Police 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 deescalatio

Police 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.