So much for "Less than Lethal"... Red Sox Fan Killed by Police Projectile

[Lone_Gunman]

A Datsun at 50 mph is less lethal than a Mack Truck at 100 mph.

I bet if you ask the girl whether she was killed by a lethal or less lethal weapon, she would tell you it really doesn't matter.

From what Coronach and Dbl0Kevin have said, this is what I can conclude about these weapons:

They are lethal.

They are difficult to hit accurately with.

The projectile may veer off randomly, out of the control of the operator.

They are designed to be shot into crowds, preferably, not necessarily, aimed at one individual.


Now I think these 4 things work together to create a recipe for disaster as we have seen in this story.

It is my opinion that these weapons, and their philosophy of use, is fundamentally flawed. I feel they give people a false sense of security by calling them "less lethal". I think police officers should not be armed with weapons of any kind that cannot be accurately and precisely deployed. I think aiming into crowds is bad... an imprecise target such as a crowd will result in inprecise shot placement.

Understand all that is just my opinion, after reading this story, and reading other people, who claim to know more than me.

I do not think these things should be used by police.

 

[Coronach]

According to some, my mace can kill. My taser can kill. My baton can kill. A jet of water from a fire truck can be lethal if it slams a protestor against a fixed object.

If we are to engage in this kind of speculation, nothing is non-lethal. Its all a question of degrees of lethality. these weapons are designed to be non-lethal. They usually work that way, too.

I know. And this is what I object to. So far I have heard no viable justification for applying a double standard. The police have truly non-lethal forms of crowd control at their disposal. They have the power to arrest trouble makers. Nothing should give them the power to cap off lethal rounds into a crowd because they want to make people leave. That in my mind is manslaughter at the very least.

Well, once again, are you objecting to the presence of the double-standard, or the use of the weapons? You seem to be muddling the two points. the cops have an authority and power that private citizens do not have. This is a double standard. Are you saying that they should not have the authority to clear rioters away? Or that they simply should not have the means to do it?

Arguing the pros and cons of a certain style of crowd control device is different from arguing against the double standard.

Furthermore, I'll maintain, again, that all crowd control devices that reliably provide immediate effect against a violent rioter have a small potential for lethality. Do I wish they didn't? Of course. Everyone wants a phaser. But they haven't invented it yet.

Mike

PS and in civil disorder, the power to arrest is more of an in-theory kind of thing than an in-practice kind of thing. By definition almost, the cops aren't able to just go arrest the guys causing all the problems. That is the major difficulty.

 

[Dbl0Kevin]

Any weapon that kills is a lethal weapon. Period.

Wrong........wrong.......and again.....WRONG. There are many things that CAN kill that are not considered lethal weapons. Paintball is a sport that is played every day in this country and people are shot all the time with them.....they don't die. Just because it's possible for an accident to occur and someone to die does not make a paintball gun, or a pepperball gun, a lethal weapon. A PR-24, police nightstick, is not considered a lethal weapon.....yet someone could easily be beat to death with one. A baseball bat can kill, yet if you have one you are not in possession of a lethal weapon. If you get into a car accident and someone dies should you then be charged with homicide because you used a car as a lethal weapon?

The fact is that pepperball and FN303 are NOT considered lethal weapons in the police arsenal of weapons. And you are not required to reach the level of lethal force in order to deploy them. I really don't know how many times I have to explain this before it sinks in. Just to deploy these weapons they have been tested, certified, and every officer who uses one must be trained and certified in their use. This is done to make sure the chance that someone is seriously hurt or killed is minimized, but even all that is not foolproof as I've said before and things STILL can happen.

Nothing should give them the power to cap off lethal rounds into a crowd because they want to make people leave. That in my mind is manslaughter at the very least.

Again they're not lethal rounds as I've explained above. If that is how you feel then there is no reliable way for police to intervene and stop a riot. So if that's what you want then please just say that and be done with it.

 

[Dbl0Kevin]

It is my opinion that these weapons, and their philosophy of use, is fundamentally flawed. I feel they give people a false sense of security by calling them "less lethal". I think police officers should not be armed with weapons of any kind that cannot be accurately and precisely deployed. I think aiming into crowds is bad... an imprecise target such as a crowd will result in inprecise shot placement.

I understand your opinion, I honestly do. The problem is that you are STILL left with a situation where you are obligated to stop a riot. The choices are either take action and people might get hurt, or don't take action and people might get hurt. Either way it's a lose/lose proposition. While people can be hurt and injured with these less lethal munitions that is far less likely to happen than with other methods that are available. Back in the 60's when my father worked in the Camden riots they used shotguns, not pepperball guns, to shoot at people who were throwing bricks and bottles at them. I'd say the pepperball guns are a step up. The bottom line is that these days there are no where near as many people hurt or killed by police in major crowd control situations and that tragedies like this are few and far between. This is why when it happens you see people that are shocked and appalled.

It's not an easy situation, but if you take away these less lethal options you're going to get more casualties not less in my opinion.

 

[CannibalCrowley]

Coronach

THESE WEAPONS ARE DESIGNED TO BE SHOT INTO A CROWD.

Do you have any documentation from the maker which states this? I've been on FN's site and nowhere do they mention that the FN303 should be used to spray rounds into a crowd.

Dbl0Kevin

A pepperball or FN303 is not considered lethal force......as I've said about 50 times they're considered less lethal weapons. On the use of force ladder they fall into mechanical force such as a baton, handcuffs, etc. and you are not required to be in imminent threat of deadly force to use them.

A baton to the head is considered lethal force, so shouldn't a pellet to the face be considered so, since their "mechanical force" like a baton?

 

[Dbl0Kevin]

A baton to the head is considered lethal force, so shouldn't a pellet to the face be considered so, since their "mechanical force" like a baton?

When used PROPERLY and as trained a baton is not considered lethal force. When I was certfied with a PR-24 they had a chart that showed the areas where you were supposed to hit and where you were not. If you hit in a "red" area such as the head when lethal force was not justified then you would be in big trouble.

The same applies to an FN303 or pepperball, and if they were deployed in accordance with training and policy then the officer is not liable. It is possible to have accidents and no one is infallible, but if you followed proper procedure and unfortunately things came out badly it's not your fault. As I said before there are many ways for her to be hit in the eye not being the fault of the officer.

 

[carebear]

Yup, just like a baton. That's why batons are considered less lethal when used according to policy, ie. no head strikes for subduing. When head strikes are used, if the review doesn't call it an accident or justified by circumstance, then it is unjustifiable use of deadly force and the officers go to trial.

Same dealio with the pepper slug thingie I'm sure, it is an impact weapon, thus headshots are not allowed unless you need deadly force. If you shoot and accidentally hit the head, same review process. Either it is a terrible accident or a real crime.

Why is this so tough?

 

[pax]

After 7 pages, this thread has finally reached the stage of "Did not." "Did TOO!" -- a sure sign that it's time to go do something else for awhile.

Anyone with questions, feel free to PM me or any one of the other moderators.

pax