frikkin' expensive ya gotta guess-Man, talk about gotta have one of each...!
Already spend too much cash on specialty shotgun rounds.....the bean-baggy loads are fun-raises quite the purply bruise-fleshettes are better-

"less lethal technology"...so, you only KIND of kill them?

I think he meant to say "less than lethal."
That's the term applied to all the crowd control tools out there, be it the rubber sting balls or the foam discs for the M203 40mm grenade launcher (fun as hell) or the 12 gauge rubber slugs and bean bags. And of course, the classics go in that category as well: CS gas, tasers, pepper spray (what a joke) and O.C. spray.
NOTE: If you are ever told to do something or be O.C. sprayed, fucking do it. Trust me. I'd rather blow a horse than have that done again. It is quite literally the worst pain you have ever felt. It's akin to being on fire for two hours.

"I think he meant to say "less than lethal."

Nah, he probably didn't, there's a huge issue in the U.S. over describing "compliance weapons", at least for law enforcement agencies.
Non-lethal: Was used by manufacturers and LEOs to mean not intended for use in killing. However, people misinterpreted as "can't kill", thus people getting tasered when the situation didn't justify it. In the latter, more layman sense, a taser is not non-lethal, while sticky foam or acoustic weapons are.
Less-than-lethal: A newer PC term, but still carries the implication that it won't kill people.
Less-lethal: The newest PC term which, as Mydrial points out, can be somewhat misconstrued. The name is meant to imply that the weapon is potentially lethal, but that it will only kill people a small percentage of the time. It's generally another way of saying, "This weapon is intended for use against persons against whom lethal force would be justified, but which could be avoided with the use of this weapon."

This is a newer concept, because it implies (in my mind, correctly) that weapons like tasers should never be used for situations like crowd control or unruly idiots. It also makes training LEOs in the use of said weapons much simpler, as the decision process looks something like this:
1. Would you be justified in using your firearm in this situation? If yes, go to 2.
2. Can you reasonably use your compliance weapon instead of your firearm? If no: shoot the perp. If yes: zap the perp.

People, especially the mainstream media, toss these terms around pretty loosely, so there has yet to be any real consensus on what labels get to stay and which ones get to go. I personally just say non-firearm weapon most of the time, makes things simpler.

MG, I hear ya man. I take a hit of O.C. every six months, and I don't know why, but I keep expecting it to suck less each time, and I'm always wrong. So very, very wrong.

*nochannel because it doesn't really fit in the Science channel. This is again a perfect example of where a Tech channel would work great.

This video has been removed from all channels (Science) due to invalid channel assignment - nochannel invoked by rembar. Please review the FAQ to learn about appropriate channel assignments.

Rembar: WTF? Do you have to do it to meet annual training requirements?
And yeah, I didn't want to put it in the science channel, but I saw that one as the only one fit for it. We need a tech channel.

MG, it's part of a demo at the beginning of a training course I teach. If you drop me a profile message, I could describe it in as much painful, eye-watering detail as you want.

Amusing how even the video shows police using tasers in controlled situations where there is clearly no need to paralyse the offender.

"Oops. I thought I had a taser round in there. I didn't realize it was a slug."