# Police to be issued laser dazer weapon



## etc (Sep 10, 2010)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Od1xviF_ZjM


----------



## loving light (Sep 10, 2010)

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


----------



## Tally-ho (Sep 11, 2010)

loving light said:


> I think it is a bad ideal,did you see the one police officer with his sunglasses on?


That are not sunglasses but more probably glasses filtering IR, or something like protective glasses against laser beam.


----------



## loving light (Sep 11, 2010)

They just look like sunglasses to me .
Joe


----------



## silentlurker (Sep 12, 2010)

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?


----------



## roadie (Sep 12, 2010)

sheesh .... 300mw of green ..............

green lantern! ......

More info .....


----------



## Tally-ho (Sep 12, 2010)

loving light said:


> They just look like sunglasses to me .


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.


----------



## LuxLuthor (Sep 12, 2010)

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 (Sep 13, 2010)

It's all about the divergence....


http://laser-professionals.com/resources/easyhazweb.htm


----------



## CKOD (Sep 13, 2010)

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.


----------



## Steve K (Sep 13, 2010)

silentlurker said:


> 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?




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.


----------



## LuxLuthor (Sep 13, 2010)

R11GS said:


> It's all about the divergence....
> 
> 
> http://laser-professionals.com/resources/easyhazweb.htm



I didn't see anything at that link that answers questions of possible retinal damage.


----------



## Midnight Oil (Sep 14, 2010)

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?


----------



## uk_caver (Sep 15, 2010)

Midnight Oil said:


> 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?


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 (Sep 15, 2010)

LuxLuthor said:


> 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 (Sep 15, 2010)

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.


----------



## uk_caver (Sep 15, 2010)

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.


----------



## Midnight Oil (Sep 15, 2010)

uk_caver said:


> 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.
> ...


 
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.


----------



## Tally-ho (Sep 15, 2010)

Midnight Oil said:


> 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.



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.


----------



## uk_caver (Sep 15, 2010)

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.


----------



## Midnight Oil (Sep 15, 2010)

Tally-ho said:


> 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.
> ...


 
"The streets," as I used it, has negative connotations and does not mean physical streets; it's an environment of crime.

I support gun ownership as a possible means of *defending* against physical threats from criminal activity, not a solution to social problems, which calls for forces greater than anyone or anything can conjure up right now.

In peace, one can be a great thinker and contemplate what the "real" problem is, but in a real life encounter, your gun will be your best ally.


----------



## R11GS (Sep 15, 2010)

This seems to have become a political/philosophical discussion......


----------



## alpg88 (Sep 15, 2010)

Tally-ho said:


> 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.


 
i do know it will act as a deterrent, facts show states that have ccw have far less violent crimes than states that ban law abiding citizens from carrying firearms.



Tally-ho said:


> 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.
> 
> Reduce poverty (= create employments) and you will reduce criminality.
> ...


yes poverty in almost all cases=crime.
also there are generation of ppl that don't wanna see their life any other way, it starts in school.

reduce poverty, well i agree, but that is whole different topic, we just talking about not being a victim of the violent crimes, and be useful if violent crime happens next to you. 

bottom line more guns=less crimes, that is a proven fact.


----------



## wyager (Sep 15, 2010)

Tally-ho said:


> 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.



This is absolutely wrong. Violence has nothing to do with what the people have, it's how the people act. Switzerland has the highest civillian machine gun ownership rate in the world, and yet their crime is ridiculously low. 

Plus, giving more guns to the law-abiding citizens hardly effects ownership rates among criminals. Most criminals purchase illegally imported or garage manufactured weapons.

Criminals will have guns no matter what. The only thing that the government can control is whether or not law abiding citizens have guns. If you think that guns are difficult to manufacture illegally, you've probably never used one. 













etc.
As shown by the last graph, once criminals stop being afraid of getting shot for wielding a gun, they'll immediately start brandishing and using them more often.


----------



## derangboy (Sep 15, 2010)

Personally, I would not feel very confident about a device which can be thwarted by a hand or ball cap over the eyes. Since the laser is only effective if the target is looking at it, I think the application becomes very limited.


----------



## uk_caver (Sep 15, 2010)

Before people start throwing their own selected statistics around, it can be useful to understand what they're based on, what society they relate to, how things were defined, etc.
There can often be all kinds of confounding factors that make things other than they at first appear, even assuming the source of statistics is reliable and largely objective.

That is, if people (with any point of view) actually expect to change anyone elses point of view.

Otherwise, it just comes down to people digging up things to wave around to show how right they are, and all kinds of people, with all kinds of points of view can do that.

Personally, I can do without wasting time watching people do that.


----------



## Midnight Oil (Sep 15, 2010)

Perhaps restating my questions clearly and simply will bring this thread back to the original topic.:huh:

Is it illegal to carry a class 4 laser in California?

Will a class 4 laser induce immediate and sufficient pain, when shone in the face of an assailant, to incapacitate him from drawing his weapon and to drive him away?

Yes? No? Maybe?


----------



## R11GS (Sep 16, 2010)

Aren't there forums for you all to go waste time arguing political topics? What's next, Jesus/Allah/Bhudda/Ganesh jabber on _Candle Power Forums_?

Frankly I don't care one tiny bit about these political views from you all but they make it harder to get the information concerning the topic of discussion from the thread..... :thumbsdow






Midnight Oil said:


> ....Is it illegal to carry a class 4 laser in California?....




Try here:


http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/calawquery?codesection=all&codebody=laser&hits=20


I didn't spend time looking for whether it's illegal to carry - I don't live in CA. The first hit does show it's illegal to shine it at someone:



> 417.27. (c) No person shall direct the beam from a *laser* pointer directly
> or indirectly into the eye or eyes of another person or into a moving
> vehicle with the intent to harass or annoy the other person or the
> occupants of the moving vehicle.


I don't know where to find how incapacitating a laser is....maybe google is your friend for that!


----------



## uk_caver (Sep 16, 2010)

Looks like the Dazer Laser is class 3B (<500mW), and though it's supposed to be eye-safe, due to the spread of the beam, that does look like it relies on the correct focus range being set for a given target.

How eye-safe it might be with the wrong range set, and whether there may be other safeties isn't clear isn't clear from what I've read.
Maybe someone else knows more?


----------

