"Shocking New Jacket Hits Street"
Moderator: Available
"But we got a lot of positive feedback.
I'll bet they got a lot of feedback.An evil crackling sound
Someone will figure a way to prove the electric force field causes cancer to the wearer.
Maybe the jacket could be made to flash a message like a neon sign to signal distress.
Or even have the jacket emit alpha waves to tune in to chi energy.
The next step will be to design a chastity belt with an electric force field for teens. Guys will then really know the meaning of unprotected sex.
Always with an even keel.
-- Allen
-- Allen
-
Le Haggard
- Posts: 116
- Joined: Fri May 02, 2003 3:38 am
- Location: Ballard area of Seattle, Washington State
Re: "Shocking New Jacket Hits Street"
Unlock a lock on the sleeve with a key, then hold down a button IN the sleeve to arm the jacket.
Somehow, this does not seem like a very fast response system and someone using it could get nailed for premeditated infliction of pain and suffering.
Not to mention that it is very difficult to sneak away from an attacker when your jacket is making all that noise.
They also mentioned that aresting someone wearing one would be difficult. Somehow, the idea of a cup of water and a garden hose defeating it sounds good to me. Even a lawn sprinkler should work to short it out - or zap the wearer.
This concept needs more work, IMHO.
Lee Darrow, C.Ht.
http://www.leedarrow.com
Well, alert the Press, Allen, my friend - we AGREE!Deep Sea wrote:Exactly my thoughts, Lee. Would you wear that jacket in the rain?
Not a chance I would wear that thing in the rain, near kids with squirt guns, lawn sprinklers, swimming pools, wading pools, puddles or ponds.I believe that I would not have the capacity to wear such a revolting jacket OHM to my family. Why, just the idea of wearing it to work could get someone discharged! And Watt's the good of that?!
Frankly, I have great resistance to the idea. I'd rather take a shoken in the amps!
Just couldn't resist!
Lee Darrow, Master of Pun-Fu!
http://www.leedarrow.com
The ad says they are made only for the ladies. Good!
Almost a month ago a motorcycle landed on top of me in a rainstorm while I applied the brakes driving through a puddle. The rear wheel lost traction, probably slid on an oily patch, the bike spun around, and I went down under it in a puddle.
And for more Fun-Pu, that jacket came to mind later in the day. It could really light up someone's life!!!
Almost a month ago a motorcycle landed on top of me in a rainstorm while I applied the brakes driving through a puddle. The rear wheel lost traction, probably slid on an oily patch, the bike spun around, and I went down under it in a puddle.
And for more Fun-Pu, that jacket came to mind later in the day. It could really light up someone's life!!!
Always with an even keel.
-- Allen
-- Allen
-
Dana Sheets
- Posts: 2715
- Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2002 6:01 am
http://www.no-contact.com/faq.html
Read their FAQ. They obviously know they're still in the devlopment place. But I have to give them credit for trying to do SOMETHING to help women feel safer in our society.
Heard on the news this morning that the warring factions are setting up rape camps in the Congo...rape camps...ugh.
Read their FAQ. They obviously know they're still in the devlopment place. But I have to give them credit for trying to do SOMETHING to help women feel safer in our society.
Heard on the news this morning that the warring factions are setting up rape camps in the Congo...rape camps...ugh.
-
Dana Sheets
- Posts: 2715
- Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2002 6:01 am
-
Le Haggard
- Posts: 116
- Joined: Fri May 02, 2003 3:38 am
- Location: Ballard area of Seattle, Washington State
"To Feel" vs. "To Be"
I think this is a huge point here, in my opinion. There are a lot of things that make women "feel safer." It doesn't equate to helping them "to be safer" in society.
Telling a woman to go no where at night without a friend, to never set down her drink, to not dress "provocatively," to park only in lighted areas, carry her keys in her hand, pack weapons with her, on and on ad nauseum...All of these can help a woman "feel safer" but do nothing to make society a safer place for her. Many are false confidence measures. A few of these may help her deal with dangerous situations more effectively, such as carrying a weapon she is trained in using or intensive training in other kinds of self-defense (not quickie classes). But is this really "being safer" or simply being more capable of surviving an unsafe and hostile society? Society is still unsafe for her and the dangers are still there, particularly since statistics show that stranger assaults are the exceptions to the rule of violence against women.
In my view, helping women to "be safer" means changing society to where these dangers do not exist. A Snap-Crackle-Zap Jacket at least is a visible deterent (if they can get it to work in an effective manner) that would tell someone that this woman is not a target. It is a "feel safer" method that may actually have some effect.
As for "being safer" and changing the world to make that happen, I sure as H*!! am going to try...Anyone else want to help?
Le'
Telling a woman to go no where at night without a friend, to never set down her drink, to not dress "provocatively," to park only in lighted areas, carry her keys in her hand, pack weapons with her, on and on ad nauseum...All of these can help a woman "feel safer" but do nothing to make society a safer place for her. Many are false confidence measures. A few of these may help her deal with dangerous situations more effectively, such as carrying a weapon she is trained in using or intensive training in other kinds of self-defense (not quickie classes). But is this really "being safer" or simply being more capable of surviving an unsafe and hostile society? Society is still unsafe for her and the dangers are still there, particularly since statistics show that stranger assaults are the exceptions to the rule of violence against women.
In my view, helping women to "be safer" means changing society to where these dangers do not exist. A Snap-Crackle-Zap Jacket at least is a visible deterent (if they can get it to work in an effective manner) that would tell someone that this woman is not a target. It is a "feel safer" method that may actually have some effect.
As for "being safer" and changing the world to make that happen, I sure as H*!! am going to try...Anyone else want to help?
Le'
Re: "To Feel" vs. "To Be"
Le-sama,Le Haggard wrote:I think this is a huge point here, in my opinion. There are a lot of things that make women "feel safer." It doesn't equate to helping them "to be safer" in society.
Telling a woman to go no where at night without a friend, to never set down her drink, to not dress "provocatively," to park only in lighted areas, carry her keys in her hand, pack weapons with her, on and on ad nauseum...All of these can help a woman "feel safer" but do nothing to make society a safer place for her. Many are false confidence measures. A few of these may help her deal with dangerous situations more effectively, such as carrying a weapon she is trained in using or intensive training in other kinds of self-defense (not quickie classes). But is this really "being safer" or simply being more capable of surviving an unsafe and hostile society? Society is still unsafe for her and the dangers are still there, particularly since statistics show that stranger assaults are the exceptions to the rule of violence against women.
In my view, helping women to "be safer" means changing society to where these dangers do not exist. A Snap-Crackle-Zap Jacket at least is a visible deterent (if they can get it to work in an effective manner) that would tell someone that this woman is not a target. It is a "feel safer" method that may actually have some effect.
As for "being safer" and changing the world to make that happen, I sure as H*!! am going to try...Anyone else want to help?
Le'
I have to disagree on the jacket thing for several reasons. Firstly, my comments above on the obvious and dangerous design flaws of the jacket should be taken into consideration.
Next, there is the issue of what some people call "provocative defense." This is a defensive measure, like a stance or a weapon, that actually invites an attack. IMHO, this jacket could be one of those.
Next, legality. In Illinois and many other states, stun weapons are prohibited. Wearing this jacket on the streets of Chicago would be an immediate cause for arrest, arraignment and a fine and possible imprisonment.
In short - BAD idea from the wearer's point of view, one would think.
Also, it's a jacket. A good, solid footsweep and things suddenly look bad. The jacket is also absolutely no defense against any kind of non-metallic bludgeon, like a pool cue or a baseball bat. Heck, even a length of chain could probably be used against someone wearing this critter.
But the big issue is, IMHO (and perhaps my old friend student will weigh in on this) is the provocative defense issue.
You power this puppy up and you have shown, visibly, that you are ready to fight. There are LOTS of guys out there who simply cannot walk away from such a challenge.
Many of them have a rudimentary grasp of electricity as well as street fighting. Bad combination for someone who decides to light this jacket up and depend on it as the ultimate defense. Or even a good ancillary defense.
Actually, from the deployment side, you have to turn a KEY in a LOCK on the sleeve, then push a button inside the sleeve. TOO SLOW for a surprise situation, which is far more common than one would like to believe, if Department of Justice statistics are to be believed.
A defensive system is no good if you can't bring it to bear on the situation quickly enough.
Overcome these flaws (and I don't see how with the first and the legal issues - the trigger mechanism is relatively easy) and there might be something there.
As it stands, it is an invitation to a lawsuit (civil) for deliberate infliction of pain and suffering, a violation of criminal code for wearing such a weapon in many states and municipalities and just too dangerous if there is ANY source of water around at all.
Sorry to disagree, but this thing is probably more dangerous to the wearer than it is to the attacker.
Respectfully,
Lee Darrow, C.Ht.
http://www.leedarrow.com
