The Navy is doing an OK job but certainly has not committed to levels seen historically. Here’s my article from last month on the subject:
[I][B]Should We Stop Calling Them Pirates?[/B][/I]
The article was a good one and gives the proper perspective. It is just easier to type ‘Pirates’ than ‘Somali Maritime Organized Crime Elements’.
The ‘climate’ of piracy is much different from region to region. Off of Somalia, the methodology is to shoot a few rounds, usually in an attempt to scare the Master into stopping the ship. Even if this does not work they will continue to attempt to board using their ladders for the most part. Once they are successful, and have hijacked the ship, they take the whole ship, the crew and cargo and go back to the shores of Somalia and demand their ransom. However in the Malacca Straights, the ‘pirate’ many times uses a rouse, (or by show of violence) to get on board and take over the ship. Once on board, they will usually steal what they want and then take a couple members of the crew hostage for ransom and depart the ship with their hostages. In both cases it is financially motivated, the biggest difference being that with the role of the active governments in Singapore, Malaysia and Indonesia areas, there is no where for them to take the ship and anchor it out in the open with blatant disregard for government and law enforcement authority. Then if we move to the Nigerian area, the attacks get more violent and the motive is mixed. Now you are dealing with real militant groups that are better organized and in most cases, better equipped. Of course there is the occasional mere criminal but the anti-government element is dominant. Motive however, even though financial, is not merely financial for the group as it is maintained that the group is asking for a more fare share of the oil profits to the people. In many areas, the crime against merchant vessels is while at anchor and the small gangs of bandits are climbing on board, usually at night with the intent to steal ships stores and anything easy to carry. These particular bandits, even though they tie up the duty AB, don’t usually exhibit near the level of violence as the other ‘under way’ type criminals. This post is in regards to the merchant vessels as in the case of smaller yachts there are even different types of crime and can be extremely violent in certain parts of the world. There is a definite relationship in the style of the criminal element in relationship to the local government’s ability to hold the criminal accountable and the local governments involvement in prevention and enforcement. The climate in which you are sailing (area) has a great impact on the consideration of armed vs unarmed security.
OK, There has not been a response in a couple of days so I will give a little more food for thought to those that are pro gun on board. When I make a post or attempt to answer a question, I never give all the process at once because the thought here is to stimulate discussion and input from the mariner at sea. My biggest value is to get the thoughts of the mariner and hopefully the thoughts and concerns from the shipping companies as well. The later is not as important because the greatest concern is the mariner.
Our actual goal is to protect the Mariner, but of course, by protecting the ship, we are protecting the mariner. The mariner is our first concern in our operational methods of less lethal force. Some of you have expressed the desire for not only firearms, but big firearms on board for your security.
gcaptain is probably the best blog on the net for mariners, but I also discuss these situations on other blogs and of course linkedin.
Some of the security providers actually think that armed security is not only the best option, but should be the first response to engage the pirate with what they call “fire with interest”.
Now look at the scenario of the normal attacker in the Gulf of Aden. They are armed with the AK-47 and the RPG-7, and they may fire a couple rounds to intimidate the Master to stop the vessel and be boarded. They have no intent on disabling the vessel, their only intent is to board and seize the vessel for ransom.
If you were to show deadly force from the start, you have just concluded the top level of force which escalated the situation to it’s maximum, but you have now limited your response because now you can not De-escalate the force.
Now you hope you accomplish your task by assuming your attacker will turn tail and run. What you have considered, is that your attacker may now, assume you have an unusually valuable cargo on board to respond in such a violent, out of the ordinary fashion.
This immediately puts the crew at greater risk should the attacker re-group and want the ship for the cargo, instead of the usual ransom. Should this situation occur, we have escalated a situation out of control.
The duty of a security provider is to keep an aggressor from boarding the vessel, not to kill the aggressor and not to detain the aggressor. As much as we dislike them, we only care about completing our transit safely.
This is such an interesting topic and one that surely has no easy, if any, answer.
The days of fighting pirates with fire hoses is long gone. I believe that arming a crew will work, but only if you are prepared to paint the vessel grey and prefix the name with USS or HM something or other. Hiring a security company who will put on two or three security “consultants” may have little effect. Remember that case not long ago when a vessel was hijacked and the only people to get off safely were the three “consultants” who jumped ship and were picked up by a close by naval vessel? Now if the security consultants are a squad of marines as you guys suggest, then that could work, as they would likely bring more and heavier firepower with them than the average pirate would have, but again, very impractical unless the vessel wants to be re-painted grey.
Zig zagging tactics, well lit decks, patrols etc. may make it harder for the borders, but if they are pointing rockets at you, I agree that it will take some nerve to stand firm until help arrives. SSAS was/is a great idea, but I know that if I was to see a pirate vessel approaching, the only thing that would satisfy me upon pressing the big red alarm button, would be a warship with a gun on its bow haring over the horizon.
So perhaps the safest place to be sailing now is the Gulf of Aden, with virtually every naval power having some presence there? The “help wanted” columns in Nigeria and the Far East must be full of ads for Somalia pirates to relocate??
I always thought it might be a good idea if a ship should have two safes. One (hidden), with all the money and documents, and another in the captain’s office with a big flashing neon sign over saying “Pirate safe here”, with $200, some fake papers and a couple of fake Rolexs. Alas, today’s rogue is not to be satisfied with anything other than the vessel itself.
Whereas I agree with Seamarshall that there are many efficient tactics we use to defend merchant ships from pirates in the GOA. The the fact is that those tactics are non-lethal and primarily meant to deter and delay the pirates in their attack.
With a response time of 30 to 60 minutes the coalition navy warships are most often to far away to be of any help for merchant ships that does not have an efficient security strategy which inlcude security guards. I still recall listening to the crews oboard the Blue Star and Venus desparately calling for help to no awail during the new year. Because, all our warships were in harbour celebrating the New Year. Only warships from India, Russia and Holland was in the GOA during the turn of new year. So much for Navy discipline.
My company provide maritime security services and the vast majority of our transits are unarmed due to legal complications and the cost of having armed security teams onboard. However, we also provide fully armed security teams.
On every single transit of the GOA our teams have reported suspicious sightings of vessels and boats that are not “acting” in accordance with their normal line of work ie fishing. A few of these suspicious boats are most likely fishermen merely acting strange, however the vast majority of them are either contraband smugglers, refugee smugglers or simply pirates.
Thus, it is amazing to me that the naval forces have been so inefficient to detect, deter and destroy the pirates in the GOA. In my opinion the navies are simply not motivated enough to complete the task at hand. Their commanders are more concerned with their future careers than doing what it takes to stop the pirates. They are too concerned with the legal and human rights of the pirates, instead of being concerned for the safety of the merchant marine crews.
In regards to firearms, then they are in my opinion the only effective method to prevent the pirates from hijacking a ship. If the pirates are determined to take the ship no fire hoses, barbed wire, obstacles, LRAD or even molotov cocktails will deter them. Whereas the majority of simple pirates would simply choose a softer target then the determined militia crew will not care if they perceive the ship to be valuable enough.
We recently had a tanker attacked and fired upon regardless of all the non-lethal defenses in place. However, the pirates ended the attack immediately and fled the second the first pirate was shot!
The problem with weapons in the GOA is not just the legality of bringing them from country to country, because there are simple solutions to that. The problem is largely economic. The vast majority of ships sailing through the GOA does not contract security teams or set up effective defensive measures. Those that do contract security teams, are squirming over the costs of using armed security versus unarmed. Thus 90% of our clients choose the unarmed solution rather than pay the $35,000 higher fee for having armed security.
Regardless of the liability issues and insurance concerns etc. Then the fact is that the best defense against armed agressors has been and will always be and armed response. If our Navies would deploy four well armed men on each merchant ship willing to pay the cost of their deployment, then the situation would be cleared up in a few months. This is how it used to be done and the very reason why the marine corpses were intially created. Not to mention that in the current economic crisis then it would be a far more economic solution versus the endless deployment of large Navy Ships with huge crews and high tech gear that is of no use anyway.
Civilian Police Officers carry firearms in civilian environments, why on earth should we not allow the same for civilian security officers in high risk areas?
Proponents and opponents of arming ships against pirate attack may be asking the wrong questions suggests Mike Murrell, director of operations for anti-piracy specialist International Ships Support Group, ISSG. The company recently extended its logistics support system to key points to enable its eight-man teams to embark and disembark vessels approaching areas presenting high threat levels of pirate attacks.
Complex legal issues surround the presence of firearms on ships while the effectiveness of non-lethal defense systems has recently been brought into question. Murrell, whose company uses its own specially designed deterrence systems, believes that a different approach is needed to meet the concerns of shipping companies, flag states, P&I Clubs and seafarers’ organizations.
Says Murrell: “Pirates don’t seem to be too afraid of gunfire. Apart from still unresolved legal issues about firearms having a highly visible armed team on deck gives the pirates a more concentrated target, which, if neutralized, gives the vessel no other options. If you engage the aggressor too early you end up with a firefight rather that ship defense. In fact it can actually invite pirates to attack even more fiercely if they believe that armed protection indicates a high-value cargo worth dying for. And let’s face it, the last thing you want on oil, gas or chemical tanker is a firearm going off.
“High powered audio defense systems have a place but, as recent events have shown, they aren’t enough on their own and the equipment operators also become targets for the pirate firearms. But just because there are no guns onboard it doesn’t mean the ship is unarmed.“
The answer, says Murrell, is what he terms ‘less than lethal’ equipment, a sufficiently large and well-trained team and a calibrated response that provides the element of surprise should an attack take place. Much of the equipment has been designed or adapted by ISSG and is legal in almost all jurisdictions.
“We have a suite of protective devices that won’t set off too many alarms when our teams fly out to join a ship. In a sense, they don’t actually exist until the equipment is actually on the ship. This equipment will disable pirate skiffs and negate the pirate’s ability to continue an attack, when used by an appropriately trained team. Firearms come with an enormous cost burden so our decision to use less lethal force has a significant impact on the cost of protection, and nobody has to be told how important that is in an industry badly hit by financial crises.”
ISSG deploys eight man teams, each member of which is a fully certified seafarer, including a medical officer. Says Murrell: “If you’re going to put someone onboard a ship, they have to understand ships and seafarers and their responsibilities as seafarers. If you put someone onboard a ship who isn’t a qualified seafarer you can run into all sorts of problems, some them legal, and they can become a danger to themselves and other seafarers.”
In the long term, piracy can only be resolved through economic, developmental and political means but it is something we have to learn to deal with, effectively and economically to protect seafarers, their ships, and the industry."
[B] After speaking with Bob Couttie today, of the Maritime Accident Case Book, I found another reason to strongly consider against the option of firearms on board a private vessel and of course I am referring to the liability aspect. use the link below to an article posted by Bob Couttie:
[http://www.maritimeaccident.org/suez-shooting-%e2%80%93-wrong-time-wrong-place/](http://www.linkedin.com/redirect?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww%2Emaritimeaccident%2Eorg%2Fsuez-shooting-%25e2%2580%2593-wrong-time-wrong-place%2F&urlhash=UGmw&_t=tracking_disc)
If I were a shipping company, this is the type of nightmare I would not want, and these were Marines. This type of incident does not need to happen using less lethal force with the correct operational plan. [/B]
[B][B]Most Common Types of Maritime Accidents [/B][/B]
The USCG report outlined the top five most common maritime accidents. The most common accidents are watercraft collision with another marine vessel. There are 1,329 vessel-to-vessel collisions annually; they are responsible for 66 deaths and 953 injuries. The second most common maritime accident is collisions with fixed objects. There are 558 of these collisions yearly; they are responsible for 35 deaths and 389 injuries. The third most common accident is skier mishap. There are 492 skier mishaps per year; they are responsible for 11 deaths and 502 injuries. The fourth most common boating accident is when a boater falls overboard. There are 485 overboard falls annually; they are responsible for 208 deaths and 312 injuries. The fifth most common marine accident is capsizing. There are 398 capsizing a year; they are responsible for 204 deaths and 284 injuries.
Keeping the above statistics in mind I believe it is fair to say that the single death of an Egyptian Merchant who was in direct breach of ISPS regulations and who ignored repeated radio and audio warnings as well as warnign shots; is utterly insignificant in comparison.
To use this one tragic incident in which the Egyptian merchants and the Egyptian maritime authorities are clearly in fault as a reason to advise against weapons onboard merchant ships are outrageous. I am sorry but I believe that “seamarshals” are clearly selling his company’s socalled non-lethal solution rather than offering true advice.
The liability issue is something that the merchant marine shipping companies risk management plan should consider and find solutions for through operative selection and training, rules of engagement, and by purchasing insurance coverage. There is liability in all areas of business and certainly many areas of liability in merchant shipping. The presence of potential liability is not a measure for banning weapons onboard ships.
The argument used by seamarshals are in fact similar to a former marketing method used by APMSS, who strongly advocated the LRAD as the ultimate non-lethal solution and advised against weapons. Today APMSS is reducing its presence in the GOA following its run in with Somali pirates and the need for its security team to abandon ship. Today APMSS are openly critical of the LRAD and other non-lethal solutions.
I have met and talked shop with teams from most of the maritime security companies operating in the GOA and I have yet to meet an operative who would not prefer to be armed. The fact is that it is only the armchair generals and salesmen of non-lethal solutions which openly advocate them… and of course the insurance companies who will rather sell insurance than see a quick solution to the piracy threat in the GOA.
I own a maritime security company operating in the GOA and I sail with my teams whenever I can. I have been there, did it, done that. We can play heroes all we want and talk the talk, all we want but good intentions and half solutions does not stop determined pirates greedy for ransom money and high on qat.
Accidents happens in all areas of work and life, thus there will be accidents with weapons, just as there are accidents with cranes and wire cables that snap etc. However, I am not hearing anyone suggesting that cranes and wire cables should be banned onboard merchant ships.
I believe fully in making non-lethal defenses for the ships and planning for several different solutions and layers of protection and various strategies. However, in the end you need lethal force to defeat your enemy in war. And Somali pirates are no different that terrorists that ambush convoys in Iraq or Colombia… there is no-one in their right mind who would suggest that PSD teams should be unarmed and rely on LRAD’s or other non-lethal solutions because having weapons could potentially cause a liability issue.
A hijacked oiltanker is ransomed for $2-3,000,000 USD… I think that sum allows for quite a large liability law suit for the occasional accident.
“One does not bring a stick to a gunfight”!
I can appreciate you doing a bit of research and posting some statistics, however, those Coast Guard Statistics have nothing to do with global merchant shipping.
With rare exception, I do not advocate firearms on merchant vessels, and I do not think that any vessel should rely on non-lethal force to protect it. I believe in less lethal options and a sound operational plan to counter piracy in general. firearms have their place in defense but not in general merchant shipping.
If you are willing to accept that occasional law suit than you are advocating the occasional “OOPS” I’m sorry that was an accident. The consequences for that oops go a lot further than a law suit and a payoff.
There is a big difference between firearms, less lethal force and non-lethal force. I advocate less lethal force due to the fact that it gives more options and if necessary, can meet deadly force should it be necessary.
There is absolutely no comparison between the actions of the Somali pirates and those conducting ambushes in Iraq or Columbia. That is the kind of attitude that will cause those liability law suits and night mares.
I can respect your opinion and I can agree to disagree. The whole purpose of this type of thread is to be able to give your opinion.
Countering piracy int the Gulf of Aden is not combat. It is purely a defensive posture that brains will win not guns. Pulling the trigger should be an absolute last resort and after all other measures have failed, but it does not take firearms to do it. there are less lethal options available that easily take the firearm out of the picture.
The goal is not to kill pirates or to send them a message of force. This will only result in them using more force in the future to accomplish their goals. Somali pirates are not combat soldiers and the only reason I use the term pirate is it is a convenient term.
The Somali pirates are criminals and criminals adapt. We do not need to accelerate that adaptation process.
Your type of company is needed on the market as are others. this gives the shipping industry choices in the type of protection they want.
Seamarshals, I stand by my opinion that firearms are the only way to effectively ensure that a ship is not hijacked and taken to Somalia for ransom.
I totally agree that in maritime security and even anti piracy in the GOA brains are your first and primary weapons just like it is in close protection or PSD etc.
I also believe in using all levels of force before bringing out the guns and have personally never sailed armed during my transits. I have relied on a strategy of detect - deter - delay, and organised my defenses accordingly.
However, when a pirate boat posing as a fishing boat suddenly speed up and race towards your ship and start opening fire without any warning or other attempt to coerce or to board the ship etc. Then there is no room for talk about escalating the situation, as it is already out of control. Any of those rounds fired could injure or kill a security guard or crew member. The pirate making ready to fire his RPG at the ships bridge did not care about the human beings on that bridge.
In this case having firearms stopped the pirates cold and prevented further damage to the ship and potential loss of life and limb of the security guards and crew.
Regarding the comparison with Colombia then I disagree with you as in Colombia most attacks on convoys are shock attacks and followed up with kidnap for ransom. I can’t see the difference in the tactics used by FARC or those used by the Somali Pirates.
I also don’t see the reason to debate the terminology of whether they are pirates or criminals. In fact it is quite simple because armed robbery and hijacking on the high sea is referred to as piracy. Thus the Somalis hijacking ships and attacking them with Aks and RPG’s are obviously pirates. We recently sailed with a ship that was attacked four times by pirates over the new year while protected by another company. Most of the crew suffers from PTSD and the security guards that were onboard that ship have also had their sleepless nights. How can you argue that they were not terrorised?
I believe you are from the US and in that country kidnapping is not a crime taken lightly, nor are the sentences light or short. Foreign groups that repeatedly engage in kidnap for ransom are most often termed terrorists by the US Government. So why should the Somali pirates who engage in piracy be considered as mere criminals?
Regarding firearms then so far then everytime the Naval forces have approached the pirates and either directly engaged them or fired warning shots, then the pirates have either fled the scene or given up on the spot everytime. Our recent incident had the same effect and end result.
There is to my best knowledge no non-lethal or less-lethal options that have that track record.
However, if you have any direct statistics or case studies that back up your full support of the less-lethal or non-lethal options, then I look forward to hear about them. In fact if you can prove your point then I will even promote your solution and company to my clients!
Best regards,
Dan
Dan,
I am actually pleased that you have responded to the thread in reference to Armed VS Unarmed Security for merchant vessels. The whole idea is to get dialogue on the matter.
I have carried weapons for 27 years in many countries during military service, as well as in law enforcement.
It happens, that we have come up with “tools” that are as effective as firearms should the occasion arise with that level of force being necessary, however, they are considered less lethal by design and intended use.
The difference between the criminal and the terrorist is the terrorist has a political statement to make and usually attempt to cause maximum damage or death to make that statement.
The Somali pirates motive is purely financial in their efforts to capture a ship and its crew for ransom and the few shots they fire are normally intended to intimidate the ship into submission. If they were terrorists their intentions would be far beyond Kidnap for ransom, they would be prepared to blow the ship out of the water to make a statement.
If you were working in the Niger Delta or the Sulu Sea, then I would agree that firearms are a must for the protection of shipping. The element is completely different with a different type of aggressor. These aggressors are more concerned with their political statements than kidnapping for ransom. Should they get a “live one” then of course they will ask for ransom and usually along with other demands.
Being armed or unarmed is probably not the right question. Having the ability to respond appropriately with the maximum safety of the crew is the key. I cant just come out on an open forum and give our complete methodology and the tools we use, as these tools were developed by us for this specific use.
Don’t get me wrong I am not anti firearm. We are currently preparing for a contract in Honduras where all 200 men will definitely be armed. However, in the merchant shipping situation int he Gulf of Aden, we have less lethal options for the client that get the job done just as good as an armed team without needing firearms. Should the climate change, then we can also change.
Sometimes there is a bit of confusion in the matter of what is considered ‘armed’. Obviously firearms are designed with the specific intent to kill. Therefore there is no question that possessing firearms would mean being armed.
However, when the term ‘less lethal’ is used, most don’t understand the potential of the less lethal inventory. In our terms, less lethal means tools that are specifically designed, with the intent to stop an aggressor without needing actual firearms, and the specific intent is not to kill. However when considering these ‘tools’, they can, if need be, certainly be lethal if the occasion should call for that amount of force. The purpose of using less lethal weapons is giving you more options than firearms alone.
In February, 2009 the majority of the international organizations for merchant shipping published the “Best Management Practices” to counter piracy in the Gulf of Aden and off of the East Coast of Somalia. This document can be found at
www.marad.dot.gov/documents/Best_Management_Practices_to_Deter_Piracy.pdf
This is a very thorough document and I believe a very good document in the guidance to merchant vessels and their crews.
When it comes to private security protecting merchant vessels, their methods of protection should parallel this guideline. The document does not cover private security but is in our opinion, right on the money as far as the methodology of what private companies should be offering.
Of course private companies can enhance this much further with the use of additional manpower and additional layers of defense and methods. There is no current guideline or regulation for private companies that has been put in place. It just makes sense to parallel this type of methodology and set the standard for private merchant vessel security.
In addition, any private company offering protection of merchant vessels, should have a methodology that is in writing, and it should be provided to prospective clients without hesitation. Along with the methods, a clear standard for the use of force, or “rules of engagement” should also be provided.
It seems that bearing arms is still the most popular answer from the guys that would actually BE the bargaining chips. It is understandable that those that will never have to be in the situation are not yet mandating lethal force (guns and bullets). Nothing like the couch while watching Monday night football. I would be interested to see if these same decision makers carry pistols that shoot electrical currents or lead currents.
I can understand you point of view but having guns and bullets or not is really not the issue. There is no mandate of any kind for security on the merchant vessels and I am sure there will never be a mandate to have lethal force on board.
The actual problem with having firearms on board for protection is that the security team would become too reliant on the firearms for the defense of the vessel. The pirate is going to take his few shots at the vessel (regardless if you are armed with firearms or not) in an effort to intimidate the Master into stopping. If you were to respond with firearms, you have too much potential to escalate the situation into an instant gun fight. A gun fight is the last thing you want to happen.
What is needed, is a well defined, multi-layered defense in place. In the situation of the Gulf of Aden and East Africa, it takes bigger brains to combat piracy, not bigger guns. The goal is not to get into a gun fight, but prevent them from boarding the vessel. There are many ways to be effective if your defense is well planned in advance. Using lethal force should always be a last resort.
It is not just the decision makers that make these decisions from personal conviction, there are many other issues that are involved in the decision making process whether to have firearms on board or not. Where you are sailing, the flag state of the vessel, the insurance carrier, the ships owner and more must go into that process.
It is easy to desire guns on board but it just is not that simple. Therefore, proper planning in lieu of firearms needs to be in place. and with careful planning, effective methods are developed to prevent the attacker from boarding the vessel.
Should you have six skiffs surrounding your vessel at 100 meters away and you get into a gun fight with your four-man security team, you will probably lose. So it is better to have the layered defense in place without the gun fight.
I am only going to post this here due to the fact that this is the most read thread in maritime security here. We all know that the attacks on the East coast of Africa are now common and will probably continue to increase. It is not only due to the naval presence in the Gulf of Aden, but it is due to weather conditions and also historical conditions, as this is not a new area, but not quite as active as the GoA.
A couple months ago, we were predicting the attacks off the East Coast only because it made sense. If the naval patrols are interdicting pirates in the GoA, then they will just move to the East coast area.
Therefore what is the nest prediction of adaptation or copy cat attacks? If we look at the reasons for the attacks, poverty, unstable government etc., we can conclude that a very good possibility is the coast of Madagascar.
Recently, there has been a lot of governmental problems in the Madagascar area, and if the model holds true, and the Somali pirates have their connections, then the next area of concern will be off of the South East Madagascar Coast.
What do you think?
The title of this thread “Armed VS Unarmed Security for Merchant Vessel Protection” really is not the important issue. What is important is that each vessel is prepared for a pirate attack. Vessels owners can not rely solely on the protection of naval forces against piracy and that has been proven. The naval forces are a great help and necessary in the Gulf of Aden and East Coast of Africa. he current rules of engagement are somewhat restrictive as well as the mere size of the area to patrol.
The answer is for vessels to be prepared and harden themselves against attack. Providing the correct methods of defense, with a well planned and well defined objective is the key to success against the pirates.
Even should the vessel have a security team on board, the methods and plan of defense must be correct to succeed. Should that security team be armed, then the rules of engagement must be followed properly and the option of ‘pulling the trigger’ must be the last resort. It is not the objective to kill pirates, the objective is to prevent the pirate from boarding the vessel. With the proper methods in place with a well organized defense, you can prevent the pirate from boarding with or without firearms.
Seamarshalls,
I’m curious…did you (or your company) coin the term “less lethal”? How is one form of defense less lethat? Are you less dead when the less lethal form is used?
Force is either “lethal” or “Non-lethal” to my way of thinking. I’d like to hear how you define and determine these degrees of lethality.
Thanks,
Nemo
Capt. Nemo,
I am delighted that someone actually asked that question. We did not actually coin the phrase ‘Less Lethal’ however I may be able to give you an insight on that. Lethal force is force that is intended to kill and a lethal weapon is a weapon that by design is intended to kill, or used in a manner with that intent. For example, firearms have one purpose by design, and that is to kill.
What we have done, is designed weapons that we term ‘less lethal’ due to the fact that they are not intended to kill, however, should the situation call for lethal force, these weapons certainly can be lethal. Basically, we have the same capability as using a firearm, but many more options than a firearm alone, depending on what we load it with, and there is no gun powder used or shell casing as there is in a firearm.
That being said, there is available ‘less lethal’ ammunition for law enforcement use in firearms, as well as ‘non lethal’ munitions, this of course for crowd control purposes. Even though we do not use the traditional firearm, we still follow a strict “rules of engagement”.