4 ms·

All covered in the article. Touching face, chest, groin, etc is forbidden. And the shock is local to the touched area (unlike tasers).

deleted 2mo ago
[deleted]
ceejayoz 2mo ago
> Touching face, chest, groin, etc is forbidden. Sure, just like beating a suspect is.
- skeledrew 2mo ago
  Yep and the point is moot in that sense. There are those who will use the gloves as prescribed, same they wouldn't stoop to beating up a person of interest, etc. And there are those who will go directly for the sensitive areas out of spite, whether it be with glove, baton, gun butt or fist.
  - Aachen 2mo ago
    This whole subthread (where I never meant safe as "unable to cause any sort of harm to any organism under any circumstance") feels moot. In general though, there's a reason virtually all countries heavily restrict access to weapons. A law enforcement officer who doesn't carry weapons (lethal or otherwise) will have a harder time killing someone by accident, so the person above you brings up a valid concern. The question whether the concern should lead to the gloves being banned is about proportionality, and I'm not sure we can get to a useful conclusion of that pros-and-cons discussion in an HN comment under the size limit
kennywinker 2mo ago
And i’m sure they’re follow those rules to the letter. Like how they always fire rubber bullet at the ground the way they are designed to be used and never directly at journalists https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/lapd-lauren-tomasi-australian-journalist-rubber-bullets-b2766237.html https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/lapd-laure...
rhplus 2mo ago
> Touching face, chest, groin, etc is forbidden. It’s really hard to believe that an officer who’s wrestling someone hand-to-hand, possibly on the ground or against a wall, is going to restrain themselves from grabbing face or chest in the heat of the moment.

deleted 2mo ago

[deleted]

ceejayoz 2mo ago

> Touching face, chest, groin, etc is forbidden. Sure, just like beating a suspect is.

skeledrew 2mo ago
Yep and the point is moot in that sense. There are those who will use the gloves as prescribed, same they wouldn't stoop to beating up a person of interest, etc. And there are those who will go directly for the sensitive areas out of spite, whether it be with glove, baton, gun butt or fist.
- Aachen 2mo ago
  This whole subthread (where I never meant safe as "unable to cause any sort of harm to any organism under any circumstance") feels moot. In general though, there's a reason virtually all countries heavily restrict access to weapons. A law enforcement officer who doesn't carry weapons (lethal or otherwise) will have a harder time killing someone by accident, so the person above you brings up a valid concern. The question whether the concern should lead to the gloves being banned is about proportionality, and I'm not sure we can get to a useful conclusion of that pros-and-cons discussion in an HN comment under the size limit

kennywinker 2mo ago

And i’m sure they’re follow those rules to the letter. Like how they always fire rubber bullet at the ground the way they are designed to be used and never directly at journalists https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/lapd-lauren-tomasi-australian-journalist-rubber-bullets-b2766237.html https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/lapd-laure...

rhplus 2mo ago

> Touching face, chest, groin, etc is forbidden. It’s really hard to believe that an officer who’s wrestling someone hand-to-hand, possibly on the ground or against a wall, is going to restrain themselves from grabbing face or chest in the heat of the moment.