Slashdot Mirror
Ask Slashdot: What Non-lethal Technology Has the Best Chance of Replacing the Gun?
Wycliffe writes: Most cops are not out to kill someone, but when someone reaches for a cellphone or their glovebox, the cop may assumes the worst and try to protect themselves from dying. Guns are used to immobilize the target, and aren't even that good at it when a person is charging. What other potential devices could be used to protect a cop so that guns are unnecessary? Foam? Lightweight body armor? Nets? Robots? 'M.A.N.T.I.S.' paralyzing gas? Force field? What non-lethal technology out there has the best potential to be more effective at immobilizing a target and/or protecting a cop than a gun?
You are 100% correct... Too many times police have what is called "contempt of cop" syndrome. Anyone who doesn't comply to their demands is just spitting in their face, from their point of view, and needs to be "taught a lesson".
This is exceptionally dishonest.
Do those states have more leniency if you can prove motivated self defense? Yes. Are they shooting galleries? No.
The castle doctrine and family of laws is a (perhaps over reaction) to discretionary prosecution. Many states still have the legal doctrine that you must attempt to flee before you are allowed to respond with deadly force. There are examples of prosecutors who take self-define cases to court after the defendant has retreated all the way to a room like a bathroom, then while their assailant was attempting to come through the door finally returned deadly force. The prosecutors would then take these people to court making the case there was a window they could have attempted to squeeze out of.
Unfortunately the only easy way to say "hey ... really? That was them attempting to flee first." Is to make the laws around the definition of when lethal force can be returned very liberal and remove the discretion from the prosecutors.
END