Tuesday, December 30, 2008
Science Don't Phase Me, Bro!
Posted by Paul Constant on Tue, Dec 30, 2008 at 3:36 PM
In the near future, cops will be armed with Phasers. Seriously.
Pictured above is the PHaSR, the bad-ass "Personnel Halting and Stimulation Response" rifle that's just about ready for deployment. It puts the hurt on you by dazzling you with laser light, while also burning your skin with an infrared laser.
You hear "nonlethal" and you think "that's a great idea," and then they fucking burn your skin with lasers and you're still fucked.
Share via
2
Inflicting painful, scarring, possibly deadly burns on people who haven't been convicted of anything is what police work is all about.
6
What's to stop you from showing up to your favourite protest dressed in mirrorshades and a onesie made from mylar emergency blankets?
The real issue here is not that cops are being equipped with funky new rayguns. Previously, they had three levels of force: harsh language, thumpy sticks, and bullets. Now they have a new option to insert in there, and say what you like about it, tasers and phasers and microwave guns are a lot less lethal than bullets.
No, the big issue is that when you equip cops with new toys, they need to be trained in appropriate use. Tasers are being used as come-alongs, which is not appropriate use. This is not the fault of the weapon, but of policy and application. I had a friend who had a psychotic break and attacked three cops with a chain; he is now dead because none of them happened to be carrying a taser. One of the cops was running back to his car to get his taser when another cop fired five times. That's what tasers are for: disabling people who are immediately dangerous but don't need to be killed.
The real issue here is not that cops are being equipped with funky new rayguns. Previously, they had three levels of force: harsh language, thumpy sticks, and bullets. Now they have a new option to insert in there, and say what you like about it, tasers and phasers and microwave guns are a lot less lethal than bullets.
No, the big issue is that when you equip cops with new toys, they need to be trained in appropriate use. Tasers are being used as come-alongs, which is not appropriate use. This is not the fault of the weapon, but of policy and application. I had a friend who had a psychotic break and attacked three cops with a chain; he is now dead because none of them happened to be carrying a taser. One of the cops was running back to his car to get his taser when another cop fired five times. That's what tasers are for: disabling people who are immediately dangerous but don't need to be killed.
9
"Previously, they had three levels of force: harsh language, thumpy sticks, and bullets."
True. Now they have two: Torture and Murder. Unless you count the rare times when they torture someone to death.
I can think of a million nonlethal things I'd like to see done to the treasonous bastards who design and use these things against civilians.
True. Now they have two: Torture and Murder. Unless you count the rare times when they torture someone to death.
I can think of a million nonlethal things I'd like to see done to the treasonous bastards who design and use these things against civilians.
10
What ever happened to the sticky foam guns I saw on Discovery forever ago.
That's what the cops need: silly string.
That's what the cops need: silly string.
11
The unofficial reports from the use of this sort of weapon by the US in Iraq is that civilian corpses have been found that are cooked from the inside out.
Police have killed people using tasers in situations where they would not have normally used guns.
I oppose the development and deployment of this weapon as should you.
Police have killed people using tasers in situations where they would not have normally used guns.
I oppose the development and deployment of this weapon as should you.
15
@11. It's impossible for an infrared gun to cook somebody from the inside out. Infrared (IR) beams do not penetrate very far into an object because of their relatively short wavelengths (compared to microwaves or radio waves). Even microwave wavelengths don't penetrate much. Which part of a potato heats up first? It's sure as hell not the inside. IR beams will always heat the surface before the inside. A few exceptions are salt, oxygen, and nitrogen. Air won't absorb IR. Unless your skin is pure salt, you won't be cooked from the inside out.
Fun fact: just like oxygen, nitrogen, and salt are transparent to IR, some materials are transparent to microwaves. Good ceramics are transparent - a good mug of tea placed in a microwave will only have its water heated. Cheap-ass mugs made of the wrong kind of ceramics will burn your hand. Another example: liquid water will heat, but ice won't - it's transparent to microwaves. That's why you have to put meat on the defrost cycle. The microwaves have to slowly heat up the thin liquid layer on the outside of the meat first, then that heat needs to thermally transmit through the meat to melt the ice. The microwaves can't melt the ice directly. Ever try to cook a frozen piece of chicken in the microwave? You'll get crispy white edges with a frozen center.
Fun fact: just like oxygen, nitrogen, and salt are transparent to IR, some materials are transparent to microwaves. Good ceramics are transparent - a good mug of tea placed in a microwave will only have its water heated. Cheap-ass mugs made of the wrong kind of ceramics will burn your hand. Another example: liquid water will heat, but ice won't - it's transparent to microwaves. That's why you have to put meat on the defrost cycle. The microwaves have to slowly heat up the thin liquid layer on the outside of the meat first, then that heat needs to thermally transmit through the meat to melt the ice. The microwaves can't melt the ice directly. Ever try to cook a frozen piece of chicken in the microwave? You'll get crispy white edges with a frozen center.
17
@ 6 is right. A little mylar (or even aluminum foil) would go a long way.
There is pretty good review material in the Emergency Medicine academic literature about the use of tasers vs. physical immobilization for the violent individual (they are usually brought to an ER for medical clearance before going to central booking). While there are still fatalities, the taser has dramatically reduced the risk of sudden death that was seen so many times in patients prior to taser use. This is found even excluding death due to gunshots - restraint alone, even without chokeholds or inappropriate police behavior, is associated with incidents of sudden death especially in the mentally ill and stimulant-intoxicated. There's some debate as to why, but most think that the extreme amount of effort to get a frantically violent patient restrained, transported to the hospital, and give effective injectable sedation is much longer when no taser is used. The numbers are pretty solid.
Most taser-associated deaths that do occur are still associated with drug-abusing patients, often after police have attempted to restrain them first, so it's not totally clear-cut. There's a bit of uncertainty as to whether the cause of death is the taser or the restraint and drugs prior.
The potential for abuse is always there, and perhaps a bit more likely since police are less afraid of killing someone. But overall it seems like a net number of lives saved. Whether these roast-rays will be more or less effective/safe is uncertain.
One source below:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16997…
More...
There is pretty good review material in the Emergency Medicine academic literature about the use of tasers vs. physical immobilization for the violent individual (they are usually brought to an ER for medical clearance before going to central booking). While there are still fatalities, the taser has dramatically reduced the risk of sudden death that was seen so many times in patients prior to taser use. This is found even excluding death due to gunshots - restraint alone, even without chokeholds or inappropriate police behavior, is associated with incidents of sudden death especially in the mentally ill and stimulant-intoxicated. There's some debate as to why, but most think that the extreme amount of effort to get a frantically violent patient restrained, transported to the hospital, and give effective injectable sedation is much longer when no taser is used. The numbers are pretty solid.
Most taser-associated deaths that do occur are still associated with drug-abusing patients, often after police have attempted to restrain them first, so it's not totally clear-cut. There's a bit of uncertainty as to whether the cause of death is the taser or the restraint and drugs prior.
The potential for abuse is always there, and perhaps a bit more likely since police are less afraid of killing someone. But overall it seems like a net number of lives saved. Whether these roast-rays will be more or less effective/safe is uncertain.
One source below:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16997…
20
Comic books come to life.
Time to build our reflective gold shields, crystal ball orbs and gold lame outfits to thwart PHaSR cops.
If we cover ourselves in UPC barcodes, would the PHaSR gun be overwhelmed?
Time to build our reflective gold shields, crystal ball orbs and gold lame outfits to thwart PHaSR cops.
If we cover ourselves in UPC barcodes, would the PHaSR gun be overwhelmed?
Most Commented on Slog
-
Life and Death in a Recliner in South Carolina by Dan Savage
-
Pit Bulls! by Dan Savage
-
Becoming a Man by Dan Savage
-
SL Letter of the Day: Hot & Drunk by Dan Savage
-
$2,600,000,000 by Dan Savage
-
All The Best Men Are Taken by Dan Savage
-
I Hate You, Garrison Keillor by Jen Graves
-
Unreal Americans by Dan Savage
-
Precious: Brutal New Classic or African-American Bruno? by David Schmader
-
Meanwhile in Vancouver by Dan Savage
RSS
Facebook
Twitter
Comments (20) RSS