Should officers be armed with Less than Lethal ammunition such as Rubber bullets?
Think about it. In more situations than not, police only have to subdue a suspect, not kill him/her. With rubber bullets, they'd be guaranteed to knock down suspects and arrest them, instead of permanently eliminating them.I know some of you will say that in some cases maybe real bullets are necessary, such as during a shootout, but cops can definitely manage to handle those situations with rubber bullets as well.
With rubber bullets, there'd be a large decrease in accidental deaths, such as the unfortunate murder of individuals whom reach for a wallet but are gunned down mistaken for reaching for a weapon they never had.
[QUOTE][B]Police Use of Force: The Impact of Less-Lethal Weapons and Tactics
[/B]​[B][I]A new study suggests that less-lethal weapons decrease rates of officer and offender injuries.[/I][/B]
In the mid-19th century, police officers in New York and Boston relied on less-lethal weapons, mostly wooden clubs. By the late 1800s, police departments began issuing firearms to officers in response to better-armed criminals. Today, many law enforcement agencies are again stressing the use of less-lethal weapons, but they are using devices that are decidedly more high-tech than their 19th-century counterparts.
Use of force, including less-lethal weaponry, is nothing new to policing, and in any use-of-force incident, injury is a possibility. Researchers have estimated that between 15 and 20 percent of arrests involve use of force. A group of researchers led by Geoffrey P. Alpert, professor of criminology and criminal justice at the University of South Carolina, recently completed an NIJ-funded study of injuries to officers and civilians during use-of-force events. Injury rates to civilians ranged from 17 to 64 percent (depending on the agency reporting) in use-of-force events, while injury rates to officers ranged from 10 to 20 percent. Most injuries involved minor bruises, strains and abrasions. Major injuries included dog bites, punctures, broken bones, internal injuries and gunshot wounds.[/QUOTE]
The article was posted by The National Institute of Justice
[URL]http://www.nij.gov/journals/267/use-of-force.htm[/URL]
Also more information on rubber bullets, and rubber bullets can be fired from most standard issued firearms,
we all already know the collateral damage and destruction lethal weapons can produce so i felt no need to post about the lethal weapons.
[URL]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rubber_bullet[/URL]
Virtually zero people who are carrying firearms outside of the police are going to be carrying rubber bullets. I would disagree with the idea that rubber bullets would be sufficient in any kind of a shootout. We already arm police with tazers for this.
But tazers are short ranged weapons and even though not many civilians carry them you can purchase rubber bullets, also rubber bullets can defeat targets at far further ranges than any tazer weapon could.
I feel I should point out that rubber bullets are still pretty dangerous.
[quote=wikipedia]Such "kinetic impact munitions" are meant to cause pain but not serious injury. They are expected to produce contusions, abrasions, and hematomas. However, they may cause bone fractures, injuries to internal organs, or death. In a study of 90 patients in Northern Ireland, one died, 17 suffered permanent disabilities or deformities and 41 required hospital treatment after being fired upon with rubber bullets.[/quote]
Obviously they are less dangerous than real bullets, but they shouldn't be thought of as safe.
I could have sworn I read that police armed with rubber bullets are more likely to fire, because they (consciously or subconsciously) think they aren't going to kill the person. Looking round I can't find any source, so I might have just made it up, does anybody know anything about this?
Delta I think you have misunderstood both the application and effectiveness of LTL weapons. LTL weapons are used in situations were there isn't a great level of risk to an officer or civilian's life. They are [b]not intended to be alternatives[/B] to lethal force, they are the same as a nightstick/baton. They are tools to affect an arrest or contain a situation BEFORE it escalates.
When the decision is made to use lethal force, it absolutely must be that: lethal. They train police officers to shoot to kill, because shooting to wound would potentially put both officer lives, and civilian lives at risk. When a situation dictates lethal force, the idea is to incapacitate the threat as effectively and quickly as possible.
Replacing live ammunition with rubber bullets in officer's sidearms is a terrible idea. Not only are rubber bullets not that much safer (you only have to look up the british use of rubber bullets in northern ireland to see this), officers already have access to a wide range of LTL tools that are much safer and much more effective.
Both hurts when it hits your face.
[QUOTE=JaegerMonster;37818162]Delta I think you have misunderstood both the application and effectiveness of LTL weapons. LTL weapons are used in situations were there isn't a great level of risk to an officer or civilian's life. They are [b]not intended to be alternatives[/B] to lethal force, they are the same as a nightstick/baton. They are tools to affect an arrest or contain a situation BEFORE it escalates.
When the decision is made to use lethal force, it absolutely must be that: lethal. They train police officers to shoot to kill, because shooting to wound would potentially put both officer lives, and civilian lives at risk. When a situation dictates lethal force, the idea is to incapacitate the threat as effectively and quickly as possible.
Replacing live ammunition with rubber bullets in officer's sidearms is a terrible idea. Not only are rubber bullets not that much safer (you only have to look up the british use of rubber bullets in northern ireland to see this), officers already have access to a wide range of LTL tools that are much safer and much more effective.[/QUOTE]
Officers are not trained to shoot to kill, ever.
They are trained to shoot to stop.
[QUOTE=Mr. Smartass;37867217]Officers are not trained to shoot to kill, ever.
They are trained to shoot to stop.[/QUOTE]
Sorry no, it's the same thing
You do realize that they are taught to shoot the center mass because it renders the highest chance of hitting a cardiovascular system and therefore causing the greatest amount of blood loss as quickly as possible?
Again, lethal force is intended to be [B]lethal[/B]
The fact they will try to save the targets life if possible after the event does not change that. It's absolutely intended to kill a person.
In my country both are forbidden to be used by civilians. However when policeman use them they go through A LOT.
I believe they should start using less than lethal guns that are as fast and as efficient in neutralizing the threat as lethal guns.
Less lethal should only be used when it does not increase the chance of loss of life to innocent people.
[QUOTE=JaegerMonster;37867893]Sorry no, it's the same thing
You do realize that they are taught to shoot the center mass because it renders the highest chance of hitting a cardiovascular system and therefore causing the greatest amount of blood loss as quickly as possible?
Again, lethal force is intended to be [B]lethal[/B]
The fact they will try to save the targets life if possible after the event does not change that. It's absolutely intended to kill a person.[/QUOTE]
They're NOT shooting to kill, though. If they were shooting to kill, they'd shoot them again after they were already down.
They just shoot to stop.
[QUOTE=JaegerMonster;37818162]Delta I think you have misunderstood both the application and effectiveness of LTL weapons. LTL weapons are used in situations were there isn't a great level of risk to an officer or civilian's life. They are [b]not intended to be alternatives[/B] to lethal force, they are the same as a nightstick/baton. They are tools to affect an arrest or contain a situation BEFORE it escalates.
[b]When the decision is made to use lethal force, it absolutely must be that: lethal. They train police officers to shoot to kill, because shooting to wound would potentially put both officer lives, and civilian lives at risk. When a situation dictates lethal force, the idea is to incapacitate the threat as effectively and quickly as possible.[/b]
Replacing live ammunition with rubber bullets in officer's sidearms is a terrible idea. Not only are rubber bullets not that much safer (you only have to look up the british use of rubber bullets in northern ireland to see this), officers already have access to a wide range of LTL tools that are much safer and much more effective.[/QUOTE]
I totally hear you, and it's fine, but I think a good cop should be able to evaluate whether he should shoot to wound or shoot to kill. Not every criminal with some type of a weapon is as much of a threat, or the same as some other criminal that both appears and acts more threatening so that shooting him outright would be for everyone's best interest.
So, while I 'respect' the cops and I would never fuck with them, especially so in America, I don't like it how they have the same mentality against all possible suspects. Around here where I live, cops would never really shoot a knife-wielding weirdo to death, especially if he doesn't seem to be big / a good knife-handler, all of which are things that cops should be able to identify from suspects.
A retired cop I know once said that a guy resisting arrest manage to run away and he aimed for his head. I thought that was pretty fucked up.
[QUOTE=Mr. Smartass;37869020]They're NOT shooting to kill, though. If they were shooting to kill, they'd shoot them again after they were already down.
They just shoot to stop.[/QUOTE]
There's a distinction between shooting with the sole intent to kill and self defense though. If they're on their feet coming at you, you're only shooting to kill because it's the surest way to prevent them from attacking you. If they're down you have no reason to shoot anymore.
[QUOTE=Splarg!;37870629]A retired cop I know once said that a guy resisting arrest manage to run away and he aimed for his head. I thought that was pretty fucked up.
There's a distinction between shooting with the sole intent to kill and self defense though. If they're on their feet coming at you, you're only shooting to kill because it's the surest way to prevent them from attacking you. If they're down you have no reason to shoot anymore.[/QUOTE] Hence the reason I chose Rubber Bullets sure they may kill or seriously injure some suspects but its far better than the alternative lethal force being lead or full metal jacketed bullets these are meant to kill no matter where the shot placement is, Rubber Bullets have greater range that all other LTL weapons combined and lets not forget they are fired from standard issue ammunition meaning they can fired from any real firearm.
No, they should shoot everyone for everything.
Less than lethal is only really used when the person is unarmed or lightly armed.
If the person is charging the police with a knife or a gun then they're going to use lethal force.
I've always wondered what the guns the security guards at my school carry are loaded with. It seems a little excessive to kill a kid in almost any situation that could happen at a school.
[QUOTE=kirby2112;37889066]I've always wondered what the guns the security guards at my school carry are loaded with. It seems a little excessive to kill a kid in almost [b]any[/b] situation that could happen at a school.[/QUOTE]
[i]Any?[/i]
I mean I understand it would be extremely unfortunate no matter the circumstance. But if some kid tried to attempt to recreate a Columbine-like massacre, I think it would be considered duty for an armed security guard to try to at least alleviate the situation. This is a highschool or college or what? Kinda off-topic though.
Anyways arming cops with rubber bullets is a terrible idea. When two guys jump out of a car firing their .45's you're gonna feel hopeless as hell. Not even that, you'll feel like you've been straight up demoralized. The police match the offender's lethality in attempt to stop him or her, and it's intended to be that way and for good reason. If a criminal presents any type of threat that is lethal, the officer's response can and usually will be lethal too. A buddy of mine shot a guy for trying to run him over. Can a car be just as lethal as a firearm? Sure can. Same with knives and a number of other "weapons" or objects. Yes there's tasers and pepper spray, but those are for completely different situations. If a badguy is running at a cop yielding a knife the cop can tase him if he wants, or he can shoot him. It's up to the officer and the way in which he felt (and was) threatened. I wouldn't say one's more right than the other. If you present lethal force to an officer in a threatening manner, you could end up tased and cuffed or you can end up shot three times in the chest and dead. You put yourself in that situation, so go ahead and take your chances.
The police already have everything they already need.
Pepper spray/mace, tasers, batons, flashbangs, gas, beanbags, etc. I mean the first non-lethal approach is a yell for compliance, for crying out loud (no pun intended). They even have pepper-guns, but I don't think those are used much.
[QUOTE=kirby2112;37889066]I've always wondered what the guns the security guards at my school carry are loaded with. It seems a little excessive to kill a kid in almost any situation that could happen at a school.[/QUOTE]
Those guns are not for killing kids. They are for killing any shooters who may enter the building. It's one of those school shooting preventatives.
Unless I am sorely mistaken.
They'll shot kids if they pose a threat to peoples lives
[QUOTE=download;37893525]They'll shot kids if they pose a threat to peoples lives[/QUOTE]
We'll that's fucked then...
[QUOTE=zacht_180;37889502][i]Any?[/i]
I mean I understand it would be extremely unfortunate no matter the circumstance. But if some kid tried to attempt to recreate a Columbine-like massacre, I think it would be considered duty for an armed security guard to try to at least alleviate the situation. This is a highschool or college or what? Kinda off-topic though.
Anyways arming cops with rubber bullets is a terrible idea. When two guys jump out of a car firing their .45's you're gonna feel hopeless as hell. Not even that, you'll feel like you've been straight up demoralized. The police match the offender's lethality in attempt to stop him or her, and it's intended to be that way and for good reason. If a criminal presents any type of threat that is lethal, the officer's response can and usually will be lethal too. A buddy of mine shot a guy for trying to run him over. Can a car be just as lethal as a firearm? Sure can. Same with knives and a number of other "weapons" or objects. Yes there's tasers and pepper spray, but those are for completely different situations. If a badguy is running at a cop yielding a knife the cop can tase him if he wants, or he can shoot him. It's up to the officer and the way in which he felt (and was) threatened. I wouldn't say one's more right than the other. If you present lethal force to an officer in a threatening manner, you could end up tased and cuffed or you can end up shot three times in the chest and dead. You put yourself in that situation, so go ahead and take your chances.
The police already have everything they already need.
Pepper spray/mace, tasers, batons, flashbangs, gas, beanbags, etc. I mean the first non-lethal approach is a yell for compliance, for crying out loud (no pun intended). They even have pepper-guns, but I don't think those are used much.[/QUOTE]
Not trying to be a dick, but read my post again. [B]Almost[/B] any.
My apologies. 'Almost' and 'any' are words that can easily be counteracted when read, especially when put together.
[QUOTE=kirby2112;37889066]I've always wondered what the guns the security guards at my school carry are loaded with. It seems a little excessive to kill a kid in almost any situation that could happen at a school.[/QUOTE]
They aren't loaded with any funny or less lethal ammunition. If it's excessive to kill the kid, they most likely wont even point the gun at them. Just because a guard has a gun doesn't mean he intends to shoot anyone making problems.
Mixing lethal and less lethal together(Heads up, anything that hurts or subdues is not less than lethal or non-lethal) is a [I]really[/I] bad idea. Using less-lethal rounds with something that is usually meant to kill opens up for a lot of accidents and overreactions.
[QUOTE=sheridanm;37899168]We'll that's fucked then...[/QUOTE]
No not really
[QUOTE=Mr. Smartass;37867217]Officers are not trained to shoot to kill, ever.
They are trained to shoot to stop.[/QUOTE]
With ammunition commonly issued to law enforcement in the US most shots are to kill as long as they hit a more central body mass.
That ammo though has the benefit of stopping inside of the target so the risk to bystanders is lessened.
On top of that police officerer's aim tends to massively degrade over ten meters.
[QUOTE=Mr. Smartass;37869020]They're NOT shooting to kill, though. If they were shooting to kill, they'd shoot them again after they were already down.
They just shoot to stop.[/QUOTE]
There's no practical difference between officers shooting to kill and shooting to stop. You're arguing semantics.
[QUOTE=DELTA440;37814340]But tazers are short ranged weapons and even though not many civilians carry them you can purchase rubber bullets, also rubber bullets can defeat targets at far further ranges than any tazer weapon could.[/QUOTE]
Tazers are limited in range, and there [I]are[/I] situations where they are impossible to use. However, the simplest solution would be for officers to carry both lethal and non-lethal ammunition, and make sure they know which is which and how and when to best use rubberized munitions.
[QUOTE=Mr. Smartass;37869020]They're NOT shooting to kill, though. If they were shooting to kill, they'd shoot them again after they were already down.
They just shoot to stop.[/QUOTE]
You're really arguing semantics at this point.
They shoot to kill the threat, it's the same reason officers keep their weapons trained on someone who downed until he's checked/cleared. He's still potentially a threat, and there have been plenty of scenarios where yes, they have continued to fire on someone who was downed because he became a threat again.
Shooting to "stop" is just PC language, the same way you will never hear military officials call an offensive "locating people and killing them"
Compromise: 12ga Rubber Slugs. It [I]could[/I] kill. Depends on where you hit them and from how far. Either way it'll "stop" folks for sure.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
