Jump to content

Defense against laser attack


seanc

Recommended Posts

What are our rights if someone is attempting to blind us with lasers? Is that a "great/severe bodily harm"? Is the mere presence of a laser in the hands of someone with demonstrated intent enough to justify a lethal force response?

 

Federal officers blinded by lasers:

https://www.foxnews.com/us/portland-riots-federal-officers-blinded-lasers-fireworks-doxed

 

 

March 19, 2020 article from a Harvard publication discussing the use of lasers by protesters and the justified police response to such a harmful attack:

https://harvardpolitics.com/covers/magazine-spring-2020/lasers/

 

 

Lasers aren't restricted to protesters (not that protesting is a legal or moral justification to blind someone). At some point, if it hasn't already happened, they're going to be used by bad guys as a "safe" way to cause harm/debilitate victims.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My guess, it would be very hard to make a justifiable use of force case just because of a person carrying a laser.

 

Since you can take protective measures for a few hundred dollars or less, I think it would be hard to find a DA or jury that would agree lethal force was acceptable.

 

https://www.laserpointersafety.com/laserglasses/laserglasses.html

 

Does that make the actions of those with lasers legal or acceptable? No and they should be charged accordingly with the damage their actions could or did cause.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My guess, it would be very hard to make a justifiable use of force case just because of a person carrying a laser.

 

Since you can take protective measures for a few hundred dollars or less, I think it would be hard to find a DA or jury that would agree lethal force was acceptable.

 

https://www.laserpointersafety.com/laserglasses/laserglasses.html

 

Does that make the actions of those with lasers legal or acceptable? No and they should be charged accordingly with the damage their actions could or did cause.

 

 

If they are using lasers...simply return the favor... :)

han-solo-blaster.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I know someone who was blinded by a < 0.5mW laser when she accidentally got lazed during a concert, and only for a very brief time. Went from 20/20 vision to sundown vision permanently. Meaning, she can only see on the best of days what someone with undamaged vision can see at sundown.

 

That's that's a serious, life-altering injury, of one of the most debilitating kind.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What are our rights if someone is attempting to blind us with lasers? Is that a "great/severe bodily harm"? Is the mere presence of a laser in the hands of someone with demonstrated intent enough to justify a lethal force response?

...

"Severe bodily injury" has various definitions from state to state. For example, if someone steps on your toe and breaks it or if someone punches you in the nose and breaks it, is that severe? In some states it is.

 

Permanent and crippling injury in all states fits those definitions, so blindness qualifies.

 

Just having a laser IMO would not be sufficient to justify lethal force. Consider someone having a concealed firearm and getting into an argument in a check-out line somewhere. He has a gun and a crappy attitude. Does that mean the other person is okay to kill him because the other person thinks maybe he might use it? I'd say not. If he pulls it out, that would be the clue. Lasers are more complicated, because they have a wide range of legitimate, legal uses.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Speaking for myself, and without doing any research at all, if I was in a combat situation, which would include a riot, I would consider anyone shooting blinding lasers a legitimate enemy combatant. In fact, by international agreement, nearly every country in the world has outlawed the use of blinding lasers in combat. A weapon so bad it is outlawed for use in international warfare, I think, qualifies the bearer for equal targeting as one firing an AK at you.

 

Just my opinion.

 

On the other hand, if some kid is playing with a laser pointer, I don't consider that a hostile act. Stupid maybe, but not hostile.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

What are our rights if someone is attempting to blind us with lasers? Is that a "great/severe bodily harm"? Is the mere presence of a laser in the hands of someone with demonstrated intent enough to justify a lethal force response?...

"Severe bodily injury" has various definitions from state to state. For example, if someone steps on your toe and breaks it or if someone punches you in the nose and breaks it, is that severe? In some states it is.Permanent and crippling injury in all states fits those definitions, so blindness qualifies.Just having a laser IMO would not be sufficient to justify lethal force. Consider someone having a concealed firearm and getting into an argument in a check-out line somewhere. He has a gun and a crappy attitude. Does that mean the other person is okay to kill him because the other person thinks maybe he might use it? I'd say not. If he pulls it out, that would be the clue. Lasers are more complicated, because they have a wide range of legitimate, legal uses.

That's what I was thinking when I read the article. Just holding a laser isn't sufficient. Acting in a threatening manner, then we might be on the path to a legitimate threat. Which leads to...

 

Bonus question: If someone else is acting in a threatening manner, can we legally brandish to warn off the threat? I think so, but like any defensive use, you better be able to make your case.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

...

Bonus question: If someone else is acting in a threatening manner, can we legally brandish to warn off the threat? I think so, but like any defensive use, you better be able to make your case.

Some states have specific laws that allow "defensive display of a firearm," since "brandishing" is typically interpreted to be an offensive display of a firearm (i.e., some form of assault). Arizona and Michigan come to mind. (I don't have a specific citation.) Illinois does not AFAIK.

 

In Illinois, I guess it's up to case/common law, which could go either way. It would help a lot if you could successfully argue that a reasonable person in a similar situation would believe it to be done exclusively for self-defense.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My guess, it would be very hard to make a justifiable use of force case just because of a person carrying a laser.

 

Since you can take protective measures for a few hundred dollars or less, I think it would be hard to find a DA or jury that would agree lethal force was acceptable.

 

https://www.laserpointersafety.com/laserglasses/laserglasses.html

 

Does that make the actions of those with lasers legal or acceptable? No and they should be charged accordingly with the damage their actions could or did cause.

You can take 'protective measures' against knives too, for a few hundred dollars. For that matter, one can never leave their house, a 'protective measure'

 

My carrying a gun for defense ia a 'prrotective measure'

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

My guess, it would be very hard to make a justifiable use of force case just because of a person carrying a laser.

 

Since you can take protective measures for a few hundred dollars or less, I think it would be hard to find a DA or jury that would agree lethal force was acceptable.

 

https://www.laserpointersafety.com/laserglasses/laserglasses.html

 

Does that make the actions of those with lasers legal or acceptable? No and they should be charged accordingly with the damage their actions could or did cause.

You can take 'protective measures' against knives too, for a few hundred dollars. For that matter, one can never leave their house, a 'protective measure'

 

My carrying a gun for defense ia a 'prrotective measure'

 

You are the one that has to convince a jury that your actions are reasonable. In today's political climate, I think they would eat you alive if you shot a teenager or an adult and killed them because he/she was using a laser.

 

Edited: removed the comment that could be offensive.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I suspect most people don't realize that some of the more powerful handheld units can damage your eyes. To those people you would appear be shooting someone for shining a light in your direction. I also suspect that most of the protestor's lasers are not powerful enough to do damage at any distance. In Hong Kong they were mainly used in mass to "blind" surveillance cameras. Depending on the frequency and power, you can protect your eyes with $20 glasses.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I asked Andrew Branca, an attorney who specializes in self-defense (he's been around here in the past). He replied...

 

 

Yes, planned to discuss it in today's News/Q&A Show, 4PM ET, Facebook Live (also on our Member's dashboard live).

Blindness absolutely qualifies as serious bodily injury (loss of a bodily function) that would justify a deadly force response, assuming other elements of self-defense present. Of course the nature of any attack emerging from a chaotic mob environment tends to leave little evidence of any individual's use of force--best options is to not be there. If someone is law enforcement has to be be there, I would absolutely argue that deadly defensive force to neutralize a laser attack to the eyes would be justified.

 

Tune in at https://lawofselfdefense.com/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

My guess, it would be very hard to make a justifiable use of force case just because of a person carrying a laser.

 

Since you can take protective measures for a few hundred dollars or less, I think it would be hard to find a DA or jury that would agree lethal force was acceptable.

 

https://www.laserpointersafety.com/laserglasses/laserglasses.html

 

Does that make the actions of those with lasers legal or acceptable? No and they should be charged accordingly with the damage their actions could or did cause.

You can take 'protective measures' against knives too, for a few hundred dollars. For that matter, one can never leave their house, a 'protective measure'

 

My carrying a gun for defense ia a 'prrotective measure'

 

You are the one that has to convince a jury that your actions are reasonable. In today's political climate, I think they would eat you alive if you shot a teenager or an adult and killed them because he/she was using a laser.

 

Edited: removed the comment that could be offensive.

 

Sorry your original argument was that it would be a hard case to make because you can take preventive measures against laser blinding for a few hundred or less.

 

from

 

"Since you can take protective measures for a few hundred dollars or less, I think it would be hard to find a DA or jury that would agree lethal force was acceptable."

 

It was this that I am disagreeing with. Just because one CAN take 'protective measures' against a particular assault is not a justifiable argument to nullify a person's ability to defend themselves, with other means at their disposal at the time of the attack.. It just isn't. There are 'protective measures' one can take pretty much all potential assaults on your being. Under your logic, a person can't defend themselves against an attacker trying to club them over the head, because one could wear a protective helmet, or against an attacker with a knife, because one COULD wear armor, proof against knives.

 

For that matter, carrying a gun IS a protective measure against attacks on your person.

 

Nor is it reasonable to expect people to not only identify, but then purchase and have various means to thwAart laser blinding, or all other possible attacks on their person. Is it reasonable to expect a person to go out in public, 'armed' with every counter measure to possible attacks, of the level of serious bodily harm? Of course not. That is the inherent fallacy of your statement above, that I am arguing against.

 

The only germane question, is Someone trying to permanently blind you, sufficiently dangerous, i.e. does it represent a serious bodily injury, that then warrants, return in kind force for defense, NOT are there other ways to thwart this attack in existence.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I suspect most people don't realize that some of the more powerful handheld units can damage your eyes. To those people you would appear be shooting someone for shining a light in your direction. I also suspect that most of the protestor's lasers are not powerful enough to do damage at any distance. In Hong Kong they were mainly used in mass to "blind" surveillance cameras. Depending on the frequency and power, you can protect your eyes with $20 glasses.

So, are we to expect everyone to go out and wear protective glasses against blinding level lasers? What about other attacks that can be thwarted by protective gear. Are we expected to wear body armor, proof against knives? Helmets, proof against blunt object trauma to our heads. What about full body armor sufficient to stop all possible firearm rounds? What about new attacks dreamed up? Are we to be expected to 'arm' ourselves with protective gear for any and all coming down the pike?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sunlight is about 1.4 kW/m2. The human pupil is about 2 mm in diameter, so looking at the sun means about 4.4 mW of energy entering the eye. Although it's mostly the UV portion (which is only a fraction of the 4.4 mW) that blinds by sunburning the retina, visible light of sufficient power can burn the retina, too.

 

Most laser pointers are less than 5 mW for this reason, so that someone hit by a laser has enough time to react to prevent permanent blindness. They might still be temporarily blinded.

 

Not all lasers are less than 5 mW, though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry your original argument was that it would be a hard case to make because you can take preventive measures against laser blinding for a few hundred or less.

 

 

 

from

 

"Since you can take protective measures for a few hundred dollars or less, I think it would be hard to find a DA or jury that would agree lethal force was acceptable."

 

It was this that I am disagreeing with. Just because one CAN take 'protective measures' against a particular assault is not a justifiable argument to nullify a person's ability to defend themselves, with other means at their disposal at the time of the attack.. It just isn't. There are 'protective measures' one can take pretty much all potential assaults on your being. Under your logic, a person can't defend themselves against an attacker trying to club them over the head, because one could wear a protective helmet, or against an attacker with a knife, because one COULD wear armor, proof against knives.

 

For that matter, carrying a gun IS a protective measure against attacks on your person.

 

Nor is it reasonable to expect people to not only identify, but then purchase and have various means to thwAart laser blinding, or all other possible attacks on their person. Is it reasonable to expect a person to go out in public, 'armed' with every counter measure to possible attacks, of the level of serious bodily harm? Of course not. That is the inherent fallacy of your statement above, that I am arguing against.

 

The only germane question, is Someone trying to permanently blind you, sufficiently dangerous, i.e. does it represent a serious bodily injury, that then warrants, return in kind force for defense, NOT are there other ways to thwart this attack in existence.

 

 

Rather I like it or not, that is the world we are in right now. You are watching the victims be prosecuted as the criminals go free. The media and others have worked hard to convince the majority that you don't have the right to protect yourself. I fully understand that I wouldn't want to be blinded for life. Yet, this is one area (as with others) that it is going to be a very uphill battle to win in a court of law dependent on where you located and since most of these incidents are occurring in areas that are not friendly to upholding the individual right to self-defense, my assumption is that you will have to go above and beyond to prove that you followed the law. Even then a jury of your peers may not agree and take actions that don't follow the law.

 

Spending money to protect myself from a laser attack would be worth it verses the amount of pain and suffering going through a court trial and all associated. Should you have to spend money on glasses? No. Should you have to spend money on a firearm to protect yourself? No. If everyone obeyed the law then all of this is mute. Yet, you are willing to spend money on a firearm to protect yourself and the training and licensing to get that ability. Yet, your eyesight, which can be protected by spending money on your not willing to do because you care a firearm and have the legal right to defend yourself.

 

Just because I have a right to go into East St. Louis at 2AM in the morning and walk the streets with my concealed firearm, doesn't mean that is the best move to make.

 

As another poster pointed out, my first goal would to be avoid the whole mess. My second would be IF I had no choice and be in the area of unrest, then I would wear the glasses because I value my eyesight. Finally, when all other options are exhausted, then the final option of deadly force comes into play. Yet, I want to know that I did everything in my power to avoid that even though LEGALLY I had that right from the onset. Then when I stand in front of a judge and jury, I can show that i tried everything within reason to keep myself safe and the deadly force was my last option to protect myself. It will hopefully make my lawyer's job easier if that would ever occur. More importantly, I could sleep at night and stand in front of my Maker some day knowing that I did all I could do.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I seem to remember a member here "BUD" who had the opinion that the best use of a laser on your gun was to blind/disorient the target. Serious bodily harm, could be anything that cause the loss of body part. I believe (until Atlanta DA changed the world), use of a "non lethal" weapon was considered deadly force if used as an offensive weapon. Some one uses a stun gun to knock you out and take your gun. The question would come back to how well you explain your actions. Or evidence that they had intent to do harm.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I suspect most people don't realize that some of the more powerful handheld units can damage your eyes. To those people you would appear be shooting someone for shining a light in your direction. I also suspect that most of the protestor's lasers are not powerful enough to do damage at any distance. In Hong Kong they were mainly used in mass to "blind" surveillance cameras. Depending on the frequency and power, you can protect your eyes with $20 glasses.

https://youtu.be/W6FbUiiwutQ Lasers have become incredibly powerful in the last couple of years. Heres a handheld unit someone built that can burn through metal. Fast forward to the 16 minute mark to skip the science and build.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I suspect most people don't realize that some of the more powerful handheld units can damage your eyes. To those people you would appear be shooting someone for shining a light in your direction. I also suspect that most of the protestor's lasers are not powerful enough to do damage at any distance. In Hong Kong they were mainly used in mass to "blind" surveillance cameras. Depending on the frequency and power, you can protect your eyes with $20 glasses.

Lasers have become incredibly powerful in the last couple of years. Heres a handheld unit someone built that can burn through metal. Fast forward to the 16 minute mark to skip the science and build.

 

That was an insane video ! With that device being built, how long before the "authorities" develop a rifle that can hold sufficient electronics for a laser like that? And, if they put the battery pack in a pouch that can be worn on the belt or back and just plug it in to the rifle, how long will that weapon be able to fire?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

... And, if they put the battery pack in a pouch that can be worn on the belt or back and just plug it in to the rifle, how long will that weapon be able to fire?

Only for as long as it can be kept from overheating and melting.

 

But he makes the point repeatedly that hand-held lasers are already on the consumer market (Amazon, eBay, etc.) that are strong enough to cause permanent blindness faster than a person can react to avoid them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I admit I know nothing about protective glasses, but for those of us that already need to wear glasses, adding a second set of lenses is not really an option. And would laser protecting glasses render you unable to see much of anything around you, especially at night? What good would protecting your eyes from lasers be if it also made you an easy target for battery by other means by the thugs in the mob? Avoidance seems to be the most practical answer, but if it came down to being blinded or being arrested for shooting the scumbag who was trying to point that laser at your eyes, I'll take the second choice. I also think that since lasers have a short range for doing real damage, rather than a concealed handgun maybe we need to start carrying loaded rifles of one kind or another on a routine and daily basis, and hopefully find a way to do that legally.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Protective lenses or goggles mostly reduce the transmission of the specific wavelengths emitted by common lasers. For other wavelengths, it's not like the filter in an old-style welding helmet. It's more like amber safety glasses. If the laser is powerful enough to melt the filter, it won't matter what wavelengths it reduces.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I admit I know nothing about protective glasses, but for those of us that already need to wear glasses, adding a second set of lenses is not really an option. And would laser protecting glasses render you unable to see much of anything around you, especially at night? What good would protecting your eyes from lasers be if it also made you an easy target for battery by other means by the thugs in the mob? Avoidance seems to be the most practical answer, but if it came down to being blinded or being arrested for shooting the scumbag who was trying to point that laser at your eyes, I'll take the second choice. I also think that since lasers have a short range for doing real damage, rather than a concealed handgun maybe we need to start carrying loaded rifles of one kind or another on a routine and daily basis, and hopefully find a way to do that legally.

 

A properly collimated laser can do eye damage at quit a distance in clear air. Especially those in the 1 watt range which are still portable and available. Many imported green laser pointers have been found to be producing up to 13 times the 5 mw class 2 maximum.

 

 

^ this ***

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We use lasers at work for cutting metal. Routinely cut half inch steel but were talking a 5000 watt laser.

 

Eugene

 

A laser like that in a portable, hand held configuration could make a nice self defense weapon. You would not much concern with center of mass if you could just slice the bad guy in half with a swipe of your "gun". Can I get one on Amazon?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

We use lasers at work for cutting metal. Routinely cut half inch steel but were talking a 5000 watt laser.

 

Eugene

 

A laser like that in a portable, hand held configuration could make a nice self defense weapon. You would not much concern with center of mass if you could just slice the bad guy in half with a swipe of your "gun". Can I get one on Amazon?

 

Doubt it. Point I poorly made is lasers are made with considerably more power. Here is a link to a newer 6000 watt version of what we have.

 

https://www.trumpf.com/en_US/products/machines-systems/2d-laser-cutting-machines/trulaser-5030-5040-5060/

 

To make it portable you might get away with mounting it in an air frame of some kind. Ive seen articles of fighter plots being lased before safety glasses. I wonder at the power level of those Soviet lasers.

 

Eugene

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...