Police officers in the US are authorized to use _apropriate_ levels of force, up to an including lethal ones. The standard they are held to is typically of the form "Was this your only option to do what you did?" -- if you had a less-lethal option and didn't take it, you are in big trouble. "Less-lethal" in MANY cases means: establish a perimeter and wait. Your garden variety SWAT team in the US deploys rifles which have whatever level of power they want and they have no need for teflon coated anything.
...and...
Teflon coatings on ammunition do not, as the mythology goes, allow for greater penetration or other kind of performance enhancement. The idea behind teflon coating is to lubricate the barrel to cut down on wear-n-tear from using higher-density bullets in handguns. Your garden variety SWAT team in the US deploys rifles which have whatever level of power they want and they have no need for teflon coated anything.
==============
I enjoy geeking out on the precise details of paramilitary teams as much as the next guy reading a "Jane's Recognition Guide" on the subway. So I do appreciate this correction to my assumptions.
But still, regarding my main point, I believe you've amplified it.
That being..., to avoid needless bloodshed, the police did exactly as you described and formed a perimeter. Had they performed what we might start calling the Sokolowski Maneuver and begun firing to remove this young man who stepped 'outside the bounds of normal society' from our sight things might not have ended as peacefully as they did -- with the kid quietly handcuffed and driven off to face trial.
.d.
---------
http://monroelab.net/ <<<<<>>>>> "Champagne for my real friends, real pain for my sham friends"...Momus