I figure Progressives want to sow chaos by favoring criminals over victims, so they want to vilify Police and disarm Civilians.
But why can’t I have non-lethal weapons that will just temporarily disable a criminal, and all I have to deal with in the aftermath is whether I unlawfully restrained them?
I suppose it’s an option, but from experience, a lot of local laws are written so loosely that they act as a “catch-all” for law enforcement.
Unfortunately, the laws weren’t written against the law-abiding public, but can be used against them depending on the prosecutor. If the prosecutor is left-leaning and Progressive, you can bet they can find something that they can use against the “good guy”.
For example, in my old municipality, there was what was called the “long-gun” ordinance. At it’s face, you’d think it would pertain to long-guns. But it was written so anything that could be construed as a weapon such as a billy-club, mace, dirk, or yes, long guns, if found in a vehicle, would be a violation.
Obviously, there is a lot of discretion depending on the LEO and the situation, but if used in a confrontation, the discretion is quickly removed and it gets bounced to the prosecutor. And that’s where the Soros-funded push to elect left-leaning prosecutors come into play.