• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Fredericksburg Police: "Less Lethal Force" policy authorized for 'non-compliance'

Repeater

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 5, 2007
Messages
2,498
Location
Richmond, Virginia, USA
Fredericksburg Police: "Less Lethal Force" policy authorized for 'non-compliance'

This seems disconcerting. What if the LEO 'requests' you hand over your OC'd firearm, and you refuse?

Fredericksburg Police launch internal investigation after apparent 42 second Laser incident
Fredericksburg police are conducting an internal investigation into a Saturday night incident in which a suspect appeared to be tasered for more than 40 consecutive seconds.

The incident occurred about 7:20 p.m. near the corner of Hanover and Caroline streets in downtown Fredericksburg, police spokeswoman Natatia Bledsoe said.

...

The Buick driver had run from the scene when police arrived, but bystanders had attempted to detain the passenger, who was still in the area when the first officer arrived. The passenger is also the Buick owner, police said.

Police said the man was belligerent and threatened to hurt those who called police, but no one was injured.

A video taken by someone at the scene and later posted on news and social media websites begins with a man—the Buick’s passenger—lying on a sidewalk surrounded by a small crowd.

A police officer was apparently trying to question him when the man got up and bolted.

He got only a few feet before dropping to the ground again after an officer apparently used a Taser on him. The sound of the Taser continues for about 42 seconds as the face-down man shrieks in pain and yells out, “Stop it! Stop!”

...

Bledsoe would not comment when asked if the Taser was properly deployed, saying the investigation is ongoing. However, she supplied a copy of the city department’s use of force policy when it was requested.

Under the directive, officers are authorized to use less lethal force to:

Defend themselves or others from assaults and other threats.

Arrest, detain, subdue, control, and/or restrain a noncompliant (active resistance or active aggression) suspect.

Prevent the escape of a suspect.

Bring an unlawful or dangerous situation safely and effectively under control.

The policy states: “As with the use of deadly force, officers contemplating the use of non-deadly force shall apply a standard of objective reasonableness, basing any decision to use force on the totality of the circumstances known to them at the time. . . . Officers need not select the least amount of force that can be used, but must select a level of force that is reasonable for the given circumstances.”

I wonder how much leeway LEOs would have given the apparently ambiguity of the language.

How broadly construed would "active resistance" be?
 

peter nap

Accomplished Advocate
Joined
Oct 16, 2007
Messages
13,551
Location
Valhalla
This seems disconcerting. What if the LEO 'requests' you hand over your OC'd firearm, and you refuse?

Fredericksburg Police launch internal investigation after apparent 42 second Laser incident


I wonder how much leeway LEOs would have given the apparently ambiguity of the language.

How broadly construed would "active resistance" be?

The story isn't very well researched. My Taser is a model M26, one of the older Tasers with higher amperage than what they're using in some departments. some use the X26 because it's smaller and uses less amperage which is less likely to kill....but it uses a 10 second cycle because it's weaker.

The switch isn't momentary, when you deploy it a timer starts and the taser will fire a full 5 to 10 second cycle before cutting off.

The Tasee can get up after one cycle although he's a little groggy usually, but a second or even a 3rd cycle is often used. The alternative is to kick the guy to keep him down. That'll give the papers something to buzz about :lol:

The only way the cop can cut the timer off is to switch the taser off which obviously the officer did if there was a 42 second sound. That sound wouldn't have been continuous though because it has to be fired again to start the new cycle.
 

Citizen

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2006
Messages
18,269
Location
Fairfax Co., VA
The false premise is that police can authorize themselves something.

Just like any other branch of government, they only have the authority granted.

Until a state constitutional amendment or bill authorizes police to use elctro-torture pain compliance devices, they're acting without authority in using them. Same for their department purporting to "authorize" using less-lethal weapons.

One only needs to know that these things were once called non-lethal devices, and then asked why the terminology was changed. Ask what is covered up by the terminology change. Ask why the Orwellian term less-lethal? (If you're dead, you're dead. How can something be less lethal?)

Not everybody dies from a baton strike on the head, yet baton strikes to the head are considered lethal force. Why wouldn't a device that has killed numerous people not be considered lethal in the same way?
 
Last edited:

Grapeshot

Legendary Warrior
Joined
May 21, 2006
Messages
35,317
Location
Valhalla
The false premise is that police can authorize themselves something.

Just like any other branch of government, they only have the authority granted.

Until a state constitutional amendment or bill authorizes police to use elctro-torture pain compliance devices, they're acting without authority in using them. Same for their department purporting to "authorize" using less-lethal weapons.

One only needs to know that these things were once called non-lethal devices, and then asked why the terminology was changed. Ask what is covered up by the terminology change. Ask why the Orwellian term less-lethal? (If you're dead, you're dead. How can something be less lethal?)

Not everybody dies from a baton strike on the head, yet baton strikes to the head are considered lethal force. Why wouldn't a device that has killed numerous people not be considered lethal in the same way?

Does everthing need to be regulated - defined in legal terminalogy?

Lethal > less lethal = less likely to have terminal results. It is matter of probability. There is no question that I would prefer being "stunned" than to being shot - of course reasoning/logic/talikng would be better still.

I see some conflict in how results are obtained when departments/agencies determine what tools or procedures are "authorized." Virginia is a Dillon Rule state (must be authorized by law) vs anything not restricted is legal. We work to determine a balance, not always in a totally exceptable way.
 

Citizen

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2006
Messages
18,269
Location
Fairfax Co., VA
Does everthing need to be regulated - defined in legal terminalogy?

Lethal > less lethal = less likely to have terminal results. It is matter of probability. There is no question that I would prefer being "stunned" than to being shot - of course reasoning/logic/talikng would be better still.

I see some conflict in how results are obtained when departments/agencies determine what tools or procedures are "authorized." Virginia is a Dillon Rule state (must be authorized by law) vs anything not restricted is legal. We work to determine a balance, not always in a totally exceptable way.

Readers should understand that this moderator recently locked a thread because of "ongoing" attempts to portray police in a bad light. The spectacular absurdity being the police officer in that incident was too obviously out of line--shot the crazy guy who was just standing in his driveway and made no threatening moves or gestures. That is to say, this moderator locked a thread where the cop really was bad and there was home security video to prove it.
 

peter nap

Accomplished Advocate
Joined
Oct 16, 2007
Messages
13,551
Location
Valhalla
Readers should understand that this moderator recently locked a thread because of "ongoing" attempts to portray police in a bad light. The spectacular absurdity being the police officer in that incident was too obviously out of line--shot the crazy guy who was just standing in his driveway and made no threatening moves or gestures. That is to say, this moderator locked a thread where the cop really was bad and there was home security video to prove it.

Why don't you get a new song citizen. I'm tired of that tune over and over!
 
Last edited:

OC for ME

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
12,452
Location
White Oak Plantation
Does everything need to be regulated - defined in legal terminology?

Lethal > less lethal = less likely to have terminal results. It is matter of probability. There is no question that I would prefer being "stunned" than to being shot - of course reasoning/logic/talking would be better still.

I see some conflict in how results are obtained when departments/agencies determine what tools or procedures are "authorized." Virginia is a Dillon Rule state (must be authorized by law) vs anything not restricted is legal. We work to determine a balance, not always in a totally exceptable way.
Yes, every thing the state does in the name of the law must be codified in a particular law. Far too often "department policy" is used in-lieu of a law. Department policy is the escape route for idiot cops. Department policies should cover employment related issues, like personal grooming standards, what porn sites are approved for view on department computing assets, which doughnut shops are approved for patronizing, stuff like that.

The jury is not "still out" on the lethal consequences of tazing the human body, people have died from getting tased and thus the taser is a lethal weapon.
 

davidmcbeth

Banned
Joined
Jan 14, 2012
Messages
16,167
Location
earth's crust

IanB

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 18, 2006
Messages
1,896
Location
Northern VA

peter nap

Accomplished Advocate
Joined
Oct 16, 2007
Messages
13,551
Location
Valhalla
:exclaim: Penalty Flag!:exclaim:

Violation of Rule #6. NO PERSONAL ATTACKS. We expect the moderator to moderate his postings and set the behavior he sternly expects all others to follow!

The rules are the rules!

I thought it was a pretty moderate response since he was just attacked for the umtheenth time. Mine was a violation of rule 6 which I've already caught thunder over.
 

Grapeshot

Legendary Warrior
Joined
May 21, 2006
Messages
35,317
Location
Valhalla
:exclaim: Penalty Flag!:exclaim:

Violation of Rule #6. NO PERSONAL ATTACKS. We expect the moderator to moderate his postings and set the behavior he sternly expects all others to follow!

The rules are the rules!

Really? You see a violation when the poster in question makes repeated and prolonged attacks because the rules were not defined his way, to his satisfaction, even after having been instructed how to file a grievance. It was noted that he could ask for interpretation by John.

Such posts are not unlike the referred to cat - the screeching is mildly irritating, but of no major import. Sometimes I will use a little humor to soften my response - I thought the cat recording was funny - Sorry you didn't see it that way.


Please return to the topic of the thread.
 
Last edited:

Citizen

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2006
Messages
18,269
Location
Fairfax Co., VA
Really? You see a violation when the poster in question makes repeated and prolonged attacks because the rules were not defined his way, to his satisfaction, even after having been instructed how to file a grievance. It was noted that he could ask for interpretation by John.

Such posts are not unlike the referred to cat - the screeching is mildly irritating, but of no major import. Sometimes I will use a little humor to soften my response - I thought the cat recording was funny - Sorry you didn't see it that way.


Please return to the topic of the thread.

QFT. Moderator is rationalizing his rule violation.

Readers need only look to post #4 to see which cat started the fur-pulling. Readers might also note that post #4 dodged a couple things.

Now, lets return to the thread topic. We'll see if the mod will do that without further comment.
 
Last edited:

Grapeshot

Legendary Warrior
Joined
May 21, 2006
Messages
35,317
Location
Valhalla
QFT. Moderator is rationalizing his rule violation.

Readers need only look to post #4 to see which cat started the fur-pulling. Readers might also note that post #4 dodged a couple things.

Now, lets return to the thread topic. We'll see if the mod will do that without further comment.

This from the person that would be [strike]King[/strike] Moderator if only he could make the rules. Note that I respond publicly when insulted/attacked publicly, especially when the user denies to listen privately.

Post #4 contains no personal attack unless he finds opinion insulting.

The beat goes on....and yes he knows what will be next.
 
Top