|
NOTE: I dropped this post in a California forum, but it bears relevance wherever people are performing bail enforcement related activity:
For those of you who contract bad bonds to BFRPs, you should know that there is an ongoing glut of news accounts wherein BEAs are allegedly utilizing Less-Than-Lethal "LTL" devices OFFENSIVELY versus defensively.
I've engaged numerous persons in rather spunky debate on other forums and in person over the use of such items as Oleoresin Capsicum, Tasers, batons, and other LTL devices including rubber bullets and bean bag projectiles used for private civil contract enforcement.
Interestingly, there are still people out there who are ostensibly incapable of making the distinction between what is offensive use versus defensive use.
Yet another case has recently surfaced wherein someone is being investigated for employing a LTL device on a fleeing bail skip.
FLEEING BAIL SKIP!
Let me be clear here: FLEEING BAIL SKIP!!!!!!
It is my position that LTL devices have their place in the use of force continuum even though I don't carry such devices with the exception of pepper spray, which I've never used on a person in over 13-years of bail related activity.
I'm not sure how to address this issue other than seeking counsel from the professional bail agents frequenting this forum. If the stories continue to mounth then repurcussions are sure to follow at some point.
For starters, I think that it would be prudent to identify which California BFRPs (that you work with) carry LTL devices, and what kind of background and training do such people have to lawfully bear and/or employ such devices in the field.
I suspect that some people carry LTL devices to equalize the odds while making an arrest should the client resist, but, again, in my opinion, this is an improper use of LTL devices that is fraught with potential liability.
And, for the record, if your BFRP is regularly carrying an exposed firearm and/or baton because of a BSIS open carry permit in conjunction with a guard card only, this is not lawful unless the person is working for a PPO, is on duty and is wearing the name of the company on his or her uniform.
Why do I bring up this last point? I raise this last issue because the California bail bond industry does not need bad press when it comes to something that is perfectly avoidable.
Rex
|
