The idea was to create a Taser system that could be effective in the intermediate range (30-100 feet) where a regular handheld Taser could not reach, but from which thrown projectiles could still be a viable threat against someone.
Ultimately, the project was a commercial failure, primarily because of the cost of the cartridges. At something like $125 each, they were nearly five times the cost of regular Taser ammunition.
The prongs are my largest concern with taser rounds. As I understand it, there are two types of prongs. A straight, possibly rifled, prong that penetrates, and can be pulled out relatively easily once the subject is subdued. I’m aware that in extremely few cases, the subject managed to pull these prongs out of themselves, but I don’t place any real stock in those extremely rare incidences since with the “fishhook prongs,” roughly a similar percentage of people still ripped these things out, and just kept going.
The second type of prong is rifled almost always, giving it about 5 feet or 1.5 meters more air range than the unrifled prongs, but these prongs have small aerodynamic protrusions that act as fishhooks making it so that you are required to rip out a not insignificant part of your flesh where they hit you to pull them out. Even with medical treatment, these are so devastating to the surrounding tissue that most of it will be removed with the prong. These are literally just made to create more damage than necessary.
They are undoubtedly “safer” than bean bags, and “rubber bullets,” I’m just curious why anyone outside of an authoritarian police state would allow any of these weapons to be deployed since the best fatality rate is still 10% across the board.
I don’t believe these saw much use. They’re discontinued now I believe. In part due to their expense.
I’m not sure if your 10% is just an estimate or if you’ve found a study on these. But one driving perspective for less lethal devices is for them to be used instead of lethal force. There’s also the inverse where they are viewed as a tool that enables a level of force that may be engaged for less dire scenarios. The latter may be used to justify force that wouldn’t have otherwise been applied, but the former seeks to reduce harm when a degree of it is deemed necessary.