Lethal vs. non-lethal revisited
A while back, I opined that carrying non-lethal weapons could make someone be more inclined to resort to the use of those weapons even though doing so was unnecessary. I got a lot of flack for that. I should point out that the police in Oklahoma have doubled the use of tasers in the last year.
Update: Phelps may be correct in the comments that I should refer to them as less-than-lethal. Actually, I’m thinking the correct term should probably be generally-not-lethal.
November 19th, 2004 at 1:32 pm
[…] non-lethal
|By SayUncle|
A few times I have opined that I think people, particularly police, carrying non-lethal weapons may lead to unnecessary use of t […]
July 7th, 2004 at 8:14 am
They aren’t “non-lethal” — they are less-than-lethal. The can and do still kill (even Tasers). There is no such thing as non-lethal force. All force is lethal if you use enough at the right spot on the right person.
July 7th, 2004 at 8:56 am
The article does say that police shootings have decreased. So Taserings are up, but shootings are down. I imagine that was the goal.
July 7th, 2004 at 9:02 am
Les, that’s a good goal but:
That, to me, implies they’re a bit more liberal in the use of them now.
July 7th, 2004 at 11:25 am
Better than “less-than-lethal” is “less-lethal” with its implication that the weapon is less *likely* to be lethal.