Despite its adoption by more than 8,000 law enforcement agencies in the United States and abroad, there is little empirical research examining use of the TASER by police officers. This article investigates the use and effectiveness of the weapon by examining all TASER deployments by police officers in a large metropolitan department during a 3-year period (2002 to 2004; n = 243). Findings indicate that the TASER was used almost exclusively against violent suspects classified as “emotionally disturbed” by emergency service officers with supervisors present. Despite use on a population perceived as being higher risk for injury, findings indicate that the TASER was effective, as 85% of suspects were incapacitated and taken into custody without further incident. The article concludes with a discussion of implications for continued use of the TASER and the need for additional research before any definitive conclusions about use and effectiveness of the weapon can be drawn.
Amnesty International. (2004). United States of America. Excessive and lethal force? Amnesty International's concerns about deaths and ill treatment involving police use of TASERs (AI Index: AMR 51/139/2004). London: Author.
2.
Bittner, E. (1970). The functions of police in modern society. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
3.
Claims over TASERs' safety are challenged. (2004, November 26). The New York Times. p. C1.
4.
Heck, J. (2003). Kinetic impact weapons: The potential for injury . Tactical Edge, Summer, 62-63.
International Association of Chiefs of Police. ( 2005). Electro-muscular disruption technology (EMDT). A nine-step strategy for effective deployment. Alexandria, VA: Author.
7.
International Electrotechnical Commission. ( 1994). Effects of current on human beings and livestock (Technical Report-Type 2, Publication 479-1). Geneva, Switzerland: International Electrotechnical Commission.
8.
Joint Non-Lethal Weapons Human Effects Center of Excellence. (2005). Human effectiveness and risk characterization of the electromuscular incapacitation device — A limited analysis of the TASER. Part 1: Technical Report. Part 2: Appendices. Brooks Air Force Base, TX: Air Force Research Laboratory .
9.
Klinger, D.A. (1995). The microstructure of nonlethal force: Baseline data from an observational study. Criminal Justice Review , 20(2), 169-186.
10.
Lurigio, A.J., Fallon, J.R., & Dincin, J. (2000). Helping the mentally ill in jails adapt to community life: A description of a postrelease ACT program and its clients. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 44(5), 532-548.
11.
McBride, D.K., & Tedder, N.B. (2005). Efficacy and safety of electrical stun guns (Potomac Institute for Policy Studies Report, Number 05-04). Arlington, VA: Potomac Institute for Policy Studies.
12.
McDonald, W.C., Stratbucker, R.A., Nerheim, M., & Brewer, J.E. (2005). Cardiac safety of neuromuscular incapacitating defense devices. Pacing and Clinical Electrophysiology, 28, 284-287.
13.
McLaughlin, V. (1992). Police and the use of force: The Savannah study . Westport, CT: Praeger.
14.
Meyer, A., & Greg, W. (1991). Nonlethal weapons: Where do they fit?: Part II . Journal of California Law Enforcement, 26(3), 53-58.
15.
Meyer, A., & Greg, W. (1992). Nonlethal weapons versus conventional police tactics: The Los Angeles Police Department experience. Unpublished dissertation, California State University, Los Angeles.
16.
Mulvey, E.P., & Fardella, J. (2000). Are the mentally ill really violent?Psychology Today, 33(6), 39-50.
17.
Newhill, C.E., & Mulvey, E.P. (2002). Emotional dysregulation: The key to a treatment approach for violent mentally ill individuals. Clinical Social Work Journal, 30(2), 157-171.
18.
Pate, A., & Fridell, L. (1993). Police use of force: Official reports, citizen complaints, and legal consequences Vol. 1. Washington, DC: Police Foundation.
19.
Seattle Police Department. (2002). The M26 TASER: Year one implementation (SPD Special Report, May 2002). Seattle, WA: Author.
20.
Study Police Department. (2000). Study police department patrol guide. Study City, CA: Author.
21.
Swanson, J.W., Holzer, C.D., Ganju, V.K., & Jono, R.T. (1990). Violence and psychiatric disorder in the community: Evidence from the Epidemiologic Catchment Area Surveys. Hospital and Community Psychiatry, 41, 761-770.
22.
TASER International. (2002). Advanced Taser M26 field report analysis. Scottsdale, AZ : TASER International.
23.
Teplin, L.A. (2000). Keeping the peace: Police discretion and mentally ill persons. National Institute of Justice Journal, July, 8-15.
24.
Terrill, W. (2001). Police coercion: Application of the force continuum . New York: LFB Scholarly Publishing .
25.
Terrill, W., & Mastrofski, S. (2002). Situational and officer-based determinants of police coercion. Justice Quarterly, 19(2), 215-248.
26.
U.S. Bureau of Justice Statistics. (1999). Contacts between police and the public: Findings from the 1999 National Survey . Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice.
27.
U.S. Government Accountability Office. (2005 ). TASER weapons: Use of TASERs by selected law enforcement agencies. Report to the Chairman, Subcommittee on National Security, Emerging Threats and International relations, Committee on Government reform, House of Representatives. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice.
28.
Walker, S., & Katz, C.M. (2002). The police in America: An introduction. New York: McGraw-Hill.
