4 ms·
How about using something that has no or slim chance of causing harm to a person? I’m stymied by weapons like tasers and rubber bullets being available in any s
by BearOso 6y ago
How about using something that has no or slim chance of causing harm to a person? I’m stymied by weapons like tasers and rubber bullets being available in any situation because they’re “less than lethal,” and especially because in reality they’re only “less lethal.” Many don’t seem to understand that distinction.
How often do police situations merit weapons of any kind? Probably not often enough for them to be available unconditionally.
- thomastjeffery 6y agoPolice in the US often lean on the threat of lethal force as a means to compel citizens. This is widely considered appropriate here: When used with deescalation tactics, several officers brandishing firearms at a suspect can be an effective way to convince that person to stop whatever they are doing. Of course, there are a lot of situations where the threat of lethal force is absolutely inappropriate. Protests always fit into this category, for a few reasons: 1. Bullets tend to go through or past people, so firing into a crowd should be avoided if at all possible. Anyone who has had firearms training knows to consider everything in the path of fire instead of hyper-focusing on the intended target. 2. Most protesters are unarmed, and nonviolent. Using lethal force against unarmed civilians is reprehensible. This is where the desire for non-lethal weapons comes into play. The problem is that non-lethal weapons don't really exist. Instead, police are given "less-lethal" weapons. They are still lethal, but there is a significant chance that when used as-intended these weapons will not cause death. I think you and I can agree that isn't nearly good enough. Here's hoping that real change can come in response to these protests.