Police to test laser that blinds rioters

I hope they use a very large lens up front so that its spread out enough just after it leaves the end of the device and remains parallel. Knowing the way the world works though, they will make it so that it burns skin 1 foot away, burns out eyes at 10 feet, damages the eyes at 30 feet and is temporary blindness at the normal operating distance. Given to ANY one who would use it one some one else, normal operating distance will not really matter, just as the instruction booklet for tasers warns not to use them on the elderly and the very young and not for a long time either.

reply to post by DROKKR


People need to start asking police what they are doing to enforce the rights of protesters. It seems that every interaction between police and protesters is based in the idea that the protestors are doing something wrong.

this needs to be challanged in the public arena

Funny how quickly everything that gets made illegal for us to own gets turned around and used on us by the people who are supposed to be protecting us.

Mirrored shades

well you better do as you are told like good little slaves or face the wrath of the pigs

Originally posted by TupacShakur
Yeah it's not enough to deafen people and nearly burst their eardrums with LRADs, now they have to blind them with lasers too. :shk:

Would you rather them be shot with a real gun? Maybe they should use guns that shoot out flower pedals to break up riots


The whole point is to make it unpleasant as possible causing the rioters to retreat without having to kill them.

Originally posted by Fitch303

Originally posted by TupacShakur
Yeah it's not enough to deafen people and nearly burst their eardrums with LRADs, now they have to blind them with lasers too. :shk:

Would you rather them be shot with a real gun? Maybe they should use guns that shoot out flower pedals to break up riots

The whole point is to make it unpleasant as possible causing the rioters to retreat without having to kill them.

edit on 12-12-2011 by Fitch303 because: (no reason given)

Without having to kill them? wtf

No man should ever think he has to kill another man for rioting, no matter what they're damaging, that's just absurd.

Maybe if our leaders dealt with the real issues, instead of oppressing us people who's its effecting, then, and then only they wouldn't have to keep creating these weapons to hurt us 'softly' ...wtf...seriously, wtf.

You should get welding goggles and a survival mirror and practice aiming it right back at them eye level.

Originally posted by Fitch303
The whole point is to make it unpleasant as possible causing the rioters to retreat without having to kill them.

Yeah. It's hard to leech off the dead. If you don't have money to pay for the cops you are beat to death like Kelly Thomas. Why can't the cops get real jobs. Make something or do something of 'value'. They are worse than the gangster mobs. I would rather have Capone in charge.


Just for the record a protest is not a riot. The only rioters I see are the police dishing out the violence.

Originally posted by neotech1neothink
WE NEED AN ARMY OF ALREADY BLIND AND ALREADY DEAF RIOTERS (APOLOGIES TO ALL DEAF AND BLIND PEOPLE OUT THERE).

THE MAJORITY OF THE REGULAR RIOTERS ARE "SPIRITUALLY" DEAF AND BLIND

Yes cause lots of blind people are reading ATS

Why not just use Water Cannon with an Indelible INK in it so you can identify them later and all their friends will know that they are rioting scumbags !!

The Sound Cannons are also far more useable..surely..?


Maybe the Met should really go for some Flashbangs and Elephant Tranqulisers....... judging by the Obesity crisis loombing then that's probably the right amount of stuff required to 'take down' a charging looter...

PDUK

reply to post by DROKKR


This is nothing more than a waste of money and my guess is that were you to follow the money at a corporate level you would find corruption. No different than the implementation of airport scanners in the US which are manufactured by a firm run by Michael Chertoff, ex head of DHS.

Security is the new division of the military industrial complex. In linear terms, the growth of the "homeland security complex is far steeper than that of the military. At some point they will intersect and securing the homeland within a nation's borders will be a greater drain on national budgets than defense - in many countries it already is.

If they are interested in putting rioters and looters back, there is a method that was developed decades ago that works very well. Its called the water cannon.

The sound weapon is more humane.

I wouldn't want to be the guy holding that laser rifle. Some smart guy could zap your laser rifles lithium battery pack with a infrared laser and it would go BOOM.

A very big boom.

Will this be the start of directed energy warfare between Government and citizens? Nahhh.....British citizens are a bunch of pansies and will take what their government does to them.

Originally posted by Fitch303

Originally posted by TupacShakur
Yeah it's not enough to deafen people and nearly burst their eardrums with LRADs, now they have to blind them with lasers too. :shk:

Would you rather them be shot with a real gun? Maybe they should use guns that shoot out flower pedals to break up riots

The whole point is to make it unpleasant as possible causing the rioters to retreat without having to kill them.

edit on 12-12-2011 by Fitch303 because: (no reason given)

To the first question, yeah, I would rather be shot, again. I know what it feels like and I'll take that to being permanently blind.

On your comment, you can't retreat if you are blind, which means you'll probably be knocked down, trampled and end up in the hospital with life threatening internal trauma, broken bones, fractured skull or in the worst case, a broken neck or spine. Personally, I would rather be shot and survive than be blind or a paraplegic and survive, thank you very much. I realize people that are physically disabled do make in many cases more than valid, even sometimes exceptional contributions, but personally, I'd rather be dead.

Cheers - Dave