Jump to content

Talk:LED incapacitator

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Reference to Cluster Headaches

[edit]

The use of "cluster headaches" is an inaccurate term when describing something that more closely resembles a migrane rather than a cluster headache. If this incapacitator actually induced cluster headaches it should be deemed illegal to use. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.248.236.203 (talk) 16:06, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Non-Encyclopaedic

[edit]

"But there is recent controversy, especially coming from online contributors and bloggers, where they state that the weapon is truly a fad for law enforcement men/women, and that they use the weapon as a toy.

If the weapon is seen as a fad, well then it is being improperly operated and is prone to causing bodily injury to the opponent, even death, if the light is to be flashed at someone whom is driving (police pursuit) and then fatally crashes."

This seems really unprofessional and totally POV. I'm going to cut it from the article unless someone can supply citations or (and I doubt this) reword it so it doesn't seem like a juvenile argument between two different contributors. Additionally, it takes a lot less than some fancy LED to blind a driver. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.199.244.100 (talk) 15:51, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This should not be deleted.

[edit]

This received widespread media attention. It should not be deleted. Grundle2600 06:29, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to agree that it shouldn't be speedily deleted. It's verifiable, and most certainly is not the blatant advertising that the nominator claims it is. It deffinitly needs work, but that's not to say it needs to be speedied. --YbborTalk 13:50, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have significantly expanded this, adding proper references to the web stories already cited, and citing 5 additional sources from a google news search. I think it is celarly not in the speedy category now -- the only possible question is long-term notability. DES (talk) 16:14, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize, you guys have done a great job getting this article to a status that is worth while on Wikipedia. At first, it looked like some single product from a company that was merly an advertisement, but you guys have shown that it is a valid article. DES may be correct in that perhaps if it does not continue to get widespread media attention that it could possibly get deleted in the future, but for now it looks fine. Thanks for all your help. --Pilotboi / talk / contribs 18:06, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's OK. Every article starts out short. Then lots of people get to have fun adding to it! Grundle2600 19:28, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Increasing Intracranial Pressure??

[edit]

As many of you may remember, Dr. Carl Sagan famously said that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. I find the claim that this light can increase intracranial pressure to be more than extraordinary. All of the sources cited for this article are news articles - and even if one of them makes this claim (I have read three of them so far , none of which said anything about increasing intracranial pressure,) for a claim such as this I would feel much more comfortable with it being true if a peer-reviewed study or at least a document released by the military stating this as fact was cited as a reference. I mean, how would one know that this light caused increased intracranial pressure anyway? It's a rather invasive procedure to measure intracranial pressure. Also, over the short duration of time that this incapacitating "weapon" is used, it simply seems, well, extraordinary that it could cause an increase in intraocular pressure, much less intracranial pressure. I hope someone can either validate this incredible claim or - more likely - invalidate it. Spiral5800 (talk) 13:28, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This article is in desperate need of an update or rewrite

[edit]

The "criticism" part of this article features a very obtuse opinion from some random guy who has nothing to do with the LEDI. I'm sure there are more valid and potentially scientific criticisms of this device were this article to receive a revamp. You'd be surprised how many people reach this article as a result of police-related TV shows. It'd also be best to reevaluate the validity of certain sources. This entry is non-encyclopedic in my eyes. 72.160.12.39 (talk) 06:40, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on LED Incapacitator. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:48, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on LED Incapacitator. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:46, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Led incapacitor

[edit]

How to stop this when in the wrong hands 71.211.52.190 (talk) 21:55, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Just make sure you go to lots of hardcore techno music clubs with really aggressive lightshows. I don't think the LED incapacitator could compete. — The Anome (talk) 19:45, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:LED_incapacitator&oldid=1224671795"