Transaction Search Form: please type in any of the fields below.
Date: November 22, 2024 Fri
Time: 12:17 pm
Time: 12:17 pm
Results for police weapons
6 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: 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: Police Executive Research Forum Title: U.S. Customs and Border Protection Use of Force Review: Cases and Policies Summary: The Police Executive Research Forum (PERF) was commissioned by U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to conduct a review of the Use of Force by CBP officers and agents. This review included all CBP use of deadly force events from January 2010 through October 2012 and CBP use of force policies, equipment, tactics, and training. Sources of information were government-furnished information, equipment and materials and CBP policy documents. PERF reviewed Customs and Border Protection Use of Force Policies and 67 case files related to Customs and Border Protection agents' use of deadly force. Case files were sorted in general categories to include: firearm response to subjects armed with firearms; firearm response to rocks thrown on land; firearm response to rocks thrown on water; firearms use against vehicles; and other firearm cases. The case reviews raise a number of concerns, especially with regard to shots fired at vehicles and shots fired at subjects throwing rocks and other objects at agents. Improvements are also recommended in initial reporting, investigation, incident review, weapons, personal protective equipment, and training. Recommendations for changes in policies flow from these case reviews. Two policy and practice areas especially need significant change. First, officers/agents should be prohibited from shooting at vehicles unless vehicle occupants are attempting to use deadly force--other than the vehicle--against the agent. Training and tactics should focus on avoiding positions that put agents in the path of a vehicle and getting out of the way of moving vehicles. Second, officers/agents should be prohibited from using deadly force against subjects throwing objects not capable of causing serious physical injury or death to them. Officers/agents should be trained to specific situations and scenarios that involve subjects throwing such objects. The training should emphasize pre-deployment strategies, the use of cover and concealment, maintaining safe distances, equipping vehicles and boats with protective cages and/or screening, de-escalation strategies, and where reasonable the use of less-lethal devices. Because these changes are significant departures from current practice CBP will need to craft an implementation strategy for re-orientation and training before new policies go into effect. Consideration should be give to assembling an expert panel to interact with members of CBP from all levels of the organization for discussion about the transition to the new policies and practices. There are several areas where CBP is engaged in best policing practices. Firearms qualification occurs four times a year. According to policy, exemptions are limited. This practice is critical given the environment in which CBP officers/agents work. In addition, CBP is to be commended for implementing a new incident mapping software program. This system allows examination of use of force and other incidents at both a highly detailed level and at a more macro level. This system will provide graphic support for leaders to spot trends and make strategic changes. CBP also has produced a very useful quick-reference guide "Documenting the Use of Force." Policy changes restricting the use of deadly force against vehicles and rock throwers should be incorporated into the guide. Details: Washington, DC: Police Executive Research Forum, 2013. 21p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed June 11. 2014 at http://www.cbp.gov/sites/default/files/documents/PERFReport.pdf Year: 2013 Country: United States URL: http://www.cbp.gov/sites/default/files/documents/PERFReport.pdf Shelf Number: 132436 Keywords: Border Patrol, Use of ForcePolice Policies and PracticesPolice Use of ForcePolice Weapons |
Author: Amnesty International Title: The Human Rights Impact of Less Lethal Weapons and Other Law Enforcement Equipment Summary: Law enforcement agencies around the world regularly misuse so-called "less-lethal" weapons and equipment for torture and their use can also have deadly consequences, Amnesty International and the Omega Research Foundation said as they launched a new briefing at the United Nations Crime Congress in Doha, Qatar. The Human Rights Impact of Less Lethal Weapons and Other Law Enforcement Equipment details the medical and other risks associated with a wide range of weaponry and equipment used in policing, including crowd control during demonstrations, as well as in prisons. And it recommends stricter controls or, in some cases, bans to stem future abuses. Amnesty International and Omega acknowledge the importance of developing less-lethal weapons, equipment and technologies, to reduce the risk of death or injury inherent in police use of firearms and other existing weapons. When used responsibly by well-trained and fully accountable law enforcement officials, less-lethal weapons can prevent and minimize deaths and injuries to assailants, suspects and detainees, as well as protect the police and prison officers themselves. But such equipment can have damaging and even deadly effects if it is not used in compliance with international human rights law and standards. It can also have a particularly harmful impact on some people, including the elderly, children, and pregnant women, or those with compromised health. Amnesty International has documented how law enforcement officials commit a wide range of human rights violations using such equipment - including torture and other ill-treatment in custody, as well as excessive, arbitrary and unnecessary use of force against demonstrators. The briefing covers five categories of equipment: Restraints: thumb cuffs, fixed cuffs, leg irons and restraint chairs; Kinetic impact devices: police batons and other striking weapons, spiked batons and kinetic impact projectiles including plastic bullets, rubber bullets, baton rounds and bean bag projectiles; Riot control agents: chemical irritants such as tear gas and pepper spray, including those dispensed from fixed installation dispensers; Electric shock devices: Tasers and other projectile electric shock devices, stun batons, stun shields and body-worn electric shock equipment such as stun belts; Acoustic devices and other technologies used to disperse crowds: audible sound wave technology that emits a deterrent noise, as well as water cannon. In cases where the items have a legitimate use, the organizations recommend controls to prevent their misuse. In the case of new technology which is not yet adequately tested, suspension pending further research by independent experts is recommended. Lastly, the organizations call for prohibitions on equipment which has no legitimate purpose which cannot be achieved by safer alternatives. Less-lethal weapons and restraints have developed considerably since the adoption of some international human rights standards relevant to law enforcement. For example, since the UN Basic Principles on the Use of Force and Firearms were adopted in 1990, a range of ever more advanced weaponry and other technologies have come into use by law enforcement agencies around the world. With the exception of the USA and the European Union, the trade in security and law enforcement equipment is either unregulated or subject to laxer restrictions than the trade in conventional weapons. Amnesty International and Omega are calling for stricter controls, including a licensing system for transfers of law enforcement equipment to safeguard against its potential abuse by the end user. Details: London: AI, 2015. 30p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed April 23, 2015 at: http://www.amnestyusa.org/sites/default/files/human_rights_impact_less_lethal_weapons_doha_paper.pdf Year: 2015 Country: International URL: http://www.amnestyusa.org/sites/default/files/human_rights_impact_less_lethal_weapons_doha_paper.pdf Shelf Number: 135374 Keywords: Crowd ControlPolice Use of ForcePolice WeaponsTasers |
Author: Buchanan, Kim S. Title: Electronic Defense Weapon Analysis and Findings, 2015 Summary: In an effort to increase transparency and better understand taser 1 use, the Connecticut General Assembly passed Public Act 14-149, An Act Concerning the Use of Electronic Defense Weapons by Police Officers, in 2014. PA 14-149 directed the Police Officer Standards and Training Council (POSTC) to draft and distribute a model policy for regulating the use of tasers. This law requires that every police department adopt and maintain a taser policy that meets or exceeds the standards set by the POSTC model policy. The new law also requires police officers to document each incident in which a taser was used and for law enforcement agencies authorizing such use to report all incidents to the Office of Policy and Management (OPM), Criminal Justice Policy and Planning Division, by January 15 of the following year. The Institute of Municipal and Regional Policy (IMRP), at Central Connecticut State University, was tasked by the Office of Policy and Managements Criminal Justice Policy and Planning Division with compiling and analyzing the reported taser data for 2015. The findings and recommendations in this report are based on analysis of the data submitted by 79 police departments in 2015, including a review of policies governing the use of tasers. This was the first year in which data on taser use has been collected in Connecticut. Based on numerous factors, IMRP researchers believe the data collected is not indicative of the entirety of required incident reporting based on PA 14-149. Therefore, while the descriptive statistics presented in this report raise many questions as to how, when, why, and on whom reported taser usage occurs within law enforcement agencies, they cannot be taken to conclusively establish what is happening with respect to all law enforcement taser use in Connecticut. As such, this first year of taser findings should be interpreted with caution. Details: New Britain, CT: Central Connecticut State University, Institute for Municipal & Regional Policy, 2016. 78p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed October 7, 2016 at: http://www.ccsu.edu/imrp/projects/files/EDW.pdf Year: 2015 Country: United States URL: http://www.ccsu.edu/imrp/projects/files/EDW.pdf Shelf Number: 145110 Keywords: Electronic Control Weapons Non-Lethal Weapons Police Use of Force Police Weapons Stun Guns Tasers |