KCSO Resumes LVNR Training

[CLHC]

Saw this interesting article today in the Seattle Times.

Here's an excerpt:

After a 10-year hiatus, King County sheriff’s deputies have resumed training to use a neck restraint considered by the department a suitable alternative to Tasers and batons. But neck restraints, when improperly applied, can have debilitating — even deadly — results, critics say.

[J-Dub]

My employers' Policy includes the LVNR as deadly force, since it can kill. If you're in a knock down drag out fight, at some point you have to do what you have to do....I'd rather put someone to sleep if they give me their back instead of shooting them. But that's just me.

Anytime force is used, it can be deadly, which is why if you're wise and want to make it through your career without being sued 1000 times or hurt, you might want to learn "verbal judo" and get really good at it. (of course some people are going to fight no matter what so..)

[Chameleox]

It's considered deadly force for us as well. We deal with a lot of EDPs, and a party atmosphere. While The TASER is great, it's not a 100% solution and requires some standoff to truly be effective.

Unfortunately, bad incidents and policy influenced by public perception, combined with a lack of commitment to training, means that some of the most effective tools can remain out of officers' hands. The LVNR and PR-24 come to mind.

[SomeOtherGuy]

My employers' Policy includes the LVNR as deadly force, since it can kill.

That sounds appropriate. Are TASERs also classed as deadly force? Obviously they're not meant to kill, but people die from them every so often.

If you're in a knock down drag out fight, at some point you have to do what you have to do....I'd rather put someone to sleep if they give me their back instead of shooting them. But that's just me.

Anytime force is used, it can be deadly, which is why if you're wise and want to make it through your career without being sued 1000 times or hurt, you might want to learn "verbal judo" and get really good at it. (of course some people are going to fight no matter what so..)

That all sounds very sensible.

I see no problem with this if it's appropriately taught as an option within the deadly force continuum, not the somewhat difficult stumbling drunk continuum. From the article, it sounds like it's being taught to be used appropriately. Hopefully that is how it will actually play out.

[NCPatrolAR]

It's something that should be permitted and it shouldn't be restricted to deadly force situations

[J-Dub]

That sounds appropriate. Are TASERs also classed as deadly force? Obviously they're not meant to kill, but people die from them every so often.

No. Most Taser deaths result from the uncontrolled fall that comes with full body incapacitation (which honestly is rare in its self since you have to get a good spread and good probe penetration through clothing). Policy is in place that mandates tasers cant be used if the subject is on an elevated platform, no face shots, etc, etc.

Most Depts. are getting away from the "continuum" junk...

Graham V. Connor...."First, what was the severity of the crime that the officer believed the suspect to have committed or be committing? Second, did the suspect present an immediate threat to the safety of officers or the public? Third, was the suspect actively resisting arrest or attempting to escape? "

"The Supreme Court cautioned courts examining excessive force claims that "the calculus of reasonableness must embody allowance for the fact that police officers are often forced to make split-second judgments–in circumstances that are tense, uncertain, and rapidly evolving–about the amount of force that is necessary in a particular situation." The Court also stated that the use of force should be measured by what the officer knew at the scene, not by the "20/20 vision of hindsight" by a Monday-morning quarterback. In sum, the Court fashioned a realistically generous test for use of force lawsuits"

http://www.policeone.com/legal/artic...cessive-force/