What less lethal weapons if any should police carry?

[jaime_lion]

So I love the idea of less lethal weapons. But the reality of them is less than stellar. I personally do not agree with police carrying taser's because of the health issues associated with them. OC or pepper spray I am ok with. But it should be up to the officer if he wants to carry it. I personally would not carry it for a security job because it gets everywhere and I have heard similar thoughts from other security guards and police officers. Batons are one option I think police should go back to. Not expandable batons but good old fashioned hardwood straight batons. The other would be learning grappling and control holds and pressure points. I am curious if you guys agree or disagree or have other ideas about the police should carry as far as less lethal?

Now before anyone says "less lethal weapons make it so the police don't shoot people" or anything like that. The issue with this line of thinking is it assumes the police would use a less lethal weapon on a lethal threat. Their is a thing called the use of force continuum. It varies from place to place but generally speaking here are 2 examples of how it would work.

1 A person is in their car and are told by the police officer to get out of the car. The person refuses so the police officer uses a less lethal weapon to force the person out of the car. In that situation the police officer would not be justified in shooting the person.

2 The person steps out of the car but draws a knife. The police officer will draw their gun and they would be justified in shooting the person because a knife is a deadly threat. They generally would not use a less lethal tool.

If a person has a hammer or a chain or even is a 280 pound guy on drugs against a 190 pound police officer. Those are all situations where lethal force is justified and less lethal would be inappropriate. If a police officer is mostly going to use less lethal on unarmed people who are not following their commands and such why not just have the police learn grappling and control holds etc?

So what do you guys think about less lethal weapons?

Thanks

 

[Deleted member 39746]

Oc spray can induce allergic reactions and if you have any breathing issues or such i think it could cause problems similar to a taser can with heart issues.

CS gas can as well and has a issue fo if used in allergic quantities in a small area can kill people, i think old CS gas greandes can burn to produce a toxic chemical as well. Both meaning ones which have been left for a long period and old generations of them. You also get sprayed with OC spray as part of the qualifier in more places than not, so you know its effect and it doesn't have as much shock value to it. some places go a step up and have a tolerance course where they spray you and you have to do a set of tasks successfully while under the influence of the spray.

Hardwood straight batons arent less than lethal force, they can break bone and induce internal bleeding etc, but they aren't a reality for people driving in cars as they are awkward to carry and need to be taken off etc. a expandable one is better in that regard.

Les than lethal weapons work and have their place, thats just it.

 

[Buka]

 

[jaime_lion]

Oc spray can induce allergic reactions and if you have any breathing issues or such i think it could cause problems similar to a taser can with heart issues.

CS gas can as well and has a issue fo if used in allergic quantities in a small area can kill people, i think old CS gas greandes can burn to produce a toxic chemical as well. Both meaning ones which have been left for a long period and old generations of them. You also get sprayed with OC spray as part of the qualifier in more places than not, so you know its effect and it doesn't have as much shock value to it. some places go a step up and have a tolerance course where they spray you and you have to do a set of tasks successfully while under the influence of the spray.

Hardwood straight batons arent less than lethal force, they can break bone and induce internal bleeding etc, but they aren't a reality for people driving in cars as they are awkward to carry and need to be taken off etc. a expandable one is better in that regard.

Les than lethal weapons work and have their place, thats just it.

Yes OC spray can cause asthma to flair up. I have not heard anything about it messing with the heart. If you have any info please link.

Have hardwood batons ever been considered less lethal?

As with anything they work until they dont and you need to go hands on. So why not cut out the middle man and go hands on all the time?

 

[Gerry Seymour]

So I love the idea of less lethal weapons. But the reality of them is less than stellar. I personally do not agree with police carrying taser's because of the health issues associated with them. OC or pepper spray I am ok with. But it should be up to the officer if he wants to carry it. I personally would not carry it for a security job because it gets everywhere and I have heard similar thoughts from other security guards and police officers. Batons are one option I think police should go back to. Not expandable batons but good old fashioned hardwood straight batons. The other would be learning grappling and control holds and pressure points. I am curious if you guys agree or disagree or have other ideas about the police should carry as far as less lethal?

Now before anyone says "less lethal weapons make it so the police don't shoot people" or anything like that. The issue with this line of thinking is it assumes the police would use a less lethal weapon on a lethal threat. Their is a thing called the use of force continuum. It varies from place to place but generally speaking here are 2 examples of how it would work.

1 A person is in their car and are told by the police officer to get out of the car. The person refuses so the police officer uses a less lethal weapon to force the person out of the car. In that situation the police officer would not be justified in shooting the person.

2 The person steps out of the car but draws a knife. The police officer will draw their gun and they would be justified in shooting the person because a knife is a deadly threat. They generally would not use a less lethal tool.

If a person has a hammer or a chain or even is a 280 pound guy on drugs against a 190 pound police officer. Those are all situations where lethal force is justified and less lethal would be inappropriate. If a police officer is mostly going to use less lethal on unarmed people who are not following their commands and such why not just have the police learn grappling and control holds etc?

So what do you guys think about less lethal weapons?

Thanks

I've seen a lot of video of effective use of tasers/stun weapons. I think they belong on a duty belt, but haven't really had much discussion with folks who actually carry them to see what their opinion is. One advantage they have over other non-lethal options is their range.

Opinion seems to be mixed on batons - some love the collapsible batons, while others want their hardwood batons back. I think each has an advantage, and haven't found a reason yet to say one is preferable to the other (again, haven't checked in with folks who carry either for duty, at least not in many years, and back then it was pretty much all hardwood batons).

I have more reservations about chemicals (pepper spray/mace). The aerosol versions (most of the ones out there) can spread quickly in a moderate wind, which renders them useless in a lot of outdoor situations.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Yes OC spray can cause asthma to flair up. I have not heard anything about it messing with the heart. If you have any info please link.

I think he was saying the risk of asthma with OC is similar to the risk of heart issues with electric weapons.

Have hardwood batons ever been considered less lethal?

They still are. "Less lethal" is generally a comparison to firearms, and a stick is definitely generally considered a less-lethal alternative.

As with anything they work until they dont and you need to go hands on. So why not cut out the middle man and go hands on all the time?

If you mean why not just skip the weapon and use empty-hand technique, it's because the weapon (pretty much all weapons) have advantages. Most are force-multipliers (like knives and sticks), while others give abilities empty hands lack (OC spray and stun guns here).

 

[jaime_lion]

I've seen a lot of video of effective use of tasers/stun weapons. I think they belong on a duty belt, but haven't really had much discussion with folks who actually carry them to see what their opinion is. One advantage they have over other non-lethal options is their range.

Opinion seems to be mixed on batons - some love the collapsible batons, while others want their hardwood batons back. I think each has an advantage, and haven't found a reason yet to say one is preferable to the other (again, haven't checked in with folks who carry either for duty, at least not in many years, and back then it was pretty much all hardwood batons).

I have more reservations about chemicals (pepper spray/mace). The aerosol versions (most of the ones out there) can spread quickly in a moderate wind, which renders them useless in a lot of outdoor situations.

If they did not cause heart attacks in healthy individuals I would love the taser. But when an 18 year old dies from a taser and was in otherwise perfect health it kind of makes you think about tasers. Nothing happened to me personalty but I have seen a few documentaries and news pieces and such.

I have heard way to many horror stories about expandable batons. From them bending or jamming open or closed . And of course being too lite to do anything to the other person.

I have not heard of chemical sprays being dispersed by the wind. I have heard of thew wind and such contaminating other people or the person spraying it.

 

[Buka]

I've spoken to officers who have broken collapsible baton over perps. I've never heard of a wooden baton being broken over a perp.

And, yes, I have received training with them, directly from the people who make them, as well as from everyone else. I've been certified in every manner of baton and every method of using them that I can think of. Some I'm pretty sure you've never heard of.


Collapsible batons are illegal where I live. Even for police officers. If I was stooped by county police and had one in my car I'd be arrested. Go figure.

I do like collapsible batons when they are closed. They're pretty darn good as a Kubaton.

I work for a department that has no Use of Force Continuum and no Use of Force Policy. I'm not used to that, since I used to teach both for years, but hey, I don't make the rules, I just follow them.

Now, if someone draws a knife.....



I'll quickly, and with much vigor, draw a gun.



And not to brag too much, but I am a serious Mofo with crayons.

 

[CB Jones]

The only less lethal weapons I would carry is a taser and expandable baton.

A Taser is not as dangerous as you make out.

 

[Deleted member 39746]

As with anything they work until they dont and you need to go hands on. So why not cut out the middle man and go hands on all the time?

As stated their is a continuum of force and thus its not appropriate to go to hands or shoot someone with a pistol. Even if its not official, there is some method of force escalation deemed reasonable and not excessive.


Oh, i didnt mean with the heart, the point was you can get a lethal incident with OC spray and CS gas/spray as you can with a taser. not that they are the same type of incident.

 

[jaime_lion]

I've spoken to officers who have broken collapsible baton over perps. I've never heard of a wooden baton being broken over a perp.

And, yes, I have received training with them, directly from the people who make them, as well as from everyone else. I've been certified in every manner of baton and every method of using them that I can think of. Some I'm pretty sure you've never heard of.

View attachment 22324
Collapsible batons are illegal where I live. Even for police officers. If I was stooped by county police and had one in my car I'd be arrested. Go figure.

I do like collapsible batons when they are closed. They're pretty darn good as a Kubaton.

I work for a department that has no Use of Force Continuum and no Use of Force Policy. I'm not used to that, since I used to teach both for years, but hey, I don't make the rules, I just follow them.

Now, if someone draws a knife.....

View attachment 22325

I'll quickly, and with much vigor, draw a gun.

View attachment 22326

And not to brag too much, but I am a serious Mofo with crayons.

What do you meen your department has not use of force? So does this meen you could shoot someone for not following your orders?

 

[dvcochran]

2 The person steps out of the car but draws a knife. The police officer will draw their gun and they would be justified in shooting the person because a knife is a deadly threat. They generally would not use a less lethal tool.

That is not necessarily untrue but a LOT of things would/should happen before it ever gets to a shooting situation. It is never nearly that black and white.

 

[Buka]

What do you meen your department has not use of force? So does this meen you could shoot someone for not following your orders?

No, of course not.

 

[jaime_lion]

That is not necessarily untrue but a LOT of things would/should happen before it ever gets to a shooting situation. It is never nearly that black and white.

Yes I am simplifying it. If you want to write out what exactly happens generally be my guest.

No, of course not.

Then can you explain what you meen by no use of force?

 

[frank raud]

I'm confused. You mention the use of force continuum, but your last line suggests cops should either use grappling/control holds or their gun. That's a very short use of force continuum. Tasers, OC spray, batons, etc., give options to ramp up the level of force prior to using lethal weapons, ie guns. Tasers allow the police to subdue at a distance, making it safer for the officer. People dying from taser use is extremely rare, but people can die from other weapon (less lethal or lethal) or even in a hands on confrontation. If you were to eliminate anything with the potential to be lethal from the police repertoire, there would be nothing left. I also don't know how they train the police where you are, but control tactics, pressure point control tactics and use of baton and OC spray are standard training before you become a police officer in Canada.

 

[DaveB]

Web shooters.

 

[hoshin1600]

So I love the idea of less lethal weapons. But the reality of them is less than stellar. I personally do not agree with police carrying taser's because of the health issues associated with them. OC or pepper spray I am ok with. But it should be up to the officer if he wants to carry it. I personally would not carry it for a security job because it gets everywhere and I have heard similar thoughts from other security guards and police officers. Batons are one option I think police should go back to. Not expandable batons but good old fashioned hardwood straight batons. The other would be learning grappling and control holds and pressure points. I am curious if you guys agree or disagree or have other ideas about the police should carry as far as less lethal?

Now before anyone says "less lethal weapons make it so the police don't shoot people" or anything like that. The issue with this line of thinking is it assumes the police would use a less lethal weapon on a lethal threat. Their is a thing called the use of force continuum. It varies from place to place but generally speaking here are 2 examples of how it would work.

1 A person is in their car and are told by the police officer to get out of the car. The person refuses so the police officer uses a less lethal weapon to force the person out of the car. In that situation the police officer would not be justified in shooting the person.

2 The person steps out of the car but draws a knife. The police officer will draw their gun and they would be justified in shooting the person because a knife is a deadly threat. They generally would not use a less lethal tool.

If a person has a hammer or a chain or even is a 280 pound guy on drugs against a 190 pound police officer. Those are all situations where lethal force is justified and less lethal would be inappropriate. If a police officer is mostly going to use less lethal on unarmed people who are not following their commands and such why not just have the police learn grappling and control holds etc?

So what do you guys think about less lethal weapons?

Thanks

i dont think this question is framed correctly. i would think an officer will carry whatever their department says they are to carry. the question as stated has more political, liability and department policy implications then what is being discussed. if people want to talk about the effectiveness of a tool, like a expandable baton or the pro's and con's of a taser then thats fine but its actually a different question. unless you (general you) are an officer there really is no point in talking about what an officer should carry. if your not, then your only an arm chair quarterback talking out your backside because your opinions are based on a fictitious view of what matters to an officer. unless of course the question of "what a police officer should carry" is based on a political activist view point and your trying to push a change in policy.

 

[CB Jones]

People dying from taser use is extremely rare, but people can die from other weapon (less lethal or lethal) or even in a hands on confrontation.

The deaths occur due to drug use, pre-existing medical conditions, or improper use.

Used correctly against healthy suspects not hopped up on stimulants...it is safe and non lethal.

And if you have a heart condition or are hopped up on stimulants.....then dont fight the police.

 

[jaime_lion]

I'm confused. You mention the use of force continuum, but your last line suggests cops should either use grappling/control holds or their gun. That's a very short use of force continuum. Tasers, OC spray, batons, etc., give options to ramp up the level of force prior to using lethal weapons, ie guns. Tasers allow the police to subdue at a distance, making it safer for the officer. People dying from taser use is extremely rare, but people can die from other weapon (less lethal or lethal) or even in a hands on confrontation. If you were to eliminate anything with the potential to be lethal from the police repertoire, there would be nothing left. I also don't know how they train the police where you are, but control tactics, pressure point control tactics and use of baton and OC spray are standard training before you become a police officer in Canada.

So please explain how a less lethal weapon allows the officers more levels of force? I am not seeing it.

 

[Buka]

Then can you explain what you meen by no use of force?

Sure. The department I currently work for does not have a "Use of Force Policy". Nor does it have a "Use of Force Continuum".

There is no paperwork on either.

If this sounds rather rinky dink that's because it is rather rinky dink.

So, let me ask you, are you a police officer? If you are, you should know that different departments on county, state and federal levels can be vastly different in the way they do or don't do things. Unless you're a rookie, in which case you'll be experiencing a lot of things that might not have been covered in the academy.

And if you are a rookie, fasten your seat belt, brother, you're going to be experiencing a whole lot of things you've never even thought about before.