Shock shells in RL, "God I hate the technology curve"FastJak Options

[fistandantilus4....]

Little blurp from Utah's Daily Herald. I'm sure others can find more.

Taser company works on shocking shotgun shells

PHOENIX -- The nation's largest stun-gun manufacturer is working on a new way to deliver electricity to the human body: through 12-gauge shotgun shells.

Though it's still being developed, Taser International Inc. says the new product will allow police officers and U.S. troops to hit someone from a much greater distance than its current line of Tasers, which Amnesty International has cited in more than 120 deaths.

The eXtended Range Electro-Muscular Projectile, or XREP, will be a shotgun shell designed to combine the blunt-force trauma of a fast-moving baseball with the electrical current of a stun gun.

[Kyuhan]

I'd sure as hell HOPE they're low velocity. Still, even a fast moving baseball can kill you.

[stevebugge]

Depends do they mean Nolan Ryan or Randy Johnson fastball or do they mean more along the lines of what the average guy can throw? Still, Ouch!

[Reaver]

It would probably be a low pressure round, travelling under 300 feet per second. The resulting slug would carry the electrical charge as well as give you a nice bruise. ;)

[stevebugge]

300 FPS is 108000 Feet per hour / 5280 for 20.45 MPH, ok so not too fast. But then they said equal to the blunt force trauma which means comparing masses and impact point sizes, neither of which we have readily available, not just velocity.

Still does that mean Randy Johnson throwing one of these at you would hurt more than being shot with one? :D

[Austere Emancipa...]

If you've seen the Jackass movie, Johnny Knoxville gets shot in the abdomen with a beanbag at 250fps. This could be even slower and possible lighter, but also more rigid. Certainly not something I'd want to get hit by at point blank range, even without the electric shock.

[SL James]

They have a 30 foot meter range according to the press release (and, really, come on. This whole story is based on a company's press release).

So they decided to combine the less-lethal TASER (which has killed people) with the less-lethal beanbag round (which has also killed people) to create a decidedly less-less-lethal combination.

Sweet!

This post has been edited by SL James: Feb 23 2006, 01:11 AM

[Austere Emancipa...]

The press release mentions a range of 30 meters, as opposed to 30 feet for a standard TASER.

[Fix-it]

how are they generating the electricity? chemical? piezo? charged capacitors?

[Kyoto Kid]

[SL James]

meters. Excuse me. I was too caught up in the self-congratulatory BS.

[Shrapnel]

[stevebugge]

Good catch, ok that makes the decision a bit tougher shot with one of these or beaned by a Randy Johnson Fastball :silly:

[Edward]

The thing that confuses me about the various tazer options is that people are forever complaining that they do sometimes kill people.

The fact of this is not something I dispute but I see it differently.

Law enforcement currently carys powder and lead (iron) firearms and are trained to shoot centre of mass. This is designed to be lethal. Shorly something that is as effective at taking down a target but only kills one in a thousand targets is a better option, even if the fact that its supposed to be non lethal has it being used twice as often that’s still a lot les people being killed.

Edward

[Brahm]

[Brahm]

[Arethusa]

[Squinky]

Having been tazed myself on numerous occasions, and taking the (company's) instructor course for the newer teeny little taser, I don't think they is any real threat form tasers killing people.

[Arethusa]

Funny. Having read of many documented cases of tazing leading to fatalities, I think you need to actually do some research.

[Drace]

It actually depends on the tazer, the ones the cops generally carry can kill, the publicly available ones all differ, and many cannot kill.

The problem with tazer deaths is lack of training (the user keeps going, till victim is dead), racism (person using tazer and keeps going) and that as earlier mentioned, its used more often than a gun, because its easier, has less paperwork, and makes the job easier.

[Edward]

[Critias]

Keep in mind, though, an awful lot of those "taser deaths" are folks that died in police custody hours, or even days, later (I can't recall hearing of anyone who just died right there on the spot only from tasing), and the autopsies afterwards showed that it was something else that killed them (in many cases, an OD -- with their drug of choice leading to the behavior that got them tased in the first place, for a bit of irony).

Real life tasers aren't much like Shadowrun (where a double tap generally means a horrible death due to stun overflow), or Syphon Filter (where just triggering the taser for more than about 3 seconds meant your target suffered a horrible fiery death, after a brief but dramatic Human Torch impersonation). If the odds of a taser killing someone were that high, every cop in the US that carries one wouldn't have to be zapped with it ahead of time before he got it issued. A 1%, or even .1%, fatality rate would mean there's no way in the world they'd shoot that many of their own guys with them -- think about it.

And, in defense of those law enforcement officers that DO resort to tasers -- remember the cop's other options. He can either (a) shoot someone (which is hardly ever called for, and isn't what tasers are meant to replace), or (b) go "hands on," and deliver unto someone a terrific beating, either with bare hands or a baton. Now, think of how many beatings and shootings get the cops a bunch of flak, and/or lead to a lost job, a ruined family, law suits, etc, etc. And let's not even mention that initiating a hand-to-hand confrontation puts the cop himself in danger (especially if the subject is high and largely immune to pain at the time), and the danger that adds to everyone nearby (since once a cop gets KO'ed, you've got a very pissed off bad guy with a gun or two).

Can you really blame them for opting to tase someone, instead?

None of the cops I know go for a taser as their catch-all item on their utility belt. But all of them appreciate that it's there, when it's needed.

[Arethusa]

While I realize there is hyperbole over the tazer issue, there are serious, reasonable complains about incidents where use of a tazer was completely uncalled for and unjustified. In those specific cases, yes, I can blame police officers for using them when they clearly should not have.

Concerns about less lethal weapons being mistaken for non lethal and being used without proper discretion aren't immune to being blown out of proportion or used for political gain, but they are most certainly real.

[Critias]

Note, please, I said "can you blame them for tasing someone, instead?" With the instead relating towards the two other most common options -- a beat down or a drawn handgun.

I'll admit there are times a taser is used when none of those three are required. Those situations where physical force (be it hands on, a handgun, a baton, or a taser) isn't required but is used are deplorable.

But in situations where the legitemate options are a melee, a fired weapon, or a taser, I think most cops (and most suspects, for that matter) will agree that a taser is the lesser of the three evils.

[Oracle]

I can imagine lots of situations where physical force in the "hands on" way would be perfectly suitable, but the use of a taser would not. A taser should be used only when otherwise a gun would be used.