There has been a brouhaha in my town over a recent incident where a man with a garden implement was surrounded in his own front yard by three local deputies during a domestic call.  The man was killed by one of the deputies when he brandished the hoe or pitchfork or whatever at another deputy.  I'm sure the officer was acting within his training, even though I'm struck that three LEO's couldn't subdue one person on open ground without killing him.

After the D.A. ruled the shooting 'justified'it was revealed that the department has had Less Than Lethal options for two years, but was only training and equipping shift supervisors to use them.  Can't understand the logic here; seems if a line officer is qualified to carry a sidearm, then they should be qualified to carry a Less Than Lethal option.  I wrote a letter to the Ed of the local paper, and lo and behold, the Police Association called me and to my surprise are posting my letter in their trophy case at the barracks; seems the line officers have been asking for Less Than Lethals for quite a while.

I'm not one for causes or zealous pursuits; I don't believe in confrontational activism.  I do think the seed needs to be planted with Law Enforcement that Less Than Lethal Policies need to be integrated into everyday routine and line officers need to be trained and equipped.  If anybody has the ear of local law enforcement, give them a copy of this and plant the seed.

There are pluses and minuses to less than lethal weapons.  Less than lethal weapons carry an added expense for the weapon and the training.  In law enforcement an officer can't use a single piece of equipment unless he is trained on it.  If he isn't trained and certified on it then the department becomes civilly liable for the use of it.  Also any half a defense lawyer will get a case thrown out of court because an officer wasn't trained and certified on a piece of equipment.  An example I know of is a local sheriff's office.  The parish police jury(council) passed a noise ordinance aimed at cutting down on boom cars playing loud and vulgar rap music.  For the longest time officers could not enforce the ordinance because they had no decibel meters.  The police jury bought the decibel meters, but the officers still can't enforce the law because none of the officers are trained on it.  Sounds like crap right?  Take the case to court and see if the defendant's lawyer doesn't get him off.

In my department I asked about less than lethal weapons.  I was told the department didn't want to spend the money on training and equipment.  I was also told that there are times when and officer simply must take a life and having the less than lethal option would make an officer have a more difficult time of articulating why he took a life (when it legitimately needed to be taken)instead of using less than lethal.

Tell the guy robbing the liquor store to use pepper spray instead of that sawed off shotgun!

What I dont understand is:  I can go buy a box of 45cal HP rounds but can I buy rubber bullets?  NO...load of crap if you ask me.


Only reason I can see is if Bubba Joe thinks he can shoot "cousin Willie" just cuz it was a rubber bullet.  I cant see any other reason...anyone have a answer?

I don't like 'less than lethal' technology.  We are saving too many lives with seatbelt laws, etc, and thus becoming overpopulated, so we don't need to be saving the lives of criminals and dumbasses who won't put down a gardening implement when confronted by armed cops.

This may sound cold blooded, but I believe in letting Darwinism run it's course and eliminate the idiots.

Ah, the old "Shoot'em all, let God sort'em out" policy.  I hope for the sake of all involved you aren't and never are associated with law enforcement let alone the human race.
Seem like somewhere along the way compassion skipped a generation in your family; let's hope its just a temporary anomaly and dies out with the current generation, a la Darwin. By the way
Less Than Lethal is not just for the criminal, rocket boy.  The officer in the incident I mentioned is being squeezed through a ringer over this, fairly or not.  Both the officer and the family of the man in question (who, by the way, [b]was known by the police[/b] to have a history of mental disorders) would be resting a lot better at night if the victim had been nursing a severe bruise and not taking the dirt nap.  

No, compassion did not skip a generation.  It has been eroded away by our society's coddling of criminals and idiots, by people suing because of their own stupid actions and winning, by just the general dumbing down of our society, rocket boy.  This officer should not be suffering any consequences, I am not critisizing him by any means.

Peronally how can you put a price on a life?  The guy down the street what do you think he is worth $500, $600, a buck?  It shouldn't matter to the police if it costs them money.  I wold bet that that man who was killed paid his taxes.  I would better his family does as well.  We pay our taxes for some sort of security right???  Or just so a bunch of puttses can sit around and decide how they can get a bigger raise this year.  If the later is the case then we need a better system cause if so our orgional one has been shot to hell.

What ever happened to "shoot to wound" ...you know DISABLE this guy....even pepper spray.


Really, three LEO's around this guy and they choose to take a lethal shot.  What about hitting the guy in the arms or legs.  
How many shots did it take to make this "unavoidable" killing.  

Shoot and wound, NOW the perp is suing the PD, the officer and whoever else for all they are worth because the bullet injured the pooor fella so that he cannot function properly to provide a decent living for his wife and children, hell, I was starting a new job tomorrow.

He didn't have to be killed.

[url]http://www.airtaser.com/[/url]

My department has these - they're the cat's fanny!

P3[pyro][^]

Too many cops are cowards.  A garden implement?  Give me a break!  Seal off the area, then double up on him with night-sticks and jack him up a little.  Public servants are supposed to get their hands dirty and maybe risk a little danger once in awhile, it comes with the territory.  Police shootings are a bit too frequent for me to believe I live in a free society.  Then again, we never hear about all the incidents that were resolved without gunfire.

This sounds a lot like that other post on here, the guy who talked about using his MP5 to confront a guy shooting squirrels with a BB gun.  I suppose if the guy had made a threatening move (like taking out his wallet) he would have dumped a full 30 round mag into him.

It's odd, you know?  I've met many retired policemen who said they never had to draw their weapon, ever.  One was a NYC cop.  

Too many agencies see supervisors as being a person more trustworthy of being issued special equipment. Look at LAPD; those surplus M16A1's are riding around in supervisors cars. My agency issues supervisors a bolt action rifle, Mini 14 and a semi-automatic shotgun. Line officers are issued an 870 ( Sheriff says he wants line officers to have to "think" between rounds fired) and must buy their own semi rifles.
I suspect they use the supervisor-as-God- theory as an excuse; really they are trying to minimize who can carry specific equipment to cut down on the number of people they have to train on the equipment.
Trick : Since you are such an expert in everything, next time you can subdue the guy all by yourself. No word on whether the officers were equipped with lower levels of force options. Until 3 years ago, my agency only had talk and shoot levels of force resaponse. No intermediary levels of force equipment was issued.
You are right about one thing; the average officer never has to fire their weapon in the line of duty for their entire career.

Less lethal options should definitely be considered. The local dept. uses stunguns and air tasers. They've even had an hour special on the regional news to show what happens when used and how effective they are without being lethal. A few minutes down and they are in cuffs riding to the cage. Easy enough.

The Grand Poo-Ba
Mikie

Whether it's one cop or a hundred standing there, a pitchfork can most assuredly be a dangerous weapon.  Before you Monday morning quarterback, gun grabbing liberals say anything, put yourself in the situation.  The guy tries to kill you with a pitchfork and all you have to defend yourself is your side arm.  What are you going to do?  Shoot him or turn tail and run like a coward?

For your info:  In most states the justification for a law officer to take a life is when the officer fears for hs life or great bodily injury.  

I think a man sticking me with a pitchfork would be at the very least a great bodily injury.

Moral of the story: When 3 armed cops tell you to drop the pitchfork and you don't, then you get what you rightfully have coming.

I do allot of K9 training for LE. I also ride allot with the K9 units to evaluate both dog and handler training. While nothing is ever 100% true I have found from my limited experience that once the dog comes out of the car the standoffs with non lethal weapons ends before the dog is released or very soon after. The worst case is usally some stiches, not death.