As populations increase, the risk that a criminal will be surrounded by or in close proximity to innocent persons when officers are trying to subdue him / her also increases.
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).
The Kotsiopoulos, et al. disclosure includes a 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, to using tear gas, 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.
Even if this amount of tear gas were delivered to a target's face, it is unlikely that this amount of tear gas would be sufficiently effective to impair the target in a useful way.
An additional problem with all non-lethal projectile systems is being able to control the
kinetic energy at which a projectile is delivered to a target.
Delivering a projectile to a target with to much force can cause unwanted or unnecessary harm in a situation where only non-lethal force is necessary.
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.
They are complicated and expensive to manufacture, and they are variously difficult to use and unreliably effective.
Typically, known kinetic
impact projectile systems use a launch force generated by burning
propellant powder ignited by a primer, resulting in a projectile where a kinetic
impact to a living target is high and can sometimes be lethal.
As a result of these problems and others, there is essentially no widely commercially accepted non-lethal projectile in use by law
enforcement or military personnel today that effectively delivers an inhibiting substance to a living target.