Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day. Start a 14-Day Trial for You or Your Team.

Learn More →

Benefits, Risks, and Myths of TASER® Handheld Electrical Weapons

Benefits, Risks, and Myths of TASER® Handheld Electrical Weapons Handheld conducted electrical weapons (CEWs) have been used 3.9 million times in the field in 107 countries. Prospective studies (including over 40 k uses of force) find a 65% reduction in subject injuries versus batons, manual control, and “pepper” spray. There is a 2/3 reduction in fatal shootings when CEW usage is not overly restricted. USA-derived data suggest that the temporal subject fatality rate with resistant arrest is ≈ 1:1000 without a CEW and ≈ 1:3000 with the CEW. UK data suggest 85% compliance with simply the threat of a CEW. There have been 18 deaths from falls (16 brain injuries and 2 cervical fractures) and 8 deaths from fume ignition. These 26 deaths provide a fatality risk of 6.7 per million [95% CI 4.5–9.8]. There are 20 cases of unilateral blindness from a probe eye penetration. There were also 4 cases of non-fatal major burns and 1 of permanent brain damage from a fall. These 25 injuries provide a risk of 6.4 per million [(95% CI 4.3–9.5]. The risk of electrocution is very low since present CEWs satisfy the IEC 60335 electric fence limit of 2.5 W and the ANSI-CPLSO-17 limits of 125 μC per pulse with a normalized aggregate current of 2.2 mA. Arrest-related death anecdotes alleging an electrocution all fail several diagnostic tests for an electrocution. While reducing subject injury and death by about 2/3, CEW usage has an overall major complication rate of 13.1 per million field uses [95% CI 9.9–17.2], primarily from falls, fires, and eye injuries. http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png Human Factors and Mechanical Engineering for Defense and Safety Springer Journals

Benefits, Risks, and Myths of TASER® Handheld Electrical Weapons

Loading next page...
 
/lp/springer-journals/benefits-risks-and-myths-of-taser-handheld-electrical-weapons-msluI05z2z
Publisher
Springer Journals
Copyright
Copyright © 2019 by Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd.
Subject
Engineering; Mechanical Engineering; Structural Materials; Textile Engineering; Security Science and Technology
ISSN
2509-8004
eISSN
2367-2544
DOI
10.1007/s41314-019-0021-9
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

Handheld conducted electrical weapons (CEWs) have been used 3.9 million times in the field in 107 countries. Prospective studies (including over 40 k uses of force) find a 65% reduction in subject injuries versus batons, manual control, and “pepper” spray. There is a 2/3 reduction in fatal shootings when CEW usage is not overly restricted. USA-derived data suggest that the temporal subject fatality rate with resistant arrest is ≈ 1:1000 without a CEW and ≈ 1:3000 with the CEW. UK data suggest 85% compliance with simply the threat of a CEW. There have been 18 deaths from falls (16 brain injuries and 2 cervical fractures) and 8 deaths from fume ignition. These 26 deaths provide a fatality risk of 6.7 per million [95% CI 4.5–9.8]. There are 20 cases of unilateral blindness from a probe eye penetration. There were also 4 cases of non-fatal major burns and 1 of permanent brain damage from a fall. These 25 injuries provide a risk of 6.4 per million [(95% CI 4.3–9.5]. The risk of electrocution is very low since present CEWs satisfy the IEC 60335 electric fence limit of 2.5 W and the ANSI-CPLSO-17 limits of 125 μC per pulse with a normalized aggregate current of 2.2 mA. Arrest-related death anecdotes alleging an electrocution all fail several diagnostic tests for an electrocution. While reducing subject injury and death by about 2/3, CEW usage has an overall major complication rate of 13.1 per million field uses [95% CI 9.9–17.2], primarily from falls, fires, and eye injuries.

Journal

Human Factors and Mechanical Engineering for Defense and SafetySpringer Journals

Published: Jul 31, 2019

References