Non-Lethal Weapons: as bad as lethal?

[GreNME]

Resolution to Ban Less-Lethal Weapons (http://www.nolesslethal.org/)

Now, I'm intentionally not coming to a distinct opinion on this matter because I don't yet know what is involved in the issue. However, I came across this site when looking into other things, and I was wondering how in the world such an extreme opposition to lowering the lethality of weapons used by our law enforcement is a bad thing. Upon thinking about it, I came up with a few ideas, some of which the site seems to suggest as well: Police will tend to actually use the weapons more if they are not lethal.
Criminals or those with criminal intent will be less concerned when dealing with law enforcement.
The handicapped or small children may become unfortunate casualties.
Incidents of cruel punishment may rise (however slightly).
The whole process of being arrested could become hazardous to one's health (more than it may be already in some cases).

Those are off the top of my head. I don't have a whole lot of faith in them, but I also don't have a whole lot of faith in any defense against them. So I want ideas for both. Someone out there who reads or posts here has to have given this more thought than I have, so I want some input. I really am very curious about opposition to nonlethal weapons in law enforcement, and the various reasons why in many cases.

Anyone? Beuller? Beuller?

[Hegemon]

You have suggested the possibility of the handicapped or small children becoming casualties. So far, I can recall atleast one case where a child (6 yrs old) was stunned by a taser.

http://edition.cnn.com/2004/US/11/12/child...d.ap/index.html (http://edition.cnn.com/2004/US/11/12/child.tasered.ap/index.html)

I also found this which mentions 2 kids who were tasered (one is the kid from the previous article) http://edition.cnn.com/2004/US/11/14/child...sers/index.html (http://edition.cnn.com/2004/US/11/14/children.tasers/index.html)

[mr_porteiro_head]

I've thought about this, and there's really no good solution.

Anything that you use will either a) have the potential for fatal injury or B) not have the potential to even phaze some people.

Example of a) the "sleeper hold" or "rear naked choke" that used to be taught and used by LEOs. This is a pretty good move, as it keeps the LEO safe, and you are able to do it properly, will incapacitate anybody, regardless of their size or strength.

The reason why this works is because it not only cuts off air to the lungs, but it also cuts off the flow of blood to the brain.

But because of this, it can occasionally cause death. People have died from this in the relatively controlled atmosphere of a judo dojo or gym. Granted, it's not often, and it's probably more dangerous being stung by a bee than being choked out with the rear naked choke, but the danger is there. Enough so that in many places this hold is off limits to LEOs.

Example of B) -- mace or pepper spray. I have seen videos of somebody being sprayed full in the face (with eyes open) with mace or pepper spray (I don't recall which it was). The sprayie was then supposed to go pick up a knife (a fake one) and try to kill the person that maced him. He had no problem doing so. These sprays are a major irritant, but if the attacker wants to, they can be overcome. They really only discourage, but do not restrain or incapacitate.

Let's face it -- being a LEO is a violent line of work, and they are called upon to physically restrain people. I think that we should give them the best tools possible to allow them to do it a) effectively and B) as safely as possible. Perfect safety is not possible in such situations.

But the possibility of abuse scares me as well. In fact, there's a lot about being a poiceman that scares me. It seems that right now, the police force naturally attracts the kind of person that I want to never be in authority over me -- those that get a kick out of being in authority over others.

[Grey Area]

I don't know if this is what spurred this discussion, but here in the SF Bay Area, we've been discussing this:

Reports out on Taser effectivness. (http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/news/breaking_news/10340242.htm?1c)

[Ela]

Interesting.

Tasers (http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/10363910.htm?1c) and their use on children have been a big issue here in Miami, especially in the wake of the tasering of a 6-year-old boy at a school last month (mentioned in the article that Hegemon posted).

According to some local pediatric experts who have been quoted in the media over the last month, tasers can cause permanent heart damage in children. (Probably Sara would know more about this.)

[Starla*]

Shooting a child with a taser seems a bit excessive. Really---3 policeman versus a 6-year-old with a piece of glass---I guess the logic was that the kid was hurting himself and could have hurt them, too. And the 12-year-old girl? She was running away. He could have either chased after her or waited until later and got her at home. I'm sure he got her name before she ran off.

I think it does give the police the idea that they can use the "less-lethal" weapons more because "it won't really hurt them that much." Bullshit. Hitting that girl in the eye was an accident, but the article was right in that if they had their regular weapons, they would have had more restraint and the girl would still be alive.

It's like this, to me: these "safe" weapons are intended to give the police more power in mob situations supposedly without hurting anyone seriously. The use them more often. But, it creates a sense of fear in those on the wrong side of that weapon, which, I suppose is the point, but is it really better? The government already uses fear as a tool waaaaaaaay too much to control the citizens of this country. People may be too afraid to protest injustices, therefore perpetuating them.

[mr_porteiro_head]

I'm sure he got her name before she ran off. I'm not.

[Starla*]

Even so. Stun the kid with an effing taser?

[SJConsultant]

I'm going to apologize ahead of time in case anyone is offended by any of my statements, but since I have worked in the field of Public Safety, I have been in many situations where I have strong opinoins about these matters.


<rant mode on>
I'm wondering if anyone against "less than lethal" weapons has ever had the experience of having to deal with people that don't care your there to help or protect them from any dangers on a regular basis.

In my EMS days, I personally have been involved in circumstances where no weapons were used, only physical force to restrain a person where used and that person was injured.

Guess what? Myself as well as the EMS agency and Police department were sued because the family claimed we used "excessive force" to protect the person from any further attempts at committing suicide.

For 9 years I placed my life on the line to protect other people and their property as an EMT and Firefighter. In both occupations, I have faced situations where "less than lethal" weapons have made or could have made dramatic differences in the outcomes of various calls I responded to.

I strongly believe in having various "levels" of force since there is no way to draw a black and white line as to what constitutes a lethal vs non lethal situation. While "Less than lethal" weapons are typically used more often than lethal force, its because the officers involved are trained to use the least amount of force to diffuse whatever situation they are in, as the situation escalates, so does the level of force involved. At least having some kind of "less than lethal" force available gives an option to diffuse a situation with minimal injury to all parties involved.

</rant mode off>

[pod]

Yeah you beat me to the distinction i wanted to make.

The term "Less than lethal" is like the term "Bullet-proof". If you've got a .50 caliber rifle, i don't care if you've got a "bullet-proof" vest, or "bullet-proof" glass, the thing will put holes through solid engine blocks, and kevlar or treated plexy just isn't going to stop every bullet. Less than leathal is the same sort of thing. Tasers with enough voltage to stun a 200 pound man should probably not be used on 80 pound children. At least, people should think twice about using them. Police officers should not indiscriminately fire paint balls full of pepper at eye level into crowds.

These weapons do save lives, they are much safer to use when compared to high velocity peices of metal, BUT that doesn't mean they're not dangerous, and there does seem to be an air of complacency around these devices. That's the danger.

[GreNME]

This (http://www.nbcsandiego.com/news/4003309/detail.html) may be a poor use of less-than-lethal weapons...

[pod]

oh?

That i'd at least say was within the specifications of how the device was supposed to be used. I don't know how the altercation went down, but the police officer clearly displayed the intent to shoot him if he didn't cooperate, so i'm unsurprised that the guy got tazered when he didn't cooperate.

It's stupid that it's over a stolen soda, but the dude did take a swing at an officer

[SJConsultant]

Originally posted by GreNME@Dec 16 2004, 11:59 PM
This (http://www.nbcsandiego.com/news/4003309/detail.html) may be a poor use of less-than-lethal weapons...
Not quite sure what your perspective is on it, but IMHO, the officers used due diligence and did as they were trained. They only tasered him when he went on the offensive.

I would go so far as to say at least a taser is safer to the general public than other less then lethal weapons such as mace or pepper spray.

It's no fun to be in an enclosed room when a police officer decides to spray an uncooperative person.