Around the world, police departments have increasingly turned to tools marketed as non-lethal alternatives to firearms — from tasers and bean-bag rounds to pepper spray and rubber bullets. The promise was simple: give officers options that keep both officers and civilians alive, avoid fatal shootings, and reduce the reliance on live ammunition. But reality has been messier and, in some tragic cases, deadly. Now, in Australia, courts are taking a closer look at how these “less lethal” tools are being used, and whether they’re as safe as departments once claimed.
The phrase “less lethal” sounds comforting, but it can blur reality. Rubber bullets, bean bag rounds, and tasers are meant to stop a threat without pulling a trigger, yet they still hit the body with real force. A bean bag round spreads impact across the torso, but at close range it can break ribs or cause internal bleeding. Tasers override muscle control with electricity, often preventing shootings but carrying known risks like cardiac complications. Rubber bullets and sponge rounds can fracture bones or cause severe head and eye injuries. In fact, a global review of nearly 2,000 cases involving impact projectiles found about 3 percent resulted in death and 15 percent caused permanent disability.
The risks of less-lethal force were thrown into the spotlight during the Los Angeles protests 2025, when widespread use of rubber bullets, sponge rounds, and foam launchers led to multiple serious injuries among demonstrators, bystanders, and journalists.
The fallout from the LA protests prompted a U.S. federal judge to ban the use of 40 millimeter less-lethal launchers for crowd control, ruling that they had been deployed in situations where people posed no immediate threat. This case highlighted how even tools designed to reduce fatalities can cause harm if policies and oversight aren’t strictly followed. And Australian courts are taking a hard look at less-lethal force as well. Recent investigations and court cases have examined at least three recent deaths linked to tasers and impact projectiles, raising questions about whether officers followed policy and considered alternatives. These cases aren’t just about individual mistakes — they’re testing whether the systems and oversight around so-called less-lethal weapons are strong enough.
Training is a critical piece of the puzzle. Experts emphasize that officers need more than just technical knowledge of these tools — they need scenario-based training, crisis intervention skills, de-escalation techniques, and clear policies about when force is appropriate. Without that, even the safest technology can become dangerous. Here’s a look at how law enforcement is putting these lessons into practice in Jackson County, Texas.
The takeaway is clear: less lethal doesn’t mean no risk. Tools can reduce certain dangers, but training, judgment, oversight, and transparency are what truly keep people safe. Labels might soften the language, but the stakes remain very real, and the push for stronger accountability continues — in Australia and around the world.
