Phasers Set to Stun, Please

I ask the ATS community to brainstorm here: Certainly now, in the 21st century, there must be a better weapon for law enforcement to use, than a gun? There must be a non-lethal weapon sitting in a deep warehouse at DARPA or one of the many Federally funded labs. With all of the shooting deaths in our country, imagine a better outcome in Charlotte, Tulsa, St. Louis.....etc., if law enforcement had technology to disable a potential threat without killing the person. Tazers and pepper spray are obviously insufficient.
Ideas?

a reply to: SeaYote

What? and your point is? or did you just click "post" without typing anything

2nd

a reply to: corblimeyguvnor

Forgive me, I was unable to get it to take my text in the first attempt

a reply to: SeaYote

First of all, there is something that people have to understand.

Only the unarmed individuals who have been shot by police, should be counted as victims, rather than perpetrators. I am as civil liberties focused as can be, I believe in the primacy of the people over the government, I believe in the freedom of people over the security of nations, and all that good stuff.

But do I agree with officers putting their lives in danger to arrest rather than neutralise a person armed with a gun? No. A knife, surely. If they are not trained to walk away from a knife attack with a suspect in cuffs and not a mark to show for it, then they haven't spent long enough at the academy. But a person who has a gun, is being arrested, and resists arrest using that weapon, needs to be put down for everyone else's safety.

So no, I do not believe it is necessary to have more less than lethal options, than those currently already easily available to police forces.

a reply to: SeaYote

Wow me and a coworker were just talking about this the other day...I'm sure they can come up with something but then any stun gun would require a battery to be charged..how can ammo makers make money from that?

I'm a fan of net guns

a reply to: SeaYote

We mustn't be distracted by tools. When a violent assailant requires subduing, whatever method is available should be employed.

If we can teach everyone how to use the Vulcan nerve pinch, bravo (especially at range). For everyone else, there are guns. This includes everybody, including all security personnel and police.

Consequences for actions will handle recklessness as they always have. It's when those consequences are not forthcoming that problems arise.

Additionally, I would remind you that so-called "less-than-lethal" weapons are frequently very harmful and occasionally fatal. They should never be used if death is not an acceptable outcome, plain and simple.

There are many unfortunate mythologies spawned by the Trek universe and stun weapons are chief among them.

a reply to: chrismarco

By producing rounds which deliver electrical impulse rather than raw penetration power?

By creating rounds which contain an impact activated charge which bursts an ampule of knockout gas inside the round, without penetrating the body at all?

I prefer to set my phaser to melt

a reply to: greencmp

I use the Star Trek example for creative thinking. My reason for posting this topic is that, surely, we have better technology for law enforcement to halt/stop/disable someone rather than kill them when faced with a potential danger.

This is a call for ideas, new thinking for an old problem.

a reply to: SeaYote

I hear you, I think I sounded a little more negative than I intended.

I guess what I'm getting at is that this problem has always existed. If you can separate yourself from the instrument (be it a fist, a club, a sword, or a gun of any size firing any projectile), the issue still isn't about the destructiveness of the procedure but, the appropriateness of the action.

To put it another way, the specific circumstances which make force necessary always allow for killing.

If you wouldn't shoot someone, you shouldn't punch, kick, scald, tase or drug them either. That's where the logic of these arguments breaks down.

They are out there, but local government cannot afford them. Two departments that I worked for had to get special grants on top of the city raising special taxes just to get tasers for the force.

a reply to: greencmp
Greencmp, I hear ya! So many moving parts; get more than three people together and there will be conflict. I dearly wish we would evolve beyond turning to violence for problem solving -- it only leads to more problems. I was in Washington D.C. this past week (after having been away for many years) the city is so much better - cleaner and less crime (aside from the politicians). Speaking to numerous locals, they all said that the outgoing cheif of police, Cathy Lanier, really turned things around by improving police training and engaging the community to work with law enforcement. Seems like more of that is needed in all cities and towns Anyhow, I looked her up on Wikipedia (she's going to work for the NFL to head up their security!)

Cathy Lynn Lanier (born July 22, 1967) was the chief of the Metropolitan Police Department of the District of Columbia (MPDC). Lanier was appointed by Washington, D.C. Mayor Adrian Fenty in January 2007, replacing outgoing Police Chief Charles H. Ramsey. She is the first woman to achieve the position. In May 2012, Mayor Vincent C. Gray agreed to retain Lanier as police chief under a new five-year contract.[1] On August 16, 2016, it was announced that Lanier will retire from the Metropolitan Police Department of the District of Columbia in September 2016 to become Senior Vice President of Security for the National Football League.[2] Her last day was September 15, 2016.[3]

Back to the subject of my post: When a situation goes off the rails and force is needed, an effective non-lethal weapon should be an option. The gun was invented in the 13th century. We must have something better now -- surely the DoD has looked into this?

a reply to: JDeLattre89
The cost of riots ought to motivate municipalities to look for better options.

a reply to: SeaYote

But that's just it, guns are the best option. Not because they are clean, sterile and (mostly non-fatal) but, because they are loud, dirty and violent. It's a deterrent against the worst case scenario.

Everyone should carry or at least we should foster a cultural expectation of such. That is how peace is preserved, not by making violence more palatable.

I actually have a completely opposite view of this subject brought about by how gun tazer pepper spray riot ball tear gas hog tie spit hood and compliance chair happy modern officers are. Take away their nonlethal weapons so less people get senselessly hurt by officers who believe failure to comply instantly and exactly to their barked orders constitutes justification for using violence in the first damn place!

You guys want more tools developed that would almost always leave even less evidence of their having been used on the victims?

Really?

Because it hasn't already been amply demonstrated time and again throughout generations that stuff like this will be used more and more the less likely it is that anyone can create a big enough outcry to force their responsible use....

Oh wait it has!!

SMH

a reply to: roguetechie

Even without considering misuse, the basic premise is that people who do not deserve to be shot should be shot with something other than bullets.

Basically, it is imagining all law enforcement facing a populace composed predominantly of demented potentially violent mental patients itching to claw their eyes out.

It's the wrong way think about society and it's harmful.

Freeze Ray.

Everyone knows that's the most humane solution.

a reply to: imjack

There's also this tho

a reply to: imjack

That's pretty elegant in its simplicity. I'm not against creative mods for tools.

Of course, we wouldn't use it unless we were willing to accept the death of the person hit by it. Or, at least, that's the mindset that I would suggest we think about these things.