Examining the Effectiveness of TASERS ® at Gaining Citizen Compliance

Abstract

Since their emergence within the field of policing, the use of conducted energy devices (CEDs) has produced a great deal of debate. However, few empirically rigorous studies have shed light on the extent to which CEDs (e.g., TASERs) are actually successful at gaining citizen compliance. As such, we examine 918 TASER cases collected from three police agencies to assess effectiveness in relation to citizen compliance. Findings demonstrate that officers generally classify the TASER as effective, but the level of effectiveness varies depending on whether it was used in probe or drive-stun mode. Multivariate regression models also identify a number of significant variables related to TASER effectiveness, including citizen (e.g., height, weight, gender, impairment) and officer (e.g., gender) characteristics. We discuss the findings in relation to those found in prior studies, as well as implications for research, policy, and practice.

Keywords

police use of force TASER TASER mode effective effectiveness

Introduction

The number of U.S. police agencies authorizing the use of conducted energy devices (CEDs), primarily TASERs, has increased substantially over the years (Reaves, 2015), with nearly all departments now permitting their use (Kane & White, 2015). Accordingly, there has been an impressive amount of research across a number of different areas surrounding the weapon. For instance, researchers have examined TASERs with respect to frequency of use (e.g., Adams & Jennison, 2007; Brandl & Stroshine, 2017), correlates of use (e.g., Brandl & Stroshine, 2017; Gau et al., 2010), continua placement and policy effects (e.g., Bishopp et al., 2015; Crow & Adrion, 2011), media portrayal (e.g., Ready et al., 2008; White & Ready, 2009), cognitive impairment (e.g., Dawes et al., 2014; Kane & White, 2015), and proximate-related deaths (Bozeman et al., 2009; Zipes, 2012).

In addition, a number of studies have examined TASER effectiveness (e.g., Brandl & Stroshine, 2017; Kaminski et al., 2013; Lee et al., 2009; Paoline et al., 2012; Terrill & Paoline, 2012; Thomas et al., 2010; White & Ready, 2007, 2010) Prior work in this area has varied, however, in terms of what constitutes “effectiveness.” As noted most recently by Brandl and Stroshine (2017), TASER effectiveness has been conceptualized in a variety of ways, including whether the weapon is associated with fewer officer and citizen injuries, whether it lessens the need to rely on lethal force, and whether it generates compliance from resistant citizens. While assessing effectiveness in a multitude of ways may be a strength, the large majority of prior work has focused solely on injuries and lethal force.

There has been much less attention to perhaps the most straightforward measure of effectiveness—the extent to which officers themselves indicate whether TASERs were effective at gaining citizen compliance upon deployment. Moreover, much of the existing work in this area has relied on data collected from a single agency where only a fraction of officers were equipped with a TASER, thereby limiting the generalizability. This has led to a call for future research to conduct a “multisite analysis of police agencies that have incorporated the Taser into routine practices” (White & Ready, 2010, p. 97). Finally, prior studies have not delineated between the two distinct modes of TASER use (e.g., probe and drive stun) and how effectiveness varies between the modes.

Using data collected from a national use of force project, the present study seeks to add to the body of literature by examining the relationship between TASERs effectiveness in terms of citizen compliance and the potential correlates of such successful (or unsuccessful) TASER deployments. In total, we examine 918 incidents from three agencies in an attempt to more fully explore effectiveness within the context of compliance.

Prior Research

The following review focuses on studies that directly relate to TASER effectiveness. It begins with a brief discussion of the two most common ways that effectiveness has been conceptualized, which is whether the weapon reduces officer and citizen injuries, and whether it reduces the need to use lethal force. We then provide a more in-depth review of the prior literature regarding the way TASER effectiveness has been measured in relation to its ability to generate citizen compliance (see Brandl & Stroshine, 2017 and Thomas et al., 2010 for further discussion on assessing effectiveness within these three categories). In addition, we offer details related to the microdynamics of TASER usage, specifically regarding TASER mode.

Injuries

There have been a host of studies examining the relationship between TASER use and injuries. Smith and colleagues (2007), using data collected from two agencies, reported a reduced likelihood of both citizen and officer injuries in Miami-Dade, Florida, but did not find such an effect in Richland County, South Carolina (i.e., TASERs were not associated with a reduced likelihood of injuries to either citizens or officers). Assessing data collected from 12 agencies, MacDonald et al. (2009) reported that TASERs were related to a reduction in citizen injuries and found a similar effect in terms of officer injuries when examining data from Austin, Texas and Orlando, Florida. In another study, conducted by Police Executive Research Forum (PERF, 2009) across 13 agencies, researchers reported that TASERs were associated with an increased likelihood of citizen injuries, but a decreased likelihood of officer injuries. Taylor and Woods (2010), also using data from the PERF (2009) study, found similar rates of citizen injuries, but a decreased likelihood of officer injuries in TASER-equipped departments. Drawing on data gathered from the Washington State Patrol, Lin and Jones (2010) reported that citizen injuries decreased in year one of their study, but increased in year two, while officer injuries were reduced in both years. Terrill and Paoline (2012), and Paoline et al. (2012), examined data from six cities reporting that TASERs increased the probability of citizen injuries, but decreased the likelihood of officer injury. Conversely, Kaminski et al. (2013), drawing on data from one unidentified agency and arguing that TASER puncture wounds should not be considered injuries despite officers who used the TASER considering them injuries, reported that TASERs decreased the likelihood of citizen injuries. Finally, in a recent study by Womack et al. (2016) using data collected in Dallas, Texas, the authors reported that officer injuries increased after the department instituted a more restrictive policy on TASER use.

Overall, the picture on TASER effectiveness with regard to injuries remains quite unclear despite the voluminous research in this area. In terms of citizens, some studies show TASERs result in more injuries, some show TASERs result in fewer injuries, and yet others show no effect. The varying measurements used, and the extent of methodological rigor across these studies almost certainly confound such findings.

Lethal Force

Using a number of different methodologies, researchers have also considered effectiveness within the context of whether TASERs lessen the need to rely on lethal force. Lee et al. (2009) examined 5 years of data collected from 21 agencies in California finding lethal force deaths doubled in the year following agency adoption of TASERs, but then returned to pre-adoption levels in subsequent years. Sousa et al. (2010) employing an experimental design in Las Vegas, Nevada compared force behavior across three different training scenarios (varying in citizen threat level) with 32 officers equipped with a TASER and 32 officers without a TASER. When officers were faced with a “potential” deadly threat (e.g., a citizen threatened officers with a cinder block), 53.1% (17 of 32) of the officers not equipped with a TASER (control group) used lethal force compared to just 21.9% (7 of 32) of the officers equipped with a TASER (treatment group). Based on a survey of 192 police chiefs nationally, Thomas et al. (2010) found 56% of the respondents perceived (based on their subjective assessment) that TASERs reduced the need to use lethal force. Furthermore, the authors reported that the higher placement of TASERs within a force continuum structure was significantly related to fewer TASER deployments, but they did not find a significant relationship between placement and reductions in the use of lethal force. Finally, Ferdik et al. (2014) drew on scenario-based data from a survey administered by PERF of 259 agencies nationally, reporting that agencies with less restrictive use of force policies regarding the TASER experienced fewer lethal force shootings.

Overall, the evidence indicates that equipping officers with TASERs either has no effect or reduces the use of lethal force. Only the Lee et al. (2009) study found an increase in lethal force, but this increase occurred within the first year upon agencies adopting TASERs, returning to TASER pre-adoption levels in subsequent years.

Compliance

Thomas et al. (2010, pp. 294–295) note that while there has been debate regarding the relationship between TASERs and injuries, as well as to the need to use lethal force, “. . . little controversy exists regarding the ability of CEDs to incapacitate a resisting subject (see Donnelly, 2001; Meyer, 1992; Seattle Police Department, 2004; TASER International, 2002; White & Ready, 2007).” More recently, Womack et al. (2016, p. 414) in reviewing the literature state,

Recent research has deemed the TASER a useful tool for the police. White and Ready (2007) found that 85% of the citizens who received a TASER deployment in their sample were arrested without further incident following use of the TASER. In his 2009 piece, Chermak concluded that the TASER is a generally safe and effective device. During the same year, DeLone and Thompson (2009) revealed the TASER to be “overwhelmingly effective” (p. 414) in its application by a police department in the Midwestern United States.

The difficulty with this assessment is that much of the research to support such a view is limited on a number of fronts. For example, one would be hard pressed to assess Chermak’s (2009) four-page “editorial introduction” and conclude TASERs are “safe and effective.” Furthermore, with the exception of the White and Ready (2007) study, the remaining studies are of questionable objectivity (e.g., TASER International, 2002), internally generated reports (e.g., Seattle Police Department, 2004), or lack scientific rigor. For instance, DeLone and Thompson (2009) descriptively examined just 26 TASER cases in Lincoln, Nebraska, concluding that the weapon was effective in 25 of the cases, yet offer no indication as to how they came to such a conclusion. In addition, little to nothing is mentioned regarding the effectiveness of the TASER when used in either probe or drive-stun mode. Nonetheless, the three studies reviewed in the following paragraphs, each improving upon the previous in terms of methodology and rigor (albeit limited in terms of generalizability), do offer support for the conclusion that TASERs appear to be effective.

White and Ready (2007) examined 3 years of official TASER reports (N = 243) from a large, unidentified police department. As part of these reports, officers documented whether the TASER produced compliance and whether the officer was satisfied with the weapon. Nearly 85% of the officers indicated a compliance effect and 80% reported being satisfied. Although the study was a clear advancement in comparison to previous studies, there were a number of limitations. First, the only personnel authorized to use a TASER were either assigned to the Emergency Services Unit (ESU) or a supervisory Sergeant. Second, TASER use was restricted to cases involving an emotionally disturbed person (EDP; e.g., displaying signs of mental illness) or someone appearing to be under the influence of alcohol or drugs presenting a physical threat. Third, the authors were only able to provide a descriptive analysis. Finally, while the authors acknowledged the TASER comes equipped with two potential modes of use (White & Ready, 2007, p. 173), their analysis did not examine how often each mode was used or whether compliance or satisfaction varied by mode type.

In 2010, White and Ready examined 3 years of official TASER reports (N = 375) from the New York City Police Department. Similar to the 2007 study, officers reported that the TASER was effective 86% of the time and they were satisfied in 78% of the cases. The authors also looked at effectiveness in relation to the extent to which citizens continued to resist after TASER deployments, which occurred in 33% of the cases. Such resistance manifested in one of two ways: instances when citizens immediately resisted (indicating the TASER failed to produce compliance at all) and instances when citizens initially complied but subsequently resumed resisting (indicating the TASER temporarily generated compliance). Finally, White and Ready (2010) were the first to examine the correlates of TASER effectiveness (or perhaps more accurately ineffectiveness) using a series of multivariate models. While the results varied slightly based on the effectiveness outcome measure used, they found that TASERs were less effective when citizens were more than 200 pounds, displayed signs of alcohol or drug use, were physically violent toward the officer, and deployed within 3 feet. Important to note is that the authors did include TASER mode as a control variable for distance, but a discussion of mode beyond the frequency in which probe or drive stun occurred was limited.¹ Although this study offered many advancements, only ESU officers and supervisory Sergeants were authorized to use TASERs and only in cases involving EDPs or those under the influence of alcohol or drugs presenting a physical threat. As a result, generalizability is limited.

The strongest methodological study to date was conducted more recently by Brandl and Stroshine (2017), in which they examined 2 years of TASER reports (N = 245) from a large unidentified police agency.² An added strength of the study was that patrol officers (although only 25% of patrol officers were certified to use a TASER) rather than special unit officers (e.g., ESU) were equipped with TASERs and the use of the weapon was not restricted to cases involving EDPs or those under the influence of alcohol or drugs presenting a physical threat. The authors drew on two measures of effectiveness. First, when the TASER was the only type of force used, it was considered effective (given the officer did not have to rely on another form of force to gain control). Second, when the TASER was the last type of force used, it was also considered effective (given the officer did not have to use any further form of force to gain control). Considering these two outcome measures, the authors reported that the TASER was effective in more than 90% of the cases. Brandl and Stroshine (2017) went on to also assess the potential impact of numerous citizen characteristics (e.g., race, age, sex, height, weight) and behaviors (e.g., resistance, mental illness, under the influence, impairment, armed, fled on foot), as well as situational factors (e.g., number of citizens and officer present, number of officers who used force), on effectiveness using multivariate modeling (i.e., logistic regression). They found that none of the independent variables were significantly related to TASER effectiveness nor was the model significant as a whole, concluding “In essence, the TASER demonstrates a high level of effectiveness (90.2%) regardless of the situations in which it is used” (Brandl & Stroshine, 2017, p. 297). However, given that the authors never discuss TASER mode, it is unclear whether this high level of effectiveness is for both probe and drive stun.

Taken together, the available research indicates that TASERs are highly effective in terms of citizen compliance. Such a finding, however, needs to be placed within proper context. First, as mentioned above, it is difficult to assess the credibility or rigor of several studies (DeLone & Thompson, 2009; Seattle Police Department, 2004; TASER International, 2002). Second, while both studies by White and Ready (2007, 2010) examined TASER use and citizen compliance in a more comprehensive and sophisticated manner, they are limited in terms of generalizability given the officers (emergency service officers) and subjects (EDPs) examined. Third, while Brandl and Stroshine (2017) examined the broader application of TASERs by patrol officers, this study included only one agency with 25% of the officers being equipped with a TASER. Fourth, only two studies (Brandl & Stroshine, 2017; White & Ready, 2010) have assessed potential correlates of TASER effectiveness, and they have reported conflicting results. Finally, though the use of probe and drive-stun mode is operationally different, research has not yet examined how the modes may differ from one another in producing citizen compliance.

TASER Mode Deployment Dynamics

The probe-only mode for a TASER or other CED is generally viewed to be the most effective way to subdue citizens and gain compliance, as well as being the method suggested by the manufacturer (Axon, 2019; Cronin & Ederheimer, 2006). In probe mode activation, two dart-like projectiles, each connected to a wire, are ejected from the front of the device by compressed nitrogen gas (Adams & Jennison, 2007; White & Ready, 2007). These probes are designed to penetrate and stick in clothing or skin tissue. TASER activation in probe mode is designed to produce neuromuscular incapacitation (NMI), which can generally involve a fall to the ground or interrupted motor control (Adams & Jennison, 2007; Kroll, 2015; Paoline et al., 2012; Ready et al., 2008). If effective, citizens are typically physically incapacitated, while retaining cognition and memory of the event (White & Ready, 2007). When deploying a TASER in probe mode, officers are generally advised to do so at an optimum range of up to 15 ft (Cronin & Ederheimer, 2006). This is a sufficient distance to allow the probes to separate (probes should be at least four inches apart to increase the likelihood of NMI), but not so distant as to miss with the probe(s) or lack the ability to penetrate clothing.

Officers are encouraged to provide a warning to citizens prior to the deployment in probe mode to gain compliance based upon the threat of physical discomfort associated with the TASER (Cronin & Ederheimer, 2006). If the verbal and visual threat of a TASER is insufficient, officers are instructed to aim at body mass near the center of the body (Wilkinson, 2006). This aiming point is based upon the logic of wanting to avoid areas that may increase the possibility of an injury (e.g., chest, eyes), while also increasing the likelihood of one probe landing in a major muscle group such as the back or lower body, which is typically linked to greater effectiveness (PERF, 2011). Preferably, the officers deploying a TASER will have sufficient backup. Once an officer has deployed their TASER, the device should be operated for the full 5-s cycle. The deploying officer should alert fellow officers of the deployment to make other officers aware of the wires, as well as to give them an opportunity to gain physical control of a citizen (e.g., handcuffing) while that person is incapacitated (Cronin & Ederheimer, 2006; White & Ready, 2007).

Several factors are believed to influence the potential effectiveness of a probe mode TASER activation. The first issue that could limit effectiveness is the type of clothing worn by the citizen. Loose clothing prevent the probe(s) from reaching close proximity to the skin, while thick clothing may result in a probe embedding too far from the citizen’s skin. Furthermore, one or both probes may miss or lodge in an area where there is a dearth of conductive tissue such as nerves or muscle. Another issue that is believed to interrupt the effectiveness of probe mode activation is that in some instances the wires may become broken during a struggle (Axon, 2019; White & Ready, 2007). Finally, in some instances, such as in close proximity incidents, probes may penetrate too close to each other. This can actually diminish the possibility of NMI and reverts the TASER back to a pain compliance technique similar to drive-stun mode.

Drive-stun mode is unique from probe mode, in that drive-stun mode does not produce NMI, but rather is used by officers to generate compliance through the administration of pain (PERF, 2011). Since no probes are deployed in drive-stun mode, the TASER is activated by coming into physical contact with a subject (Axon, 2019; PERF, 2011). This is the “stun gun effect” in common parlance. In addition, because of the reliance on pain compliance, officers are generally trained to target areas such as the back, extremities, and the lower body (PERF, 2011). Drive-stun TASER applications may be ineffective due to citizens avoiding contact with the device (Axon, 2019), either voluntarily or through reflex actions (e.g., recoiling away from the pain).

Due to the inability to produce NMI, and the potential for subjects to recoil away, some (including the manufacturer) recommend deployment and activation in probe mode, even while in close proximity to the citizen and only after the probes have proved to be ineffective (Axon, 2019; Cronin & Ederheimer, 2006; PERF, 2011). This allows for more positive contact with the citizen (i.e., they are unable to recoil away), as well as allowing the officer to drive stun in an area of the body that is greater than four inches away from the probes. This is often referred to as an angled drive stun, which is generally capable of producing NMI (Axon, 2019).

Current Focus

The present study seeks to build on the body of literature surrounding TASER effectiveness on several fronts. First, using data from multiple agencies as part of a national use of force project, we examine the extent to which TASERs are effective as indicated by officers and under what conditions. Second, the use of three departments helps address the generalizability concerns of prior work that has examined TASER effectiveness within a single agency or a select unit within a single agency. Third, the robust sample size of TASER incidents also allows for an assessment of potential correlates of effectiveness beyond that of the prior literature. Finally, this study provides a preliminary inquiry into whether TASER effectiveness varies depending on whether the officer used the TASER in probe or drive-stun mode.

Method

Data

The data originate from the Assessing Police Use of Force Policy and Outcomes funded by the National Institute of Justice. The overall aim of the project was to identify the different types of use of force policies in operation nationally and determine whether certain types of policies offered more beneficial outcomes to police practitioners. The first phase surveyed a nationally representative sample of more than 600 police agencies detailing their use of force policies. The second stage proceeded by selecting eight agencies for further investigation over the course of a 2-year study period and included Columbus, Ohio; Charlotte-Mecklenberg, North Carolina; Portland, Oregon; Albuquerque, New Mexico; Colorado Springs, Colorado; St. Petersburg. Florida; Knoxville, Tennessee; and Fort Wayne, Indiana.³

The eight agencies chosen for the second phase met a number of key criteria. First, all agencies were medium- to large-sized departments with relatively comparable socioeconomic situations (e.g., unemployment, poverty, crime rates). Second, the selected departments all indicated no change in their use of force policy or reporting procedures for two consecutive years. Third, each agency utilized use of force reports, which is preferable when collecting and assessing a large quantity of data (see Terrill et al., 2012 for further detail on the overarching study purpose and design).⁴

In three of the eight agencies, officers documented in the agency’s use of force report whether or not they believed the TASER was effective at gaining citizen compliance (i.e., Charlotte-Mecklenberg, North Carolina; Colorado Springs, Colorado; Columbus, Ohio). These cities were also unique in that they collected a host of situational, citizen, officer, and operational (e.g., TASER mode) characteristics related to the TASER deployment. Thus, incidents involving the TASER from these three agencies are included within the present study. Importantly, all patrol officers in Colorado Springs were equipped with a TASER, while a large majority of patrol officers (over 80%) in Charlotte-Mecklenburg and Columbus were equipped with a TASER.⁵ As noted earlier, this is an expansion upon prior TASER compliance studies that utilized samples limited to only officers involved in a specialized unit (White & Ready, 2007, 2010) or with data from a department where only a quarter of officers were trained and certified to use a TASER (Brandl & Stroshine, 2017).

Dependent Variable

The dependent variable was coded from each department’s use of force report indicating whether the officer believed the TASER was effective at gaining compliance when deployed against a resistant subject (1 = effective, 0 = ineffective).⁶ While officers were given discretion to make the determination as to whether the TASER was effective, they were provided guidance to inform their decision-making. More specifically, in all three cities, officers were instructed to draw on their assessment as to whether use of the TASER was effective in terms of resulting in “subject compliance.” For instance, that the TASER permitted the officer to control the subject, quelled resistance, or take the subject into custody.⁷ Although each observation involves a single officer and single subject, the use of the TASER could involve multiple activations (e.g., cycles) and still be determined by the officer to be effective. Also important to note is that the officers reported effectiveness regardless of whether the officer used the TASER in probe or drive-stun mode.⁸ This item is also similar to those used in prior work with some variation. For example, White and Ready (2007, 2010) reported whether officers believed the TASER was effective along with their level of satisfaction, as well as whether there was further citizen resistance after deployment.⁹

Independent and Control Variables

A number of operational, situational, citizen, and officer characteristics serve as key independent variables in our analyses, all of which have been incorporated in prior studies of TASER effectiveness in relation to citizen compliance and use of force research more broadly (Bolger, 2015; Brandl & Stroshine, 2017; Terrill & Mastrofski, 2002; White & Ready, 2007, 2010); TASER mode was coded based on whether the officer identified using the TASER in either a probe or drive-stun capacity (1 = probe, 0 = drive stun).¹⁰ The highest level of citizen resistance is coded as a dichotomous variable based on whether the citizen was defensively or aggressively resistant (1 = aggressive resistance, 0 = defensive resistance).¹¹ Aggressive resistance entails a citizen attempting to attack or strike an officer, while defensive resistance includes an attempt made by a citizen to evade or flee from the police (Terrill & Paoline, 2017). Characteristics specific to the citizen included their height (coded in inches), weight (coded in pounds), gender (1 = male, 0 = female), age (coded in years), drug or alcohol impairment (1 = impaired, 0 = not impaired), and their possession of a weapon (1 = weapon posession, 0 = no weapon). With regard to officer characteristics, we include gender (1 = male, 0 = female) and years of experience in the department (measured in years). Finally, we employ a series of dummy variables to control for department, with Columbus serving as a reference category as they had the largest number of TASER cases within the sample.

In addition to these variables being included in prior research on TASER effectiveness (Brandl & Stroshine, 2017; White & Ready, 2007, 2010), there are a number of reasons why they are included in our models, although we caution the reader as to the positing nature of such. For instance, an aggressively resistant citizen could lead to missed or broken wires upon probe deployment, or the avoidance of direct contact in drive-stun mode (Axon, 2019; White & Ready, 2007). Citizen height, weight, and gender could all have an impact on effectiveness due to factors related to the strength of the individual, the size of the optimal target area, and the type of clothing a citizen may be wearing. Similarly, a citizen who is carrying a weapon may also impact an officer’s aim and ability to hit the optimal target areas in either probe or drive-stun mode. A citizen who is impaired (drugs or alcohol) may be less likely to feel the effects of NMI in probe mode and may have a higher pain tolerance when subjected to the drive stun. As for officer characteristics, officer gender and years on the job may be related to effectiveness due to the amount of experience using the TASER and the techniques that they are trained on that go along with its use.

Analytical Strategy

The current study incorporates a number of analyses using STATA 14. Due to TASER effectiveness (the outcome variable) being coded dichotomously, a series of logistic regressions are estimated. The initial multivariate model predicts TASER effectiveness and serves as a base model that includes all of the independent and control variables captured across the full sample. For each subsequent logistic regression model, the sample is split to examine the independent effects of predictors of TASER effectiveness among just probe and drive-stun mode cases.¹² The results of these analyses are discussed at length, with special attention paid to their congruence with prior TASER effectiveness literature and their overall implications for policy and practice.

Results

The descriptive statistics for the full and split sample (probe and drive stun) across the dependent, independent, and control variables are listed in Table 1. Starting with the full sample, officers across the three departments identified the TASER as being effective in 78% of deployments (ranging from 72.9% in Colorado Springs to 83.5% in Columbus as illustrated in Appendix A), while other studies have found TASERs to be effective in 85% to 90% of deployments (see Brandl & Stroshine, 2017; White & Ready, 2007, 2010). In regard to some of the independent variables, probe mode cases made up 67% of all TASER deployments. It can also be noted that aggressive resistance occurred in 51% of cases. For the remaining independent variables related to citizens, on average, they were 69.8 in tall, weighed 182.3 pounds, male (93%), impaired (50%), and 8% were reported to be carrying a weapon. As for officers, they were largely male (91%) and had an average of 7.2 years of experience.

Table 1.

Descriptive Statistics.

Variables	Full sample (N = 918)		Probe (N = 611)		Drive stun (N = 307)
Variables	M	SD	M	SD	M	SD
Dependent variable
Effectiveness	0.78	0.41	0.74	0.44	0.88	0.33
Independent variables
Probe	0.67	0.47	–	–	–	–
Aggressive resistance	0.51	0.50	0.46	0.50	0.60	0.49
Citizen height	69.81	3.24	69.91	3.21	69.60	3.29
Citizen weight	182.25	39.14	184.26	39.48	178.25	38.19
Citizen male	0.93	0.25	0.96	0.20	0.88	0.32
Citizen age	30.44	10.10	30.33	10.21	30.65	9.91
Citizen impairment	0.50	0.50	0.50	0.50	0.50	0.50
Citizen weapon	0.08	0.26	0.10	0.30	0.03	0.18
Officer male	0.91	0.28	0.92	0.27	0.90	0.30
Officer experience	7.15	5.35	7.20	5.53	7.05	4.97
Control variables
Colorado Springs	0.29	0.45	0.32	0.47	0.21	0.41
Charlotte-Mecklenburg	0.25	0.43	0.29	0.45	0.17	0.37
Columbus	0.47	0.50	0.39	0.49	0.63	0.48

Looking at the descriptive statistics for the split sample of probe and drive-stun mode, a number of differences are worthy of note. First, officers using probe mode identified the TASER as being effective in 74% of deployments compared to it being effective in 88% of drive-stun cases. Supplementary analysis through the use of a chi-square test for independence (not tabled) also found this difference to be significant (χ² = 24.69, p ≤ .001). Second, officers were more likely to use the drive stun against aggressively resistant suspects (60%) compared to the probe (46%). Furthermore, the drive stun was used slightly less against males (88%) and citizens who possessed a weapon (3%) compared to the use of probe mode against males (96%) and weapon possession (10%).

Table 2 presents the results for the logistic regression model predicting effectiveness across the full sample of 918 incidents. Beginning with the independent variables, probe (or = 0.43, p ≤ .001) has a significantly strong negative relationship with TASER effectiveness when compared against the drive-stun mode. In other words, probe mode is less effective than the drive-stun mode among the full sample. Citizen weight (or = 1.01, p ≤ .001) is also significant in that the TASER was slightly more effective as weight increased. Citizen gender demonstrated a significant negative relationship with TASER effectiveness, as the TASER was less effective when used on males (or = 0.37, p ≤ .05). In addition, TASERs were significantly more effective against those who were identified as being drug or alcohol impaired (or = 1.40, p ≤ .05). A number of the independent variables also failed to uncover a significant relationship with TASER effectiveness (e.g., citizen aggressive resistance, height, age, and possession of a weapon and officer sex and experience). Moving to the control variables (e.g., departments), cases in Colorado Springs (or = 0.63, p ≤ .05) were negatively related to TASER effectiveness when compared to Columbus, the reference category.¹³

Table 2.

Logistic Regression Predicting Effectiveness Across the Full Sample.

Variables	b	(SE)	OR
Independent variables
Probe	−0.84***	(0.21)	0.43
Aggressive resistance	−0.05	(0.18)	0.95
Citizen height	−0.04	(0.03)	0.96
Citizen weight	0.01***	(0.00)	1.01
Citizen male	−1.01*	(0.47)	0.37
Citizen age	0.01	(0.01)	1.01
Citizen impairment	0.33*	(0.17)	1.40
Citizen weapon	−0.30	(0.29)	0.74
Officer male	0.11	(0.30)	1.12
Officer experience	0.00	(0.02)	1.00
Control variables
Colorado Springs	−0.47*	(0.21)	0.63
Charlotte-Mecklenburg	−0.37	(0.22)	0.69
N	918
Pseudo R²	.06

Note. b reflects the coefficient. (SE) reflects robust standard error. OR reflects odds ratios. Columbus is the reference category.

***

p ≤ .001. **p ≤ .01. *p ≤ .05.

The results from this model stand in contrast with many of the findings from prior efforts to analyze TASER effectiveness. Although Brandl and Stroshine (2017) did not identify any significant predictors of TASER effectiveness, the present findings demonstrate that there are important correlates of TASER effectiveness. In addition, variables such as citizen weight and resistance were significant in our full sample, but in the opposite direction from what White and Ready (2010) found.¹⁴ Furthermore, prior research has largely failed to take the effects of TASER mode into consideration when attempting to explain TASER effectiveness. However, our results suggest that the use of mode (i.e., stun) is one of the strongest correlates of TASER effectiveness. This finding warrants further investigation into the relationship between TASER mode and effectiveness.

The next logistic regression, reported in Table 3, predicts TASER effectiveness across 611 cases where only probe mode was used. Significant effects were found for two of the included independent variables. Both height (or = 0.92, p ≤ .05) and weight (or = 1.02, p ≤ .001) were significant correlates in terms of probe mode effectiveness, albeit in different directions. TASER probes appear to be less effective as citizen height increases and more effective as citizen weight increases (as the full sample logistic regression also suggests). In terms of the control variables, Colorado Springs (or = 0.49, p ≤ .01) and Charlotte-Mecklenburg (or = 0.58, p ≤ .05) were significant measures of TASER effectiveness when compared to Columbus.

Table 3.

Logistic Regression Predicting Effectiveness Across Probe Only Cases.

Variables	b	(SE)	OR
Independent variables
Aggressive resistance	0.17	(0.20)	1.18
Citizen height	−0.08*	(0.03)	0.92
Citizen weight	0.02***	(0.00)	1.02
Citizen male	−1.20	(0.66)	0.30
Citizen age	0.01	(0.01)	1.01
Citizen impairment	0.29	(0.20)	1.34
Citizen weapon	−0.20	(0.32)	0.82
Officer male	−0.31	(0.38)	0.73
Officer experience	−0.01	(0.02)	0.99
Control variables
Colorado Springs	−0.72**	(0.24)	0.49
Charlotte-Mecklenburg	−0.54*	(0.26)	0.58
N	611
Pseudo R²	.07

Note. b reflects the coefficient. (SE) reflects robust standard error. OR reflects odds ratios. Columbus is the reference category.

***

p ≤ .001. **p ≤ .01. *p ≤ .05.

Next, we examined effectiveness in relation to 307 drive-stun mode cases using a logistic regression model. The results (shown in Table 4) reveal that only one of the independent variables was significantly related to TASER effectiveness. Male officers (or = 3.15, p ≤ .05) were significantly more likely to identify drive-stun mode as being effective at gaining compliance compared to female officers.

Table 4.

Logistic Regression Predicting Effectiveness Across Drive-Stun-Only Cases.

Variables	b	(SE)	OR
Independent variables
Aggressive resistance	−0.71	(0.42)	0.49
Citizen height	0.13	(0.07)	1.14
Citizen weight	−0.01	(0.01)	0.99
Citizen male	−1.48	(0.79)	0.23
Citizen age	0.03	(0.02)	1.03
Citizen impairment	0.38	(0.39)	1.46
Citizen weapon	−0.79	(0.86)	0.46
Officer male	1.15*	(0.53)	3.15
Officer experience	0.04	(0.04)	1.04
Control variables
Colorado Springs	0.80	(0.61)	2.23
Charlotte-Mecklenburg	−0.06	(0.47)	0.94
N	307
Pseudo R²	.09

Note. b reflects the coefficient. (SE) reflects robust standard error. OR reflects odds ratios. Columbus is the reference category.

***

p ≤ .001. **p ≤ .01. *p ≤ .05.

Discussion

The current study adds to the body of knowledge surrounding TASER effectiveness. A select few prior studies have used citizen compliance as the measure of effectiveness, and while insightful, there are a number of limitations given they relied on data from single agencies with very specific situations and samples of officers and have not yet examined how effectiveness varies across mode of deployment (Brandl & Stroshine, 2017; White & Ready, 2007, 2010). As noted in the “Introduction” section, this has led to calls for future research to conduct studies with agencies where routine patrol officers are equipped with TASERs (White & Ready, 2010, p. 97). We address this call by utilizing TASER data from three departments that had equipped all, or a large majority of, officers with the device and estimated a series of multivariate regression models to identify and develop potential correlates of TASER effectiveness (or ineffectiveness) both broadly and within a split sample of TASER mode. In doing so, a number of significant findings emerged.

Our findings from a series of multivariate models predicting the likelihood of effectiveness revealed that the method of deployment (probe versus drive stun) was one of the strongest correlates of ineffectiveness. For other independent variables in the full sample of cases, the TASER was less effective when used against males, but more effective as citizen weight increased and for those under the influence of drugs and alcohol. When the data were parsed out to examine probe-only cases, citizen weight was also significantly linked to increased effectiveness, while citizen height had a significant negative relationship. In drive-stun-only cases, officer gender was the only significant independent variable, with male officers being over three times more likely than female officers to report effectiveness. Here, we discuss these results in relation to other recent studies, policy implications raised, and future research directions.

Many of these findings are in contrast to guidelines given to officers regarding best practices when deploying the TASER as well as findings from recent scholarly research. In our sample, probe deployment had a significant negative relationship with effectiveness, and officers identified the drive-stun mode as being more effective at gaining citizen compliance when compared to probe mode. Officers, however, are often instructed to use the probe mode as a first option rather than the drive stun even in close proximity, due to its ability to produce NMI (Axon, 2019; Cronin & Ederheimer, 2006; PERF, 2011). In regard to other discrepant findings, Brandl and Stroshine (2017) found little evidence of citizen characteristics in relation to effectiveness, likely due to the high rate of effectiveness (90%) reported in their study agency. White and Ready (2010) found that TASERs were unrelated to citizen sex, rather weight was important—a relationship that was found in the current inquiry, albeit in a different direction. Furthermore, they found that TASERs were less effective against impaired citizens, a relationship that was again in a different direction in the present study.

From a research perspective, it is unclear whether differences in reported effectiveness are due to measurement differences across studies, the multisite nature of the current data, or the more expansive use of TASERs in the current research. Although it appears that asking those who deploy the TASER to assess its effectiveness is an appropriate outcome, perhaps alternative methods could add valuable insight. It may be useful to interview officers asking them what they expect from TASER deployment across varying situations, in different modes of implementation, and why they believed the TASER was either effective or ineffective. In the current study, only officers from Colorado Springs were asked to offer a reason why the TASER was ineffective directly on the use of force report form, leaving us with limited insight. In addition, future research could benefit by comparing TASER effectiveness in relation to other force types used in similar situations to see if TASER effectiveness is higher, lower, or similar to other force options (see also Brandl & Stroshine, 2017).

These conflicting findings may also be due to the different contexts in which TASER effectiveness was examined. Concerning impairment, in our study, over half of deployments involved citizens under the influence of alcohol or drugs, compared to about 13% for White and Ready (2010). In addition, TASER usage within White and Ready’s (2010) sample was restricted to instances that involved emotionally disturbed people. It is possible that a citizen’s comorbidity between being emotionally disturbed and under the influence of drugs or alcohol caused the TASER to be less effective. Unfortunately, we were unable to control for emotional status in the current inquiry, and these divergent findings may be related to the interaction of intoxication and mental health.¹⁵ Future research should more carefully extract how the sex, weight, impairment, and EDP status of citizens interact and relate to the effects of TASERs and the implications these interactions may have for resistance following deployment of a TASER.

The results of the current inquiry raise a number of relevant policy discussions concerning the use and effectiveness of the TASER, especially when viewed in relation to the results of prior research. In considering overall effectiveness, officers generally identified the TASER as an effective tool for gaining compliance or controlling citizens across all three departments (M = 78%, Min = 73%, Max = 83%). These numbers are in line with prior research that has examined effectiveness based on officers’ reported satisfaction with the performance of the device after its usage (78%; White & Ready, 2010). However, the sample average is lower than the 90% effectiveness rate reported by Brandl and Stroshine (2017) that used a different measure of effectiveness. From a practical perspective, the collective results to date suggest that the device is considered effective between 7.8 (current inquiry; White & Ready, 2010) and 9 (Brandl & Stroshine, 2017) times out of 10. While this range of effectiveness is high, it is important to note the focus of the current inquiry is solely on assessing the ability of the TASER to produce compliance among resistant citizens. It is beyond the scope of this body of research to infer about the appropriateness of using the TASER in any given incident.

It is also important to highlight that TASER effectiveness significantly varied in the current inquiry depending on whether the officer deployed the TASER in probe (74% effective) or drive stun (88% effective) mode. Here, differences in mode deployment dynamics are important to consider. The use of probes, which involves the shooting of darts intended to puncture the skin, is more prone to malfunction than use of a drive stun that is placed directly on the citizen. This hypothesis was partially confirmed by officers in Colorado Springs who noted that in many deployments, the TASER probes either missed the citizen, only a single probe connected, the wires broke, or it failed to puncture citizen’s skin due to heavy or baggy clothing. In situations where either the probe or drive-stun mode is viable options, our findings suggest that the use of the drive stun has a higher likelihood of resulting in citizen compliance. However, given that we were not able to account for distance in our models, we hesitate to argue that drive stun should be the preferred mode of deployment in all such instances. Future research would benefit by examining the impact of method of deployment on effectiveness by comparing similarly situated incidents.

The results for citizen gender and impairment also offer interesting policy considerations. Department policies may instruct officers to consider the characteristics of citizens when considering the TASER as a viable force option. For example, two PERF publications, one of which was released at the time these data were collected (see Cronin & Ederheimer, 2006; PERF, 2011) put together lists of CED guidelines that included recommended usage based on a number of citizen characteristics. In the current study, more than 90% of deployments occurred against male citizens. Being male, however, decreased the likelihood of effectiveness by 63%, independent of the citizens’ height, weight, age, resistance level, impairment status, and weapon possession. This may reinforce the need to alert and train officers to be ready with an alternative method of control given the likelihood of ineffectiveness when used on male citizens.

Similarly, guidelines have cautioned use of CEDs against high-risk populations, including those that are impaired by drugs or alcohol (Amnesty International, 2004; Cronin & Ederheimer, 2006; PERF, 2011). Of our three cities, only Colorado Springs incorporated such language into their policy directly. The findings here, however, do suggest that TASERs can be highly effective in controlling impaired citizens, independent of their resistance level and demographic characteristics. Thus, if gaining control of citizens under the influence is a primary concern of departments, it appears the TASER is an effective option. Again, the focus here is solely on TASER effectiveness at gaining compliance and does not address appropriateness of use. Thus, departments may wish to weigh the need to gain effective compliance of impaired individuals against considerations of appropriateness (see also Brandl & Stroshine, 2017; Cronin & Ederheimer, 2006; PERF, 2011). Finally, it is not clear to us why male officers were three times more likely than female officers to report effectiveness when using the drive stun. We are also hesitant to offer policy recommendations based on this finding given that female officers were only involved in 30 of the 307 drive-stun cases, and the drive stun was still effective in 76% of cases when used by female officers (compared to 89% for male officers).

As in any study, there are limitations that should be highlighted. First, the data are derived from use of force reports completed by the officer after the incident took place. Although this methodology is often preferable when working with large amounts of data across multiple agencies, it is reasonable to suspect that an officers’ recount (or reporting) of an event could be different than how it played out in reality. For instance, an officer’s judgment regarding a citizen’s height and weight is left to the officer’s discretion when filing the report. Future research could utilize systematic social observations or body camera footage to cross-check the authenticity of use of force reports. Similarly, departments also varied on what information or variables were captured on their use of force reports. This lack of uniformity precluded the inclusion of other relevant correlates identified by prior research (e.g., EDP status, distance, seasonality) that were not captured by all of our included study departments.

Despite these limitations, the collective results indicate that the use of a TASER can be an effective, but not fail proof tool. One surprising aspect that arises when evaluating the current results in relation to prior research is the number of discrepant findings. While we have highlighted these differences here in an attempt to synthesize recent research on the issue and to generate general policy recommendations, it would be misguided to offer concrete conclusions at this stage. One must use caution when interpreting results based on this one study, just as caution must be used when assessing findings from prior studies in this area, especially given the limited methodological rigor and generalizability concerns raised in such. Instead, we advocate for further developments in TASER usage research (especially in regards to mode of deployment) aimed at creating a sound body of scientific evidence that can inform policy and practice. Although the TASER may no longer garner the attention it once did from police researchers, it remains an understudied use of force weapon with a substantial impact on police–citizen relations.

Footnotes

Appendix

Appendix A.

Effectiveness by Department.

	Department
Effective n (%)	Colorado Springs	Charlotte-Mecklenburg	Columbus	Total
Yes	191 (72.90%)	170 (75.22%)	359 (83.49)	720 (78.43%)
No	71 (27.10%)	56 (24.78%)	71 (16.51)	198 (21.57%)
Total	262	226	430	918 (100.00%)

Authors’ Note

Points of view are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This article is based on data from the Assessing Police Use of Force Policy and Outcomes Project, supported by Grant No. 2005-IJ-CX-0055 by the National Institute of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice.

ORCID iD

Logan J. Somers

Notes

Author Biographies

Logan J. Somers is a graduate student in the School of Criminology and Criminal Justice at Arizona State University. His research centers on police use of force, culture, and experience.

William Terrill is the associate dean in the Watts College of Public Service and Community Solutions, and a professor in the School of Criminology and Criminal Justice at Arizona State University. His research centers on police behavior, with an emphasis on police use of force and police culture.

Michael T. Rossler is an assistant professor in the Department of Criminal Justice Sciences at Illinois State University. His research interests include outcomes of police-citizen encounters, as well as police education, recruitment, and training. He holds a PhD in criminal justice from Michigan State University.

Jason R. Ingram is an associate professor in the Department of Criminal Justice and Criminology at Sam Houston State University. His research interests include police culture, police supervision, and police strategies to reduce crime.

References

Adams

Jennison

(2007). What we do not know about police use of TASERs^TM. Policing: An International Journal of Police Strategies and Management, 30(3), 447–465.

Amnesty International. (2004). Excessive and lethal force? Amnesty International’s concerns about deaths and ill treatment involving police use of TASERs.

Axon. (2019). TASER X26 operation. https://help.axon.com/hc/en-us/categories/202957148-TASER-X26

Bishopp

S. A.

Klinger

D. A.

Morris

R. G.

(2015). An examination of the effect of a policy change on police use of TASERs. Criminal Justice Policy Review, 26(7), 727–746.

Bolger

P. C.

(2015). Just following orders: A meta-analysis of the correlates of American police officer use of force decisions. American Journal of Criminal Justice, 40(3), 466–492.

Bozeman

W. P.

Barnes

D. G.

Jr. Winslow

J. E.

III. Johnson

J. C.

III. Phillips

C. H.

Alson

(2009). Immediate cardiovascular effects of the TASER X26 conducted electrical weapon. Emergency Medicine Journal, 26(8), 567–570.

Brandl

S. G.

Stroshine

M. S.

(2017). Oleoresin capsicum spray and TASERs: A comparison of factors predicting use and effectiveness. Criminal Justice Policy Review, 28(3), 279–306.

Chermak

(2009). Conducted energy devices and criminal justice policy. Criminology & Public Policy, 8(4), 861–864.

Cronin

J. M.

Ederheimer

J. A.

(2006). Conducted energy devices: Development of standards for consistency and guidance—The creation of national CED policy and training guidelines. Police Executive Research Forum.

10.

Crow

Adrion

(2011). Focal concerns and police use of force: Examining the factors associated with TASER use. Police Quarterly, 14(4), 366–387.

11.

Dawes

D. M.

J. D.

Vincent

A. S.

Nystrom

P. C.

Moore

J. C.

Steinberg

L. W.

Miner

J. R.

(2014). The neurocognitive effects of simulated use-of-force scenarios. Forensic Science, Medicine, and Pathology, 10(1), 9–17.

12.

DeLone

Thompson

(2009). The application and use of TASERs by a Midwestern police agency. International Journal of Police Science & Management, 11(4), 414–428.

13.

Donnelly

(2001). Less lethal technologies: Initial prioritisation and evaluation. Great Britain Home Office.

14.

Ferdik

Kaminski

Cooney

Sevigny

(2014). The influence of agency policies on conducted energy device use and police use of lethal force. Police Quarterly, 17(4), 328–358.

15.

Gau

J. M.

Mosher

Pratt

T. C.

(2010). An inquiry into the impact of suspect race on police use of TASERs. Police Quarterly, 13(1), 27–48.

16.

Kaminski

R. J.

Engel

R. S.

Rojek

Smith

M. R.

Alpert

(2013). A quantum of force: The consequences of counting routine conducted energy weapon punctures as injuries. Justice Quarterly, 32(4), 598–625.

17.

Kane

R. J.

White

M. D.

(2015). TASER exposure and cognitive impairment. Criminology & Public Policy, 15(1), 1–29.

18.

Kroll

(2015). Conducted electrical weapon drive-stun mode: Skin rub vs. injection. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/275035976_Conducted_Electrical_Weapon_Drive-Stun_Mode_Skin_Rub_vs_Injection/

19.

Lee

B. K.

Vittinghoff

Whiteman

Park

Lau

L. L.

Tseng

Z. H.

(2009). Relation of TASER (electrical stun gun) deployment to increases in in-custody sudden deaths. American Journal of Cardiology, 103(6), 877–880.

20.

Lin

Y. S.

Jones

T. R.

(2010). Electronic control devices and use of force outcomes: Incidence of severity of use of force, and frequency of injuries to arrestees and police officers. Policing: An International Journal of Police Strategies and Management, 33(1), 152–178.

21.

MacDonald

J. M.

Kaminski

R. J.

Smith

M. R.

(2009). The effect of less-lethal weapons on injuries in police use-of-force events. American Journal of Public Health, 99(12), 2269–2274.

22.

Meyer

(1992). Nonlethal weapons vs. conventional police tactics: Assessing injuries and liabilities. Police Chief, 59(8), 10–18.

23.

Paoline

E. A. I. I. I.

Terrill

Ingram

J. R.

(2012). Police use of force and officer injuries: Comparing conducted energy devices (CEDs) to hands- and weapon-based tactics. Police Quarterly, 15(2), 115–136.

24.

Police Executive Research Forum. (2009, September). 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. Police Executive Research Forum. https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/237965.pdf

25.

Police Executive Research Forum. (2011, March). Electronic control weapon guidelines. Police Executive Research Forum. https://www.policeforum.org/assets/docs/Free_Online_Documents/Use_of_Force/electronic%20control%20weapon%20guidelines%202011.pdf

26.

Ready

White

Fisher

(2008). Shock value: A comparative analysis of news reports and official police records on TASER deployments. Policing: An International Journal of Police Strategies and Management, 31(1), 148–170.

27.

Reaves

B. A.

(2015). Local police departments, 2013: Personnel, policies, and practices. Bureau of Justice Statistics, U.S. Department of Justice.

28.

Seattle Police Department. (2004). Seattle Police Department TASER use and deployment fact sheet.

29.

Smith

M. R.

Kaminski

R. J.

Rojek

Alpert

G. P.

Mathis

(2007). The impact of conducted energy devices and other types of force and resistance on police and suspect injuries. Policing: An International Journal of Police Strategies and Management, 30, 443–443.

30.

Sousa

Ready

Ault

(2010). The impact of TASERs on police use-of-force decisions: Findings from a randomized field-training experiment. Journal of Experimental Criminology, 6(1), 35–55.

31.

TASER International. (2002). Advanced TASER M26 field report analysis.

32.

Taylor

Woods

T. J.

(2010). Injuries to officers and suspects in police use-of-force cases: A quasi-experimental evaluation. Police Quarterly, 13(3), 260–289.

33.

Terrill

Mastrofski

S. D.

(2002). Situational and officer-based determinants of police coercion. Justice Quarterly, 19(2), 101–134.

34.

Terrill

Paoline

E. A. I. I. I.

(2012). Conducted energy devices (CEDs) and citizen injuries: The shocking empirical reality. Justice Quarterly, 29(2), 153–182.

35.

Terrill

Paoline

E. A. I. I. I.

Ingram

(2012, February). Final technical report draft: Assessing police use of force policy and outcomes. National Institute of Justice. https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/237794.pdf

36.

Terrill

Paoline

I. I. I. E. A.

(2017). Police use of less lethal force: Does administrative policy matter? Justice Quarterly, 34(2), 193–216.

37.

Thomas

K. J.

Collins

P. A.

Lovrich

N. P.

(2010). Conducted energy device use in municipal policing: Results of a national survey on policy and effectiveness assessments. Police Quarterly, 13(3), 290–315.

38.

White

Ready

(2007). The TASER as a less lethal force alternative: Findings on use and effectiveness in a large metropolitan police agency. Police Quarterly, 10(20), 170–191.

39.

White

Ready

(2009). Examining fatal and nonfatal incidents involving the TASER. Criminology & Public Policy, 8(4), 865–891.

40.

White

Ready

(2010). The impact of the TASER on suspect resistance: Identifying predictors of effectiveness. Crime & Delinquency, 56(1), 70–102.

41.

Wilkinson

D. I.

(2006). Supplement to HOSDB evaluations of TASER devices: A collection of medical evidence and other source material. Home Office Scientific Branch.

42.

Womack

V. G.

Morris

R. G.

Bishopp

S. A.

(2016). Do changes in TASER use policy affect police officer injury rates? Police Quarterly, 19(4), 410–434.

43.

Zipes

D. P.

(2012). Sudden cardiac arrest and death following application of shocks from a TASER electronic control device. Circulation, 125(20), 2417–2422.