StunRay Incapacitates With a Flash of Light 431
Hugh Pickens writes "Scientific American reports that a newly patented method of non-lethal incapacitation can render an assailant helpless for several minutes by overloading the neural networks connected to the retina with a brief flash of high-intensity light. 'It's the inverse of blindness—the technical term is a loss of contrast sensitivity,' says Todd Eisenberg, the engineer who invented the device. The device consists of a 75-watt lamp, combined with optics that collect and focus the visible light into a targeted beam, which can be aimed like a flashlight to project a controlled beam of white light more than 10 times more intense than an aircraft landing light with a range as far away as 150 feet. Recovery time ranges from 'seconds to 20 minutes,' says Eisenberg. 'It's very analogous to walking from a very bright room into a very dark room.'"
...liabilities (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:...liabilities (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
all the maimings and deaths by electrocution
[citation needed]
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
You must be knew here. Citations are only needed if you're *defending* corporations or the government.
Re:...liabilities (Score:4, Interesting)
Yes, everyone who died during or shortly after being tasered [and generally more than once] were all wusses. With weak hearts, small bladders, and obviously in the middle of a cocaine high.
Because if it's been established that for most people without a heart condition can take being tasered a single time without lasting affects [which is what Taser International has established].
Of course, in real life, cops:
1) have no idea if the person they are tasering has a heart problem
2) believe if you can tase them once and they don't die, you can tase them as often and as much as you feel like it
For example, google "vancouver airport taser death" for an example of someone dying because:
-he was elderly
-he didn't understand english
-he didn't comply with instructions in english within 25 seconds [not that he was attacking anybody, he just didn't flop onto the ground immediately]
-he was tased 2-4 times [police claim they only got him twice, witnesses say 4, including twice after he was cuffed and on the ground]
Hell, even the "don't tase me bro" guy, who was a dick, got tased multiple times, despite being held face-down on the ground by 4 cops.
At least there is SOME accountability, in that the device supposedly keeps a record of when it has been triggered, and there is something either physically pressed against you or is shot towards you indicating who fired. I can't wait until they perfect the long-distance heat ray, also a 'compliance' device, which burns your flesh from a significant distance. You can just be wandering around in a crowd, and suddenly your skin [including your eyes] is burning. Not just the sensation, but is actually burning. And you have no idea how or why it is happening. And no way to prove afterwards that any specific individual or group did anything to you [other than yes, you appear to have second degree burns on your face and upper body].
Good times.
Re:...liabilities (Score:5, Informative)
"Excited delirium."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taser_safety_issues [wikipedia.org]
Re:...liabilities (Score:4, Funny)
"Berserker."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nordic_safety_issues [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Good idea. Let me know when the bullet salesmen aren't training the sharpshooters.
Re: (Score:2)
Good idea. Let me know when the bullet salesmen aren't training the sharpshooters.
..... what?
Re: (Score:2)
....you are aware that the company that makes the weapons and ammunition is also the company that sets the standard for proper training and handling, right?
Re: (Score:3)
Re:...liabilities (Score:5, Interesting)
Because Taser International is extremely litigious, going so far as to sue the government of B.C. for even studying ESW safety. Because Taser makes more money if the weapons are misused, and microeconomics therefore predicts that they will recommend overuse as a rational agent. Because they aggressively market their weapons as a non-lethal* general-purpose alternative and prove it with bait-and-switch like product demonstrations on physically fit, passive police officers.
There's nothing inherently wrong with tasers, as long as people understand what they are, how they work and how they should be used safely. Taser International is a god-awful company of evil people and their products will continue to be misused as long as they have a say in how they should be.
Re: (Score:3)
Tasers are a non-lethal general purpose alternative to going hand to hand with someone or shooting them. The chances of getting hurt, either the officer or the suspect, in a fist fight are much higher than when a taser is used.
Tell that to poor old Robert Dziekanski [wikimedia.org].
Re: (Score:3)
Re:...liabilities (Score:5, Insightful)
Bah.
The problem is that almost every police force in the world uses tasers *improperly*.
This is because of the lobbying, and the lies, all claiming that tasers are not dangerous. As a result, police do not assume there are risks with tasers. They use them indiscriminately, and in fact, many forces use them instead of physical restraint!
For example:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Dzieka%C5%84ski_Taser_incident [wikipedia.org]
Five RCMP officers, and a slightly agitated man... tasered TO DEATH. Hell, one of those officers, with their training, should have been able to 'take down' that man.
I've seen videos of people with traffic violations, who are perhaps a bit 'lippy' to police, being tasered. Absurd. That is the real issue. That is why the public dislikes tasers.
Tasers need to be labelled a dangerous weapon. They should only be used when an officer would normally use a gun. I'll say again, the ONLY time a taser should be used, is when an officer would use a handgun instead.
Re: (Score:2)
I'll say again, the ONLY time a taser should be used, is when an officer would use a handgun instead.
I disagree. An officer should ONLY use a handgun when the suspect is pointing a handgun at an innocent person. Tasers need to be more versatile than that. But I do agree with the general principle that Tasers should not be used as frequently as they are. But I would also like to point out that nearly every incident of improper (and often proper on a slow news day) garners tons of media attention, making a lot of people think that Tasers are misused a lot more often than they are. Your average police officer
Re: (Score:3)
I'll say again, the ONLY time a taser should be used, is when an officer would use a handgun instead.
I disagree. An officer should ONLY use a handgun when the suspect is pointing a handgun at an innocent person. Tasers need to be more versatile than that. But I do agree with the general principle that Tasers should not be used as frequently as they are. But I would also like to point out that nearly every incident of improper (and often proper on a slow news day) garners tons of media attention, making a lot of people think that Tasers are misused a lot more often than they are. Your average police officer is not ever going to consider wielding his Taser against someone who's being 'lippy' during a traffic stop.
I disagree with your disagreement. ;P
Seriously, however, there are reasonable times for an officer to use a gun, outside of what you've listed above. For example, when it is reasonable that the officer was threatened in a manner warranting it. EG .. one officer, two large assailants, refusals to back down by the same assailants, etc.
Or, officer is a 5'2, 100lb woman (we have those here), and she is being approached by a 6'2, 250lb man.
So, when I look at it in that context, I think that tasers should only
Re: (Score:2)
I understand the pitfalls of anecdotal evidence as much as anyone, but it turned me into a newt.
Re: (Score:2)
you are using a computer so you must have gotten better.
unless you are telling me there are newt who twit tweets.
Re: (Score:2)
Only by uninformed basement dwellers, anyone who's been even casually following "the news" for the past five years would know it's true.
Re:...liabilities (Score:4, Insightful)
Only by uninformed basement dwellers, anyone who's been even casually following "the news" for the past five years would know it's true.
That's the problem. "The news" broadcasts controversial events and propaganda and anecdotal evidence and videos of stupid hippies yelling at cops because they hate cops and unruly college students refusing to comply with peace officer demands at public speaking events and then whining when they get tazed. That's all I've ever seen on "the news". How about some actual data? How about some real statistics? Here's an irl scientific study which stated that out of the nearly 1000 cases of Taser use studied, 99.7% resulted in minor to no injury (as in, fall and scratch yourself on the concrete or similar), three hospitalizations, and two deaths which were found to not have been the result of Taser use: Taser Medical Safety: the state of the science - William P. Bozeman, MD, FACEP, FAAEM (PDF of a slideshow presentation made at University of Florida) [ufl.edu], Study: Tasers are safe to use - Physorg [physorg.com], Independent studies could answer questions about Tasers [mnsu.edu]. I can't seem to locate a published record of that particular study, but here is another paper by Dr Bozeman that compares Tasers to other methods of incapacitation: Medical Aspects of Less Lethal Weapons [ispub.com].
Your turn.
Re: (Score:2)
I can't seem to locate a published record of that particular study
Obviously, I posted three links that were published records of that study. I mean an actual paper published in an actual medical journal. All that I can find in Google are the thousands of articles from "the news" about the study that have better PageRank than the actual text of the actual medical paper.
Re: (Score:3)
"That's the problem. "The news" broadcasts controversial events and propaganda and anecdotal evidence and videos of stupid hippies yelling at cops because they hate cops and unruly college students refusing to comply with peace officer demands"
You've got to be kidding me. At least here in the US the media is highly biased toward law enforcement, establishment, and the entrenched powers at be. Fox is openly biased and openly broadcasts this sort of propaganda and the other stations like CNN pretend to be fai
Re: (Score:2)
Re:...liabilities (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
So you were just hanging out and decided to go down and see the riots and got tased eh?
Uh huh.
Re:...liabilities (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:...liabilities (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
Police agent provocateurs are present at every major protest. It's an open secret, one that the media usually remains silent about.
Re: (Score:3)
I just looooove how you automagically presume that a protest is a "riot".
Re: (Score:2)
The whole point is that police use tazers as if they were non-lethal, not as a substitute for shooting in the head. As in: "This guy's not enough of a threat to assassinate him, so let's just taze him to get things under control. Oh shit, we just assassinated him."
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:...liabilities (Score:4, Insightful)
Then they ought to treat you like a responsible nonviolent citizen until they figure it out. I'd have a hell of a lot more respect for police if they did this.
This should never be justification for initiation of violence.
Re:...liabilities (Score:5, Insightful)
I know, right? I mean, what kind of commie, hippie loser came up with the name "military-industrial complex" anyway?
Probably some leftist liberal trying to assert his homosexual agenda on the rest of us.
What a concept: "military-industrial complex". Sheesh!
Re: (Score:3)
I know, right? I mean, what kind of commie, hippie loser came up with the name "military-industrial complex" anyway?
For all those who do not know, this [wikipedia.org] is a good place to start. His fears are neither unfounded, nor unfullilled.
Re:...liabilities (Score:5, Informative)
i'm confused
this is either a whoosh on my part or people don't know about eisenhower's famous speech
everyone should read eisenhower's farewell speech
http://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/dwightdeisenhowerfarewell.html [americanrhetoric.com]
here's an excerpt, but the whole thing is extraordinary and prescient and should be mandatory slashdot nerd reading
eisenhower, on the flip side, was the guy who put "in god we trust" as the motto of the usa and "under god" into the pledge. boooooo. i understand he was a religious guy, but he completely screwed up the whole separation of church and state. like any man, brilliant and some respects, moron in others
http://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/president-eisenhower-signs-in-god-we-trust-into-law [history.com]
Comment removed (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
I hope you're being sarcastic. There's no reason to bring race into this.
Who's bringing race into this?
brother (plural brothers or (archaic) brethren)
Noun
1. Son of the same parents as another person.
My parents love me and my younger brother equally, even though he is adopted.
2. A male child descended from the same parents.
He's not a real brother. He's adopted.
3. A male having at least one parent in common with another (see half-brother, stepbrother).
4. A male fellow member of a religious community or church.
5. Someone who is a peer, whether male or female.
Re: (Score:3)
"A brother" (without greater specificity) is almost always the description of one mormon guy by another.
Maybe you are thinking of Brotha?
Kind of like this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ty3SArUjgvQ [youtube.com]
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:...liabilities (Score:5, Interesting)
But they are used as offensive weapons to enforce compliance by most police departments.
And it is so much less paperwork to fill out if you enforce compliance with a taser, as opposed to if you actually had to beat the fucktard's as with your billy club, ASP or baton.
I personally have seen an inmate hit with a taser, and then get beat because he refused to lay stils ordered.
Ignoring the fact that the CO with the taser kept jolting him, which lead to muscle contractions, which lead to four other COs hitting him with 4' long hickory riot batons.
This went on for almost 5 minutes until a Lt showed up, seen me and a co-worker obviously writing down the names of the officers involved.
Re: (Score:3)
Police officers should just be held to the same laws as everyone else.
An emphatic NO to that. Knowing the law is THEIR job, not mine, so if I do some minor screwup, maybe I can get a slap on the wrist, but they shouldn't. And a lot more important, if you do something to a cop, you get added sentencing versus doing the same thing to Joe Blow. So a cop doing something illegal to you should get added sentencing. Seems only fair to me.
Re: (Score:3)
Yes, we, America, we're the bad guys.
Wait a minute, I'm pretty sure there's been a lot more pure evil in the past 100 years coming out of Europe, Asia, and Africa than America. Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, christ, do I need to go on? Compared to all that, AMERICA is the bad guy? So.. how about we kill like 25 million people today, does that mean we get a pass in your book for it 10 years from now? No? Hmm.
Australia..... you guys get a pass.
South America, nobody really cares, sorry..
Re: (Score:2)
...and what about the "liabilities" that come with using lethal force (aka your sidearm) to incapacitate a criminal? Isn't this much better than say, firing off a round into someones leg?
The only thing that worries me is what the target may do when all of a sudden he's disoriented. What if his gun is drawn at the officers (or civilians) when he's disabled? TFA says most victims "freeze", but I don't see how inverse-of-blinding light would make your entire body stop working. What if the victim starts bli
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
...and I'm sure the long term effects of overloading your sensitive, incredibly difficult and costly to regrow optic nerves to this degree are well known, and this represents no long term danger. right?
I'd rather go blind the traditional way - standing too close to the TV and touching myself (apparently).
Re:...liabilities (Score:4, Insightful)
Considering these weapons are meant to be used against us, or at least those of us who are so unpatriotic as to not be rich and powerful, I don't think the "tank drivers" have anything to worry about.
These are weapons for domestic use. Not for foreign entanglements.
Oh, boy (Score:2)
I'm sure this will end well...
safety? (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Mod parent +1 Punny.
isn't this is an old idea? (Score:4, Interesting)
I remember advertisements in magazines in the years before Tasers for a magic-sounding non-lethal weapon that would instantly incapacitate an attacker. The ads were vague about how the device worked, but I recall hearing (reading?) somewhere that it was a super-bright flashlight. Perhaps a strobe.
Maybe the difference is that it's effective this time.
Re: (Score:3)
Yeah, the one's I've seen in the past were based on strobing at a specific frequency that made you very disoriented and nauseous. Probably more dangerous for epileptics but they also wore off more quickly. I'd be worried about permanent damage from something that takes 20 minutes to regain your vision.
Re: (Score:2)
Ask anyone who grew up in the 70s and 80s. Bright strobe lights in dark dance halls. You couldn't see anything when you first walked in.
can I avoid the stun effect... (Score:2, Interesting)
...by wearing sun glasses?
Clancy? (Score:5, Interesting)
Didn't Tom Clancy use this in one of his novels to blind the Japanese pilots like 15 years ago?
Re: (Score:2)
IIRC he got the idea from a military research project the Brits have done back in the late 80's.
Re:Clancy? (Score:4, Informative)
And the Brits got it from Alfred Hitchcock's "Rear Window"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kz06t7PGD-E [youtube.com]
--
BMO
Re:Clancy? (Score:5, Informative)
In "Debt of Honor", Clark and Chavez blind the pilots of a Japanese AWACS. They also use it several times to incapacitate guards. Their device was a 1kW light flash though, so I suppose this new invention is a bit more efficient.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
In "Debt of Honor", Clark and Chavez blind the pilots of a Japanese AWACS. They also use it several times to incapacitate guards. Their device was a 1kW light flash though, so I suppose this new invention is a bit more efficient.
Has anyone checked Clancy's recent novels to see how their retinas look like after all this time ?
Flash blindness (Score:2)
The brief pulse of extremely bright light from a nuclear explosion would cause "flash blindness," which sounds like the same thing.
That's why everyone was always putting on goggles in the old newsreels about nukes.
Re: (Score:2)
That's why everyone was always putting on goggles in the old newsreels about nukes.
I thought it was to prevent permanent damage due to the ultraviolet light, much like staring at an electric arc welder?
Re: (Score:3)
Probably a little different. The reason everyone put on goggles in the old newsreels was that the UV from the explosion would blind you. The visible light probably wouldn't do you much good either, but the UV was the real killer.
Am I missing something? (Score:2)
The summary and article seem to be implying this is more clever than it is.
No, I think it's just blindness, albeit temporary. You're not really "overloading the neural networks", you're just flashing a bright light in someone's eyes. Unless you're doing something very clever with that flash of light that makes it more effective than just a normal bright light...
Re: (Score:2)
This thing doesn't stop you madly swinging your arms about until your eyesight comes back, which I think will be a pretty common response.
Infantryman, OK. tank driver or attack heli pilot, not so good. Civilian driver, not good.
I wonder if its been patented? Rednecks have been shooting deer at night from the back of pickup trucks by pointing a floodlight at the deer, which makes it freeze, since... I donno probably about one night after the floodlight and/or pickup truck was invented. Probably the part he is patenting is doing this process while NOT drinking beer and NOT listening to country music.
I'm selling a counter measure (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
In protest of people whining about tasers (Score:5, Insightful)
In protest about people whining about tasers, I propose we take tasers, batons and bean bags away from the police. Also since cops don't wear running shoes, and they're given guns, the guns should be used instead of chasing. So any one resisting or trying to run away, you will be shot and you will be killed.
If force needs to be used, make sure its as lethal as possible.
Re:In protest of people whining about tasers (Score:5, Insightful)
They're police, not samurai (Score:4, Insightful)
Shooting someone for running away or resisting arrest is the stupidest suggestion I've ever heard. Spend a little less time watching Cops and read more about abuse of power, wrongful arrest, and unarmed shootings by police because of "self-defense".
Giving any people that sort of power will guarantee a rash of "necessary force". Dead people can't argue.
Like a stun/flash grenade? (Score:2)
The British SAS and various other counter-terrorist/hostage rescuers and other Secret Squirrels have been using these for years: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stun_grenade [wikipedia.org] . When storming some nasty hornet's nest, toss in a couple of these in first. A device that causes permanent blindness is forbidden by the Geneva Conventions.
But this thingy has a longer range, so that you do not have to be in throwing range. But I am afraid that these devices will fall into the wrong hands . . . like the lasers that c
What's old is new (Score:5, Informative)
I saw this as a kid in Looker.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Odj86eBenWk&feature=related [youtube.com]
One degree beam width? (Score:3)
The adjustable beam is typically one degree wide
So for this to be effective, you have to aim fairly precisely at someone's eyeball. Presuming they aren't cooperating by standing stock-still with their eyes open and looking at you, the chances of managing a "hit" before they do whatever it is you would prefer they didn't must be quite small.
Although the article doesn't say: the assumption is that this would be a hand-held weapon, much like a taser or revolver, so the operator would need even more luck at hitting their intended target than with (say) a vehicle mounted or sandbagged device. Also, those configurations wouldn't have the flexibility to "control" multiple people in a fast developing situation.
If this ever gets into development, I think I'd invest in a pair of laser-protection goggles and a large mirror if i ever felt tempted to put myself in a location with somehting like this would be used against me.
Re: (Score:2)
The angular diameter of the full moon (or the sun) is just about half that, and I think you'll find that is plenty large to paint a face quickly and easily.
The goggles do nothing (Score:4, Informative)
For an example of how this works, go into a mostly dark room with a camera. Have a look around. Turn on the camera, look straight into the flash as you fire it. Have a look around again.... Your wide-open pupils just let the full force of the flash in before you could blink, every receptor on your retina just fired, and it's going to be a few minutes before you can see anything again.
With a high enough power light source, this works just fine in daylight. I know this because I've flashed myself with a MIG welder - It was just a brief flash as I flicked the trigger at an inopportune moment, but the center of my vision was completely blank for several minutes. Simply turning off the machine and finding a safe place to sit down to wait for my vision to return was a challenge. I would have been screwed in a melee.
Anyway, no, goggles won't save you. If it's white light, you can't filter a narrow band like laser goggles. When welding with a shade 10 filter, when the arc is on, you can see what you're working on OK, but the arc itself is just white, completely clipping at the top of your eyes' sensitivity. When you turn the arc off, you're blind if you're indoors unless you have a 150 watt light inches away from what you're looking at. Outdoors you can just barely see what's going on, but at many angles the reflections of light leaking in from behind you overwhelm your forward vision (like with glossy screen laptops used outdoors, but worse). Using those kind of lenses will leave you blind anyway - they wouldn't need to flash you. Anything less and you'll still be vulnerable to the flash.
What? No MIB Prior Art? (Score:2)
I am surprised and shocked that there are no comments here about the neuralizer from Men In Black.
Re: (Score:2)
I am surprised and shocked that there are no comments here about the neuralizer from Men In Black.
We were going to comment about the "Flashy Thing", but ...we forgot. Um, what was I saying again?
Re: (Score:2)
Assailant? 150 feet away? (Score:2)
Just wait for the next G20 or G8 conference (Score:2)
The police will manufacture a way and reason to test this puppy out there without any doubt. Just like they did in Toronto when they gave the police ample opportunity to train in using all the new toys they bought them - without any justifiable reasons required.
We may say we support democracy here in North America (I am Canadian) but we don't really, because when people go out in the streets to protest and make their opinion known, we arrest them without a warrant and treat them worse that we are allowed to
Oh, wait... (Score:2)
Thank god nobody has thought to invent something to counter this. Something like a set of dark lenses that could fit in front of the human eye. Or perhaps even lenses that could darken in a tiny fraction of a second, or allow only light of a certain polarity to enter.
You might even want to attach a catchy name to such devices. Something like "Polaroid" or "Rayban".
Re: (Score:2)
Well, this is a patent for a physical machine, so the patent is probably on the mechanism they used to concentrate the light, rather than the idea "shine light in people's eyes to stun them." "Device" patents tend to be a lot more reasonable than software patents.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Faaaaar from new. It was also a key plot point in the 1981 movie "Looker," starring Albert Finney & Susan Dey.
They shine this thing at you, and you can't see anything but Susan Dey? I predict a lot more civil disobedience coming.
Re: (Score:2)
Sorry, that's why it has been so long in the making. The new model isn't called the "Kathy Bates" without a reason.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Force against civilians (Score:2)
countries in africa, asia and the middle east do use their lethal weapons 'at home' to preserve the power of the current regime and have done for a long time. In spite of the success of some of these 'revolutions' in recent months (Egypt, Tunisia) I can't see that changing much.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The military already knows.
From wikipedia:
"A stun grenade, also known as a flashbang, is a non-lethal weapon. The first devices like this were created in the 1960s at the order of the British Special Air Service as an incapacitant.
These grenades are designed to temporarily neutralize the combat effectiveness of enemies by disorienting their senses. The flash of light momentarily activates all light sensitive cells in the eye, making vision impossible for approximately five seconds until the eye restores its
Re:Does not sound safe (Score:5, Informative)
A laser is very concentrated light, further focused by the eye, which is why it will cause burning damage to the retina.
This is similar to the flash-bang grenade. A very strong difuse source of light will drain your retina of the signal substance it uses to detect light, and it takes the body considerable time to produce new signal substance. Fire a camera flash in your own face and you can experience a mild form of the effect.
Thereby not said anything about the viability of the product. I doubt something that can be stopped with sunglasses will replace tasers any time soon.
Re: (Score:3)
Coherent light is focused to a particularly small area on the retina, which increases its local intensity by orders of magnitude. This thing is just bright. Both lasers and extremely bright light can permanently damage your eye, but lasers do it with far less power and far more quickly.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Any modern military can easily trample any insurrection if the gloves are allowed to come off. Just look at Libya before the west started air strikes or Iran any time in the past decade when they've had large protests.
The Libyan rebels would have been dead in a trench by now if not for NATO airstrikes.