Fact-checked by Grok 2 weeks ago

Non-lethal weapon

Non-lethal weapons, more precisely designated less-lethal weapons in military and law enforcement contexts, are munitions, devices, and technologies engineered to incapacitate personnel or disable materiel through reversible effects such as temporary pain, sensory overload, or physical disruption, with a materially lower probability of causing death or permanent injury than conventional lethal firearms.^[1]^[2] These tools emerged prominently in the late 20th century, driven by operational needs to minimize casualties in riot control, urban warfare, and de-escalation scenarios, particularly following recognition of the limitations of lethal force in asymmetric conflicts and civilian policing.^[3] Primarily employed by police, military, and security forces, less-lethal weapons facilitate graduated force options that aim to achieve compliance without escalating to deadly outcomes, thereby reducing overall injury rates in use-of-force encounters relative to handgun deployments.^[4] Common categories encompass kinetic impact munitions like rubber bullets and beanbag rounds, which deliver blunt trauma; chemical agents such as oleoresin capsicum (pepper spray) and CS gas for irritant effects; electroshock devices including Tasers that disrupt neuromuscular function; and emerging directed-energy systems like acoustic hailing devices or optical distractors.^[5]^[6] Their deployment has been credited with averting higher civilian and officer casualties in high-risk situations, as empirical analyses of thousands of incidents show decreased severe injuries when less-lethal options supplant lethal ones.^[7] Despite design intents for safety, less-lethal weapons carry inherent risks of lethality or grave harm, particularly from kinetic projectiles causing blunt force trauma to vital areas or when combined with suspect vulnerabilities like drug intoxication, obesity, or cardiac issues, which have contributed to documented fatalities via mechanisms such as positional asphyxia or arrhythmia.^[4] Peer-reviewed evaluations underscore variable effectiveness, with success rates in achieving incapacitation ranging from 60-90% depending on range, target physiology, and environmental factors, while highlighting needs for rigorous training to mitigate misuse that amplifies injury risks.^[8]^[9] These realities have sparked debates on terminology—rejecting "non-lethal" for overstating safety—and policy reforms emphasizing accountability in procurement and application to align with causal factors of unintended outcomes rather than idealized assumptions.^[10]

Definition and Terminology

Core concepts and distinctions

Non-lethal weapons, as defined by the U.S. Department of Defense, consist of weapons, devices, and munitions explicitly designed and primarily employed to incapacitate targeted personnel or materiel while minimizing fatalities, permanent injury to personnel, and undesired damage to property or the environment.^[11] This definition emphasizes intent and primary effect: reversible incapacitation through mechanisms such as pain induction, sensory disruption, or temporary physiological impairment, rather than destruction of vital functions.^[12] In contrast to lethal weapons, which prioritize termination of life via mechanisms like hemorrhage or organ failure, non-lethal variants derive their distinction empirically from controlled human effects testing that verifies transient outcomes under standard deployment conditions.^[13] The National Institute of Justice aligns with this framework by characterizing less-lethal weapons as apprehension or restraint devices that, when deployed as intended and under typical circumstances, present a low probability of causing death or serious bodily harm.^[14] Key operational metrics include physiological recovery within minutes to hours for most subjects in validation studies, with lethality risks orders of magnitude below those of firearms—targeted at under 1% in DoD human effects protocols for compliant scenarios.^[13] These distinctions hinge on causal realism: lethal arms escalate irreversibly toward mortality via kinetic energy transfer exceeding tissue tolerances, whereas non-lethal designs calibrate energy or stimuli to thresholds that overwhelm sensory or neuromuscular function without breaching those limits in aggregate data from exposure trials.^[15] Terminology evolved from "non-lethal" to "less-lethal" in the 1990s following empirical evidence of rare but verifiable fatalities, even under purportedly controlled use, underscoring that absolute non-lethality is unattainable due to variables like subject vulnerabilities or deployment errors.^[16] For instance, kinetic impact incidents in crowd control during that decade documented deaths from cranial or thoracic trauma, prompting doctrinal shifts to reflect reduced—but not eliminated—mortality probability compared to lethal alternatives.^[17] This adjustment prioritizes transparency in risk assessment, acknowledging that while primary effects remain incapacitative, secondary outcomes can include permanent injury in outlier cases, as validated by post-incident forensic reviews.^[3]

Less-lethal versus non-lethal debate

The terminology "non-lethal weapon" originated in military contexts to describe devices designed and primarily employed to incapacitate individuals or material temporarily without inflicting permanent injury or death, as defined in U.S. Department of Defense Directive 3000.3.^[18] However, this label has been critiqued for implying an absolute absence of lethality risk, which no force option achieves due to variables such as user physiology, deployment conditions, and interaction with pre-existing factors like drug intoxication or heart conditions.^[19] In response, law enforcement and some policy experts favor "less-lethal" to acknowledge the residual potential for severe outcomes, including rare fatalities, thereby setting realistic expectations and promoting judicious application.^[20] Empirical evidence underscores this distinction: conducted energy devices (CEDs), such as Tasers, exhibit fatality rates below 0.1% per deployment in large-scale analyses, far lower than the 10-20% lethality associated with firearm discharges in comparable police encounters.^[21] ^[22] For instance, National Institute of Justice (NIJ) studies of millions of CED uses report injuries in under 1% of cases, with deaths typically linked to multifaceted causes rather than the device alone.^[23] In contrast, Amnesty International's 2004 report highlighted over 70 U.S. taser-involved deaths by then, urging suspension pending further safety data due to concerns over cardiac risks, though it acknowledged tasers as alternatives to firearms in principle.^[24] Despite such critiques, less-lethal options demonstrably bridge the force continuum gap, reducing overall casualties: NIJ and PERF analyses show CED adoption correlates with 30-48% drops in suspect and officer injuries across interventions, averting escalation to lethal means in 50-85% of high-risk scenarios where they prove effective.^[4] The DoD's ongoing Non-Lethal Weapons Program in the 2020s reaffirms their operational value for de-escalation and deterrence, emphasizing training to mitigate risks while preserving net life-saving utility over unmitigated lethal alternatives.^[25] This terminological shift thus aligns causal risk assessment with evidence, countering overconfidence in zero-harm claims without dismissing the tools' role in minimizing harm.^[26]

Historical Development

Origins and early innovations

The concept of weapons intended primarily for incapacitation rather than fatality traces back to antiquity, where devices like caltrops—four-spiked iron objects designed to pierce hooves or feet—were deployed to disrupt enemy advances without direct confrontation or high lethality. Originating possibly as early as the 4th century BCE in Indian warfare and adopted by ancient Romans, caltrops created area-denial effects by causing painful injuries that slowed cavalry or infantry, allowing defenders to evade or reposition while minimizing outright kills.^[27]^[28] Their use reflected early recognition of tactical value in hindering mobility over annihilation, particularly against mounted forces where lethal alternatives risked mutual escalation. In pre-modern policing and crowd management, blunt melee tools such as wooden clubs and whips served analogous roles, enabling authorities to disperse gatherings or subdue individuals through pain compliance without routine resort to edged or projectile arms. These implements, employed by Roman vigiles and medieval watchmen, evolved into formalized batons by the 19th century, as urban law enforcement in Europe and the United States prioritized control in dense populations over lethal outcomes. For instance, hardwood nightsticks became standard for American police around the mid-1800s, emphasizing strikes to limbs for temporary disablement amid rising industrial-era riots.^[29]^[30] The 20th century's initial prototypes emerged from imperatives to calibrate force in colonial and civil disturbances, where indiscriminate lethality invited backlash and operational constraints. British forces, facing escalating unrest in Northern Ireland during the late 1960s Troubles, developed the 1.5-inch rubber baton round as a kinetic alternative to live ammunition, with first deployment on August 2, 1970, against rioters in Belfast. This innovation stemmed from urban combat dynamics, where minimizing civilian casualties preserved legitimacy and reduced international scrutiny, though early cylindrical designs still caused injuries upon direct impact.^[31]^[32] Concurrently, U.S. military research in the 1960s, influenced by Vietnam-era experiences with populated battlefields, explored graded-response options like irritant agents to bridge lethal gaps, prioritizing disruption over destruction to limit collateral damage in asymmetric engagements.^[3] These efforts marked a doctrinal shift toward weapons that incapacitated combatants or crowds temporarily, driven by the causal realities of modern warfare's proximity to non-targets.^[33]

Military applications and evolution

The U.S. military's pursuit of non-lethal weapons accelerated in the 1990s amid operations in Somalia, where restrictive rules of engagement necessitated alternatives to lethal force to avoid civilian casualties and achieve mission objectives with minimal collateral damage. This operational imperative prompted the establishment of the Department of Defense Non-Lethal Weapons Program in July 1996, aimed at developing technologies to fill the gap between "show of force" and deadly engagement.^[3]^[34] Early efforts under the program explored materials like sticky foam, an ultra-adhesive substance propelled to entangle and immobilize targets, tested in the mid-1990s for applications in crowd control, barrier reinforcement, and individual restraint without causing lasting harm.^[35] Post-9/11 conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan further drove evolution, with non-lethal capabilities integrated to support counterinsurgency tactics, enabling de-escalation of threats from civilians or non-combatants while adhering to engagement rules that prioritized force protection and legitimacy.^[36] Joint Improvised-Threat Defeat Organization assessments highlighted their utility in reducing unnecessary escalations, preserving infrastructure, and mitigating civilian harm in urban environments.^[37] Directed-energy prototypes advanced the arsenal; the Active Denial System, employing a 95 GHz millimeter-wave beam to induce intense but transient skin heating, underwent U.S. military efficacy tests in 2007 for area denial and perimeter security.^[38] Acoustic systems like the Long Range Acoustic Device emerged for non-kinetic deterrence, with naval deployments repelling Somali pirate approaches as early as 2005 through directed hailing and disorienting tones, enhancing standoff capabilities in asymmetric maritime threats.^[39] Overall, these developments underscored non-lethal weapons' strategic value in enabling precise, reversible incapacitation, empirically linked to lower lethality thresholds in compliance-driven operations.^[40]

Adoption in law enforcement

Following widespread civil unrest in the United States during the 1960s, including the Watts riots of 1965 and the Kent State shootings of 1970, law enforcement agencies sought alternatives to lethal force and traditional batons for crowd control and suspect apprehension. The 1970s introduced rubber bullets and bean bag rounds, engineered to inflict blunt trauma without penetration, marking a shift toward standardized less-lethal munitions in response to public scrutiny over deadly outcomes.^[41] By the early 1980s, major departments formalized protocols for chemical agents and electrical devices; the Los Angeles Police Department adopted TASER conducted energy weapons and irritant sprays in 1981, integrating them into use-of-force continuums to de-escalate high-risk encounters.^[42] Tear gas, already in limited use, became more routinely deployed for riot suppression under structured guidelines post these events.^[43] The 1990s and 2000s saw accelerated adoption of advanced conducted energy devices, with TASER International (now Axon Enterprise) supplying thousands of units to U.S. agencies, enabling officers to incapacitate resistant subjects remotely. National Institute of Justice evaluations of deployments demonstrated that these devices reduced injury rates to both officers and civilians by providing an intermediate option short of firearms, with suspect injury probabilities dropping significantly in equipped agencies compared to pre-adoption baselines.^[44]^[23] Internationally, similar integrations occurred; during the First Intifada (1987–1993), Israeli security forces employed rubber-coated metal projectiles for dispersing stone-throwing crowds, aiming to minimize live ammunition use in urban policing scenarios.^[45] In Europe, water cannons were authorized for protest management, with German police deploying them against demonstrators during the 2017 G20 summit in Hamburg, building on precedents from earlier events like the 2009 London G20 where tactical expansions were debated.^[46]^[47] Through the 2010s and into 2020s reforms following high-profile incidents, agencies refined training and policies, emphasizing non-lethal tools to prioritize de-escalation; longitudinal data links their availability to lower overall use-of-force severities, including fewer escalations to lethal outcomes, as evidenced by decreased civilian and officer injuries in audited jurisdictions.^[44]^[4]

Operational Principles

Mechanisms of incapacitation

Non-lethal weapons achieve incapacitation through targeted disruption of physiological functions via kinetic, chemical, or electrical means, each leveraging fundamental physical and biological principles to induce temporary impairment without intent for permanent harm or lethality. These mechanisms prioritize reversible effects on sensory, motor, or autonomic systems, calibrated to exploit human vulnerabilities while minimizing tissue destruction.^[48]^[17] Kinetic mechanisms rely on the transfer of momentum and energy upon impact to produce blunt trauma, where a projectile's linear momentum p = m v (mass times velocity) imparts force to soft tissues, causing localized deformation and pain without penetration. Kinetic energy KE = \frac{1}{2} m v^2 determines the severity, with velocity exerting a quadratic influence, leading to neurogenic shock from rapid pressure waves stimulating nociceptors and involuntary muscle responses. This disrupts voluntary movement by overwhelming sensory feedback loops, though outcomes vary by impact site and individual resilience.^[48]^[49]^[50] Chemical mechanisms, such as those involving capsaicinoids in irritants, activate transient receptor potential vanilloid 1 (TRPV1) ion channels on sensory neurons, triggering calcium influx that depolarizes nociceptors and elicits intense burning sensations. This reflexively causes involuntary blepharospasm (eye closure) and respiratory irritation via trigeminal nerve stimulation, overriding conscious control through autonomic overload without systemic toxicity at low doses. TRPV1 desensitization follows prolonged exposure, but initial incapacitation stems from unmyelinated C-fiber activation mimicking thermal or inflammatory pain.^[51]^[52]^[53] Electrical mechanisms employ high-voltage, low-current pulses to induce neuromuscular incapacitation by overriding voluntary motor neuron signals, where delivered charge follows Ohm's law (V = I R, with high voltage overcoming skin impedance to achieve sufficient current for tetanic contraction). Pulsed waveforms at 10-50 Hz synchronize with alpha motor neuron firing, forcing sustained muscle tetanus that exhausts ATP reserves and prevents coordinated action, typically without cardiac interference due to current path and duration limits.^[54]^[55]^[56]

Design considerations for human effects

Design considerations for non-lethal weapons prioritize minimizing severe injury or death through biomechanical thresholds derived from surrogate testing, while accounting for human physiological variability. Factors such as body mass, impact distance, and pre-existing health conditions influence energy transfer and tissue response; for instance, lighter individuals (e.g., 5th percentile females) exhibit higher injury risk from the same kinetic energy due to reduced mass absorption.^[57]^[58] The Joint Intermediate Force Capabilities Office employs finite element models like the Advanced Total Body Model to simulate effects across 5th to 95th percentile anthropometric profiles, integrating variables like distance-dependent velocity decay to predict outcomes such as rib fractures or organ contusions.^[59] Safety margins are established via injury criteria, including viscous criterion (VCmax ≤ 0.8 m/s for thoracic blunt trauma) and energy density thresholds (e.g., <23.99 J/cm² to limit 50% skin penetration risk in anterior thorax impacts).^[60] Projectile velocities are typically capped below 300-400 fps at muzzle to stay within these limits, as validated by cadaveric, anthropomorphic test device, and limited volunteer trials spanning the 1980s to 2020s, which quantify blunt trauma risks like lung contusion from localized impacts.^[61]^[62] Human Effects Review Boards under the DoD assess these margins pre-deployment, recommending design adjustments to reduce variability-induced risks, such as compliant projectile noses that dissipate energy over penetration.^[59] Iterative refinements address specific vulnerabilities, exemplified by conducted energy device waveform modifications post-2010s; Axon Enterprise reduced pulse charge and adapted output to lower ventricular fibrillation thresholds, as evidenced by swine model studies showing diminished cardiac capture compared to earlier X26 models.^[63]^[64] These changes balance incapacitation with safety, informed by integrated human effects protocols that prioritize empirical thresholds over assumptive models.^[59]

Kinetic and Projectile-Based Weapons

Blunt impact munitions

Blunt impact munitions deliver kinetic energy through deformable projectiles to achieve temporary incapacitation via pain induction and localized trauma, targeting non-vital areas to minimize lethality risks. Primary compositions include vulcanized rubber for solid or hollow bullets, which deform on impact to spread force, and bean bag rounds comprising textile pouches filled with lead shot or pellets, loaded into fin-stabilized sabots for 12-gauge shotgun propulsion.^[65] ^[66] ^[67] These materials prioritize viscoelastic properties to limit penetration depth, with bean bags expanding post-launch to increase contact area and reduce pressure concentration compared to rigid alternatives.^[68] ^[69] Deployment velocities typically range from 250 to 300 feet per second for bean bag variants, generating 120 foot-pounds of energy sufficient for compliance at close range without routine skeletal fracture in compliant tissue models.^[70] Effective ranges extend 5 to 40 meters, where biomechanical thresholds for incapacitation—around 100-150 joules to extremities—are met, though efficacy diminishes beyond 20 meters due to velocity decay and accuracy limits.^[71] National Institute of Justice evaluations from the 2010s document compliance rates of 55% to 80% in operational use-of-force incidents, attributing variability to factors like projectile placement, suspect resistance, and environmental conditions rather than inherent design flaws.^[9] ^[72] Sponge grenade variants, such as 40mm rounds with foam-tipped plastic bodies, adapt blunt impact for crowd control by prioritizing disorientation over individual targeting, with nose configurations engineered for controlled deformation and lower fracture risks in thoracic impacts.^[60] ^[73] These munitions, tested for energies yielding blunt trauma without penetration in human surrogate studies, achieve 20-50 meter standoffs while exhibiting reduced injury profiles relative to denser rubber projectiles.^[74] Precision enhancements in 2020s models, including finned sabots and optimized aerodynamics, aim to narrow dispersion patterns, though field verification remains limited to manufacturer claims and select military assessments.^[75]

Specialized delivery systems

Specialized delivery systems for kinetic non-lethal weapons encompass launchers optimized for deploying blunt impact munitions at controlled ranges, emphasizing platforms that balance incapacitation with risk mitigation. Traditional systems rely on adapted pump-action shotguns, such as the Remington Model 870, which law enforcement agencies have modified for riot control since the 1970s to facilitate less-lethal operations alongside standard ammunition.^[76] These adaptations typically involve shorter barrels and breaching chokes to accommodate lower-velocity projectiles, enabling operators to maintain versatility in dynamic environments without requiring separate dedicated weapons.^[77] Pneumatic launchers represent a shift toward non-pyrotechnic propulsion, utilizing compressed air or CO2 to fire impact munitions while circumventing firearm classifications in certain jurisdictions. The FN 303 launcher, for example, employs an air reservoir to achieve velocities sufficient for 10-40 meter engagements, prioritizing reduced penetration risks over traditional shotgun dynamics.^[78] Such systems integrate modular stocks and Picatinny rails for accessory mounting, supporting enhanced accuracy through basic iron sights or optional red-dot optics.^[79] Recent advancements in the 2020s focus on precision enhancements via optics integration, including laser rangefinders and reflex sights on shoulder-fired platforms like PepperBall launchers, which allow for targeted delivery beyond 20 meters to minimize collateral exposure.^[79] These features address inherent ballistic inconsistencies in less-lethal projectiles, enabling standoff applications that empirically lower close-quarters injury rates for both subjects and operators, as evidenced by operational analyses of intermediate force capabilities.^[80] DoD evaluations underscore how such delivery mechanisms extend engagement envelopes, reducing reliance on physical interventions in crowd control scenarios.^[25]

Chemical and Incapacitating Agents

Irritant aerosols and sprays

Irritant aerosols and sprays, including oleoresin capsicum (OC) and CS/CN agents, function by inducing rapid sensory overload in the eyes and respiratory tract through localized inflammation, leading to temporary incapacitation without significant systemic absorption or toxicity.^[81] Capsaicinoids in OC bind to TRPV1 receptors on sensory neurons, triggering intense burning sensations, involuntary eye closure, and coughing via activation of nociceptive pathways, with effects manifesting almost instantaneously upon exposure.^[82]^[83] These agents cause ocular and respiratory shutdown by overwhelming irritant receptors, peaking within seconds to minutes, and typically dissipating within 20 to 45 minutes as the compounds degrade or are decontaminated.^[84] OC sprays, derived from chili pepper oleoresins standardized to 5-10% capsaicin content, deliver a pressurized stream or mist effective at ranges of 3-6 meters from handheld canisters, prioritizing ocular targeting for compliance.^[85] Studies indicate OC induces blepharospasm and lacrimation sufficient to halt aggressive behavior in most subjects, though efficacy varies with environmental factors like wind or subject intoxication.^[86] Unlike earlier CN agents, OC avoids dermal blistering, focusing irritation on mucous membranes for reversible effects confirmed in respiratory function assessments showing no lasting pulmonary compromise.^[84]^[87] CS (2-chlorobenzalmalononitrile) and CN (chloroacetophenone) tear gases, dispersed as fine aerosols, provoke profuse lacrimation and bronchial constriction by irritating chemoreceptors, with CS offering lower toxicity and faster dispersal than CN, which was first deployed in World War I munitions.^[88] Refined pyrotechnic canisters from the 1990s onward enhance controllability, releasing irritant clouds over 10-20 meters for crowd dispersal, though concentrations above 10 mg/m³ can extend effects beyond 30 minutes in enclosed spaces.^[89] Delivery systems range from personal defense sprays to area-denial grenades, with modern variants including drone-mounted dispensers tested in the 2020s for remote application in urban scenarios, minimizing operator risk while maintaining aerosolized particle sizes under 10 microns for optimal mucosal penetration.^[90]^[91]^[92] These methods ensure targeted, non-persistent exposure, as agents hydrolyze rapidly in air, reducing environmental residue compared to earlier liquid formulations.^[93]

Advanced chemical delivery methods

Advanced chemical delivery methods encompass psychochemical agents and immobilizing foams designed to incapacitate through psychological disruption or physical entanglement rather than direct physiological harm. These approaches prioritize area denial and behavioral aversion, though their operational use remains constrained by variability in human responses, delivery challenges, and ethical concerns over predictability. Unlike irritant aerosols, which target sensory overload, these methods aim for subtler incapacitation, such as inducing confusion, repulsion, or immobility, but historical trials have highlighted risks of unintended lethality or inefficacy.^[94] Psychochemical agents, including BZ (3-quinuclidinyl benzilate), were researched by the U.S. military in the 1950s and 1960s as non-lethal incapacitants causing delirium, hallucinations, and disorientation lasting up to 96 hours, with effects onset in 30 minutes to hours. BZ was standardized in 1961 and stockpiled in munitions by 1966, but its deployment was limited due to inconsistent dosing and environmental factors affecting dissemination; allegations of Vietnam War use persist but were officially denied, leading to a 1969 ban amid ethical and reliability issues. Modern variants focus on malodorants, synthetic compounds mimicking extreme foul odors (e.g., cadaverine or skatole derivatives) delivered via projectiles like the U.S. XM1063, which trigger amygdala-driven panic and evacuation without physical injury, as tested by the military in 2012 for crowd dispersal. These malodorants exploit psychological aversion, rendering areas untenable for hours, though persistence in clothing and variable tolerance limit widespread adoption.^[94]^[95]^[96] Sticky foams, expandable polymers that solidify into adhesive barriers, were developed in the 1990s under U.S. initiatives like the National Institute of Justice's projects for entanglement and restraint, expanding 30-50 times to block passages or immobilize individuals without permanent harm. Early prototypes, such as those tested in 1997, faced clogging in delivery systems and removal difficulties, leading to abandonment by DARPA equivalents, but renewed interest in the 2000s and 2020s has explored non-toxic formulations for vehicle denial or riot control, with Navy solicitations in 2023 seeking foams that restrain via adhesion rather than toxicity. These systems offer potential for area denial by creating impassable barriers, yet logistical issues like rapid deployment and neutralization persist.^[35]^[97]^[98] Efforts to develop sedative or "sleep" gases for rapid incapacitation, such as opiate-based aerosols, have been largely rejected due to high lethality risks, as evidenced by the 2002 Moscow theater siege where Russian forces used a fentanyl derivative aerosol, neutralizing 40 terrorists but causing approximately 130 hostage deaths from respiratory failure and inadequate medical countermeasures. No standardized military sleep-inducing agents exist, as physiological variability (e.g., body mass, health) precludes safe dosing in open or dynamic environments, confining such methods to theoretical area denial roles with stringent protocols.^[99]^[100]^[101]

Electrical and Conducted Energy Devices

Electroshock weapon variants

Electroshock weapons, also known as conducted energy devices (CEDs), deliver short-duration, high-voltage electrical pulses designed to cause neuromuscular incapacitation (NMI) by overriding voluntary muscle control through stimulation of motor neurons. These pulses, typically in the range of 1,000 to 50,000 volts but with low amperage (around 2-4 milliamps), propagate via conductive pathways to induce tetanic contractions in skeletal muscles, rendering the target temporarily unable to coordinate movement. Empirical studies indicate that effective NMI requires delivered charge levels of at least 50-100 microcoulombs per pulse to achieve widespread motor neuron activation, with waveform shape influencing propagation efficiency across varying body resistances.^[56]^[102] Contact-based stun guns represent a basic variant, requiring direct physical application of electrodes to the target's skin or clothing to deliver localized shocks primarily for pain compliance rather than full-body incapacitation. These devices operate at shorter ranges—effectively zero distance beyond arm's reach—and avoid wire-related failures but lack the standoff capability of projected systems, limiting their utility against resisting subjects. In contrast, darted variants like TASER models project two barbed electrodes up to 45 feet (13.7 meters) via compressed gas cartridges, connected by thin insulated wires that complete the circuit for remote NMI delivery.^[103]^[104] TASER evolution includes the X26 model introduced in 2003, which featured a shaped-pulse waveform enhancing NMI effectiveness and reduced the device's weight by 60% compared to prior M26 models for improved officer mobility. Subsequent iterations progressed to the X2 (with dual lasers), TASER 7 (enhanced cartridge compatibility), and TASER 10 (announced January 2023), utilizing lower peak voltages around 1,000 volts with multiple (up to 10) cartridge options to extend engagement duration and range while maintaining compact form factors. Manufacturer testing, corroborated by independent police agency analyses, reports approximately 85% suspect compliance within 5 seconds of probe deployment under optimal conditions, though real-world efficacy varies with factors like probe spread and clothing insulation.^[105]^[106]^[107]^[108] Many CEDs, including TASERs, incorporate drive-stun mode as a secondary function, where the cartridge is removed or probes retracted to enable direct-contact application akin to traditional stun guns, emphasizing localized pain for behavioral influence rather than systemic disruption. This mode serves as a backup for close-quarters scenarios but delivers lower overall charge transfer compared to probed NMI. Post-2023 civilian-market adaptations, such as compact TASER variants optimized for personal protection, have proliferated for self-defense, offering darted projection without law enforcement-specific features like data logging, though legal restrictions vary by jurisdiction.^[109]^[110]

Deployment protocols and limitations

Standard deployment protocols for conducted energy devices (CEDs), such as TASERs, restrict their use to situations involving active resistance by a subject, where verbal commands and lesser force options have proven ineffective, positioning CEDs as an intermediate tool below lethal force. Guidelines from the Police Executive Research Forum (PERF), developed in collaboration with the National Institute of Justice (NIJ) in 2005 and updated through field research, recommend limiting exposures to one or two 5-second cycles, with additional cycles permitted only if the subject maintains an imminent threat, as evidence from the 2010s indicates that multiple or prolonged discharges elevate injury risks without proportional gains in compliance.^[111]^[21] Officer training mandates certification programs emphasizing de-escalation techniques, precise probe placement to avoid the chest and upper torso (per manufacturer updates in 2009 informed by NIJ-funded studies), and post-deployment medical assessment, with agencies required to track deployment data for policy refinement. These protocols incorporate failure modes analysis, such as probe misses due to clothing or distance, which field reports estimate affect 13-20% of attempted deployments, requiring officers to transition to alternative restraints promptly.^[112]^[111] Key limitations arise from physiological vulnerabilities, including rare cardiac capture risks, where swine model studies from the early 2010s demonstrated potential for ventricular fibrillation under worst-case conditions like direct heart contact and drug influence, though human epidemiological reviews find no direct causal link to adverse outcomes in standard use, attributing less than 1% of in-custody deaths to CEDs alone, often with confounding factors like stimulants or pre-existing cardiac pathology confirmed via autopsy. Drug interactions, particularly with cocaine or methamphetamine, amplify arrhythmia susceptibility in susceptible individuals, prompting protocols to contraindicate CED use on known overdose cases when feasible.^[113]^[114]^[115] Adherence to these guidelines mitigates the majority of risks, with NIJ analyses of field data showing CEDs reduce overall use-of-force injuries by approximately 48-65% compared to physical confrontations, facilitating de-escalation in high-threat encounters that historically escalated to firearms. Deviations, such as unauthorized multiple shots or use on passive resistors, correlate with elevated subject injuries and departmental liability, as documented in post-incident reviews.^[23]^[21]

Directed Energy and Acoustic Systems

Thermal and millimeter-wave technologies

Thermal and millimeter-wave technologies for non-lethal weapons utilize directed-energy beams to induce superficial skin heating, eliciting an avoidance response through thermal pain without penetrating deeply enough to cause burns or tissue damage. These systems operate by emitting high-frequency electromagnetic waves that are absorbed primarily by water molecules in the skin's outer layers, rapidly elevating local temperature to activate heat-sensitive nociceptors and trigger a reflexive flight instinct.^[116]^[117] The primary example is the Active Denial System (ADS), a U.S. Department of Defense-developed counter-personnel device that projects a focused 95 GHz millimeter-wave beam with a wavelength of 3.16 mm. This energy penetrates only about 0.4 mm—roughly the thickness of three sheets of paper—confining heating to the epidermis and avoiding deeper structures like blood vessels or nerves. At operational power densities, the beam raises skin temperature to approximately 44°C within seconds, producing an intolerable burning sensation that compels subjects to disperse while ceasing instantly upon beam termination or evasion.^[116]^[117]^[118] Safety assessments, including over 15,000 controlled human exposures conducted by the Joint Non-Lethal Weapons Directorate from the mid-2000s onward, have yielded less than a 0.1% incidence of minor injuries, with no evidence of permanent harm or long-term effects; outcomes were independently reviewed by human effects panels and peer-reviewed studies confirming reversible physiological responses. The ADS maintains effective range beyond 500 meters, enabling area denial from standoff distances exceeding typical small-arms engagement.^[116]^[119]^[120] A vehicle-mounted variant, the VMADS, adapts the technology for mobile perimeter security, integrating the emitter onto tactical vehicles to project beams for convoy protection or base defense. Deployed experimentally to Afghanistan in 2010 for operational evaluation, it demonstrated utility in high-threat environments but was repatriated without combat employment due to strategic shifts. Mechanistically, these systems exploit the causal pathway of superficial thermal stimulation to engage C-fiber nociceptors, which mediate the polymodal pain response driving instinctive withdrawal, thereby achieving behavioral control with negligible risk of structural damage.^[121]^[122]^[117]

Optical and sonic distractors

![PHASR Rifle][float-right] Optical distractors, commonly known as laser dazzlers, employ visible-spectrum lasers, often green wavelengths around 532 nm, to induce temporary flash blindness and visual disorientation in targets without causing permanent retinal damage.^[123] These devices overwhelm the eye's photoreceptors, creating afterimages and reducing visual acuity for seconds to minutes, depending on exposure duration and distance.^[124] Handheld models like the PHASR, developed by the U.S. Air Force Research Laboratory in the early 2000s, were designed for ranges up to 1 km, though effectiveness diminishes with atmospheric conditions and target aversion.^[125] Such weapons comply with the 1995 United Nations Protocol IV to the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons, which prohibits lasers intentionally designed to cause permanent blindness but permits temporary dazzling effects.^[126] Deployments have included military checkpoints and perimeter security, where dazzlers deter unauthorized approaches by disrupting aiming or navigation without physical contact. Recent advancements in the 2020s focus on variable power outputs to adapt to environmental factors, ensuring safety margins against inadvertent permanent injury while maintaining efficacy against sensors or human eyes.^[127] Sonic distractors, exemplified by Long Range Acoustic Devices (LRAD), generate highly directional sound beams using piezoelectric transducers, producing warning tones or voice commands at volumes reaching 162 dB at 1 meter.^[128] These systems enable communication or deterrence over 1-3 km in open environments, with narrow beams minimizing collateral exposure.^[129] Initial military applications emerged in 2005 for maritime security, notably repelling Somali pirates from U.S. vessels like the USS Ashland in 2009, and extended to riot control, such as at the 2004 Republican National Convention.^[128] At levels below 140 dB, LRAD primarily causes discomfort, nausea, or disorientation rather than structural damage like eardrum rupture, which requires sustained exposure above 150-160 dB or impulsive peaks exceeding 185 dB.^[130] Field studies indicate rare auditory injuries in operational use, attributed to brief exposures and directional focus, though prolonged close-range application risks temporary threshold shifts or tinnitus.^[131] Ongoing evaluations emphasize calibration to balance escalation prevention with physiological limits, avoiding indiscriminate effects in populated areas.^[129]

Entanglement and Area Denial Technologies

Adhesive and restraining agents

Sticky foam, a polyurethane-based adhesive material, expands upon deployment to create a tenacious barrier or entanglement for immobilizing individuals or blocking access points.^[132] Developed in the 1990s by U.S. military researchers, it was field-tested by Marines in Mogadishu, Somalia, on February 28, 1995, to seal doorways against armed intruders during the withdrawal of UN peacekeeping forces.^[133] The foam's high tackiness and expansion properties aimed to deny mobility without permanent harm, but practical deployment faced challenges including propellant inconsistencies, clogging in delivery systems, and difficulties in safe removal from personnel or surfaces, leading to limited widespread adoption.^[35] Contemporary research seeks to address these limitations through non-toxic, high-expansion formulations capable of entangling targets for restraint.^[98] U.S. Navy programs in the 2020s emphasize foams that adhere strongly to clothing and skin while allowing for chemical neutralization post-use, prioritizing mechanical immobilization over chemical irritation.^[98] These agents function by rapid polymerization upon exposure to air, forming a rigid yet flexible matrix that restricts limb movement and balance, with causal effectiveness tied to volume coverage and adhesion strength rather than pain induction. BolaWrap represents a modern restraining tool using non-adhesive mechanical entanglement, deploying a Kevlar cord with barbed anchors from a handheld launcher to wrap a subject's limbs at distances of 10 to 25 feet.^[134] Introduced for law enforcement in the late 2010s, it enables remote application to de-escalate encounters, particularly with individuals in mental crisis, by temporarily restricting movement without requiring direct physical contact or electrical discharge.^[135] Field deployments by agencies like the Los Angeles Police Department since 2019 demonstrate its utility in reducing officer proximity risks, though efficacy depends on accurate targeting of non-vital areas to avoid injury from the 300-foot-per-second cord velocity.^[136] Overall, such devices lower escalation to hands-on force by providing a compliance window for verbal intervention, with empirical outcomes showing decreased use-of-force incidents in equipped units compared to traditional methods.^[135]

Environmental barrier methods

Environmental barrier methods employ passive or semi-passive techniques to deny access or mobility by modifying the immediate surroundings, targeting vehicles or groups indirectly rather than individuals. These approaches leverage terrain alteration to create hazards or impediments, minimizing direct kinetic impact while achieving area denial.^[27] Caltrops, tetrahedral devices with sharpened points, have punctured tires and injured feet since antiquity, originating as anti-cavalry defenses in ancient warfare to slow troop advances by impeding horses and chariots. Typically forged from iron with four spikes arranged so one always protrudes upward when scattered, they remain effective for vehicle immobilization in modern contexts, as demonstrated by Ukrainian forces producing them in 2022 to counter Russian armored advances. While historically causing lacerations to unshod infantry, such as during the Korean War, their primary non-lethal role in contemporary use focuses on tire deflation to halt mobility without targeting personnel directly.^[27]^[137] Water cannons deliver high-pressure streams to disperse crowds by knocking individuals off balance or pushing groups backward, with vehicles mounting nozzles capable of projecting water over distances exceeding 50 meters. Deployed in riot control since the mid-20th century, they were notably used during the 2019 Hong Kong protests, where police vehicles fired dyed water to mark and repel demonstrators, though injuries primarily stemmed from falls rather than direct hydraulic force. Organizations like Amnesty International have highlighted risks of serious harm from misuse, including potential for blunt trauma or exacerbation by additives, underscoring the need for calibrated application to avoid lethality.^[138]^[139] Slippery agents, including viscous gels or lubricant coatings, create low-friction surfaces to deny footing or traction on roads and pavements, rendering areas impassable for both pedestrians and vehicles. Developed under U.S. military programs like the Mobility Denial System in the early 2000s, these non-hazardous substances—such as polymer-based "banana peel" formulations—adhere to concrete or asphalt, reducing friction coefficients dramatically without permanent damage or toxicity. Teflon-like barrier coatings further exemplify this category, applied to form slick zones that compel evasion or slippage, historically conceptualized alongside oil slicks in urban violence control studies.^[140]^[141]^[133]

Physiological and Behavioral Effects

Targeted physiological responses

Non-lethal weapons induce targeted physiological responses by stimulating nociceptive pathways and disrupting neuromuscular signaling to achieve temporary pain and motor inhibition without causing permanent tissue damage. Chemical irritants such as CN and CS gases activate polymodal nociceptors in the trigeminal nerve via TRP channels including TRPA1 and TRPV1, triggering rapid depolarization of sensory afferents and propagation of pain signals through A-delta and C fibers.^[142] This results in acute burning sensations across ocular, nasal, and respiratory mucosa, compelling reflexive behaviors like eye closure and gasping that contribute to behavioral compliance.^[143] Conducted energy devices generate pulsed electrical fields that selectively stimulate alpha motor neurons, overriding voluntary descending commands from the central nervous system and inducing widespread tetanic contractions in skeletal muscles.^[144] The waveform's parameters—typically 100 μs pulses at 10-50 Hz—ensure preferential capture of motor axons over cardiac tissue, leading to neuromuscular incapacitation lasting the duration of energy delivery, often 5 seconds per cycle.^[145] These mechanisms leverage autonomic integration for enhanced effect; nociceptor barrage from irritants elicits a sympathetic outflow manifesting as elevated heart rate and vasoconstriction, amplifying perceived urgency and surrender reflex.^[146] Human exposure trials confirm reversibility, with irritant-induced sensory overload resolving in 20-60 minutes post-exposure due to agent volatilization and neural desensitization, while electroshock motor deficits recover within seconds to minutes absent ongoing stimulation.^[147]^[148] Department of Defense characterization studies from the early 2000s validated these timelines in controlled volunteer scenarios, establishing safety margins for operational use.^[147]

Psychological and secondary impacts

The deployment of non-lethal weapons often leverages psychological deterrence by altering individuals' cost-benefit assessments of continued aggression, prompting voluntary compliance to avoid anticipated discomfort. Behavioral effects research indicates that such weapons influence decision-making through anticipated pain or sensory overload, effectively raising the perceived risks of non-compliance without requiring direct application.^[149]^[150] Devices like long-range acoustic devices (LRAD) enhance this deterrence via directed warnings, broadcasting commands over distances up to several kilometers at volumes exceeding 150 decibels, which signal authority and reduce unauthorized approaches in crowd scenarios. Field observations during events such as the 2004 Republican National Convention demonstrate their role in communicating intent and preempting escalation, though empirical quantification of approach rate reductions varies by context.^[151]^[152] In group dynamics, irritants such as tear gas induce secondary effects like collective avoidance behaviors, where exposed individuals exhibit herding instincts that propagate dispersal and fragment crowd cohesion. During the 2020 U.S. protests following George Floyd's death, chemical agent deployments correlated with rapid riot dispersion, as discomfort prompted mass retreat and diminished coordinated aggression.^[153]^[154] Post-exposure secondary impacts can include transient anxiety from recalled sensory disruption, potentially heightening future wariness toward authorities, yet strategic analyses frame these as net contributors to de-escalation by reinforcing boundaries without lethal thresholds. RAND assessments from 2022 emphasize that such weapons enable resolve demonstration in ambiguous encounters, managing escalation risks while yielding behavioral compliance gains.^[155]^[26]

Empirical Evidence of Effectiveness

De-escalation outcomes in field studies

Field studies of conducted energy devices (CEDs), such as TASERs, indicate substantial de-escalation efficacy through rapid suspect incapacitation and compliance. Analysis of 4,303 use-of-force reports from the Orange County Sheriff's Office and Orlando Police Department (2000-2005) revealed CEDs ended confrontations in 69% of initial deployments, rising to 81.5% by the third iteration, outperforming impact weapons (45% success) and takedowns (41.4%).^[9] Drive-stun mode yielded 64.2% immediate compliance in first uses, compared to 59.4% for probe deployment.^[9] Quasi-experimental comparisons across 13 agencies over four years post-CED adoption showed officer injury rates declined from 11.5% to 8.3% (over 70% odds reduction, p<0.0001), while suspect medical attention needs dropped from 54.8% to 39.8% (45-79% odds reduction, p<0.0001) relative to non-CED sites, where rates increased.^[156] Suspect hospitalization fell 52% in logistic models (p<0.0001), evidencing CEDs' role in curtailing escalation.^[156] In UK field data, TASER display alone secured compliance in 81% of encounters, preventing discharge and further force.^[157] Kinetic impact projectiles exhibit lower de-escalation consistency, with field effectiveness around 45-65% for initial stops based on weapon continuum analyses, often requiring follow-up tactics and yielding higher resistance continuation than CEDs.^[9] Overall, non-lethal weapons (NLWs) correlate with reduced lethal force incidents by furnishing intermediate options; adoption decreased officer assaults and suspect injuries versus physical controls alone in multi-agency evaluations.^[23]^[4] These outcomes stem from NLWs' capacity to interrupt aggression without defaulting to firearms, though success varies by deployment accuracy and suspect physiology.^[9]

Injury reduction compared to lethal alternatives

Non-lethal weapons demonstrate markedly lower mortality risks compared to firearms in law enforcement applications, with police-involved shootings resulting in fatalities in approximately 31% of incidents across 47 large U.S. jurisdictions from 2010 to 2016.^[158] In contrast, deaths directly attributable to non-lethal weapons, such as conducted energy devices or kinetic impact munitions, occur in far fewer than 1% of deployments, as evidenced by systematic reviews of use-of-force data indicating minimal lethal outcomes relative to the volume of applications.^[159] This disparity underscores the potential for non-lethal options to mitigate severe injuries, as firearms exhibit case fatality rates exceeding 20-30% per engagement, driven by ballistic trauma.^[158] Aggregate data from agencies incorporating non-lethal weapons show substantial reductions in deadly force incidents, with quasi-experimental analyses linking their adoption to decreased officer assaults and overall harm in violent encounters.^[160] For instance, systematic evaluations report that less-lethal tools correlate with lower rates of civilian injuries and severity compared to scenarios without such alternatives, effectively shifting interventions away from lethal thresholds in 50% or more of high-risk situations.^[7] These outcomes reflect a net benefit in injury profiles, as non-lethal deployments avoid the penetrating wounds and hemorrhagic shock common in firearm use, prioritizing incapacitation over terminal effects.^[161] Causal attribution of rare non-lethal weapon-associated deaths often involves selection bias toward high-risk subjects, where underlying conditions like excited delirium or acute drug intoxication precede intervention. Autopsy reviews of in-custody deaths following non-firearm force reveal drugs mentioned in 73.9% of cause-of-death statements and excited delirium in 16.9%, suggesting many fatalities stem from pre-existing physiological crises rather than the weapons themselves.^[162] This confounding factor highlights how non-lethal tools are disproportionately applied to agitated or delirious individuals already at elevated mortality risk, yet the overall substitution effect yields fewer total injuries than defaulting to firearms, countering narratives overemphasizing isolated non-lethal fatalities without contextual baselines.^[163]

Legal, Ethical, and Regulatory Aspects

International treaties and prohibitions

The primary framework governing non-lethal weapons under international law is the 1980 United Nations Convention on Prohibitions or Restrictions on the Use of Certain Conventional Weapons Which May Be Deemed to Be Excessively Injurious or to Have Indiscriminate Effects (CCW), supplemented by the Geneva Conventions and their Additional Protocols, which require that all weapons avoid causing superfluous injury or unnecessary suffering.^[164] Non-lethal weapons are generally permissible provided they comply with these principles and rules of engagement (ROE), as they are designed to incapacitate temporarily without causing death or permanent harm, thereby aligning with the law of armed conflict's emphasis on proportionality and distinction. No comprehensive treaty bans non-lethal weapons outright, reflecting a consensus among states that such tools can reduce casualties compared to lethal alternatives when used appropriately. A notable exception is Protocol IV to the CCW, adopted on 13 October 1995 and entering into force on 30 July 1998, which prohibits the development, production, and use of laser weapons specifically designed to cause permanent blindness as their primary combat function.^[165] The protocol permits lasers intended for temporary incapacitation or those causing incidental permanent blindness, allowing for non-lethal applications like dazzling systems that disorient without lasting damage.^[166] This distinction arose from negotiations balancing humanitarian concerns—driven by advocacy from organizations like Human Rights Watch, which highlighted risks of inhumane effects—with military arguments for temporary effects supported by technical assessments showing controllability.^[167] Discussions within the CCW framework, including Group of Governmental Experts meetings since 2017, have addressed emerging non-lethal technologies but have not resulted in expanded prohibitions, often stalling amid debates where humanitarian groups push for preemptive restrictions despite evidence from state programs, such as U.S. Department of Defense reviews, indicating safety margins under controlled ROE.^[168] Specific bans remain rare internationally; for instance, Protocol III restricts incendiary weapons and toxic chemicals as methods of warfare but exempts riot control agents for law enforcement or non-combat scenarios.^[169] Regionally, some European Union member states impose limits on expanding kinetic munitions like rubber bullets due to injury risks, though these lack uniform treaty enforcement and contrast with broader authorizations elsewhere.^[170] Overall, prohibitions prioritize intent and effect over category, enabling non-lethal weapons where they demonstrably mitigate lethality.

National policies and use-of-force standards

In the United States, the Supreme Court's 1989 decision in Graham v. Connor established the constitutional standard for evaluating police use of force as "objective reasonableness," assessed from the perspective of a reasonable officer on the scene, factoring in the severity of the crime at issue, whether the suspect poses an immediate threat to officers or others, and whether the suspect is actively resisting arrest or attempting to evade by flight.^[171] This framework positions non-lethal weapons (NLWs) as intermediate options on the use-of-force continuum, deployable when verbal commands prove insufficient but deadly force exceeds the empirical threat level posed by the subject.^[172] Departments typically calibrate NLW deployment to match resistance levels, with conducted energy devices like Tasers authorized for active aggression short of lethal risk, and impact munitions reserved for high-threat scenarios below firearm thresholds.^[23] Following high-profile incidents in 2020, numerous jurisdictions enacted reforms integrating body-worn cameras into use-of-force protocols, mandating activation during encounters to provide verifiable footage of threat assessments and decision-making, thereby enhancing post-incident reviews under Graham standards.^[173] Federal guidance from the Department of Justice echoes this, requiring officers to employ only objectively reasonable force when alternatives are infeasible, with NLWs serving as de-escalation tools calibrated to real-time empirical indicators like suspect behavior and proximity.^[174] Training regimens, often standardized by bodies like the National Institute of Justice (NIJ), emphasize scenario-based simulations tying NLW use to measurable threat data, with certification requiring 8 to 24 hours depending on the weapon type and agency policy.^[23] Empirical studies link enhanced training to measurable reductions in force errors; for instance, procedural justice-focused programs have decreased overall use-of-force incidents by approximately 6.4% and civilian complaints by 10% over multi-year periods, by reinforcing objective evaluations over subjective escalations.^[175] Policies commonly incorporate health and age-based restrictions, advising against NLW deployment on vulnerable groups such as the elderly, pregnant individuals, or children due to elevated injury risks from physiological factors, though field data demonstrates NLWs' net reduction in severe injuries relative to unarmed physical control or lethal options across broader populations.^[7] In the United Kingdom, the National Police Chiefs' Council guidelines similarly align NLW authorization with a graduated response model, prioritizing empirical assessments of harm likelihood, with batons and irritants restricted to imminent violence scenarios absent less intrusive means.^[176] These standards underscore causal linkages between perceived threat metrics and force selection, prioritizing data-driven proportionality over categorical prohibitions.

Applications Across Contexts

Military and asymmetric warfare uses

Non-lethal weapons (NLWs) enable military forces to expand rules of engagement (ROE) in asymmetric warfare and counterinsurgency (COIN) operations, particularly in urban settings where distinguishing combatants from civilians is challenging. By providing options between verbal warnings and lethal force, NLWs facilitate responses to ambiguous threats, such as non-compliant vehicles at checkpoints or crowds masking insurgents, thereby minimizing collateral damage and preserving operational legitimacy. In Iraq and Afghanistan post-2001, U.S. forces employed NLWs like tear gas, rubber projectiles, and optical distractors to de-escalate situations without escalating to gunfire, addressing the tactical gap in force continua during stability operations.^[177]^[178] The Joint Intermediate Force Capabilities Office (JIFCO), under the U.S. Department of Defense, has advanced NLW integration for such environments, conducting training and fielding capabilities like the M234 riot control launcher for ring airfoil projectiles in Iraq during the 2010s.^[25] These tools supported COIN tactics by allowing troops to neutralize threats temporarily, reducing inadvertent civilian casualties at checkpoints where lethal force previously risked high collateral.^[150] A RAND analysis highlights how NLW employment in urban COIN expands ROE flexibility, enabling commanders to engage potential threats below lethality thresholds while maintaining force protection. In the 2020s, military applications have incorporated unmanned systems for precision NLW delivery, such as drone-mounted laser dazzlers designed to induce temporary visual impairment without permanent harm, enhancing standoff capabilities in asymmetric conflicts.^[179] This integration supports targeted irritant dispersal in contested urban areas, further limiting exposure to operators and bystanders.^[150] Such advantages extend to alliance preservation, as reduced civilian harm bolsters local cooperation and counters insurgent narratives, per a 2024 analysis emphasizing NLWs' role in sub-threshold operations to avoid alienating partners.^[80]

Civilian law enforcement and crowd control

Non-lethal weapons play a central role in U.S. civilian law enforcement for managing routine patrol encounters involving resistant individuals, with conducted energy devices (CEDs) and oleoresin capsicum (OC) spray comprising the majority of applications. Police use force, primarily through these non-lethal means, in an estimated 300,000 incidents annually, reflecting the scale of deployments needed to maintain public order amid rising violent crime rates in the 2020s.^[180] In such cases, 98% of suspects sustain no or only mild injuries, demonstrating the tools' capacity for resolution without significant harm.^[181] CEDs alone account for over 5.6 million field deployments historically, achieving compliance in 85-95% of targeted uses and a 99.75% safety rate absent serious injury or death.^[182] ^[23] In crowd control scenarios, including the widespread unrest from 2019 to 2021, non-lethal options such as tear gas, pepper balls, and bean bag rounds enable dispersal of unlawful assemblies while averting broader violence, even as media coverage disproportionately highlights outlier injuries over aggregate effectiveness.^[183] Riot control agents like CS gas temporarily disrupt group cohesion by inducing sensory overload, allowing officers to regain control without immediate lethal escalation, as evidenced by their deployment in thousands of protest events where sustained riots were curtailed.^[184] ^[185] These tools proved essential in contexts where defunding proposals risked depleting capacities for non-violent resolution, with data indicating fewer officer injuries in equipped responses compared to unarmed alternatives.^[23] Empirical studies link enhanced training in non-lethal tactics to markedly lower escalation rates, with agencies adopting structured de-escalation curricula experiencing up to 28% fewer use-of-force incidents and reduced civilian injuries.^[186] ^[187] High-compliance departments, emphasizing scenario-based proficiency with tools like CEDs and impact munitions, report roughly half the escalation frequency of undertrained peers, causal to safer outcomes through proactive compliance induction rather than reactive force.^[72] This training emphasis counters narratives questioning non-lethal utility by quantifying its role in averting the 15-20% of arrests that otherwise involve higher-risk physical interventions.^[23]

Private sector and self-defense roles

In the 2020s, the civilian market for non-lethal self-defense weapons has expanded rapidly, driven by demand for alternatives to firearms that enable effective deterrence without lethal risk. Devices marketed as "unguns," such as kinetic projectile launchers from Byrna Technologies, have gained prominence; Byrna reported surpassing 500,000 units sold since launching its first model in June 2019, with fiscal Q1 2025 revenue growing 57% year-over-year to $26.2 million.^[188]^[189] The broader non-lethal weapons market, including self-defense applications, is projected to grow at a compound annual growth rate (CAGR) of 8.5% from $9.8 billion in 2024 to $22.2 billion by 2034, reflecting increased consumer adoption amid rising personal security concerns.^[190] These tools empower private individuals by providing standoff capabilities for threat neutralization. Oleoresin capsicum (OC) spray, a staple in civilian self-defense, has demonstrated high field effectiveness, with a 1999 analysis of 690 incidents finding it subdued suspects in 85% of cases without requiring escalation to firearms.^[191] Byrna launchers, firing .68-caliber chemical irritant or kinetic rounds, similarly allow users to engage at 5-60 feet, offering stopping power comparable to low-velocity impact munitions while minimizing penetration risks. Such devices are accessible without permits or background checks in all 50 U.S. states, broadening their role in personal protection for demographics restricted from lethal weapons, such as certain felons or minors.^[192] This proliferation supports non-lethal deterrence in scenarios like home invasions or street assaults, where visual or deployed presence can de-escalate without gunfire. Surveys indicate that 42% of women own pepper spray as a preferred self-defense option, correlating with its utility in creating escape windows during confrontations.^[193] Overall, these private-sector innovations shift self-defense paradigms toward reversible force, reducing the cognitive and legal burdens of lethal outcomes while addressing gaps in traditional armament.^[194]

Controversies, Risks, and Misuse

Documented injuries and fatalities

Kinetic impact projectiles, such as rubber bullets and beanbag rounds, have resulted in documented fatalities primarily due to impacts to the head, neck, or torso. A systematic review of medical literature from 1990 to 2017 identified 53 deaths among 1,984 affected individuals worldwide, with 49% of fatalities from head/neck trauma and 27% from chest or abdominal injuries; in the United States, the reviewed studies reported 4 deaths among 217 cases.^[17] These outcomes often stem from shots fired at close range or aimed at vulnerable areas, contrary to protocols recommending peripheral targeting.^[17] Conducted energy devices like Tasers have been associated with over 1,000 fatalities in the United States following their deployment, according to a database compiled from media, court, and autopsy records.^[195] However, peer-reviewed analyses and federal reviews attribute the vast majority to pre-existing conditions, such as excited delirium, drug intoxication, or cardiac issues, rather than the device itself; one National Institute of Justice study of deaths post-electromuscular disruption concluded that conducted energy devices do not cause or contribute to death in the overwhelming number of cases, with a per-incident mortality risk below 0.25%.^[196] Fatalities from other non-lethal weapons, including chemical agents like pepper spray or tear gas, are exceedingly rare and typically linked to individual vulnerabilities such as severe asthma or asphyxiation in confined spaces, with no large-scale studies documenting systemic lethality.^[4] Overall, injury and death rates from non-lethal weapons remain low relative to deployment volumes—estimated in the millions annually for devices like Tasers—and baseline risks in high-threat encounters, where alternatives like firearms yield far higher lethality; injury severity metrics in use-of-force events show reductions of 25% to 62% following less-lethal adoption.^[44]^[4]

Debates on escalation of force and moral hazards

Critics of non-lethal weapons argue that their availability lowers the threshold for using force, potentially encouraging law enforcement and military personnel to opt for physical intervention over verbal de-escalation, thereby escalating confrontations that might otherwise resolve peacefully.^[197] This perspective posits a moral hazard wherein intermediate options create an "easy button" for force application, desensitizing operators to the gravity of interventions and increasing overall use-of-force incidents.^[198] However, empirical analyses from the U.S. Department of Defense indicate that non-lethal weapons enable adherence to rules of engagement by filling gaps between warnings and lethal force, debunking the notion of unchecked escalation through documented restraint in operations such as those in Somalia and Kosovo.^[199] Proponents counter that non-lethal weapons demonstrably prevent lethal outcomes by providing calibrated responses, with RAND Corporation assessments linking their use to operational successes that minimize civilian casualties and fulfill strategic objectives in complex environments.^[26] For instance, Joint Non-Lethal Weapons Directorate evaluations highlight reduced collateral damage in military operations other than war, where non-lethal options have suppressed threats without fatalities, supporting net lives saved despite isolated risks. In law enforcement contexts, National Institute of Justice reviews affirm that less-lethal tools like conducted energy devices correlate with decreased firearm deployments in certain scenarios, enabling force continua that prioritize restraint over immediacy.^[23] Moral concerns extend to the potential for non-lethal weapons to normalize coercive control, as raised by organizations like Amnesty International, which document injuries and occasional deaths from devices such as tasers and highlight risks to vulnerable populations.^[200] These critiques, however, often emphasize rare adverse events while underrepresenting broader empirical benefits, such as Department of Defense reports of non-lethal applications averting escalations in urban and crowd control settings, where lethal alternatives would yield higher mortality.^[201] Causal analysis reveals that while no weapon is risk-free, the intermediate force provided by non-lethal options aligns with proportional response doctrines, yielding a net ethical gain by preserving human life amid imperfect operational realities.^[80]

Accountability and training deficiencies

Audits of police use-of-force incidents in the 2020s have highlighted training gaps as a root cause of non-lethal weapon misuse, with improper deployment techniques—such as aiming at vulnerable areas like the head or neck—contributing to elevated injury risks during crowd control and individual encounters.^[202]^[203] For instance, analyses of kinetic impact munitions and conducted energy devices indicate that operator error in application, often stemming from insufficient scenario-based practice, accounts for disproportionate harm relative to intended pain-compliance effects.^[204] Recommendations from federal reviews stress rigorous, recurrent instruction over outright restrictions, noting that enhanced protocols could prevent such errors without curtailing tool availability.^[44] Simulation technologies offer a proven remedy, enabling officers to rehearse non-lethal deployments in high-fidelity environments that replicate stress-induced decision-making, thereby lowering misuse rates compared to traditional range exercises.^[205] Studies demonstrate that immersive simulators improve differentiation between lethal and non-lethal force options, with sustained error reductions observed over months in live-action follow-ups.^[206] Departments allocating resources to these tools report fewer procedural lapses, underscoring the causal link between investment in adaptive training and operational precision.^[207] Accountability mechanisms have advanced since the 2014 Ferguson incident, where body-worn camera mandates proliferated to document non-lethal engagements, fostering greater scrutiny and self-correction among officers.^[208] Empirical reviews post-implementation show these devices correlate with behavioral shifts, including more judicious weapon selection, though effectiveness varies by policy enforcement.^[209] Yet, "defund the police" campaigns in the late 2010s and early 2020s strained departmental budgets, curtailing training allocations and exacerbating readiness shortfalls that heighten risks to officers deploying non-lethal options under duress.^[210] Such reductions, documented in affected municipalities, undermine force proficiency and officer safety, prioritizing fiscal retrenchment over empirical enhancements to mitigate misuse.^[211]

Recent and Future Developments

Technological advancements post-2020

In 2022, Axon Enterprise released the TASER 10 conducted energy weapon, featuring adaptive cross-connect technology that enables deployment of up to five cartridges for improved probe spread and effectiveness at ranges extending to 45 feet, reducing the risk of incomplete circuits compared to prior models. This innovation builds on post-2020 refinements in energy delivery to enhance reliability in dynamic encounters while minimizing physiological impacts. Concurrently, Defense Technology, a Safariland brand, introduced advanced less-lethal munitions at the 2024 SHOT Show, including precision-engineered projectiles designed for greater accuracy and reduced over-penetration in crowd control scenarios.^[212]^[213] The U.S. Department of Defense's Joint Intermediate Force Capabilities Office (JIFCO) has advanced Active Denial Technology (ADT), a millimeter-wave directed energy system, emphasizing portability enhancements for vehicle-mounted and man-portable variants to support missions like perimeter defense and convoy protection as of 2023-2025 demonstrations. ADT transmits a focused beam inducing a heating sensation on skin without permanent injury, with ongoing refinements addressing power efficiency and beam precision for expeditionary use. These developments prioritize scalability across military contexts, though deployment remains limited by logistical constraints.^[214] Drone-integrated non-lethal systems emerged as a focus post-2020, with Axon's 2022 proposal for TASER-equipped autonomous drones aimed at rapid response to active threats, sparking ethical debates but highlighting integration potential. By 2024, market analyses noted rising adoption of such hybrid platforms, including acoustic deterrents and smart projectiles deliverable via unmanned aerial vehicles, driven by needs in asymmetric operations. In civilian sectors, compact launchers and personal defense devices saw market expansion, with the global non-lethal weapons sector valued at $1.84 billion in 2024 and projected to reach $1.93 billion in 2025 amid innovations in user-portable formats.^[215]^[216]^[217]

Policy and research trajectories

U.S. Congressional reports in 2025 have emphasized the need for expanded development and deployment of non-lethal weapons (NLWs) to enhance de-escalation capabilities in law enforcement, particularly in response to urban unrest and asymmetric threats. The Congressional Research Service's January 2025 analysis highlights federal incentives for less-than-lethal alternatives to firearms, recommending policy frameworks that prioritize NLW integration to reduce reliance on deadly force while addressing operational gaps in crowd control and individual engagements.^[20] Similarly, the Law-Enforcement Innovate to De-Escalate Act of 2025, introduced by Rep. Scott Fitzgerald, seeks to fund innovative NLW technologies for state and local agencies, countering underinvestment driven by post-incident restrictions and promoting evidence-based tools for threat mitigation.^[218] The Department of Defense's Joint Non-Lethal Weapons Program (JNLWP) continues to prioritize investments in human effects characterization, with science and technology efforts focusing on physiological and behavioral responses to address persistent data deficiencies in NLW efficacy and safety. Recent Defense Technical Information Center (DTIC) documentation from 2017 onward underscores ongoing expansions in human effects laboratories to quantify non-lethal impacts, enabling more precise modeling of operational outcomes amid limited empirical baselines compared to lethal systems.^[219]^[59] RAND Corporation analyses reinforce this trajectory, advocating for methodological advancements in evaluating NLW contributions to strategic objectives, including behavioral disruption in complex environments, to justify sustained research funding.^[220] Future policy and research directions point toward integrating NLWs with artificial intelligence (AI) and robotic platforms to automate precision delivery and minimize human error, while mandating rigorous pre-deployment testing for ethical alignment and reliability. DoD initiatives, informed by RAND's group-dynamic studies, project NLW enhancements in unmanned systems for urban operations, with safeguards such as human-in-the-loop oversight and empirical validation to mitigate risks of unintended escalation.^[220]^[221] These trajectories emphasize causal assessment of NLW-AI synergies, prioritizing verifiable reductions in collateral effects over unproven restrictions.^[80]

References

[1]
Joint Intermediate Force Capabilities Office > About > DOD Non ...
Non-lethal weapons are intended to have reversible effects on personnel and materiel. Executive Agent's Planning Guidance. The Department ...
[2]
[PDF] Law Enforcement Use of Less-than-Lethal Weapons - Congress.gov
Jan 23, 2025 · Currently, there is no single, universally accepted definition of less-than-lethal weapon, and the use of the term varies greatly. among U.S. ...<|separator|>
[3]
Brief History of the Evolutions of Counter-Personnel Non-Lethal ...
Apr 22, 2021 · ... less-lethal weapons focused on three categories of weapon mechanisms: (1) kinetic energy (blunt trauma), (2) electrical, and (3) chemical.<|separator|>
[4]
The Effect of Less-Lethal Weapons on Injuries in Police Use-of ... - NIH
Medical research indicates that most deaths associated with these weapons are the result of positional asphyxia, pre-existing health conditions, or drug-related ...
[5]
Non-Lethal Weapons: A Tool for Law Enforcement
Nonlethal weapons include chemical agents, batons, saps, stun guns, and restraints. They allow the application of force but often offer psychological ...
[6]
United Nations Human Rights Guidance on Less-Lethal Weapons in ...
Less-lethal weapons include police batons, chemical irritants such as pepper spray and tear gas, electroshock weapons such as TASER, and water cannon. They ...
[7]
Less-Lethal Weapons and Civilian Injury in Police Use of Force ...
In this study, we test the differential effects of less-lethal weapons on civilian injury and injury severity using data on 2348 use-of-force incidents.
[8]
Injury rates following conducted electrical weapons and other less ...
May 15, 2025 · We identified 19 peer-reviewed articles reporting on subject injury rates and risk ratios after exposure to less-lethal force modalities ...<|control11|><|separator|>
[9]
[PDF] Less Lethal Weapon Effectiveness, Use of Force, and Suspect ...
The injuries sustained by suspects from less-lethal weapons have been examined in the literature regarding police use of force, including chemical weapons ...
[10]
What 'Less Lethal' Weapons Actually Do | Scientific American
Jun 23, 2020 · What 'Less Lethal' Weapons Actually Do. Rubber bullets and tear gas are not as innocuous as they sound. By Kelsey D. Atherton edited by Sophie ...
[11]
Non-Lethal Weapons (NLW) Reference Book - DTIC
NLW are defined as Weapons, devices and munitions that are explicitly designed and primarily employed to incapacitate targeted personnel or materiel ...
[12]
Non-Lethal | www.dau.edu
Non-Lethal Weapons (NLW) are defined as “Weapons, devices and munitions that are explicitly designed and primarily employed to incapacitate targeted personnel.
[13]
Non-Lethal Human Effects Fact Sheet
May 4, 2016 · Non-lethal weapons are designed and primarily employed to incapacitate personnel or materiel immediately, minimizing fatalities, significant injuries to ...Missing: percentage NIJ
[14]
[PDF] Law Enforcement Use of Less-than-Lethal Weapons - Congress.gov
Jan 23, 2025 · U.S. National Institute of Justice (NIJ). “Less-lethal weapon” means “any apprehension or restraint device that, when used as designed and.
[15]
[PDF] Nonlethal Weapons: Terms and References. - DTIC
This type of weapon has been used throughout history, but was given new emphasis during the Vietnam War era. Law enforcement agencies and Army national guard ...
[16]
The language of less-lethal weapons - PMC - NIH
Apr 12, 2022 · Less-lethal weapons are colloquially referred to as nonlethal weapons, tools, or devices. Evidence for the rewording of these weapons from ...
[17]
Death, injury and disability from kinetic impact projectiles in crowd ...
Of the 2135 injuries in those who survived their injuries, 71% were severe, injuries to the skin and to the extremities were most frequent. Anatomical site of ...Missing: lethality DoD
[18]
Nonlethal or Less-Lethal: Does it matter? - Police1
May 1, 2006 · Department of Defense policy has long defined non-lethal weapons as “Weapons ... less lethal or less than lethal' that individual weapons ...
[19]
Non-Lethal vs. Less Lethal: Definitions, Approaches, & More - VirTra
Jun 9, 2020 · The answer to non-lethal vs. less lethal is surprisingly simple: there is no force option that is completely non-lethal.
[20]
Law Enforcement Use of Less-than-Lethal Weapons - Congress.gov
Jan 23, 2025 · A multitude of weapons marketed as less-than-lethal alternatives to firearms are currently in use by federal, state, and local law enforcement.
[21]
Conducted Energy Devices: Policies on Use Evolve to Reflect ...
May 1, 2019 · Even with wider knowledge of CED risks and the narrowing of scenarios when their use is permitted, CEDs remain a favored less-lethal weapon ...
[22]
How Safe Are TASER Weapons? - Axon.com
TASER weapons are rigorously tested, with 99.75% of uses resulting in no serious injury. They are considered a less-lethal tool with a low risk of death.
[23]
Police Use of Force: The Impact of Less-Lethal Weapons and Tactics
Mar 2, 2011 · Injury rates to civilians ranged from 17 to 64 percent (depending on the agency reporting) in use-of-force events, while injury rates to officers ranged from ...Missing: lethality | Show results with:lethality
[24]
USA: Excessive and lethal force? Amnesty International's concerns ...
Nov 30, 2004 · In this report, Amnesty International calls US state, federal and local authorities to suspend all transfers and use of tasers and other electro ...Missing: critique | Show results with:critique
[25]
Non-Lethal Weapons Program
The DoD Non-Lethal Weapons Program develops and fields Intermediate Force Capabilities between presence and lethal effects in support of the Joint Force.Search JIFCO · Leadership · Education · Images
[26]
Revealing the Impact of Non-Lethal Weapons - RAND
Jun 15, 2022 · Non-lethal weapons can demonstrate resolve, disperse crowds, contribute to operational successes, and help manage standoffs, while also ...
[27]
The Caltrop: A Weapon That's Barely Changed Over 2,300 Years
Sep 1, 2006 · Diabolical in its simplicity, the ancient, durable caltrop remains an effective defensive weapon today.Missing: whips | Show results with:whips
[28]
Caltrop: An Ancient Weapon in Modern Warfare - Lieber Institute
May 20, 2024 · Caltrops can be characterized as a non-lethal weapon, although it is important to note that “non-lethal weapons” are not a defined class or ...Missing: whips | Show results with:whips
[29]
https://www.karatemart.com/blog/the-history-of-the-baton
[30]
A brief history of modern police batons - Police1
Sep 13, 2024 · The baton used to be a fixture of law enforcement equipment, its use has been phased out by modern officers in favor of other less-than-lethal options.Missing: 1920s padded
[31]
Rubber Bullets, Plastic Bullets and the Troubles - Dead Centre Tours
Jun 27, 2025 · In 1970 The Royal Ulster Constabulary and British Army were issued with rubber bullets. This was their demand to deal with growing civil ...
[32]
Northern Ireland and the Original Rubber Bullet
In 1972, a 10-year-old boy in Derry, Northern Ireland was shot with a rubber bullet and blinded for life. In the decades since, his country has turned away ...
[33]
[PDF] Bradford Non-Lethal Weapons Research Project ... - bradscholars
This paper explores the early history of “non-lethal”1 weapons development covering the period from the 1960's, when several diverse weapons were first.
[34]
[PDF] Intermediate Force Capabilities - Non-Lethal Weapons Program
May 12, 2020 · The need for Non-Lethal Weapons (NLW) emerged from U.S. military operations in Somalia during the 1990s, where troops required options other ...Missing: history | Show results with:history
[35]
What Price Sticky Foam? | Proceedings - U.S. Naval Institute
Prior to the 1990s, nonlethal crowd-control tools available to the Army and Marine Corps were the old standbys: bayonets and rifle butts, concertina wire, ...
[36]
[PDF] From Niche to Necessity: Integrating Nonlethal Weapons into ... - DTIC
1 The U.S. military has sought to exercise restraint in operations in both Iraq and Afghanistan.2 More recently,. U.S. forces supporting NATO air operations.
[37]
[PDF] INFORMATION SERIES - Non-Lethal Weapons Program
Oct 23, 2020 · Skilled application of intermediate force complements lethal force, reduces unnecessary casualties and destruction of critical infrastructure, ...
[38]
US military in denial over 'pain ray' | Technology - The Guardian
Dec 13, 2007 · That's the idea behind the Active Denial System now being tested by the US military. It is designed to cause excruciating pain without ...
[39]
Sonic, Pain Weapons All Wrong for Pirate Fight (Updated) - WIRED
Apr 16, 2009 · pdaThe Long Range Acoustic Device (LRAD) was famously used to repel piratesin 2005. ... Why the U.S. Navy is a Second-Class Pirate-Fighter. Topics ...<|control11|><|separator|>
[40]
[PDF] Reducing and Mitigating Civilian Casualties: Enduring Lessons
Apr 12, 2013 · These tools include weapons designed to minimize collateral damage (CD) and nonlethal tools that can aid in de-escalation of potential incidents ...
[41]
The Evolution and Impact of Non-Lethal Weapons
Apr 21, 2025 · The 1970s saw the introduction of rubber bullets and bean bag rounds, designed to deliver blunt trauma without penetrating the body. By the ...
[42]
Nonlethal Weapons vs. Conventional Police Tactics
In 1981 the Los Angeles Police Department adopted nonlethal weapons known as TASER and chemical irritant spray; this study reports the degree to which these ...<|separator|>
[43]
Rise of 'less-lethal' weapons can be traced to the 1970 Kent State ...
Apr 30, 2010 · At the time, truncheons were the only non-lethal option available to American police and soldiers, although British troops confronting rioters ...Missing: history Watts LAPD protocols
[44]
[PDF] Police Use of Force: The Impact of Less-Lethal Weapons and Tactics
Weapons and Tactics by Philip Bulman. A new study suggests that less-lethal weapons decrease rates of officer and offender injuries. Page 7. NIJ JOURNAL / ISSUE ...
[45]
Rubber and plastic ammunition lethal injuries: the Israeli experience
Rubber and plastic ammunition was used by the Israeli Defence Forces between the years 1987 and 1993 (Intifada) almost exclusively as a deterrent to ...Missing: enforcement 1980s
[46]
Police disperse G20 protest with water cannon ahead of summit in ...
Jul 5, 2017 · German police used water cannon to disperse around 500 anti-capitalist protesters overnight in the port city of Hamburg where Chancellor ...Missing: 2009 adoption
[47]
Police want water cannons to beat back city rioters | The Independent
Jul 5, 2009 · British mainland police want water cannons to use against demonstrators in the face of criticism that conventional crowd-control tactics, such as those used ...
[48]
(PDF) Kinetic Non-Lethal Weapons - ResearchGate
Aug 25, 2016 · At impact, a projectile will transfer energy and momentum to the human tissue. Depending on energy, momentum and impact location this will ...
[49]
When Physics Meets Biology: Low and High-Velocity Penetration ...
Ultimately, injuries from exposure to blast, like blunt trauma and ballistic penetration, are fundamentally about transfer of energy from an external ...
[50]
[PDF] Mechanism of Injury - Tacoma Trauma Trust
Using the physics formula KE = ½ m v2, which factor emerges as the most important for predicting severity of injury? a. m = momentum b. injury severity is ...
[51]
Noxious effects of riot control agents on the ocular surface
Upon painful stimuli with OC, the TRPV1 channel opens, allowing calcium entry with subsequent channel inactivation and resulting analgesia (Bates et al., 2010).
[52]
Capsicum Oleoresin - an overview | ScienceDirect Topics
Capsaicin binds TRPV1, a vallinoid type I receptor that is activated by elevated temperature (43°C) or abrasion. TRPV1 is expressed by nociceptor neurons in the ...
[53]
Tear gas: an epidemiological and mechanistic reassessment
Jul 8, 2016 · Mechanistic studies identified the ion channels TRPV1 and TRPA1 as targets of capsaicin in pepper spray, and of the tear gas agents ...
[54]
[PDF] united states air force research laboratory - DTIC
By repetitively pulsing the current at a fast enough rate, the muscle will exhibit tetanus, thus causing the subject to become incapacitated. The frequency at ...<|separator|>
[55]
[PDF] Electrical Parameters of Projectile Stun Guns
These devices apply high voltage, low amperage, pulsatile electric shocks to the subject, which causes involuntary skeletal muscle contraction and renders the ...
[56]
Physiology and pathology of TASER® electronic control devices
The resistance unit ohm is simply given by the voltage divided by the current. Continuous currents flowing through the human chest of 0.3 A are typically fatal.Missing: neuromuscular | Show results with:neuromuscular
[57]
[PDF] Skin Penetration from Non-Lethal Munitions - DTIC
this study presents an assessment of ovine skin tissue as a potential surrogate for human skin tissue under ... Figure 48: Calculation of 5th, 50th, and 95th ...
[58]
Review of non-penetrating ballistic testing techniques for protection ...
Feb 28, 2024 · Roberts et al. developed a physical Human Surrogate Torso Model (HSTM) of a fifth percentile person that integrated anthropometric shapes for ...
[59]
Non-Lethal Human Effects
Characterization and quantification of non-lethal human effects is a challenge for developers because effects data is limited in comparison to lethal weapons.
[60]
[PDF] Human Effects Assessment of 40mm Nonlethal Impact Munitions
An extensive human effects study was conducted on 40MM nonlethal impact munitions having two different projectile nose configurations: a compliant sponge ...
[61]
[PDF] Los Angeles Police Department Less Lethal/Munitions 1850-30986
Apr 11, 2022 · Less-lethal munitions should not be used: 1) On a lawfully dispersing crowd or individual. 2) Against a person or crowd that is retreating ...
[62]
[PDF] Test Methodologies for the Assessment of Less-Lethal Kinetic ...
A biomechanical surrogate was developed and validated to determine the risk of injury due to blunt ballistic impacts (Bir, 2000). The surrogate or 3-Rib ...
[63]
Shock Tactics: The quiet disappearance of Taser's potent X26 stun ...
Sep 21, 2017 · The reduction lowered their cardiac hazard. In an email to Reuters, Taser spokesman Steve Tuttle said the new weapons are not underpowered.
[64]
SACMILL statement on the medical implications of the Taser 10 ...
Oct 2, 2025 · 69. The cardiac effects of TASER 10™ discharge in an anaesthetised pig model have been reported in a third Axon-sponsored study in which the ...
[65]
[PDF] Impact Munitions Data Base of Use and Effects
The second point is that the data included some cases whose nature shifted from the time officers arrived to the time they employed less-lethal projectiles.Missing: margins | Show results with:margins
[66]
[PDF] STAY SAFE - Omega Research Foundation
kinds of impact munitions that can cause different injuries. They are commonly made of metal, plastic, rubber, bean bags (fabric bags filled with lead shot), ...Missing: blunt composition
[67]
[PDF] kinetic impact projectiles | aclu
BEAN BAG ROUNDS, also known as flexible batons, are synthetic cloth bags filled with small metal pellets that are fit into a cartridge and expand as they ...
[68]
Assessment of Less Lethal Impact Munitions Using the Facial and ...
Feb 16, 2022 · Each LLIM was tested multiple times to determine the average ROI. The average peak resultant frontal bone force ranged from 2.0 to 7.6 kN which ...
[69]
In defense of the 12-gauge bean bag round - Police1
Aug 25, 2005 · The 12-gauge bean bag is an extended range impact projectile system that has been proven safe and effective in numerous police officer/suspect encounters.
[70]
[PDF] bean bag munitions - City of La Mesa
Bean bag rounds are 12 gauge, 40 grams, 200-300 fps, 120 ft/lbs energy, recommended 0-60 feet, and can cause blunt force trauma and skin penetration.
[71]
[PDF] less lethal impact munitions - San Bernardino, CA
Rubber Rounds-500 fps. AMMUNITION. Page 5. Flexible. Direct Fire. Sponge Rounds-325fps. Optimal Range 5-36 meters. Bean Bag Rounds-270fps ... BLUNT TRAUMA. Page ...Missing: composition | Show results with:composition
[72]
[PDF] Refining the Role of Less-Lethal Technologies:
Has policing become overly dependent on less-lethal technologies, at the expense of communication skills, strategies, and tactics that have worked in the past ...
[73]
eXact iMpact™ 40 mm Standard Range Sponge Round
The eXact iMpact™ 40 mm Sponge Round is a point-of-aim, point-of-impact direct-fire round. This lightweight, high-speed projectile consisting of a plastic ...Missing: Israeli blunt
[74]
[PDF] Impact measurements of different 40mm non-lethal sponge grenades
Thirdly, it's a quite accurate projectile for long distance non-lethal impacts, typically between 20m and 50m. These considerations explain why many ammunition ...Missing: Israeli blunt
[75]
Understanding the Technical Differences Between Less Lethal and ...
Jul 2, 2024 · Less lethal ammunition typically has lower kinetic energy compared to lethal rounds and is designed to disperse energy upon impact to minimize tissue damage.Missing: composition | Show results with:composition
[76]
Riot Gun - The Origin Story - GAT Daily
Feb 22, 2025 · As munitions evolved, the idea of a shotgun as a less lethal alternative continued. We saw the development of rubber bullets, bean bags, and ...
[77]
The Riot Gun - The Shooter's Log
May 14, 2017 · It is a 12 gauge pump-action shotgun with an open cylinder choke and 18-inch barrel. It just may be the best all-around personal defense firearm ...<|separator|>
[78]
Less than lethal weapons: the complex equation of effect vs safety
Sep 16, 2024 · What are less lethal weapons? Less lethal systems – also known as non-lethal weapons or intermediate force capabilities (IFCs) to name just ...Missing: definition | Show results with:definition
[79]
PepperBall® Launchers | Non Lethal Gun
Each launcher is powered by carbon dioxide (CO2), nitrogen, or compressed air, enabling effective projectile deployment without being classified as a firearm.Missing: pneumatic munitions
[80]
When it Comes to Weaponry, Lethality Is Not Enough
Aug 30, 2024 · This article provides the historical context, demand signal, operational effects, and challenges associated with integrating non-lethal weapons.
[81]
Tear Gas and Pepper Spray Toxicity - StatPearls - NCBI Bookshelf
Tear gas and pepper spray are lay terms to describe a group of agents used to subdue combative persons in a non-lethal manner. The three most commonly used in ...Missing: weapons | Show results with:weapons
[82]
Clinicopathological effects of pepper (oleoresin capsicum) spray
Oleoresin capsicum causes almost instantaneous irritative symptoms to the skin, eyes, and respiratory system. Dermatological effects include a burning sensation ...
[83]
Neurobiology of capsaicin-induced analgesia for chronic pain
Capsaicin selectively activates the transient receptor potential vanilloid 1 (TRPV1), which is enriched in nociceptive primary afferents, and underpins the ...
[84]
[PDF] Pepper Spray's Effects on a Suspect's Ability to Breathe
Research findings suggested that inhala- tion of OC spray does not pose a significant risk to subjects in terms of respiratory and pulmonary function, even when ...Missing: onset | Show results with:onset
[85]
Pepper Spray: Research Insights on Effects and Effectiveness Have ...
May 1, 2019 · Research also has shown that OC is generally less effective than CEDs in subduing subjects. Court decisions since 2000 making it clear that ...
[86]
Assessing the incapacitative effects of pepper spray during resistive ...
This article investigates the effectiveness of pepper spray as a means of aiding arrest. The authors aim to provide a more rigorous study than has.Missing: onset peak dissipation
[87]
Impact of Oleoresin Capsicum Spray on Respiratory Function in ...
The goal of this study was to assess the safety of a commercially available OC spray in use by law enforcement agencies nationwide. The study was conducted as a ...Missing: onset dissipation FBI
[88]
Full article: Tear gas in America: Cry the Beloved Country
Sep 8, 2020 · CN (1-chloroacetophenone) is more toxic, sometimes causing skin blistering in addition to eye lacrimation. It was replaced by CS (o- ...
[89]
[PDF] Chapter 12 RIOT CONTROL AGENTS
Before the late 1950s, it was the standard tear gas used by the military and law enforcement agencies. The harassing concentration for CN is about 10 mg/m3, ...
[90]
OC Vapor Aerosol Grenade - Defense Technology
OC Vapor Aerosol Grenade · Delivers a very high concentration of OC in a powerful mist · Dramatic ability to incapacitate · Minimal decontamination · Non-flammable ...Missing: methods drone lethal
[91]
[PDF] TEAR GASSING BY REMOTE CONTROL
RCA means of delivery, such as hand held irritant sprayers, can be ... alternatively for the delivery of “non-lethal weapons, such as smoke bombs ...
[92]
[PDF] Russia's Nonlethal Weapon Concept
Dec 8, 2020 · ... drones ... Another weapon is an irritant aerosol sprayer that can be used as a nonlethal landmine. Still another is a portable autonomous aerosol.
[93]
Tear Gas - an overview | ScienceDirect Topics
Riot-control agents are commonly known as “tear gas,” irritants, harassing agents, and lacrimators. These agents are used by the military for training purposes ...Missing: lacrimation | Show results with:lacrimation
[94]
Agent BZ (3-Quinuclidinyl Benzilate): Acute Exposure Guideline ...
It was investigated as a potential incapacitating agent for military applications (Ketchum 1963, 2006; Ketchum et al. 1967; USACHPPM 1996), and is currently ...
[95]
BZ: Its history, symptoms, effects - NBC News
Oct 24, 2003 · BZ, developed by the US Army, is a central nervous system depressant that disrupts memory and attention. Symptoms include dizziness, confusion, ...
[96]
US military malodorant missiles kick up a stink - New Scientist
May 30, 2012 · Stink bombs do not cause injury, but the intense, unfamiliar foul smells affect the amygdala and trigger an unthinking fear reaction that causes ...Missing: psychological | Show results with:psychological
[97]
Army Reloads on Sticky Foam Weaponry - WIRED
Feb 26, 2009 · For a while, the U.S. military worked and worked to develop a sticky foam that could stop rioters in their tracks. The goop never quite panned ...Missing: DARPA | Show results with:DARPA
[98]
High Expandable Sticky and Incapacitating Foam - Navy - 23.2 SBIR
Develop a non-toxic sticky foam material capable of expanding and sticking to targets to non-lethally entangle, restrain, and disable them.Missing: DARPA | Show results with:DARPA
[99]
Moscow theatre siege: Questions remain unanswered - BBC News
Oct 24, 2012 · Ten years ago, Russia and the world held their breath as special forces surrounded a Moscow theatre where nearly 1000 people were being held ...
[100]
Analysis of clothing and urine from Moscow theatre siege casualties ...
Sep 20, 2012 · On October 26, 2002, Russian Special Forces deployed a chemical aerosol against Chechen terrorists to rescue hostages in the Dubrovka ...
[101]
Russia Uses Opiate-Based Gas on Militants | Arms Control Association
Russian law enforcement authorities stormed a Moscow theater October 26 after pumping gas into the building, where Chechen militants were holding more than ...
[102]
Toward a Test Protocol for Conducted Energy Weapons - Scirp.org.
In this paper, we propose a test specification for CEWs, designed to calculate the key performance and electrical safety parameters.
[103]
Stun Guns vs. TASERs: Which Should You Choose? | USCCA
Apr 30, 2024 · The primary difference between a TASER and a contact stun gun is the distance at which they can be used. The TASER shoots two darts, or probes, ...
[104]
The truth about TASER - Axon.com
Will a TASER energy weapon electrocute me? What actually IS a TASER weapon? How dangerous are TASER energy weapons really? What is the TRUTH about TASER?Missing: adoption 2001-2010
[105]
The Evolution of the TASER Energy Weapon - Axon.com
In 2003, the TASER X26 was released, featuring a new Shaped Pulse electrical waveform that increased NMI in subjects. The weapon was also 60% lighter and ...
[106]
Police product review: Axon TASER 10 less lethal device
Feb 8, 2023 · The TASER 10 uses only 1000 volts to allow for 10 probes in the same compact package as previous models and extend the effective range to 45 ...
[107]
TASER 10 - Axon
With a maximum range of 45 feet, TASER 10 creates more time and space to de-escalate and resolve conflicts. No more misses.Taser 7 · Learn More · SG · UK
[108]
(PDF) The TASER as a Less Lethal Force Alternative: Findings on ...
Aug 7, 2025 · Despite use on a population perceived as being higher risk for injury, findings indicate that the TASER was effective, as 85% of suspects were ...
[109]
Drive-stun backup - MyAxon
Drive-stun capability is available with or without a TASER ... Drive-stun mode is not designed to cause incapacitation and primarily becomes a pain compliance
[110]
https://taser.com/
[111]
[PDF] ELECTRONIC CONTROL WEAPON GUIDELINES - Agency Portal
In 2005, the COPS Office and PERF came together to produce a set of policy guidelines regarding the use of what were then called Conducted Energy Devices and ...
[112]
Medical Panel Issues Interim Findings on Stun Gun Safety
Oct 27, 2008 · NIJ's medical panel found no conclusive medical evidence in current research that indicates a high risk of serious injury or death from the direct effects of ...
[113]
TASER Electronic Control Devices Can Cause Cardiac Arrest in ...
Jan 7, 2014 · The purpose of this article is to present information to support the conclusion that the TASER X26 ECD can cause cardiac arrest in humans.
[114]
Human Health Risks of Conducted Electrical Weapon Exposure
Feb 12, 2021 · This systematic review of 33 studies on use of conducted electrical weapons found no evidence that electrical weapon exposure is associated with adverse health ...
[115]
Human Health Risks of Conducted Electrical Weapon Exposure
Feb 12, 2021 · This systematic review of 33 studies on use of conducted electrical weapons found no evidence that electrical weapon exposure is associated with adverse health ...Missing: interactions | Show results with:interactions
[116]
Active Denial Technology - Non-Lethal Weapons Program
Active Denial Technology (ADT) uses a focused beam of energy to stop suspicious individuals by causing an intolerable heating sensation, bridging the gap ...
[117]
[PDF] Thermal Effects of the Active Denial System - DTIC
The Active Denial System (ADS) is a counter-personnel, low risk, non-lethal, directed- energy weapon that operates at the 95 GHz frequency with a corresponding ...
[118]
Non-lethal weapons technology demonstrated on MacDill
Feb 3, 2016 · Since the ADS projects a beam of millimeter waves at a frequency of 95 gigahertz, it only penetrates the skin at a depth of about 1/64th of an ...
[119]
[PDF] The Active Denial System - William & Mary
Apr 23, 2013 · 38 (2007); “U.S. Military Tests a Nonlethal Weapon That. Fires Heat Rays,” Associated Press, January 25, 2007, http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01 ...
[120]
[PDF] The Excessive-Force Implications of the Active Denial System
Jul 20, 2010 · heat.22 The device is capable of raising the temperature of water and fat molecules in the skin by as much as 50°C, or 122°F.23 One ...
[121]
Vehicle-Mounted Active Denial System (V-MADS) - GlobalSecurity.org
Active Denial Technology is a breakthrough non-lethal technology that uses millimeter-wave electromagnetic energy to stop, deter and turn back an advancing ...<|separator|>
[122]
US army heat ray gun in Afghanistan - BBC News
Jul 15, 2010 · A newly-developed heat ray gun that burns the skin but doesn't cause permanent injury is now with US troops in Afghanistan.Missing: millimeter- wave variants mounted
[123]
Dazzler - Statistics, laws, and general laser pointer news
Laser dazzlers provide a nonlethal capability by emitting an intense light capable of temporarily obscuring the vision of approaching individuals; however, ...<|separator|>
[124]
[PDF] evaluation and design of non-lethal laser dazzlers - CORE
This is important, because the power of these weapons need to change according to distance and light conditions. At long distances, the weapon is rendered.
[125]
Growing Threat of Non Lethal Weapons including Laser Dazzlers ...
Jul 23, 2020 · The dazzler is a non-lethal weapon intended to cause temporary blindness or disorientation and therefore falls outside this protocol.Missing: IV | Show results with:IV
[126]
[PDF] Guidance on Less-Lethal Weapons in - ohchr
Such means may be kinetic, chemical, electrical or of another kind. The use of force may injure and even, in certain instances, kill. A weapon may be used to.
[127]
[PDF] 2060 directed energy futures - Air Force Research Laboratory
Jul 16, 2021 · Low-power optical wavelength laser light is used today as a non-lethal weapon for dazzling and blinding humans, which is a well-known but a ...<|control11|><|separator|>
[128]
How LRAD Works - Science | HowStuffWorks
Mar 17, 2025 · Many media outlets credited the LRAD with warning off the pirates, leaving the Seabourn Spirit unscathed. Some of the coverage was pretty ...
[129]
Health Impacts of Crowd-Control Weapons: Acoustic Weapons - PHR
Oct 27, 2020 · Acoustic weapons, also known as long-range acoustic devices and sound cannons, are devices that deliver very loud sounds over long distances ...
[130]
Review of Audiovestibular Symptoms Following Exposure to ...
Primary outcomes included documented auditory and/or vestibular signs or symptoms in animals or humans exposed to infrasound, ultrasound, radiofrequency, and ...
[131]
[PDF] acoustic-weapons.pdf - Article 36
x Given the well-documented health impacts of weapon noise on humans, consideration of acoustic devices also raises the question of whether political measures ...
[132]
Preparation of Nonlethal Projectiles by Polyurethane Foam with the ...
Apr 27, 2022 · The current paper provides a technique for generating and analyzing filled polyurethane (PU) foams and studying their viscoelastic characteristics.
[133]
[PDF] NONLETHAL WEAPONS: TERMS AND REFERENCES Robert J ...
This type of weapon has been used throughout history, but was given new emphasis during the Vietnam War era. Law enforcement agencies and Army national guard ...
[134]
What is a BolaWrap? MPD demonstrates how it works. - Facebook
Mar 2, 2023 · ... Kevlar cord around their arms or legs, offering a safer way for officers to apprehend them. It has a range of 10-25 feet, reducing the risk ...Missing: launcher 2018 introduction trials
[135]
BolaWrap and the evolution of less-lethal force - Police1
Apr 11, 2024 · BolaWrap is fast emerging as a non-lethal, non-contact solution law enforcement officers can use to de-escalate situations with persons in mental crisis.
[136]
High-Tech Police Weapons Do More Harm than Good
Jan 9, 2020 · In December the Los Angeles Police Department rolled out the BolaWrap, a hand-held weapon that shoots a Kevlar cord with hooks on it that wraps
[137]
Medieval Caltrop Defense Weapon Coming to the Aid of Ukrainian ...
Mar 10, 2022 · Ukrainian blacksmiths prepared for the current war with Russia by making countless caltrops, a medieval weapon that can stop military ...
[138]
Non-lethal weapon - Wikipedia
Non-lethal weapons, also called nonlethal weapons, less-lethal weapons, less-than-lethal weapons, non-deadly weapons, compliance weapons, or pain-inducing ...
[139]
Hong Kong: Water cannons pose real danger in hands of trigger
Aug 9, 2019 · These are powerful weapons that are inherently indiscriminate and have the potential of causing serious injury and even death. This equipment ...Missing: pressure psi
[140]
[PDF] Water Cannons - LETHAL IN DISGUISE 2
150. Amnesty International, “Hong Kong: Water cannons pose real danger in hands of trigger- happy police,” Amnesty International,. 10 August 2019, https://www.
[141]
SLIPPERY SOLUTION TO CROWD CONTROL - Military.com
Apr 15, 2003 · The mobility denial system (MDS) is a slippery gel that makes it pretty much impossible for vehicles or people to move on concrete, asphalt, or wood without ...Missing: oil | Show results with:oil
[142]
Slippery Slime Developed to Control Crowds - Slashdot
Mar 5, 2002 · A non-hazardous chemical spray system that spreads a highly slippery, viscous gel (which the lab designated a mobility denial system and dubbed banana peel in ...
[143]
Chemosensory Properties of the Trigeminal System - PMC - NIH
Dec 22, 2010 · Most modern authors agree that cutaneous chemosensation is determined primarily by the chemical activation of nociceptors and thermoreceptors (7 ...
[144]
Trigeminal Chemoreception - Neuroscience - NCBI Bookshelf - NIH
A variety of physiological responses mediated by the trigeminal chemosensory system are triggered by exposure to irritants. These include increased salivation, ...
[145]
How getting struck by a TASER affects the human body - ABC News
May 29, 2018 · The taser has two modes: the first, pulse mode, causes neuromuscular incapacitation as the neural signals that control muscles become ...Missing: sympathetic | Show results with:sympathetic
[146]
[PDF] TASER® Electronic Control Devices Review of Safety Literature
Aug 25, 2008 · Human Studies Show that the TASER ECDs Do Not Affect ... to efficiently capture alpha motor neurons while having minimal cardiac effects.
[147]
Sensory Detection and Responses to Toxic Gases - ATS Journals
Jan 20, 2010 · Activation of A-δ fibers nerves produces a fast, sharp pain sensation, while the slow velocity C-fiber activation induces a slow “burning” pain ...
[148]
[PDF] Biological Effects of Non-Lethal Weapons: Issues and Solutions - DTIC
chemical components of sticky foam, butadiene, has been shown to cause cancer in animals; it is claimed that short t:rm exposure to humans is not hazardous ...
[149]
[PDF] DoDI 3200.19, May 17, 2012, Incorporating Change 2 on August 31 ...
May 17, 2012 · Ensure that NLW program managers incorporate assessment of human effects and the risks posed by NLW into project plans and test requirements. d.Missing: 95th percentile
[150]
Not Non-Lethal Weapons: the Counter-Personnel Behavioral Effects ...
Apr 27, 2022 · Recent BEW inventories reveal an overwhelming majority of BEW induce compliance through inducing pain and injury [18]. BEW lead to compliance by ...
[151]
[PDF] How, When, and Whether to Employ Non-Lethal Weapons ... - RAND
Jul 15, 2024 · Non-lethal weapons (NLWs) can influence behavior or impair performance. This report analyzes their use in various contexts, addressing a gap in ...
[152]
What's an LRAD? Explaining the 'sonic weapons' police use for ...
Feb 20, 2022 · The LRAD is device that can put out a highly directional “beam” of incredibly loud sound, up to 160 decibels (dB).
[153]
LRAD: The Sound of Possible Excessive Force
Nov 30, 2019 · The LRAD was originally designed for the military as both an acoustic hailing device (AHD) to broadcast commands over long distances and as a painful repellant ...
[154]
Police tear gas George Floyd protests despite proof it's dangerous ...
Jun 11, 2020 · But while it is known as a “nonlethal” form of crowd control, the gases used to disperse protesters are dangerous and unnecessary. Riot control ...
[155]
Crowd Behavior, Crowd Control, and the Use of Non-Lethal Weapons
Its purpose was to assess crowd behavior and the potential for crowd control. This is a leading core capability sought by the Joint Non-lethal Weapons Program.Missing: compliance | Show results with:compliance
[156]
How to Effectively Assess the Impact of Non-Lethal Weapons as ...
Jan 18, 2022 · NLWs can enable U.S. forces to demonstrate resolve while managing escalation. Strategic impacts include improving capabilities below the level ...<|separator|>
[157]
[PDF] Comparing Safety Outcomes in Police Use-Of- Force Cases for Law ...
Overall, we found that the CED sites were associated with improved safety outcomes when compared to a group of matched non-CED sites on six of nine safety.
[158]
How do TASER energy devices protect officers and subjects alike?
Jan 17, 2023 · A UK police study showed that in 81% of cases, simply displaying a TASER energy device was enough to gain compliance from a subject and de- ...Missing: non- rates<|separator|>
[159]
Factors associated with police shooting mortality: A focus on race ...
Across 47 large U.S. jurisdictions from 2010 to 2016, only 31% of police shootings resulted in a fatality, and there was a great deal of jurisdictional ...
[160]
Can police use of less-than-lethal weapons reduce harm during ...
This study reports on the findings of the first systematic review of the effects of police use of less-than-lethal weapons on citizen and officer harm.Missing: lethality | Show results with:lethality
[161]
[PDF] Can police use of less-than-lethal weapons reduce harm ... - - ProHIC
Apr 30, 2022 · It is hypothesized that less-than-lethal weapons can avert serious citizen and officer harm by providing safer or more effective options than ...
[162]
Non-lethal weapon: Injury patterns and imaging correlates for ...
Law enforcement uses non-firearm weapons to subdue suspects, which have significantly less risk of injury than firearms. •. However, in some instances, ...
[163]
[PDF] Mortality Classification for Deaths that Follow the Use of Non ...
May 21, 2024 · For cause-of-death statements, 16.9% mentioned excited/agitated delirium and 73.9% mentioned drugs. A total of 593 deaths mentioned cocaine, ...
[164]
Mortality Classification for Deaths With Nonfirearm Force by Police
Mar 28, 2025 · However, we found that excited/agitated delirium appeared in fewer than 1 in 5 cause-of-death statements. More typically, nearly 3 in 4 ...
[165]
https://treaties.un.org/pages/ViewDetails.aspx?src=TREATY&mtdsg_no=XXVI-2-a&chapter=26
[166]
Laser Weapons - United Nations Treaty Collection
... (Protocol IV, entitled Protocol on Blinding Laser Weapons). Vienna, 13 October 1995. Entry into force. : 30 July 1998, in accordance with article 2 of the ...
[167]
CCW Protocol (IV) on Blinding Laser Weapons, 1995 - Article 1
It is prohibited to employ laser weapons specifically designed, as their sole combat function or as one of their combat functions, to cause permanent blindness.
[168]
blinding laser weapons - Human Rights Watch
The protocol also should prohibit the use, production and transfer of all blinding tactical laser weapons. Production and trade must be proscribed in the ...
[169]
The Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons
Its purpose is to ban or restrict the use of specific types of weapons that are considered to cause unnecessary or unjustifiable suffering to combatants or to ...
[170]
https://www.icrc.org/sites/default/files/external/doc/en/assets/files/other/icrc_002_0811.pdf
[171]
[PDF] Convention on Prohibitions or Restrictions on the Use of Certain ...
The use of chemical and biological weapons was outlawed by the Geneva Protocol of 1925. This ban was later strengthened by the adoption of the Biological ...
[172]
Graham v. Connor | 490 U.S. 386 (1989)
This case requires us to decide what constitutional standard governs a free citizen's claim that law enforcement officials used excessive force in the course of ...
[173]
Force Continuum: From Lethal to Less-Than-Lethal Force
An alternative to the use of deadly force is the development of nonlethal weapons that can be interspaced on the force continuum between verbalization ...
[174]
Research on Body-Worn Cameras and Law Enforcement
Some studies suggest that body-worn cameras may offer benefits while others show either no impact or possible negative effects.
[175]
1-16.000 - Department of Justice Policy On Use Of Force
Officers may use only the force that is objectively reasonable to effectively gain control of an incident, while protecting the safety of the officer and others ...Missing: maximum | Show results with:maximum
[176]
Procedural justice training reduces police use of force and ... - PNAS
Apr 20, 2020 · We find that training reduced complaints against the police by 10.0% and reduced the use of force against civilians by 6.4% over 2 y. These ...
[177]
[PDF] The Impact of Training on Use of Force by Police in an English ...
Oct 16, 2024 · This research suggests that the new PPST curriculum achieves its aims of reducing use of force without increasing other harms. Reflecting the ...
[178]
DEFENSE: Non-lethal Weapons - Council on Foreign Relations
Experts disagree. Many think that use of NLW by U.S. forces in Iraq would reduce inadvertent casualties by soldiers--shooting drivers who fail to stop at ...Missing: deaths | Show results with:deaths
[179]
[PDF] Combatant or Collateral Damage? - Non-Lethal Weapons Program
In such environ- ments, soldiers will need more than lethal force for ambiguous threats and challenges; they will also need improved nonlethal weapons ...
[180]
Are Non-Lethal Laser Drones the New Stun Guns? - DSIAC
Jun 4, 2025 · The lightweight vehicle will carry a laser meant to only induce temporary blindness, rather than deliberately cause any permanent damage.Missing: delivery 2020s military<|separator|>
[181]
US police use force on 300000 people a year, with numbers rising ...
Aug 28, 2024 · Police in the US use force on at least 300,000 people each year, injuring an estimated 100,000 of them, according to a groundbreaking data ...Missing: compliance | Show results with:compliance
[182]
Injuries associated with police use of force - PubMed
Among 914 suspects, 898 (98%) sustained no or mild injury after police UOF. Significant (moderate or severe) injuries occurred in 16 (1.8%) subjects. Logistic ...Missing: outcomes percentage
[183]
TASER Brand Statistics - Axon.com
... TASER technology as a more safe and effective use of force tool. TASER energy weapons have been used in over 5,618,407 field deployments at a 99.75% safety ...
[184]
Lack of study and oversight raises concerns about tear gas - PBS
Aug 6, 2020 · Law enforcement officials say tear gas, if used properly, is an effective tool for crowd control. Without it, “the only thing left to do is ...
[185]
Riot Control Agents | Chemical Emergencies - CDC
Sep 6, 2024 · Riot control agents (also called "tear gas") are chemical compounds that temporarily make people unable to function.
[186]
Demonstrations and Political Violence in America: New Data for ...
Sep 3, 2020 · Although riots were reported before 8 June (when CHOP was established) and after 1 July (when it was dismantled), only peaceful protests were ...Missing: efficacy | Show results with:efficacy
[187]
UC-led research first to show benefits of police de-escalation training
Jan 31, 2022 · The research, Wexler says, “found that training officers in ICAT was associated with 28% fewer use-of-force incidents, 26% fewer injuries to ...
[188]
Police de-escalation tactics can lead to meaningful improvements in ...
Jul 12, 2023 · Overall, de-escalation was associated with a 28 percent reduction in uses-of-force, a 26 percent reduction in citizen injuries, and a 36 percent ...
[189]
Byrna Surpasses 500000 Launchers Sold - Investor Relations
Dec 12, 2024 · “Reaching 500,000 launchers sold in just over five years is a remarkable achievement for Byrna,” said Byrna CEO Bryan Ganz.Missing: 2020s | Show results with:2020s
[190]
https://market.us/report/non-lethal-weapons-market/
[191]
Non Lethal Weapons Market Trend | CAGR of 8.5%
By 2034, the Non Lethal Weapons Market is expected to reach a valuation of USD 22.2 billion, expanding at a healthy CAGR of 8.5%.
[192]
[PDF] The Effectiveness and Safety of Pepper Spray (Research for Practice)
A 1999 study that examined 690 incidents of pepper spray use concluded that pepper spray was effective 85 per- cent of the time, according to the broadest ...
[193]
https://info.security.kastle.com/resources/articles/burglary-home-security-statistics
[194]
America's Home Security Statistics - Kastle Systems
Females, on the other hand, prefer non-lethal weapons with 42% owning pepper spray and 29% owning tasers. In terms of experiencing crime in the home, ...
[195]
Civilian Less Lethal and Self Defense Weapons Market Size
Oct 6, 2025 · Market Size: Valued at $0.55Bn in 2024, projected to touch $0.6Bn in 2025 to $1.22Bn by 2033 at a CAGR of 9.27%. Growth Drivers: 67% rise in ...
[196]
The Taser Cases: Explore 1,005 fatalities documented by @Reuters
Reuters identified more than a thousand deaths across the US that followed a police altercation involving Tasers. Explore the cases in this interactive ...
[197]
[PDF] Study of Deaths Following Electro Muscular Disruption
Law enforcement agencies continue to seek alternatives to lethal force and better methods to subdue individuals in order to minimize injuries and death. Less- ...Missing: munitions | Show results with:munitions
[198]
There's No Such Thing as a 'Non-Lethal' Weapon - VICE
Oct 21, 2014 · There's really no such thing as a “non-lethal” weapon. A weapon's lethality is, ultimately, not up to the object itself.Missing: terminology | Show results with:terminology<|separator|>
[199]
TED Talk: The Moral Dangers of Non-Lethal Weapons | Future Forge
He explores the complex ethics -- and the unexpected consequences -- of using non-lethal weapons to control civilians.
[200]
[PDF] U.S. Military Use of Non-Lethal Weapons: Reality vs Perceptions
This characterization is needed to determine if a non-lethal weapon is likely to work as intended, both in terms of effectiveness and minimizing the risk of ...
[201]
AI's concerns about deaths and ill treatment involving police use of ...
Nov 30, 2004 · Tasers are less lethal or injurious than firearms; manufacturers maintain that they are a safer alternative than many conventional weapons.
[202]
Why DoD Needs Greater Focus on Nonlethal Weapons ... - RAND
Aug 8, 2023 · In a recent RAND study, we linked activities that employ NLWs with direct outputs, higher-level outcomes, and the strategic goals of the US Department of ...
[203]
Research and Regulation of Less-Lethal Projectiles Critically Needed
Jul 30, 2021 · All less-lethal projectiles work by the same principle: they inflict blunt trauma, pain, and intimidation on individuals, while attempting to limit the chances ...
[204]
Dozens killed and thousands maimed by misuse of rubber bullets
Mar 14, 2023 · Global: Dozens killed and thousands maimed by police misuse of rubber bullets · Mapping the problematic use of less lethal weapons in protests.
[205]
Injury patterns of less lethal kinetic impact projectiles used by law ...
97% of KIP deployments resulted in mild or no injury, and no severe injuries or deaths were identified.Missing: effectiveness field
[206]
Police lethal force errors and stress physiology during video and live ...
Aug 6, 2023 · The current observational study fills a literature gap by examining performance (ie, shoot/no-shoot errors) and stress physiology among 187 police officers.
[207]
Reducing Lethal Force Errors by Modulating Police Physiology
The study used heart rate variability biofeedback during stressful training to reduce lethal force errors, which were maintained for 12 months.Missing: less- | Show results with:less-
[208]
How immersive technology is advancing police training - Police1
Sep 9, 2025 · Advanced video simulators and judgment-based shooting scenarios help officers make split-second decisions between lethal and non-lethal options.
[209]
How Police Have Undermined the Promise of Body Cameras
Dec 14, 2023 · The way to true reform is through using body cams as an early-warning system, as a way to correct small mistakes before they become big mistakes ...
[210]
Body‐worn cameras' effects on police officers and citizen behavior
This Campbell systematic summarizes the evidence from 30 studies of the effects of BWCs on several officer and citizen behaviors.
[211]
Higgins: Democrats' Push to Defund Police Caused Crime to Spike
Jun 22, 2022 · “Defund the police” means less training, decreased force readiness, and greater stress on officers. None of that equates to safer communities ...
[212]
Rebuilding the Force: Solving Policing's Workforce Emergency
Mar 11, 2025 · The dynamic, evolving nature of policing makes ongoing training key for officer readiness, but it can also serve as an incentive to stay.
[213]
Axon announces ecosystem advancements connecting every critical ...
Oct 17, 2025 · Axon today announces the next evolution of its connected public safety ecosystem—unveiling new real-time and AI capabilities that now unite ...Missing: post- | Show results with:post-
[214]
Defense Technology Showcases Cutting-Edge Law Enforcement ...
At SHOT Show 2024, Defense Technology will showcase its latest innovations, including state-of-the-art, less lethal munitions and tactical equipment.Missing: AI | Show results with:AI
[215]
Active Denial Technology - Non-Lethal Weapons Program
Active Denial Technology is a non-lethal, counter-personnel capability that creates a heating sensation, quickly repelling potential adversaries with minimal ...
[216]
1-2023: Report on Axon Enterprise's Proposal for Taser-Equipped ...
Jan 24, 2023 · Nine former members of Axon's AI Ethics Board today released a report detailing their concerns with the company's development of Taser-equipped drone ...
[217]
Non-Lethal Weapon Market Size, Share, and Growth Analysis
Modern policing and military operations are being reshaped by the development of smart projectiles, acoustic deterrents, and autonomous non-lethal drones. These ...
[218]
Non-Lethal Weapons Market Size, Share & Growth Report [2032]
The global non-lethal weapons market size was valued at $1.84 billion in 2024 & is projected to grow from $1.93 billion in 2025 to $2.91 billion by 2032.
[219]
Fitzgerald Introduces Legislation to Give Law-Enforcement ...
Mar 18, 2025 · "Law enforcement relies on less-than-lethal weapons to protect themselves in dangerous situations," said Congressman Scott Fitzgerald.Missing: non- | Show results with:non-
[220]
[PDF] Joint Non-Lethal Weapons Program Science and Technology ... - DTIC
The. JNLWP S&T Program invests in physiological effects as well as behavioral response research to enable effective DOD human effects characterization and ...
[221]
How, When, and Whether to Employ Non-Lethal Weapons - RAND
Jul 31, 2024 · This report draws on psychological and group-dynamic research to evaluate whether, when, and how to employ NLWs in different operational and strategic contexts.
[222]
Evaluating the Use of Non-Lethal Weapons in Operational ... - RAND
Aug 5, 2022 · This brief summarizes a RAND-developed methodology to evaluate the impact of NLWs in a way that better informs DoD decisions about their development.Missing: investment | Show results with:investment