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?

Comments

Well....

[dskoll]

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.

Re:Well....

[mjm1231]

This is the only solution that might actually work.

This was already tried, and there is a TED talk on the topic which I am too lazy/busy to look up. I don't recall what country this happened in, but non-lethal weapons were handed out to a particular peace force with the intent that they would be used instead of guns, thus resulting in fewer instances of violence. The actual results were that the non-lethal instrument was used something like 10 times more often than guns were, and there was no real reduction in gun usage during police operations.

Re:Well....

[JustNiz]

>> Reform of policing so citizens actually trust the police?

This. When I moved to the US, I was amazed to find that US cops are very clearly there to only protect the governments interests and are absolutely not there to help/protect citizens. That thinking was very alien to me coming from the UKwhere as long as you have done nothing wrong the cops are generally reasonable, approachable and even your friend because they realize the true value of community-minded policing. By comparison, the whole attitude, body language and even clothing style of cops in the US is designed to be immediately intimidating and aggressive. Its a stupid bullying attitude that actively alienates cops from the people so IMHO actually does way more harm than good.

Re:Well....

[kqs]

That is why when you are stopped by a police officer you move slowly and in a non-threatening manor and tell him where and what you are reaching for before you do so. If you have a weapon in the vehicle/on your person tell them in a non threatening manor and tell them where it is and give them your concealed carry permit (if you don't have permit why are you carrying a weapon stupid). I was taught this by my parents when I was growing up. If you don't give them a reason to suspect they are in life or death danger they are far less likely to shoot you.

So you treat a cop like you treat a poisonous snake or a wild animal. That all fine, but it doesn't seem like a good reason to encourage cobras or bears to wander through our neighborhoods. You described a problem, not a solution.

Also, you missed a very important one; when you're stopped, try not to be of an inappropriate race. Otherwise it may not matter how you behave.

Re:Well....

[flopsquad]

There are a lot of ingredients that have gone into making the toxic brew that is modern American law enforcement. There's no way to do a sweeping reform of the system that will fix this, but some items that might help, individually or in combination:

- Laws or state/federal constitutional amendments that prohibit using criminal statutes for revenue generation (or redirect funds out of the hands of the entities that pass and enforce those statutes)

- Ending the drug war/decriminalizing possession

- Expanded training in de-escalation, legal use of force, and constitutional rights

- Demilitarization of a large proportion of each local and state law enforcement agency, excepting justifiable units (e.g., small, dedicated SWAT teams)

- Expanded protections against, and personal liability for, prosecutorial misconduct (because not all abuses have their genesis at the street level)

- Expanded mandates for body and vehicle cameras (both at the departmental and evidentiary levels); simultaneously, thoughtful limitations to unfettered sunshine law access to every minute of footage

- Community (e.g. citizen board) review of brutality complaints

- Abolishing vague "disorderly conduct"-type statutes that allow for meritless arrest-and-drop-charges-later encounters

- Financial penalty for instances of "resisting arrest," "failure to obey," or "disorderly conduct" for which no conviction/guilty plea is eventually secured

Not all of these would be appropriate for every situation. But some subset might go a long way in a lot of places.

Re:Highest Profit

[OzPeter]

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.

Re:Highest Profit

[seth_hartbecke]

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.