Best Non-Lethal Weapon

[LinuxRandal]

A claim involving the insured who is charged with murder.

So the insured/accused murderer, doesn't want the adjuster, to have the ability to defend onesself?

Or am I reading that wrong?

This coming from a guy who has delt with losing one gal to one of the Lundgren murderers, and used to shop in a flea market booth, that belonged to another famous murderer.

[gwyneth]

So the insured/accused murderer, doesn't want the adjuster, to have the ability to defend onesself?

Or am I reading that wrong?

Thank you for asking...I, too, was wondering what Jeffrey meant but thought it might be rude to inquire.

[gerti]

The lads, Zeus and Apollo...

[Jeffrey Schronce]

So the insured/accused murderer, doesn't want the adjuster, to have the ability to defend onesself?

Or am I reading that wrong?

This coming from a guy who has delt with losing one gal to one of the Lundgren murderers, and used to shop in a flea market booth, that belonged to another famous murderer.

My employee is outside adjuster contracted by insurance company. When the company advised the seriousness of surrounding events he advised he was armed. This apparently sent flags off. The insured/accused is currently in jail.

[gwyneth]

Go with the huskies. Aside from their uncanny ability to spot dishonest humans (good for adjusters), their deterrence is active (i.e., from a distance to prevent a situation), instead of reactive (i.e., after it's needed, to get out of a situation, although if it came to that, the huskies would be good, too).

[Warren]

Why would he tell someone he was armed in the first place? Carrying concealed is an edge. Why give up the edge? If your employee was in fear for his life he should show the person the weapon and demonstrate its capabilities right then. If he was not in such a situation he should have kept such information to himself, so it would do the most good when he needed it..

Your client demonstrated good sense, your "brilliant" employee sounds a little less than brilliant and possibly a bit unbalanced. The employee sounds insecure to me. Does he think having a gun is a status thing? That being armed makes him better at what he does? Does it give him a false sense of security? I could tell him stories of people disarmed and then pistol whipped or shot with their own weapon. What was his motivation for saying something like that? Did the client ask? If so why?

Lot of unanswered questions here. My first concern would be the employee and then the loss of the client. I also second the opinion that there really isn't any such thing as a 100% non-lethal weapon. People occasionally die from tasings, being hit with supposedly non-lethal bullets, submission holds, pepper sprays, baton wacks, etc.

[gwyneth]

Why would he tell someone he was armed in the first place? Carrying concealed is an edge. Why give up the edge? If your employee was in fear for his life he should show the person the weapon and demonstrate its capabilities right then. If he was not in such a situation he should have kept such information to himself, so it would do the most good when he needed it.

After re-reading Jeffrey's explanation a couple of times, I believe we skipped over the actual situation. The client is an insurance company, which advised Jeffrey's employee that the insured/claimant, being suspected of murder, could be dangerous, at which time Jeffrey's employee responded that he was armed.

Instead of reassuring the insurance company, this alarmed them (probably calculating potential liability issues).

Thus Jeffrey--looking past the immediate, specific situation with armed employee and suspected murderer-- is looking for protective measures that are not lethal, both safeguarding his employees and not freaking out the insurance company.

Have I got it, Jeffrey?

[Uncle Cracker]

In the litigious society we now live in, many companies fearing legal/fiscal repercussions are not allowing even their uniformed security personnel to arm themselves in any fashion. As an example, the security staff at a certain nameless mega-themepark are prohibited under penalty of termination to use any object, be it a flashlight, notebook, or even their person to defend themselves against an attack. They are only allowed to put their arms over their faces and/or heads. This is what it's come to. I suggested to the officer I know that he do anything and everything necessary to protect himself in a life threatening confrontation, and then go out alive and healthy and find another job.

[Warren]

I still question the employee advising the client that he was armed. If he is armed in accordance with local laws, what's the complaint.

If the insurance company has a problem, they have employees trained to write or advise on the make up of such a policy. Further, they of all people should be able to advise the company that there is no such thing as a 100% trustworthy, non-lethal weapon. The factor most critical to non-lethal weapons is the health of the person the force is being used on. Short of getting a clean medical bill of health on the person to be subdued, any use of force is a crap-shoot.

I refused to carry pepper gas in the early years as it had a propensity not to work on many drunk suspects and affected the coppers trying to subdue the drunk. The foam based ones are a little better, especially in cold weather as they can be directed at the eyes and nose. Tasers will sometimes be ineffective when a person is wearing heavy clothing.

If I were in Jeffery's shoes I would prohibit employees from carrying weapons while conducting company business. If an interview or adjustment is deemed to be dangerous, the company should require the client to provide protection for the adjuster. Let them shoulder the expense of hiring security and/or providing a venue for the adjustment or interview.

[gwyneth]

Very well put, Warren.

[scorrpio]

In the litigious society we now live in, many companies fearing legal/fiscal repercussions are not allowing even their uniformed security personnel to arm themselves in any fashion.

Heh, a London cop chasing a criminal:
Stop! Stop! Stop now or.... I'll yell 'Stop!' again!!!

[Black wallnut]

If I were in Jeffery's shoes I would prohibit employees from carrying weapons while conducting company business. If an interview or adjustment is deemed to be dangerous, the company should require the client to provide protection for the adjuster. Let them shoulder the expense of hiring security and/or providing a venue for the adjustment or interview.

I disagree, strongly! Leaving ones own security to anothers hands is not prudent IMHO. Employeers that are trusting of their employees in all things other than personal security IMHO are not being consistant.

IMHO the only policy that employeers should have, in most cases, in terms of employees arming themselves is requiring the employee to adhere to local laws in the securing of required permit or license; then following the laws governing where it is legal to carry.

BTW my comment about 9mm was tongue in cheek. From back in the days that our armed services switched away from the 1911 to the "under powered" 9mm.

[Warren]

Unless Jeffery's employees are psychologically screened, trained to an extremely high skill level with a company purchased or approved firearm and required to maintain that skill level through regular firearms practice at a company approved range under the eye of a company approved expert; Jeffery would have to be crazy to authorize employees to act under arms as a representative of the company.

The employee's weapons would have to be inspected and maintained by the company to preclude being sued when an employee is injured through his own negligence or by a defective firearm.

We are not talking about a person carrying concealed for their own protection; we are addressing the company's exposure by formally allowing employees to carry a deadly weapon. The liability is extremely high, particularly if the company continences weapons being carried and authorizes the use of such. I doubt any insurance company would underwrite the company that permits such without the accompanying training, proficiency maintenance,weapon maintenance, classroom training, etc.

[Black wallnut]

Unless Jeffery's employees are psychologically screened, trained to an extremely high skill level with a company purchased or approved firearm and required to maintain that skill level through regular firearms practice at a company approved range under the eye of a company approved expert; Jeffery would have to be crazy to authorize employees to act under arms as a representative of the company.

Methinks you have been sheltered in your life spent in the departments that you have worked for. The vast majority of LEA's do not meet this and LEO's are notoriously bad shooters!

The employee's weapons would have to be inspected and maintained by the company to preclude being sued when an employee is injured through his own negligence or by a defective firearm.

We are not talking about a person carrying concealed for their own protection; we are addressing the company's exposure by formally allowing employees to carry a deadly weapon. The liability is extremely high, particularly if the company continences weapons being carried and authorizes the use of such. I doubt any insurance company would underwrite the company that permits such without the accompanying training, proficiency maintenance,weapon maintenance, classroom training, etc.

We are talking about his employees carrying to protect themselves! You made a statement to the effect that if it were you you would prohibt such carrying. Now you seem to be stating otherwise with proper training, etc. Which is it?

My position is that if there should be a policy then let the policy deal with ensuring that the employee comply with local laws. If the work to be performed takes his employees into harms way then morally he has a responsibility to ensure their safety. To prohibit his employees from the means to protect themselves IMHO would be wrong, but surely not the first company to do so.

If Jeffery is thinking of his employees doing anything other than self protection then I'm certian that he will need special permits as a business.

[Hellrazor]

BTW, it is the Philadephia garbage that is creating this problem for me. Now do you see what the problem is?

Ahh the city of brotherly hate. I don't go there without packing..

I do not have a problem with someone carrying and I would not even think twice about it. You know that the weapons statement could be used against you if something happened? "They allow employees to carry.."