5 ms·
"Non-lethal" weapons are actually lethal enough (they can kill) that their use is considered similar in outcome to bullets BUT they can also be completely ineff
by speed_spread 4y ago
"Non-lethal" weapons are actually lethal enough (they can kill) that their use is considered similar in outcome to bullets BUT they can also be completely ineffective against intoxicated and or somehow "shielded" targets (clothes, etc.). So it's really a dice shot. Given this, the logic is that if you're gonna need a gun because you fear for your life, better pull a real one. Otherwise, just keep you distance and wait for backup.
- chrisweekly 4y ago> "need a gun because you fear for your life" To me this is an essential part of the problem. "Kill or be killed" is an escalation relative to the vast majority of situations. The percentage of suspects killed by police shootings who actually posed a direct, imminent, lethal threat to the arresting officers is a very small minority. The idea that guns and tasers are considered similarly lethal is ~laughable. Consider "don't tase me, bro" vs gunfire. Your point about potential ineffectiveness in a critical situation is well-taken. But improving the quality / effectiveness of mace and tasers (or equivalent non-lethal tech) would be a budgetary rounding error compared to the cost of the status quo.
- speed_spread 4y agoLet's just make sure that all usage of non-lethal weapons follows rules of engagement as strict as firearms. For example, non-lethal weapons should not be a quick cop-out from proper deescalation tactics nor should they be used against non-violent political action.