How do you recover from a police strobe hit?

Post Reply New Topic

In a nutshell: in some areas the police lights have been amped 5-fold in brightness and the frequency intentionally designed to have a neurological effect of "disorienting" human beings within a certain radius regardless whether they are criminals or not. The coppers are "not allowed" to turn them off even if photo-sensitive epileptic people are begging them to. From a distance it is quiet annoying, up close it is obviously harmful and may indeed trigger a seizure even in a healthy individual. Any ideas how to recover? Is it a well known topic among aspies (aside from the whole thing being obviously an un-constitutional way of handling citizens)?

Peril-sensitive sunglasses.

Now that is protection not recovery. And something one would use on a horse but not an actual human being who wants protection and not isolation and being subjectified. Actually I did think about some kind of sunglasses but ones that would only react to police strobes and reduce the level down below the threshold of being harmful.

By recovery aids I mean things you could eat/do to alleviate the effects of exposure to the police strobes which blatantly speaking are desinged to be harmful, just like pepper sprays and tasers.

It is better to avoid situations where you are likely to be strobed, tasered, or sprayed by the police.

Tests have shown that "police strobes" don't cause epileptic fits or vomiting. But they will certainly cause dazzling or temporary flash blindness.

As a curious historical foonote, it turns out that the Canal Defence Light -- a WWII tank-mounted strobing secret weapon -- was also used for crowd control. A unit of the Royal Tank Regiment did use the strobe weapons in India, during the Calcutta riots of 1946

Muslim and Hindu and Sikh mobs attacked each other with iron bars, sticks and other weapons, leaving some four thousand dead. A "squadron" of CDL tanks was sent in, along with the police, to quell the riot. According to one eye-witness account, "the eerie flickering of their lights as they passed from street to street playing on the dead and on the devastation, in which they died, made a Dore’s Inferno of Calcutta". The police and strobe-saddled tankers managed to protect government and military installations. But, in the end, they could not stop the rioters from killing each other and destroying homes.

I don't know which tabloid you're getting your information from; but there seems to be no consistently strong evidence to support your claims. If you have such evidence, then please provide some links; but if your "evidence" is obtained from tabloids, talk radio, or conspiracy-theory websites, then don't bother.

How about evidence coming from a cop who describes his own observations while performing his "duty":

https://www.policeone.com/police-produc ... be-lights/

There are also numerous other reports by the coppers themselves who find the new weapon a tad bit too effective.

The thing is you do not even need to get into "situations" to get strobed, they mount similar weapons on their cars, replacing normal signal lights that were used in the past. The result is disorientation of drivers and even accidents, as reported by the cops themselves.

There is a bit of a difference between US and UK coppers. In the UK they do not treat you like livestock, the idea of the police is an organization that actually protects and aids the citizens rather than assaulting them even if they are innocent bystanders.

"there seems to be no consistently strong evidence to support your claims" - this sentence comes up every single time somebody is trying to report harmful effects of a food additive, a medical proceedure or whatever. I find it a bit strange, I suppose it is in our best interest to protect our health.

The only consistent claims regarding "Police Strobes" are that they tend to temporarily disorient, they tend to temporarily blind, they tend to temporarily disable peripheral vision, they tend to temporarily limit the ability to accurately aim and fire a weapon, and they tend to temporarily induce fear, hesitancy, confusion, and indecision in potential attackers.

But in no case were they ever proven to have been directly responsible for causing death or permanent injury.

These devices were developed as a more humane and safer alternative to lethal firearms and hand-to-hand combat. I guess some people would rather that the police shot them seven or eight times and risk death than have to endure a few seconds of disorientation and risk arrest.

Why people always seem to defend harmful food additives and other technologies that work against them is beyond me. Perhaps some kind of Stockholm syndrome, but seriously - why put yourself on the side of your own oppressor? Not that long time ago if something was harmful it was simply retracted and people were citizens and not "suspects" treated like livestock. But this seems to change and for some strange reason people seem to accept it, a very Orwellian phennomenon. Numerous individuals might have died from strobes, this would be easily covered up because it is so easy to say that the person probably was an undiagnosed epileptic anyway. Temporarily blinding people on a regular basis or messing up their nervous systems seems to be OK as well.

But one thing remains which puzzles me: why place strobe weapons on top of the police vans in place of the old-fashioned signal lights? It has been reported to disorient drivers who even drive into an accident scene creating a new accident on top of the previous one, there were firefighters telling the cops to turn off the damn lights cause they cannot proceed with their task of saving lives, does it have to be "statistical" and "published research" to be true?

In addition to more immediate solutions? Contact your elected representative(s) about it, because this doesn't sounds like something that should be allowed.

Indeed. This would be more effective than complaining on a social website devoted to the reality of autism spectrum disorders.