The Value of Less-Lethal Weapons

Author:

Mun Johnathan,McAnally Seth,Mun Jayden,Mun Emma

Abstract

<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top: 6.0pt; line-height: 14.0pt; mso-line-height-rule: exactly;"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-bidi-font-size: 10.5pt; font-family: 'Cambria',serif; mso-fareast-font-family: 宋体; mso-bidi-font-family: 'Times New Roman';">Less-Lethal Weapons, including electric Tasers, velocity-reduction bullet-capture projectiles, rubber bullets, beanbag rounds, and other less-lethal projectiles used in police departments, federal and local law enforcement agencies, and military policing operations, as well as for private use, are topics of significant debate in recent years. These weapons can reduce collateral damage, reputational risk, and legal exposure while preventing wrongful and unnecessary deaths caused by conventional bullet wounds. Yet, opponents have highlighted concerns regarding the safety and effectiveness of these weapons, as well as their potential to cause injury or even death. While the primary duty of law enforcement officials is to preserve order and execute the law while protecting individual rights, they ultimately achieve these goals by exercising their coercive authority. Society expects police officers to rely on their professional training and judgment when using physical force to defend citizens and themselves or to apprehend criminal suspects. Because police officers must occasionally participate in physical acts of coercion, it is unavoidable that some of these interactions may result in bodily injuries to individuals, including the officers themselves. These injuries have real costs, such as medical treatment, lost wages, municipal liability, court claims and settlements, riots, and legal or even criminal exposure, as well as less-tangible collateral costs, such as the erosion of police legitimacy and public trust, which are more difficult to quantify but arguably more influential in shaping long-term public perceptions than personal injuries alone. Less lethal technology eliminates some of the concerns raised by lethal weaponry. This study reviews the advantages and disadvantages of these less-lethal weapon technologies versus traditional firearms for use by the police force, federal agencies, and military police while also performing advanced analytics to model the valuation and return on investment for a law enforcement organization implementing such technologies. </span></p>

Publisher

Anser Press Pte. Ltd.

Reference27 articles.

1. ACLU Massachusetts (2015). LESS LETHAL FORCE: Proposed Standards for Massachusetts Law Enforcement Agencies. https://www.aclu.org/press-releases/aclu-massachusetts-issues-recommendations-less-lethal-force-policies-police

2. Alternative Ballistics (2023). Alternative Ballistics Corporation. Available at https://www.alternativeballistics.com/

3. Ammunition Depot (2023). https://www.ammunitiondepot.com/23962gd-speer-gold-dot-personal-protection-40-s-w-180-grain-gdhp.html

4. Amnesty International (2014). USA: The State of the World’s Human Rights. https://www.amnesty.org/en/countries/americas/united-states/report-usa/

5. Archbold, C. A. (2005). Managing the Bottom Line: Risk Management in Policing. Policing: An International Journal of Police Strategies & Management, 28(1), 30-48.

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3