Non-lethal projectile systems

Abstract

A non-lethal projectile system for non-lethally inhibiting a living target, multi-functional launching devices for delivering the non-lethal projectile systems to a target, methods of assembling the non-lethal projectiles, and tactical methods of the use of the non-lethal projectile, the non-lethal projectile consists of a projectile body to be impacted with a living target and an inhibiting substance within the projectile body, wherein upon impact with the target, the inhibiting substance is dispersed on and about the target. In a variation, the projectile body ruptures upon impact releasing the substance. In another variation, the inhibiting substance is a powdered substance comprising a powdered pepper derived substance, for example, oleoresin capsicum or capsaicin.

Description

PRIORITY CLAIM [0001] This application is a Continuation-In-Part (CIP) of U.S. application Ser. No. 10 / 208,727 filed Jul. 29, 2002, which is a Continuation-In-Part (CIP) of application Ser. No. 09 / 543,289, filed Apr. 5, 2000, which is a Continuation-In-Part (CIP) of application Ser. No. 09 / 289,258, filed Apr. 9, 1999, now U.S. Pat. No. 6,393,992, which is a Continuation-In-Part (CIP) of application Ser. No. 08 / 751,709, filed Nov. 18, 1996, now U.S. Pat. No. 5,965,839, the entirety of which applications and patents (as issued, as filed, and as amended during pendency) are hereby incorporated by reference.BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION [0002] The present invention relates to a non-lethal projectile systems and launching devices and, more specifically to non-lethal projectiles that deliver an inhibiting and / or marking substance to a target, especially a living target. Even more specifically, the present invention relates to non-lethal projectile systems including a projectile body, most p...

AI Technical Summary

Benefits of technology

[0020] The present invention advantageously addresses the above-identified needs, as well as other needs, by providing a non-lethal or less-than-lethal projectile system for delivering a substance to a target, especially a living target, such as a human or animal target, wherein the projectile system is specially designed to maximize its effectiveness by providing a kinetic impact against the target at a first location on or near the target combined with optimum dispersal of the substance on and/or about the target at a second location. The projectile systems of the present invention provide an improved mechanism for delivering the inhibiting substance to the target's face, without requiring that the projectile impact the target's face, or even the target at all, due to a non-local dispersal or atomization of the inhibiting substance in a “cloud” that may envelop the target. Further, the projectile system is designed such that deployment facilitates its effectiveness by creating sufficient f

Problems solved by technology

Furthermore, excessive use of force claims against law enforcement have increased as the public is becoming more aware of and sensitive to the use of lethal force, typically by law enforcement officials, in situations where lethal force may not be required, such as in situations where suspects are armed with non-lethal objects, such as sticks, rocks, or screwdrivers.

Whereas non-permanently injuring an innocent bystander, while subduing a suspected criminal, is acceptable, killing the bystander is not.

Disadvantageously, the projectiles described by Fogelgren, particularly those projectiles described that would be suitable for delivering loads such as tear gas or dye, are complicated and expensive to manufacture.

In addition, such embodiment requires complicated and tedious methods to manufacture components such as a microminiature ball valve (through which the portion of the pressurized gas enters the rear chamber upon firing), wax sealer within each of the plurality of apertures and a holding pin that must fall away from the projectile in flight.

The embodiment employing the breakable glass vial is also complicated to manufacture, because it also employs a holding pin that must fall away during the flight of the projectile and employs numerous structures that must be precisely fitted together to allow them to separate during firing and in flight.

This can be particularly problematic, for example, when the Fogelgren device is being used by a police officer in pursuit of a fleeing criminal (or when used by a police officer threatened by a suspected criminal).

Additionally, the Kotsiopoulos, et al. disclosure includes a only passing reference to the use of such a paint ball for delivering dyes, smoke or tear gas to a target; however, provides no mechanism for dispersing an inhibiting load upon explosion of the projectile, which is important for a non-lethal inhibiting projectile to be effective.

Thus, even if one skilled in the art were to act upon the passing reference to using tear gas in the Kotsiopoulos, et al. patent, the present inventors believe that such a device would be generally ineffective because the tear gas would not be dispersed to the target's face, where it needs to be to be effective.

Furthermore, as Kotsiopoulos, et al. is an unpressurized projectile, the amount of tear gas delivered would necessarily be limited to an unpressurized volume having dimensions of a paint ball.

This limited amount of dispersed paint in the context in which the Kotsiopoulos, et al., device is used (as a paint ball) would be ineffective as a non-lethal device unless the target was hit near the eyes in order to blind a target.

However, such a direct hit in the eyes or face could prove dangerous to the target.

Because firing even a non-lethal or less-than-lethal projectile at or within a few inches of a target's face is extremely dangerous, potentially causing permanent injury or death, which is, of course, contrary to the objective of non-lethal projectiles, devices such as those suggested by the teachings of Kotsiopoulos, et al., would be considered undesirable by those of skill in the art to achieve a non-lethal inhibition of a target.

While each of the devices described by these patents attempts to provide a projectile that may be used to stop or slow a living target without causing lethal injury, all of the devices have proven to be less than ideal and some have even proven to be fatal when fired at close range to the target.

They are complicated and expensive to manufacture, and they are variously difficult to use and unreliably effective.

As a result of these problems and others, there is no widely commercially accepted non-lethal projectile in use by law enforcement or military personnel today that delivers an inhibiting substance to a target.

A significant disadvantage to the prior art devices is that none takes into consideration the need to deliver an inhibiting (or active) substance under fairly precise dispersal conditions to insure effectiveness thereof.

Unfortunately, prior art projectiles, not only rarely contemplate these problems, but also frequently fail to provide for dispersal of the inhibiting substance to a target's face after impacting the target at a remote area.

Specifically, for example, while powdered inhibiting substances, in the view of the inventors, offer distinct advantages over the vast majority of prior art devices that deliver inhibiting substances to a target, no commercially viable device known to the inventors has ever been produced that addresses the problem of both accurately delivering the projectile to the target at a location remote from the target's face, and dispersing a powdered inhibiting substance in a cloud-like, radial manner so as to assure that the powdered inhibiting substance reaches the target's face.

Unfortunately, using devices heretofore known to the inventors, targets are often able to escape and/or minimize their exposure to the delivered substanc

Images