Slide 1

Nonlethal OptionsSelection and Employment

Sid Heal, Senior Instructor1Man dies after cops use pepper spray to halt himACLU links deaths to use of "OC" The ACLU has pointed out that pepper spray is another common element in custody deaths, though only one death has ever been directly attributed to it.Suspects death after pepper spray stirs inquiry

Death by pepper spray?

Seattle police are ignoring FBI safety warnings.Now Michael Ealy is dead. Will new science change local policy?The ACLU says 37 people have died in Californiaafter being hit with pepper spray since January 1993.Since pepper spray was introduced into thepolice arsenal in the early 1990s,its use hasbeen surrounded with controversy, particularly over the circumstances in which it can be potentially lethal.According to the ACLU/SC, roughly one person dies for every 600 times pepper spray is used.Pepper Spray Update: More Fatalities, More Questions, June 1995. Original research establishes that pepper spray can be fatal, and ACLU makes recommendations to avoid further tragedies.Instead, at least 100 people have died nationwide after being pepper sprayed by police officers.The truth is not enough!It is only importantif you believe it!2Five Functions ofNonlethal WeaponsAnti-PersonnelMost versatileAnti-MobilityArguablymost sought afterArea DenialAnti-MaterielAnti-InfrastructureMost strategic oriented123In peacekeeping operations, a force which employs non-lethal options gains five distinct advantages over one which does not. First, non-lethal options are more humane. Although this may seem overly simplistic, it is, after all, difficult to make a case for a humanitarian effort while killing the people you are sent to protect. Second, they allow a commander to exert more control over a situation. Because non-lethal options require substantially less provocation before engagement, a commander can provide a quicker response and intervene at earlier and less dangerous stages of a situation.. Third, they provide a commander with much more flexibility and freedom of action. No longer constrained to apply lethal force and repeat as necessary, a commander can tailor his response to more properly fit the circumstances. Fourth, they are less likely to provoke others. Consequently, bystanders are less likely to be sympathetic toward persons who defy a peacekeeping force but are not killed. Further, should it be necessary to resort to lethal force, the fact that non-lethal options had proven ineffective supports the need for escalation. Finally, these options are less likely to raise public outcry. All peacekeeping operations are controversial and public support may ultimately be the key factor in peacekeeping operations. Even Napoleon acknowledged that public opinion is the ruler of the world.[1]

[1] Napoleon I, Maxims (1804-1805) All becomes easy when we follow the current of opinion; it is the ruler of the world.

Types of NonlethalChemical AgentsCN, CS, OC (Pepper Spray)(Malodorants, Calmatives)Dosage FactorEnvironmental EffectsSweet SpotSingle SubjectsLimited Range

Impact MunitionsBatons, Bean Bags, Pellets, Fin-Stabilized, etc.Most DiverseHybridEncapsulated, Ring Air-FoilPepper Dust, Dyes, etc.ElectricalTasers Shock Belts114

Types of NonlethalMechanical DevicesCapture Nets, Portable VehicleArresting Barrier, Sticky Foam, etc

DeploymentEmerging &Limited UseEmerging

Biological SystemsPheromones, Dogs, Snakes,Bees, Hornets, Mosquitoes, etc.Directed EnergyLaser DazzlerActive Denial SystemLong Range Acoustical DeviceMagnetic Acoustical Device105.45 Long Colt Revolver (1873)Machine Gun (1885)Percussion Cap (1842)Minie Ball (1852)Cartridge Cases (1857)Battleof Crecy(1320)Matchlock(Circa 1450Flintlock(1612)Historical Time LineTear Gas (CN) 1912Kneeknockers circa 1960s?Flashbangs 1976Pepper Spray (OC) 1987Beanbags 1994M-26 TASER 19991300140015001600170018001900200096Gunpowder about 1250Matchlock circa 1450Flintlock 1612Percussion Cap 1842Minie Ball 1852Cartridge cases circa 1857.45 Long Colt revolver 1873

Blunderbuss AgeEvery single device is encumbered with major shortcomingsRange, effectiveness, decontamination, cross-contamination, repeatability, accuracy, environmental concerns, etc.Use the advantages of one to offset the shortcomings of anotherExploit success. Dont reinforce failure!87Force SpectrumTwo philosophical underpinningsThe amount of injury to the suspectThe amount of defiance by the suspectDepending on your philosophy, the same option can be justifiably placed in dramatically different positions in the force spectrum78In order to fully understand the issues begetting the controversy, it is necessary to understand the roots of the confusion. First, while a lethal weapon attempts to defeat an adversarys ability to resist, a less lethal device attempts to defeat his will to resist. An adversarys ability to resist is visible, measurable and concrete. For example, the U.S. Military uses algorithms to predict the degree of damage and destruction from artillery rounds, bombs and small-arms fires. Each bomb, naval shell, artillery or mortar round can be rated according to such things as killing radius, wounding radius and shrapnel radius. A persons will, on the other hand, is intangible. It defies measurement. When employing less lethal devices, abundant examples exist of persons who have resisted despite being struck by different devices scores of times. Conversely, persons have surrendered after a nonlethal device was fired and missed!

This concept leads us to the second point of confusion because lethal weapons are defined by their capability, while nonlethal devices are defined by their intent. Until relatively recently, all weapons were rated by such things as the number of people who could be killed at one time, how fast it could be done and the likelihood of persons escaping the effects. Everything from rifle bullets to nuclear bombs were simply a lethal weapon of some sort with varying degrees of effectiveness. In the words of one U.S. Marine officer, When it comes to force, we go from an M-16 to an F-16.

The controversy continued throughout 1995 and into 1996 when the U.S. Department of Defense required the selection of a term to bring closure to what was really an ancillary issue. The term nonlethal was selected and the following definition was provided.Nonlethal weapons are defined as weapons that are explicitly designed and primarily employed, at a minimum, to discourage or at most, incapacitate personnel or materiel while minimizing fatalities and undesired damage to property and the environment.Categorizing the ContinuumNonlethal vs. LethalMost historical divisionCompliance vs. DefianceMost fundamental divisionThreats vs. ForceA credible threat of lethal force is a nonlethal optionPassive vs. Active OptionsPassive options do not require an intervention decision they engage an adversary on their own volition69ContinuumA continuous extent, succession, or whole, no part of which can be distinguished from neighboring parts except by arbitrary divisionPerceptions and MisconceptionsNonlethal (Less-Lethal, Less-than-Lethal) and harmless are synonymsNonlethal weapons are incapacitatingNonlethal Options are a substitute for Lethal OptionsA dramatically improved nonlethal option will not have a dramatic effect on lethal force ratesLethal Force is 100% effectiveLess Lethal Force should also be510Risk AssessmentFirearmschance of surviving 3 in 4Failure rate 75%TASERchance of dying about 1 in 3,900(worst case & unchallenged assumptions)Failure rate 3/100s of 1% (N=~2,000,000 or .0003)Chances of dying (National Safety Council)Dying from being shot1 in 197Dying from a fall1 in 217Heart attack in the next year1 in 400Reduce risk by diminishing Responsibility of Developer!ProbabilityExposure Responsibility of Law Enforcement!454411TASER risk assessment assumes 232 people dead as a direct result of the TASER over conservative estimate of 70,000 uses. (2005-GAO Study)Attributed to TASER uses same N but only lists the numerator is only the 20 cases listing TASER as a possible cause

Other estimates are conservative estimates on odds from a variety of reliable sources, including the insurance and medical fields, but mostly National Safety Council

Public ExpectationsHighly PortableDiscriminatingInstantaneous EffectsReusableEnvironmentally Benign100% Effective (Defeats the abilitynot just will to resist)100% Reversible100% SafePhaserStar TrekSeptember 19663

12Can be Rheostatic - that is dialed effects from irritating to lethalMeasuring EffectivenessAmount of Force % of PopulationAll less lethal options are debilitating, not incapacitating!PermanentlyDisablingLethalEffectiveSwett Curve 213LasersAmount of Force % of PopulationIt is nearly impossible to over-stimulate light adapted eyes14Impact MunitionsAmount of Force % of Population1Because pain is subjective the threshold for adequate force is illusory15TASERSAmount of Force % of PopulationNearly impossible to accidentally cause permanent injury16Strike SitesTASER & ARWEN0%0%3%3%5%5%4%25%25%33%51%14%13%19%TASERARWEN17LocationTASERARWEN TASER N=457 ARWEN N=151Head & Neck319Arms & Shoulders1314Hands & Wrists35Chest & Back5133Groin & Buttocks2525Legs54Feet & Ankles00100100

Which NLW is preferred?1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004250

200

150

100

50

0Number of UsesBaton RoundSting BallStun BagER TAS 18If the only tool you have is a hammer; you have to think of every problem as a nail.Abraham MaslowSid Heal

909-732-8325 H9692@Verizon.net19null3048.0