Police to be issued laser dazer weapon
- Thread starter etc
- Start date
Help Support Candle Power Flashlight Forum
loving light
Newly Enlightened
I think it is a bad ideal,did you see the one police officer with his sunglasses on?Your pupils dialate when sunglasses are worn,letting All that green in(worse than if you had No sunglasse on).Bad ideal :shakehead.
Joe
Joe
That are not sunglasses but more probably glasses filtering IR, or something like protective glasses against laser beam.
Last edited:
loving light
Newly Enlightened
They just look like sunglasses to me 
.
Joe
.Joe
silentlurker
Newly Enlightened
- Joined
- Sep 6, 2010
- Messages
- 107
1. If you blind a suspect from 'a mile and a half away' what can you do then? Charge him really fast and handcuff him? This is a short range weapon only.
2. Why not just give out really bright flashlights and use those?
2. Why not just give out really bright flashlights and use those?
Last edited:
You are probably right. We can see that they test the laser on a woman not wearing glasses. The LEO put is sunglasses on to check how much it can dimm the light, as the laser is a type that doesn't damage eyes...at least i hope so for them.They just look like sunglasses to me
How are they proving beyond a lawsuit's standard that these are totally safe? The downside of a only few cases or retinal damage, backed by an ophthalmologist exam could be devastating for the victim, manufacturer, and agency using them.
R11GS
Newly Enlightened
Definitely very mixed feelings leaning towards negative on this. The way some police have caused so much negative press for 'aggressive' taser use, that results in minor burns and even worse case scenario, someone in the hospital hooked up to an EKG for a while to make sure their heartbeat is behaving properly, we're talking about something with the potental to blind someone. What about in a crowd/riot situation, and this gets deployed, possibly with poor trigger control, and a whole bunch of people get swept, what if one of those is say, a journalist taking pictures with a nice DSLR, besides a possibly roasted CCD, how much is going to get coupled into the poor guys face?
Just seems like a bad idea to be shining lasers in peoples face, I'm sure they wouldnt appreciate it if I did the same thing with my arctic III.
I would think that a rapid xenon strobe would be just as effective, maybe even more so due to it being broadband and affecting all the receptor cells in the eyes, and with a short strobe tube, not that hard to focus into the beam they want with the range they want.
Just seems like a bad idea to be shining lasers in peoples face, I'm sure they wouldnt appreciate it if I did the same thing with my arctic III.
I would think that a rapid xenon strobe would be just as effective, maybe even more so due to it being broadband and affecting all the receptor cells in the eyes, and with a short strobe tube, not that hard to focus into the beam they want with the range they want.
Steve K
Flashlight Enthusiast
while working at a former employer, I spent some time in a group making/designing solid state lasers. They were looking for all sorts of applications, primarily in defense industries.
One prototype I saw was a M-16 modded with a laser instead of a barrel. The application was non-lethal crowd control from a distance by temporarily blinding some of the key individuals. Interesting idea, but the idea was scrapped for reasons unknown to me. Now the defense folks have a nifty, highly focused GHz ray gun that heats you up in a painful but non-harmful (so far) method.
I suppose the main reason for having a range of up to 1.5 miles is that it keeps the crowd at a distance where the crowd can't use typical projectiles and weapons against the defenders. Of course, once the crowd figures out that they just need some laser googles or tin foil clothes, these deterents may be abandoned for more traditional and lethal methods.
As far as police go... seems like their opportunities for this sort of scenario are rather limited. Limited to the SWAT groups, maybe?
regards,
Steve K.
Midnight Oil
Enlightened
Are Class 4 lasers effective and legal for self-defense?
Not everyone is lucky enough to get a carry permit for a firearm, perhaps a strong enough laser, which can deliver physical pain and vision damage, could be the alternative?
I ask because I have a relative that was robbed at gun point, in front of his house, at 4 in the afternoon. There goes Oakland, California for ya. He worries about owning a gun, lest it gets stolen. Perhaps a personal laser is the answer?
Not everyone is lucky enough to get a carry permit for a firearm, perhaps a strong enough laser, which can deliver physical pain and vision damage, could be the alternative?
I ask because I have a relative that was robbed at gun point, in front of his house, at 4 in the afternoon. There goes Oakland, California for ya. He worries about owning a gun, lest it gets stolen. Perhaps a personal laser is the answer?
uk_caver
Flashlight Enthusiast
Would a laser be much use in that kind of situation?
I guess one just might be usable if someone makes their intentions clear when they're a good distance away, or if you end up running away from an closer encounter with enough of a head start to turn, get the laser in position and have a decent chance of getting a disabling shot in.
However, if the first time you're aware of someone's intent is when they're up close with a gun, how do you get an opportunity to use a laser without significantly increasing your chances of being shot?
R11GS
Newly Enlightened
I didn't see anything at that link that answers questions of possible retinal damage.
If you plug in numbers, it will give some data in the "REPORT" section. One important one is for NOHD (Nominal Ocular Hazard Distance).
E.g. plug in 532nm CW, 200mW, 0.5s exposure, 1mm beam diameter, and say 5mrad divergence. That will give you a NOHD of about 3m. So while far from the whole story, it's saying essentially if you are more than 3m away, a 0.5s dose of this will not give you retinal damage.
Start tweaking the divergence and you can see how this is pretty much directly linked to the NOHD for a laser used this way....
Midnight Oil
Enlightened
Well, the same can be said of carrying a firearm. You must beat them to the draw.
The key is one must stay alert, and spot a possible threat before it gets too close, then have weapon in hand and ready but still concealed. Actually, if it's a laser, you can just take it out; the escalation is not as obvious, and if you're wrong about the person or people approaching you, you won't scare them they way you would pulling out a gun. Start moving and positioin yourself so there is an obstacle between you and the suspects. The point is to keep your distance. If they get the jump on you, then unless you're special forces or something, who is trained in close range combat and disarming, you don't stand a chance.
This is all assuming that, if you do decide to use the laser, a quick shake of the beam in their faces will induce enough surprise and pain to drive them away, most important of all, not allow them to reach for their weapons. This is part of my question, how effective is a Class 4 laser at inducing instantaneous pain and disorientation?
The advantage of having the laser is that, I think, the user will have less hesitation using it, because it is less likely to kill compared to using a firearm.
The dangers in Oakland, California is obvious, if you can spot them early.
The key is one must stay alert, and spot a possible threat before it gets too close, then have weapon in hand and ready but still concealed. Actually, if it's a laser, you can just take it out; the escalation is not as obvious, and if you're wrong about the person or people approaching you, you won't scare them they way you would pulling out a gun. Start moving and positioin yourself so there is an obstacle between you and the suspects. The point is to keep your distance. If they get the jump on you, then unless you're special forces or something, who is trained in close range combat and disarming, you don't stand a chance.
This is all assuming that, if you do decide to use the laser, a quick shake of the beam in their faces will induce enough surprise and pain to drive them away, most important of all, not allow them to reach for their weapons. This is part of my question, how effective is a Class 4 laser at inducing instantaneous pain and disorientation?
The advantage of having the laser is that, I think, the user will have less hesitation using it, because it is less likely to kill compared to using a firearm.
The dangers in Oakland, California is obvious, if you can spot them early.
uk_caver
Flashlight Enthusiast
Even if someone looks potentially suspicious, in an environment where a lot of regular people might also look potentially suspicious, I'd wonder what particular signal causes the laser to be actually pulled out or used, and at what point in a criminal encounter such signals are likely to happen?
Even if the laser didn't look much like a gun in daylight, I'd wonder how the act of aiming one even without using it might look in lower light levels, or from a distance.
Also, with some handguns having laser sights, to an onlooker, it may look like someone with a laser-assisted firearm targeting someone else.
I'd also wonder, if such devices were widely available, how often they might get used to facilitate crime, rather than defend against it.
If they're non-lethal and incapacitating and don't leave a forensic trail, I can think of all kinds of nefarious uses for them.
They might well also be used by people not too bothered about causing retinal damage.
Even if the laser didn't look much like a gun in daylight, I'd wonder how the act of aiming one even without using it might look in lower light levels, or from a distance.
Also, with some handguns having laser sights, to an onlooker, it may look like someone with a laser-assisted firearm targeting someone else.
I'd also wonder, if such devices were widely available, how often they might get used to facilitate crime, rather than defend against it.
If they're non-lethal and incapacitating and don't leave a forensic trail, I can think of all kinds of nefarious uses for them.
They might well also be used by people not too bothered about causing retinal damage.
Midnight Oil
Enlightened
What you're describing is in a way what is happening with guns in parts of the US. The bad guys have them but it's difficult for law-abiding citizens to get them. If guns cannot be taken off of the streets, and in the case of Oakland, which is plagued by budget problems, necessitating downsizing of the police force, responding to criminal activity in kind, by arming responsible citizens, may be one of the options.
In some parts of this country, not unlike some other places in this world, nothing might change unless enough of the right people, be they perpetrators or victims, have died. Sorry I sound bitter.
Last edited:
You said "if guns cannot be taken off of the streets" but at the end you suggest to put more guns in the streets, "by arming responsible citizens".
Do you really think that responsible citizens with guns will going to act as a deterrent ?
If more guns on one side means more guns on the other side, then this is not what we might call a solution. This is nothing more than a build up of violence.
Most sociological studies show that poverty is one of the most important factor generating criminality, and criminality is a symptom, not a cause.
Reduce the symptoms do not reduce the causes.
Build schools, reduce poverty, create employments, etc, and you will reduce criminality.
Give more guns, even to responsible citizens and there will be more "death by firearm"...in both sides.
Sorry for the digression.
Last edited:
uk_caver
Flashlight Enthusiast
Maybe there are areas it's best not going into.
It's possible for reasonable people with all kinds of viewpoints to find evidence supporting their views on gun use/ownership, and for reasonable people to be fairly passionate about a particular stance.
Chances are that few minds would be much changed even with an extensive discussion.
On the tech side, we could ponder about the practicality of a particular device, and think of possible upsides and downsides, but maybe we're best to stick more to brainstorming and wondering, rather than coming to solid conclusions.
Though I might have hunches, I might have have firm idea what the overall benefit balance of a particular device might be in practice.
It's just that, with my engineer's mind, I do tend to wonder about possible downsides to an idea even if I can't necessarily always quantify them.
It's possible for reasonable people with all kinds of viewpoints to find evidence supporting their views on gun use/ownership, and for reasonable people to be fairly passionate about a particular stance.
Chances are that few minds would be much changed even with an extensive discussion.
On the tech side, we could ponder about the practicality of a particular device, and think of possible upsides and downsides, but maybe we're best to stick more to brainstorming and wondering, rather than coming to solid conclusions.
Though I might have hunches, I might have have firm idea what the overall benefit balance of a particular device might be in practice.
It's just that, with my engineer's mind, I do tend to wonder about possible downsides to an idea even if I can't necessarily always quantify them.
