
Gaspard, the anti-assault accessory: never be alone again - aesraethr
http://mygaspard.com/index.php?lang=en
======
TallGuyShort
>> Strangers that rescue you are rewarded.

IANAL, and everything I'm about to say varies with location - I'm in the US
and it even varies by state. People using this need to understand self-defense
laws very well because the way you defend yourself may give the attacker the
legal right to press charges against _you_. If you are licensed to carry a
concealed firearm, you may need to take a course where they teach you stuff
like this, but you can buy knives and batons that have the same legal
implications and no one warns you. If someone attacks you, and the attacker
can prove that you escalated the situation, or put them in danger, you may be
the one facing criminal charges. This device opens up a dimension I'm not
familiar with and I doubt has much case law behind it. If someone shows up and
injures the attacker and the attacker makes the case that it was all just a
misunderstanding or that it was an overreaction, where does that leave you and
your rescuer? I'm not saying it's a bad idea or trying to start FUD, but the
fact is self-defense is a very complex issue and you need to understand the
implications of your actions very well before you're in a position to have to
take them.

~~~
hga
The general principle is that the first person to escalate to force, and the
first to escalate to lethal force, is in the wrong, which can cause the
situation to shift.

Although some states don't recognize the latter, but pretty much everyone
recognizes the principle of proportionality.

There is plenty of case law about people intervening in situations where they
don't know what happened before that point, and it's frequently not pretty. I
would expect it to be worse if they responded to such a call.

------
incision
_> 'Anti-assault accessory...Strangers that rescue you are rewarded.'_

This is begging for disaster.

I've personally witnessed the ugly mess of an overzealous rescue, a rescuer
labeled assailant when the victim changes their mind or late responders are
simply confused and of course violent wisdom of gathering mobs.

Digitally amplifying a scream this way is serious business. Assault and
attacker, words the site uses freely, are _dead_ serious yet being applied to
an easily activated 'bunny' pin with implied 'rewards'.

I hope these folks think heavily about the potential implications - not just
intent of what they're doing here.

~~~
hga
One of the things we're taught in lethal force (gun) self-defense classes is
to be _extremely_ careful about intervening in situations we know nothing
about, it can be very hard to figure them out.

Which is critical not only as a matter of morals, but because it's illegal to
intervene on the side of an aggressor. And there can be two stages of that,
the first to threaten or use physical force, and the first to threaten or use
lethal force. The definition of the latter is complicated, not to mention
controversial and subject to second guessing etc., especially when the other
person doesn't have a weapon.

The general advice is don't, or as Massad Ayoob puts it, if you were in a
hospital and saw a random person needing low 6 figures of medical care, would
you give him a check for it? Because that's what it takes to adequately defend
yourself against a serious criminal charge.

~~~
dragonwriter
> Which is critical not only as a matter of morals, but because it's illegal
> to intervene on the side of an aggressor.

Which includes intervening, in many ways, where there is no aggressor (as then
you become the aggressor, not merely someone intervening on the side of the
aggressor) -- a possibility which it is quite likely that the would-be
vigilantes who would have the greatest inclination to sign-on to such a system
are likely to not consider when responding to a call.

------
TTPrograms
It's somewhat unfortunate that as part of their advertise they perpetuate the
myth that violence has been growing over any recent period of time:
[http://content.gallup.com/origin/gallupinc/GallupSpaces/Prod...](http://content.gallup.com/origin/gallupinc/GallupSpaces/Production/Cms/POLL/ldah6rdp6ukvngoyqi1fcg.gif)

------
jtheory
It would be exciting to be wandering the streets at night, waiting for a
distress call to come in. The moment the bat signal -- ahem, the Gaspard --
lights up, you sweep in and rescue the damsel in distress from her assailant
(naturally he collapses like a throwaway movie ninja), and you earn her
undying respect and loyalty.

This could work excellently in a comic. I'm not sure how well it can work in
the real world. Maybe if they make it really clear the focus is not on racing
into battle with the evil assailant, but on just heading over to ask if
everything's okay, that could be more useful.

In real life, I can imagine so many disasters unfolding -- like, you sprint
into an alleyway in response to a call, and see a bleeding woman on the ground
with a burly man crouching over her. Q1: His back is to you -- can you take
him out before he realizes you're there? Q2: he's actually a passerby, and the
actual assailant fled a minute ago. How long will it take you to figure that
out?

Or just -- escalating violence would be fairly common when totally untrained
people race in to deal with violence, but (as other commenters are pointing
out) the "good guy" and "bad guy" roles in people's heads don't correspond
with the legal outcomes of it all.

~~~
Xeoncross
Having someone there to call 911 if the victim is unable would be a HUGE win.

------
huhtenberg
The idea is simple, but it doesn't make it any less ingenious.

A hardware token that transmits its location on demand, so obvious and so
immediately useful. I think the question of adoption will boil down to whether
this can be used in a completely private mode. That is if notification can be
routed to a specified list of people only. If this is doable, it can easily
become a must-have accessory for children and elderly, but _especially_ for
children.

~~~
derefr
It already exists for the elderly (Life Alert bracelets.)

------
leephillips
This is as useless as calling 911. Your only options during an actual attack
are either disabling the attacker or escaping, and you have about two seconds
to accomplish either one. Anyone who eventually arrives to assist you will
only be there to help identify your body, gather forensic evidence, or load
you into an ambulance. This site flashes images of self defense weapons and
refers to them as joining the violence. They are peddling a dangerous fantasy.
I suggest Sam Harris' excellent essay on the reality of violence:
[http://www.samharris.org/blog/item/the-truth-about-
violence](http://www.samharris.org/blog/item/the-truth-about-violence)

~~~
hga
Some caveats to that advice:

 _Thus, if someone sticks a gun in your face and demands your wallet, you
should hand it over without hesitation—and run._

That depends; statistics say those who resist violent crime have better
outcomes. It's something you should play by ear rather than blindly follow the
above advice, the statistics are undoubtedly biased by people resisting when
it makes sense.

 _Even if you are at home, in possession of a firearm, and well trained to use
it, when confronted by an intruder your best defense is to get out of the
house as quickly as possible. In such a circumstance, a gun is a means of
ensuring that no one can block your exit._

This above is very iffy advice. Not only do you have much stronger legal
protections inside your house, you're likely to have much greater control over
the situation, and control is perhaps his main message. You know your house,
can benefit from concealment and maybe even cover (that which a bullet cannot
penetrate), you don't know the situation outside the house. You might escape
only to be surprised by an armed accomplice. Or suppose you do this just as
the police arrive; more than a few armed homeowners have gotten shot by police
mistaking them for criminals.

You also need to balance this advice about decreasing the risk to your
physical skin with the psychological toll fleeing takes.

 _Nothing good ever comes to people who allow themselves to be moved to a
remote location at the mercy of a violent predator._

In my Missouri concealed carry class they ran us through a simulator with
police "shoot/don't shoot" scenarios. For mine, I would have been a lot more
aggressive and would have tried to shoot at various times if I'd know the
terrible statistics of the above which the instructor mentioned after it.

As for his advice to flee and leave your spouse or children to the tender
mercies of someone who, as he notes, has demonstrated he wants more than your
property, _if you have any other option I don 't want to know you_. That
includes your being in such a situation because you decided not to procure one
or more firearms prior to the incident.

After I left home, I only procured firearms after I had a significant other to
protect, or vice versa. At that point it was an obligation, no matter what
obstacles Massachusetts put in place (which aren't really that bad for long
guns, although that may be changing depending on the city you live in).

On the other hand, I picked up a very hard rule about hostages from Jerry
Pournelle in _The Mote in God 's Eye_: at that point, you mentally treat the
situation as if the criminal has killed the hostages, even if you then try to
rescue them. In this situation, as the author says, you don't increase the
toll by submitting yourself as well. The odds are _very_ high that will make
the situation worse.

Final note, underlying a lot of what he says: if someone unknown knocks on the
door, I don't answer without having a gun in my hand. If I'm expecting
someone, I confirm it's them before opening the door. Or per a rule of Marine
general James Mattis WRT to being in Iraq or Afghanistan during our recent
unpleasantness, which addresses even more points the author made: " _Be
polite, be professional, but have a plan to kill everybody you meet._ "

~~~
mikeash
"...if someone unknown knocks on the door, I don't answer without having a gun
in my hand."

Holy crap. Do we live on the same planet? Being murdered by an unknown
assailant who knocks on my door is so far down my list of risks and fears that
it doesn't even register. I'm far more worried about being hit by a bus as I
cross the street, or my car spontaneously catching fire in my garage. Sure, it
_could_ happen, but so could a meteor that obliterates my house, and it hardly
seems worth any effort.

~~~
hga
It's a casual yet deadly serious precaution, much like looking both ways and
listening before crossing the street, or being careful whenever I smell smoke.

"Any" effort? You admit the risk is non-zero (and it's certainly a lot greater
than that meteor), for me the effort is rather low, since I keep that gun
handy for whenever I go outside and carry it concealed.

Let's add an additional dimension: this precaution is so easy it would be
downright _embarrassing_ to not take it and then get bushwacked.

~~~
mikeash
Do you keep it by the door, or just wear it all the time? What's the risk of
killing an innocent, either because of a misunderstanding or a mistake?

~~~
hga
Neither, I keep it in a handy, hidden location, where if I'm not at it, is
close to my path to the door. It is however traditional in this area to keep
one or more guns by your door.

I'd like to think the risk of killing an innocent is negligible. I'm neither
morally or legally allowed to use lethal force unless I (technically a
"reasonable person"
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reasonable_person](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reasonable_person))
believe I'm being threatened with lethal force and that's the best option.

My above testimony should be ample evidence that I realize the terrible
responsibilities and consequences of using lethal force; I am therefore
necessarily hesitant to do so, specifically my threshold is set high to avoid
ambiguity. In my case, not having any dependents, and living with someone
who's also capable of defending himself, I'm willing to take a certain degree
of risk to avoid using lethal force on an innocent.

In this vague hypothetical, I might instead retreat into my house, perhaps
warning the possible assailant that I'm armed and don't want to have to shoot
him. Someone who (continues to) advance in the face of that (not to mention
entering a dwelling with a strong anti-invitation) could be judged a threat.

Although not necessarily a lethal one, but if someone continues to advance on
a visibly armed man, the man can at some point presume the one advancing
intends to take the gun away, thereby posing a lethal threat. And all this
leaves out whatever that person is saying, all part of his demeanor which one
uses in judging his intent.

------
Red_Tarsius
It sounds like a very interesting project, but I think the reward system is
unnecessary.

A special "helper list" (one or two people from friends and family) should be
mandatory, because sending the signal to everyone around you might not result
in any help due to the Bystander Effect (Darley, Latané).

For more information ->
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bystander_effect](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bystander_effect)

~~~
ianbicking
I don't think the bystander effect is nearly as significant as common wisdom
would imply. People don't respond not because they think someone else will,
but because they don't understand what's going on. I live in an urban area,
and I pay attention to noises, but almost every time I hear a scream and
investigate it's some boisterous teenagers or some similar phenomena. If I
knew the person was requesting help – even if I don't know WHY they are
requesting help – I would respond.

The wiki page largely confirms this as well:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bystander_effect#Emergency_ver...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bystander_effect#Emergency_versus_non-
emergency_situations) – most of the factors which encourage response by
bystanders would be satisfied by this system.

~~~
vidarh
> People don't respond not because they think someone else will, but because
> they don't understand what's going on.

Well yes, but the _reason_ people don't understand the seriousness is
generally thought to be that when in groups people will see the inaction of
the group and conclude that if it was something serious, someone else would
have responded and/or assume they _have_ intervened (e.g. by calling an
ambulance).

In groups people will pretty consistently take longer and be less likely to
even notice what is going on, and then take longer and be less likely to
respond, even when the situations are otherwise identical, because people are
inhibited by social conventions and "social proof".

There are factors that may reduce that difference. E.g. the more clearly it is
an emergency. But even situations where people are very obviously in distress
can result in inaction - the Wikipedia page has several examples.

Cialdini (in Influence) notes that even specific cries for help in obvious
emergencies are often ignored by groups. He himself was actually in a car
crash, and realised people were just driving by and ignoring them, until he
realised and made use of his own advice: Make yourself noticed, be specific
about what help you need, and be specific about _who_ you want to provide it.
That is, screaming "help" gets you ignored. Screaming "you in the blue jacket,
call an ambulance" gets people to respond. Once you first get a response, you
get more response - the bystander effect works to your benefit: people see
other people acting, and suddenly everyone accepts it's an emergency and
helps.

> If I knew the person was requesting help – even if I don't know WHY they are
> requesting help – I would respond.

That may be true for you, _especially_ if you are alone. But the moment group
dynamics are triggered, the odds starts dropping that you will intervene with
each extra person involved up until some fairly low limit (at which point the
chance of intervention is quite small).

------
seren
I am not sure it could work, people probably won't bother reacting to the help
call or at the other extreme, a mob without control will form, but it is
interesting because it is capturing both the gamification and isolation trends
of our current time.

In an Ingress word, they should create leader boards to find out who is the
best vigilante in a given city.

To their benefit I should add they are trying to tackle, maybe awkwardly, a
complex issue.

------
subb
Is it me or this feels terribly wrong?

~~~
gambiting
The only part that I didn't like was the "rewards for strangers for rescuing
you". Not that there is anything inherently wrong with rewarding people who
help you,but I feel like it's kind of wrong to have it advertised as a
feature.

~~~
aesraethr
The fact is people dont react when someone need help in the street/metro. With
this kind of reward incensitive, it give a "bonus" to make people move.

~~~
bitJericho
Is that a fact? I don't think that's a fact.

~~~
TallGuyShort
They're probably referring to this:
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Kitty_Genovese#Psycho...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Kitty_Genovese#Psychological_research).
It's not a fact that no one helps, but it is a fact that there are
psychological issues at play that mean people are less likely to help in those
situations.

~~~
bitJericho
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Kitty_Genovese#Public...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Kitty_Genovese#Public_reaction)

You should read the 5th paragraph down.

~~~
TallGuyShort
And you should read all the peer-reviewed papers in published psychology
journals below that document other examples of this and the factors that
affect it?

~~~
bitJericho
I'm not saying such an effect doesn't exist. I'm saying the statement "The
fact is people dont react when someone need help in the street/metro. " is
patently false. There are many many more anecdotes where people do help. In
fact, I havent read one anecdote where this device would have changed
_anything_. It seems to me that most of the deadly delay is caused by shock
and fear more than anything else.

Feel free to provide me a study where they actually conducted scientifically
rigorous tests in public and not just a few guys in a test room. I'd like to
see the actual percentage of failures to assist and I'd like to see evidence
where this device helps at all. For all we know it could hinder matters,
though I would suspect not.

~~~
TallGuyShort
Then perhaps you need only read my comment. I typed the exact words "It's not
a fact that no one helps". I have no interest in providing scientifically
rigorous studies for you, I was only helping you see where the GP was probably
coming from.

------
LunaSea
Swating-as-a-service

------
JoeAnzalone
Here's the link to their YouTube video since the site seems to be down:
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YuaCBK1spjU](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YuaCBK1spjU)

