"Less than lethal" weaponry

[La Pistoletta]

I've given some thought to this. I'm not sure I like the increasing tendency of law enforcement using the so-called less than lethal, or compliance weapons, formerly known as non-lethal weaponry.

I think it has the potential to blurr the lines when it comes to police action. It used to be that someone either behaved violently, whereupon they were shot, or they did not and they weren't.

You might presume that these new rubber weapons may be used where real guns were formerly. But isn't it the opposite? Isn't there an incentive to lower the threshold for using weapons at all, and that they will excuse the suppression and possible maiming of less-than-violent citizens?

In my opinion these weapons ought to be removed from the police's arsenal. Someone is either a threat to someone else and then the police should warn and then shoot him, or that someone is not and they shouldn't. Not whip out their vehicle mounted sonic deafmaker ray that just might hit a person in the background with tinnitus/hyperacusis and there you go, you ruined his life. Or some plastic bullets that put someone's eye out whereas formerly he would've had his arm bruised by a baton.


Note that this is a pro-gun post, I prefer the careful distinction that has to be made when police - or anyone else - is armed with a deadly weapon. Guns typically aren't used frivolously.

 

[FreeinAZ]

Less lethal is not typically used frivolously either.

Less lethal weapons have a place in the police officers tool box. As lethal force has become more socially unacceptable (or economically, with all the lawsuits) things that could and should have ended in the bad guy getting shot now don't or can't.

Every agency has a different policy. We are not allowed to use less lethal (beanbag, pepperball...possibly Taser, although I dont consider this less lethal..ill explain below) without a lethal force backup(and no, we are not allowed to two-fist it and be our own back up!) Less lethal in the "use of force ladder" usually falls just below lethal force. It is not "non-lethal" force. It is less lethal, IE, less likely to kill you. A beanbag to the right spot will still kill. Pepper spray and Taser (i know it is up for debate in some circles) have a very low propensity for lethality. Some may have an allergic reaction, etc. As for Tasers, if they really did cause all of the supposed heart problems, they would have the heart problem while being tased, not hours later.

With mentally ill subjects, a suicidal 13 or 14 year old that has a knife, etc, there is no better option. No one wants to have to shoot a kid, and these provide a way to end the situation without lethal force.

It is also not as simple as someone being a threat, warning, and shooting them(we can only wish it was.) Less lethal should not be used where lethal force is warranted. Most officers and suspects are injured during "hands on" instances (fights, taking into custody, etc) Less lethal is a great way to take a large, drunk individual into custody without causing any permanent damage to anyone involved. Pepper ball guns are a great way to break up large fights. Pepper spray does not have the distance, and is also prone to wind dispersion.

It is up to each agency (and the community they serve) to keep tabs on lethal force use, and the department's policy. I would venture to say that less lethal force is used more often for the benefit of the suspect than it is abused by police. By tasing someone, they suffer 5 seconds of pain compliance, and are taken into custody. You mention baton strikes above. Taser (probe deployment, not drive stun), bean bag and Baton strikes used to be the same level of force for my agency. Of these, the baton strikes are the most likely to cause injury, not pain compliance. A well placed baton strike will break bones. We recently went away from a force ladder to a "reasonable and prudent" force policy, IE be able to explain in court, etc, why you did what you di.. Many lawyers like to argue that a with a ladder in place, lethal force was not justified unless all other steps were tried and found ineffective.

There is also a common trend in LE to rely too heavily on less lethal. Across the country, multiple cops have tried to tase people with bats, knives, etc that presented a lethal threat and should rightly have been shot. Some were successful, some were not. Tasers work, from what I have seen of in field use (both probes hit, stay connected, wires dont break, subject is incapacitated) about 60-70 percent of the time. These are not high enough odds to bet your life on. Too many cops also let defensive tactics training and physical fitness go by the wayside in reliance on less lethal options to "save them."


You should be able (I have no idea about Swedish public information laws) to obtain a use of force policy/ladder from your local law enforcement agency. If you disagree with it, let them now. Police are still public servants.

 

[H088]

I still love how police tazed a inmate to death in a prison a while back, the guy was shackled and on the floor.................................

Got to enjoy knowing your tax money is at work.

Police should be able to handle none armed conflicts by hand without additional weapons, armed conflicts should result in appropriate show of force. There are too many instances of police losing it when they are on the job

 

[sacp81170a]

We have several "less lethal" options available to us, all of which require several hours of training by a qualified instructor and in some cases that you have it used on you (Taser, OC, etc.). My department has policies, special papwerwork and the requirement that backup lethal force be available.

That said, the reason you use "less lethal" tools is that your intent is to preserve life in the first place. We've had several uses of "less lethal" force over the past few years. If all of those had been shootings, we'd be under investigation by the FBI, the state police, the ACLU, you name it, and rightly so. We try to videotape every use of force that we can. I must say that having a body cam available to use like a body mike would make things far more convenient when it came to the use of force.

I still love how police tazed a inmate to death in a prison a while back, the guy was shackled and on the floor

Cite, please. Rumors don't mean much.

 

[FreeinAZ]

http://www.taser.com/products/law/Pages/TASERCAM.aspx

 

[Catherine]

There should be a level playing field for ALL people.

What the police = civilians and WE the PEOPLE and military = NON civilians are allowed to own/shoot should be absolutely LEGAL for us to own and shoot in ALL WAYS. Period!

That goes for ANY kind of object, tool, weapon - firearm or not, taser, etc.

Don't tase me bro!

Catherine

 

[Catherine]

There have been SEVERAL cases of tasered people who died. Handcuffed ones - you name it.

On the legit news too.

One lady was in an airport too. Now dead.

You can search this very easily and one case was within the last year for sure.

So is another case where someone did NOT die but the person was in a wheel chair. Legit news.

Catherine

 

[FreeinAZ]

I am 6'03", roughly 250. My beat partner is the same size. We can handle a "none armed" conflict just fine. Most cops can. As stated above, it prevents the suspect from getting injured if we can avoid having to lay hands on some one.

Re-reading the original post, I think he was talking more about a possible police state/ suppresion of protestors...

The woman that dies in the airport did not get any less lethal force, if you are talking about the one in phoenix
http://www.evtv1.com/player.aspx?itemnum=9255

Civilians ,we the people (although in LE, I am about as libertarian as they get) can and do own tasers and less lethal munitions. Nothing I employ or use as a street cop is not available to civilians.

ANY type of force can be used excessively. I am not justifying excessive force. I am justifying less-lethal as a another option to help prevent injury.

 

[La Pistoletta]

What I'm theorizing is that less than lethal weapons are used, not when firearms would otherwise be used, but where nothing would be used.

If you need to use weapons, why not use guns? And if you don't, why use weapons at all?

It lowers the threshold above which force is justified. In the past, you'd have to think and evaluate the situation (if possible) but now it seems to be that LTL weapons are more readily whipped out because they are LTL.

 

[La Pistoletta]

As stated above, it prevents the suspect from getting injured if we can avoid having to lay hands on some one.

Why is the suspect in danger of getting injured?

 

[Catherine]

I would have to think of a less than lethal weapon now.

I don't like the taser idea and some other tactics.

I guess that I would like a firearm to stop the criminal or crime if I could not stop it the 'old fashioned way'.

The old way was run, catch the bad guy and handcuff him. CALL for help aka back up if you did not have a partner with you.

How do they do this in Sweden? Do ALL or only a few policemen have firearms on them? Open or concealed?

Catherine

 

[Catherine]

NO offense - my opinion.

QUOTE:


Quote:
As stated above, it prevents the suspect from getting injured if we can avoid having to lay hands on some one.

Why is the suspect in danger of getting injured?

~~~~~

NOT to the man in Sweden now. To the other poster.

Actually, I think that this answer is wrong.

NO offense.

It PREVENTS the policeman from getting HURT more than the criminal by 'laying hands on the perp'!!!

YOU TASE or shoot the bad guy! It stops the bad guy! YOU don't have to touch the bad guy by subduing him to get the handcuffs on HIM!

Therefore it helps YOU by not getting hurt so easily!

Geesh.

Catherine

 

[La Pistoletta]

They carry open, to my knowledge. Sig P228 with hollow points. I believe they also have access to batons, pepper spray, rubber bullets and tear gas. Those are usually used by riot police though.

Regarding the criminal getting hurt: if he is so violent as to force you to use force against him, shouldn't he be shot? It's not a scared pet, it's a person who chose to get violent.

 

[FreeinAZ]

Quote:
Why is the suspect in danger of getting injured?

Most people do not like their freedom being taken away. Some will fight when being arrested. If someone is unwilling to nicely place their hands behind their back, pain compliance is about the only option. Twist locks and strikes will and do cause injury! Am I issued a taser? Yes. Is it on my belt? No. It is in my patrol bag, for a time when it is actually needed.

Yes, I am sure that sometimes, LTL is used instead of nothing or excessively. I do not think this is the case the majority of the time. That being said, they have a place. Say your son is suicidal. Has a knife. has taken pills/drank alcohol. You call the police to help because you don't know what to do.

Situation #1: He has a Weapon(knife). Shoot him. Why not use guns, right?

Situation #2: He has a weapon. Try to use less lethal to end it without having your son get shot.

Catherine, I agree completely that I wish it was the old fashioned way. I am also very curious how Sweden does it.

 

[Catherine]

Free,

Thank you for the answer! Have a good day.

Catherine

 

[divemedic]

Before Taser, the choices were:

1 Nightstick
2 Pepper spray
3 Gang rushing

Each had risks, both to the cops and the arrestee. Have some deaths occurred after taser deployment? Yes, but there were in custody deaths before Taser was even invented. What is the rate of in custody death with Taser as opposed to in custody death without Taser? Anything that does not start there is anecdotal.

There is risk in arresting a violent subject. All of the responsibility for that falls squarely on the shoulders of the person who resists arrest. Until and unless the government becomes a dictatorship and needs overthrow, the place to fight the cops is in court, not in the street.

 

[TAB]

At the rate we are currently going, it won't be long before tazers will be removed from the tool box. Not a week goes by where there is not a report of some one dieing, or the use of tazers abused.( used where they should not have been)

Training could help with this prob, but no ammount of training can fix unprofessionalism. Which is the real prob with LEOs these days.

 

[Catherine]

One thing for sure... with my BAD left arm, bad hand, bad left side with SOME limited range of motion although I can SWIM, walk, etc. - I would have a horrible time trying to put my hands behind my back - IF I was ever arrested. NO plans on that though! (I have never even had a parking ticket.)

I can float and swim normal but I can't do the BACK STROKE as I used to do before that bad accident and arthritis set in on top of it.

I would have to tell them to handcuff me with my hands up front. Pretty please... otherwise with the bad pain... they might as well shoot me DEAD on the spot. NO offense.

Catherine

 

[La Pistoletta]

I have a reply for later, have to go now. But thanks for the replies so far, I'm looking to get more information on the subject.

 

[Catherine]

Thanks for the Swedish information.

I was thinking of what they did to that elderly lady in NOLA... when she was in her kitchen. They asked to see her gun when she said that she owned one AFTER she let them in her house.

Those big men tackled her to the GROUND and hurt her. She did not resist or do anything to them. NO pointing a gun at them or nothing.

ALL on tape and so forth.

The NRA and other pro gun sites have this on their websites.

NOLA gun confiscations. Hurricane Katrina.

Catherine

 

[FreeinAZ]

Catherine-- I agree there are some bad apples in policing. I dont know if you work or not, I am sure some of your co-workers are rotten also. Like in most professions, some are good, some are bad.

With fat people, we use two sets of handcuffs to cuff behind the back. Or just cuff in front.

People tell us about shoulder problems all the time. So we handcuff up front. These are also people that are still talking, civil, etc, the good people that just messed up.

Some people just want to fight from the start though, unfortunately. I know its hard to believe, but we do actually arrest some pretty bad people every know and then. (When we aren't hassling good people of course )

I agree, what happened after Katrina was disgusting. A lot of cops forget the oath they took. It was not to arrest as many people as they could. It was to uphold the constitution. Many also forget that these are two different things. I am always amazed at the lack of respect or knowledge of the constitution some cops show.

 

[Catherine]

Dear Free,

I am retired now. I know that there are GOOD and BAD people in ANY profession, in the USA and worldwide.

If you read my past posts here and elsewhere, many years ago, you will know that I do have many super close friends who are and were in police work, deputies and a Chief Deputy right below the Sheriff.

My GREAT grandfather was a NY policeman killed in the line of duty... a robbery was what I was told. My grandfather, Mom's side, died in his early 50's BEFORE I was born. I was born in 1950. My Mom and others told me the stories. Police, lawyers, teachers, medical people, shepherds - real people ones not just us owning the German Shepherd dogs, etc. were in my family.

GOOD and bad in all people. That includes Muslims, Jews, Christians, atheists, etc. You name it.

Have a good day.

Catherine

 

[sacp81170a]

http://www.taser.com/products/law/Pages/TASERCAM.aspx

From what I can see, that's not a citation, it's Taser's page on the new TaserCam. We already got those on our Tasers. Now, about a shackled inmate being "tazered to death", where's the report that backs up your assertion?

 

[woodybrighton]

a taser or some sort of gas is less likely to kill someone than repeated blows with a baton.
having used Baton rounds against rioters they are effective and nobody died that day the other option was 5.56mm fmj.
a baton round is probably safer than being clubbed over the head with a pick helm and then given a few kicks while your on the ground
its a tool it can be misused most cops are not ninjas if somebody won't comply having an option between lethal force and harsh language is useful.
just because its hand to hand doesn't mean the prisoner can't be hurt really badly even non deliberately
did 5 lifts in a row in ulster with all prisoners requiring hospital treatment none of them were terrorists or really dangerous.
3 drunks 1 domestic that got out of hand and 2 completely mad people getting somebody into a wagon when they don't want to go is actually quite hard doing it without damaging them is even harder

 

[La Pistoletta]

Thanks for the Swedish information.

No problem. I don't think electric weapons are that common here though. I believe they have been used, however. Then again, Sweden has a small population of 9 million, spread over an area about as big as California, a good portion of whom live in small towns and rural areas. There are no big cities on the scale of NY or LA.

Nice to see policemen respond as well. Your information and experience are appreciated.

What I find the most iffy are the LTL ranged weapons that deliver their own force. What I mean is, with a baton you actually have to cross a certain line and hit someone. Pepper spray and tear gas are - to my knowledge - less likely to permanently injure (and certaily unlikey to kill) than beanbags, rubber bullets, electric weapons and the new concentrated sonic ray device.

I'm mostly concerned that these things are viewed as OK to use because they're "not guns" and so are utilized more liberally even when not needed. But obviously I also realize how handy they can be against people who violently resist arrest and so on. I'm just not sure it's worth it?