Incapacitation recovery times from a conductive electrical weapon exposure
- 241 Downloads
Law enforcement officers expect that a TASER® CEW (Conducted Electrical Weapon) broad-spread probe exposure will temporarily incapacitate a subject who will then be able to immediately (~1 s delay) recover motor control in order to comply with commands. However, this recovery time has not been previously reported.
A total of 32 police academy students were exposed to a very broad-spread 5 s CEW stimulus as part of their training and told to depress a push-button as soon as they sensed the stimulus. A subgroup also depressed the push-button after being alerted by an audio stimulus.
The response time after the audio trigger was 1.05 ± 0.25 s; the median was 1.04 s (range 0.69–1.34 s). For the paired CEW triggered group the mean response time was 1.41 ± 0.61 s with a median of 1.06 s (range 0.92–2.18 s), which was not statistically different. Only 2/32 subjects were able to depress the button during the CEW exposure and with delays of 3.09 and 4.70 s from the start. Of the remaining 30 subjects the mean response time to execute the task (once the CEW exposure ended) was 1.27 ± 0.58 s with a median of 1.19 s (range 0.31–2.99 s) (NS vs. the audio trigger).
With a very-broad electrode spread, a CEW exposure could prevent or delay some purposeful movements. Normal reaction times appear to return immediately (~1 s) after the CEW exposure ceases.
KeywordsForce TASER Weapon CEW ECD ESW CED Law enforcement
The analysis was conducted for the Joint Non-Lethal Weapons Program by The Texas Engineering Extension Service and The Texas Engineering Experiment Station (Department of Biomedical Engineering), both within the Texas A&M University System.
Conflict of interest
The authors have no financial involvement with the Funding agency. MWK has financial involvement with the CEW manufacturer but they had no financial involvement in either the study or the manuscript.
- 10.Vilke G, Chan T, Sloane C, Neuman T, Castillio E, Kolkhorst F. The effect of TASER on cardiac, respiratory and metabolic physiology in human subjects. NIJ Report. 2011. p. 1–28. https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/236947.pdf.
- 14.Taylor B, Woods D, Kubu B, Koper C, Tegeler B, Cheney J, et al. Comparing safety outcomes in police use-of-force cases for law enforcement agencies that have deployed conducted energy devices and a matched comparison group that have not: a quasi-experimental evaluation. Police Executive Research Forum. 2009. http://www.policeforum.org/library/use-of-force/CED%20outcomes.pdf.
- 16.White M, Ready J. The TASER as a less lethal force alternative. Findings on use and effectiveness in a large metropolitan police agency. Police Q. 2007;10(2):170–91.Google Scholar
- 17.Brewer J, Kroll M. Field statistics overview. In: Kroll M, Ho J, editors. TASER conducted electrical weapons: physiology, pathology, and law. New York City: Springer-Kluwer; 2009.Google Scholar
- 18.Mesloh C, Henych M, Wolf R. Less lethal weapon effectiveness, use of force, and suspect & officer injuries: a five-year analysis. Report to the National Institute of Justice. 2008.Google Scholar
- 20.McQueen v. Johnson, 506 Fed. Appx. 909, 913 (C.A.11 (Fla.) 5 Feb 2013.Google Scholar
- 21.State of Louisiana vs. Scott. A. Nugent. Eighth Judicial District Court, State of Louisiana, Parish of Winn. Oct 30, 2010.Google Scholar