Less than deadly force

At the moment there is a real dilemma in the UK as to what can fill the void between cs incapacitant spray and the use of deadly force. How exactly can you control a non compliant offender when you cs/pepper spray has failed or is inappropriate?

I'm thinking specifically of the unco operative armed man who keeps his firearm by his side but wont do as he is asked by police officers. Obviously he isn't an immediate threat, so deadly force is not yet an option, but he is potentially a serious threat, especially if he is walking away. What is an acceptable way to detain him safely?

Good question. I have nothing to contribute to answer your question, but perhaps I can point out there are good reasons to be concerned...

A real story I came across on the net. I only copied and pasted what I view as relevant to this post. You can read the whole article at
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/134480964_deputy24m.html

[QUOTE]
Herzog, who was wearing a protective vest, had been sent to the Newport Crossing Apartments at 7311 Coal Creek Parkway S.E. in Newcastle, southeast of Bellevue, just after 5 p.m. in response to a report of a naked man dodging cars in the street.

Newcastle contracts with the county to provide police service. Herzog had worked in the six-man department the past two years, said Newcastle Police Chief Shawn Ledford.

Herzog was the only officer on duty at the time, Ledford said.

"That's not unusual," the chief added. "It varies; sometimes we have two people on per shift, sometimes one."

Ledford said Herzog, after arriving, called for backup from the sheriff's office, which patrols surrounding unincorporated areas. Ledford didn't know if Herzog had called before or after he got out of his car.

Witnesses and police say the deputy got out of his car and attempted to calm Matthews, who had been wandering through traffic and had stood in front of a Metro bus.

Moments later, the deputy sprayed the naked man with pepper spray to try to subdue him.

According to witnesses, the two scuffled and the man grabbed Herzog's .40-caliber semiautomatic Glock handgun.

Herzog retreated, and police and witnesses say the assailant repeatedly shot him. Some witnesses said the man stood over the fallen deputy and fired several times from nearly point-blank range.

"It certainly appears," Reichert said, "that Deputy Herzog was executed."
[/QUOTE]


So... I, too, would be curious to know what are the LEOs options when their pepper spray fails, which DOES happen.

[This message has been edited by raccoon (edited 04-12-2003).]

I would not be a LEO in the UK even for a ridiculously huge salary.
I appreciate that even the worst criminals are entitled to their basic human rights (although some of them behave in a less than human fashion), but the laws in the UK seem to protect the criminals more than LEOs or the victims.
My personal opinion is that if a police officer tells someone to stop and they refuse, extreme force SHOULD be allowed if they perceive that person to be a danger to society.
I know an idiot who was questioned about an incident by police on his doorstep (it turned out to be mistaken identity, and he had a cast iron alibi, so he had nothing to lose by co-operating) The police asked if they could search his car and he refused, using profane language. They told him they were placing him under arrest and he turned violent, injuring one of them quite seriously before he was restrained.
It would have taken half an hour to search the car, instead, he spent the night in a cell whilst they got a warrant, but he had the last laugh because all he got was a fine and a warning.
Until the police are given more power, I don't know what the answer is Cato. but I hope one is found soon, the UK is becoming a more and more dangerous place to live.
Sharon

I saw on the news that a local Force is trialing the Tazer, I believe it was Northants.

It would appear that these are deployed alongside firearm officers. I have also seen reports on portable water cannon and baton guns, which fire soft rounds, or bean bags. How effective these would be, I'm not sure.

In my own experience, if the cherub doesn't surrender, he gets....erm...dealt with.

This of course is not deadly force, and I think it would be wrong to expect our LEOs to make a decision to kill another, especially if there was a less fatal solution.

Budo.

I totally agree Judderman, ".......if there was a less fatal solution"

But only if.

Sharon

I have seen OC (P.spray) fail a number of times in use offorce situations on Rikers Island - and NONE of the 'unaffected' was unaffected - the OC just did not drop them. It did screw with their vision and breathing, even though they were able to continue assaultive responses. An individual armed with a weapon (particularly firearm) must be dealt with conclusively. The situations vary greatly, as does the responding officers skill level. Too may variables to say 'this is what you do'.

I'm not sure about the UK but here in the USA (Texas to be more precise) we have a few less lethal tools at our disposal. While I do carry OC spray on my belt it has been my experience that it is not an wise choice. Looking back on every situation where either I used the OC spray or another officer used it I must say that the situation could have turned disasterous. The problem with OC spray (in my opinion) is that because we as officers are usually very close to the violator we are also affected by the spray. Now I don't know about you guys but I think that wrestling on the ground with a large man who doesn't want to go to jail is hard enough without burning, watery eyes and having to gasp for air added to the equation.

I am a municipal police officer (aka: city cop) and at my department we have a small variety of less lethal options: OC spray (of course), 12 gauge sock rounds (small bean bags) for our shotguns, Tasers, and expandable batons. The Tasers work great however you must let the violator get close enough to you in order for it to work. The same with the expandable baton.

We divide our force options into three (3) levels. One = Passive/non-compliant in which case we will only use some unarmed restraining and handcuffing techniques such as "PPCT" and "Controlled Force". Two = Agressive/non-compliant & unarmed in which case we will use some defensive blocks and offensive strikes from Tony Blauer's "SPEAR". Also we can use our OC spray, Taser and or expandable baton at this 2nd level. Third = Agressive/non-compliant & armed in which cae deadly force is authorized.

I have only heard of the 12 gauge sock rounds being used when a person was threatening to commit suicide and they supposedly work like a charm every time.

PS - I just found this forum and I will definately add it to my favorites. I personally practice Hapkido but I am also trained in police defensive tactics.

Thanks everyone. It is interesting to learn from others experience what actually works and what doesn't. I know we've tried experimenting with bean bag rounds, but the powers that be were apparently not impressed. Too high a failure rate it seems. We are, as Juds said, now looking at tazers, and again the civil liberties people are raising concerns about its use, so time will tell. In the meantime we'll just keep muddling through and hoping for the best I suppose.

Nice to see so many professionals from a variety of services visiting the site.

Budo, and take care all.

so Wadoman,,why were they insisting on searching the car of a man with a "cast iron alibi"? The security comapany i work for has recently fielded the new m26 taser. It's a great force option in the pain compliance field(along with pepper) it will drop and imobilize anyone for as long as the batteries will hold out and has the added bonus of creating no physical injury. Although after being shocked in training I can tell you that a prolonged shock might is a significant psychological event.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by kman:
so Wadoman,,why were they insisting on searching the car of a man with a "cast iron alibi"? [/QUOTE]


So kman.

Why do YOU think they might insist on searching the car of a man with a "cast iron alibi"?

Perhaps the use of pain compliance is not enough. Perhaps the idea is to render the assailant powerless to react. Spreay in the eyes is an effective method. Bean bag/baton guns also. Jury is out on "electricution".

Budo.

Judderman,, "why do I think they insisted on searching"? Well it would all be pure speculation. But a few possibles are because,,,1) they were red assed rookies. 2) they were incompetent boobs 3) theyre neo nazi wannabes. 4) they were like a lot of guys on the job that dont know when to back off. As for "electrocution" such hyperbole is misleading and counterproductive. The 26 watt 150 milliampere current does no physiologic injury. A large body of real medical research supports this. The new biphasic x 26 will produce a better result with only 5 watts. The phased current actually interupts brain muscle communication as well as causing skelatal muscle depolarization. The subject is imobile no matter what stimulants he has on board or what his mental condition is.
BTW as far as our previous subject is concerned,,verbal abuse goes along withthe job,,and in this jurisdiction a peace officer on duty cannot declare himself to be the victim of a disorderly person. Peace

kman, could it also be that they had heard so many false "cast iron alibies" that they have learnt not to take anything at face value? Or that should they accept his alibi and subsequently be found to be mistaken, the generous Joe Public would demand their jobs as "incompetent boobs?" Basic "Bobbying", that's why.

Test seem to have shown that someone with a heart murmur or perhaps a pace maker can, in theory, suffer a cardiac arrest from a Tazer. The question now seems to be what constitutes an acceptable risk, not whether or not the risk exists.

Verbal abuse is not a part of the job in the UK. Nor should it be. The absolute test for a court is whether a person of reasonable firmness would have been offended, intimidated or harassed by thge comments. That person is a hypothetical one and doesn't have to be present, it is enough for a conviction that they COULD have been present.

Budo

Speaking as a civilian, the hypothetical person would have minded his own business, thus not bringing down the wrath of the person he was interrupting. A cop doesn't have that option, so it seems he'd have to get used to a little verbal abuse. Of course, I'm prejudiced, coming from a country with the legal fictions called "Free speech", and "Freedom from unreasonable search and seizure."

I'm thinking specifically of the unco operative armed man who keeps his firearm by his side but wont do as he is asked by police officers. Obviously he isn't an immediate threat, so deadly force is not yet an option, but he is potentially a serious threat, especially if he is walking away. What is an acceptable way to detain him safely?

How quickly can he transition from uncooperative to hostile? How quickly can you as a trained martial artist, recognize the threat and respond in a static training situation? How quickly do you think the average police officer can do the same thing when his life or another's is on the line?

It would be unreasonable to expect an officer to treat this scenario as less than a deadly threat as long as the man is holding the firearm. Use of pepper spray on a man holding a gun would probably not be a good idea either. Hard cover, loud verbal commands and a good sight picture at the very least would make the most sense.

In my humble opinion, I believe someone that is armed and uncooperative to be a serious threat.

Here in the U.S. we have the use of force continuem. (i.e. officer presence, verbal commands, soft empty hand, CS/OC gas, Hard empty hand, Weapons(batons), deadly force) Basically, as a police officer you are allowed to use one level above what the opponent offers. (If your a women going against a big guy, you can move up the levels faster). You can also use force if someone is resisting arrest.

There for, and as far as I know, having a gun in the UK is illegal, and the man should be arrested. Back to the use of force thing... if you've placed him under arrest, and he's resisting arrest, and he's posing a deadly threat you should be able to use what ever force is necessary.

I agree with you both, but the problem remains of how to deal with an unco-operative detainee with a firearm. Taking the absolute standard as laid down by the continuum of force, the person is only a potential threat and so should be approached by an armed officer. Clearly that is unrealistic.

Budo

I'm not an LEO so I don't know common regulations and such. I can only rely on what makes sense to me as a reasonably intelligent person. If the person has a firearm,and refuses to drop it, then it has to be looked at as an attack with deadly force against the LEO. Thus, the LEO is entitled to use deadly force. In other words...shoot the bastard. Don't bother with a less than deadly option if it has any risk for the LEO. The cop shouldn't have to sacrifice his/her life for the sake of being gentle.

Of course, I'm assuming the LEO has given the person enough time to comply. Shouting "drop it" and then shooting 0.5 seconds later is not appropriate. But, if the LEO has been giving orders for 20 seconds without result then that's that.

This is one of the reasons all British cops should have pistols.

Of course, if you really want to limit damage to perpetrator, call for a bunch of guys with those bullet proof riot shields. Then charge the guy, knock him to the ground, and grapple the weapon away from him

To address the scenario of an uncooperative man with a gun,,, He's fair game to be shot. he can raise that weapon and shoot in the blink of an eye. Reaction time alone would preclude you from doing anything before he got the shot off. We've gamed this out with unloaded weapons and paintball and there's no doubt that the bad guy gets the first shot. Then there's the matter of how long it would take the officers shot to incapacitate him. (Biiiiiig subject) only a central nervous system hit would stand a ghost of a chance. All that having been said one doesnt HAVE to shoot. If he's alone and not an imediate danger to anyone other than himself you could always back way up and wait for help and further developments.The situation might not tolerate that. As in being indoors or having an innocent 3rd person in close proximity.As for tasers? a good option. And CATO they do not and cannot cause a heart attack in anyone. That story is being circulated by an anti cop civil liberties group and has no veracity. Taser international has contracted major medical research facilties to study and uncover any vulnerabilities. They WANT to know what the weapon can and cannot do. They'd be foolish to conceal a liability and market a dangerous weapon when they knew better. The wattage has been carefully tuned to be below cardiac threshold. The newer ones will work even better with less power due to improved voltage phase characteristics.
Now Please compare and contrast the terms "cast iron alibi" and "false cast iron alibi"

why did they insist on searching if he had a cast iron alibi?

They did not know he had an alibi because he refused to answer questions because he hates f*****ng pigs

The driver of a car of the same make and model as his with a very similar registration (licence plate) was involved in a serious crime.
The police asked if they could search his car and told him why. when he refused to answer questions or allow a search of his car, they had no cholice other than to arrest him.
Sharon

Cato,
What is the hurry? Set up a perimiter, evacuate civilians. Bring in the boys with guns, and probably some rubber or bean bag munitions as well. Have a negotiater or what not talk the guy down. You get to go have a cuppa and get out of the line of fire. Good times! [IMG]http://www.fightingarts.com/forums/ubb/smile.gif[/IMG]
Seriously this seems a resonable answer in your scenario. The problem in the States with simmiler situations, isthe lack of availability and training with progectial non leathals. and when from time to time the nut bar wants to end it all with a warm gun local LE are more than glad to use the best resorce they have, side arms shot gun etc. instead of the story book ending ("Hand me the gun, son everything's gonna be o.k")

Here in Colorado deadly force would definately be authorized for an uncooperative subject with a gun. Certainly if you could deploy less lethal methods that are backed up with lethal then that would be the preferred choice. Obviously the totality of the circumstances define your actions.

Wadowoman,,there are basically two types of searches. One is called a "consent search" if the police have to ask for permission, then they have to abide by the subects refusal. The other is a search Subsequent to probable cause. This is the one that happens regardless of the subjects wishes and can happen with or without a written warrant depending on circumstances. If the subect interferes he gets arrested. Scince it's your story and you're in possession of the details you could tell us which it was. Originally it sounded as though they had asked and were refused, then insisted on searching anyway(Bad cop! No doughnut). As for him hating f___ing pigs? there's a thread around here where the name calling issue is under discussion.

It was a request to search his car with consent and his prescence.

Since he refused consent and refused to answer questions, they arrested him on suspicion and obtained a warrant to search the car and the house.
as I said there was no need as he could prove he was miles away at the time. He was just being difficult for the sake of it.
Sharon

Kman, I don't know where you get your info. but it seems to be at odds with that of the British Home Office standing committee on police use of weapons. They are quite clear that indepedent reasearch indicates that people with a heart defect can suffer heart failure from a tazer "shock". Their problem now is whether the risk is too great to allow tazers on general use. Clearly there are massive financial considerations for the company that produces them, so I suspect any claim they make will carry less weight than those made by other bodies, such as those commissioned by civil liberties groups. Unfortunately, in the UK the government (and most of the public) would rather a police officer were injured than a police force sued.

I would also say that the only way to know an alibi is "cast iron" is to be there with the subject at the time the offence was committed and so have first hand knowledge that s/he is telling the truth. Otherwise they just might be telling fibs. The only other way to find out is to test the alibi, and that obviously can't be done there and then. To then allow the subject to leave without carrying out a search once you have formulated suspicion enough to want to do so would be stupid. The very fact that the subject is unco-operative should heighten your suspicions, not make you believe him more!!! As I said, Very basic police work.

There is also no such thing as a search with consent in British law. Unless the requisite conditions are met with regard rules of evidence, reasonable grounds and an object for the search the police have no lawfull authority to carry it out, even if the subject invites them to do so. I would guess that in Sharon's example the officers had grounds to make a search and the subjects refusal to allow them to do so resulted in his arrest. His stupidity rather than theirs. Far from being "incompetent boobs" the officers acted as any decent police officer should have.

Budo

Cato is absolutely right. All the guy had to do was let them in and show them his work time sheet. They could have checked it with his boss, he was miles away at the time of the incident. We want them to solve crimes quickly, but don't want to cooperate to help them do so.

It makes me laugh that people treat the police as the enemy....until they need help from them. And they seem to forget that the police don't make the laws (or necessarily agree with all of them) but they are paid to enforce them.
Sharon

Cato,,I get my information from Minnesota state statues and U.S. caselaw. No surprise that things are differnt in another country but the underlying concept is really identical. Probable cause or reasonable suspicion. And yes in the U.S. police can and do ask for permission to search, even in a case where there isnt probable cause. It's really common in cases like vehicle stops. As for the "cast iron alibi" of course people lie. Deciding whether or not an alibi is any good is up to the person hearing it I would suppose. (my interpetation) so I keyed in on a seemingly inconguent phrase. If they had a warrant then all the alibis in the world don't mean a thing. That would mean that the subject was interfereing with a lawful search and had it coming. Re reading Wadow womans post It says "They asked for permission to search and he refused" In the U.S. that would be a request for a consent search that was refused. No legal grounds to proceed. They would have the option of maintaining surviellance and requesting a warrant.
As for the Tasers. I posted a lot on them in martial arts talk under topic of electric stun weapons. No need to rehash it all. On the surface it would seem that a minufactuers reseach would be self serving but thats not always the case. In truth Taser has a lot to gain by doing the best research possible and publishing it freely. And I would like to put some weight on the term "research" as opposed to "manufacturers claims" and testimonials etc. The Taser has taken the number spot in the U.S.(and probably the world) as an electronic restraint device. The sales and Law enforcement contracts are huge. Why jepordize that with false claims or shoddy research? Not to mention the criminal or civil liabilities associated with false claims. taking the high road is the proper choice for taser in this case. And yes we all know that there are disreputable and fly by night companies out there that have done such things. If your "civil liberties" groups are anything like ours then they too are a bunch of cop hating liberal fascists that like nothing better than to interfere with and make things difficult for the police. Now there's a group whos motives are suspect and whos claims I would take with a grain of salt. Over here that would be groups like ACLU and Southern poverty Law center. To get back on topic (the cardiac claim) taser's research involved cardiolists in a top flight medical facility and volunteer subjects with heart conditions. As opposed to a learned person holding forth with an opinion. You choose. Saying a Taser "might" have a certain effect is far cry from saying that it does. Two related bits.People with heart conditions can be pushed over the edge by simple things like emotional stress so a taser "could" contribute. And in any population of heart patients a certain number are going to kick off at given intervals so supposing one died while recieving or right after a taser shock doesnt establish cause and effect until it's been "proven". (scientific context)Sorry if this is a bit long. K-

Yep, I agree with all of that - especially the "might doesn't mean will" thrust of the tazer argument. Again though, I suspect the UK authorities are more circumspect in our use of force than our colleagues in the US and until "might" becomes "definately does not" I think there will always be pressure on the UK government to find a "safer" means of restraint. The rights and wrongs of that particular debate are a matter of personal opinion, and I can see both sides. I am also burdened with being a cynic, have been all my life, so I take the idea that Tazer Co. go around zapping willing volunteers from the coronary unit just to see if they die or not with a huge helping of salt. So, the question has to be how exactly do they do their research? I think the only ethical way is to do exactly what you say, have a load of learned people debate the issue. Clearly Tazer have a lot to lose and are not going to publish reasearch that jeapordizes their sales pitch. I would expect them to spread panegyric about their product.

Budo

No search with consent seems to be a great policy. It would avoid a ton of entrapment lawsuits. If the law works as you describe, then the officers in wadowwomans case would only have asked for a search IF they had probable cause. Therefore resisting them was foolish, as they were going to search anyway.

AS EVERYONE KNOWS, THE EFFECTIVENESS OF PEPPER SPRAY DEPENDS ON THE MENTAL CONDITION OF THE SUSPECT. AT TIMES IT WILL BE NECESSARY TO GET DIRTY IN THE SUBMISSION OF THE SUBJECT, USING LESS THEN DEADLY FORCE. THINK OF TECNIQUES IN AIKIDO OR JUJUTSU TO SUBMIT THE SUSPECT.

I don't know your situation or the resources available to you.Keep in mind I'm a civilian. But in my unprofessoinal opinion I would say follow along after the guy until your back up got there.Then you could gang up and "dogpile" the guy into submission.Better yet wait on the K-9 unit to get there.I would think he would cooperate when the dog got involved.
c

The mistake is attempting to use an irritant (CS) on a goal oriented attacker. The time to introduce any chemical/ pepper spray weapon is before the fight is on. Timing is crucial.

If you do not have the legal obligation to subdue the attacker (you are not a cop/ CO, security officer), don't. As you go hands on, you will likely suffer the effects of the spray yourself. Pepper CS is made up of micro particles that will be kicked up during a struggle.

If you have not experienced or had to fight through the effects of your own spray, don't be in a hurry to go hands on after you have sprayed someone.

Fletch, got to agree with you. timing is everything. Spray em early and keep hosing them til they turn away, fold up or you run dry. OC will close the eyes of anyone. Even a whack job on pcp. It might not put him down like it would a law abiding taxpayer, but at least he'll be blind and you can avoid his rushes. K-

Let's use some common sense here.

OC spray is used to momentarily incapacitate, however it is only effective against people who are not immune to it's effects either through conditioning, due to psychoactive agents such as drugs or alcohol, or who are not in a mentally charged stated.

So having to formulate a decision you need to bear that in mind. At that point defensive tactics become paramount. The OC spray is a force option that is tried and failed. Because it's use is considered a level higher than striking or kicking, but a level lower than lethal or deadly force if it fails the situation has escalate to the Force Plus One.

Many officers simply do not train for this sort of eventuality...they become complacent in their tools and weapons that they don't realize that most joint manipulation does not rely upon pain compliance. It relies upon mechanics and leverage. Nervous system pressure points are very effective in people who are in a state where OC spray is ineffective...the only problem is few people know how to apply them properly.

Sometimes that's easier said than done, however there are some very viable options that usually are ignored.

All other hypotheticals about submission beignset aside this is the crux of it right:

"...the unco operative armed man who keeps his firearm by his side but wont do as he is asked by police officers."

There are a thousand "what if's" that could play out in this discussion, as in real life. An armed, ucooperative subject, displaying a weapon presents only limited courses of action that you might take - both tactically and in terms of officer safety. The "apparent" lethality (firearm could be empty and it might be a suicide-by-cop-situation) of the weapon determines the course of action. If I were ALONE and confronted with a man with a firearm in this situation I just couldn't imagine attempting OC, baton or a physical disarming technique. When the posse shows up the dynamic could change considerably and other options might present thmeselves.

In the end, inspite of the best efforts of the LEOs to make it come out with no one being harmed, it is still the "bad guy" making the decisions about his or her own fate.

Great thread!

- KiDoHae

[This message has been edited by KiDoHae (edited 08-25-2004).]

Very interesting thread. It's a difficult delima and often one without a good answer. My vote is to make sure that the LEO goes home in one piece. If that means deadly force then so be it.

As far as chemical sprays go... Well in prairie states, the wind blows. A lot. And ususally pretty hard. Ever try to spay an aerosol in the wind? It just doesn't work well. You've got at least a 50-50 chance of getting more on your self than on the perp a significant amount of the time. I've not tried any of the foams but they are supposed to work better.

An armed bad guy has made a choice. And while I feel that we should make a good faith effort to resolve situations without loss of life, if the BG chooses not to relent, well, like I said, he's made his choice. I want the LEO to go home to his wife and kid when his shift is over.

Two Gun,

FYI, we just evaluated foams and passed on them. I'm sure they have thier applications but did not seem workable (compared to spray) for a number of reasons.

Good comments on the thread. My thoughts exactly. As far the BG decision making goes, "You pick the tune, you pay the piper."

- KiDoHae

I have a mate who has passed the probationary constable stage in the NSW police, he reckons the spray is very reliable...but very cruel and he would use the telescopic baton first, if he set policy.

He simply reckons it is so effective it is just so cruel - at the academy, they insist the trainees get some, in order so they don't abuse it without knowing the power it has.

That's disappointing to hear about the foams. I'd head that they worked better in the wind, sprayed farther and stuck better.

While local LEOs here carry spray, I've never heard of anyone using it. Small town with little crime, but the few guys here all have the same concern about the wind. What's more the department hasn't replaced the unused canisters in like 4 years. I don't know what the shelf life is supposed to be but I don't think anybody trust stuff that old.

When I was in the army they made us enter a tent full of OC and then remove our mask and state our name rank and serial number before we could leave. Military strength stuff is nasty. I'll tell you that people reacted differently. Some just walked away and other went yelling and screaming. I saw one guy running blindly and knock himself cold when he hit a tree. These same mixed reactions are what I image you get on the street.

if you are already behind them hook your arm under theres and over there neck sweep there leg and rool your arm towards you. then just bring them to the ground and wait for back up or just cuffem'. for the pepper spray situation, on the chance it doesn't work get your leg inbetween theres and push them over with one arm/hand as you brace there back/head for impact, then cuffem'
I hope this helps have a nice day.
D14 [IMG]http://www.fightingarts.com/forums/ubb/biggrin.gif[/IMG]

When I was in the army they made us enter a tent full of OC and then remove our mask and state our name rank and serial number before we could leave.

I think you are referring to CS, not OC. CS is micro pulverized chemical powder. It is still used for riot operations by the military and some law enforcement.

OC is Oleoresin Capsicum. It is fine (food grade) pepper powder mixed with an oily carrier substance that holds it together in a stream, spray or foam. This gives it weight and helps it stick to your face.

I have seen much more incapacitating results from OC than I ever saw with CS.