Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

The impact of TASERs on police use-of-force decisions: Findings from a randomized field-training experiment

  • Published:
Journal of Experimental Criminology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This paper presents findings from a randomized field-training experiment designed to study the impact TASERs on police officers’ use-of-force decisions. Officers were randomly assigned to either a treatment group (with TASERs) or a control group (without TASERs) and then participated in training scenarios involving different levels of suspect resistance. The study investigates whether and to what extent officers armed with the TASER use it as an alternative to other types of less-lethal force (e.g., empty hands, pepper spray, and the baton) and the firearm, controlling for the level of suspect resistance. The findings indicate that officers who were armed with the TASER were significantly less likely to deploy pepper spray and the baton in response to aggressive physical resistance. Additionally, the results show that officers equipped with the TASER were less likely to discharge their firearm when confronted with suspect resistance that was potentially lethal. No differences in police behavior occurred in response to passive suspect resistance.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. TASER is an acronym for Thomas A. Swift’s Electric Rifle based on the fictional Tom Swift adventure series by Victor Appleton (see “Tom Swift and His Electric Rifle: Daring Adventures on Elephant Island.” NJ: Stratemeyer Syndicate 1911). The TASER model referenced in this study is the X26. The TASER X26 delivers a 5-W shaped pulse at a rate of 18 pulses per second of direct current electricity. With proper deployment and skin penetration of its two probes, the resulting electrical charge incapacitates the subject by electro-muscular disruption (Griffith 2003). Competitors to TASER International include Law Enforcement Associates and Stinger Systems; however, TASER International accounts for a substantial majority of stun devices sold in the United States.

  2. Supervisors also have access to a TASER that they can sign out from the station.

  3. TASER Simulation Cartridge Model #44205

  4. While the LVMPD usually deploys one-officer units on patrol, department policy indicates that individual units are required to support each other in responding to service calls comparable to situations involved in the three training scenarios. To illustrate this point, a review of the LVMPD Communications Bureau’s rules for dispatching officers to disturbance calls requires the assignment of “two patrol officers” or “any two police officers.” Arguably, the scenarios used in the experiment can be most accurately described as typical disturbance calls. However, it is also important to recognize that many situations escalate before back-up officers arrive on the scene.

  5. Yates’ Chi-square is continuity corrected for 2 × 2 tables that contain sufficient cell counts.

  6. The training scenario involving potentially lethal resistance is not as “typical” since deadly force situations are rare, although officers did report that the scenario “felt” real. In designing this scenario, the choice of a deadly weapon other than a firearm—in this case, a cinder block—was important. A cinder block essentially allows officers to consider a wider range of responses.

References

  • Alpert, G. P., & Dunham, R. G. (2004). Understanding police use of force: Officers, suspects, and reciprocity. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • American Civil Liberties Union. (2005). Stun gun fallacy: How the lack of TASER regulation endangers lives. American Civil Liberties Union of Northern California: September 2005.

  • Amnesty International. (2004). United States of America. Excessive and lethal force? Amnesty International’s concerns about deaths and ill treatment involving police use of TASERs. London: Amnesty International. AI Index: AMR 51/139/2004.

    Google Scholar 

  • Amnesty International. (2007). Amnesty International’s concerns about TASER use: Statement to the U.S. Justice Department inquiry into deaths in custody. London: Amnesty International. AI Index: AMR 51/151.2007.

    Google Scholar 

  • Berenson, A. (2004). Claims over TASER'S safety are challenged. New York Times. Retrieved on August, 20, 2006 from http://www.mindfully.org/Technology/2004/Taser-Safety-Challenged26nov04.htm.

  • Bittner, E. (1970). The functions of police in modern society. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cook, T. D., & Campbell, D. T. (1979). Quasi-experimentation: design & analysis issues for field settings. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dugan, J. R., & Breda, D. R. (1991). Complaints about police officers: a comparison among types and agencies. Journal of Criminal Justice, 19(2), 165–171.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Francis, M. (2006). Stun-gun maker TASER may get a business jolt. MSNBC. Retrieved on August 20, 2006 from http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14391347/.

  • Friedrich, R. J. (1980). Police use of force: individuals, situations, and organizations. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 452, 82–97.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fyfe, J. J. (1989). Police/citizen violence reduction project. FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin, 58, 18–25.

    Google Scholar 

  • Griffith, D. (2003). Recharged: Taser International’s new X26 is smaller, but more effective than any Taser on the market. Police: The Law Enforcement Magazine, 27(6), 16–21.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hammond, J. (2004). Simulation in critical care and trauma education and training. Current Opinion in Critical Care, 10(5), 325–329.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hravnak, M., Beach, M., & Tuite, P. (2007). Simulator technology as a tool for education in cardiac care. The Journal of Cardiovascular Nursing, 22(1), 16–24.

    Google Scholar 

  • International Association of Chiefs of Police. (2005). Electro-muscular disruption technology (EMDT). A nine-step strategy for effective deployment. Alexandria, VA: IACP.

    Google Scholar 

  • International Electrotechnical Commission. (1994). Effects of current on human beings and livestock. Technical Report-Type 2, Publication 479-1.

  • Joint Non-Lethal Weapons Human Effects Center of Excellence (HECOE). (2005). Human effectiveness and risk characterization of the electromuscular incapacitation device—a limited analysis of the TASER. Part 1: Technical Report. Part 2: Appendices. March 2005.

  • Klinger, D. A., & Brunson, R. K. (2009). Police officers perceptual distortions during lethal force situations: informing the reasonableness standard. Criminology & Public Policy, 8(1), 117–140.

    Google Scholar 

  • Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department. (2006a). Procedural order PO-21-06: Use of the electronic control device (ECD). Las Vegas, NV: Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department.

    Google Scholar 

  • Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department. (2006b). Procedural order PO-35-06: Use of force. Las Vegas, NV: Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department.

    Google Scholar 

  • Long, R. (2005). Using simulation to teach resuscitation: An important patient safety tool. Critical Care Nursing Clinics of North America, 17(1), 1–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McCabe, F. (2006). Man dies after LV police use TASER. Las Vegas Review – Journal. Retrieved on October 9, 2006 from http://www.reviewjournal.com/.

  • McBride, D. K., & Tedder, N. B. (2005) Efficacy and safety of electrical stun guns. Arlington, VA: Potomac Institute for Policy Studies Report, Number 05-04. Potomac Institute for Policy Studies.

  • McDonald, W. C., Stratbucker, R. A., Nerheim, M., & Brewer, J. E. (2005). Cardiac safety of neuromuscular incapacitating defense devices. Pacing and Clinical Electrophysiology, 28, 284–287.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Meyer, A., & Greg, W. (1992). Nonlethal weapons: Where do they fit? Part II. Journal of California Law Enforcement, 26(3), 53–58.

    Google Scholar 

  • Milgram, S. (1974). Obedience to authority. New York, NY: Harper and Row Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Police Executive Research Forum. (2005). PERF conducted energy device policy and training guidelines for consideration. Retrieved on August 23, 2006 from http://policeforum.mn-8.net/login.asp?loc=&link=.

  • Ready, J., White, M., & Fisher, C. (2008). Shock value: A comparative analysis of news reports and police records on TASER deployments. Policing: An International Journal of Police Strategies and Management, 31, 148–170.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reiss, A. J., Jr. (1968). Police brutality—answers to key questions. Trans-action, 5, 10–19.

    Google Scholar 

  • Salas, E., Bowers, C. A., & Rhodenizer, L. (1998). It is not how much you have but how you use it: toward a rational use of simulation to support aviation training. The International Journal of Aviation Psychology, 8(3), 197–208.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Seattle Police Department. (2002). SPD special report: The M26 TASER year one implementation. Retrieved on June 3, 2006 from http://www.theiacp.org/research/CuttingEdge/SeattlePDTaser.pdf.

  • Seattle Police Department. (2004). Seattle Police Department TASER use and deployment fact sheet. Retrieved on August 23, 2006 from http://www.taser.com/documents/seattlepduse.pdf#search=.

  • Shoemake, R. (2005). Quantitative analysis of use of force and its impact on the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department in 2004. LVMPD Internal Report. Las Vegas, NV: Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department.

    Google Scholar 

  • Skolnick, J., & Fyfe, J. (1993). Above the law: Police and the excessive use of force. New York, NY: Free Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith, D., & Visher, C. (1981). Street level justice: situational determinants of police arrest decisions. Social Problems, 29, 167–178.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Solomon, R., & Horn, J. (1986). Post shooting trauma reactions: A pilot study. In J. Reece & H. Goldstien, (eds.) Psychological Services for Law Enforcement. Washington, DC: United States Government Printing Office, 383–393.

  • Sztajnkrycer, M., & Baez, A. (2008). Excited delirium and sudden unexpected death. Available at: http://www.acep.org. (accessed on 1/9/08).

  • TASER International. (2002). Advanced TASER M26 field report analysis. Retrieved on June 10, 2006 from http://www.taser.com/.

  • TASER International. (2006). TASER non-lethal weapons: Field data as of July 2006. Retrieved on September 23, 2006 from http://www.taser.com/facts/documents/Injury_Reduction_Stats_2Q_2006.ppt.

  • Terrill, W. (2001). Police coercion: Application of the force continuum. New York, NY: LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC.

    Google Scholar 

  • Terrill, W., & Mastrofski, S. (2002). Situational and officer-based determinants of police coercion. Justice Quarterly, 19(2), 215–248.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Terrill, W., & Paoline, E. (2006) Police use of force policy types: Results from a National Agency Survey. Paper presented at the Annual Research Conference of the American Society of Criminology, Los Angeles, CA.

  • U.S. Bureau of Justice Statistics. (1999). Contacts between police and the public: Findings from the 1999 National Survey. U.S. Department of Justice.

  • U.S. Government Accountability Office. (2005). TASER weapons: Use of TASERS by selected law enforcement agencies. Report to the Chairman, Subcommittee on National Security, Emerging Threats and International relations, Committee on Government reform, House of Representatives.

  • Van Hasselt, V. B., & Romano, S. J. (2004). Role-playing: A vital tool in crisis negotiation skills training. FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin, 73(2), 12–17.

    Google Scholar 

  • Van Hasselt, V. B., Baker, M. T., Romano, S. J., Sellers, A. H., Noesner, G. W., & Smith, S. (2005). Development and validation of a role-play test for assessing crisis (hostage) negotiation skills. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 32(3), 345–361.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van Hasselt, V. B., Romano, S. J., & Vecchi, G. M. (2008). Role playing: Applications in hostage and crisis negotiation. Behavior Modification, 32(2), 248–263.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weisburd, D., & Britt, C. (2007). Statistics in criminal justice (3rd ed.). Springer Press: New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Westley, W. (1970). Violence and the police. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • White, M., & Ready, J. (2007). The TASER as a less-lethal force alternative: Findings on use and effectiveness in a large Metropolitan Police Agency. Police Quarterly, forthcoming.

  • White, M., & Klinger, D. (2009). "Contagious fire?" An empirical assessment of the "problem" of multi-shooter/multi-shot deadly force incidents in police work. Crime and Delinquency. In press. Pre-published in OnlineFirst June 24, 2008 as doi:10.1177/0011128708319581.

  • White, C. R., Carson, J. L., & Wilbourn, J. M. (1991). Training effectiveness of an M-16 rifle simulator. Military Psychology, 3(3), 177–184.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We would like to acknowledge and extend thanks to the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department (LVMPD) and especially former Sheriff Bill Young, Sheriff Douglas Gillespie, Undersheriff Rod Jett, and Assistant Sheriff Raymond Flynn for supporting this project. Also, Management Analyst Ron Shoemake, Captain Brian Greenway, Sergeant Mike Giddinge, and Officers Dan Pond, Jon Carpenter, and Scott Martine were integral to the research design and implementation of this field experiment. Additionally, we extend thanks to Jim Lynch, Garth Davies, Terance Miethe, Michael White, and Josh Hinkle for their feedback and assistance in conceptualizing the analytic strategy for this project.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Criminal Justice, University of Nevada, Las Vegas, 4505 Maryland Parkway, Box 5009, Las Vegas, NV, 89154-5009, USA

    William Sousa

  2. Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ, USA

    Justin Ready

  3. Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department, Las Vegas, NV, USA

    Michael Ault

Authors
  1. William Sousa
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Justin Ready
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Michael Ault
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to William Sousa.

Appendix 1–Description of field-training scenarios

Appendix 1–Description of field-training scenarios

Non-aggressive resistance training scenario: The vehicle stop

Start of scenario

Officers stop a driver for expired license plates. The suspect apologizes for any wrongdoing and states that he is in a rush to get to work because of a computer problem that only he can resolve.

Details

After obtaining the driver’s information and calling it in, the officers are told that the driver has an arrest warrant for battery domestic violence. The suspect complies when officers ask him to exit his vehicle and approach the car, but refuses to place his hands on the hood and becomes argumentative. When the officers move to pat the suspect down or take him into custody, the suspect refuses and attempts to get back in his vehicle stating that he has to get to work.

Suspect resistance

Suspect demonstrates non-aggressive resistance. He makes no attempt to attack or strike at the officers, but refuses verbal commands and physically tries to escape. The suspect maintains active yet non-aggressive resistance.

Aggressive resistance training scenario: The trailer park

Start of scenario

Officers respond to a call from a trailer-park manager stating that a transient matching the suspect’s description was throwing rocks at cars and windows. As officers arrive at the scene, the suspect is leaning against a wall.

Details

The suspect initially complies with the officers if they ask him to walk toward the car. (When the suspect is asked about the rocks, he states that some kids were doing it and that he chased them off). However, once the officers start to approach, the suspect states, “you’re not touching me,” runs a short distance, then turns toward the officers and takes a fighting stance. If the officers do not take action within 10 seconds, the suspect engages them with fists.

Suspect resistance

The suspect demonstrates aggressive resistance. He refuses verbal commands, threatens officers with his fists, and then aggressively engages the officers with his fists. The suspect never uses a weapon. The suspect maintains aggressive resistance.

Potentially lethal resistance-training scenario: The school yard

Start of scenario

Officers respond to a call from a teacher stating that someone matching the suspect’s description was hanging around the school playground when children were outside and was acting strangely. When they went inside, he started yelling and throwing around a trash can. As officers arrive at the scene, the suspect is walking toward a trash can.

Details

The suspect refuses all verbal commands. As officers exit the car, the suspect grabs the trash can and throws it at their car. As officers pursue, the suspect runs to a stack of cinder blocks, grabs one, holds it over his head, and threatens the officers. If the officers do not take action within 10 seconds, the suspect quickly begins to advance on the officers.

Suspect resistance

Suspect demonstrates potentially lethal resistance. He refuses verbal commands, threatens officers with a weapon, and advances on officers with a weapon.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Sousa, W., Ready, J. & Ault, M. The impact of TASERs on police use-of-force decisions: Findings from a randomized field-training experiment. J Exp Criminol 6, 35–55 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11292-010-9089-1

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11292-010-9089-1

Keywords

Search

Navigation