Engineers have created a new weapon that has the potential to reduce the injury and death caused by law enforcement, and it’s already getting some traction with police departments in cities across America. Blunt impact projectiles (BIPs) allow police to incapacitate a person if necessary, while significantly reducing the risk of serious injury from use of a firearm.
BIPs use a newly invented ammunition that are significantly larger than rubber bullets, and have "silicone heads that expand and flatten on impact," causing serious pain. One company executive described the feeling as "the equivalent of being hit by a hockey puck.
Police have already begun experimenting with BIPs. The AP reports:
“Sixteen law enforcement agencies in the U.S. and six in Canada have purchased the projectiles, including SWAT units of the Los Angeles County and Sacramento County Sheriff's Departments in California, and police departments in East Hartford, Connecticut; Sioux Falls, South Dakota; and Los Alamos, New Mexico.
"They want an option that bridges the gap between baton, Taser and their service weapons," said Salvatore Emma, [manufacturer] Micron's chief executive officer.”
Note that no one has yet been shot in the head with these weapons, and company executives have acknowledged the risk of death or serious injury in such situations.
In a time in which police brutality has been the forefront of national concern for many, the creation of such a weapon is especially timely. And reducing the ubiquity of gun use by law enforcement is a step in the right direction.
But there are two major problems with relying on these weapons to end or curb police violence. Continue below the fold to find out more.
First, while these new weapons may be effective once the ammunition makes contact, there are a number of logistical problems leading up to that point. According to AP:
“The product has its limits. While it could subdue an armed suspect from a distance in a hostage or standoff situation, it probably wouldn't be useful during sudden confrontations, said Toby Wishard, sheriff in Codington County, South Dakota, whose department bought the projectiles several months ago but hasn't used them yet.
"This product is not practical to carry on a belt. You'd have to have the time to get it into place; then the opportunity would have to present itself for you to use it," Wishard said. "I look at it as more of a specialized tool."
Drawing a weapon indicates that there is a serious situation on hand. Until this becomes more practical, law enforcement is more likely to use a more accessible non-lethal weapon in those scenarios.
But practicality isn’t the biggest problem here. The real problem is that these new weapons are red herrings, a surface solution to a deeper problem.
The real problem is that many police officers in America want to shoot. Their goal is not to avoid injury, but to inflict it.
Police in America are shooting black people in the back, during routine traffic stops, while they’re handcuffed on the ground, in the Walmart aisle, with their hands up. These police officers are not looking to inflict less violence. They don't want to incapacitate. Many of them want to kill.
In the countless examples of brutal and racist police violence I’ve seen, heard about, or read about in recent memory, there has been one recurring theme—the overly aggressive and abusive officer. Law enforcement officers in America are subject to very little accountability. The willingness of police to injure or kill civilians after little to none provocation or even confrontation suggests that non-lethal weapons will not change the prevalence of police violence in this country.
After all, non-lethal weapons require restraint.