Can't wait to have my car accidentally killed by the police

Re: Can't wait to have my car accidentally killed by the pol

Hmm... 10 to 15 KVolts/meter... in the 440 ham band and cell phone bands.... HOT HOT HOT.....

something tells me they're going to have to fine tune it somehow... ie very directional beam, or there are going to be a lot of anciilary damage claims for people driving in the area and having their cell phones pull a Mask(1) on 'em...

Think onthe fun the trial lawyers can have with the police and pumping that much energy ona band where they claim it causes brain cancer (ie cell phone use with energies much lower than 10 volts/meter are supposed to cause cancer...)

All in all... an interesting, if somewhat suspect premise... (there are those who propose doing something similar on the cop radar bands... ie when pinged by radar respond with a very high power burst and attempt to burn out the radar gun or at leeast confuse it... so the baddies are already on to this approach <grin>)

cas

(1) Pull a Mask... think Jm Carry yelling "Smokin'"... yeah it's obscure

 

Actually, the police should not have things that the public can have. Guns for example. Many police officers die from their own gun, so disarming them would save a lot of law enforcement lives. They have them taken away from them and get shot by criminals, they get depressed and shoot themselves, the spousal unit takes it and kills them. Yup, a lot of officers would be alive today if they were totally disarmed. How many more must die? If even one life is saved, it is worth confiscating them all. Disarm the police!

 

Re: Can't wait to have my car accidentally killed by the pol

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(casc\";p=\"68590)</div>

Yeah, in a Civilian environment never mind all the computers that suddenly latch up. At that power level there are long-term health consequences.

Used in a Military environment, the system designers of EW platforms consider the much more immediate Threat of being tracked by a missile. In that situation, and with very costly shielding, the crew of an EW system is safer than being tracked by a SAM.

One can use *much* lower energy levels, with specifically tuned chaotic noise, just to latch up the onboard network. Far safer to develop and deploy than a system with much higher energy levels designed to destroy the onboard network.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Robert Taylor\";p=\"68596)</div>

Uh oh, looks like somebody has been reading those URL's I posted from the DOJ and FBI LEOKA databases!

I'm sure some can only "dream" of a society where only Criminals have guns.

So when in doubt, use Reverse Psychology. Nice post!

 

"we can hit a jet flying nearly a thousand miles an hour performing evasive maneuvers at distances up to 25 miles away but we cant hit a car 200 feet away?"

Those target designators are stablized in inertial space and so can be aimed despite severe manuevers. Police cars are not so stablized.

You also have to consider that a target aircraft is viewed by the laser designator against a blank background field with no backscatter and no 'non-targets" in the field of view when such weapons are aimed. They are never used in a mixed friend/foe environment. A city street doesn't fit these conditions.

The comparison just doesn't work. Police will not risk harm to non-combatants the way the military is allowed to.

 

One other problem. The claim that power steering and brakes would not be affected.
Power steering is either electric (as in our cars) or hydraulic no longer powered by the disabled engine. Our brakes are completely computer controlled, though we do get straight hydraulic control of the front brakes upon system failure, and we have parking brakes for the rear. They are affected though.

 

ok phil... we can also hit a moving manuvering tank 10 miles away while negotiating uneven terrain at up 45 mph.

your turn

 

Is a friendly tank or APC five feet from that enemy tank when you launch your weapon?

Suppose it's your kid in that APC? How confident are you in your aiming and marksmanship, William Tell?

 

Oh, and when you hit that tank 10 miles away, you usually have a laser designator pointed at it from other than your moving, bouncing tank, a friendly under cover near the target, or on an inertially-stabilized platform aboard the aircraft. Our company manufactures both.

 

oic...so having targeting help like you mentioned is not in the cards for this device??

ok then we'll just tell that police helicopter to mind his own damn business then

 

Nothing in the recent posts informs us how to avoid "friendly fire" accidents that would quickly bankrupt most law enforcement agencies with lawsuits. This is about as practical as much of the SDI projects of the 1980s. It looks great on paper and in simulation, and maybe even in the controlled environment of a demonstration, but in the real world it falls flat on its face.

 

Re: Can't wait to have my car accidentally killed by the pol

Well, the one thing the Military has little worry about is a lawsuit. If they are flying a CAP or doing EW, they're in the area for a very specific reason.

Remember the movie Blue Thunder? Nice helicopter, iffy mission profile. Never mind the legal and constitutional issues, a military platform targeted towards civilians will never fly - pardon the pun.

I still can't figure out how you could effectively disable the suspect vehicle using EW techniques without incidental damage to nearby vehicles and electronics. As Dan mentioned, if your motor also stops, you lose the power steering and power brakes in a conventional car.

It may prove more cost effective and safer to just use a police force 3/4 or 1 ton pickup to force the fleeing suspect off the road or to a stop. For example in a safe area just box in the fleeing suspect.

It's hard to know when to use aggressive techniques like the P.I.T. (Pursuit Intervention Technique) to stop a fleeing suspect. What if the car veers across the median after the P.I.T. and hits oncoming traffic? I would rather cause sheet metal damage to a police car or police pickup than risk innocent lives.

As far as the risk to fleeing suspects, to h*** with them. They decided their fate when they took off running.

 

Such chases gain media attnetion, but represent a small fraction of pursuits and apprehensions. I've watched them, especially on an open highway, and I think an AGM like a Maverick missile would come in handy right about then, but I suppose that's a little bit of overkill...

If they can get close, the r-squared falloff would mean less risk to innocents, but when you try to use a beam from a distance, the problems of aiming and background objects just become too cumbersome, and would severely limit the application opportunities. Much more mundane technology like spike strips (or even a variant which would aim the EM energy to disable the electronics UP into the passing vehicle) would be a far more practical solution.

 

To quote Ed Felton:

"Keeping honest people honest is like keeping tall people tall."

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(KTPhil\";p=\"68845)</div>

Wouldn't bother me one bit.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(KTPhil\";p=\"68845)</div>

The DARPA project with that rocket-powered "sled" had that in mind. The sled contains very large and highly charged capacitors. When you fire it antennae deploy that aim up.

When the sled hits the suspect vehicle, the antennae discharge the capacitors into the vehicle. The idea is that one of the antennae would actually contact the wiring harness.

To the uninitiated, r-squared falloff is the principle that radiated energy decreases to one half by the square of the distance. You double the distance, radiated energy is reduced to one quarter.

Given how hard it would be to aim a tight-beam energy weapon or EW weapon at a moving car, the possibility of incidental involvement becomes a strong probability.

Imagine if the device was deployed near a hospital and interfered with the operation of a pacing defibrillator or infusion pump? Nope, this will remain theoretical for some time.

 

well i saw thie technology demostrated live with hugely mixed results.

for one, the range was at best 100 feet

sometimes it worked, sometimes it didnt

and none of the systems were in a police car. they were too expensive for that. instead of following a car with a unit, one would be positioned on the road ahead and the fleeing car zapped as it wandered past. so in a sense, it was no better than spike strips.

they also had problems with it disabling too much of the car causing the professional driver to nearly crash the vehicle

but i have to assume that they have something better out by now.

besides there is an inherent danger to all police pursuits. and its become obvious that letting some go is not an option in any way even if continuing the pursuit could cause some innocent bystanders to become hurt. in my mind, the court system gives criminals enough of a break without the cops giving them any more. there are abuses in any system no matter who it is, but by and large, police pursuits are an necessary evil that would benefit from an easier and safer method of termination. i would gladly deal with a few zapped computers instead of telling someone their loved one was killed by a fleeing suspect

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(DaveinOlyWA\";p=\"68883)</div>

David:

Amen!

 

If helicopters are used, why not an electromagnet to pick the car up?

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(DanMan32\";p=\"69026)</div>

Ah! You Only Live Twice!

Every cool technological car thing has been done in a Bond film.

 

Re: Can't wait to have my car accidentally killed by the pol

Wonderful idea! The helicopter could pick up the suspect car - with the suspects still inside of course - and then drop the car into a giant industrial metal shredder.

I think it would prove a high deterrence to carjacking and really cut down on felony pursuits.