Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Russian Man Aims To Reinvent "Taser" Technology

timothy posted more than 4 years ago | from the hammers-are-cheap-too dept.

Technology 131

Lanxon writes "A Russian man is hoping to overhaul the technology within Taser-type weapons — transforming them from single-shot, short-range devices that stun for a few seconds, into more effective long-range, rapid-fire weapons — by modifying the wires and the type of shock they generate, reports Wired. Non-lethal weapon developer Oleg Nemtyshkin's design uses bare wires, rather than the insulated wires favored by Taser and other stun gun makers. These wires weigh only about one sixteenth as much as insulated wire, providing less drag on the darts and improved accuracy. Nemtyshkin demonstrated his bare wire technology with a prototype – 'Legionary" — in 2001. His latest version is the S5, and a video of the weapon in action shows it firing repeatedly — almost as fast as the trigger can be pulled."

cancel ×

131 comments

Thank you for your wonderful contribution... (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32304300)

...to humanity.

Re:Thank you for your wonderful contribution... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32304750)

Thank you for making a better way to silence this jerk [youtube.com]

Re:Thank you for your wonderful contribution... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32305250)

Don't taze me.... comrade!

Re:Thank you for your wonderful contribution... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32305306)

In Soviet Russia humanity contributes to YOU!

Re:Thank you for your wonderful contribution... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32305938)

Hey, in another 30 years maybe he'll feel bad about it and the world will get the Nemtyshkin Peace Prize.

Re:Thank you for your wonderful contribution... (1)

HyperQuantum (1032422) | more than 4 years ago | (#32306260)

Sarcasm sign UP!

(right?)

A few caveats... (1)

cognoscentus (1628459) | more than 4 years ago | (#32304306)

Might be beneficial as long as it doesn't fall into the (probably fair large) demographic of not entirely pathological serious criminals (i.e. those who intend only to stun rather than kill, as an end or a means to other crimes). Plus, this would be mostly applicable to users who were at risk of being shot or tasered themselves. The closer range taser would work well enough at close range for the rest. Feels there's a serious risk of this falling into the ASBO crowd for lulz...

Re:A few caveats... (2, Insightful)

indre1 (1422435) | more than 4 years ago | (#32304364)

What about people with weak hearts... They would survive one hit, but what if some triggerhappy cop gives 10 shots to a big person with a weak heart? Not so non-lethal anymore...

Re:A few caveats... (1)

XnR'rn (793753) | more than 4 years ago | (#32304386)

Well, even slow firing tazers aren't all that safe [wikipedia.org] .

Is it just me, or does this 'burst shock', that persists longer increase the danger involved?
I second this it sounds 'not so non-lethal anymore' motion.

Re:A few caveats... (1)

XnR'rn (793753) | more than 4 years ago | (#32304412)

From the article:
The Russian Institute of Biophysics at the Moscow State Research Centre has been experimenting with single shocks rather than a long series. Their aim is to have an effect that is "instant or nearly so", but that incapacitates the target for a prolonged period. In tests on animals they have shown that with the right sort of electrical pulse (frequency appears to be the key), a shock lasting less than a hundredth of a second causes an electroconvulsive reaction that knocks the animal out for 20 seconds. ...
Western researchers have not validated the safety and effectiveness of this type of shock, but there is known to be work on similar technology in the US. ...
Nemtyshkin's next project, the Leyden Gun, will deliver a short shock with lasting effects ... with a magazine of thirty rounds. The projectiles are simple needles rather than elaborate barbed darts, as they do not stick to the target but administer a single jolt from a high-voltage capacitor. ... The lightweight darts are effective out to 30 metres ... Longer range will make it harder to guarantee a hit, so the Leyden Gun can fire a burst of three shots with each trigger pull to improve the odds.
-----

Oh, sounds just wonderful. 3 hits with "a single jolt from a high-voltage capacitor" that "causes an electroconvulsive reaction that knocks" you out for 20 seconds, sounds much more non lethal and less dangerous to me! [/sarcasm]

Re:A few caveats... (3, Informative)

sznupi (719324) | more than 4 years ago | (#32304434)

That's their fault for allowing themselves to fall into "excited delirium" [wikipedia.org] .

Re:A few caveats... (3, Interesting)

Nurseman (161297) | more than 4 years ago | (#32305400)


What about people with weak hearts... They would survive one hit, but what if some triggerhappy cop gives 10 shots to a big person with a weak heart? Not so non-lethal anymore..

The correct term for these weapons is "less lethal". There is no such thing as "non lethal", Even a paperclip can be lethal in some instances. Bean Bag guns, pepper spray, tasers, have all caused death in some instances. The idea is to use the "least lethal" form possible.

Re:A few caveats... (4, Insightful)

PitaBred (632671) | more than 4 years ago | (#32306006)

The problem with that is that the "less lethal" weapons then get deployed more often, and the cops are held less accountable because they tried to use the "soft" weapons.

Re:A few caveats... (2, Funny)

TheLink (130905) | more than 4 years ago | (#32306078)

Would net-guns be better? I'm sure people can still be killed - fall down due to being tangled, break skull etc.

But between getting tased (you'd likely still falldown) and getting netted, I think I might pick the net. Might need special material to make it harder to cut through with a knife.

Carbon fibre jacket liners. (4, Insightful)

Kupfernigk (1190345) | more than 4 years ago | (#32304312)

That's almost all.

Mobs will be led by people with carbon fibre jacket liners and helmets. Innocent people will get killed. Given the ability of our own police to shoot innocent electricians, guys carrying chair legs, and kill innocent bystanders in demonstrations, presumably pour decourager les autres, this thing is bad news for civil liberties and brings closer the risk of retaliation against the police. It sounds to me like a perfect "unintended consequences" weapon.

Re:Carbon fibre jacket liners. (0, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32304384)

Mobs will be led by people with carbon fibre jacket liners and helmets.

So? They'll just make them illegal.

In Germany for example, it's illegal to protect yourself against police brutality, especially during demonstrations and protests.

This includes leather clothing, protection against tasers, protective googles, etc. These are all classified as weapons - defensive weapons but weapons none the less.

The last I heard (1)

Kupfernigk (1190345) | more than 4 years ago | (#32304436)

Riding motorbikes was not illegal in Germany. I suggest you point us to the precise bit of the German criminal code.

Re:The last I heard (3, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32304956)

17a, Abs. 1, Versammlungsgesetz
http://dejure.org/gesetze/VersG/17a.html
http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schutzwaffe

Better not run into police if they are in a bad mood and you're out with a few of your biking friends.

Re:Carbon fibre jacket liners. (1)

Joce640k (829181) | more than 4 years ago | (#32304476)

Just like in many places it's illegal to have reinforced doors on you house, etc., in case the police want to get in.

Re:Carbon fibre jacket liners. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32304588)

"In Germany for example, it's illegal to protect yourself against police brutality, especially during demonstrations and protests."
Actually it's only illegal DURING demonstrations/protests. Because you don't need protection, except when you are one of those "protesters", who express themselves by throwing stones, burning cars and beat the shit out of bystanders.

Re:Carbon fibre jacket liners. (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32305038)

Actually it's only illegal DURING demonstrations/protests.

Actually, this also includes any public event or assembly, during the event or on your way there; not only demonstrations/protests.

http://dejure.org/gesetze/VersG/17a.html

Because you don't need protection, except when you are one of those "protesters", who express themselves by throwing stones, burning cars and beat the shit out of bystanders.

Sounds good on paper. Unfortunately, cops more often than not are the ones who turn violent or incite violence, even during peaceful protests.

Re:Carbon fibre jacket liners. (1)

blackraven14250 (902843) | more than 4 years ago | (#32304842)

It's also illegal in some places for anyone to carry tasers, for cops and citizens alike.

New Jersey: The Land of Common Sense (In this particular case)

Re:Carbon fibre jacket liners. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32304872)

In Germany for example, it's illegal to protect yourself against police brutality, especially during demonstrations and protests.

This includes leather clothing, protection against tasers, protective googles, etc.

so googling "protective gear" would get you arrested? ;)

Re:Carbon fibre jacket liners. (1)

Dekker3D (989692) | more than 4 years ago | (#32305460)

only while there's some event going on somewhere in the country, apparently. so hey, it's perfectly legal on those other two days of the year!

Re:Carbon fibre jacket liners. (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32304446)

My pee pee smells like poo.

Re:Carbon fibre jacket liners. (1)

couchslug (175151) | more than 4 years ago | (#32304810)

War has collateral damage, and bystanders should seek cover in combat zones, riots included. It's a sloppy process, it must always be sloppy, and that means a few casualties. Tough shit. Yes, really. The demand for perfect precision cannot be met.

As for carbon helmets, etc, they may work on Tasers but they identify the wearer and won't stop rubber bullets and other less-lethal ordnance.

Re:Carbon fibre jacket liners. (1)

SideshowBob (82333) | more than 4 years ago | (#32306314)

War requires a declaration by Congress. Police are not authorized to wage war on the citizenry. It boggles that this even needs to be stated.

Re:Carbon fibre jacket liners. (1)

zmollusc (763634) | more than 4 years ago | (#32304984)

Well, it DOES actually work. I would never hang around a demonstration, carry a chair leg or seek Brazilian citizenship.

Re:Carbon fibre jacket liners. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32305674)

If carrying bricks in a demonstration isn't dangerous and a threat, please stand still while I throw a brick at your face. If carrying chair legs isn't dangerous, please stand still while I hit you with one.

I found your description of the "uintended" consequences of using carbon fibre jackets to provoke retaliation from police interesting.

Video? (1)

indre1 (1422435) | more than 4 years ago | (#32304326)

"His latest version is the S5, and a video of the weapon in action shows it firing repeatedly — almost as fast as the trigger can be pulled."

I'm half-blind at the moment, could anyone point me to the video?

Interesting, but... (5, Informative)

Nichotin (794369) | more than 4 years ago | (#32304340)

Although I think the technology is a bit interesting, I shrug every time I hear about these so-called non lethal weapons. In my head that translates into it is not lethal, so there is less of a barrier before it gets used (and from what I can hear these electroshock weapons are pretty dangerous after all anyway). I know culture is different in the USA, where the police carry guns. I live in Norway though, where law enforcement officers generally don't carry guns (!), except when they move out on criminals that are known to be armed. In the rare cases where they do use pepper spray, it sparks up debate in the newspapers. If they shoot someone, that definitily gets some attention. Electroshock weapons are not used here. The net result seems to be a non-violent society, where people feel they can walk amongst law enorcement officers without feeling alienated because they carry weapons of some sort.

Re:Interesting, but... (2, Interesting)

Nichotin (794369) | more than 4 years ago | (#32304390)

In my head that translates into "it is not lethal, so there is less of a barrier before it gets used" (and from what I can hear these electroshock weapons are pretty dangerous after all anyway).

There, fixed my own post with corrent quotes.

Another thing is that civilian ownership of such devices is not allowed here in Norway. I know that many people from other countries have another view on the right to defend themselves, but coming from this cold country with only five million inhabitants, I'd say "defend yourself from what?" We probably have some of the worlds highest rates of civilian firearm ownership, but having a police force that generally don't carry guns send a strong signal to the population that their government does not condone violence. Oh, and the life sentence here is 21 years, and you get parole after 16. This is why the police can even arrest murderers (most murders here are affection murders (in lack of a good translation), with a 98-99% rate of getting solved) without using weapons.

Re:Interesting, but... (1)

sznupi (719324) | more than 4 years ago | (#32304504)

And why this is so at your place...
Sure, "current societal realities" - but most importantly what has led to those?.

It almost seems like the answer is...cold, that you sort of mention. Because it does seem to a be a common feature of many places with cold (not the same as "harsh") climates. Not only working together to have means of surviving the long winter; also managing to not hate, not kill each other while being stuck through this winter in the same place with too many people? ;)
Well, at least after more southerly areas managed to come up with ways of defending against your summer excursions (those were good for regular venting, I guess; and gradual decline of them provided time to adapt for being stuck for most of the year with the same irritating people? ;) )

Re:Interesting, but... (3, Informative)

ascari (1400977) | more than 4 years ago | (#32304630)

Nice theory dude, but: The list of really cold places where you also have to fear the cops include Russia, most of China, Tibet, North Korea, many of the former Eastern block countries, many mountainous countries of central Asia, many countries in the Andes and so on.

Also, I'd venture that "being stuck with irritating people" is way down there on the list of reasons why people kill each other, behind more common motives such as financial gains, passion/jealousy, drugs, politics and so on.

Re:Interesting, but... (1)

hitmark (640295) | more than 4 years ago | (#32304720)

the cops in tibet are basically chinese military thugs.

Re:Interesting, but... (1, Interesting)

sznupi (719324) | more than 4 years ago | (#32304758)

That was mostly tongue in cheek, after all.

But you go a bit too far. Many of those examples actually sort of support what I said. Certainly Russia (yes!), the country - places where it's really cold had native and apparently rather peaceful populations, subdued by influx of...Russians, the ethnicity. People forget that "Russia" is a fairly recent construct, spanning very diverse geographic areas and many ethnicities (at least originally). Likewise Tibet, if Dalai Lama is to be believed. Andes, too, I guess. Easy influx of alien populations, and generally the area being...not remote enough, seems to change the odds.

And you don't look at "being stuck with irritating people" in suffieciently long timespans ;p. That there would be some violence is the point - it would lessen the chances of survival for such "communities" (when it's cold and isolated enough, long enough ;p )

Re:Interesting, but... (1)

Kijori (897770) | more than 4 years ago | (#32306426)

People forget that "Russia" is a fairly recent construct, spanning very diverse geographic areas and many ethnicities (at least originally).

Russia as a country, yes - but the area that is now Russia has been inhabited for a very long time and has not been peaceful for much of it.

Re:Interesting, but... (1)

Cylix (55374) | more than 4 years ago | (#32305658)

Don't forget people sometimes kill each other as a source of food.

I would like to see a thread of the strangest reasons why people kill each other.

Re:Interesting, but... (1)

hitmark (640295) | more than 4 years ago | (#32304792)

heh, the defense basically consisted of exporting christianity northwards, resulting in a civil war...

and i do wonder how long the police will remain unarmed, as armed violence seems to be on the rise (unless its the press making mountains out of molehills again).

Re:Interesting, but... (1)

LaughingCoder (914424) | more than 4 years ago | (#32304794)

Coincidentally, these "cold" places you speak of also have fairly homogeneous populations. Perhaps this is due to the climate which makes that geography less appealing to people from other climates? Regardless, I think homogeneity of the populace is the better predictor of low crime rates and non-violent societies. Of course I have no hard data to back this up; it's just something that I have noticed. If you think about it, this makes sense since most people are usually more tolerant of others who are like them than they are of people who are different.

Re:Interesting, but... (1)

hitmark (640295) | more than 4 years ago | (#32304888)

unless its the media making hot air (not unknown) you may be onto something, as there may be a rise in unrest as the population have a increasing percentage of "distant foreigners". That is, people you can visually say have their biological roots in a different nation.

Love got me in here and love got me out (1)

SteveFoerster (136027) | more than 4 years ago | (#32304544)

most murders here are affection murders (in lack of a good translation)

This sort of thing translates best as a country song:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EbVFbvePbD8 [youtube.com]

(Even if you don't normally like country music, this one's hilarious.)

Re:Love got me in here and love got me out (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32304604)

Take your tongue out of my mouth so I can kiss you goodbye.

Re:Interesting, but... (1)

hedwards (940851) | more than 4 years ago | (#32305762)

This seems strange to me, no Tasers, but firearms? That strikes me as a bit odd, as common sense would dictate that since firearms are for the distinct purpose of killing and destroying only and that Tasers are meant to try and avoid that, that you've got it backwards in your country.

Re:Interesting, but... (1)

ArsonSmith (13997) | more than 4 years ago | (#32306242)

Not really, if everyone caries guns then eventually the violent people will get weeded out. Sure you'll lose some good people on the way.

Re:Interesting, but... (2, Informative)

Sowelu (713889) | more than 4 years ago | (#32304522)

Theoretically (and according to regulations), in most places in the US, tasers are to be considered a direct replacement for standard firearms--that is, you ONLY get to taser someone if the alternative would have been actually shooting them in the shoulder or the leg to drop them. Period. The idea is that tasers are still a potentially lethal weapon...they're just LESS lethal than shooting someone in a non-vital spot.

I'm sure most departments and most officers follow those regs...but from all the news stories and lawsuits you see, clearly not all of them do.

Re:Interesting, but... (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32304738)

Officers always shoot for center mass. NEVER for an arm or leg. If they did aim for something other than center mass, they sure as hell wouldn't admit it. You shoot to "stop" and that means center mass. You also keep shooting till they comply (if you put 15 rounds in them and they are still standing and coming towards you, reload and put another 15 rounds into them). The one exception might be a hostage situation where the head was the only available target. If every body follows this policy it works out better when on the defense stand. Probably the best argument IMO against the tazer is that it's a poor and unreliable replacement for a firearm.

Re:Interesting, but... (1)

warrior389 (314070) | more than 4 years ago | (#32305158)

There's a show on now that follows Oregon police. I don't remember its name or the channel, but they show regular taser use. The police use the tasers to force compliance to their orders, not to defend themselves. Often the citizen isn't being agressive. So much for being a replacement to the firearm.

Re:Interesting, but... (0, Flamebait)

rubycodez (864176) | more than 4 years ago | (#32305906)

also, there are cases where police use it as instrument of torture, sometimes just for amusement.

Notice how very many kinds of police we have nowadays, and how we're being conditioned to accept their abuse, violation of body and privacy, and submission to their will without question.

Re:Interesting, but... (1)

Paxtez (948813) | more than 4 years ago | (#32306004)

I would doubt that is the case, I seriously doubt any cop would take a taser to a gun-fight, the range is limited, it is not as accurate, limited reload speed, etc. Tasers are normally used on the level below deadly force, the same level where bean-bag shotguns, batons or certain physical attacks might be. In theory these devices shouldn't kill, but they might. Theoretically, they are used when 'this person is actively trying to hurt someone'. But some areas might have tasers on the 'person is doing stuff to not be controlled, but it shouldn't really hurt anyone (running, balling themselves up, etc)' level.

BTW being tased isn't a big deal, it is not like on TV, after the 5 seconds, you are fine, you can hop right back up. That is the problem, a taser is a 'pain-compliance' tool, like pressure points, if someone wants to they can go right back to fighting, or at least resisting right after the 5 seconds, so the cop will use it again, etc. That is how you get stories of cops tasing someone 15 times, because (in theory) the person continued to resist 14 times.

Re:Interesting, but... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32304530)

I know one incident in Norway... Elderly woman had a heart attack, family called for an ambulence but instead cops showed up and handcuffed the paniced husband and wife and police also prevented the health team to help the elderly woman. When everything calmed down, the old woman was already death.

Re:Interesting, but... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32304702)

What a transformation!
So their children can say "My grandma carries a scythe and ferries souls to the nether!"

Re:Interesting, but... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32305480)

Are these "children" from Bodom?

Re:Interesting, but... (5, Informative)

Zumbs (1241138) | more than 4 years ago | (#32304570)

I live just south of Norway (in Denmark), and here the police carry guns. In the last decade, the Danish police have been shooting and killing a few citizens in questionable circumstances, but police officers have managed to get off the hook every time. A few years back this state of affairs were used to argue that the police should be equipped with pepper spray. The argument were that if the police had something between the nightstick and the gun, they might use that instead of the gun. That, however, did not happen. Police usage of guns have not decreased, but usage of pepper spray has exploded, and we have police officers spraying pepper spray into the faces of citizens who are sitting on their asses. The point here is that giving the police extra tools of this sort, as you guessed, means that the tool will often to be used in place of a less dangerous tool. I urge you (and your fellow countrymen/women) to fight hard to keep the police unarmed. It does not help much in fighting crime, it clears the field for adding more weapons to the police, and it is difficult to disarm the police at a later time. Not to mention that an armed police force breeds distrust among the *police* towards the dangerous citizens - why else would they have guns in the first place?

Re:Interesting, but... (3, Insightful)

Joce640k (829181) | more than 4 years ago | (#32304610)

The answer is to make all cops wear video cameras and record what they do.

Transparency/accountability is the best weapon against state oppression.

Re:Interesting, but... (1)

Zumbs (1241138) | more than 4 years ago | (#32304718)

Alas, only if the recordings does not "mysteriously" disappear or are edited to remove unfortunate incidents. And that the officers learn that crossing the line has an effect. Indeed, the usage of mobile phones with video cameras have put the Danish police in a pinch more than once. About a year ago, a police officer were recorded beating up a sitting female protester [youtube.com] . Notably, he kept hitting her when she got up and ran. Last I heard, he got of the hook.

Re:Interesting, but... (1)

hitmark (640295) | more than 4 years ago | (#32305022)

the age old question of "who watches the watchers".

Re:Interesting, but... (1)

Lehk228 (705449) | more than 4 years ago | (#32304628)

Did you guys import american cops? because those sound like american cops to me.

They are not "non lethal weapons" (1)

nurb432 (527695) | more than 4 years ago | (#32304922)

They are considered "less then lethal" since even a punch can kill you in the wrong situation.

Re:Interesting, but... (1)

noidentity (188756) | more than 4 years ago | (#32305018)

...why does this posting have such a useless subject line? Was it so hard to use something like '"Non-lethal" weapons lower barrier to use'?

Really? (1)

doug141 (863552) | more than 4 years ago | (#32305198)

The "result" of unarmed police is a non-violent society?

Re:Interesting, but... (1)

hedwards (940851) | more than 4 years ago | (#32305746)

They're not non-lethal, they're called "less than lethal" because they're not supposed to kill people when used properly. It does not mean that nobody will die, it just means that it's been designed to avoid that to the extent possible while still putting them down. Rubber bullets for instance are generally not lethal, however people have died as a result of being hit in the wrong spot. Freak accidents do happen, but they're meant for cases where the alternative would be whipping out a firearm or some other weapon that's designed to kill.

Man, tasers totally aren't dangerous enough (0, Redundant)

Arancaytar (966377) | more than 4 years ago | (#32304346)

Oh, I KNOW! I'll make it rapid-firing!

(Needs more dakka.)

Re:Man, tasers totally aren't dangerous enough (1)

Joce640k (829181) | more than 4 years ago | (#32304482)

...and long range!

Re:Man, tasers totally aren't dangerous enough (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32306454)

But even then, U.S. taser developers aren't behind in the game. And they have already found a better solution for this application. As where this Russian guy gets a tangled mess of wire attempting multiple long range taser shots, the Americans already have a taser system with longer range where the battery and electronics are all contained in a fairly small dart package. No trailing wires at all.

Long Range Scenario (3, Funny)

BradyB (52090) | more than 4 years ago | (#32304398)

Punk : Dials 911
911 Operator : 911 what is your emergency...
Punk : Can you forward me to the cop chasing me!?!?!?
911 Operator : Sure. One moment.. ... Annoying Ring Tone ... boom chicka wah wah ...
Cop Answers : Wh, who is this?
Punk : Don't tase me bro!

You know what's coming don't you.... (1)

pandrijeczko (588093) | more than 4 years ago | (#32304458)

...Russian sharks with FRICKING TASER BEAMS in their heads!

This is going to be very bad for good citizens (5, Informative)

lena_10326 (1100441) | more than 4 years ago | (#32304506)

Of course it will immediately be adopted across police departments because as we all know tasers are perfectly safe [google.com] . It is interesting to note when officers fire their pistols, they continue firing [wikipedia.org] until the ammo is depleted. There is no reason to believe this practice won't continue with semi-automatic taser guns because many taser deaths were due to multiple hits from several officers [jonathanturley.org] . Of course these occurred because the suspect would not stop flailing about on the ground [youtube.com] due to being repeatedly hit with electricity (officers refer to this as resisting). That is merely the unfortunate side effect of electricity causing involuntary muscle contractions [allaboutcircuits.com] .

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OuXR0F6ZQzc [youtube.com]

"Cattleprod + Electrocution" (1)

Burz (138833) | more than 4 years ago | (#32304712)

My tags for this story.

Re:This is going to be very bad for good citizens (0, Troll)

nurb432 (527695) | more than 4 years ago | (#32304912)

Id rather be hit with a tazer then a 40cal any day. Nothing is 100% safe, and besides 99.999% of the time you did something to warrant getting hit, so its your own damned fault if you die.

Re:This is going to be very bad for good citizens (1)

sznupi (719324) | more than 4 years ago | (#32304998)

Especially if you were looking in the wrong way at the wrong person.

Re:This is going to be very bad for good citizens (2, Interesting)

lena_10326 (1100441) | more than 4 years ago | (#32305208)

Id rather be hit with a tazer then a 40cal any day. Nothing is 100% safe

That is a false dilemma. You have a right not to be assaulted in the first place.

and besides 99.999% of the time you did something to warrant getting hit, so its your own damned fault if you die.

You're right. You must have viewed the video I pasted. It was indeed that teenage boy's fault for being tasered. It was his fault that his back and leg were broken and he was in confused daze when officers tased 19 times for not complying. It was his fault he was charged with resisting arrest.

Sarcasm aside, I suppose you believe police are infallible [sacpd.com] and there is nothing wrong with an unusually high number of otherwise peaceful people [boingboing.net] being arrested for minor infractions with charges of resisting arrest and assault on a police officer thrown in for good measure.

Wake up. You are losing your civil rights [youtube.com] . You probably don't realize it because it hasn't yet happened to you [boingboing.net] . Don't worry; at will [wikipedia.org] at some point.

Re:This is going to be very bad for good citizens (0, Flamebait)

nurb432 (527695) | more than 4 years ago | (#32305566)

First of all, notice i said 99.999%, not 100%. There are always cases of abuse, but its the minority. We are a long way from where most of the cops are picking people at random to harass just for fun.

Secondly, I have never personally seen a case where the suspect didnt have some hand in instigating, even in cases of the police ( wrongly ) going overboard afterwards. If they didn't do something to attract attention, they wouldn't have been a suspect in the first place.

But then again, its easier to bash the cops then take personal responsibility for your actions, and possible consequences.

 

Re:This is going to be very bad for good citizens (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32305870)

99.999% of the time you did something to warrant getting hit, so its your own damned fault if you die.

i'll accept your made up statistics on faith

I have never personally seen a case where the suspect didnt have some hand in instigating

as long as we're sharing irrelevant anecdotes, i've never seen someone undergo knee surgery

99.999% (2, Insightful)

MRe_nl (306212) | more than 4 years ago | (#32305290)

of everything is bullshit.
"I'd rather be hit with a tazer then a 40cal any day."
What's that, a 9mm? Of course you'd rather be hit by a tazer than a 40cal! Bullets: 25% chance/death, 30%/chance perm.damage (Red Cross figures)
Tazer: "Although the company spins it otherwise, Taser-associated deaths are definitely on the rise. In 2001, Amnesty International documented three Taser-associated deaths. The number has steadily increased each year, peaking at 61 in 2005. So far almost 50 deaths have occurred in 2006, for an approximate total of 200 deaths in the last five years." Not very save at all, it would seem, but better odds than any bullet.
"Nothing is 100% safe," agreed
"and besides 99.999% of the time you did something to warrant getting hit, so its your own damned fault if you die."
That's just utter bollocks. "friendly fire","mistaken identity","weapon system error","overzealous operator", i could go on, i seriously think a more realistic figure would be 25% of the time you did something to warrant getting hit.
(and yes i've been in the army and handled many different weapons).
Some food for thought on how these systems are going to be used (on us ;():

http://trueslant.com/allisonkilkenny/2010/03/07/normalizing-the-police-state-and-how-it-ends-with-taser-firing-drones/ [trueslant.com]

Re:This is going to be very bad for good citizens (1)

MRe_nl (306212) | more than 4 years ago | (#32305356)

Sorry.
Well done.

Re:This is going to be very bad for good citizens (1)

sznupi (719324) | more than 4 years ago | (#32304968)

If they are supposedly "non-lethal" - I wonder what it would take to push not only the requirement of experiencing them few times during training, but also...after any use the officer needs to be tasered in exactly the same spot (leaves marks, right?), and in a manner he did (hey, electronic devices, can be easily done)

Sure, no chance to fly...but they are "non-lethal", right? What's to be afraid?

Re:This is going to be very bad for good citizens (1)

Stan92057 (737634) | more than 4 years ago | (#32306276)

Why don't they be required to say,shot themselves with there guns too? So they can experience what it feels like to die? If you don't run onto a ballfields like that punk did in phila,then you have no worries about getting tazered, And shit, i would rather be tazered then shot any day. Would YOU rather tazer someone or shoot them? Or would you baton them"cracked skulls,bones and so on?

Re:This is going to be very bad for good citizens (1)

IronTomRackham (1809216) | more than 4 years ago | (#32305104)

That the teaser is automatic and has "ammunition" makes it safer. ALL tasers are automatic now. Limiting that to X shots is actually a step in making it a less abusive tool. Range? The lack of insulation makes the weapon stop shocking the target once he or she drops to the ground.

Re:This is going to be very bad for good citizens (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32306470)

How is this bad for a good citizen? If a cop pulls up and says get on the ground you do what he says and guess what *shocker* you don't get tased. I can never figure out why people hate cops so much its always their fault not the irrational person who wants to yell and scream at them rather than just do what they were told. There is also the fact that in some instances your are looking at the choice of tasing the person / Shooting them / Or having a dog pile of cops jump on them.

Don't... (5, Funny)

mikerubin (449692) | more than 4 years ago | (#32304580)

...tase me, comrade

Wait, what? (1)

$RANDOMLUSER (804576) | more than 4 years ago | (#32304586)

Why would you want to bring them back? Isn't Putin close enough? And besides, I thought the Bolsheviks killed the last one of them.

Can we stop calling it "non-lethal" (1)

intoxination (1806616) | more than 4 years ago | (#32304618)

Tasers are also lethal. I can shoot someone in the leg with a firearm and they may or may not die. The bullet might just hit some fat and muscle and do a clean exit, or I could just hit a major artery and they can bleed out. With a taser, I could blast someone and they end up being fine, but if they suffer from something like atrial-fibrillation, I can throw them right into ventricular fibrillation and they die. Tasers might not be as lethal as guns, but calling them "non-lethal" isn't really right also. As matter of fact it probably does more harm than good calling them "non-lethal". Constantly pushing the "non-lethal" description means officers are more out to deploy tasers without really thinking of what could happen.

Am I the only one? (2, Insightful)

OrwellianLurker (1739950) | more than 4 years ago | (#32304646)

Am I the only one that is seeing a quick progression towards a police state fueled largely by corporate interests and technological advances? I'm predicting a rise in "domestic terrorism" directed towards those in government. Luckily we have all these new laws to stop "domestic terrorism." I mean sure, we're giving up our constitutional rights without pause to be safe from terrorists, but who are the real terrorists? Those who invade and occupy foreign countries with the blood and money of the general population and redirect all profits towards multinational corporations? Those who bring us decades of class warfare in the "War on Drugs?" Those who masquerade as populist reformers who are really just manipulating the perceptions of their actions and doing entirely contrary actions? We have millions in prison, huge debt, legal corruption running rampant, undemocratic elections (I don't consider elections decided by the number of dollars you can get from corporations to be democratic), and so on. :(

Re:Am I the only one? (1)

PopeRatzo (965947) | more than 4 years ago | (#32304682)

I'm predicting a rise in "domestic terrorism" directed towards those in government.

If this progression toward a police state is fueled by corporate interests, why would "domestic terrorism" be aimed at the government?

Why wouldn't it be aimed at the source, the corporate interests? Maybe that's part of the problem. People are blaming the government when they're just messenger boys for the largest corporations.

Re:Am I the only one? (1)

hitmark (640295) | more than 4 years ago | (#32304828)

say hello to big media. These so called impartial reporters of events are increasingly acting as propaganda offices for the big corps. And they make sure the message that the government is to blame gets heard. It may also be a frustration with a system supposedly set up to represent "the people". Funny enough tho, corporations are de facto people. People with very deep pockets.

i dunno, desperate, frustrated people do strange things, like say blow themselves up on a buss full of school children and elderly who have no direct influence on national policy.

Re:Am I the only one? (1)

$RANDOMLUSER (804576) | more than 4 years ago | (#32304910)

Because traditionally, the overlords were individuals, either aristocrats or wealthy capitalists, and they and their (usually private) armies of goons could be fought against on a case-by-case basis; the mine owner could be fought against without bringing the mill operator into it. Today, the overlords are corporations, not a (recent legal findings notwithstanding) person, with no location in space, no conscience, no morality; just a single stated purpose: greed (shareholder value). They're represented by (hell, ARE) the media and are protected by the laws they bought and usually wrote themselves. Today, the overlords are a monolithic block of corporations and lawyers and government. The government is simply the enforcement edge; just a newer, bigger army of goons.

I know the truth... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32304654)

This is a thinly veiled attempt by the Russians take down Tony Stark again.

Another TOY for the police to abuse... (1)

Jackie_Chan_Fan (730745) | more than 4 years ago | (#32304656)

Another TOY for the police to abuse...

How unfortunate for citizens of the world

Physics? (1)

findoutmoretoday (1475299) | more than 4 years ago | (#32304710)

How are the physics, will the two (light uninsulated) wires attract or repel each other?
- electrostatic = attract
- magnetic ?

Re:Physics? (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32304962)

Sentences: do you form them, motherfucker?

Re:Physics? (1)

iggymanz (596061) | more than 4 years ago | (#32305660)

two parallel wires carrying current in opposite directions will repel each other

Re:Physics? (1)

dotancohen (1015143) | more than 4 years ago | (#32305676)

Go open up a pair of Sony headset wires, the ones with the ultra-thin, nontangle cord. Not that the two wires inside are seemingly uninsulated? Now try to solder them!

The "uninsulated wires" are apparently coated in an very thin insulating material. It looks as if the two bare wires are touching each other. They are not bare, but the coating is far thinner and lighter than conventional rubber-based insulation.

Seriously? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32304716)

I'd rather get shot with a semi automatic taser than any type of firearm.

Anyway, I think it's a great invention. It's not really making it any more dangerous because single shot tasers can still have electricity applied repeatedly assuming their one shot hits. Adding multiple shots mostly adds accuracy. I know from experience that it's easy to dodge a single shot from close range if you move erratically and play mind games with the shooter (mock combat, before anybody freaks out http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amtgard). Till someone invents something safer, tasers are a good option and this looks like a promising improvement on the technology.

Tazer already has no wire options (0)

nurb432 (527695) | more than 4 years ago | (#32304900)

They have 12 gauge self contained units. " look mom, no wires "

How about a super charged lightning whip (1)

GodWasAnAlien (206300) | more than 4 years ago | (#32304918)

Such a lighting whip could not only allow you to cut cars in half, but also the super human strength to throw the cars and protection against injury.

Finally! It's been 140 years (2, Informative)

Protoslo (752870) | more than 4 years ago | (#32305926)

One of the Nautilus men gave me a simple gun, the butt end of which, made of steel, hollow in the centre, was rather large. It served as a reservoir of compressed air, which a valve, worked by a spring, allowed to escape into a metal tube. A box of projectiles in a groove in the thickness of the butt end contained about twenty of these electric balls, which, by means of a spring, were forced into the barrel of the gun. As soon as one shot was fired, another was ready.

We've been waiting for it much longer than flying cars, but Captain Nemo's pulse rifle is finally coming to market (well, probably).

Nemtyshkin's next project, the Leyden Gun, will deliver a short shock with lasting effects. The Leyden Gun is the size of a paintball rifle, with a magazine of thirty rounds. The projectiles are simple needles rather than elaborate barbed darts, as they do not stick to the target but administer a single jolt from a high-voltage capacitor.

On the other hand...

[A]nd finally, it was he who had killed the convicts with the electric balls, of which he possessed the secret, and which he had employed in the chase of submarine creatures.

Admittedly, some of the precedents are a bit ominous.

So, where can I preorder one of these?

Iron Man 2 (1)

bruthasj (175228) | more than 4 years ago | (#32306220)

Interesting to see this pop up on Slashdot on my return from watching Iron Man 2. You wouldn't have a chance to say, "dont tase me bro."

Part of the problem.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32306334)

....with these kinds of weapons is that they rely on connected electrodes to deliver the shock. If they are serious on creating something like a multi-shot, rapid fire, Taser type weapon, then it seems somewhat obvious that the technology being explored for remote power transmission would make this far more effective.

Of course, you can complain about the ethicality of such devices all you like, doesn't change the fact that there are others out there who won't give a damn about moral considerations, and who WILL use such things in any case. Some such people are even in positions of authority in many parts of the world, even in supposedly "enlightened" democratic societies.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...