My pleasure Aargon, and thank you for taking the time to ask.
These are all very good and deep questions.
My experience has been that in places with no CCW and/or very strict laws regarding SD people do not carry less than lethals. The reason? They just assumed the sprays or stun-guns or whatever where illegal too. The never looked into the actual laws in their location. In the US, pepper spray is legal in all 50 states. Each state has its own rules and regs, but it is legal everywhere in the US. The same can't be said of stun-guns, Tasers, or even kubotons.
I think having a less than lethal option makes sense. Not every situation one may encounter will require deadly force. This, of course, varies per state and location. The thresholds are very different place to place. The classic example is of the "aggressive pan-handler". Deadly force in that situation? Not likely. But you can spray his ass and keep it moving. Thanks again for your insight.
I won't touch the "the police should have used bean bag shot/OC/Taser instead of XYZ" These are so case depended. It would be almost impossible to for me in the context of this thread to address the what-ifs. I appreciate the question, but it may be a little out of the scope of this thread. That said, one area where I absolutely can say that OC would most likely have been a better option are the cases where aggressive dogs are shot and killed. It is my belief, based on my experience and knowledge of the product, that OC would have had the same exact affect, stopping the dog. I'm not referring the mad dog pit bull who just attacked two toddlers type of scenarios. I'm referring to the times when LE are in someone's backyard for a call, and the canine is just doing what it is "supposed" to do. The dog should not be shot and killed in my opinion, when the OC would have stopped the dog cold in his tracks...and sparred its life.