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.
- 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
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!