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?
Common sense, the human brain? Reform of policing so citizens actually trust the police?
Of course sometimes force, even lethal force, is needed. The best non-lethal immobilizer we have at the moment is the taser, although that can sometimes be lethal.
But it seems to me that training in de-escalation can go a long way to not needing immobilizers.
3D printed laser drones should be the perfect solution, as long as they aren't running systemd.
I wonder how much it will cost in Bitcoin.
What will be more effective than a gun?
How about a polite request.
Just as the pen is mightier than the sword, lemonade is generally preferable over lemons. Let's get rid of the hostility, or at least have one side (the people who are getting paid... the cops) at least do their part in trying to remove at least one side of the cause for hostility.
Remember the old phrase "to serve and protect"... notice how that phrase mentioned "protect" second, as if that was the secondary role.
That's the faulty premise in the question.
How about "What can we do so that cops shoot people who aren't doing anything wrong less often?"
Prosecute them. Hold them to a HIGHER standard than the rest of us, not a lower one.
I'm pretty sure it's the lengthy incarceration afterwards that acts as a deterrent, not the immobilization itself...
I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
The one with the highest profit margin.
A wooden stick works well in many places around the world.
I should use this sig to advertise my book ISBN-13 : 978-1501515132.
Tasers already exist. Yet, cops shoot to kill instead of stun to disable. Why do we need another non-lethal weapon that won't be used?
They are used to kill people. Look at the force continuum used by PDs. Guns are in the lethal section. If an officer is shooting his gun, he's trained to and willing to kill someone at that point. Now a ton of things need to change with respect to the officer and his willingness to shoot someone for little to no reason (eg Tamir Rice's killer or Lonnie Swartz), but as long as officers are given the ability to kill people there really isn't an effective replacement for guns.
Honestly better recruitment and enforcing use of de-escalation techniques is probably the best bet.
The only practical solution currently is rubber bullets. The cops get to keep the ease of use and most of the stopping power of a gun but the lethality levels go way down.
> So you whackos want to disarm cops too now?
Yes. It's time to take away their SWAT gear.
It's one thing to have a special action squad for the occasional well armed robber or kidnapper but it's gotten to the point where it's the day to day SOP.
There are plenty of liberal weenies crying for the disarmament of the American citizen right now. They've forgotten about the need to demilitarize the cops.
If you are afraid of civilians with guns then you need to be even handed about it and take them from cops too.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
I thought this sounded promising. If you feel like you're on fire, it is a strong incentive to stop/drop/roll. https://youtu.be/dmuyLIrSjxI
We just need to get this into a handheld size.
It's not the cops job to deal out punishment.
Guns are used to stop something. They happen to be effective at killing too, but something that is dead is stopped.
I don't think that anything will replace the gun as a general-purpose tool. Guns are simple- basic Newtonian physics. The nature of how the projectile is launched might evolve over time (as it already has, starting with loose powder poured in through the muzzle to the modern cartridge ammo, to the upcoming caseless ammo where the charge is bonded to to the round like "Metal Storm" uses) but the basic premise of throwing a solid object with a lot of momentum to cause damage to a target is too widely applicable to be easily replaced by any one other thing. It's effective against persons. It's somewhat effective against persons with body armor (broken ribs and the like). It's somewhat effective against people in concealment (shooting through barrier), and it can be effective against machinery (automobile radiators, tires, etc). It's simple. It's inexpensive. It takes very little training to use.
Trying to replace bullets and guns with another technology simply won't happen because nothing else is as reliable or as simple. If something else were, we'd already be using it.
Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
They all know who the bad ones are and don't dime them out.
Ergo they are all 'bad ones'.
I'm with Frank Serpico, '10% of cops are absolutely crooked, 10% are honest, 80% wish they were honest'. Even the honest ones are dirty IMHO. They should turn in the crooks in blue, but don't.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
The answer, obviously, is a hot grits cannon.
How about a 2 hour course for high-schoolers in the inner cities called: How to behave around the police? Nearly every high-profile death by police officer would not have occurred if the person had simply complied with the police doing their jobs. Add mandatory jail time for resisting arrest. Resisting or not shutting up while getting arrested should include a smack of the baton.
Those justifications are crazy.
That's why all those other countries are crime ridden hell holes compared to the US. The only way to turn the world into a paradise on Earth is guns, more guns and extra guns!
But how will eurocops do anything with a soccer ball?
Seriously baseball sucks, but at least the games don't end in 0 0 ties.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
Dynamite ones
Nullius in verba
There are definitely the "person should have done X differently" scenarios, but there are also scenarios where the officers enter the encounter already expecting it to go south and itching to use whatever they have available to them against their alleged perpetrator (e.g. taser guns, regular guns, choke holds, etc.). In this case, there should also be mandatory training for officers on how to deal with people who don't immediately comply. Sometimes, the people might not be able to for some reason and responding by pulling out the taser or the gun might not be the best method to resolve the conflict. Furthermore, officers who do use inappropriate levels of force should be tossed out and not simply "given a desk job" or "transferred to another department."
My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
Correct one is what technology will protect the public? Answer is less paramilitary training of cops. Less training to twitch react and kill somebody. Less freedom to put themselves in the way as an excuse for lethal force. A LOT more training on how to use firearms. A lot of training and expectation to defuse situations that a firearm is their last resort.
Accept that slightly more cops will die while far more of the public will live. That is part of their job that they chose to do. They should be held to a higher bar regarding using force for their personal safety than the public not a lower one. The butcher's bill for cops shot in the line of duty is 26 this year. Comparatively cops in the US kills far far more people than all other first world countries combined at approx 3 a day. The UK had 4 fatal shootings by officers in 4 years. Canada killed 14 people in 2014. In contrast police have killed 2 17 year old girls "in fear for their lives" one through the side door of a stolen car and one with a butchers knife in the PD's lobby.
No sir I dont like it.
How about a 2 hour course for high-schoolers in the inner cities called: How to behave around the police? Nearly every high-profile death by police officer would not have occurred if the person had simply complied with the police doing their jobs.
So your solution to bullying is to teach the victims that they should submit to the bullies?
There is a huge body of evidence that shows a hell of a lot of police abuse their powers and violate peoples constitutional and legal rights all the time just for the hell of it. Not addressing this aspect of policing escalates the problem.
I am Slashdot. Are you Slashdot as well?
The answer, obviously, is a hot grits cannon.
Yes, but only Natalie Portman can fire it, so what's the point?
In defense of the honest cops who don't rat out the dirty cops, there seems to be a "protect your own" atmosphere in police stations. What happens there is immense pressure not to finger a fellow officer no matter what they did. Breaking this code can result in your life being made a living hell - and considering the powers most police get, they are well equipped to make someone's life a living hell.
This isn't meant to excuse the honest cops' silence, but to explain why it'll take more than a couple of honest officers speaking up to change the situation. There needs to be a change in the culture of law enforcement organizations to value honesty and following the law over "standing with your fellow officer no matter what."
My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
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".
There really is no need for every cop to be armed at all when they can call in armed backup as needed.
Yes, because all police interactions happen slowly enough for backup to arrive before escalating to violence, right?
Amen... Just because someone doesn't want to go to jail or feels they are being treated unfairly doesn't mean the cop should instantly pull out a taser or gun and escalate the situation.
Point: Would a 15 year old kid who just stole a candy bar from a store, stopped by the police, but who panicked and ran, deserve a tasering?
I hope everyone's answer would be "no".
If we assume that the answer to that is "no". then you have to remove it as the "automatic" option. Clearly someone in the process of a serious crime should be stopped, with force if need be, but that is the other extreme.
Where do you draw the line?
Police officiers often have to deal with people with mental illness condition. Expecting them to comply immediately to whatever they ask is most of the time a wet dream. Often, these people with mental illness are not actually dangerous if dealt the proper way. So, then I believe there should be at least, even if it doesn't cover all the cases, some kind of education offered to police officier or even better a requirement to complete successfull a course which can give them some skills to handle these cases.
Achille Talon
Hop!
They all know who the bad ones are and don't dime them out.
Ergo they are all 'bad ones'.
I'm with Frank Serpico, '10% of cops are absolutely crooked, 10% are honest, 80% wish they were honest'. Even the honest ones are dirty IMHO. They should turn in the crooks in blue, but don't.
The problem is the 80 percent will still protect the crooked 10 percent against the ten percent honest as they can be viewed as a shared threat to the "police tribe". Cops are a job that society needs, without the honest 10 it would be much much worse. The only option the good cops have is to play along in many cases so that they can continue to do the good the can.
---Saying gnome 3 is better than windows 8 not so much a compliment as it is damning with light praise.
K-9 units like the ones you describe are exactly what got the feds called in under Kennedy. There is a clear and documented evidentury established by the US DoJ over the years; usually specifically with German Sheppards being used against black civil rights demonstrations.
most cops do a good job, but there are bad cops that teach kids that dealing with the police is always an unfair proposition. so they run, fight, resist
we don't need a course for police on how to deal professionally with the public, because most do know how already. but we do need cops to stop protecting the bad apples in their dept that make their job harder, and we need an IA dept that is not staffed by the same cops who are out to protect their own. us vs them makes a bunker mentality that escalates all interaction with the public unnecessarily
civilian oversight is also problematic as this comes with unrelated inquisition style agendas
i think the solution is a more european style approach. where getting a job as a cop is far more rigorous, far more difficult, and the higher barrier to entry most certainly involving psychological evaluation, to weed out those types of people who will go to go on to abuse the public
but we do have a problem in the usa with too many bad, unprofessional cops
if your first reaction to this statement is hostility, or blaming the public instead, like the comment i am responding to:
congratulations, you're part of the problem
because in 2015, after recent events, to pretend bad cops don't exist and don't have a detrimental effect, is severely unintelligent and dishonest
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
and those cops dont panic and murder 12 year olds with a bb gun. If you are a cop, suck it up and stop putting YOUR live above someone elses. you chose to pick a dangerous line of work, so act like you are a public servant.
Every time a cop even touches his gun he should be required to write a 20 page report as to exactly why and justify it or LOSE the privilege of carrying one. IF it was a licensed civilian citizen that would have killed that kid, you know they would have been in ass pounding prison.
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
Exactly. any good cop that does not turn in and testify against a bad cop is also a bad cop.
The fucking "boys club" they have going is 100% identical to a street gang. The courts need to be enemies of the police not their friends.
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
Reminds me of the traditional British unarmed-bobby approach: "Stop! Or I shall have to yell 'Stop!" again!"
1) Keep your head down
2) Avert your eyes - initiating eye contact is sign of defiance and will be punished
3) If police officer deigns to address you, immediately drop on the ground face down. Delay over 50ms will be punished
4) If you think law matters and you deluded enough to assume that you have some civil rights, you are an idiot. The only source of law is a guy with a gun
5) Remember that police officer can kill you if he feels like it, and it is very unlikely he will be even indicted
6) Everything can be 'resisting arrest' - including trying to breathe when police is choking you to death or bruising officer's knuckles with your face
7) Tasering is like saying 'hello'
Here is a rough sketch of the lesson.
Yes, kind of like mafia. It is not a good sign if omerta is the standard way for police.
The place to fight for your rights is not at the scene of the arrest. Comply with police, fight in the courts. That's the way a civil society is conducted.
So your solution to bullying is to teach the victims that they should submit to the bullies?
When the bully has a gun, and a legal right to use it, you have two choices: you can submit now and contest the issue later in court, or you can be dead right. Which would you choose?
Good, inexpensive web hosting
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
Tasers are the defacto standard for inflicting pain as a punishment by the officer. It's followed in a close second place by pepper spray, though pepper spray would probably be used more if the officer wasn't also exposed to it. The beauty of it is Taser use isn't even questioned, and in most departments it's not even tracked. An officer can use a taser without any expectation of punishment for using it, even under the flimsiest of circumstances. On the other hand using their gun will net the officer desk duty and a full review. Taser use won't even get them a note in their personnel file even if they use it against an innocent person for the fun of it (though they'd probably get reprimanded if it was just for fun).
What's interesting about the #blacklivesmatter movement is that police reaction that this movement constitutes police harassment. It's apparent from this that the movement is having at least some cursory impact on policing in the form of reviews of use of force.
The hope is that one day police will be held at a minimum to the same standard you or I would be held to if we did exactly the same thing. Because there should not be a waiver for police to use force in a circumstance where the public at large couldn't use the same force. And the quickest cleanest solution to this is body cameras where the public has access to the footage such that police abuse can be used to revoke the officers certification to be a police officer with such lists shared nationally along with immediate and harsh punishment for violating the standards. If a cop shoots someone and it would be murder if you or I did it they should also be charged with murder.
The training obviously isn't very effective for the circumstances they encounter... The fire department probably doesn't get training on how to blow out a fire despite it being effective in limited circumstances.
Yes it's an anecdote! Were you expecting original research in a Slashdot comment?
Point: Would a 15 year old kid who just stole a candy bar from a store, stopped by the police, but who panicked and ran, deserve a tasering?
What they hell do you expect? "Maybe we'll get 'em next time?". If all it takes to avoid being prosecuted for shoplifting is to run then that's just what everyone will do (including adults, because until they make a contact, there's no telling how old the suspect is).
No, if you rob a store (regardless of the total value of goods stolen), and the police see you, you will be stopped. It's your choice as to whether or not that stop is going to be relatively painless (ie, submit), or painful (they forcibly either taser you or tackle you to the ground and cuff you).
At that point the perp isn't being bullied or harassed: they are being arrested for criminal activity.
It seems the mindset of far too many these days is that people should just be able to commit whatever crimes they feel like without being harassed or inconvenienced by law enforcement.
"People who think they know everything are very annoying to those of us who do."-Mark Twain
So your solution to bullying is to teach the victims that they should submit to the bullies? When the bully has a gun, and a legal right to use it, you have two choices: you can submit now and contest the issue later in court, or you can be dead right. Which would you choose?
Your whole argument is a ridiculous strawman. Those are NOT the only two choices that free citizens have when confronted by police malfeasance, nor should they be. The police do not have the legal right to use their gun under any situation they determine to be right. Police procedure is very specific about the use of deadly force and they are trained in where it is and isn't appropriate. Threatening someone with a gun is NOT their first taught, nor first line of defense and the officers that choose to act in that way should be prosecuted accordingly to the full extent of the law. The unfortunate thing is that the corruption in our legal system allows this to go unchecked and in some cases (like Tamir Rice) unjustly exonerated by their law enforcement peers in the judiciary. The case of Tamir Rice should not have been investigated by law enforcement and judiciary at the state level and should have been investigated by the DoJ, or at least by an investigative team and judiciary outside the state where the incident occurred. There is too much face saving corrupt bullshit that goes on within the same jurisdiction that there is little chance of a fair and full investigation. This is what is criminally wrong with our current justice system at the local level. Back to the bullying, bullies need to be checked in the moment of their bullying actions or any correction to that behavior will have little to no effect. There are legal and non-suicidal ways of confronting a bully cop and making an example of them, getting them removed from duty and the community trust and peace restored. We see it all the time with cell phone videos, dashcams and the like. So, the first thing to do when confronted by a bully cop is start recording, or have someone that's with you start recording, or as someone nearby to start recording. In a democracy the power lies in the people, unless they voluntarily yield it. You seem to want to live in a police state and not a democracy, if so, I'd say move to North Korea and live a wonderful life. Me and mine are gonna stick it out here and weild the powers we have for the better good.
Then you get to the courts and find your word is worth nothing and the cops word worth everything (and any exculpatory evidence has vanished). You may as well fight for your rights at the scene of the arrest; you'll still lose, but it's the last chance you'll get to do it where anyone will notice.
Nowhere can you drive a car on to the grass (already illegal for a civilian),
Police on a call can do many things that civilians can not do. Speeding for example.
pull a gun on a 12 year old
The kid did have what appeared to be a gun.
and fire first.
It is difficult to fire second if the first shot killed you.
Actually that seems to be a problem with those that don't value others lives as much, and don't act like the public servants they are supposed to be.
And we don't pay taxi drivers to die either, and yet more of them get shot or stabbed than cops, and yet we still have more of them than police.
We also don't pay the cops to shoot/kill people, but they seem to be doing plenty of that with insufficient justification.
And a kid knowing that the cops tend to shoot anyone, even if it's a taser, they want, will not convince them to stand there and take it. It will more likely cause them to panic and either run, or attack. This is true of adults as well. The whole hollywood cop yells "freeze" and everyone stops moving is more hollywood bullshit, just like the John Wayne evershoot pistols that have six rounds of ammo, but fire at least 30 before anyone thinks to reload.
The answer, obviously, is a hot grits cannon.
Yes, but only Natalie Portman can fire it, so what's the point?
The point is having a justification for using taxpayer dollars to clone Natalie Portman.
"Hand wringing second guessers would say that the cop was wrong to lie and threaten excessive force"
So to you, it is acceptable for police to lie and threaten excessive force in certain conditions? And those conditions include a "youthful suspect" running away?
Ninjas don't carry tic tacs
It's funny. You answer your own question in your very first sentence. Thousands of people join the military every year and become soldiers, sailors, marines, etc. When they sign on the dotted line and take the oath, they become subject to the UMCJ; which subjects them to a significantly higher standard of discipline than any civilian is required to adhere to.
Imagine all the people...
No. There isn't. Anyone signing on to be a cop today is signing on to fight the War on Drugs and to enforce inherently immoral laws. It is inevitable that when you have that state poking its nose into people's private business, that the state's recruits will consist of the morally crippled and the frighteningly naive. Give those recruits a few years to marinate in a culture of conformity and silence, and you have the most dangerous street gangs in America today.
Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
You cannot wash away blood with blood