Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Site Notices
Posted: 12/10/2001 1:04:09 PM EDT
In the beginning they were called "bean bag rounds". Then we started calling them "less than leathal" rounds. But that is a lie, and therefore a department liability, because they can and do kill peaple. The accepted industry standard now is "less leathal". Acknowledging that yes these can kill someone, but are less likely to do so than a conventional bullet. By admitting that, training accordingly, and making sure your officers use the correct terms in written reports and oral testimony you can minimize your liability from deaths from less leathal devices. You should also use the trade name of your less leathal devise, such as super-sock, not "bean bag". Less lethal rounds should be deployed from clearly marked less leathal only weapons, which are [b]never[/b] loaded with conventional shells. Officers using a less leathal option should only do so when covered by officers armed with conventional weapons. The less leathal officer should announce that he is deploying less lethal to avoid sympathetic gunfire from cover officers. Add your less leathal tips....
Link Posted: 12/10/2001 3:41:12 PM EDT
Make sure that your UOF policy covers their use. They should be with deadly force and should only be used as a last alternative to sidearms/shotguns/rifles. Put one in every car. We did. If there is resistance, point out that you only have to not kill one person, and you will have paid for them in lawyer bills/lawsuits avoided. Deploy them on every call where they might be needed (every suicide attempt with weapons or unknown weapons, every EDP who is violent). Make a radio code for deployment so they can be logged in the call, both for liability purposes and so that the supervisors can make sure they are being deployed. Remember contact/cover officer protocol and the fact that you can't talk and shoot at the same time. If you are deploying one, a three officer minimum should be the standard (one shooter, one beanbag, on giving commands. Train with them. Incorporate less-lethal scenarios into your regular tactical qualifications. Fire them every time officers qualify, which ain't cheap at $3-5 a round, but needed to understand the difference in point of impact and recoil. Train for multiple shots; Def Tech orange averages 3 hits to stop an agressive subjects.
Link Posted: 12/10/2001 4:40:48 PM EDT
Does "less lethal" kill 'em "less dead"?
Link Posted: 12/10/2001 4:55:30 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Norm_G: Does "less lethal" kill 'em "less dead"?
View Quote
No. The meaning for that particular bit of doublespeak is that are not "non lethal." They can kill and have killed. The idea is to have another way to stop someone without being forced to kill them. This comes up a lot more often than one on the outside would think, and usually with people who are suicidal, anyway. When we go to these types of calls, killing a suicidal person doesn't accomplish your mission, which is to help people. Put it another way. Your sibling is suffering from severe depression but responds to medication. After a lapse in their med schedule, they decide to kill themselves, but a last bit of lingering doubt keeps them from doing it themselves. So the get a big kitchen knife, call 911 and say, "I am going to kill myself" and hang up. The police arrive. Your sibling runs at them waving a knife, knowing what the police response will be. Which option would you prefer? a)Police (justifiably) shoot and kill your sibling; b) Police shoot your sibling with a "less lethal" shotgun. In option "a," the victim is dead. In "b" the victim may suffer moderate to severe injuries. Even if severely injured, your sibling still survives to get appropriate treatment for the underlying mental illness, and can get better. There is still a chance that the "lee lethal" rounds may kill your sibling. Even if they do, the police still did all that they could to help them. Which would you prefer?
Top Top