doctorow at October 31st, 2013 19:28 — #1
rindan at October 31st, 2013 19:32 — #2
I wonder if that hard mask actually serves a protective purpose. It seems like it would be exceptionally stupid to wear something that restricts your vision so badly just to conceal your identity.
jardine at October 31st, 2013 19:42 — #3
It looks a lot like an old-school goalie mask. Might as well go full helmet at that point though.
glitch at October 31st, 2013 19:43 — #4
Mr. Doctorow calls these men the "Taiwanese Special Forces", but then refers to them as "hypermilitarized coppers". This doesn't make much sense, as the term "Special Forces" denotes Soldiers and the Military, not Police.
Furthermore, clicking through to view the entire image gallery, it seems clear that these are in fact soldiers - they're being transported in military trucks, and their uniforms clearly show military insignia and patches.
So where do Police enter into the equation? Is it merely the fact that the uniforms are black, and thus evocative of SWAT and other "tactical" non-military units and such? Have I missed some vital bit of clarifying information somewhere?
punchcard at October 31st, 2013 19:46 — #5
Reports I have seen indicate that it is in fact armor plate.
nagurski at October 31st, 2013 19:47 — #6
Schedule the protest for one of those scorching hot, 95% humidity Taipei afternoons, and watch them melt.
glitch at October 31st, 2013 19:49 — #7
Facial armor has been around for some years now, it just hasn't been officially adopted by any major militaries yet. That's pretty typical with new developments in tech and gear, though, as any good military does it's research and waits to see how effective - and especially cost effective - a new item might be before phasing it into use.
It is, in fact, ballistic grade armor, and it will indeed stop many types of rounds, particularly those used in most handguns and submachine guns. It'll also severely impede the progress of larger and nastier rounds, which can result in far less severe trauma compared to a complete lack of protection. All other factors being the same, I'd certainly want one if I was facing a rifle round to the cheek.
randywalters at October 31st, 2013 19:49 — #8
So much for Officer Friendly.
glitch at October 31st, 2013 19:52 — #9
Somehow, purposefully trying to make heavily armed and armoured soldiers uncomfortable sounds like a recipe for violence, and subsequent rationalizing of the violence. "The recent outbreak of violence just proves that these so-called "protestors" are a threat to the safety of the nation! You see now why we need this armor?"
Or at the very least, forcing them to endure the heat be an excuse for them to turn on the fire hoses.
hardcheese at October 31st, 2013 19:56 — #10
Seems idiotic - why have something that protects the face but no protection for the eyes from blast, debris, irritant agents and the like? I'd take a good pair of googles and helmet over the face mask.
slybevel at October 31st, 2013 19:58 — #11
It's amazing that a military that wants to look futuristic would still use a MAC-11. They were introduced in 1972. They're probably still using it because it's full auto.
Probable ditto for the M16 as well.
bwv812 at October 31st, 2013 20:00 — #12
The trend seems to be that Cory prefers rhetorical bluster over factual accuracy (unless he's linking to an article about how bad science journalism is, in which case you get a different impression).
slybevel at October 31st, 2013 20:04 — #13
The trend seems to be lots of trolling on Boing lately. If you don't like what you see, go somewhere else.
sargemisfit at October 31st, 2013 20:09 — #14
Law & Order: Friday the 13th - Jason Goes Straight
galaxies at October 31st, 2013 20:16 — #15
working on their group cosplay as combine civil patrol....
bwv812 at October 31st, 2013 20:17 — #16
Is that also a valid response to BoingBoing criticism of Fox News or The Daily Mail? That if they don't like what they publish they should simply consume other media?
Do you think that any community is well served when everyone sticks to the party line and agrees with each other?
scratcheee at October 31st, 2013 20:18 — #17
I suppose the same could be said for your reaction to the comments.
slybevel at October 31st, 2013 20:18 — #18
phasmafelis at October 31st, 2013 20:31 — #19
In a battlefield environment, being able to bounce bullets off your face is less important than being able to (a) see and (b) breathe, and it doesn't look like you could do either unimpeded in this ridiculous Halloween jobby.
peregrinus_bis at October 31st, 2013 20:31 — #20
next page →