The question is indeed truly one that merits deep, profound thought and consideration. As time passes, society finds itself continually confronted with serious and potentially life changing issues such as this. Is the use of non lethal tools and weaponry the best solution members of #lawenforcement agencies can come up with to handle situations when they spiral out of control? What other alternatives exist? And where exactly do these choices leave society when all is said and done? The situation must be reviewed critically and objectively to see where it all leads.
Now, more than ever before, people find more and more reasons to take to the streets to make their grievances felt. A lot of advancements have been incorporated into normal everyday life, and individually it is easy for anyone to stand up and say that these progressive leanings are a force of good. Yet, upon closer examination of the effects of these improvements on the everyday life of an average person, one can blatantly observe that as a whole, the changes aren't reflecting that positively.
By and large, we find ourselves caught in the horns of one grave issue or the other, almost on a daily basis. To be clear: in the absence of an election, or at the very least a town hall meeting, there is nothing the average individual can do to make their opinions on these issues heard. This is where activities like staging peaceful protests come into play and take visible effect. The right to be able to stage a protest is firmly protected under the fundamental principles of freedom of speech and expression as well as the freedom of peaceable assembly.
If a person is not satisfied with the current path on which the affairs of the environment and society are travelling, they have not just a right, but a duty to themselves and your country as a whole to speak up peacefully about this in a public forum. Yet, there is one truth that we are all painfully aware of; the fact that even though hundreds of protests start out peacefully, very few of them end on these same grounds.
When a person chooses to take a placard and march around on the streets, whatever issue they are trying to call attention to is clearly something very dear and important to them. In many cases, these strong emotions may cloud otherwise sane and clear thoughts and judgement to the point that what was supposed to be a peaceful rally goes sideways, fast. In other cases, people without integrity simply hide under the umbrella of these protests to perpetrate evils like theft and vandalism. No matter the origin or source, it is undoubtedly the responsibility of the police to control matters when they get out of hand.
Until very recently, the standard practice was to employ the use of non lethal weaponry like tear gas and rubber bullets. Some people consider these practices as being a little extreme. Faced with a violent crowd, though, police have little other choice. Outlawing non lethal weaponry would leave the police with only two choices: using live ammunition, or not enforcing the law and protecting citizens at all.
One is certainly too extreme and the other is simply absurd to even contemplate. In the face of threats to lives and properties, the use of non lethal weaponry is still the only logical recourse that police officers have. Divesting them of this toolkit not only puts their lives in danger, it exposes the community to greater dangers and loss of life and property.
No reasonable police officer wants to use weaponry, whether non lethal or otherwise. The fact of the matter is that the alternative remains much worse. With freedom of speech and expression also comes the right and entitlement of every citizen and their property to protection. Not allowing police to use teargas and rubber bullets effectively defeats that purpose. It is not in the best interest of citizens of the city and as such, City Council should not be allowed to ban it.
