I appreciate the question, but I need to be transparent - my 40 years of legal practice has focused primarily on business law, real estate, family law, and criminal defense rather than police use-of-force matters specifically. That said, through my criminal defense work in Jasper, Indiana, I've handled cases where non-lethal weapons were used during arrests, which gives me some practical courtroom perspective on how these tools play out in the justice system. From the defense side, I've seen rubber bullet cases result in serious injuries that prosecutors had to address - one client suffered permanent vision damage that completely changed the trajectory of their case and the city's liability. The legal threshold is whether force was "objectively reasonable" under Graham v. Connor, but juries often struggle when someone loses an eye from what's marketed as "less lethal." What concerns me most from representing clients is the lack of standardized training and deployment policies across departments. I've reviewed police reports where pepper balls were deployed in enclosed spaces - something even manufacturers warn against - yet officers faced no consequences because their department had no written policy prohibiting it. The gap between manufacturer guidelines and actual field use is significant.
I have researched law enforcement use of non-lethal weapons through training exercises, and an actively deployed non-lethal weapon and the evidence shows value and accountability. I supported one assessment that illustrated tear gas deployment reduced crowd escalation by 60 percent when utilizing the baton. A second assessment evaluated pepper balls, which enabled officers to move forward with less risk, and reduced injuries by nearly half. We assessed rubber bullets, and though this is best used as a perimeter tool we established distance metrics with a less indirect form of injury or fatality in mind. While studying the evidence on these items, the evidence did show that these tools reduced the risk for fatalities, but guidelines must be established on the use of force continuum. I think determining the proper balance of protection and restraint within these assessments is crucial. This same philosophy is consistent with the way we approach designing solutions that bring safety, efficiency, and accountability at SourcingXpro. All of our thinking really gets down to the right tool, used in the right way, for the right outcome.
Less lethal weapons such as teargas, mace, and rubber bullets and pepper balls are designed to lessen deadly confrontations but the effects can be brutal. The data of a study in BMJ Open indicate that rubber bullets have led to permanent disability or death in up to 3 per cent of incidents, and chemical irritants have frequently resulted in long-term respiratory problems. Teargas, which is banned in warfare, is still employed in control of civilians, which casts some moral concerns. Police departments cite fewer injuries to officers (by 65 percent) in protest situations involving chemical irritants, though deployments when there is a non-violent demonstration have also been challenged. The legal threat increases because it is illustrated that non-lethal is not harmless. Departments can and are liable under the civil rights law due to misuse.
Estate Lawyer | Owner & Director at Empower Wills and Estate Lawyers
Answered 5 months ago
Legally, a stand in my practice is that courts are examining the reasonableness of the force applied in protests and crowd control scenarios. The reasonable force standard should always address the use of non-lethal force options, including pepper spray, rubber bullets, tear gas or pepper balls. If this type of force is used indiscriminately on a non-violent organization, judges tend to be more dubious over its legality as they should. Australian courts also are examining the question whether there were alternative less harmful methods available against the individuals who were a real threat and whether the force caused unnecessary harm to others. A clear example is where tear gas is indiscriminately deployed against an unknown group of non-violent individuals since this does not pass the legality test of proportionality. With all fairness, proportionality is much more likely to survive scrutiny if the application is selective and tempered for example. I think that it is clear that the legal trend is to restrict necessity and proportionality and therefore if enforcement goes beyond that, damage or injunction claims will be much stronger.
In my two decades in law enforcement, including years on SWAT teams and as a tactical commander, I've seen firsthand how non-lethal tools like pepper balls, chemical irritants, and kinetic impact rounds can prevent deadly outcomes. These options give officers the ability to gain control of volatile situations without resorting to firearms. In many cases, the difference between escalation and resolution comes down to what's available on an officer's belt. Through my experience commanding responses to high-risk events, such as the Santa Fe High School shooting, I came to appreciate the value of layered options. You cannot train restraint without arming officers with realistic alternatives commensurate with the level of threat. Devices such as pepper ball launchers and OC-based irritants provide range, precision, and time, three factors that are important when public safety and liability are concerned. Today, as part of my work at Byrna, I teach law enforcement agencies worldwide how to deploy these technologies responsibly and effectively. The aim isn't compliance, it's protection of the officer and the community. Non-lethal weapons are not about replacing guns; they're about making additional decision points prior to lethal force being required. As the public's expectations change, so too must our tactics and tools. Non-lethal options are no longer "nice-to-have" add-ons; they're standard elements of any professional agency's force continuum.
In the U.S., law enforcement agencies use non-lethal weapons primarly to control the crowd, to manage a riot or to prevent social unrest. Basically this is a very human way to quickly organize the order without risking people's life and health. The application of non-lethal weapons is addressed at both federal and state levels. There are special protocols at place that explain how exactly and in which specific cases that type of weapon could be used. For example, application even of a non-lethal weapons to minors and pregnant women is under restrictions and allowed in a limited number of expectational cases.
The reality of non lethal weapons is that they cause serious injuries more often than law enforcement agencies want to admit and the legal standards for their use are frustratingly vague. At AffinityLawyers, I represent clients who've suffered permanent eye damage from rubber bullets, chemical burns from pepper spray, and respiratory problems from tear gas that police claimed were safe alternatives to lethal force. I think that the biggest problem is that non lethal doesn't mean harmless and officers receive minimal training on proper deployment distances and appropriate situations for using these weapons. The cases I handle typically involve police firing rubber bullets at close range that were designed for crowd dispersal from 30 meters away, or deploying tear gas in confined spaces where people can't escape the chemicals. What makes these cases difficult is that courts give officers enormous discretion in deciding when force is necessary and manufacturers explicitly warn that their products can cause serious injury or death despite the non lethal classification. The legal standard requires proving the force was objectively unreasonable under the circumstances, which is a high bar when judges defer to officer judgment about perceived threats. The outcome in successful cases usually involves clear video evidence showing excessive deployment or victims with permanent injuries that demonstrate the force was disproportionate to any actual threat they posed during the encounter.