US military fights negative perception of "pain ray"

[Lars77]

A "perception problem" regarding a weapon launching an invisible pain ray.

Too bad, cause that sounds like a purely good thing....

[annabanana]

1. A perception problem? A PERCEPTION PROBLEM?!?

("yeah, we can fix that in marketing&quot

[Lars77]

2. It´s just fascinating isn´t it?

It is now almost completely impossible to tell where the military ends and the corporate world begins, seeing as they both talk the exact same language.


Also did he say that the weapon was developed by the military and that they are sad noone will buy it?

[freshwest]

3. The Koch brothers might buy it push those nasty protestors away...

[freshwest]

4. Yep, that's all it is. Now shut up and go home, folks. Or else.

[customerserviceguy]

7. Calls to mind the adage

"It's not a bug, it's a feature!"

[freshwest]

5. Love the way this guy parses words, getting technical. First they start by experimenting on people

In foreign countries. Then they put out these news stories, because this one was on Fox years ago, to desensitize people at home to accept the same thing.

As Boss Tweed was reputed to have said, 'You can always hire half the poor to kill the other half.' This is not funny, but then it never was. They may find plenty of corporate buyers, just like they have for drones.

You tax dollars at work. But not working for you. Sigh.

[unhappycamper]

6. IIRC, they had this toy in Afghanistan.

Never used it because it will not win the 'hearts and minds' debate.

The Boston PD had one towed on a trailer at Dewey Square (at least) once when they showed up in force. Again, never used on civilians in Boston.

[freshwest]

8. Pain compliance on American citizens gets go ahead by court:

Court OKs Repeated Tasering of Pregnant Woman

A federal appeals court says three Seattle police officers did not employ excessive force when they repeatedly tasered a visibly pregnant woman for refusing to sign a speeding ticket.

A lot more at the links:

http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2010/03/pregnant_woman_tasered/

http://current.com/community/93748657_court-oks-repeated-tasering-of-pregnant-woman.htm

If for some reason people think this can't happen to them, or can't feel any empathy for this woman for whatever reason, just try to imagine it happening to someone that you love and care about.

In the past when given a ticket, while I had to show ID and insurance, I had the option not to sign the ticket. The LEO said that would not change the process of the ticket and a warrant if I didn't deal with it. In the article, it says that at the time, not signing a ticket was not an arrest-able offense.

[cstanleytech]

11. That case is so messed up.

Unless she was threatening the officers with a weapon and or trying to escape they should not have been using tasers on her and instead they should have just simply arrested her and taken her in, hopefully the higher court will overturn the ruling.

[saras]

9. If any human ever perceives a "pain ray", that's a problem of perception

...that could be easily fixed with a war crimes trial for torture.

[JDPriestly]

10. This thing violates the human rights to free association, free speech and free assembly.

It should be banned by international law.

It is mind control. The heat focuses your mind on the heat and not on your purposes as a human being.

It deprives you of your God-given right to movement.

Gun-lovers, what good will your guns be in the face of this machine.

It's time for everyone to agree that this thing should not be used.

[cstanleytech]

12. How can a device not in use violate those rights? Show me where it says it in the constitution that.

But that aside, isnt it a better option to let the police have this as an option to use rather than say bullets? And by bullets I mean both the metal ones and the rubber ones which can cause a heck of alot of pain if not kill you if they hit you wrong.
Or are you advocating that the police also be disarmed as well?
An interesting concept if thats what you are proposing as they do that in england but would it be practical here in our country when the criminals have free and ready access to things like sub machine guns and other guns?
Or perhaps your proposing an entire ban on guns?
Again, an interesting concept.

[JDPriestly]

13. This device is intended for crowd control use.

It is not necessary and would probably not be effective for the apprehension of criminals. It does not paralyze the individual. It makes them want to move away from it. It would cause more chaos in a really large crowd than anything else.

We should not be controlling crowds in this way at all. The police should not be quashing demonstrations. They should be arresting the few people who do vandalism. Otherwise, we have the freedom to assemble and the police should respect that.

[cstanleytech]

14. Would you be more supportive if it was restricted to crowds that are resorting to violence though

such as throwing stones and or Molotov cocktails ?

[JDPriestly]

15. What would a drone do to a crowd throwing stones or Molotov cocktails?

If you are thinking of anarchists, taking pictures won't be of much use because they wear facial coverings.

It would be difficult to target just the person throwing stones or Molotov cocktails in a crowd. The risk of hitting an innocent person who is just exercising his First Amendment rights would be too great -- and would freeze speech as I said.

Further, the fear that drones were there -- just the fear of it -- would chill First Amendment rights.

There are better ways to deal with people throwing stones or Molotov cocktails -- such as effective policing. You want to arrest those people, not kill them on the spot. In order to arrest someone, you have to have a police officer on site with handcuffs. The drones won't help in that effort.

[cstanleytech]

17. I thought the discussion was about the heat ray device to disperse crowds? If not

then my apologies if it was though then I wonder if you were thinking of some other thread?

[JDPriestly]

18. The heat ray device could be used from inside a building to prevent people from coming in the window

or doors. You wouldn't need to actually point it at anyone. That would be one safe and reasonable use for it. Use it sort of like an electric fence to surround an area that you want to prevent people from entering. That would be safe and not encroach on anyone's rights.

But, on edit, someone will figure out a way to counteract the heat ray. Could take time and would be expensive, but someone will. Somehow, the cows get out. That's why my grandfather checked the fences all the time. Barbed wire, electricity, nothing works all the time.

[Enrique]

16. headline of the day