The TASER as a Less Lethal Force Alternative: Findings on Use and Effectiveness in a Large Metropolitan Police Agency
Michael White and Justin ReadyPolice QuarterlyVol. 10 No. 22007pp. 170-191
While police use of force is a rare event, White and Ready note that more than 8,000 law enforcement agencies across the USA have adopted TASER as an alternative mechanism of force. At the same time, a number of questions about the device remain unanswered, including aspects of its effectiveness, extent of use, and potential to contribute to physical injury or death. The authors sought to answer some of these questions, as well as provide a foundation for future research in understanding the use of TASER.
While TASER is not the only conductive energy weapon on the market, it is the most commonly used, and the kind that was used by the large metropolitan police department during White and Ready’s study. In this department, all Emergency Service Unit (ESU) officers – the equivalent of SWAT –were equipped with a TASER. In addition, all officers with the rank of sergeant or higher were trained and authorized to use TASER, with at least one TASER that could be signed out by appropriate personnel in each precinct. Furthermore,departmental policy indicated that TASER could only be used to restrain an EDP(emotionally disturbed person) or someone under the influence of drugs or alcohol, and who is engaging in behavior that could result in physical injury to him/herself or others.
The authors examined all reported cases of TASER use in this department from 2002 to 2004, for a total of 243 cases. These cases were gathered from the“TASER/Stun Device” reports, which must be filed upon its deployment. All analyses of the information taken from these reports were descriptive in nature, “because of the dearth of research involving the TASER and the resulting unanswered questions about its use, prevalence, and effectiveness”(p. 177).
The suspects involved in TASER incidents during the period of study were predominantly male (86.8 percent), classified as EDP (94.7 percent) and violent toward himself or others (93.6 percent). In addition, a minority of suspects appeared to be intoxicated (14.0 percent). Approximately 40 percent of the suspects were armed. Nearly all of the officers filing TASER reports were a part of the ESU (93.2 percent), with back-up (94.5 percent) and a supervisor (89.4 percent) present.
White and Ready also found that over three-quarters of suspects were not subsequently arrested, and nearly 95 percent were transported to a hospital after the incident. The authors suggest that this was a result of the high proportion of EDPs involved in the TASER incidents. In total, 84.7 percent of suspects were incapacitated after the TASER was deployed, with a mean time of 8.23 seconds to incapacitation. However, about 30 percent of suspects continued resistance after the TASER was used. Of these cases, about half resisted immediately following the deployment of the TASER, and half were incapacitated and in the officer’s control before resisting once more at a later point.
Last, the authors examined officer satisfaction regarding the use of the TASER, with approximately four-fifths reporting themselves as satisfied with the device. The individual cases were also classified according to their potential for violence; the authors found that the highest level of satisfaction (89.1 percent) was found within those incidents classified as being at the highest risk for a violent outcome.
Overall, the authors found that not only did the officers use TASER within the guidelines of their departmental policy, but also – and as a consequence – they avoided many of the controversies found in other departments. The data collected by White and Ready take a crucial step toward creating a baseline for comparison, specifically in regards to the extent of TASER use and the circumstances surrounding these incidents. At the same time,the authors note a number of limitations to their study, including the purely descriptive nature of the analyses, as well as aspects of the data used. More specifically, the study involved one department with very specific guidelines for use, the data were collected from official police records, and the data were unable to address questions relating to the TASER’s potential for contributing to physical injury or death.
White and Ready also point out that while it appears the TASER is predominantly used by members of the ESU, it is unclear to what extent ESU members use TASER rather than an alternative weapon, either lethal or non-lethal, or no weapon. Thus it is still unknown whether TASER is used as an alternative to deadly force or as an alternative to non-lethal force; further research is needed to answer such uncertainties.
Kathleen Donovan and Charles F. Klahm IV
