Police Use of Force and Officer Injuries: Comparing Conducted Energy Devices (CEDs) to Hands- and Weapon-Based Tactics

Eugene A. Paoline, William Terrill, Jason R. Ingram

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

24 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

The widespread adoption of conducted energy devices (CEDs) across American police departments over the last decade has been mired in public controversy. It is generally accepted, from a police perspective, that CEDs are safer for officers who can use the weapon at a greater distance, avoiding much of the harm associated with close physical struggles with citizens. Research has generally supported the notion that aggregate levels of officer injuries are reduced following the implementation of CEDs. Unfortunately, multivariate examinations that, in varying degrees, have attempted to compare CED applications to other forms of force (while controlling for rival causal factors) have yet to produce the same consistent results as the pre- and post-CED adoption studies. The current research adds to recent multivariate inquiries by using data collected as part of a national multiagency use of force project to assess the independent effect of CEDs on officer injuries. Based on a series of multivariate models, our results generally find evidence of increased benefits (i.e., lower probability of officer injury) of CEDs when used by themselves. By contrast, in some instances when CEDs were used in combination with other forms of force, there was an increased probability of officer injury. The implications of these findings for police researchers and practitioners are considered.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)115-136
Number of pages22
JournalPolice Quarterly
Volume15
Issue number2
DOIs
StatePublished - Jun 2012
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

weapon
tactics
police
energy
citizen
examination
evidence

Keywords

  • conducted energy devices
  • officer injuries
  • police
  • TASER®
  • use of force

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Social Sciences (miscellaneous)
  • Law

Cite this

Police Use of Force and Officer Injuries : Comparing Conducted Energy Devices (CEDs) to Hands- and Weapon-Based Tactics. / Paoline, Eugene A.; Terrill, William; Ingram, Jason R.

In: Police Quarterly, Vol. 15, No. 2, 06.2012, p. 115-136.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{2c73480486534a4b9d249755c5c57cca,
title = "Police Use of Force and Officer Injuries: Comparing Conducted Energy Devices (CEDs) to Hands- and Weapon-Based Tactics",
abstract = "The widespread adoption of conducted energy devices (CEDs) across American police departments over the last decade has been mired in public controversy. It is generally accepted, from a police perspective, that CEDs are safer for officers who can use the weapon at a greater distance, avoiding much of the harm associated with close physical struggles with citizens. Research has generally supported the notion that aggregate levels of officer injuries are reduced following the implementation of CEDs. Unfortunately, multivariate examinations that, in varying degrees, have attempted to compare CED applications to other forms of force (while controlling for rival causal factors) have yet to produce the same consistent results as the pre- and post-CED adoption studies. The current research adds to recent multivariate inquiries by using data collected as part of a national multiagency use of force project to assess the independent effect of CEDs on officer injuries. Based on a series of multivariate models, our results generally find evidence of increased benefits (i.e., lower probability of officer injury) of CEDs when used by themselves. By contrast, in some instances when CEDs were used in combination with other forms of force, there was an increased probability of officer injury. The implications of these findings for police researchers and practitioners are considered.",
keywords = "conducted energy devices, officer injuries, police, TASER{\circledR}, use of force",
author = "Paoline, {Eugene A.} and William Terrill and Ingram, {Jason R.}",
year = "2012",
month = "6",
doi = "10.1177/1098611112442807",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "15",
pages = "115--136",
journal = "Police Quarterly",
issn = "1098-6111",
publisher = "SAGE Publications Inc.",
number = "2",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Police Use of Force and Officer Injuries

T2 - Comparing Conducted Energy Devices (CEDs) to Hands- and Weapon-Based Tactics

AU - Paoline, Eugene A.

AU - Terrill, William

AU - Ingram, Jason R.

PY - 2012/6

Y1 - 2012/6

N2 - The widespread adoption of conducted energy devices (CEDs) across American police departments over the last decade has been mired in public controversy. It is generally accepted, from a police perspective, that CEDs are safer for officers who can use the weapon at a greater distance, avoiding much of the harm associated with close physical struggles with citizens. Research has generally supported the notion that aggregate levels of officer injuries are reduced following the implementation of CEDs. Unfortunately, multivariate examinations that, in varying degrees, have attempted to compare CED applications to other forms of force (while controlling for rival causal factors) have yet to produce the same consistent results as the pre- and post-CED adoption studies. The current research adds to recent multivariate inquiries by using data collected as part of a national multiagency use of force project to assess the independent effect of CEDs on officer injuries. Based on a series of multivariate models, our results generally find evidence of increased benefits (i.e., lower probability of officer injury) of CEDs when used by themselves. By contrast, in some instances when CEDs were used in combination with other forms of force, there was an increased probability of officer injury. The implications of these findings for police researchers and practitioners are considered.

AB - The widespread adoption of conducted energy devices (CEDs) across American police departments over the last decade has been mired in public controversy. It is generally accepted, from a police perspective, that CEDs are safer for officers who can use the weapon at a greater distance, avoiding much of the harm associated with close physical struggles with citizens. Research has generally supported the notion that aggregate levels of officer injuries are reduced following the implementation of CEDs. Unfortunately, multivariate examinations that, in varying degrees, have attempted to compare CED applications to other forms of force (while controlling for rival causal factors) have yet to produce the same consistent results as the pre- and post-CED adoption studies. The current research adds to recent multivariate inquiries by using data collected as part of a national multiagency use of force project to assess the independent effect of CEDs on officer injuries. Based on a series of multivariate models, our results generally find evidence of increased benefits (i.e., lower probability of officer injury) of CEDs when used by themselves. By contrast, in some instances when CEDs were used in combination with other forms of force, there was an increased probability of officer injury. The implications of these findings for police researchers and practitioners are considered.

KW - conducted energy devices

KW - officer injuries

KW - police

KW - TASER®

KW - use of force

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84860723391&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84860723391&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1177/1098611112442807

DO - 10.1177/1098611112442807

M3 - Article

AN - SCOPUS:84860723391

VL - 15

SP - 115

EP - 136

JO - Police Quarterly

JF - Police Quarterly

SN - 1098-6111

IS - 2

ER -