Transaction Search Form: please type in any of the fields below.
Date: April 30, 2024 Tue
Time: 12:54 am
Time: 12:54 am
Results for nonlethal weapons
5 results foundAuthor: Taylor, Bruce Title: 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 Summary: How law enforcement agencies (LEAs) manage the use-of-force by officers is perhaps one of the most important tasks that they will undertake. One weapon that has been advanced as a way to reduce injuries for officers and suspects is the Conducted Energy Device (CED). The purpose of our project, conducted from late 2006 to 2008, was to produce scientifically valid results that will inform LEA executives’ decisions regarding CED use. The goal of our study was to produce practical information that can help LEAs establish guidelines that assist in the effective design of CED deployment programs that support increased safety for officers and citizens. We conducted one of the first quasi-experiments to compare LEAs with CED deployment (n=7) to a set of matched LEAs (n=6) that do not deploy CEDs on a variety of safety outcomes, controlling for a variety of incident factors (force used by officer, time frame of incident, suspect race/gender/age, suspect resistant behavior, and suspect weapon use) and agency-level factors (agency policy on CEDs, size/density of LEA, and population density for jurisdiction). For the LEAs that deployed CEDs, we collected two years of data before CED deployment and two years of data after CED deployment. For the non-CED sites, we collected four years of data over a similar period. Overall, we found that the CED sites were associated with improved safety outcomes when compared to a group of matched non-CED sites on six of nine safety measures, including reductions in (1) officer injuries, (2–3) suspect injuries and severe injuries, (4–5) officers and suspects receiving injuries requiring medical attention, and (6) suspects receiving an injury that resulted in the suspect being taken to a hospital or other medical facility. (We refer to this last category as “hospitalization,” although we have no data on the extent to which officers or suspects who went to a hospital or other medical facility were admitted and stayed overnight, as opposed to simply receiving an evaluation or treatment and being released.) Also within CED agencies, in some cases the actual use of a CED by an officer is associated with improved safety outcomes compared to other less-lethal weapons. For five of the eight comparisons, the cases where an officer used a CED were associated with the lowest or second lowest rate of injuries, injuries requiring medical attention, or injuries officer was taken to a medical facility such as hospital or medical clinic for treatment of an injury due to a use-of-force incident requiring “hospitalization” (see comment in previous paragraph). There were no differences between the CED and the non-CED sites on the outcomes of the number of suspect deaths, officer severe injuries, and officer injuries requiring hospitalization. The evidence from our study suggests that CEDs can be an effective weapon in helping prevent or minimize physical struggles in use-of-force cases. LEAs should consider the utility of the CED as a way to avoid up-close combative situations and reduce injuries to officers and suspects. Details: Washington, DC: Police Executive Research Forum, 2009. 100p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed August 23, 2010 at: http://www.policeforum.org/upload/CED%20outcomes_193971463_10232009143958.pdf Year: 2009 Country: United States URL: http://www.policeforum.org/upload/CED%20outcomes_193971463_10232009143958.pdf Shelf Number: 116527 Keywords: Nonlethal WeaponsPolice Use of ForcePolice WeaponsStun GunsTaser Guns |
Author: Queensland. Crime and Misconduct Commission Title: Evaluating Taser Reforms: A Review of Queensland Police Service Policy and Practice Summary: Tasers were first introduced by the Queensland Police Service (QPS) in 2002, when they were allocated to the service’s Special Emergency Response Team. Following a trial in 2007–08, the QPS expanded their use into the general policing environment. In June 2009, a 39-year-old man in Brandon, north Queensland, died after being tasered by police. In response, the Minister for Police, Corrective Services and Emergency Services, the Hon. Neil Roberts MP, initiated a joint QPS–Crime and Misconduct Commission (CMC) review to ensure that QPS policy, procedures, training and monitoring processes reflected best practice. The review made 27 recommendations intended to improve policy, training and monitoring practices. It was agreed that the recommendations would be treated as interim recommendations for 12 months, subject to continuous monitoring by the QPS and the CMC. Significant policy changes represented in these recommendations included: restricting the use of Tasers to situations where there is a risk of serious injury to a person • prohibiting officers, unless in exceptional circumstances, from deploying Tasers for multiple or prolonged cycles, and against people who are handcuffed or are of particularly small body mass • emphasising the possible link identified in the literature between Taser deployments and death, particularly where multiple and/or prolonged discharges are involved or where the person has underlying health problems, is under the influence of alcohol or drugs, or has already been exposed to oleoresin capsicum (OC) spray. These policy changes were also reflected in new training initiatives. In April 2010, the then Queensland Attorney-General and Minister for Industrial Relations, the Hon. Cameron Dick MP, asked the CMC to undertake this independent evaluation. To address our terms of reference, we sought to determine: • whether each of the 27 recommendations from the QPS–CMC review has been implemented • what effects the revised policy and training have had on Taser use • how QPS officers used Tasers in the 10 months after the introduction of the revised policy, particularly in relation to risk factors identified in the literature • whether there are any emerging trends in use, including ‘mission creep’ (the tendency for police to, over time, use Tasers in situations for which they were not intended) • what monitoring and continuous improvement processes are in place in the QPS with respect to Tasers • what recent advances have been made in international best practice, and whether there are any gaps in QPS policy and practices. As the first formal review of QPS Taser use since the introduction of the revised policy and training, the CMC regarded this evaluation as a starting point that would provide baseline data for further monitoring and review. Since the QPS would necessarily be the primary source of data in the first instance, we relied mostly on information from a range of QPS sources, including a formal submission, policies, procedures and training materials, consultations with officers, and QPS Taser usage data. We will consult more widely in future reviews of Taser use in the QPS. Possible limitations of the data used in this evaluation include the potential for inaccuracies and incompleteness in the Taser usage data. The recommendations resulting from the evaluation cover a range of areas including: improving aftercare for people subjected to Taser deployment; decreasing Taser use against Indigenous people and individuals from at-risk groups; and enhancing decision making by QPS review panels ensuring QPS policy, training and procedures fully reflect best practice. Details: Brisbane: Crime and Misconduct Commission, 2011. 186p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed April 29, 2011 at: http://www.cmc.qld.gov.au/data/portal/00000005/content/51149001303357290759.pdf Year: 2011 Country: Australia URL: http://www.cmc.qld.gov.au/data/portal/00000005/content/51149001303357290759.pdf Shelf Number: 121576 Keywords: Nonlethal WeaponsPolice DiscretionPolice Use of ForceStun GunsTasers (Australia) |
Author: Police Executive Research Forum (PERF) Title: Conducted Energy Devices: Use in a Custodial Setting Summary: These guidelines for the use of Conducted Energy Devices (CEDs) in custodial settings provide protections designed to ensure that CEDs are used in custodial settings only by deputies who have been trained in their use. CEDs are to be used by these deputies only against subjects who make a sudden attack or offer active physical resistance. In making a decision about the use of a CED, deputies must consider the entire context of a situation, including factors such as the subject’s history of violence and whether bystanders are at risk. The recommended policies also call for caution and evaluation of other options before a CED is used against elderly subjects, women believed to be pregnant, and persons with apparent physical disabilities that impair their mobility. The recommended policies also require the reporting of CED activations and prohibit using CEDs as a form of punishment. The NSA envisions that continued research into CED use, such as the U.S. Department of Justice’s current study of the impact of CED use on officers and suspects, will inform the development of additional policies governing CED use. Out of the 345 sheriffs’ agencies sent the survey, 288 returned completed surveys. The survey contained a series of open-ended and closed-ended questions about agency personnel and its detention centers, followed by questions on the agency’s mission; the number of CED-type weapons possessed; when, where, and by whom the CED weapons are authorized to be deployed; the agency’s other policies regarding CED deployment; training in CED use; and lawsuits related to CED weapons. Details: Washington, DC: Police Executive Research Forum, 2009. 36p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed February 29, 2012 at http://www.bja.gov/pdf/PERFNSA_CED.pdf Year: 2009 Country: United States URL: http://www.bja.gov/pdf/PERFNSA_CED.pdf Shelf Number: 114886 Keywords: Conducted Energy WeaponsCorrections AdministrationCorrections OfficersNonlethal WeaponsPolice Use of ForcePolice WeaponsStun GunsTaser Guns |
Author: Scott, Kenneth B. Title: Research Report: Evaluation of the Strathclyde Extended Deployment of Taser Pilot Summary: In June 2009 the Chief Constable of Strathclyde Police approved the establishment of a pilot project to extend the use of Taser to specially trained officers attending operational incidents involving violence or threats of violence. The aim of the Extended Deployment of Taser (EDT) Pilot was to assess the effectiveness of deploying Specially Trained Officers (STOs), who are not authorised firearms officers, on the front-line with Taser X26 devices as an additional tactical option in operational policing situations requiring the use of force. The Pilot ran from 20 April to 20 October 2010 and thirty response officers from two sub-divisions were selected for specialist training as STOs for the purpose of carrying Taser during their regular periods of duty.This evaluation sought to determine compliance of Specially Trained Officers with the Standard Operating Procedures for the deployment of Taser and reviewed in detail both the small number of incidents in which Taser was deployed within the Pilot (see 1 below), and a number of identified incidents in which STOs decided not to deploy Taser (see 2 below). It concluded that Specially Trained Officers complied with the Procedures and adhered to the requirement to use Taser in ways which were measured, justifiable and proportionate. Details: Dundee, Scotland: The Scottish Institute for Policing Research, 2012. 5p. Source: SIPR Research Summary No. 12: Internet Resource: Accessed November 3, 2012 at http://www.sipr.ac.uk/downloads/Research_Summaries/Research_Summary_12.pdf Year: 2012 Country: United Kingdom URL: http://www.sipr.ac.uk/downloads/Research_Summaries/Research_Summary_12.pdf Shelf Number: 126866 Keywords: Conducted Energy WeaponsNonlethal WeaponsPolice Use of ForcePolice WeaponsStun GunsTaser GunsTasers |
Author: Queensland. Crime and Misconduct Commission Title: An Update on Taser Use in Queensland Summary: The current Taser policy was introduced by the Queensland Police Service (QPS) in September 2009. In April 2011, the Crime and Misconduct Commission (CMC) published Evaluating Taser reforms: a review of Queensland Police Service policy and practice, which evaluated the effects of the current policy, comparing Taser use in the eight months prior to, and 10 months after, its introduction. Overall, the introduction of the current policy seemed to have improved how QPS officers were using Tasers. Nevertheless, the CMC was concerned about some aspects of Taser use and committed to further examining these areas, including: • multiple and prolonged Taser discharges • use of Tasers against people from potentially ‘medically vulnerable’ or ‘at-risk’ groups1 • use of Tasers against Indigenous people • injuries sustained to people who are the subject of a Taser use. Since that report, the CMC has continued to monitor Taser use by the QPS, focusing in particular on the key areas noted above. Using information primarily obtained from QPS Taser Usage Reports (TURs), this paper compares the most recent data available (the two-year period between 22 July 2010 and 30 June 2012) with data from the period following the introduction of the current policy (the 10-month period between 22 September 2009 and 21 July 2010, also reported in Evaluating Taser reforms). Summary of findings • The frequency of Taser use has increased compared to the period after the introduction of the current Taser policy. In fact, Tasers are being used more frequently now than they were before the current Taser policy was introduced. • The way Tasers are being used has largely remained the same. The majority of operational Taser uses continue to involve the presentation of the Taser without actual deployment. • Uses where the Taser was deployed in both probe and drive stun modes by a single police officer during the same incident have decreased slightly. • The proportion of people that were the target of multiple and/or prolonged deployments has decreased. • Although the proportion of multiple and/or prolonged Taser discharges has decreased, more than one-quarter of people who were the target of a Taser deployment were still subjected to multiple and/or prolonged discharges. • Indigenous Queenslanders are still overrepresented among people who were the subjects of Taser use, although they remain less likely than people described as Caucasian to have the Taser actually deployed against them. • A large proportion of people who were the target of a Taser use continue to be substance-affected, and most multiple and/or prolonged Taser deployments involved people believed to be under the influence of alcohol and/or drugs. • The proportion of people who were suspected of having a mental health condition remains high and has increased slightly over time; however, the proportion of these people who were the target of an actual Taser deployment has remained stable. • There was a slight decrease in the proportion of people who were the target of a Taser deployment that sustained an injury or medical complication. • Although there was some reduction in the proportion of injuries and medical complications associated with Taser deployments, the majority of Taser-related injuries are still caused by people falling on hard surfaces while incapacitated by the Taser. Details: Brisbane: Queensland Crime and Misconduct Commission, 2012. 6p. Source: Internet Resource: Research & Issues Paper Series, No. 9: Accessed January 24, 2013 at: http://www.cmc.qld.gov.au/topics/police-and-the-cmc/police-powers-and-practice/taser-use/2011-evaluation-of-taser-reforms Year: 2012 Country: Australia URL: http://www.cmc.qld.gov.au/topics/police-and-the-cmc/police-powers-and-practice/taser-use/2011-evaluation-of-taser-reforms Shelf Number: 127380 Keywords: Nonlethal WeaponsStun GundTasers (Australia) |