Editor’s Introduction: It’s a shame we don’t live in a utopian world, but reality is what it is. If we COULD live in that utopia, no law enforcement professional would ever have to use lethal force; or any force at all for that matter. In a perfect world, suspects would be 100% cooperative, the courts would dispense 100% perfectly fair and impartial justice and everyone would be happier. But we don’t live in that utopia. Unfortunately, our police and deputies do have to use force and long-time protocols have recognized that the force used matches or exceeds, within reason, the force brought against us. That said, if there were any way that we (law enforcement) could always answer a lethal threat with less lethal force and still never increase our risk of injury, harm or death, I believe we would embrace it. None of us WANTS to do harm to others; it’s an unfortunate side-effect of the job we are sworn to do; the duty we accepted when we put on the badge.
Every agency is responsible for selecting its own force options and tools. Virtually every agency (that I’m aware of) today authorizes at least one lethal force tool and mandates several less-lethal tools. Any alternative to lethal force should be embraced provided that the use thereof doesn’t increase the risk of harm to the law enforcement professionals who serve our communities. In selecting lethal force options the agency must adhere to contemporary best practices, local, state and federal law and must do so while remaining cognizant of the opportunity to minimize risk to the officers while managing liability to the government entity served. Decades old use of force protocols, training policies and protocols and force deployment habits must all be considered as well. It’s a big order.
One new technology that offers another less lethal option is discussed in this article. Retired FBI agent, national trainer, published author and columnist for Officer.com, John Wills, discusses the technology and offers his opinion. Before making a decision about the use of this technology, it behooves law enforcement leaders to research the technology and pursue the opinions of other subject matter experts as well.
Stay safe. –Frank Borelli
- - - - - - - - - -
Alternative Ballistics (AB), located in California, has introduced a unique product they think will be a “. . . rapid solution to lethal situations while aiding in maintaining the safety of law enforcement and the general public.” Their mission statement, in part, describes the new product as, “. . . an innovative device, which allows an officer the ability to choose another option in lethal force situations, while keeping themselves safe.” Therein lies the problem. When faced with a lethal force situation, less-lethal, in my humble opinion, is not an option.
The Alternative, as it’s called, is a device stored in a pouch on the officer’s duty belt. To deploy it, the officer removes it from the pouch and seats it on top of their handgun. Once the weapon is fired, the round is captured by what looks to be an object resembling a ping-pong ball. The ball containing the round continues toward the intended target, but with diminished (1/5) velocity. The docking unit that held the ball automatically ejects from the weapon, so subsequent trigger pulls mean the weapon is used in the manner for which it was originally intended.
According to an Associated Press article by Jim Salter, the Alternative Ballistics CEO calls the device “an air bag for a bullet.” Mayor James Knowles III of Ferguson, Missouri, said a few Ferguson PD officers are testing the device, but the city has not made a decision on purchasing. Could this device be a reaction to bad PR resulting from the Michael Brown incident?
So what happens when the captured round strikes the individual? AB advises the ball is less likely to pierce a suspect and cause a fatal injury. The words, “less likely,” are key. Travelling at about 250 per second, an object can cause serious damage to the body, particularly if the object strikes a vulnerable area such as the head, neck, or heart. That could be a fatal strike. The effective distance of The Alternative is around 30 feet.
I see a number of potentially deadly consequences associated with this product, the biggest being using the weapon for something other than what it was designed for - stopping a deadly threat. Police already have less lethal alternatives: Pepperball, Beanbag, Taser, and Pepper Spray, all of which are effective tools. One of the reasons these alternatives are successful is that they are separate from the handgun. The officer knows he has a less lethal weapon in hand, and if that tactic fails to stop the threat, protocol dictates a cover officer with deadly force capability is close by.
The bigger problem would seem to be training. From day one, a cop trains to use his weapon as a last resort, one used only in lethal situations. “Never point your weapon at anyone or anything you are not prepared to destroy.” This mantra is one that all firearms instructors drill into their students. Moreover, we teach to fire until the threat ceases to be a threat. We don’t count rounds, we don’t shoot to wound, we shoot to stop a threat. The Alternative is a “one use” only tool. What happens in the heat of the moment when the officer fires an second round, based on his firearms training? Moreover, what happens in a critical situation when the adrenaline is pumping stronger than a fire hose? Will the officer have time to find the correct pouch, remove the device, seat it on the weapon, and then fire? Seeing that we’re behind the power curve more often than not, adding another few seconds puts us at a distinct disadvantage that could prove fatal. And what about accuracy? We know we miss about 80% our shots in gun battles. We’re going to be accurate with our one and only ping pong ball?
Since the Ferguson PD is presently testing the new device, must they think this tactic may somehow prevent future “Michael Brown situations?” However, if we look at the actual facts of the case, and not what the media and Sharptons of the world posit, we know the officer had barely enough time to draw and fire. Even after being struck, the attacker continued to fight; hardly a less lethal incident to be sure.
Recalling the mission statement of AB, they theorize their product allows an officer the ability to choose another option in lethal force situations, while keeping themselves safe. The flaw in their thinking is less lethal is not an option when facing a lethal force situation. Making any modification to, or using an officer’s weapon for something other than discharging an unencumbered round to stop an assault on the officer or another is unacceptable. While I appreciate the research involved, and the attempt to save lives by introducing another alternative, my gut tells me AB is driving down the wrong road. By the way, one of the videos on their website depicts a bad guy with a knife advancing toward an officer. That is not a less lethal situation.
Leave the handgun alone, it’s difficult enough to master and maintain proficiency as we’ve seen countless times in after action reports and dash cam videos. Many PDs and agencies have a difficult time just trying to qualify their personnel often enough. Adding another layer of handgun training is not advisable. Trying to use the handgun in a less lethal fashion is inviting disaster. Just my opinion.
Stay Safe, Brothers and Sisters!
Links:
John Wills
John M. Wills is a former Chicago police officer and retired FBI agent. He is a freelance writer and award-winning author in a variety of genres, including novels, short stories and poetry. John also writes book reviews for the New York Journal of Books, and is a member of the National Book Critics Circle. His new book, The Year Without Christmas, is available now. Visit John at: www.johnmwills.com.
