Become a Patron!
True Information is the most valuable resource and we ask you to give back.


🛑 BERND PULCH ARCHIVE | SECURE MIRROR
[OFFICIAL] Evidence Preservation & Data Integrity Hub Case – Study: Data Inconsistency in Real Estate Archives (Ref: IZ/Lorch)
Become a Patron!
True Information is the most valuable resource and we ask you to give back.



DOWNLOAD ORIGINAL DOCUMENT HERE
Under its Less-Lethal Technologies Program, established in 1986, the National Institute of Justice (NIJ)—the research, development, and evaluation arm of the U.S. Department of Justice—provides funds to identify, develop, and evaluate new or improved devices and other technology that will minimize the risk of death and injury to law enforcement officers, suspects, prisoners, and the general public. Many Federal, State, and local civil law enforcement and corrections agencies use less-lethal weapons and equipment to help minimize the loss of life and property. These devices are used to quell prison riots, suppress mobs, and subdue hostile individuals. NIJ has prepared this equipment review to inform Federal, State, and local agencies about the Department of Defense (DoD) Joint Nonlethal Weapons Program and the less-lethal weapons and equipment used by civil law enforcement agencies. This review does not address issues surrounding DoD’s Joint Nonlethal Weapons Program or issues related to nonlethal weapons research and development programs.
DoD has deployed less-lethal technology under its Joint Nonlethal Weapons Program since 1995, when civil agencies provided less-lethal weapons and equipment, technical assistance, and training to support the U.S. military’s redeployment to Somalia. The technology enables U.S. forces to reduce unintended casualties and infrastructure damage during complex missions; discourage, delay, or prevent hostile action; limit escalation where lethal force is not the preferred option; protect U.S. forces; and temporarily disable equipment and facilities.
Currently used DoD and U.S. Coast Guard nonlethal weapons and equipment are described in sections II and III. Section IV includes representative descriptions of less-lethal devices used by the Chicago Police Department, Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department, Metropolitan Police Department of Washington, D.C., Philadelphia Special Weapons and Tactics (SWAT) team, Seattle SWAT team, and U.S. Marshals Service. The product descriptions include photographs and information about manufacturers, costs, the services or law enforcement agencies that use each product, and each item’s operational capability or use. Agencies that lack adequate research and development funding for less-lethal weapons and equipment often rely on private manufacturers to meet this need.
The equipment selection process is discussed in appendix A. The appendix also includes descriptions of DoD’s Joint Nonlethal Weapons Program; nonlethal weapons programs in the military branches (Army, Marine Corps, Navy, and Air Force), the DoD Special Operations Command, and U.S. Coast Guard; and civil law enforcement less-lethal weapons. A glossary is presented in appendix B. Typically, DoD uses the term “nonlethal” and NIJ and civil law enforcement agencies use the term “less-lethal” when referring to the same technology.
…
Law enforcement officers of the 21st century encounter many of the same challenges and issues their predecessors faced during the late 20th century. Incidents involving hostage rescue, vehicle pursuit, attempted suicide, the need to detain or control unruly individuals and crowds, and domestic disturbances continue to dominate daily activities. However, technology advances have matured, and new tactics provide law enforcement officers with additional options for handling many of these situations. A difficult aspect of civil law enforcement continues to be the need to manage individuals or groups when more than a show of force or voice commands are required and deadly force is neither authorized nor the preferred method of resolution. To meet this need, many Federal and State agencies and local law enforcement departments have developed and used less-lethal technology.
In the context of civil law enforcement, less-lethal weapons are those primarily designed to temporarily disable or stop suspects without killing, thereby providing an alternative to lethal force where appropriate. These weapons are “less lethal” in a literal sense because none can be guaranteed to avoid serious injury or death. As in the military, law enforcement officers should never consider less-lethal weapons to be a replacement for the legal use of lethal force; rather, they should use less-lethal weapons as an instrument of force in the continuum between show of force or verbal commands and deadly force.
Civil law enforcement’s development and use of less-lethal weapons and equipment contributes daily to officers’ ability to engage hostile individuals and to project force at a lower response level. Within the civil law enforcement community, the costs to conduct nonlethal weapons research and development and the levels of funding available vary dramatically. In larger Federal and State agencies, budgets generally range from several thousand dollars to, in rare cases, several hundred thousand dollars. In smaller, local law enforcement departments, nonlethal weapons and equipment research and development funding is minimal at best and often nonexistent. For many years, civil law enforcement organizations have relied on the manufacturers and developers of less-lethal technology to buffer this lack of research and development funding.
…
Fifty-six law enforcement officers in 22 states and Puerto Rico were feloniously killed in 2010, and more than 53,000 officers were assaulted during the same period, according to statistics released by the FBI.
The annual Law Enforcement Officers Killed and Assaulted report released today offers the most complete public picture of the fatal circumstances that officers faced in 2010. In chilling detail, the report summarizes most of last year’s fatal confrontations and illustrates a reality that every officer continually trains to recognize: that there are no routine engagements. Among the scenarios:
Information in the report, which is collected each year through the FBI’s Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) Program, is intended to provide law enforcement agencies with detailed descriptions of the circumstances leading up to officer fatalities. The data can then be incorporated into tactical training.
“Only when detectives, use-of-force investigators, supervisors and administrators examine the various components of the deadly mix will a greater understanding of these encounters emerge,” FBI researchers wrote in a study called Violent Encounters, an in-depth look at years of fatal altercations like those in today’s report. “To make an objective assessment of each case, it is necessary to carefully and completely examine all aspects of the incident thus allowing the facts to surface.”
The 56 officers killed is an increase over 2009, when 48 officers were killed. However, significant conclusions may not be drawn from year-to-year comparisons given the nature of the statistics. Ten years ago, for example, 70 officers were killed in the line of duty (excluding the events of 9/11), and five years ago 48 officers were feloniously killed.
The 2010 report also shows 72 officers were accidently killed in the line of duty, almost all of them involving vehicles. Meanwhile, 53,469 officers were assaulted while on duty—a figure that amounts to one in 10 of the sworn officers in more than 11,000 agencies that reported data.
All told, the figures illustrate the inherent dangers of law enforcement. Here’s a look at some of the data contained in the report:
The UCR Program, part of the FBI’s Criminal Justice Information Services Division, has been collecting and publishing law enforcement statistics since 1937, most notably the annual Crime in the United States reports. In 1972, the FBI began producing detailed reports on officer fatalities after the larger law enforcement community sought the Bureau’s involvement in preventing and investigating officer deaths.