Rule #4opening fire into a crowd will not be acceptable
Rule #4opening fire into a crowd will not be acceptable
As far as police go, they should have protective eyewear available, and designated officers with laser pointers to paint the rioters to deter them from this crap, at a minimum.
Been down 70, but took man more trips down 62 heading towards Plainview through Paducah and Floydada.highway 70 in texas near a little town called matador
As the Chief noted, protecting against the known/commonly available frequencies is going to be a pretty opaque sort of lens.Glasses, eye-shields, goggles, or visors that block the most common high-powered laser frequencies while letting other frequencies pass would not hinder vision even in low-light situations at night, but they would be very effective at blocking blinding laser light.
That's where the tech started, but it's only really matured enough to only respond to sunlight derived UV (and not UV from fluorescent fixtures and the like). They have zero laser protection.and we see the civilian technology manifested in the form of transition lenses.
That's not it at all.But then if you don't use a gun then the argument is you must not really have been in fear for your life or in fear of great bodily harm
You have a large crowd of folks and a few with lasers, opening fire into a crowd will not be acceptable to the general public when innocents are shot. Just being in a crowd does not make you a justifiable target.
The answer to the question posed in the subject line of the OP is "yes".Looks like there is no correct answer
???the only correct answer will come once different scenarios have played out in court.
If you were talking about a chemical agent that burned your lungs permanently and required you to be on high-flow oxygen and incapable of exertion for the rest of your life, or an electric shock powerful enough to permanently damage your heart and disable you for life, yes. The thread is discussing lasers powerful enough to permanently burn out your retinas, not just temporarily dazzle you.Is mace deadly force? Since it provides an otherwise incapable attacked with a huge advantage, it sounds like it can be.
A Taser? Same story.
It’s not the color, it’s the power output. Civilian laser sights and laser pointers are limited to 5 milliwatts, IIRC, which is considered the upper threshold of eyesafe (a blink will protect you). A 1W laser (200 times as powerful) will burn your retina before you can blink, whether the beam is green, red, or infrared.Would a ban cover the laser sights on guns? Some are green as you know.
10% of 1W is still 100 mW, or 20 times the eyesafe limit. 10% of 5W is 500 mW. And dark sunglasses will be awkward to use at night. Sunglasses might help regular 5mW laser pointers to be less dazzling, though.What about something like those sunglasses with the mirrored surface? The OTC type probably wouldn't be good enough but do you think it would be possible to make the reflective surface good enough to bounce 80-90% without making them too dark for the officers to still see through them?
The second sentence does not necessarily follow from the first.Rioting is a felony. In a riot situation it should be left to police snipers to neutralize users of lasers.
https://www.azleg.gov/viewdocument/?docName=https://www.azleg.gov/ars/13/00105.htm14. "Deadly physical force" means force that is used with the purpose of causing death or serious physical injury or in the manner of its use or intended use is capable of creating a substantial risk of causing death or serious physical injury
...
39. "Serious physical injury" includes physical injury that creates a reasonable risk of death, or that causes serious and permanent disfigurement, serious impairment of health or loss or protracted impairment of the function of any bodily organ or limb.
https://www.azleg.gov/viewdocument/?docName=https://www.azleg.gov/ars/13/00405.htm13-405. Justification; use of deadly physical force
A. A person is justified in threatening or using deadly physical force against another:
1. If such person would be justified in threatening or using physical force against the other under section 13-404, and
2. When and to the degree a reasonable person would believe that deadly physical force is immediately necessary to protect himself against the other's use or attempted use of unlawful deadly physical force.
Arizona State Law says,
https://www.azleg.gov/viewdocument/?docName=https://www.azleg.gov/ars/13/00105.htm
And;
https://www.azleg.gov/viewdocument/?docName=https://www.azleg.gov/ars/13/00405.htm
So, on the face of it, it looks like in Arizona it is indeed legal to use deadly physical force to prevent serious bodily injury, such as being blinded.
Yes, we have said that.then a laser present in a declared riot may be legally classified as a deadly weapon, capable of legally defined deadly physical force.
True.The exact same rules now apply as a firearm - I do NOT have to wait to get shot to fire in self defense.
The fact of a "declared riot" would not be meaningful.If I shoot someone shining high power lasers in a declared riot..