> Normally they are also a danger to a responding officer who is fearing for their life. This removes that fear in the decision making process. Generally if t

> Normally they are also a danger to a responding officer who is fearing for their life. This removes that fear in the decision making process. Generally if there's no danger to the responding officer, deadly force shouldn't be used. And literally one of the biggest fucking problems with the police is when they think they're in danger when they're not, and when they go and place themselves in danger in order to use deadly force. There's this incredibly narrow, almost hypothetical, situation where someone else is in danger but the cops aren't, and where the situation has gone on long enough that something like this could be deployed. In that situation it is almost certainly better to use nonlethal force. And more importantly the cops have proven over and over and over again that if you give them an inch they will take a mile and if its okay for them to kill someone in the 0.1% case that they'll start killing people with it all the time. And really the police need to figure out how to police with a lot fewer guns and a lot less use of deadly force. Until they figure out how to do that, giving them more ways to kill people, based on an almost hypothetical, is not something that I'm willing to agree to.