity, employment status, or technological fanboydem chooses to gather in a public place then I would defend to the death their right to do so. When they make the choice to do so on private property and refuse to respect the rights of the property owners, then the whole situation becomes a lot fuzzier.
I would condemn the use of these devices as a first-use item, or even as a generic pro-active offensive weapon. I would not condemn their use against an entrenched group of individuals who have been warned several times but who simply refuse to comply with the private property laws of their jurisdiction. People have the right to gather in public places, but private property owners have a right to defend what is thiers.
So if not something like this device, what is the solution? I don't know, but I wish I did. I know a few people who would benefit from knwoing it too.