Re:Non lethal weapons encourage use. (Score 1)

Agreed, non lethal weapons should carry the same rules that lethal weapons do, or at least, somewhere near that strict. (i.e. you can use them to assist in the apprehension of an unwilling detainee).

They frequently do carry the same rules (or very close to it) as lethal weapons, at least in the States. There are "levels of force" that are clearly defined in every police department that I've dealt with (and the one that I worked for) that states not only what weapons are acceptable to use at that level, but also what situations and criteria are needed before said weapons are used. The principle of escalation of force usage is usually recommended and legally sound: talk -> threat -> open-handed defencive tactics -> chemical methods (mace, pepper spray, etc) -> blunt weapons (batons, PR-24, ASP, etc) -> firearms discharge....all depending on the level of force used against the officer. A firearm or even most non-lethal uses of force are discouraged in normal (read: no officer or civilian is being threatened) situations. Hell, I got cracked on for using a PR-24 on a guy who was a foot taller than myself, outweighed me by at least 100 pounds, and had already thrown another officer across the room! I was told that pepper spray or electric stun gun was the appropriate level of force to use on the guy (who incidentally had broken several bones in his wife's face and skull while beating her nearly unconscious). I wasn't written up for it, but did receive a verbal warning (officer safety concerns and the statements by the "got thrown" cop were the only reason that I wasn't suspended).

As an example of non-lethal force usage rules, the ASP retractable baton is a non-lethal weapon, by classification, but its use in my former department was restricted to a level of force just below firearm discharge since it had the potential to actually break a bone in the suspect. Many departments in other states had less restrictions on the ASP and PR-24 side-handled baton than we did, but most did consider their usage to be acceptible only in more extreme situations.

Although, now that I think about it, I would much prefer the cops had nothing but non lethal weapons, otherwise they are given a sort of 'instant executive right' to dole out the death penalty as they see fit, and I wouldn't quite consider 1 cop with a gun a jury of my peers.

That's because you aren't on the line yourself :-) The public frequently forgets two things when it comes to police officers: a) they are citizens as well and aren't really anxious to get killed, and b) the number of police brutality cases is extremely minor compared to the number of lawfully-executed detentions and arrests. In the case of (a) above, why should any person who happens to choose the law enforcement profession be forced to walk around with what is essentially a giant target on their back and no way to defend themselves or others? Yes, I've drawn a gun in the line of duty, but thankfully never had to fire it. It's presence, however, is one of the contributing factors to me being alive to type this message....my words, actions, and uniform would not have made that difference alone. Of course, ideally, you shouldn't need to confront violence with violence, but we do not live in an ideal world and I think that a cop in the USA should not be less equipped to defend themselves and others than those they encounter in the course of their duty. As for (b), people never believe this, but cases where police brutality complaints are made account for less than 1% of the number of total number of cases handled by the police department (and that includes an estimate of those claims that go unreported). Why do you hear so much about it or seem to always know someone who's been thumped by a cop? Simple: the press just LOVES to expose the bad and leave the good on the cutting-room floor; and other people often don't understand the "levels of force", as you may not (no offence...most people that I know have no idea). They may not see anything that they have done as being particularly wrong or threatening, but an officer has to make his decisions very quickly (choosing incorrectly WILL cost a cop his/her life in almost all situations where use of force is contemplated) and there isn't much room to wonder if you're misinterpreting someone or not, so small actions by a suspect may be interpreted by the officer as threatening in nature and things escalate from there (why people don't just shut up or calm down when cops tell them to is beyond me).

Yes, there are and probably always will be bad cops out there that will abuse their authority or use their weapons (lethal and non-lethal) indiscriminately, but don't assume that this is the vast majority (or even a larger minority) of the police officers out there. Also don't assume that non-lethal force will be abused just because it's non-lethal. As with any other "weapon", things like this slippery goo will be classified on the "levels of force" heirarchy and it's use will be heavily restricted due to the potential to seriously injure suspects/others (I seriously doubt if my old department would even buy it since it appears to have big liability potential).