Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Police shootings after electrical weapon seizure: homicide or suicide-by-cop

  • Original Article
  • Published:
International Journal of Legal Medicine Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

Risks of handheld electrical weapons include head impact trauma associated with uncontrolled falls, ocular probe penetration injuries, thermal injuries from the ignition of volatile fumes, and weapon confusion police-involved shooting. There is also an uncommon but critical risk of a shooting after a subject gained control of an officer’s electrical weapons.

Methods

The authors searched for police shooting incidents involving loss of control of TASER® weapons via open-source media reports, crowd-sourced internet sites, litigation filings, and a survey of Axon law-enforcement master instructors.

Results

The authors report 131 incidents of subjects attempting to or gaining control of an officer’s electrical weapon from 2004 to 2020, 53 of which resulting in a shooting. These incidents demonstrated a risk of 11.8 shootings per million electrical weapon discharges (95% confidence limits of 9.0 to 15.1 per million by Wilson score interval).

Conclusions

The use of electrical weapons presents a rare but real risk of injury and death from a shooting following a subject’s attempts to gain control of the weapon.

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

Data availability

Raw data at: https://www.dropbox.com/s/i30ywplog16ioto/Grab%20then%20Shooting%20Worksheet%2019%20Jan%202021.xlsx?dl=0

Code availability

NA

References

  1. Taylor B, Woods DJ (2010) Injuries to officers and suspects in police use-of-force cases: a quasi-experimental evaluation. Police Q 13(3):260–289

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. F. V. Ferdik, R. J. Kaminski, M. D. Cooney, and E. L. Sevigny. The influence of agency policies on conducted energy device use and police use of lethal force. Police Quarterly, vol. 17, pp. 328–358, Dec 2015 2014. https://doi.org/10.1177/1098611114548098.

  3. Kroll M, Brave M, Pratt H, Witte K, Kunz S, Luceri R (2019) Benefits, risks, and myths of TASER® handheld electrical weapons. Hum Factors Mechanical Eng Defense Safety. 3, no. 1, 7

  4. Criscione JC, Kroll MW (2014) Incapacitation recovery times from a conductive electrical weapon exposure. Forensic Sci Med Pathol 10(2):203–207. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12024-014-9551-x

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Ho J, Dawes D, Miner J, Kunz S, Nelson R, Sweeney J (2012) Conducted electrical weapon incapacitation during a goal-directed task as a function of probe spread. Forensic Sci Med Pathol 8(4):358–366. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12024-012-9346-x

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. J. Ho et al (2020) A comparative study of conducted electrical weapon incapacitation during a goal-directed task Forensic Sci Med Pathol. 1-9

  7. Kroll MW, Adamec J, Wetli CV, Williams HE (2016) Fatal traumatic brain injury with electrical weapon falls. J Forensic Leg Med 43:12–19. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jflm.2016.07.001

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Kroll M, Ritter M, Williams H (2017) Fatal and non-fatal burn injuries with electrical weapons and explosive fumes. J Forensic Leg Med. 50:6–11

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Kroll MW et al (2018) Eye injuries from electrical weapon probes: incidents, prevalence, and legal implications. J Forensic Leg Med 55:52–57. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jflm.2018.02.013

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Kroll MW et al (2019) Eye injury from electrical weapon probes: mechanisms and treatment. Am J Emerg Med 37(3):427–432. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajem.2018.06.004

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Clarke C, Andrews SP (2014) The ignitability of petrol vapours and potential for vapour phase explosion by use of TASER(R) law enforcement electronic control device. Sci Justice 54(6):412–420. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scijus.2014.04.004

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. J. A. Martin, Applied human error theory: a police taser-confusion shooting case study, in Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting, 2016, vol. 60, no. 1: SAGE Publications Sage CA: Los Angeles, CA, pp. 475–479.

  13. Farber B (2012) Weapon confusion and civil liability. AELE Monthly Law J 6:101–111

    Google Scholar 

  14. Harrell E, Davis E (2020) Contacts between police and the public, 2018 - statistical tables, US Department of Justice Office of Justice Programs Bureau of Justice Statistics Special Report. NCJ 255730. pp. 1–14

  15. Duffin, Number of arrests for all offenses in the United States from 1990–2019, Statista, 2020. [Online]. Available: www.statista.com/statistics/191267/arrest-rate-for-all-offenses-in-the-us-since-1990/. Accessed 29 June 2021

  16. Brave M (2020) Law enforcement use-of-force “standards,” degrees of certainties, and scientific reliabilities. Government liability, for the defense vol. June, Table 1. Comparative Use-of-Force Frequencies, pp. 24–30

  17. Ross DL (2011) Myths and realities of the police use of force. Law Enforcement Exec Forum J. 1–28, 2011.

  18. Hickman MJ, Strote JN, Scales RM, Parkin WS, Collins PA (2020) Police use of force and injury: multilevel predictors of physical harm to subjects and officers. Police Q. 1098611120972961

  19. FBI Law enforcement officers killed and assaulted in the line of duty. Criminal Justice Information Services, 2019. [Online]. Available: https://www.fbi.gov/services/cjis/ucr/leoka. Accessed 29 June 2021

  20. Brewer J, Kroll M (2009) Field statistics overview IN TASER conducted electrical weapons: physiology, pathology, and law, M. Kroll and J. Ho Eds. New York City: Springer-Kluwer, ch. 24.

  21. Stevenson R, Drummond-Smith I (2020) Medical implications of conducted energy devices in law enforcement J Forensic Leg Med. 101948

  22. Strote J, Walsh M, Angelidis M, Basta A, Hutson HR (2010) Conducted electrical weapon use by law enforcement: an evaluation of safety and injury. J Trauma 68(5):1239–1246. https://doi.org/10.1097/TA.0b013e3181b28b78

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Bennet J (2018) Weapon retention and disarming in Integrated Force Options. Charleston, IL. , 2018, ch. 12.

  24. Harbison J (2009) Real world weapon retention. PoliceMag.com

  25. Siegfried M (2008) TASER defense. PoliceMag.com

  26. Siddle BK (2017) Weapon retention/disarming in Threat pattern recognition, use of force manual. Millstadt, IL: Human Factor Research Group, Inc, ch. 11

  27. Callahan JM (2015) Lethal force and the objective reasonable officer: law, liability, policy, tactics, and survival. Looseleaf Publisher, Flushing, NY

    Google Scholar 

  28. Use of force and de-escalation options for gaining compliance, Georgia Public Safety Training Center Bulletins, 2017. [Online]. Available: https://www.gapost.org/pdf_file/Use_Force_De-escal_POI_021717.pdf. Accessed 29 June 2021

  29. Weapon retention—are you prepared?, Florida sheriffs risk management find safety bulletins, 2016. [Online]. Available: https://fsrmf.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/FSRMF-1263-Weapon-Retention-Hot-Topic-Flyer-v4.pdf. Accessed 29 June 2021

  30. Bragg B (2003) Disarming. Police Mag.com

  31. Tennessee v. Garner, 471 U.S. 1, 105 S. Ct. 1694, 85 L. Ed. 2d 1 (1985),” ed.

  32. TASER handheld CEW warnings, instructions, and information: law enforcement. Axon Enterprise, Inc. October 30, 2018.

  33. State v. Carter, 311 Kan. 206, 459 P.3d 186 (2020). ed.

  34. Eberhartv. State, 307 Ga. 254, 835 S.E.2d 192 (2019). ed.

  35. State v. Copeland, No. S20A0820, 2020 WL 6385798 (Ga. Nov. 2, 2020). ed.

  36. Harper v. McAndrews, No. 2:18-CV-00520-RSP, 2020 WL 6545134 (E.D. Tex. Nov. 6, 2020). ed.

  37. Cantu v. City of Dothan, Alabama, 974 F.3d 1217 (11th Cir. 2020). ed

  38. Goncalves R (2016) Test report of electroshock weapon, SPARK. Federal testing Laboratory WTL, https://www.dropbox.com/s/ipwa9316vtsfjnq/Goncalves%20Bench%20Test%20report%20on%20Condor%20Spark%202016.pdf?dl=0. Accessed 29 June 2021

Download references

Acknowledgements

We wish to thank Lamar Cousins, AXON Training Manager, for his help with the survey.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. California Polytechnical Institute, San Luis Obispo, CA, USA

    Mark W. Kroll

  2. Valdosta State University, Valdosta, GA, USA

    Darrell L. Ross

  3. LAAW International, LLC, Scottsdale, AZ, USA

    Michael A. Brave

  4. School of Criminal Justice & Criminology, Texas State University, San Marcos, TX, USA

    Howard E. Williams

Authors
  1. Mark W. Kroll
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Darrell L. Ross
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Michael A. Brave
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Howard E. Williams
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

MWK and MAB were primary writers. HEW collected the data. DLR edited.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Mark W. Kroll.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval

NA

Consent to participate

NA

Consent for publication

NA

Conflict of interest

MWK is a member of the Axon Enterprise, Inc. (Axon) Corporate Board and their Science & Medical Committee, owns stock and has been an expert witness for them. MAB is an Axon employee and legal advisor to the SMAB, has been an expert witness for them, and has stock options. HEW is a retired police chief. MWK, MAB, DLR, and HEW have been expert witnesses in other use-of-force involved incidents and legal proceedings.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Kroll, M.W., Ross, D.L., Brave, M.A. et al. Police shootings after electrical weapon seizure: homicide or suicide-by-cop. Int J Legal Med 135, 2547–2554 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00414-021-02648-2

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00414-021-02648-2

Keywords

Search

Navigation