Slashdot Mirror
Homeland Security Funds LED Light That Blinds, Disorients
katzmeow writes "Ryand Singel's Wired blog notes that Homeland security has developed an LED flashlight that uses 'powerful flashes of light to temporarily blind, disorient and incapacitate people.' The idea is to use it to incapacitate people — 'arrest them' — on airlines, borders, etc. without using traditional weapons.
The company's president Bob Lieberman says the tool is perfect for confronting 'border jumpers.'
'You don't want to hurt or kill them, just take them into custody,' says Lieberman. 'With this, they don't need to know English to comply.' The 'light saber' can even be scaled up to bazooka size for subduing crowds."
that's why they invented suicide bombers.
thank God the internet isn't a human right.
I'm sure they are most likely just to blind themselves with it:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friendly_fire
On one hand, The police all around the world everywhere are going to be so humane that they would NEVER EVER fire into a crowd or relentlessly beat members of that crowd, because firing into it would be 'crazy' and it would be just too much trouble to beat up EVERYBODY in the crowd...
On the other hand, All police forces everywhere are so amateurish, so untrained and ignorant that they will automatically behave in the most irresponsible and dangerous manner possible when given a non-lethal alternative weapon.
Come on. You can't be so off-kilter as to actually believe such nonsense? You're just trolling, right? Right?...
Ok, just for you I will spell it out:
Some Police forces in the world are highly-trained and responsible members of free and democratic societies. For example, those in the US, Britain, Australia, Canada, France, Israel, Etc. These are the most likely recipients of this technology, and also the LEAST likely to abuse it or use it improperly due to citizen oversight via the democratic process.
Yes, it's not perfect, and yes there will be accidents. But there is no more percentage chance of accidents with a non-lethal weapon vs a lethal weapon. There is, however, MUCH less chance of DEATH if there are accidents with a NON-lethal weapon, vs a lethal weapon such as a gun. This is good for both citizens AND the Police, as a Non-lethal turned on it's owner is much less dangerous, and it is nigh-on impossible to intentionally kill someone with a non-lethal if it is used properly (which the aforementioned Police will undoubtedly spend many many many hours training to do.)
Now, SOME Police forces are NOT highly trained, and are NOT members of a Free and Democratic society. Some of them are jackbooted thugs who work for ruthless dictators such as Hugo Chavez, Mahmoud Ahmedinejiad (sp), Fidel Castro, Etc. These guys will do pretty much anything and everything they want to a crowd, regardless of the outcome, because there IS NO citizen oversight. Not only are these guys not likely to get Non-lethal weaponry, they don't want it. They'd much rather just shoot into the crowd and kill as many as they can. It's much easier to control the populace when they fear you. Of course, if they don't have guns, they will still gladly take the time to beat the living daylights out of you, as they think it's FUN. So they really can't be trusted at all, regardless of the weapons they wield.
See how it works now? Some police are good, some are bad, and you can generally tell which are which by the societies they live in. Painting ALL Police as lazy, ignorant, thuggish monsters who are just the arm of THE MAN trying to "keep you down" just smacks of fever-swamp loonyness and a generally crackpot outlook on life.
Oh, and let's not get into the differences between THE SUN, a gigantic nuclear blast-furnace bright enough to light up the entire damn SOLARSYSTEM and be seen from BILLIONS of miles away, and an LED light about the size of a pea that runs off a AA battery. Just like the "pointing a laser at your eye" argument the OP made, it's an apples and oranges comparison that is neither germane nor logical.
There really should be a down-mod for "stupid, illogical thinking" I think it would apply well to your post.
Official Heretic from the "Church of Global Warming". Proven right thanks to whistle blowers. AGW = Flat Earth Theory
Some police are good, some are bad, and you can generally tell which are which by the societies they live in. Painting ALL Police as lazy, ignorant, thuggish monsters who are just the arm of THE MAN trying to "keep you down" just smacks of fever-swamp loonyness and a generally crackpot outlook on life.
Uhh. Let me guess: you're white, live in a gated community, and Fox is your primary news source? For you to insult others by calling their thinking "stupid, illogical" is more than the kettle calling the kettle black; it's farce.
Police ONLY exist to protect the profits of the owners of society. Your racist separation of North/South police forces into good and bad only exists in your fever dreams--they are ALL pigs. (How about YOU thinking for a minute: why do people become police officers? What possesses one person to the degree that they feel compelled to police others? Money? Fear of their own demons getting out? Because they're crusaders who want to believe in some artificial rules created by long-dead rich people? THAT sounds like pathology to me; at the very least, the police are NOT psychologically sound by *definition*, regardless of where they live.)
A "generally crackpot outlook on life" is certainly preferable to the "racist, fascist, statist slave outlook" possessed by you, sir.
"The more corrupt the state, the more numerous the laws."--Tacitus, The Histories
No, it's not, but even back in the days of the Vietnam War, the US military extended the protections of the Geneva Convention to Viet Cong guerrillas, despite the fact that the were not explicitly covered.
Who would have thought we had more moral clarity in the 60s and 70s than we do now?