Police and non-lethal weapons

I don't want to derail other threads, and this topic is more broad than just the recent Atlanta incident, but I have been in conversations with numerous people who simply don't understand certain things about "less-than-lethal" weapons used by police. What follows are the things that I find myself explaining to people, and they just don't seem to get it. Is there anything else I should add?

1) Less-than-lethal weapons are only less-than-lethal when intentionally used in a less-than-lethal manner. The user has to try very hard to use them in ways that have less risk of killing or seriously injuring the target. They are not non-lethal by their very nature.

As such, they require the good will of the user in order to try to keep the target alive. In the case of police, this is usually a reasonable assumption that they are acting in good faith, but when a criminal seizes such a weapon, the intentions are typically not good-natured.

2) Even when used properly, less-than-lethal weapons can maim and kill. A rubber bullet to the eye is little different than a real bullet to the eye. A tazer can cause a heart attack. A beanbag shell can shatter a rib and puncture a lung. They are not reliably less-than-lethal, and the police can jot be reasonably expected to allow themselves to be shot by them.

3) Less-than-lethal weapons require medical attention after their use. Someone has to be standing by to mitigate the health effects of their use. To resuscitate the target if the tazer causes complications. To call the ambulance if the beanbag round is still a little too effective. Assuming that criminals will do this is sort of antithetical to their nature.

4) Less-than-lethal weapons can still cause permanent injury. The police can't be expected to risk death and face permanent injury to protect the life and health of the people that are trying to harm them.

5) Less-than-lethal weapons incapacitate their target, allowing the user to do whatever he will. This is obviously less of a problem when the person using them is trustworthy, but the police can't trust that the felon who is trying to take them won't then take their service pistol once they are unconsciousbandnuse it against them, or against other people.

6) If policy is changed to forbid the use of deadly force against criminals using less-than-lethal weapons, it will only embolden criminals to use them more often. Nothing happens jn a vacuum, and once it is known that the police are not allowed to respond with deadly force to the criminals who use tazers and beanbags, more criminals will feel confident to use them in the commission of violent crime.

I consistently bring up these facts, yet many people are "immune" to facts. Is there another, more compelling fact that should be mentioned?

Let's block ads! (Why?)

Police and non-lethal weapons