Journalist Test Drives The Pain Ray Gun 818
Fantastic Lad writes to tell us that journalist Michael Hanlon recently got the opportunity to experience the Army's new not-so-secret weapon, dubbed "Silent Guardian". The Silent Guardian is essentially (even though the creators prefer you not refer to it as such) a ray gun, emitting a focused beam of radiation similar to your microwave tuned to a specific frequency to stimulate human nerve endings. "It can throw a wave of agony nearly half a mile. Because the beam penetrates skin only to a depth of 1/64th of an inch, it cannot, says Raytheon, cause visible, permanent injury. But anyone in the beam's path will feel, over their entire body, the agonizing sensation I've just felt on my fingertip. The prospect doesn't bear thinking about. "
Chilling... (Score:5, Insightful)
There is something wrong when the general population begins to fear the police, and I think that is starting to happen in the United States.
U.S. Government social skills: (Score:3, Insightful)
The least sophisticated way of relating to other people is through violence.
The taser problem (Score:5, Insightful)
With a gun, a trained operator understands that the person he's shooting at will probably die, so everything better be absolutely correct before employing it or he's going to jail.
With a Tazer, the trained operator will use it more casually than a gun because the price of being wrong is so much lower.
With the pain ray, it's even lower. Our current legal environment suggests that this will end up being used to break up unpopular demonstrations or groupings even more casually than tear gas, specifically because the physical evidence and chance of permanent injury is so much lower.
What effect will this have on the democratic process? Used in conjunction with modern artifacts like "designated free speech zones", this could be crippling. There's no way to prevent an advance, our duty as citizens is to be aware of the dangers and be ready to speak out against them if they transpire.
Prototype, my ass. (Score:3, Insightful)
No, the table-top demonstration model is the one that's intended for use in the field. For values of "field" ranging towards "dark basements in former Soviet bloc countries, to whom we've paid good money for plausible deniability".
Unless the "production" model is composed of an array of those table-top demonstration models (and to give Raytheon the benefit of the doubt, it might be), there are very few military applications to even try to scale the device down to "trade-show booth" form factor.
Either way, I'm glad I'm long Raytheon. From WW2-era radar stations, to the microwave oven, to new and emerging markets including crowd control and individual torture, manipulation of RF energy has been a consistent profit generator.
Bring one to University of Florida (Score:2, Insightful)
Relatively hard (Score:5, Insightful)
Corrupt lobby to pass law declaring it illegal to wear metallic micro-wave reflecting clothes in
Common, they already made it illegal to wear a gaz-mask during manifestations in some countries. What do you expect ?
{Insert your favorite "if-you-have-nothing-to-hide-you-have-no-reason-to-wear-one" excuse hehe}
Re:Blimey! (Score:3, Insightful)
The ones that already use Kalashnikovs for crowd control? I'll take the ray over stopping a round, thx.
Naivete? (Score:5, Insightful)
It seems to me that they were created in one.
Re:So at last the agonizer booth is possible. (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:1/64th inch of skin (Score:2, Insightful)
...Cannot cause visible permanent injury? (Score:5, Insightful)
That seems an awfully calculated thing to say... so that means they have found it to cause INVISIBLE permanent injury then?
Re:Ok, but is it eye safe? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:John Titor Predicted it (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Chilling... (Score:4, Insightful)
Why? An officer that's shown to abuse people can't keep his job unless an elected official/body allows him/her to. There isn't a law enforcement officer of any type, working at any level in the US that doesn't answer to elected civilians. So, what you're 'afraid' of isn't police with riot control weapons that no longer risk putting out an eye with a rubber bullet, or burning/choking someone with tear gas cannisters - what you're afraid of is your inability to be persuasive enough to get elected a person that, at the muncipal, county, and state level, will prohibit abusive behavior by officers (and support consequences for it).
Why are you more afraid of a fleeting, non-damaging nerve stimulation than you are choking gas, or bruising clubs and water cannons, or agitated K-9 units? You shouldn't be - those are all simply tools. This isn't about the tool, it's about the policies and rules of engagement. And those are dictated by people you do, or don't vote for. Police have always been ABLE to use painful tactics as needed, but those methods generally caused damage.
I don't know anyone in my neighborhood that's more afraid of police than they used to be. There are only people that are frustrated that there aren't enough police to keep gangs like MS-13 from being as scary as THEY are. If you're concerned about the ability of law enforcement officers to judge when and how to use force, then campaign for the higher taxes needed to pay the much higher salaries needed to attract and retain the physically fit, dedicated, experienced, philosopher kings you think would be better in that career.
Re:Chilling... (Score:5, Insightful)
Errr. . .doesn't such a low approval rating demonstrate not that people are disinterested in government, but rather that they are very interested and yet powerless to do anything about a government gone awry?
Key is frequency, not power (Score:4, Insightful)
That said I was thinking that anything that sent this much pain coursing through you might well lead to more harmful effects than a tazer. That much pain would have to be quite a shock to your body which would probably trigger a lot of reactions as a result.
Much more versatile than bullets... (Score:5, Insightful)
You are missing the point. For such regimes, this device would not be so attractive for crowd control as it would be for torture. Let's see...cheap and easy to reproduce, causes agony, doesn't leave marks. Perfect for extracting confessions and discrediting dissidents!
Come to think of it, considering how trigger-happy some cops around here seem to be with tasers, I'd hate to see what they would do with a device like this if they ever got someone they didn't like (accused rapist, molester, cop killer, smart-mouthed teenager) in the lock-up.
Re:bad writeup (Score:5, Insightful)
If these become commonplace the problem will snowball. Pain begets one of two things:
1) Compliance
2) Ultra-Violence
As a result, when hit with one of these things folks are either going to crawl up into
a ball and hope it goes away, or come out guns blazing to destroy the device causing the
pain to begin with. ( and likely the wielder with it )
If I were to attend a demonstration where it is known the police would likely use such
a device on the crowd I would either:
1) Re-consider my attendance
or
2) Setup similar devices to aim at the police or resort to current tech ( read that firearms )
You cannot use what would be considered an electronic torture device on me and expect me
to be ok with it. The operators of such a device would be the FIRST targets I went after.
Since it's unlikely the citizens would have similar tech in their hands for use, firearms will
put a stop to it just as quickly.
But a little PAIN has never HURT anyone, right? (Score:5, Insightful)
1. 1/64th of an inch seems sufficient to cause serious and possibly permanent eye damage. This is an area-wide weapon, it is not selective about its targets or which body part it is targeting.
2. Exposure to extreme levels of pain (especially suddenly) can also lead to a seizure or heart attack. If the pain is extremely strong, it may incapacitate the target (ever hurt yourself so badly you can't do ANYTHING except perhaps scream?), meaning the people can't escape the target zone, exposing themselves to even more pain.
3. If the authorities decide to use the weapon against a crowd, it is natural to presume some have a higher pain tolerance then others, and if the weapons is used until all or the majority of the crowd is quelled, the weaker-tolerance people will be exposed to unnecessary (and with potential serious consequences) levels and duration of pain.
4. I'm not even going to the legal definitions of physical torture in and by itself...
I'm not saying it shouldn't be used under any circumstances whatsoever, but it seems that it should be classified as deadly or almost deadly force ("deadly" in most jurisdictions includes "capable of producing grievous bodily harm).
Even the story the other day about the use of a Taser (which is also an almost-deadly-force weapon, with documented fatalities) being used where the suspect posed absolutely no danger and could have been subdued without it). This device can lead to the same consequences of a Taser, but instead of being used on one person, it affects hundreds, with no way to observe the effects on each single person and adjust the device power accordingly.
Are there cases where use of this device is legitimate? Maybe, for example if you are rushed by an angry mob and you legitimately feel your life to be in danger if you don't take immediate action. But given our record for indiscriminate and excessive use of next-to-lethal force (rubber bullets, Tasers, etc.) against peaceful demonstrations, non-violent action, cases where safer alternatives are available, and with "just for kicks" being a legitimate reason, I certainly wouldn't bet on this device to be safe in the hands of those who use it. This device is NOT a valid substitute for a water cannon or tear gas, and if in a given situation you are not justified to use live firearms, you also shouldn't be justified to use something like this.
If (or, sadly speaking, when) it will be classified as a "safe, non-lethal" weapon (just as the Taser already has been) well, we will be one mile higher up Shit Creek.
Re:The taser problem (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Blimey! (Score:2, Insightful)
Bullshit (Score:5, Insightful)
Compare it to the neverending stream of Taser stories from the USA. People got tasered occasionally as torture (people which had _already_ been restrained) or because a cop got a chip on his shoulder, for reasons as ridiculous as:
- asking too many questions at a political rally (see the recent story)
- being at a library without their library card (guy got tasered _repeatedly_ after he had already accepted to leave)
- diabetic guy in a medical emergency calls 911 for an ambulance, cops show up first and taser him in his bed (apparently one guy sick enough to be stuck in bed was considered dangerous enough to the cops to warrant use of the taser)
Etc, etc, etc.
Dearie, get this: even China, and even the fucking NKVD under Stalin, wouldn't have used a gun in _those_ situation. Yes, China did shoot some of the people demonstrating in Tiananmen square against the government, but not even in their darkest hour would they consider shooting a sick guy for calling an ambulance.
Effectively the idea that a taser is "non-lethal" has lowered the bar to ludicriously low extremes. It's not replacing the use of guns, as if you were to do something that warrants shooting at you, they'll _still_ shoot at you. (E.g., if you pulled a gun at a cop, I do believe they won't draw the tasers.) It just created a whole new possibility to inflict pain (again, sometimes repeatedly) on someone for minor misdemeanors or just for disliking him or just for fun. It's not replacing guns, it's _in_ _addition_ to guns, for stuff where you previously wouldn't even _think_ of drawing a gun.
Sadder still: for stuff where even China or the USSR wouldn't have even dreamed of using a gun on someone.
So the question isn't whether you'd rather get the ray or a round. For any stuff that would previously warrant getting a round, you'll still get a round. Only now you'll get the ray for everything else. Whop-de-do, big improvement there.
Re:Chilling... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Key is frequency, not power (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Chilling... (Score:5, Insightful)
Your argument would be persuasive except for one detail that you overlook.
For all practical purposes, elected officials aren't elected by the general poplace anymore. Sure, we get to vote for candidate A or B, but A and B are both pre-selected by corporate contributions and the entrenched power elite, who are the real interests represented by the elected officials.
Thus, the general populace are not represented by the officials any longer, especially at the Federal level. Compounding that, the differences between our interests and those of the corporate/elite are becoming greater in both degree and kind.
It's not a universal truism, but it is a valid concern these days, at a time when we are much closer to a society where the average citizen fears the police than we ever have been the past. Your argument ignores - implicitly rejects - that concern, in the face of increasingly frequent evidence to the contrary.
Re:Chilling... (Score:5, Insightful)
Its an invisible beam and it leaves no evidence. No one ever has to justify using it, because they can instead just deny using it any time that the use is controversial.
Re:Where Aluminum Foil comes in handy... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Chilling... (Score:5, Insightful)
Tasers had a similar justification for their implementation and yet we see them misused on a daily basis.
Why do you love the police state so god damned much?Quite simply because i can stand more than a second of those kinds of punishment? The guy in the article said even hardened military men could only last a few seconds. That, and technology like say, a wet cotton shirt, or a two by 4 can combat those sorts of attacks.
They are gonna come for you gun one day scenty, and at that time they will bombard your household with devices such as these. Can your 9mm slugs make it a mile and a half? Can you get to your gun and lay down the precise aim needed before you fall to the ground screaming in pain? The worst part is that you are gonna be on your own on that day, because everyone else will have already been rounded up.
Boy, put your hand in the box... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:The taser problem (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Blimey! (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Chilling... (Score:5, Insightful)
and there isn't an elected civilain in the US that wants to look 'soft on crime' by firing a cop based solely on the word of someone without a mark on them.
Re:Bullshit (Score:1, Insightful)
Try living in one and get your jaw broken by the "police" for no reason! You apparently live in a shielded little disneyland dreamworld, as you complain about the police because of single incidents, when in other countries there is nothing separating the mafia from the government officials.
Can we get a donttasemebro tag? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Much more versatile than bullets... (Score:5, Insightful)
This is gun is meant to be used on citizens (Score:5, Insightful)
This weapon is designed to work not against invading armies, but against angry citizens. Through most of recent history, governments have been wary of angering their own populations for fear of triggering citizen revolutions. A government cannot effectively use lethal weapons on its own population in any widespread way, because those citizens make the state function. Thus, there are some things that governments simply will not do, because of the risk of a popular uprising.
With weapons like this pain gun, the balance of power is tipped sharply in favor of governments. Governments will be able to use weapons like this against their own people, without creating rebel martyrs. The immediate effects of this gun on an individual are horrible, but temporary. No disfiguring injuries to point to as proof of the government's inhumanity. Just a fleeting moment of pain, that will continue to exist only in a person's memory. These pain guns are a far more effective tool of subjugation than machine guns.
Re:Chilling... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:John Titor Predicted it (Score:3, Insightful)
But if you really think he's only "slightly" off, you're delusional. And if he's more than slightly off, then there's no point in trying to compare what's happening to any of his predictions. Because they have nothing to do with our reality, and don't and won't predict our future. What you're saying here is only a small step from the folks at the Weekly World News who pick their favorite translation of Nostradamus and come up with some metaphor that it stands for, use that to make a prediction about next week, then when that's wrong the week after use a different interpretation to claim that it really did predict whatever happened that week.
What am I talking about? It's not a step away. That's what you're doing.
Re:John Titor Predicted it (Score:3, Insightful)
But the really funny part is that that would also be the mark of a clever but fake time traveler. Because it's much easier for someone to be right about events in the near future, since things tend to change slowly and incrementally. Sure, most people will be wrong, but occasionally someone's guess will be right. But as they keep guessing further and further out, their guesses are more and more likely to be wrong.
If you don't believe me, look at any number of predictions about the direction of computers. There's always someone who guesses correctly what they will look like a year or two from now (though also a lot of wrong guesses), but a decade?? Someone in 1990 may have predicted that in the next few years email would become popular, but how many people were predicting that blogging would be ubiquitous by 2005? (Aside from the dude who predicted it in 1837 - he wins.)
Re:Bullshit (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Much more versatile than bullets... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Much more versatile than bullets... (Score:2, Insightful)
Something to think about.
Wait until the 1st time it's used at a stadium (Score:3, Insightful)
At a half mile away, police in Brooklyn (on one side of the East River) could do crowd control for the edge of Manhattan. One guy on the top of the Empire State Building could stampede a crowd on the avenues below. From that distance people look like- and could be thought of as- ants.
Does it have a self-destruct mode for if the device gets stolen? Do they think that bad guys won't ever get their hands on them to stampede crowds as a terrorist act? With two of these devices at a stadium, or any other location with edges and drop-offs, two terrorists could make people jump over balconies to get away from the unbearable pain.
Repressive governments will also find it a handy tool for proving that a dissident was shot for violently resisting arrest. They'll even be able to video it: "See, we ordered him to lie down with his hands over his head- you can hear us saying it over and over. But instead he chose to run towards the guards. They had no choice but to shoot." or "See, we told them to sit down, and instead they jumped off of the ship into the ocean."
Re:Chilling... (Score:4, Insightful)
What about police make them automatically the good guys? This is what I really don't understand.
Oh, BTW, my uncle was killed by a cop (actually it was probably a cop's wife) when I was 8, so I have a grudge.
What was my uncle's crime you ask? Oh, that was walking within a crosswalk WITH the traffic light's blessing but doing so too slow to not get hit by a drunken driver doing over 70 (according the the medical report on his pulverized (that's the word they used) pelvis) in a residential area.
My most RECENT incident with the police was punking one out with the threat of a video camera after he pulled my sister over for being the wrong color in a neighborhood she drove through on the way home from work.
Stop the sniveling authority worship, police are just people as susceptible to corruption (probably even moreso, remember the old maxim about power corrupting) as anyone else. Deferring to the shiny piece of tin on their chest makes you look weak and fearful.
Re:The taser problem (Score:3, Insightful)
A police "sniper" operating this from a rooftop would be hard to hold accountable.
Re:It does not stack up (Score:5, Insightful)
With any luck, it'll coaggulate and turn opaque, so the police won't need to use blindfolds on the protesters.
With even more luck, it'll stay that way forever...
Re:Chilling... (Score:3, Insightful)
Like I said, you're afraid of your inability to be persuasive enough. If you can't convince people there's a problem, then you're not being persuasive enough. The reason that so many people shrug off coverage of crowd control cops getting rough is because they also get annoyed at shrill, masked groups of people in chanting crowds that think that stopping traffic (or torching cars), trying to block access to a business/clinic/whatever (or smashing its windows) is somehow making their idealogy more appealing. Some people actually DO get annoyed when they see the ambulance that costs more than all the state taxes they'll ever pay in their lifetime gets rolled over by a bunch of drunk idiots that are looking for more and bigger stuff to destroy because their favorite soccer/football/basketball/hockey team either won or lost that night. You will have a much easier time showing how unreasonable it is for police to be rough with people like that when the audience you're trying to pursuade don't find the people they're dealing with to be physically provocative, disruptive and destructive. I've seen all sorts of marches, protests, and demonstrations where there wasn't a whiff of what you're worrying about, because the people making the spectacle also kept it civilized, while still getting all the camera time they want on their giant puppets, organic tofu drums, slogan banners, and more. Your whole "stifling dissent" bit is pretty disengenuous, considering people can say whatever they want. Busting up other people's property isn't "dissent."
Don't want to see riot cops at your protest? Tell some of the organizations that will be there not to use event-related web sites to advertise how they're planning on chaining off streets to prevent emergency responders and talking about how to conceal gas masks for when they'll be rushing a line of vehicles. Smashing up a Starbucks in Seattle because a trade conference happens to be in the same town isn't dissent. It's adolescent BS.
Re:Much more versatile than bullets... (Score:5, Insightful)
As a reference, your 45 kW is just about 64 HP, and any contractor's white van is large enough to house all the equipment, and the engine is powerful enough to feed the generator until the gas tank runs dry. But if you consider that the police can use far larger trucks (with water cannons etc.) the whole question of technical constraints is moot.
In terms of precision, 100 GHz is high, which means that a small antenna can have the main beam not wider than a couple of degrees. You don't even need that high a precision. If you don't want to zap TV people ... don't aim at them. Besides, your goal (as a police zapper) is not to annoy people but to control people - those are two different goals. So you zap some people but not the other, and they run where you want them to be. You don't want to do the Blackwater incident in Times Square, people should always have an escape route. If they don't have any escape they are highly likely to attack you, close and personal; then you only need to kill them all, in self-defense, regardless of how many thousands of them there are.
Re:The taser problem (Score:3, Insightful)
I would like to see a show of proof that the threshold for the use of force has been lowered.
The Geek has no long-term memory - no sense of history - but the institutional memory of your local police force is likely to go back a century or more.
A good place to begin, if you want to gain some perspective, are the archives of American Heritage.com [americanheritage.com] Fifty years of the best writing by historians of the caliber of Bruce Catton and David McCullough.
Re:Bullshit (Score:5, Insightful)
They are not stupid, as they are still in office with the lowest public opinion rating EVER.
Stupid people do not gain control of a first world country, no matter how much people want to believe that.
Stupid people flip burgers at McDonald's for a living, conniving and deviously smart people can retain control of an entire country after systematically removing huge swaths of the populous' rights.
The current administration is not stupid. Morally bereft maybe. Hugely self interested maybe. But not stupid.
Re:the populace (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:Much more versatile than bullets... (Score:4, Insightful)
I'm starting to see things like this and tazers in the hands of police officers as maybe a mistake. The cops are more likely to use them in situations that don't warrent it because it doesn't leave any perminate damage. Even now we are starting to see cops using tazers just because someone didn't move fast enough for them. There have been instances where cops have used tazers on grade school kids.
We've removed the fear of weapons use. People think these things are better because they are non lethal or less lethal than real weapons. But I have my doubt that they are better, just different.
Re:Bullshit (Score:5, Insightful)
Thats funny. I had the opportunity to attend a protest during a visit by the Prez to a city near me. There were over 1000 people there. It was a peaceful demonstration and things went well for awhile. (Although the trenchcoat/dark glasses guys taking pictures of everyone was a little disturbing.)
From down the road there approached a line of riot police, complete with helmets, shields and long clubs. They moved steadily toward the line of protesters. They were certainly not there to 'protect' us.
I'm sorry I can't tell you how it all ended, as I left at that point. I had my teenage daughter and her friend with me and I didn't want them getting hurt. The point is, your are kidding yourself if you think those guys were there for anything except breaking up a peaceful protest which was attracting some media attention.
Re:Bullshit (Score:3, Insightful)
Yes, very many single incidents. We become very upset if 200 people were to die in a plane wreck every year. But not nearly so with the death of 17,000(!) due to drunk drivers over the same period. It's only one guy, but it happened more than 10,000 times. So, is it ok if a cop gets abusive hundreds of times if he only beats up one guy?
You mean that in some contries there IS something separating the two? I sure would like to know which one it is.
Great idea! (Score:2, Insightful)
Seriously. This thing scares me more than nuclear weapons. At least with a nuke, you would be turned to your constituent atoms quicker than your nerves could react. With this "pain ray" Corporations and governments could exert complete control over their populations. Dipshit "America firsters" will try to get this set up on the borders to keep out all the "brown people"
Then there is the little matter that these are most likely considerably easier to create than nukes. Something a well financed terrorist could conceivably come up with in a couple of years and you have the perfect terror weapon. They wouldn't need to do it to people in Times Square. They could just camp out a half a mile from the runway of any major airport and cook the pilots when the planes are taking off. Presto! Instant coordinated air distasters at every major airport in the U.S simultaneously.
The humunculi who think up and fund these things should just be loaded into a space ship blasted into the fucking sun.
Re:Bullshit (Score:2, Insightful)
The guy didn't just fail to produce ID and agree to leave. After failing to produce ID he was asked to leave and refused. The campus police were called and the "student" became belligerent and then violent. In my mind not only were the police completely justified but the student should have been charged with resisting arrest, inciting a revolt, etc.
I agree with the point that the grandparent is making about non-lethal force. I agree that it could become a problem in theory but it is hard to consider an argument rational when based on stories that are so outrageously twisted as this one has been.
Just to clarify- I am not accusing the grandparent of twisting the story. It was already well twisted on the internet when it happened.
Re:Chilling... (Score:4, Insightful)
In addition, they have not tested it on volunteers for long periods (and, by the description, 'long periods' may well be as short as 30 seconds!) - simply because who would volunteer for it? Even hardened marines apparently flee within seconds. We have no idea what will happen to people that suffer this ray for more than a fleeting instant - for all we know it might lead to an epileptic seizure or brain damage. It might also cause local damage to the nerves - overstimulation of nerves can lead to their death; this is called excitotoxicity [wikipedia.org].
Sadly, I am sure that the developers of this weapon have barbarically tested it on animals for 'long periods'. This is still not enough to convince me that it does not permanent damage; human brains are not identical to animal ones. In addition there is a tremendous psychological element to torture - the belief that the pain will continue; this is less of an issue for some animals.
Sorry for the long rant, but this weapon is a horrible idea. It is like the nuclear bomb of supposedly nonlethal weapons - too powerful for anyone to have. It should be outlawed by international convention IMHO. Let's develop nonlethal methods that incapacitate, etc., not that can be used to bring torture to new levels.
You, sir, are a moron and a liar (Score:5, Insightful)
Grand parent never claimed US was "worse" than USSR. That is pure invention on your part, because you lack the mental capabilities to read what he actually wrote. As long as you compensate for your long for your low intelligence by inventing stuff, you will never become smarter.
He claimed that in the US people are tasered for situations where more oppressive governments would not use a gun. You then counter by a Wikipedía quote, listing abuses done by USSR in situation where US police or guards would not use a taser. You don't use tasers to assassinate people, or to "subversion of foreign governments", once again demonstrating how access to Wikipedia is in no way a replacement for having a brain.
The Sad Truth (Score:5, Insightful)
Because of its status as "less lethal", the Taser is supposed to be used by law enforcement as "an alternative to lethal force". In other words, as a way of stopping a person when the only other alternative is to shoot them with a gun. And it performs that function quite well. The Taser very seldom (but occasionally) results in permanent damage or death.
PROBLEM #1 is exactly that perception of non-lethality. To some, non-lethal or "less lethal" means safe or even sane. However, I would be willing to bet a large amount that if you compared the number of people in history who have been beaten with nightsticks, to the number of people who have been Tasered, you would find a higher lethality rate for the Taser. I am only guessing, but nobody so far has really done such a study, so the question is open. And as I mentioned, one died just recently in my own town. I do not think anyone in this town has ever died from beatings by nightsticks... and believe me, there have been some over the last couple of hundred years.
PROBLEM #2 is the conception that "no permanent harm" means "no harm". Bullshit. People hit with a Taser fall down hard, in unnatural positions, and hurt themselves. It is also excruciatingly painful. I believe most people who have been Tasered would rather have been hit with a nightstick, even though the latter would hurt for a much longer time.
Years ago, a popular interrogation (or control) device was a length of rubber hose, because it could be extremely painful but leave few marks and do "no permanent harm". Sound familiar? Strangely, the rubber hose is internationally vilified as a "torture device" while the Taser is not. Somebody please explain this to me!
PROBLEM #3 Police forces tend to attract the kind of people who like to bully and control other people. You could argue with me all you want about that but history supports that statement beyond dispute. I am not saying that all cops are bad, but a disproportionate percentage of them are, and always have been. Plain, simple truth. I wish it were otherwise.
PROBLEM #4 is actually just the consequences of 1, 2, and 3: Police forces (at least in the U.S.) have started using Tasers in ways that are completely inappropriate: to avoid physical confrontation at all; as an alternative to nightsticks (rather than as an alternative to guns, as it should be); and even just as a convenience, such as to avoid having to tell someone something one more time. I have seen video clips of police Tasering people for such things as talking back, not moving fast enough for the officer's taste, and other such "criminal" acts. That very recent video of the student getting Tasered at the Kerry speech is a classic case. The student might have been a mouthy ass, but he did not deserve the treatment he received.
People need to get together and demand that their state or city restrict the use of Tasers (again) to "an alternative to deadly force". Otherwise, their use will escalate and the public will surely regret it.
Re:Bullshit (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:Blimey! (Score:3, Insightful)
I hope the technology doesn't get too cheap and leaked into the public, otherwise child abuse and other kinds of crime/abuse would get a whole lot easier (no visible trauma, and people would have a lot less moral issues with just hurting someone temporarily rather than shooting them).
Re:not even a police state (Score:5, Insightful)
Which is pretty much the US all over these days.
"USA - less nasty than the USSR!"
"USA - fewer human rights violations than Uzbekistan!"
"USA - not too nice, but hey, we're better than Burma!"
Re:The Grassy Knoll and Litmus Paper (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Non-lethal weapons a great threat (Score:3, Insightful)
So obviously tasers are preferable, right?!? I mean, they're mostly harmless aside from randomly killing people that have any kind of heart defect, including something as simple as arrhythmia, which they may not even know they have. But I'm sure if you
"Less-lethal" weapons are a lie, and they're a way to assuage any potential guilt an officer might have about assaulting the citizenry ("Don't worry about it, this is harmless"). My father was a state police officer for years, and I've heard all the war stories. He had a nightstick, a
Re:Bullshit (Score:4, Insightful)
Well it's a demonstratable fact that all the conflicts that the US is involved in today were started or exacerbated by small minded foreign policies of Republicans.
Look a the problems today with Iran. Iran used to be a democracy, however the Shaw dictatorship was put into place by the US government when the CIA overthrew the democratically elected Iranian government in 1953 because the US/Britain wanted to retain power of (can you guess??) the countrys oil. Eisenhower, a Republican, was in power at this time and authorized the overthrow. The democrat before him refused. This was the original catalyst for the future Iranian problems.
When the Islamists overthrew the Shaw they established a fundamentalist regime bent on the destruction of the 'great Satan' USA. Then of couse, Regan gave arms to the Iranians, then decided that was a bad idea and gave Saddam Hussein and the Iraqis more arms to fight the arms given to Iran. And don't forget the arming and training of the Taliban in Afghanistan by Regan to fight the 'evil' soviets.
So, todays big touble spots: Iran, Iraq and Afghanistan, fighters all trained and supplied by US Republican foreign policy. Tell me there is no differnce.
Re:Much more versatile than bullets... (Score:3, Insightful)
A crowd control system does not need to be of a military style. Military hardware is designed to function on its own far away from support bases, and be serviced by soldiers with only basic education. Police systems do not go more than a few miles from the base, not going to be air{lifted,dropped}, won't see temperature extremes of deserts and arctic, and qualified technicians are available.
and don't forget that you have to have a dual oiling systems so the oil can be changed without shutting down the generator engine
There is no need to do that, the ray gun would be used for minutes, not for weeks. You are approaching this from design positions of a backup diesel generator of a military communications facility. This gizmo is nowhere close to that.
there could always be a nuke going off
Then there is no need to zap anyone with this toy - the people would be already thoroughly zapped with the gamma rays. We are talking about civil disturbance in a city, not a war with a nuclear superpower!
why would they sell a $5.00 dish when they can sell a $10,000.00 electronically steered phased array emitter?
It's cool, that's why :-) Besides, no moving parts - good for reliability. Also, nobody sees where you are pointing it (though a radome would take care of that as well.) Mere $10K is not an issue, trucks with those weapons will be purchased by the government[s] and distributed to police just as candy. Politicians will be at each other's throats to get a piece of the action.
I think you are also under-estimating the engineering required to generate the a 95 GHz signal at the required power-density
Well, it had been engineered already, however complex it might be. I personally stay away from any signals that are above a few GHz. That work requires a completely different mindset. But I know people who are obsessed with anything between 10 and 110 GHz, and some do very well in this [arrl.org].
Re:Torture Applications (Score:3, Insightful)
Try a whip or club vs a cattle prod, and you'll see what I mean real quick.