I agree.bdickens wrote:You are correct, of course, but some stupid little gimmick isn't gonna do any good, either.Excaliber wrote:In situations where the observer is in a position to see all of that and has time to watch for a while to figure out who's who, that's pretty much what goes on. Unfortunately, just like witnesses, approaching police officers only have what can be observed from their position to make decisions on.bdickens wrote:I think the idea is stupid.
The best method for sorting out IFF situations, I would think, is that the bad guy is the one shooting at all the people who are screaming and trying to get away while the good guy is the one shooting at him.
Examples:
1. The approach path of the first LEO on the scene is from behind the CHL'er who's firing at the bad guy, who is ducking behind cover. What they see: 1 guy in civilian clothes shooting at somebody else who's not shooting back.
2. The LEO approaches and sees 1 guy in civilian clothes (CHL) apparently firing towards a group of people scattering away from him. A building corner blocks his view of the armed bad guy who is firing back at the CHL'er.
The real deal is much sloppier( in the sense that there's a lot of uncertainty and multiple ways to interpret what you can see) than the theory.
No offense to the OP who asked a sincere and reasonable question on a topic we all have struggled with, but the particular product he inquired about has nothing at all to offer anyone other than the guy who makes money when one is sold.
Other products (ID vests, hats, and rapid deployment fluorescent sashes come to mind) with at least some degree of utility and plenty of disadvantages have been discussed in other threads, but this one appeared to be designed more around fantasy than utility.