Do police really need less than lethal weaponry?

Martial Arts Training Forums The Armory: Weapons, Military, LEO, and Self Defen
1

So let me first start off by stating I am not a police officer I have done a few security guard things at some concert type events. Basically just radio and hand off stuff. So I am wondering what your guys-es views on less than lethal weaponry is? From what I understand is the bad guy doesn’t have a weapon and is just non-compliant is when they use less lethal. If a person has a knife or hammer or gun or even if the person is ready to fist fight them they move to lethal force. So why have weapons like OC and such when they have to go hands on anyways to cuff the person and those things are sometimes ineffective. Why not use control holds and pressure points and such?

Thanks

2

For my part, I would say yes. It’s better to have a continuum of force options, from verbal compliance to deadly. LTL is not just about not killing the perp, it’s also there for the safety of the officers (by giving them a distance option) and bystanders (by not having bullets flying).

3

Short answer:. Yes. Less lethal options are great.

Soapbox answer: Less lethal options are great to have, but what police really need is to have about 33-50% more police on the force so that they are working shorter shifts and able to train more on all these fancy gadgets, escalation and de-escalation of force, and especially on using their firearms competently, accurately, and efficiently in stressful situations. Perhaps they would also have more time to embed in the communities they serve, vs having to choose between sleep, family time, training, staying in shape, and spending time doing outreach type activities which can make a huge impact on the communities they serve. Additionally, maybe the reduced pressure would improve retention rates, increase recruitment, and allow for stricter screening processes that are better able to weed out the relatively small percentage of bad apples one finds in any such profession.

It is unfortunate to see how completely we fail local law enforcement, yet only seem to care whether or not they fail us.

4

[QUOTE=mewtwo;2887084]So let me first start off by stating I am not a police officer I have done a few security guard things at some concert type events. Basically just radio and hand off stuff. So I am wondering what your guys-es views on less than lethal weaponry is? From what I understand is the bad guy doesn’t have a weapon and is just non-compliant is when they use less lethal. If a person has a knife or hammer or gun or even if the person is ready to fist fight them they move to lethal force. So why have weapons like OC and such when they have to go hands on anyways to cuff the person and those things are sometimes ineffective. Why not use control holds and pressure points and such?

Thanks[/QUOTE]
Smaller people especially need them. A 150lb guy is regularly giving up 50lbs in an encounter. Having lots of answers makes sense.

5

I think only giving cops lethal options is a bad idea. I think lots of them are already too quick to pull a gun and shoot someone. At least give them options. When your only tool is a hammer, all your problems look like nails.

6

[QUOTE=Permalost;2887139]I think only giving cops lethal options is a bad idea. I think lots of them are already too quick to pull a gun and shoot someone. At least give them options. When your only tool is a hammer, all your problems look like nails.[/QUOTE]

Something something about when you only have a hammer

7

I think cops should consider tranquilizer dart guns like animal control uses. Seems better than pepper spray for the officer, for the perp, and for the bystanders.

8

[QUOTE=Permalost;2887157]I think cops should consider tranquilizer dart guns like animal control uses. Seems better than pepper spray for the officer, for the perp, and for the bystanders.[/QUOTE]

Their are a whole host of reasons why this won’t work.
A couple big ones.
Generally when you go to tranq an animal you have an idea of how much it weights and how it will process the dart.
Two it does still take some time to put someone out with one.

9

[QUOTE=goodlun;2887159]Their are a whole host of reasons why this won’t work.
A couple big ones.
Generally when you go to tranq an animal you have an idea of how much it weights and how it will process the dart.
Two it does still take some time to put someone out with one.[/QUOTE]

The first hurdle doesn’t seem to be too big-is it so much harder to estimate a human weight?

I think some creative bio-engieering could get around the time obstacle- maybe a chemical cascade where an extremely fast-acting tranquilizer or other drug hits first, followed by a longer onset, longer duration tranquilizer? Maybe a salvinorin tip to instantly make the target incapable of anything because they’re tripping balls? Okay, maybe not that last one.

10

[QUOTE=Cassius;2887115]Short answer:. Yes. Less lethal options are great.

Soapbox answer: Less lethal options are great to have, but what police really need is to have about 33-50% more police on the force so that they are working shorter shifts and able to train more on all these fancy gadgets, escalation and de-escalation of force, and especially on using their firearms competently, accurately, and efficiently in stressful situations. Perhaps they would also have more time to embed in the communities they serve, vs having to choose between sleep, family time, training, staying in shape, and spending time doing outreach type activities which can make a huge impact on the communities they serve. Additionally, maybe the reduced pressure would improve retention rates, increase recruitment, and allow for stricter screening processes that are better able to weed out the relatively small percentage of bad apples one finds in any such profession.

It is unfortunate to see how completely we fail local law enforcement, yet only seem to care whether or not they fail us.[/QUOTE]

I was just thinking about this same thing last night I agree there needs to be different laws and more help for people before law enforcement get involved an example would be if there is a DUI checkpoint have the law enforcement officers get the person’s information and gives him a field sobriety test if he passes he gets to drive himself home if he fails a law enforcement officer drives him home. And then a week or so he gets mailed a ticket for however much money but also with numbers and stuff he can call for rides and such that charge based on his income

I cannot drive due to medical issues and so there’s been a few times or like I’ve been out at midnight and so I had to get a cab ride back and also if I go out that gets factored into the expenses. I don’t drink but still at midnight I don’t exactly want to be walking home.

[QUOTE=Permalost;2887161]The first hurdle doesn’t seem to be too big-is it so much harder to estimate a human weight?

I think some creative bio-engieering could get around the time obstacle- maybe a chemical cascade where an extremely fast-acting tranquilizer or other drug hits first, followed by a longer onset, longer duration tranquilizer? Maybe a salvinorin tip to instantly make the target incapable of anything because they’re tripping balls? Okay, maybe not that last one.[/QUOTE]

there is a reason that anesthesiologists are like the top paid doctors. It’s because these drugs need to be exactly measure to the person’s weight and such a little bit too much of one drug and it’s death or disabilities or such.

I have talked to some law enforcement officers who refuse to carry pepper spray because they don’t like how it gets on them the perp and by standards and then they have to deal with it all night. Or the pepper spray canister leaks or the fall on it and it leaks Etc.

11

[QUOTE=mewtwo;2887084]So let me first start off by stating I am not a police officer I have done a few security guard things at some concert type events. Basically just radio and hand off stuff. So I am wondering what your guys-es views on less than lethal weaponry is? From what I understand is the bad guy doesn’t have a weapon and is just non-compliant is when they use less lethal. If a person has a knife or hammer or gun or even if the person is ready to fist fight them they move to lethal force. So why have weapons like OC and such when they have to go hands on anyways to cuff the person and those things are sometimes ineffective. Why not use control holds and pressure points and such?

Thanks[/QUOTE]

Pressure points, really ?

TASERs are a good tool. They work (albeit not ALL the time).

And no, moving to lethal force on an unarmed person who wants to “fist fight” is not SOP.

12

[QUOTE=mewtwo;2887169]I was just thinking about this same thing last night I agree there needs to be different laws and more help for people before law enforcement get involved an example would be if there is a DUI checkpoint have the law enforcement officers get the person’s information and gives him a field sobriety test if he passes he gets to drive himself home if he fails a law enforcement officer drives him home. And then a week or so he gets mailed a ticket for however much money but also with numbers and stuff he can call for rides and such that charge based on his income

I cannot drive due to medical issues and so there’s been a few times or like I’ve been out at midnight and so I had to get a cab ride back and also if I go out that gets factored into the expenses. I don’t drink but still at midnight I don’t exactly want to be walking home.

there is a reason that anesthesiologists are like the top paid doctors. It’s because these drugs need to be exactly measure to the person’s weight and such a little bit too much of one drug and it’s death or disabilities or such.

I have talked to some law enforcement officers who refuse to carry pepper spray because they don’t like how it gets on them the perp and by standards and then they have to deal with it all night. Or the pepper spray canister leaks or the fall on it and it leaks Etc.[/QUOTE]

Cops driving drunk drivers home ? Not likely, see Cassisus’s comments on needing more cops. I’ve heard more than once, “we are not a taxi service”.

13

In general, to the OP, going “hands on” is just as if not more dangerous for the cop, because the cop has to be able to justify the amount of force she uses to subdue and arrest a person, and use only enough force to get the job done. This gets tougher if the person in question is drunk, or otherwise somehow intoxicated, which tends to inure them to pain compliance.

A TASER will physically incapacitate a person in addition to hurting like hell, as long as the parameters for a good shot are met. You leave the darts in them, and can cuff the person as long as they comply, if they get frisky you give them another ride.

14

I retract my dart gun comment and replace it with 2 man teams where one applies full nelsons and the other applies a chloroform rag.