New Non-Lethal Bullet Burns Propellant Inside the Round

Wow. That's very interesting.

I personally believe that cops lean too heaving on lethal force when it is not necessary.

The problem with so called non-lethal weapons is that they are not always non-lethal.

When that happens the lawyers come out of the woodwork and pummel the police departments and the manufactures.

I can understand the reluctance to use these weapons, particularly when an officer is in jeopardy of severe bodily harm or loss of life.

Personally, anyone that threatens an armed officer with a weapon deserves what they get.

There's a difference between "anyone that threatens an armed officer with a weapon" and those who are killed when they are no imminent physical threat to the officer.

The old, "I was in fear for my life defense" is over used.

Lawyers come out of the woodwork whenever they think they can profit from someone's misfortune, like most predators.

The problem with lethal weapons (handguns) is they miss their target far more often than they hit it. The ratio is about 25% hit to 75% miss. So if a cop empties his 9mm 15 round clip, odds are good he will miss his intended target 10 times.

Can you provide something to show the degree of the problem? That is, the number of innocent people killed each year by police officers?

"The problem with lethal weapons (handguns) is they miss their target far more often than they hit it."

Technically, it not the weapon, but the person firing the weapon that misses the target.

I think the media and Hollywood have both done a good job of mystifying the job of a police officer. Most people live in a world of complete disconnect with the reality of that job.

I am skeptical that better non-lethal weapons will have a net saving of innocent lives because the effectiveness of neutralizing a threat is lower than current sidearms. In many instances failing to neutralize the bad guy is putting innocent lives in danger.

Nevertheless, the numbers of bystanders killed by police or even bad shoots (using force on someone that was unwarranted) is going to be a low number.

Here's a bunch of sad stories....

http://www.innocentdown.org/

http://thefreethoughtproject.com/innocent-bystander-dies-struck-police-bullets-botched-nypd-raid/

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/times-square-shooting-nypd-officers-shoot-two-innocent-bystanders-near-times-square/

I don't have time to go through news stories in detail. Does any of it contain anything in the way of statistical data? I saw absolutely none.

Probably too much to ask for their sources, too.

The first link seemed to be a list of justified police shootings. The other two are stories about single incidents.

In my mind that's not anything close to supporting any type of argument one way or another.

"500 innocent Americans are murdered by police every year (USDOJ). 5,000 since 9/11, equal to the number of US soldiers lost in Iraq."

"If we look at the most recent numbers of non-military US citizens killed by terrorism worldwide, that number is 17. You have a better chance of being killed by a bee sting, or a home repair accident than you do a terrorist. And you are 29 times more likely to be murdered by a cop than a terrorist!"

"What went wrong? In the 1970's SWAT teams were estimated to be used just a few hundred times per year, now we are looking at over 40,000 military style "knock and announce" police raids a year.

The police presence in this country is being turned into a military with a clearly defined enemy, anyone who questions the establishment."

"From January 2010 through September 2010(period of 8 mos) the National Police Misconduct Statistics and Reporting Project recorded 3,814 unique reports of police misconduct that involved 4,966 sworn law enforcement officers and 5,711 alleged victims.

• 3,814 - Unique reports of police misconduct tracked
• 4,966 - Number of sworn law enforcement officers involved (263 were sheriffs or chiefs)
• 5,711 - Number of alleged victims involved
• 193 - Number of fatalities associated with tracked reports
• $213,840,800 - Estimated amount spent on misconduct-related civil judgments and settlements

http://www.globalresearch.ca/increasing-police-brutality-americans-killed-by-cops-now-outnumber-americans-killed-in-iraq-war/5361554

http://www.policemisconduct.net/2010-q3-national-police-misconduct-statistical-report/

"500 innocent Americans..." Show me the proof, not just some blog.

You have to back up your claim.

Good point.

I wouldn't say that some police officers feel underside. I think a lot of officers feel that way.

Shamefully, it has been politicians that have propagated most of that disrespect.

You can't put doctors and cops in the same league for many reasons.

Doctors are far more well trained, but they don't get shot at.

Yes, the news is always looking for the sensational story, but it seems that "department policy" has been structured so that almost nothing is out of bounds for a cop these days.

Don't get me wrong. We need cops and I know it.

"The problem with so called non-lethal weapons is that they are not always non-lethal."

That's why anyone who is talking seriously about the subject never uses that term, they use 'Less-than Lethal' force (LTL) to show that it is not intended to kill outright.

There is no such thing as 'Non-Lethal,' you can kill a man using just two Lima beans⁽¹⁾, and any LTL device can become lethal under the right circumstances⁽²⁾, or with the right victim⁽³⁾.

Notes:

1. Shove one bean up each nostril of the victim, them clamp your hand over the victim's mouth, sliding your hand up so the side of your finger prevents the beans from being sneezed out. Hold this position until the victim stops moving and grows cold.
2. Use a net launcher to entangle someone swimming in deep water. Victim can no longer swim effectively, sinks and drowns.
3. Use pepper spray on someone allergic to capcaesin, victim goes into anaphalactic shock, suffocates from throat being swollen shut, and dies.
4. So, I don't sit around thinking of ways to kill people, I'm no psychopath, nor am I a Mystery writer. I DO, however 'play D&D⁽⁵⁾,' and often have to find ways to referee the novel and creative ways my players come up with for dispatching the monsters.
5. It's actually a different rule set than D&D, but that's not important right now.
   

HEAR! HEAR! Great response! I totally agree. Peaceful compliance with any officer's requests works every time.

Well, nearly, but anything the officer might be doing wrong can always be sorted out later when cooler heads prevail.

Nice article. I am curious how they're going to come up with the range finding technology interface to this. Probably would have to go through the department of defense since it seems like they already have the answer.

Well, if anyone can - it's Battelle. They are in my old stomping-grounds and I've done business with them in the past and still have a few close friends that work there. They are well known for giving their scientists the necessary freedom and resources to invent and advance technology.

The story that's always told about Batelle is their one big lose on tech they (well, one of their employees) developed that they let go for essentially nothing:

http://old.seattletimes.com/html/businesstechnology/2002103322_cdman29.html

Another issue is that .40 caliber pistol rounds are not always enough to stop some determined criminals.

I am thinking an intense bee sting isn't going to be an improvement.

And when the first shot is fired by the "bad guys", it's time for the "bee sting" to be holstered and the real guns to come out.

GREAT ANSWER!!!

This discussion stirs some deeply rooted feelings so, speaking from personal experience:

When you face an imminent threat such as a hardened criminal or other armed or dangerous enemy you do not have time to:

1) Ask them how old or what sex they are.

2) Guess their weight or strength or their intent.

3) Threaten them with a "bee sting" or other non-lethal weapon.

4) Wait until the "bad guy(s)" fire the first shot.

5) Show any weakness in the face of the enemy.

It is a split-second decision and failure on your part to react fast enough means you get wounded or killed or worse yet, you get wounded then the "bad guys" capture you and torture you for hours, days, or weeks before you finally die or get rescued.

Law enforcement personnel have every right to go home alive, healthy, and without the risk of suffering from any wounds.

In the latter part of the Vietnam Conflict some of the soldiers were given wooden or rubber bullets and given orders; "Do not fire unless fired upon".

The enemy's kill ratio rose to 98% during those times and the same will happen to our law enforcement personnel if we get so stupid as to adopt any of these insane ideas.

What is wrong with simply requiring every single person in this country to surrender peacefully and comply with all officer's requests?

I agree that we do have a few law enforcement personnel that are out of control but we have an increasing percentage that are being shot at and/or attacked by drugged up, methed-up, criminals so often that they are scared Shi!less every time they confront anyone.

Contrary to ignorant, inexperienced people's beliefs, there is not any human being that can tell another person's intent by just looking at them or talking to them.

I spent a good deal of my life growing up in the Ghettos and changed schools seven times before I reached 16.

I was nine (9) years old the first time I had a switchblade knife pulled on me by a 14 year old gang-banger. (By sheer luck he lost and I lived.)

I had just turned 10 when I saw my first death by shooting that occurred at a friendly neighborhood Saturday night poker game. (The victim? One of my father's best friends.)

Poor people do not have anything to lose and everything to gain by refusing to comply with law and order.

The "Bad Guy's" mainstay motto and creed? "If you can't buy it, then steal it and use whatever means necessary to get what you want".

"Use underage kids to do the dirty work." is another of their twisted mottos.

Why? Because the kids get arrested and are back out on the street to do the same thing the next day.

And guess what? Their records are expunged when they turn 18 unless they are tried and convicted as an adult which very, very seldom happens.

I lived in that world and it has not changed.

I have news for everyone in this United States:

Those 911 calls being made every minute where people are begging for help?

They are being made by the good people in those run down, crime infested, neighborhoods.

They are not being made by nor invented by law enforcement personnel nor by people living in other neighborhoods.

Most of the time an officer involved shooting is directly associated with a known criminal with an extended arrest record that is not allowed to be talked about by any law enforcement personnel nor in a court room.

These officers patrol the same neighborhoods day-after-day, night-after-night, and they know who the criminals are and who are not criminals.

I challenge anyone/everyone to find out the real truth if you have the "guts" to do so by signing a waiver and riding with your local law enforcement for 2-3 nights.

I promise you this; It will do wonders for improving your understanding of what is really going on especially in our poor neighborhoods and you will come away with a much better attitude towards law enforcement.

No apologies offered from me on any of my comments as this situation is way out of control and threatens to destroy this nation and our very way of life.

Back on topic, I think this has definite possibilities in some situations.

But, in my present occupation/position, I deal with cops on the street every week. They are already overburdened with equipment. Their vests have pockets full of "things" in addition to everything they wear on their Sam Brownes.

Still, a good idea.

I would feel comfortable with the first two bullets being less than lethal followed by the regular ones. The only thing more effective than a couple of warning shots would be the next round in the chamber. I think an officer would like the option to use that trigger to attempt to gain some control over a harrowing situation.

Idealy the perp would have no idea that these types of rounds are in use.

Chicago has been rocked by gun violence though most of it happens in concentrated pockets of crime. I can honestly say I've ever heard a gun shot in the city. (unless it was mixed in with illegal fireworks around the 4th of July)

I would like to see two things that might help. The first being a body cam for the officers. The second being the introduction of a phrase. Instead of merely shouting "Halt! Police!" (or whatever they say) a pursuing officer would add "We are being recorded for our own protection!"

The idea of a simple reminder that the action is being recorded might be enough to stop some perps as well as some officers from doing something they might regret.

That's not even grounded in reality, unfortunately.

Police, and I have had similar training, are taught to keep shooting until the threat stops.

You never fire two shots and wait to see what happens. That's not reality.

People and the media always scream about how many times a suspect is shot, complaining it is excessive, but it's not.

It takes 4 to 5 seconds for an officer to fully unload all the rounds in his service pistol. Typically, that is 15 in the mag and another one in the chamber. Most people do not go down when shot unless by some lucky chance you hit a vital organ like the heart or a major artery. Hitting the spine will usually drop a suspect as it temporarily disrupts the nervous system, but that is even more difficult because of the amount of tissue the round must penetrate. The brain will also drop a subject - usually.

However, you are far more likely to strike other tissue and organs that may be fatal longer term, but will not incapacitate an attacker. That's for the shots that actually hit the target.

Lastly, there are some pretty strong physiological reactions when a shooting incident takes place. Adrenalin causes a narrowing of your vision, a loss of feeling and dexterity in your extremities, and other problems that you don't know or see in the movies.

That's the real problem. Everyone watches Dirty Harry and thinks police work and shootings are like the movies with bodies flying through the air after being shot once.

Anon- I'll be the first to agree there is a narrowing of vision going on.

The training is not based on reality. Unless your reality is shoot first and don't ask questions later.

I can unload my A-5 at 13 rounds per second as easily as I can fire a single or double burst. I can be very accurate within 25M. At a high rate and close to 300 FPS paint balls alone have ability to incapacitate, bloody,and bruise a person. It becomes impossible to escape the stream of pain.

Of course I wasn't trained to unload the entire hopper in a single barrage so I guess that's why I have great vision and can usually be the last person standing.

"Hitting the spine will usually drop a suspect"!?

"The brain will also drop a subject"?!

Who is it? a suspect or a subject?

keep talking.. trash my reasoning.. trash my paint ball gun.. Just don't visit as I have legal weapons that I can use recreationally and I don't to be accidentally suspected to death.

Here's some homework. It's a must watch for anyone interested. (no spoilers as I'm not done and have not drawn any conclusions, but damn!)

I have to disagree with you here.

I took a shortened course at my fair city's police academy It was inclusive of all facets of their training.

I was trained to fire in two shot bursts until the suspect complied with your command.

There's a huge difference between shots fired and shots that hit the intended target.

I do not believe that a 15 shot semi-auto pistol can be emptied in 5-6 seconds with ANY hope of hitting the intended target. I'll try that sometime soon. (With a swinging paper target of course)

Finally, I've hunted enough to know that animals can, and are, incapacitated by hitting less lethal body parts than you suggest.

I still, I've only had a gun pointed at me at close range once in my life. It was a chilling experience that I never want to repeat.

I'll defer to the cops.

If you can take down an animal with one shot with a .40 pistol round I bow to you!

I was always trained to fire and not to stop until the threat is neutralized.

Everyone I have talked to have said that officers are also trained to shoot until the threat is neutralized, down, and no longer a threat to themselves or the public.

I never heard of take two shots and see where we stand, but perhaps the two shot burst is meant as an accuracy tactic?

Videos I have seen of officers engaged in shooting have been a rapid succession of shots. That is probably more to do with the sudden and high stress circumstances they are under.

This video is a little long at about 5 minutes, but the shots are fired at about 2:40 and there is no pause between shots.

The two-shot tactic has always been trained to me as an absolute minimum... regardless of reasoning (first round is to stop them, second is to knock them on their butt - or whatever else you've heard) in both civilian law enforcement and military - the ONLY time single shot is acceptable is at a Range with Pop-Up targets.

And the two-shot min., as AH said, isn't an end state... the end state is no more threat... it's just muscle memory - every time I fire my weapon it's a double trigger squeeze... unless I'm on three-shot mode (two to the chest, one to the head).

Actually, it was a .357 magnum.

I'm not sure which video you meant, but the ones I watched showed shots being fire as the men were either walking along a street, and NOT advancing or threatening anyone, or running AWAY from the shooter, again not threatening anyone.

So, the "I was in fear for my life" excuse cannot possibly be invoked in either case.

The actual point of neutralizations seems to conveniently coincide with an empty clip too.

I'm not arguing that the majority of shootings are justified, they are. There are some that are very troubling, and the bar to prove negligence on the officer's part is set very high by "department policy", not finding of actual fact.

Just ran into a local SWAT team member as I went out the store, so I asked him how they were trained (at least that's how they do it here).

Simple answer, keep shooting without pause until the threat is neutralized.

How will they know when the threat is neutralized through all the smoke?

Okay the cops may have made a few mistakes. They happen. But I throw the death back at the parents. If your instructed by a police officer to stop and do something you do it. In most these cases the victim ran away or ignored the instructions. We put these officers in an authority position. If we don't teach our children to respect that authority. Then when they don't they may be hurt.

So now what we have taught the police if the person runs let them. In trying to apprehend them you might hurt them. And they will be liable for it. So now if the criminal wants to commit a crime all they have to do is run away when the police show up. Or just keep walking away.

Then again maybe we make them wear shirts with good guy or bad guy on them. So in that heighten state of stress that the officer goes though. He will not make a mistake.

"The Pogojet -whose official name is the Caseless Telescoping Less-lethal System"

(my emphasis). Not non-lethal, tho'.

I guess I don't understand the need for non-lethal at long range, for police. If someone is that far away and shooting at you, use lethal force. If they are within the "21ft" range of "they might get to me and they have a weapon", a 12 GA bean bag will stop them in their tracks!

If someone is less than 20 feet away and charges at you, you won't have time to get the weapon out of the holster and aim it, let alone fire.

I have seen some people do it at training practice, but the average officer can't. They are also expecting that charge, too!

Forget about the idea of reaching into the patrol car and grabbing a shotgun.

I agree with Tom here. Why is there a need for non or less than lethal ammunition at 100 meters which is approx 100 yards. Are police or military seriously going to be sniping rioters from a football field away?

The cost of these bullets is going to be astronomical after there is an interface to the range finder. It will need some sort of processor in order to have the smarts to properly adjust its velocity.

From: http://www.policemag.com/channel/weapons/articles/2013/03/less-lethal-weapon-options.aspx

The whole less-lethal concept is flawed in the sense that there is no right way to describe it. "Less-lethal" does not mean "not lethal," as any less-lethal weapon has the potential to be deadly. Even a strobe light can cause someone with epilepsy to have a seizure and then fall and hit his or her head and die.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

From http://www.nij.gov/about/speeches/past-directors/Pages/aviation.aspx

"Less-than-lethal weapons were developed to provide law enforcement, corrections, and military personnel with an alternative to lethal force. They are designed to temporarily incapacitate, confuse, delay, or restrain an adversary in a variety of situations. They have been used primarily in on-the-street confrontations and suicide interventions, but have also been applied in riots, prison disturbances, and hostage rescues. Less-than-lethal weapons are most often used when: (1) lethal force is not appropriate, (2) lethal force is justified but lesser force may subdue the aggressor, and (3) lethal force is justified but its use could cause collateral effects, such as injury to bystanders or unacceptable damage to property and environment."

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

http://www.nij.gov/journals/267/pages/use-of-force.aspx

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Range is extremely important and the greater the 'effective' range of a less-than-lethal weapon - the safer the police and suspect both are. So yes, if I can snipe someone at 300 yards and not kill them... all the better. Outside of force escalation due to need to defend... Police are not Judge and Jury. Our role is not to determine and carry out the sentence, rather its to deescalate and apprehend. If our only options for less-than-lethal were within the kill-zone - then why have them at all? Because as AH mentioned, we won't be able to employ them by the time you close on us, crack us in the head with a ball bat and take our weapon.

I had seen a green laser used by police that stuns people.

Yes, that's because green usually clashes with what people are wearing.