What is Digg?Sponsored by Backblaze
Go Right Ahead, Set Your Laptop On Fire. view!
backblaze.com - Believe it or not, your data is still protected. Check out the video.
44 Comments
- veriix, on 11/02/2009, -3/+16Safer than the grenade.
- DamnMan, on 11/03/2009, -1/+9http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0l2AvtQVB5I
The Denver police union was selling t-shirts proudly proclaiming "RNC 2008: Getting up Early To Beat the Crowds!"
Enjoy your police state. You have earned it. - Gir53457, on 11/03/2009, -0/+8Underslung grenade launchers in trained hands are surprisingly accurate.
And it's not like a regular tazer, mall cops and even patrol officers are not going to be carrying M16s or grenade launchers. Only guys like SWAT teams are going to ever use these, and they're obviously going to know how to handle them. Besides, despite the stories of tazing accidents, mishaps and abuse, less than lethal is better than lethal and I'd rather be hit with one of these than a real bullet or grenade. - inactive, on 11/03/2009, -0/+7Believe me! I am an expert on this (and everything else.) And I know it is NOT safe! No, I don't need to give evidence. I just told you I am an expert. I AM the evidence!
- Barackalypse, on 11/03/2009, -0/+7By lowering the severity of the force we are guaranteeing that force will be used more often.
- rustchild, on 11/03/2009, -4/+10I'll take this over getting fired at with a REAL grenade. Sheesh.
- namja23, on 11/02/2009, -1/+6Wow, from over 60 meters, you wont even have time to yell "Don't taze me bro!".
- Gir53457, on 11/03/2009, -0/+4You can tell how far away the storm is by counting the seconds between the flash and the screams of agony.
- spookyttws, on 11/03/2009, -0/+4FTA: ""There is a known risk of severe injury from impact projectiles, either from blunt force at short ranges or from hitting a sensitive part of the body," says security researcher Neil Davison, who has recently written a book on non-lethal weapons."
If it can hit someone 60 meters away with humane force, how much worse would it be to a person hit only 10 meters away? I would think window of which the projectile is accurate and humane is small, at close range this could permanently hurt someone.
On a less hippie note, that's ***** awesome. - Barackalypse, on 11/03/2009, -0/+4By lowering the severity of the force we are guaranteeing that force will be used more often. Coming soon to a domestic protest near you. "Leave immediately, we have suspended your right to peacefully assemble, we will deploy the grenade taser if you don't leave this public space immediately"
- BossKey, on 11/03/2009, -0/+4What could possibly go wrong?
- rustchild, on 11/03/2009, -1/+4Feh. The more non-lethal methods of resolving possibly violent situations we've got the better, in my opinion. I've personally never given anyone a reason to be hitting, tazing, or shooting me, and I'd like to think that if I ever gave law enforcement a reason to bring me down, they'd do so without scattering my brains across the wall.
In my mind, if you're thinking to yourself "wow, now they might be shooting tazer grenades at me" you may want to rethink your lifestyle. - kelpdip, on 11/03/2009, -0/+3I suggest you check out some of the posts at forums.officer.com. Some of the threads there are about as shocking and devoid of common sense as Stormfront. I'm not saying all police are bad, but a small percentage are, and all it takes is one inept one to ruin or take your life.
One supposed LE officer suggested the BART murder cop be fully cleared and reinstated, but only after martial law was declared in LA and SF to quell the (inevitable) riots. How do you justify this? Imagine getting pulled over by this nutjob. - Barackalypse, on 11/03/2009, -1/+4You miss the point, this will be used in situations where there would have never gotten away with using a grenade. This effectively allows them to escalate a conflict they would normally probably not have fired on you during, because its a less than lethal option the justification for using it can be substantially less.
- EddiePotato, on 11/03/2009, -5/+7True. While there's surely some abuse of the weapon, it's rare to hear of a tazer being used on someone that wasn't being a jackass.
- O8SERVER, on 11/03/2009, -0/+2Anyone else reminded of the sticky shockers from splinter cell?
- txballer, on 11/03/2009, -0/+2@Pretty simple.
Yes, I agree you are. - JoeParanoid, on 11/03/2009, -0/+1As we've seen with other new weaponry (like tasers), it doesn't mean it will be used in place of the deadlier stuff. Rather it will be used in addition to, and on incidents that really don't call for any form of violence. Where once we used talk, diplomacy or even verbal intimidation, technology encourages us to shoot first and ask why everyone hates us later.
- nepidae, on 11/03/2009, -0/+1Tasers have _never_ killed anyone and Taser will suit your ass into the ground if you contradict them.
- JoeF8577, on 11/02/2009, -4/+5Activist hippies everywhere cringe!
But seriously, not to mention the possibility of hitting innocent bystanders but what about if this thing hits you in face! - AlienMushroom, on 11/03/2009, -0/+1It's perfectly safe, if it doesn't hit anyone.
- rignopolis, on 11/03/2009, -0/+1Any projectile to the nads is going to hurt.
- GatorUSMC, on 11/03/2009, -0/+1Just stick to using JDAMs
- DulcetTone, on 11/03/2009, -0/+1Shouldn't the Pentagon focus on killing every living thing downrange?
- Charun, on 11/03/2009, -0/+1I agree.
Those are your only two options. - Sillywombat, on 11/03/2009, -0/+1WOW, this wont backfire.... will it?
"Don't HEMI me bro!!" - ElvisLives, on 11/03/2009, -0/+1It's always funny until somebody loses an eye.
- Urrelles, on 11/03/2009, -0/+1It will be dangerous if meter maids were toting these badboys around blasting skater punks and trash talking civilians.
But the truth is that somehting like this will be in the hands of SWAT teams and the military for use in severe situations where the enemy WILL fight back with deadly force. You know in bank heist, hostage situations, busting up major drug rings.
Being able to storm into a building and taze everyone attempting to kill you is much better than just blasting them to bits with shotguns and SMGs. - tsotha, on 11/03/2009, -0/+0Why would we want to capture bin Laden alive?
- DamnMan, on 11/03/2009, -1/+1http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q0BYDp3HgRE
No, No, Absolutely not. - tsotha, on 11/03/2009, -0/+0It amazes me how Digg manages to get every humor-impaired person in the world commenting on the same website.
- inactive, on 11/03/2009, -2/+2and that proves that they would fire these grenades at innocent people?
Guess what? Once a crowd turns non-peaceful, the right to assembly is over. If you are told to leave and don't,m thjehn you are no longer an innocent bystander.
and if you think that this video tells the true unbiased side of that story than do the world a favor and kill yourself bgecause you are not worthy of oxygen. Your parents did a terrible job of raising you. - ripple123, on 11/03/2009, -1/+1they never show the videos on cops of officer *****. hes a ***** of a officer.
- Gilhully, on 11/03/2009, -0/+0This is the Pentagon, not the local police. Trying to shoot a grenade that close in isn't easy. This should be less dangerous to the soldier firing it. I don't really care if the enemy being fired at gets damaged a bit as long as our folks are safe.
- tsotha, on 11/03/2009, -0/+0Yeah, that commenter was almost certainly a law enforcement officer. Just as surely as I'm a sixteen-year-old virgin with huge breasts.
The internet. Where men are men, women are men, and children are FBI agents. - Rogor, on 11/02/2009, -8/+8NO this can never be safe! some activist idiot will sue and annot the crap out of everyone, especially digg readers. Best to use real grenades instead, just to be safe.
- tsotha, on 11/03/2009, -0/+0But you're missing the point as well. This will be used in situations where they *would* have gotten away with using a grenade if that was the only other option. It's going to take a lot of inappropriate use of this thing to rack up as many bodies as one live grenade.
- rmxz, on 11/03/2009, -2/+1Not necessarily.
With a grenade, they might think twice about using it at elementary schools and weddings.
With this, since it's thought of as "safe", they're likely to think "who cares if we don't know if there are bad guys there and/or if there are civilians around, this thing's safe".
Same with all the innocent people killed and maimed by tazers and rubbere bullets. - norwegianlegion, on 11/03/2009, -5/+4I know people always say "well listen to the cop and you wont get tased. Yeah Amurica! Durg e durg!", but that's not always an option.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EmByfTKKUV4
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5yWaE8tTlsc&fea ...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Dik-mgCDcg
There are a lot of cops out there that power trip and you can't always protect yourself from their abuses of power. For 95% of situations where cops use a taser, they don't need it, and sometimes they pull it out even when they don't need it as a threat of violence. I, personally, would rather get punched in the gut to "subdue me" than get hit by a taser. Thus, I say take away that power or make them more accountable for their actions. The harm tasers do doesn't justify the good.
Don't even get me started on this ***** taser grenade. FTA:
'"There is a known risk of severe injury from impact projectiles, either from blunt force at short ranges or from hitting a sensitive part of the body,' says security researcher Neil Davison, who has recently written a book on non-lethal weapons."
A non-lethal weapon shouldn't be called a non-lethal weapon if it has the capacity to put a crater in my head AND turn me into a battery for "a period of up to three minutes".
Also, when did the definition of Police go from "Protectors and servants of their community" to "Power tripping ***** bullies with far too much power and far too little responsibility"?
/rant off - tsotha, on 11/03/2009, -1/+0Yeah, you really have to feel sorry for all those peaceful WTO protesters. I mean, they have a perfect right to break windows and throw molotov cocktails, bricks, and whatever else is handy. Why, if they weren't allowed to do that we'd be living in a POLICE STATE!
- inactive, on 11/03/2009, -12/+11Don't want to be tasered? Don't be an ***** to the police.
Pretty simple. - Nyaasee, on 11/03/2009, -3/+1Police won't get access to these, unless its SWAT, and as long as this is military issue only i think it's a good thing for catching enemy targets alive. Can you see Usama Bin Laden getting his kidneys jumped with one of these?
- inactive, on 11/03/2009, -2/+0yeah...because surely these will be used in situations where the suspect is hanging out with a bunch of innocent bystanders.
- appleseed1234, on 11/03/2009, -9/+3Because the government that governs best is the government that governs knowing that it's citizens won't be able to fight back.
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is