Abstract
Despite training and field experience that the location and spread between conducted electrical weapon (CEW) probes is important in establishing incapacitation, there have been no human studies which have systematically examined the relationships between probe spread and incapacitation. We have investigated this relationship with the TASER® X26. We have also developed and validated methodologies for prospective assessment of the effectiveness of CEWs in the incapacitation of highly motivated human subjects. Subjects (n = 30) had probes placed on the front or back with randomly varied spreads in accordance with recommended targeting zones. Subjects were motivated to complete the task of disabling the device or a dummy officer suspended ten feet away during the exposure while using a training knife. Subjects were rated on their progress toward goal success and on the extent of any incapacitation using two separate observer scoring panels: one consisting of experts in physiology and X26 technology, and another of veteran peace officers. Incapacitation by all measures was found to be a function of spread; generally increasing in effectiveness up to spreads between 9 and 12 in. There were notable differences between front and back exposures, with front exposures not leading to full incapacitation of the upper extremities regardless of probe spread. This is the first published study on a quantitative methodology for directly assessing the effectiveness of CEWs in human incapacitation. We have also validated and quantified for the first time in human subjects that establishing a minimal spread between X26 probes correlates to the extent of device effectiveness.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Beason C, Jauchem J, Clark D, Parker J, Fines D. Pulse variations of a conducted energy weapon (similar to the TASER® X26 device): effects on muscle contraction and threshold for ventricular fibrillation. J Forensic Sci. 2009;54(5):1113–8.
Sweeney JD. Transcutaneous muscle stimulation. In: Kroll MW, Ho JD, editors. TASER conducted weapons: physiology, pathology, and law. New York: Springer; 2009. p. 51–62.
Panescu D, Stratbucker RA. Current flow in the human body. In: Kroll MW, Ho JD, editors. TASER conducted weapons: physiology, pathology, and law. New York: Springer; 2009. p. 63–84.
Reilly J, Diamant A, Comeaux J. Dosimetry considerations for electrical stun devices. Phys Med Biol. 2009;54:1319–35.
Sun H, Webster J. Estimating neuromuscular stimulation within the human torso with TASER® stimulus. Phys Med Biol. 2007;52:6401–11.
McNair PJ, Depledge J, Brettkelly M, Stanley SN. Verbal encouragement: effects on maximum effort voluntary muscle action. Br J Sports Med. 1996;30:243–5.
Tod D, Iredale F, Gill N. ‘Psyching-Up’ and muscular force production. Sports Med. 2003;33(1):47–58.
White M, Ready J. The impact of the TASER on suspect resistance. Identifying predictors of effectiveness. Crime and Delinquency. 2010;56(1):70–102.
TASER® X26 User Certification Course, Version 18.
Workman D. Cons teaching cons how to defeat Tasers. http://www.gunweek.com/2005/taser0901.html. Accessed 6 Feb 2012.
Acknowledgments
We would like to thank the peace officers who were part of our panel.
Conflict of interest
TASER International, Inc. provided funding and material support for this study. Dr. Ho is the medical director for TASER. Dr. Dawes is a consultant to TASER and Dr. Sweeney is a member of the TASER Scientific and Medical Advisory Board. Drs. Ho and Dawes own shares of stock in the company. Drs. Miner and Kunz, and Ms. Nelson have no conflicts to declare.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Ho, J., Dawes, D., Miner, J. et al. Conducted electrical weapon incapacitation during a goal-directed task as a function of probe spread. Forensic Sci Med Pathol 8, 358–366 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12024-012-9346-x
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12024-012-9346-x