1

Conducted Energy Devices (CEDs) and Police Officer InjuriesBy: Michael Prokop

CJS 287 Independent Study

Dr. Ingram

Fall 2014

2

Police Discretion in Situations with Use of Force

Police face the issue of use of force every day when they put on their uniform. Different

situations may arise where officers need to gain compliance from unwilling subjects. When this

happens, the police may need to resort to force to take control of the situation. The officers may

use physical force or weapons based tactics. The tool an officer uses depends on the kind of

situation they are facing. If the situation is extremely dangerous and deadly force must be used,

police officers use their firearm. In non-deadly situations, police officers can use their baton,

pepper spray or the tool that is the main focus of this paper, a conducted energy device (CED) or

more commonly known as the Taser. CED’s have become very popular among police

departments, but how effective are they? This paper will examine two main issues involving

Tasers. The first issue is related officer injury to use of a CED. This is basically examining the

likelihood of an officer injury as the result of using a CED. This can either be from the device

itself, the device failing to work or the device being ineffective on the suspect or criminal. The

second issue will address the effectiveness of CED’s when being used on criminals or suspects.

Before looking into these two issues, it is important to understand the background on CEDs and

how they function.

3

Background

Conductive energy devices (CEDs) , commonly referred to as a Taser, are being used by

law enforcement agencies throughout the USA as a less lethal use-of-force method of gaining

control of suspects, especially those possessing a weapon, displaying physical aggression,

showing non-compliance and verbal resistance, or being disorderly while under the influence of

illicit drugs (Annest, Haileyesus & Mercy, 2011). Approximately thirty five years ago, NASA

scientist Jack Cover developed the TASER, an acronym for a device used by the hero in the 1911

fictional adventure story, “Thomas A. Swift’s Electric Rifle.” Its technology was basically

unnoticed for the first decade. Most likely, the public would have been unaware of these devices

prior to 2000 had it not been for the infamous Rodney King incident which brought widespread

media attention to the Los Angeles Police Department’s use of a conducted energy device

(Frasier, 2005).

There are competitors to TASER, including Stinger Systems and and Law Enforcement

Associates, but TASER dominates the market, with approximately ninety-five percent of stun

device sales in the United States (Ready & White, 2007). More than 11,000 US law enforcement

agencies (mainly police departments but also prison and jail agencies) are reported to use Tasers

or similar devices (Amnesty, 2007).

The use of CED’s and Tasers has been on the rise in the past decade. Tasers have been in

use for over twenty years by law enforcement agencies. However, earlier versions of the device

were widely seen as unreliable and not very accurate. In addition, the optimal distance for use

was short, about six feet. The M26 Taser is intended to provide officers with a force option to

4

help in overcoming a subject’s combative intent, physical resistance, and/or assaultive behavior;

in disabling or subduing persons bent on harming themselves or others; or in providing self-

defense (SPD 2002).

When an officer decides the use of a Taser is necessary in that particular situation, the

officer will go to their duty belt and take out the Taser. Now the officer has to decide how they

are going to use the Taser because it has two functions. CEDs can be used in ‘drive stun’ mode

(i.e., directly pressing against the subject) or ‘projectile/probe mode (i.e., two barbed probes are

projected into the subject and energy is transferred). When the CED is activated, the police

version delivers a five second, pulsed discharge with up to fifty-thousand volts which indices

involuntary muscle contractions that temporarily incapacitate a suspect (Annest, Haileyesus &

Mercy, 2011). The Taser is laser-sited and uses cartridges attached to the end of the barrel. The

cartridges project a pair of prongs or darts on copper wires over distances from roughly six to

twenty-one feet. Without these cartridges, the Taser can function as contact stun device (SPD

2002). What makes Tasers unique is that the effects disappear after the five second charge.

While Tasers are not risk-free, they pose fewer risks than the application of physical force or

chemical spray because Tasers may be used up to twenty-one feet away and cause few side

effects when used (Schatmeier, 2012). However, there are some instances in which Tasers have

been associated with death for some unfortunate suspects. From June 2001 to 30 September

2007, Amnesty International has recorded more than 290 deaths of individuals in the USA and

Canada struck by police Tasers (Amnesty, 2007).

If a police officer wants to carry a CED on their duty belt while in service, they must first

have the weapon be used on them. They must go through extensive training with the Taser and

they have to experience the effects the Taser has on the human body so they do not overdue the

5

force to the victim. This hopefully reduces the number of death used by Tasers. On the other

hand Taser International, the main manufacturer of CEDs, claims that police departments have

seen a decrease in officer and suspect injury rates after the introduction of the Taser. Research on

CEDs has been mostly descriptive and few studies have examined the relationship between

CEDs and injuries (Taylor & Woods, 2010). The main purpose of this paper is to look at the

injury rates and effectiveness of the Taser. There has been research that presents information on

officer and suspect rate of injury and how it has decreased once the Taser was introduced.

However, this article’s main focus is to dig deeper and examine the injury rate and effectiveness

with the use of a Taser or when a Taser was used in a citizen encounter. Tasers are still relatively

new and there could still be improvement to them in the future. Now that there is a basic

understanding of Tasers and how they function, we will now examine officer injury rates and the

overall success rate when a Taser is used in police-citizen encounters.

Use of CED and Officer Related Injuries

Police officers have one of the most dangerous jobs and maintaining their safety is a key

goal of this profession. Police officers are also one of the only professions where they are legally

allowed to use physical force when dealing with citizen encounters. When officers are faced with

a situation where regular physical force is not enough to detain a suspect, they can use tools on

their duty belt such as a baton or knight stick, pepper spray, a firearm or the focus of this study, a

CED or Taser. CEDs have been at the center of public controversy, driven largely by concerns

over citizen safety. On the other hand, police agencies generally perceive CEDs as a safe

6

alternative to other means of control in terms of reducing police injuries, as officers can use them

at greater distances other than hands-on tactics, prevent longer physical struggles, and do not

have to worry about potential contamination to themselves (Ingram, Paoline, Terrill, 2012).

However, the question remains of how often are officers injured in situations where a CED was

used. Good officer training on how to use a CED can prevent injuries, along with strong safety

training.

In a study conducted with the Lincoln Nebraska Police Department, there were twenty

six different instances where a Taser was used on a citizen. Out of those twenty six encounters,

the officer was injured only four times. Along with those four instances of the officer being

injured, there were three times where another officer was injured during an encounter with a

CED (DeLone & Thompson, 2009). However, it is hard to draw conclusions from this data. They

are only measuring a few instances; twenty six times cannot be enough to make a generalized

statement about if CEDs are dangerous. The information is also not known on what exactly

happened during the encounter. There is data that describes whether the citizen was violent,

intoxicated, didn’t listen to commands, etc. but it does not indicate which times the officer was

injured. The authors of this study state that police use of force was not a problem with this

department and one could partially agree with that statement. Four officers were injured out of

twenty six instances. Twenty six cases is a good starting point to investigate this topic, but it is

not enough.

A similar study was conducted at the Seattle Police Department. The Mayor wanted to

implement the use of less lethal force within the department, and the Taser was then introduced.

This study lasted a year and the results are from the first year that is less lethal force initiative

was introduced. One hundred and thirty six M-26 Tasers were deployed among the Patrol

7

officers of the Seattle Police Department. In eighty-seven percent of the instances, there was no

officer injury. In thirteen percent of the incidents, officers sustained injuries prior to the Taser

being applied. In only five percent of the incidents were there officer injuries after Taser

deployment or directly related to its use. In all cases, the injuries to officers were minor (SPD,

2002). The lessons learned from this study are that the Taser has a very low injury rate, which

makes it much appreciated among officers. These statistics are why there has been a rise in the

use of Tasers over the past twenty years. With this low rate of injuries, the police and the public

have both been in favor for the use of CEDs.

The Cincinnati Police Department also did research similar to the Seattle Police

Department’s study. Once the Cincinnati Police Department fully implemented its use of Tasers,

the department lowered officer injuries by fifty six percent and suspect injuries by thirty five

percent. Along with decreased suspect and officer injuries, citizen satisfaction also improved

with the department. Citizen complaints spiked seven hundred and eighty two and slowly

dropped over four years to only sixty-four after the Taser program was implemented (Schatmeier

2012).

Relating to this study, another study was conducted that showed statistics before and after

Taser use was implemented. A quasi-experimental evaluation in Police Quarterly compared

officer injury and officers seeking medical attention with use of force before CED

implementation and after CED implementation. In the pre-CED implementation, there was no

real difference between officers injured in force cases. However, sites where a CED was used

showed a reduction in officer injuries, which was 8.3 percent while non-CED sites showed an

increase in officer injuries to 20.3 percent. The statistics are also very similar for officer medical

attention. CED sites dropped from 13.2 percent to 7.5 percent, while medical attention rose from

8

3.5 percent to 15.9 percent after CED use was no longer a part of the department (Taylor,

Woods, 2010). The statistics with this study were a bit confusing at first, but after understanding

the research it shows that when a department implemented CED use, there was a significant drop

in officer injury. When the department did not implement CED use, their injury rates rose. It

appears that these studies are showing that officer injuries are relatively low and CEDs used

during use of force encounters with citizens lessen the chance of officer injuries, but there is a

study that states otherwise.

There was a study conducted that examined two police departments, the Richland County

Sheriff’s Department and the Miami-Dade Police Department, and compared their data. The

Miami-Dade Police Department found that the use of CEDs was associated with reductions in

injury to both officers and suspects. This department’s use of CEDs was also linked with

reductions to both minor and major injuries. The Richland County Sheriff’s Department had

different findings. The research showed that that CED use was not associated with a significant

reduction in injuries. (Alpert, Kaminski, Mathis, Smith & Rojek, 2007). The one variable that

stood out from this was the Richland County Sheriff’s Department had access to OC spray while

the Miami-Dade Police Department did not. The Richland County Sheriff’s Department had a

long use of OC spray as a type of use of force. OC Spray is another topic that has been widely

discussed with officer and suspect injury, but the main focus of this research study is on CEDs. If

the Richland County Sheriff’s Department did not have the option of OC spray, their statistics

with officer and suspect injury with CED used may have lowered, but one cannot draw

conclusions like that.

Most of these studies above only focus on one or two police departments. Along with

only focusing on a small number, some of the studies were conducted during the first few years

9

of CED use. This last article out of Police Quarterly examines use of force incidents across six

different law enforcement agencies. This study looks at over 12,000 use of force incidents. For

the purpose of this article, CED will be the main focus. What also makes this study unique is it

not only looks at officer injury after CED use, but it also examines officer injury after CED use

with other force after. This study resulted in four clear findings which match the studies above.

First, officers experienced a significantly lower probability of injury when using a CED only

compared to instances when no CED was used. On the other hand, if officers ended up using a

CED with another form of force, the risk of injury was greatly enhanced as much as four to five

times more likely. Second, when CED-only cases were compared directly to cases involving

hands-on tactics, we again found a reduced likelihood of officer injury. Third, the probability of

officer injury was similar when comparing cases where a CED was used alone to those cases

where another weapon was used alone (Paoline, Terrill & Ingram, 2012). The main argument the

experiment showed was that an officer has an increased probability of being injured when going

hands on with a subject. Using a CED reduces their chance of injury but if they add more force

to that, their probability of being injured then increases.

Most of the studies above share similar findings and will be discussed in the conclusion.

The second portion of this article is now going to focus on the effectiveness of CEDs. An officer

can use a CED to prevent himself from risking an injury, but how effective are CEDs when used

by officers? This next section will explain this question.

10

CED Effectiveness

A common question that is asked is when is it appropriate to use a CED or Taser?

According to White and Ready, there is no consensus that exists among police agencies

regarding where the Taser should be placed on the force continuum” (p.75, 2010). Another

controversial issue is who should the Taser be used on/who it shouldn’t be used on? Is it right to

use a Taser on a pregnant woman or a child? These are the types of questions that officers have

to deal with on a daily basis. However, the most important question is if the Taser is successful

in effectively controlling the suspect or not. For example, White and Ready mention a case in

their 2010 article in Crime and Delinquency where in December 2005, Nashville, Tennessee,

police officers used the Taser 19 times on a combative suspect before they were able to take him

into custody (p.71). The CED was eventually successful in controlling the suspect, but it took

nineteen attempts to do so. White and Ready in this same article did a study with the New York

Police Department. They examined all Taser incidents involving police officers from the New

York Police Department from January 2002 through December 2005. In 19.3% of the cases, the

Taser was deployed more than once. However, reasons for more than one deployment are

unknown. This could range from either the Taser did not work or the officer missed hitting the

subject with the darts or prongs. In 319 cases, the suspect was incapacitated 277 times while

there were 42 cases where the subject was not. In 319 cases, the suspected continued to resist in

116 of those cases while there were 235 cases where the subject did not continue to resist.

Finally out of 347 cases, the officer reported to be satisfied with the Taser in 273 of those cases

(White & Ready, 2010). There are numerous factors that can be attributed to why the Taser did

work on a subject or did not work. Their body weight, drug and alcohol use, violent behavior,

11

and the distance between the responding officer and the suspect could all have an effect on the

Taser’s effectiveness. However, the Taser did prove to work in 86% of the cases which is pretty

high. That is the reason why the Taser has been adopted among numerous agencies over the past

half-century. This was only one department, so this data can’t be generalized for all departments

and their Taser effectiveness.

An article from Police Quarterly 2010 measured three levels of effectiveness. The article

measures the effectiveness to incapacitate a potentially violent individual, the reduction in police

officer injuries, and the effectiveness of CEDs in reducing instances of lethal force. All three of

these are strong examples of Taser effectiveness. The data was extracted from the Law

Enforcement Management and Administrative Statistics Report from the northeast, midwest,

south and west regions of the United States. Only municipal police departments with more than

100 sworn officers were included. The departments were given a survey where they had to fill

out numerous questions regarding CEDs and use of force. “56% of responding departments

reported that the use of lethal force was subjectively assessed as being less frequent after the

adoption of CEDs in their agency” (p.302). “The majority of departments adopted CEDs

principally to reduce injuries to officers (95%) and actively resisting subjects (94%)” (p.306).

The findings from this study also indicated that CED training was linked to reductions in lethal

force. (Collins, Lovrich & Thomas, 2010). Although this article does not present any empirical

evidence about the effectiveness of Tasers, it gives us a good understanding on the opinions of

the officers that use them. The officers surveyed found them to be effective in reducing one of

the most controversial issues in modern policing today, use of lethal force. The main reason the

Tasers were adopted was to reduce officer injuries and that data was discussed earlier in this

paper. This article should have included some statistics from cases where a Taser was used in

12

these departments. This could link the opinions to statistics and make this article more useful for

future research. I included this article because I found it interesting to see opinions form an

officer’s view.

There have been numerous studies measuring officer injury related to CED use. Mainly

because departments want to know if using this is practical and will help their officers on the

streets stay safe. What most of these articles didn’t include is how effective were the Tasers

when an officer usesd them. White and Ready discuss true stories about the effectiveness of

Tasers in their article in Police Quarterly in 2007. They reference the Rodney King case, which

was mentioned earlier in this article, and how officers struck him more than fifty times with their

batons after using a Taser. In San Jose in 2004, a police officer was forced to shoot and kill a

combative subject after the officer had already “tased” the suspect twice. Although these cases

suggest that Tasers are not always effective, there is currently little empirical evidence

concerning the effectiveness of the Taser. This study yielded some interesting results. The

overall “effectiveness” can be measured in different ways. This study found that 85% of subjects

were subdued by the Taser and taken into custody. In one third of those cases, the suspect

continued resistance against the officer after being struck by the Taser. That can be measured in

two ways: the suspect was not incapacitated by the weapon, which happened in 33 of the 39

cases, and the subject was initially incapacitated by the Taser but then continued to resist while

the officer was on the ground trying to gain control of them, which happened 39 out of the 72

times. 80% of officers were satisfied with their Tasers’ performance, while 20% stated the Taser

performed poorly. Overall, the study found that the Taser had a 86% success rate (White &

Ready,2007).

13

The study above mentioned some ways effectiveness could be measured, but a study

conducted by Telemasp Bulletin focused on another type. The study above measure the CED’s

effectiveness after it had been used while this study examines the CED’s deployment

effectiveness. According to the Telemasp Bulletin, rarely does a malfunction occur when a Taser

is deployed. Forty-seven percent of the agencies reported no malfunctions, and 39% reported a

malfunction in 5% or less of the deployments. The remaining 14% of the agencies reported a

malfunction 10% of the time. The failure of the failure of the Taser’s probes or darts to be

effective in making sufficient contact with the subject occurs more often than a malfunction.

Thirty-four percent of the agencies reported a failure in 1 to 5% of the deployments, 38%

reported a failure in 6 to 10% of the deployments, and 7% reported a failure in 11-15% of the

deployments. There was also one agency that reported a failure rate of 20% while another agency

reported a failure rate of 25% (Frasier, 2005). When a Taser does not deploy correctly, this

forces the officer to use another type of force which could increase their likelihood of suffering

an injury. An officer has to rely on his tools working effectively, but as this study has shown, an

officer should always be ready for anything because clearly they do not work 100% of the time.

Effectiveness could also be measured in another way; this being death. There is no

research clearly stating that a person died as a direct result of the Taser, but there have been

instances where a person died after a Taser was used on them. As referenced earlier in this paper,

Amnesty International reported that from June 2011 to September 30th 2007, there were 290

deaths of individuals in the United States and Canada that were struck by a Taser. Amnesty

International did a thorough investigation about these subjects that died after being tased. Most

of the individuals that died were under the influence of alcohol and/or drugs or had an underlying

health problem such as heart disease. Amnesty International has found that in 20 cases, a Taser

14

served as or was a contributory factor in the cause of death. Amnesty International has

recognized that Tasers are a less lethal use of force, but one of their main concerns is that it is

still a powerful weapon and could be used with the simple touch of a button. Amnesty also found

that in most of the cases where an individual died, they were tased more than one time. The

Taser was successful in controlling the subject and no subject died immediately after the Taser

was used. Most of the subjects experienced cardiac arrest or respiratory arrest at the scene, even

if death was pronounced later at the hospital.

Relating to this study above, The Journal of Forensic Sciences published an article in

November 2012 about the effects of the Taser after it was effective in controlling the subject.

This article studied four main concepts: the effect a Taser has on the cardiovascular system, the

muscular system, the neuroendocrine system and mechanical injuries the Taser may cause. In

regards to the cardio vascular system, research has shown that the CED creates relevant minor

current and essentially longer impulse duration, which does not have a direct influence on the

heart rhythm. There have been various research results that claim a CED exhibits a reasonable

degree of cardiac safety with no potential of inducing ventricular fibrillation. When examining

the muscular system, “it can be said that electronic control device exposure can lead to modest

increase in creatine kinase without a risk of developing rhabdomyolysis” (p. 1592). This is

basically stating that there have been few cases where a CED causes a potential muscle injury,

however there is an increased chance of it happening and it rarely happens. The relation of the

CED with the neuroendocrine system is similar to the other two above. “But compared to the

commonly employed uses of force, the examined literature asserts that an application of CEWs

can function as a stressor and therefor influence the human stress response, but only to a degree

where no important changes in vital signs are to be expected (p.1593). A CEW is this case stands

15

for “conduced energy weapon.” This is saying that the CEW will cause stress levels to rise, but

not to a dangerous level. The last subject examined was mechanical injuries as a result from the

Taser. When a CED is used, it fires two darts or prongs into the skin. The other way it can be

used is in drive stun mode where the device makes contact with the body and implements an

electrical charge. When these prongs or darts make contact with the skin, they leave a puncture

wound on the skin and may cause some minor burns. CED darts or prongs should only be

removed by medical staff to make sure there are no further injuries. If a dart or prong makes

contact with the suspect’s genetalia or eye, they may need to be removed at a hospital. When a

prong or dart makes contact with the suspect and it works effectively, the suspect usually falls

uncontrollably to the ground. This can result in internal bleeding or bone fractures (Fiesler,

Graw, Kunz, Peschel, & Zinka, 2012). Out of the four areas examined in this article, this is the

one that needs more research conducted. In these cases, the Taser was effective in controlling

the suspect, but it is the after effects that are examined. The Taser was effective in gaining

control, but sometimes it is ineffective in not injuring the subject. This is one flaw with the Taser

and more research is needed in this area.

Conclusion

When studying use of CEDs and officer injury versus CED effectiveness, there was much

more research involving CEDs and officer injury. An obvious reason for this is to make sure that

the Tasers are safe to use for the officer and the subjects they are using them on. As much of the

data in this article has shown, Tasers are a more effective, less lethal use of force option. When

16

compared to other devices such as OC spray or batons, the Taser had the lowest risk for injury.

Many studies conducted were involving Taser data with the first year it was implemented. As

stated above, the Taser has gained popularity among almost all police departments. Many

questions surrounded whether it was safe to use and if it was safe to use on subjects.

There were some limitations on the data with CED and officer injury. For instance, many

studies did not specify what kind of injury the officer succumbed from the Taser. It doesn’t also

specify what the Taser did that caused an injury to the officer. There were also many studies that

only measured a small amount of Taser cases. If a study measured only a few cases with a Taser,

generalization for Taser safety can’t be used. Studies also only measured the first few years when

a Taser was implemented. Almost all of the studies showed that officer injury decreased after the

implementation of Tasers in the department. More research could be conducted involving

statistics of officer injuries in the following years after the CED was implemented.

Finding data on Taser effectiveness was very challenging. There was not a lot of research

conducted about this topic and coming up with a definition of what “effectiveness” means was

different in all the studies. Effectiveness ranged from if the Taser functioned correctly, if the

Taser was effective after it struck the subject, etc. When I first started this independent study, I

thought it was going to be easy to find information on Taser effectiveness and I was wrong.

There is a need for more research surrounding this topic. Along with more research, there needs

to be a clear definition of what exactly is “effectiveness” when it relates to Tasers.

Overall, I am pretty convinced that Tasers are a great tool for law enforcements and other

related agencies. There have been statistics that have shown that they lower injury rates are a less

lethal tool. Their favorability and approval have gone up and are being used in almost every

17

agency today. Nothing in this world is perfect, so Tasers and not going to work 100% of the

time. However, the negative data on Taser usage is relatively low. There still needs to be more

research on the effectiveness aspect of Tasers, along with more data relating to officer injuries.

If I were to suggest a topic for future research, I would suggest they researchers examine

a few things. They should look at numerous cases from different agencies over the world that

uses a Taser or CED. They would first examine cases where a Taser was used on a subject. The

data would show if the Taser was effective in controlling the suspect or not. At the same time,

whether the officer was injured while using the CED should be examined. If the suspect was not

affected by the CED, the next area examined should be if the officer was then injured after the

initial CED shock was delivered. This could be from either the Taser malfunctioning or physical

injury from the suspect. The characteristics of the subject should also be measured. Some

examples are of the subject is mentally ill, if they are intoxicated or on any drugs, their body type

and weight, gender, etc. Most studies I examined did take this into consideration, but the area I

think researchers should focus on next is if the CED was effective or not, and did this then lead

to injuries to the officer. Injuries to the officer before the use of CED should also be recorded so

injuries pre and post Taser implementation do not get mixed up.

I found this independent study to be fun and challenging at the same time. I was excited

when I first chose this topic but I didn’t realize how difficult it would be to find information on

Taser effectiveness. I thought it was going to be a lot easier to find effectiveness data than officer

injury data, but I was wrong and that was switched. I am hopeful that there will be more research

18

one day that combines both of the topics I chose to talk about. I believe that it is an important

issue and should not be ignored by criminal justice and law enforcement personnel.

19

Work Cited

(2002). The M26 Taser Year One Implementation. SPD Special Report, 1-18.

(2007). Amnesty International’s concerns about Taser®1 use: Statement to the U.S. Justice

Department inquiry into deaths in custody. Amnesty International, 1-7.

Alpert, G. P., Kaminski, R. J., Mathis, J., Rojek, J., Smith, M. R. (2007). The impact of

conducted energy devices and other types of force and resistance on officer and suspect

injuries. Policing: An International Journal of Police Strategies & Management, 30 (3),

423-446. DOI 10.1108/13639510710778822

Annest, J. L., Haileyesus, T., Mercy, J. A. (2011). Non-fatal conductive energy device-related

injuries treated in US emergency departments, 2005-2008. Injury Prevention, 17, 127-

130. doi:10.1136/ip.2010.028704

Collins, P. A., Lovrich, N. P., Thomas, K. J. (2010). Conducted Energy Device Use in Municipal

Policing: Results of a National Survey on Policy and Effectiveness Assesments. Police

Quartely, 13(3), 290-315. DOI: 10.1177/1098611110373995

20

DeLone, G. J., Thompson, L. M. (2009). The application and use of TASERs by a Midwestern

police agency. International Journal of Police Science and Management, 11(4), 414-428.

DOI: 10.1350

Frasier, M. L. (2005). The Use of Conducted Energy Devices (Tasers). Telemasp Bulletin, 12(6),

1-10.

Graw, M., Fieseler, S., Kunz, S. N., Peschel, O., Zinka, B. (2012). Functioning and Effectiveness

of Electronic Control Devices Such as the Taser M- and X-Series: A Review of the

Current Literature. Journal of Forensic Sciences, 57(6), 1591-1594. DOI: 10.1111/j.1556-

4029.2012.02167.x

Ingram, J. R., Paoline, E. A., Terrill, W. (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. DOI: 10.1177/1098611112442807

Schatmeier, E, H. (2013). Reforming Police Use-of-Force Practices: A Case Study of the

Cincinnati Police Department. Columbia Journal of Law and Social Problems, 46, 539-

587.

21

Ready, J., White, M. D. (2007). The TASER as a Less Lethal Force Alternative: Findings on Use

and Effectiveness in a Large Metropolitan Police Agency. Police Quarterly, 10(2), 170-

191. DOI: 10.1177/1098611106288915

Ready, J., White, M. D. (2010). The Impact of the Taser on Suspect Resistance: Identifying

Predictors of Effectiveness. Crime and Delinquency, 56(1), 70-102.

DOI:10.1177/0011128707308099

Taylor, B., Woods, D. J. (2010). Injuries to Officers and Suspects in Police Use of-Force Cases:

A Quasi-Experimental Evaluation. Police Quarterly, 13(3), 260-289. DOI:

10.1177/1098611110373994