Have tazers ever been put into a serious close defence application?The Chinese internal security forces (chang-B-I) love tazers, totally mad about them. Tazers on maces, tazers on flash lights, tazers on poles, tazers on rifles. What have you got for me
>>64686588Its all about a mix of pain compliance and muscle disruption, assuming you get good skin contact there's not a lot someone can do to fight off the incapacitation aspects but more than a few just aren't going to give a single fuck about pain and possibly make them even more cranky that you just zapped them and they ate shit hitting the dirt.The fact you can put someone on their arse for about 3-5 seconds gives you plenty of options in defense for following it up with some kicks to the brain or benis that will discourage fucking around.
>>64686603But the difference here is whether the tazer is being employed as a less than lethal offensive weapon, a control/torture device, or for personal defence. There's a recognised FC issue with tazers which is why they havnt been effective in police or custodial roles. It's hard to know when they are/aren't needed and they can't be deployed or withdrawn fast enough if the situation changes. And in many cases, deploying a tazer in one capacity, the same weapon doesn't serve a second capacity. So for example you cannot tazer someone to make them comply, and tazer someone who's a threat to you, at the same time, with the same tazer. The person you tazed would just punch you in the face, why wouldn't they if you're already tazing them?And the issue is preventing a tazer being stolen, smuggled, or employed offensively. To stop one vip tazing another, which you can totally see happening.So for example I see a strong case to provide custodial staff with a shock glove, simply on a weapon retention basis. It might allow a custodial officer to drag an unconscious perpetrator out of a cell by their leg, so that wouldn't require a six man open on that cell. Or you might give a boxer a tazer jacket, which you could operate but they couldn't, in case a fan assaulted them in transit. For legal reasons, it would then be the guard guilty of assault, not the VIP.Or you might need to protect a security guard from being assaulted by a vip, where duress would prevent a guard defending themselves, but failing to do so would compromise the security of the whole detail. If Katy perry tried to strangle her limo driver.
One way you might do this is to seperate filaments with a gel barrier, so that anything that crushed that area would tend to get shocked. That could offer significant protection from hostage taking and duress resulting from chokes, leg locks, arm locks, finger submissions etc. It might be necessary to embed barbs in the inner filament within the gel. Might sound stupid but I can see a real value in many-one engagements where you might have multiple juvenile offenders/a boy band all jump one security guard.
Oklahoma county gaol apparently trialed using bridging style gloves, so is hardly an idea without precedence. But I'd actually try gel pads for contact areas like the thigh, because it would function both as padding, protection from leg locks, and potentially negatively wire the system so it just self activated. Very hard to hit yourself in the outer thigh.
>>64686651You don't really want the high powered discharge device attached to you>Built to the budget and corners cut making it less reliable>Built to the budget making it reliable but less accessible>if there's a malfunction in the shock surface, you're now potentially dancing with the electropixies>high power batteries catch fire, now you're on fireSo while there is a case for retention, there's plenty for being able to drop the device and move to a plan-b when it comes to defense, also with high voltage devices its just not best practice to be in contact with the probes. You want that handle well away from any arc-length that might happen normally and you sure as hell want it if you're wet, its raining or your soaked in crackhead piss.
