Determining which types of nonlethal force police officers should have access to is a difficult decision. In assessing the various types of nonlethal force made available to police officers, I would outfit my officers with tasers and ASPs. Tasers allow police officers to use nonlethal force in order to control a situation. The use of tasers further makes it easier for officers to subdue a suspect, who is attacking them or a bystander. However, some have argued that tasers are not safe to be used in the line of duty. Despite this argument, the United States Department of Justice (2011) “found that 99.7 percent of people who were shocked by CEDs (taser) suffered no injuries or minor injuries only” (p. 2).

As the police chief I would further require my officers to carry an asp. According to Police One Magazine (2011), “Batons are probably one of the most valuable tools an officer can have on his belt. They don’t malfunction. They provide you with greater distance from the threat in lieu of having to use deadlier force” (para. 4). Additionally, the asp serves as a multipurpose tool. For example, if a police officer is the first one responding to a traffic accident, he may find that he needs to break the car window in order to save the people trapped in the car. Although this is only one example, it helps to demonstrate how an asp can be used for multiple purposes.

Contrasting the benefits of using an asp, as the police chief I would prefer that my officers do not use pepper spray. Although pepper spray may be beneficial in some situations, in order situations it could produce more harm than good. For example, if multiple officers are responding to a call, and one of them deploys the pepper spray incorrectly, the whole room (including innocent bystanders) may suffer the adverse affects of pepper spray. This could give the suspect time to get away, harm a bystander, or even an officer.

Another form of nonlethal force that my officers would not have access to is rubber bullets. Although there are some benefits of rubber bullets, I believe that there are newer, better methods to protect the officers. Furthermore, it is possible that an officer may confuse or forget whether or not the gun has rubber bullets in it. This could be extremely harmful to the officer’s career, the individual he or she is trying to subdue, and the community. Marchesi, Vuuren, and Wasserall (2011) further concur in arguing that police officers should not use guns unless in life threatening situations. In applying this to rubber bullets, citation argues that the United States has principles in place with the United Nations, requiring all states to “use non-violent methods before using deadly force and firearms” (p. 44). Yet the use of rubber bullets contradicts this agreement.