A protestor, who refused to give her name, bears the wounds after she says was hit by Oakland police weapon during a anti-war protest in Oakland, Calif., Monday, April 7, 2003 outside the port area. (AP Photo/Paul Sakuma)On Monday, April 7, 2003 the Associated Press published a story about Anti-War protestors in which the police employed "non-lethal" bullets, beanbags, and concussion grenades. The reason for the use of this force wasn't to discourage, delay, or prevent hostile actions, but to merely clear a path for the dock workers to get through. And this didn't happen to just effect the protestors but six longshoremen were treated by paramedics and one was hospitalized. "I was standing as far back as I could," said longshoreman Kevin Wilson. "It was very scary. All of that force wasn't necessary." A statement from another said "They shot my guys. We're not going to work today," Willis said. "The cops had no reason to open up on them." From the evidence of this story I agree with the longshoremen, with a little empathy and talking through with the non-violent protestors they could have come to a compromise without any injuries. The policy for use of non-lethal weapons states.
4.2.1. Discourage, delay, or prevent hostile actions.
4.2.2. Limit escalation.
4.5. Neither the presence nor the potential effect of non-lethal weapons shall constitute an obligationfor their employment or a higher standard for employment of force than provided for by applicable law.
Beating someone with a baton is another form of non-lethal means, but as these other forms that were mentioned above they have devastating results and are still capable of taking someones life. If the people we employ can't make the proper decision in the use of weapons, ( no matter what kind they may be ) then they shouldn't be priveleged to carry any at all.