Talk:Riot shield

404 link

This link: http://www.selrackco.com/riotshield.jpg doesn't work for me. Might need to be removed if it doesn't fix itself. --Ecnassianer 01:16, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

It does not work for me too. I think it should be removed as well. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 02:25, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Ballistic shields

Under Tactics the situations describes would involve a Ballastic Shield and not a polycarb "Riot Shield" as the article states.

I suggest a new article about Ballistic Shields be created, or added as a specific section in itself.

~~YEPPOON~~

Can someone find and discuss reasons why bullet proof sheilds are not used by most militaries? I am sure I could think of a few (bulkiness, high cost), but not much others. Thanks

~~Kyle Rex~~

The vast majority of "bulletproof" shields are actually only "proof against small-caliber bullets-" in other words, against most weapons a police officer would be expected to encounter, but not against the vast majority of military weapons.

Also, assault rifles, which require two hands to use, are the standard military weapon. Pistols are of limited tactical use in non-urban situations. -Toptomcat 14:02, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Other reasons ive seen are, 1) the fact no 'bullet proof' shields are actually bullet proof, just resistant, multiple hits, or AP rounds will render the shield pointless.

2) Mobility is hampered by the shield not just due to wieght, but also due to size and awkwardness (IE it would be easy to get stuck in a door).

3) A man with a shield is easier to spot than a man without one.

4) The reduced mobility from shields would actually make the soldiers more at risk from rpg attacks and multi-directional gunfire as they would find it harder, and be slower in, taking cover.

5) It is impossible to create the volumes of fire neccasary to be effective in a fire fight with a pistol. And also it is difficult/impossible to perform basic actions such as reloading/jam clearing one handed.

There are many others but these are just the ones I remember off the top of my head. But in short, the only purpose to using a shield, increased survivability in fire, is achieved much more effectively by I/AFVs 92.3.184.241 (talk) 16:52, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

RlCb30 and RlCbL13 plastic-shape-making machines

• Where is information about the RlCb30 and RlCbL13 plastic-shape-making machines mentioned in Riot shield#Construction? Google search for RlCb30 OR RlCbL13 found only:
  1. Wikipedia echoes
  2. Makes of steel wire shelving including a make called RLCB30
  3. A page on a silly joke website called Wokiwiki: http://www.zaped.info/Riot_shield
  • Anthony Appleyard (talk) 05:00, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Relevance of video games list

Is a large list of games where shields appear relevant or informative?

I would suggest getting rid of this and replacing it with something like: "Riot shields are commonly found in video games, particularly of the first-person_shooter genre, generally to make the player's character more resistant to small-arms fire."

If nobody disagrees I will change this soon — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cprobert88 (talk • contribs) 12:03, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

From Wikipedia's main page, regarding my objection to this page having appeared as a "Did You Know" entry there

The following was on the talk page for Wikipedia's main page. I'd like to repost the discussion here in its entirety to remind people of how the information on this page could potentially be used. Zachary Klaas (talk) 00:26, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

"Did you know ... that riot shields (example pictured) may actually encourage protesters to throw things at police?"

Yeah, I know, how dare people carry around things that only have a defensive purpose, don't they understand that's just begging to be attacked by someone?

That's pretty embarrassing, Wikipedia. Don't you dare tell me that "science" has proved it's legitimate to blame police officers for carrying shields to protect themselves. Don't you dare. Zachary Klaas (talk) 00:21, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

Can I ask a similar question? Are you kidding us? Your progression from a perfectly reasonable DYK to silly inferences is drawing an extraordinarily long bow. The embarrassment lies with you. Moriori (talk) 01:11, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

Looks like an interesting article/study. (Who said anything about blame, btw?) Drmies (talk) 01:13, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

So that is interesting: "A chief superintendent in the UK stated that while protesters were generally reluctant to assault police, that reluctance seemed to disappear if officers had riot shields. It has been observed that protestors may not throw objects until the police bring in shields, and some people will deliberately throw objects at the shields themselves, indicating that they do not actually want to injure the police." In a book published by Cambridge UP, so that's pretty solid. Drmies (talk) 01:16, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

• Unintended consequences are often ironic. Abstinence-only education actually results in higher teenage pregnancy rates is another widely covered one. And yes, the source for the claim is absolutely solid.  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 08:11, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

Well, every attitude I was worried would surface pretty much did. I imagine we'll be seeing more "science" like this in the future gracing the front page. Here's another weird psychological inference, I may have enabled you to go ahead and post more spurious crap like this by complaining about it in the first place, just like police officers "get themselves attacked" by carrying things to defend themselves with. And in both cases, no one takes any personal responsibility whatsoever for their own actions, everything's been "caused" by the actions of others. (*sigh*) Things can be factual and still be stupid, folks. This is a good example of that. Zachary Klaas (talk) 12:59, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

Just out of curiosity, if there had been a peer-reviewed article that said that women who carry mace are more likely to be attacked, would you have put that on Wikipedia's front page as a "neutral" science article? Or would you have recognised that as a way to explain away attacks on women? Zachary Klaas (talk) 13:05, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

Hey, what happened to the DYK in question? Did it get removed? L293D (☎ • ✎) 13:55, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

They do change them routinely. I'd like to think people understood this DYK was pointlessly harassing, but more likely it was just time to change it for a new one. Zachary Klaas (talk) 14:13, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I can't stop laughing about this. I can't believe someone actually complained about this DYK. Special thanks to the three people who replied who clearly don't have an axe to grind with the world. I don't feel the need to reply directly as they covered all the points. For the record, the article was scheduled to appear at DYK for 12 hours, like all other DYKs. It was there for the whole period it was allocated. One person complaining did not influence its removal. I was going to reply to the bizarre comment about women carrying mace, but I'm worried that might just encourage this editor to keep commenting, and I don't want to talk to them. Thanks for posting this here though as I'm certain other editors will find this discussion as entertaining as I did. Freikorp (talk) 02:14, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

For the further record, that UK police superintendent is not the only police official to make that observation. Around Ferguson I recall reading some other police officer, from Seattle maybe, drawing his experience of the G7 summit protests there in '99, saying the same thing—when the cops come out with helmets, shields and other protective gear, they are practically asking to have stuff thrown at them.

It is a well-known phenomenon called risk homeostasis: the amount of risk people are likely to take is inversely proportional to the degree they are protected from what they are risking (for example, when ski boot bindings that released the boot at a certain level of torque in order to cut down on the broken bones that had previously plagued the sport came out in the early 1970s, ski resorts responded by cutting steeper and riskier trails). It doesn't surprise me at all that people would feel free throwing stuff at the police if they didn't think the police were likely to get hurt by it; they could still express their displeasure with the police but not get charged with assaulting an officer.

Similarly, I read somewhere that when the guy in the Negro Leagues who developed the first prototype of the batting helmet stepped up to the plate for the first time wearing it, the pitcher's response was to throw right at his face.

I would commend to Mr. Klaas's attention Edward Tenner's excellent book about this sort of thing and things like it (which he calls the "revenge effect"), Why Things Bite Back: Technology and the Revenge of Unintended Consequences. I do not think here Wikipedia is telling any police officers anything they didn't already know. Daniel Case (talk) 18:16, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Laughing is, of course, very genteel and welcoming to other Wikipedians. Thanks so much for that. I notice you didn't respond about how you would handle a claim that women carrying mace tend to get attacked more. By what, saying "hey, this is just a neutral observation"? Or by saying maybe there at the very least needs to be some wording on the page so people don't take that as an invitation to attack women? _Obviously_ attacks on police are being provided with a mild legitimation by any article which does not make it clear that it's not the riot shield's fault they're getting attacked. Zachary Klaas (talk) 01:23, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

There's no point in letting you drag this conversation off-topic with your comparison to women and mace since consensus has already been reached against you. It's five against one. Five people think it's an appropriate thing to add to the article, yet you remain in your ivory tower conducting whatever misguided social justice warrior crusade you are on. You lost. It's over. Go find another article to try and disrupt. Please read WP:CONSENSUS, and while you're at it, please read WP:AGENDA and Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point. In your edit summary here: [1] you make it explicitly clear that you are only adding this content out of spite. Don't do that. This alone could be grounds for removal, but I've removed it primarily as it's also both unsourced and obvious (and therefore unnecessary). You yourself obviously realise this by adding the words "Of course" to the beginning of the sentence. If you have a problem with my reversion, please read WP:BRD and discuss the reversion here so a consensus can be obtained on that as well. Freikorp (talk) 01:14, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Also I notice you didn't reply to anything Daniel Case said. You might also want to look up the definition of the word 'hypocrite' before you accuse me not responding to one of your comments. Freikorp (talk) 01:26, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

It's necessary because people could straight up walk away from this article with the idea that the police "brought the attack on themselves" by carrying a defensive shield. I'm not going to let people use Wikipedia to blame the victim of an assault. Sometimes you _do_ need to remind people with an "of course" statement of something they should already know but possibly don't...particularly when some people seem to have it in their agenda to present things in a way that makes it seem like police officers, whom I assure you do not want to be hit in the head with a heavy object, are "asking for it" by carrying a shield. Also, I didn't reply to Mr. Case because I found his intervention unenlightening. Yes, it's a fair scientific point that people who believe they are protected against risk might behave differently than those who do not feel this way. That point isn't relevant to whether it's okay to lob things at the police. It would be a relevant point to try to make a case that the police behave less admirably in protest situations because they believe they are less vulnerable. But no one actually made that point, and it's not impossible someone making _that_ point might be right. The point on the table for discussion was whether shields cause protesters to lob projectiles at the police, and my position was that whether or not that is true, that is an illegal activity, and the legal fault rests with the person who lobbed the projectile, not with whoever bought or deployed the riot shields. It's irresponsible to pretend otherwise.

Mr. Case's point that the first thing a baseball pitcher wanted to do when presented with a batter wearing a batting helmet was to bean the guy does a lot to establish my point was an important one. Of course anyone who would throw a baseball hard in the direction of someone's head is kind of a moral monster. Anyone who remembers Tony Conigliaro would want to make that point clear, that's not okay. It's horrible enough to do it by accident, it's assault to do it on purpose. Far from proving that the batter was "asking for it", this anecdote, if it proves anything, proves that people might behave in a morally reprehensible way if they think a piece of protective equipment will save them from judgment on the matter.

Finally, I am not going to take any lessons on whether I'm behaving spitefully from someone who, in his first interaction with me, wanted to make it clear to me how everyone was laughing at me. That's the sort of thing a bully says. I would like to see this arbitrated by someone outside of the community of this small Wikipedia page, please. It seems to me that most of the folks hereabouts are committed to presenting a view of police officers as people who deserved to be illegally attacked. Zachary Klaas (talk) 21:20, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

The first response from someone when you complained about this at DYK was "Are you kidding us?". Everyone is laughing at you because your argument is nonsensical. If you don't want to get laughed at I suggest the best remedy would be to cease making mountains out of molehills with such nonsense. I am not the only one who thinks your judgement is clearly off, though you obviously don't value the opinion of anyone who disagrees with you about anything. The fact that is is five against one and you continue to ignore other people arguments yet still persist in your original complaint is a clear violation of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. I would also like to see this arbitrated by someone else as you clearly have no respect for consensus or the the opinions of others. I'd suggest taking this to WP:THIRDOPINION, but it's not eligible to be taken there. Why? Because we already have four other opinions, and they all think you're wrong. And just for your information, this particle Wikipedia page has no community. Everybody who commented on your original complaint was brought here by you from the main page.

Also, you cannot source your argument to another Wikipedia article as per WP:CIRCULAR. So no, you didn't source your argument. And you've also just violated WP:BRD by reinstating disputed content. There is an open discussion about this on the talk page but rather than try and reach a consensus, it seems you are more interested in starting an edit war.

@Moriori: @Drmies: @Crisco 1492: @Daniel Case: Pinging everyone back who has already weighed in on this discussion. Really sorry to drag you all back into this, but Zachary Klaas is clearly very unhappy with the fact consensus did not rule in his favour and has now resorted to adding unreferenced disclaimers to the article to support his agenda. By his own admission, his motivation for doing this is spite: [2]. He has also now violated WP:BRD by reinstating his edit without reading consensus on the talk page.

I think this addition is unencyclopedic, and also treats the reader like an idiot. This is the equivalent of saying "Studies show women are more likely to get attacked if they walk alone at night.[Reference] It is, of course, still a crime to rape a women if she's walking alone at night." This shouldn't need to be pointed out to people. I guess I might not be opposed to alternate wording saying it is generally illegal to throw rocks, even though I think that is completely unnecessary to say, though Zachary Klaas has made it clear that he is doing things to spite me and is also interested in edit warring so I don't want to escalate the situation by modifying this again myself. If you could please comment on this issue I would greatly appreciate it. Freikorp (talk) 00:53, 12 May 2018 (UTC)