A New Way A-Round: Ammunition Alternatives for Police Officers
With all of the controversies surrounding police shootings and the growing number of questions as to whether or not police officers involved in these instances are competent enough or have ulterior motives, the public's safety is in question. It seems as though police are getting more, "trigger happy", and more in fear for their lives. The incorporation of body cameras and dash-board cameras have been put in place to make sure that officers are following the law and protocol. The police officer's motto, "To protect and serve", is being questioned by a growing number of people whose trust in police protection is lessening. In communities where there is a higher population of African-Americans, due to the majority of recent shootings being of African-Americans, there is an outcry for justice and change.
Many ideas are given as to how best to fix the issues. Unfortunately, the reasons behind these shootings are just as diverse as the theories on a solution. One way that makes a resurgence whenever a police-involved shooting makes headlines, is the use of "safe" ammunition. Although, not a new concept, as technology continues to advance, more companies are coming up with new innovations for how to take down someone without killing them and still protect the officer from harm. According to an expert on non-lethal ammunition and interim police chief in Republic, Mo., Steve Ijames, says that non-lethal ammunition can't protect an officer the same as a regular gun. If it doesn't stop an armed person, then the officer's life is at risk. Where, then is the trade-off? Should an police officer's life be worth more than an alleged criminal, or the alleged criminal's life be worth more than the officer's? The only balance seems to be that an officer has the tools necessary to protect himself and others as well as to disarm a possible threat without loss of life.
Thomas Boyd/The Oregonian
The controversy lies in whether or not the safe ammunition is worth the cost and is it feasible to add this to the already loaded down belt of an officer. In an interview by a writer from The Marshall Project, Sid Heal, former L.A.P.D. commander, says that police already have less-lethal tools on their belts and that some feel that more choices would not be more useful. Safe rounds have been adopted in many law-enforcement groups as an alternative. Swat teams in L.A. County, Sacramento and at least 14 other law-enforcement agencies, are using plastic bullets which can be filled with various substances that can repel suspects. A pepperball, which is filled with capsaicin powder was proven to be effective for repelling rioters in Seattle in 1999. However in 2004, a girl was accidentally killed when she was struck in the eye by a pepperball.
In 2009, a study was done on the effectiveness of conductive energy devices (tasers and stun guns), and pepperspray. The study, published in the American Journal of Public Health, showed that the odds of injury to both civilians and officers were significantly lower and in 2 police departments, it declined by 25% to 65% after they adopted the use of tasers and stun guns. So, why is it that officers are not using these more often? William Terrill, a criminology professor at Arizona State University in an interview for NBC, says that police departments do not train cadets to go for their taser when there is an imminent threat and if you respond with less force, it can put you or someone else in danger.
Newer technologies such a beanbag rounds for shotguns, rubber bullets, and pistol attachments that slow the speed of the bullet exiting the barrel are evidence that there is a cry out for change. Companies looking to improve use and safety, however motivated, are continuing to come up with new ideas and ways to make them more affordable to law-enforcement agencies. There unfortunately, are not going to be any solutions that will be fool-proof, but these are steps in the right direction for less lives lost by the hands of police.
Many ideas are given as to how best to fix the issues. Unfortunately, the reasons behind these shootings are just as diverse as the theories on a solution. One way that makes a resurgence whenever a police-involved shooting makes headlines, is the use of "safe" ammunition. Although, not a new concept, as technology continues to advance, more companies are coming up with new innovations for how to take down someone without killing them and still protect the officer from harm. According to an expert on non-lethal ammunition and interim police chief in Republic, Mo., Steve Ijames, says that non-lethal ammunition can't protect an officer the same as a regular gun. If it doesn't stop an armed person, then the officer's life is at risk. Where, then is the trade-off? Should an police officer's life be worth more than an alleged criminal, or the alleged criminal's life be worth more than the officer's? The only balance seems to be that an officer has the tools necessary to protect himself and others as well as to disarm a possible threat without loss of life.
Thomas Boyd/The Oregonian
The controversy lies in whether or not the safe ammunition is worth the cost and is it feasible to add this to the already loaded down belt of an officer. In an interview by a writer from The Marshall Project, Sid Heal, former L.A.P.D. commander, says that police already have less-lethal tools on their belts and that some feel that more choices would not be more useful. Safe rounds have been adopted in many law-enforcement groups as an alternative. Swat teams in L.A. County, Sacramento and at least 14 other law-enforcement agencies, are using plastic bullets which can be filled with various substances that can repel suspects. A pepperball, which is filled with capsaicin powder was proven to be effective for repelling rioters in Seattle in 1999. However in 2004, a girl was accidentally killed when she was struck in the eye by a pepperball.
In 2009, a study was done on the effectiveness of conductive energy devices (tasers and stun guns), and pepperspray. The study, published in the American Journal of Public Health, showed that the odds of injury to both civilians and officers were significantly lower and in 2 police departments, it declined by 25% to 65% after they adopted the use of tasers and stun guns. So, why is it that officers are not using these more often? William Terrill, a criminology professor at Arizona State University in an interview for NBC, says that police departments do not train cadets to go for their taser when there is an imminent threat and if you respond with less force, it can put you or someone else in danger.
Newer technologies such a beanbag rounds for shotguns, rubber bullets, and pistol attachments that slow the speed of the bullet exiting the barrel are evidence that there is a cry out for change. Companies looking to improve use and safety, however motivated, are continuing to come up with new ideas and ways to make them more affordable to law-enforcement agencies. There unfortunately, are not going to be any solutions that will be fool-proof, but these are steps in the right direction for less lives lost by the hands of police.
What a great post! I see you sinking your teeth into the subject of alternative uses of force by the police, and I think this really has its place in discussions of American policing. You highlight the issue of "who is more important"? The officer or the civilian who could or could not be guilty? I wonder as well about the rampant "arming" of the public and police departments' legitimate concerns about safety. I'm not sure how a rubber bullet would fare in a fight against an AR-15? Would it be enough to stop someone, even momentarily, to disarm them? Economically, in whose interest is it to keep the police armed this way (or citizens)?
ReplyDelete