Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 38

Thread: Is this the worst less-lethal idea out there or am I being too narrow-minded?

  1. #21
    Shit like this makes my head hurt. The number of ways it can go wrong are limitless.

  2. #22
    Site Supporter
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Maryland
    Hey! Hey! Hey! Did you non-woke people not read through the entire website? The FAQ pretty much says that if you pop off a real round after the Alternative, it's an agency or personal training issue. The FAQ also told me that the advantage to this is that my Taser might be left in the cruiser because....I don't know why.

  3. #23
    Site Supporter Hambo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    Location
    Behind the Photonic Curtain
    Quote Originally Posted by DaBigBR View Post
    Shit like this makes my head hurt. The number of ways it can go wrong are limitless.
    Yeah, buddy. It either works perfectly with one round, or it's a roulette wheel of failure options.

    Quote Originally Posted by jnc36rcpd View Post
    Hey! Hey! Hey! Did you non-woke people not read through the entire website? The FAQ pretty much says that if you pop off a real round after the Alternative, it's an agency or personal training issue. The FAQ also told me that the advantage to this is that my Taser might be left in the cruiser because....I don't know why.
    OK, now it all makes sense. Invent a less-lethal option that requires an officer to fire a lethal weapon at someone, but if when it goes wrong, the agency didn't train properly.
    "Gunfighting is a thinking man's game. So we might want to bring thinking back into it."-MDFA

  4. #24
    Quote Originally Posted by Elwin View Post
    Is the ball made of metal like it absolutely looks like it is? And is a piece of metal moving at [whatever velocity it moves at after being hit by a service caliber pistol bullet that was moving at muzzle velocity] really not deadly force? Especially if it hits someone above shoulder level or on top of their heart?

    That's of course in addition to all the other problems, but my lawyer brain immediately went to "can I argue this is deadly force."
    Not arguing for this device, but this:

    Especially if it hits someone above shoulder level or on top of their heart?


    Most of the currently used LL projectiles, that is, the ones that have a chance of being effective have increased potential lethality when striking those areas.

  5. #25
    Site Supporter JohnO's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    CT (behind Enemy lines)
    "Sarge, I swear I thought I properly attached that stupid thing the PD issued me. It must have fallen off right before I center punched the deceased."

  6. #26
    Trying to think about this from a fairly objective perspective:

    First of all this statement points out the reason agencies might consider this device:

    Because generally, when an officer arrives on the scene, they do not have these other less-lethal devices readily available as they may be in their patrol car or in the trunk of their patrol vehicle, and in some instances the officer would have to be in close proximity for the device to be effective which could potentially put the officer in danger. As an officer steps out of their vehicle, they already have THE ALTERNATIVE® attached to their duty belt. Within seconds, an officer can utilize THE ALTERNATIVE® without having to return to their patrol car or removing their eyes from the suspect.


    This seems to make sense, except, many officers carry TASERS as a part of their duty gear. I'm sure their argument is that the Alternative extended stand-off capabilities as compared to the TASER:

    10ft to 30ft but it has been tested at 30ft to 40ft with exceptionally accuracy.

    The point that they seem to ignore is the way LE has traditionally, with good reason, approached LL projectile deployment. Most agencies don't allow the use of LL projectiles without other officers on the scene to provide lethal-cover. This device seems to be directed to lone officer use, especially with their caveat that lethal force is immediately available after the officer fires the Alternative.

    That leads us to consider another problem, inadvertent doubles. Looking at this from a training perspective, my answer would be to include an empty, functional orange magazine nested in the device as it rests in the belt pouch. If the mag was nested in the device, it would have to be removed before the device could be docked with the pistol. So the training would be: drop duty mag, insert orange mag, dock device. If the orange mag is functional, it would lock the slide to the rear, eliminating the chance for a double, and allowing the officer to perform an out-of-battery reload. Removing the immediate follow-up lethal force potential, also puts the Alternative into the more traditional category of LL projectiles requiring lethal force cover.

    Despite all that, there is a reason that agencies either went away from, or never adopted, the verified transition system for the 12 gauge LL shotgun - the potential for mistakes/shortcuts.

    From my viewpoint, another problem is the fact that I couldn't find data on weigth, or diameter. Admittedly, I gave the site a quick once-over, so I may have missed them. They do say that: Depending on the type of ammunition used, the projectile still travels at approximately 250 - 300 feet per second. This is within the velocity envelop of the original bean bag at 300 fps, and the sock rounds at 280 fps.

    The problem is that one has enough data on the beanbag and sock rounds to figure their KE, which is 120 and 122 foot pounds respectively. Additionally their statement that: Being impacted by THE ALTERNATIVE® is comparable to getting hit in the chest with a 170 MPH fastball is problematic when one considers this: After William Ryan Wojick’s death in 1990, Little League was given a copy of a federal study from 1986 which “documented nearly two dozen cases in which children died after being hit in the chest by baseballs,” Last time I looked, little leaguers aren't throwing baseballs at 170.

    So, a lot of legit problems with this device.

  7. #27
    Member jd950's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2016
    Location
    In the flyover zone
    I am pleased to see my opinion and concerns are shared by others. Hopefully this has not been adopted anywhere as I see so many ways that the use of this thing could go horribly wrong.

  8. #28
    Quote Originally Posted by Dan Lehr View Post
    Trying to think about this from a fairly objective perspective:

    First of all this statement points out the reason agencies might consider this device:

    Because generally, when an officer arrives on the scene, they do not have these other less-lethal devices readily available as they may be in their patrol car or in the trunk of their patrol vehicle, and in some instances the officer would have to be in close proximity for the device to be effective which could potentially put the officer in danger. As an officer steps out of their vehicle, they already have THE ALTERNATIVE® attached to their duty belt. Within seconds, an officer can utilize THE ALTERNATIVE® without having to return to their patrol car or removing their eyes from the suspect.


    This seems to make sense, except, many officers carry TASERS as a part of their duty gear. I'm sure their argument is that the Alternative extended stand-off capabilities as compared to the TASER:

    10ft to 30ft but it has been tested at 30ft to 40ft with exceptionally accuracy.

    The point that they seem to ignore is the way LE has traditionally, with good reason, approached LL projectile deployment. Most agencies don't allow the use of LL projectiles without other officers on the scene to provide lethal-cover. This device seems to be directed to lone officer use, especially with their caveat that lethal force is immediately available after the officer fires the Alternative.

    That leads us to consider another problem, inadvertent doubles. Looking at this from a training perspective, my answer would be to include an empty, functional orange magazine nested in the device as it rests in the belt pouch. If the mag was nested in the device, it would have to be removed before the device could be docked with the pistol. So the training would be: drop duty mag, insert orange mag, dock device. If the orange mag is functional, it would lock the slide to the rear, eliminating the chance for a double, and allowing the officer to perform an out-of-battery reload. Removing the immediate follow-up lethal force potential, also puts the Alternative into the more traditional category of LL projectiles requiring lethal force cover.

    Despite all that, there is a reason that agencies either went away from, or never adopted, the verified transition system for the 12 gauge LL shotgun - the potential for mistakes/shortcuts.

    From my viewpoint, another problem is the fact that I couldn't find data on weigth, or diameter. Admittedly, I gave the site a quick once-over, so I may have missed them. They do say that: Depending on the type of ammunition used, the projectile still travels at approximately 250 - 300 feet per second. This is within the velocity envelop of the original bean bag at 300 fps, and the sock rounds at 280 fps.

    The problem is that one has enough data on the beanbag and sock rounds to figure their KE, which is 120 and 112 foot pounds respectively. Additionally their statement that: Being impacted by THE ALTERNATIVE® is comparable to getting hit in the chest with a 170 MPH fastball is problematic when one considers this: After William Ryan Wojick’s death in 1990, Little League was given a copy of a federal study from 1986 which “documented nearly two dozen cases in which children died after being hit in the chest by baseballs,” Last time I looked, little leaguers aren't throwing baseballs at 170.

    So, a lot of legit problems with this device.
    corrected KE for sock round

  9. #29
    Member feudist's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Murderham, the Tragic City
    We were issued a net as a non lethal for "mentally disturbed persons" and our Brainiac Chief was interested in seeing it expanded to use against knives.

    It was about the size of a volleyball net, In fact I'm pretty sure what was used in the initial idea.

    At training, it was a complete farce. It only "worked" if the target was standing still, and even then it was clear it would take some practice and coordination.

    Simply walking around defeated it. charging one of the deployers derailed it completely.

    It was mind boggling that anyone ever thought it would work and infuriating that command gave so little a fuck about our safety that they entertained it.

    It got issued and an "improved" version was adopted. What was improved? Couldn't tell ya. Never had any training beyond the initial hour long class.

    It was never deployed successfully, and after a few years they were quietly gathered up and disappeared.

  10. #30
    Site Supporter
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Maryland
    The chief of my former department liked nets when we started expanding less-lethals. Surprisingly enough, Baltimore City ran district less lethal cars at the time which were outfitted with a Taser (before everyone had them), a fire extinguisher size OC, and a net. They may have also had a less lethal launcher. While I won't say the net was never used, it had significant limitations and was probably best restricted to specialist officers. To the chief's credit, he gave up on the net idea.

    Many years later, I walked through the parking lot while our animal services people were evaluating nets. It did not go well. If a net can't capture a stationary can of Diet Coke, I doubt it will work on a frightened beagle...or an angry dope fiend.

User Tag List

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •