Copyright 2013. Ashland Citizens Awareness Committee. All rights reserved.

Ashland CAC Position on Stigliano Killing


The victim was wanted on Warrants and the warrants were:

1.  Assault and battery (Amanda was not willing to testify against him and claims that she was never assaulted.

2.  Failing to appear:  There was a criminal charge of failing to appear on the above charge.

 The Events:

 - His fiancé had signed a court affidavit that he had not hit her

 - Victim was inside his own locked house

 - Officers broke in

 - Officers were warned that he might be dangerous

 - Officers did not react properly to the warning

 - Which is pull back, and then secure

Senior Officers on the scene demonstrated:

 - Pathetic Leadership

 - Terrible Judgment

 - Horrible Policing Skills

Our Research On Actions  by Accredited Police Departments


A. HOSTAGE INCIDENT………(not appropriate to this incident)……….

B. BARRICADED SUSPECT INCIDENT. A barricaded suspect incident is a situation where a criminal, intent upon evading arrest, takes up a defensive position armed with a gun, explosive, or a weapon capable of harming others and presents a deadly hazard to arresting officers.

The policies of most police departments require:

First responders arriving to the scene to be able to quickly assess the situation, contain the problem, secure the area, evaluate the threat to hostages or bystanders, call in specialized units as necessary, and be ready to react at any time throughout the response that could last for hours.

OFFICER'S DUTIES. When confronted with a Hostage or Barricaded Suspect Incident policies state that the officers should follow these procedures:

1. Notification. Notify Communications Division of the situation.

2 Evaluation. Request that your field supervisor respond immediately to the scene.

3. Perimeter:  Establish a perimeter around the location to ensure the safety of not only the officers but the residents in the immediate area.

4. Command Post. Establish a Command Post and notify Communications Division of its location and safe avenues of approach.

 This incident had clear indications that this was a barricaded suspect incident

1.     Andrew Stigliano ran into his home with the intent of evading arrest

2.     He took up a defensive position.

3.     Phone calls from Attorney to Ashland Police indicated that Andrew was taking up a defensive posture with the intent of harming police officers and had the intention of not going alive.

4.     This presented a clear and present danger to the police officers on the scene and any resident in the immediate area.

5.   Officers rushed in without taking into consideration of the safety of the residents in the thickly settled area and the shoppers at the busy shopping plaza immediately adjacent to the house. 

6. This situation should have been treated as a barricaded suspect situation.

Lt. Briggs and Sgt. Fawkes, senior officers, on the scene violated standard operating protocols, which protocols are operational on most police departments. These violations of proper protocol resulted unnecessarily in a death:

1.      Shooting occurred 4 minutes after receiving notification of a potential deadly situation from dispatch who had received the information from Andrew Stigliano’s attorney reporting a clear and present danger to the police.  Incident should have been treated as a barricaded suspect situation once Stigliano ran into the home.  First officer on scene was not sure he entered the home but officers should have still treated the scene as a barricaded suspect.

2.      Report from the Attorney described a clear and immediate danger to the police officers on the scene and to the residents and shoppers in the mall immediately adjacent to the house.  Mr. Stigliano was giving clear indications that he was not going to be taken alive and should have been treated as a barricaded suspect situation.

3.      Supervisors failed to set up a perimeter to contain the situation to ensure safety to the officers, area residents, and shoppers surrounding the immediate area.

4.      The home was adjacent to a busy shopping complex and was located in a thickly settled area.  No consideration for safety their was made.

5.      Ashland is a member of NEMLEC which is North Eastern Massachusetts Law Enforcement Council, which has officers on call 24 hours per day to respond to these types of situations.  Also available would be Mass. State Police SWAT teams.  No attempt to contact these agencies was made.

6.      Supervisors failed to establish a command post.

7.      Supervisors failed to establish a perimeter and failed to make proper notifications to emergency teams that could properly handle barricaded suspect situations.

8.      Supervisors permitted an officer to enter a barricaded house in clear violation of standard protocol to effect an arrest on a misdemeanor warrant!



Letter to Metrowest Daily News and Other Media from Former Selectman Fetherston

The recent tragic Ashland Police shooting once again exposes the problems within the Ashland Police department.  A young man is dead and for what reason?  It did not need to happen!  The police were serving a simple bench warrant.  The victim reportly ran back into his own home. The police were aware the victim was in the process of filing civil rights violations against certain officers within the department and that Attorney Joe Hennessey had warned them that they may have been in danger. The victim took up a defensive position. This presented a clear and present danger to the police officers on scene and any resident in the immediate area. The Ashland  Police rushed in without taking any consideration for the safety of the residents in the thickly settled area and the shoppers at the busy shopping plaza immediately adjacent to the house.  Lt.. Richard Briggs was on scene and the senior officer.  He was in charge.  Lt. Briggs is a member of NEMLEC  and is highly trained in these types of situations. The Ashland Police have the services of NEMLEC and the State Police SWAT teams at their immediate needs. Briggs and  Sgt.Gregg Fawkes should have never allowed Patrolman Alberini to enter that house. Procedure is to fall back, establish a perimeter and wait for back up.  There was no immediate danger, if the police were not the aggressor. Officer Alberini had every right to defend himself and if he was in harms way, he did the right thing.  Why did Briggs and Fawkes put their friend and valuable co worker in this position?  Something seems out of place here. Briggs and Fawkes have been proven that they can not be trusted. Most of the turmoil and chaos within the department almost always comes back to these two. Policy and procedures are in place for a reason. The citizens of Ashland must demand that the leaders  of the Police department will always follow procedure.
The Ashland Board of Selectmen have been aware of the turmoil and lack of following procedure within the department for far to long.  They have chosen to ignore the problems and state they don't get involved in the day to day operations.  They are the elected leaders of our town, there only role is to ensure that the town is running properly.  When your police department is not operating at its full capacity and members are distracted, things go wrong.  There is now a dead young man for no good reason.  Can it get any more wrong than that?