by
Greg Meyer
© 1991 (All Rights Reserved)
ABSTRACT
In 1981, the Los Angeles Police Department adopted nonlethal weapons known as TASER and chemical irritant spray. This study reports the degree to which these devices have reduced injuries in confrontations between police officers and suspects.
This study is the first to use empirical data and statistical methods to compare injuries from nonlethal weapons with injuries from conventional force types.
The study focuses on eight force types which police officers use to cause resisting suspects to fall to the ground. Firearms and other deadly force types are excluded from this study, as are force types which are not intended to cause a suspect to fall to the ground.
The major hypothesis was that nonlethal weapons cause fewer and less severe injuries than the other force types.
This study examined a stratified sample of 502 of the 1,160 incident reports from the LAPD which fit the research scenario during the first half of 1989. Variables were created for the force types, the injuries to suspects and officers, and the precipitating incident conditions.
Research disclosed overwhelming data to support the major hypothesis: TASER and chemical irritant spray are effective devices which cause no significant injuries, while conventional force types do cause significant injuries.
The existing literature on nonlethal weapons is replete with myth, misinformation, and "conventional wisdom" that is just plain wrong. This has probably prevented nationwide adoption of TASER and other useful nonlethal weapons.
Law enforcement should seek to form a partnership with politicians, scientists, and the military in order to develop the next generation of nonlethal weapons and to inspire wider use of nonlethal weapons by police across the nation.
Expanded use of nonlethal weapons would lead to fewer and less severe injuries to suspects and officers, reduced civil liability claims and payments, reduced personnel complaints, reduced employee disability costs, and an improved public image for law enforcement.
DEDICATION
To Jack Cover, who brought Tom Swift to life.
And to the professional street cops, who see what most should never see, know what most will never know, and do what most could never do.
With the right tools, they will do even better.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
List of Tables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . viii
Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ix
Preface . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . x
Chapter
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Purpose of the Study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
Research Problem . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
Hypothesis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
Limitations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Theoretical Framework . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2. An Overview of Use-of-Force Issues and the
Need for Nonlethal Weapons . . . . . . . . . 5
Police-Public Contacts and Uses
of Force . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Use-of-Force Situations and Policies . . . . 6
Elimination of a Traditional Tactic . . . . . . 8
Nonlethal Weapons Terminology . . . . . . . 9
Research and Testing of Nonlethal
Weapons . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Nonlethal Weapons Scenarios . . . . . . . . .13
Review of the Literature . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Scope of the Literature . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
Myths About the TASER . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
The Need for Nonlethal Weapons . . . . . 20
Chapter Page
The Future of Nonlethal Weapons . . . . . 23
3. Study Design and Execution . . . . . . . 26
Population and Sampling Frame . . . . . . 26
Sampling Method . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
Sample Size . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
Sample Compared to Actual Population 29
Method of Data Processing and Analysis 31
Creation of Variables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
Significance Testing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
4. Analysis of the Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
5. Evaluation and Interpretation . . . . . . . 47
The Findings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
Are Nonlethal Weapons Really
Noninjurious? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48
Assumptions about Compliance Holds . 49
Data Coding Problems . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50
Isolation of Confrontation Types . . . . . . 51
The Future of Chemical Irritant Spray . . 52
The AIDS Factor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53
Significance of the Study . . . . . . . . . . . . 53
Future Research Suggestions . . . . . . . . 54
6. Conclusions and Recommendations . 56
Glossary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61
Chapter Page
Appendixes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67
A. LAPD Use of Force Guidelines . . . . 68
B. LAPD Use of Force Report Form . . 75
C. Data Coding Sheet . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76
D. Computer Printout of Raw Data . . . . 77
E. Selected Results of Survey
of Officers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90
Notes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103
Tables
Table Page
3.1 A Comparison of All Use of Force
Reports to the Research Sample,
by Conventional Force Type,
First Half of 1989 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
3.2 Injury Reporting Designators
Used in this Study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
4.1 Injuries to Suspects by
Effective Force Type . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
4.2 Injuries to Officers by
Effective Force Type . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
4.3 Injuries to Suspects by
Ineffective Force Type . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
4.4 Injuries to Officers by
Ineffective Force Type . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
4.5 Incident Precipitating Conditions
by Most Frequently Observed
Effective Force Types . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
4.6 Success Rates of Force Types, and
Corresponding Injury Rates . . . . . . . . . 44
4.7 Projected Totals of Injuries
(Major and Moderate Combined),
by Force Type, if All 1,160
Reports Were Analyzed . . . . . . . . . . . . 46
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The author is indebted to Captain Stuart A. Maislin and Sergeant Charles A. Sale (retired) of the Los Angeles Police Department. They are good advisers, good editors, and good friends.
Also, the time expended and the insights provided by Dr. J. Theodore Anagnoson, Dr. Harry S. Hall, and Dr. Michael K. Hooper are acknowledged with gratitude.
Finally, this research could not have been conducted without the assistance of (former) LAPD Chief Daryl F. Gates and (former) Deputy Chief Mark A. Kroeker and their helpful staffs.
PREFACE
The impetus for this study was the author's involvement as the police officer who was the Los Angeles Police Department's nonlethal weapons researcher in 1979 and 1980.
In 1981, following successful field testing of the nonlethal weapons known as TASER and chemical irritant spray, the Department adopted both devices with hope that they would reduce injuries to officers and suspects during violent confrontations.
This study reports the degree to which that hope has been realized after the LAPD's ten years of field experience with both devices; it seeks to dispel some of the myths about the TASER which are prevalent in the existing literature; and it makes recommendations to further what should be a national effort to reduce deaths and injuries to officers and suspects who become involved in violent confrontations.
Greg Meyer
Police Tactics Consultant
Phone: (800) 453-5518
Fax: (562) 927-2347
Email: gregmeyer@earthlink.net