News
Criminal
Jun. 18, 2002
Efforts to Find Less-Lethal Weapons Miss Their Mark
Forum Column - By Greg Meyer - Two less-lethal weapons are in the news. They are the so-called "beanbag guns" and the Taser M-26 electronic stun device. For decades, law enforcement has attempted to acquire and use less-lethal technologies to save lives in violent circumstances. United Airlines has trained all 9,000 of its pilots with the Taser M-26 but still lacks Federal Aviation Administration approval to deploy the device in the cockpit.
Forum Column
By Greg Meyer
Two less-lethal weapons are in the news. They are the so-called "beanbag guns" and the Taser M-26 electronic stun device. For decades, law enforcement has attempted to acquire and use less-lethal technologies to save lives in violent circumstances. United Airlines has trained all 9,000 of its pilots with the Taser M-26 but still lacks Federal Aviation Administration approval to deploy the device in the cockpit.
Political leaders, law enforcement leaders and the public need to become better educated about these issues. And the federal government needs to do more to foster the next generation of less-lethal weapons.
The Los Angeles Times reported on June 3 that police departments nationwide are abandoning beanbags because experience shows that the devices "can be dangerously inaccurate and deadlier than manufacturers claimed." Several manufacturers have responded to the call for less injurious projectiles, but the controversy will not die before another casualty occurs.
For any business, including the police business, the question after deploying new equipment is this: Is this device living up to its promises? In the case of less-lethal weapons equipment, those promises include fewer and less-severe injuries to suspects and officers, reduced civil claims and public liability payouts, reduced employee disability and an improved public image for the police profession.
Do the less-lethal weapons live up to these promises? There is good news and there is bad news.
This is the bad news. Law enforcement trainers across the nation in recent years have complained that many types of available beanbag ammunition do not meet their promise of reduced injuries while effectively ending standoffs with violent suspects. A dozen or so deaths have resulted from beanbag trauma. It is a matter of dispute whether adverse outcomes are because of defective merchandise - such as inaccurate ammunition or rounds that deliver more of a wallop than advertised - or poor training that leads to officer error in the heat of the moment - such as people standing too close when firing the beanbag. The root problem is that too often, the beanbags do not efficiently end the confrontation.
The Taser M-26 has been on the market for 21/2 years. It enjoys widespread success in controlling resisting suspects via a high-voltage, low-amperage, pulsating current without inflicting serious injury. The M-26 is 31/2 times as powerful as the traditional Taser that has been used by many law enforcement agencies. Field officers and SWAT teams use them. The current generation of Tasers appears to live up to their promise.
A handful of Taser-associated deaths over the past two decades has been ruled to be the result of excited delirium brought about by drug-induced behavior or schizophrenia. This is historically the same outcome for pepper spray-related and most other custody deaths. Medical professionals recognize that these types of deaths will continue regardless of police intervention tactics as long as drug abuse continues to be a problem.
Part of the good news is that the use of less-lethal weapons has revolutionized law enforcement's approach to violent confrontations. The number of shooting incidents is much lower than a generation ago. Still more shooting incidents could be averted through less-lethal technology if it is supported by appropriate police training, tactics, supervision and review processes that are designed to continuously improve the weapons' performance. Police agencies must provide dynamic training that puts officers into tense, realistic circumstances so they will be better prepared for the real thing. Part of the bad news, however, is that most agencies don't.
The federal government has been dilly-dallying around with this subject for 10 years. After the Persian Gulf War, the research-and-development folks panicked when the Clinton administration cut back the military. They implemented a program for "military technology transfer to civilian law enforcement," and it hasn't yielded anything of use to the average field police officer.
We ought to try to prevent incidents that cause riots. Riots in America tend to be sparked by police use-of-force incidents involving a bunch of cops working in radio cars. Too much federal money is being spent on equipment that has nothing to do with helping officers put violent suspects in jail without injuring them.
If we can put a man on the moon and return him safely to Earth, why can't we put a man on the ground and take him safely to jail?
Greg Meyer is a member of the Executive Board of the American Society for Law Enforcement Training and a captain with the Los Angeles Police Department. The views expressed are his own.
By Greg Meyer
Two less-lethal weapons are in the news. They are the so-called "beanbag guns" and the Taser M-26 electronic stun device. For decades, law enforcement has attempted to acquire and use less-lethal technologies to save lives in violent circumstances. United Airlines has trained all 9,000 of its pilots with the Taser M-26 but still lacks Federal Aviation Administration approval to deploy the device in the cockpit.
Political leaders, law enforcement leaders and the public need to become better educated about these issues. And the federal government needs to do more to foster the next generation of less-lethal weapons.
The Los Angeles Times reported on June 3 that police departments nationwide are abandoning beanbags because experience shows that the devices "can be dangerously inaccurate and deadlier than manufacturers claimed." Several manufacturers have responded to the call for less injurious projectiles, but the controversy will not die before another casualty occurs.
For any business, including the police business, the question after deploying new equipment is this: Is this device living up to its promises? In the case of less-lethal weapons equipment, those promises include fewer and less-severe injuries to suspects and officers, reduced civil claims and public liability payouts, reduced employee disability and an improved public image for the police profession.
Do the less-lethal weapons live up to these promises? There is good news and there is bad news.
This is the bad news. Law enforcement trainers across the nation in recent years have complained that many types of available beanbag ammunition do not meet their promise of reduced injuries while effectively ending standoffs with violent suspects. A dozen or so deaths have resulted from beanbag trauma. It is a matter of dispute whether adverse outcomes are because of defective merchandise - such as inaccurate ammunition or rounds that deliver more of a wallop than advertised - or poor training that leads to officer error in the heat of the moment - such as people standing too close when firing the beanbag. The root problem is that too often, the beanbags do not efficiently end the confrontation.
The Taser M-26 has been on the market for 21/2 years. It enjoys widespread success in controlling resisting suspects via a high-voltage, low-amperage, pulsating current without inflicting serious injury. The M-26 is 31/2 times as powerful as the traditional Taser that has been used by many law enforcement agencies. Field officers and SWAT teams use them. The current generation of Tasers appears to live up to their promise.
A handful of Taser-associated deaths over the past two decades has been ruled to be the result of excited delirium brought about by drug-induced behavior or schizophrenia. This is historically the same outcome for pepper spray-related and most other custody deaths. Medical professionals recognize that these types of deaths will continue regardless of police intervention tactics as long as drug abuse continues to be a problem.
Part of the good news is that the use of less-lethal weapons has revolutionized law enforcement's approach to violent confrontations. The number of shooting incidents is much lower than a generation ago. Still more shooting incidents could be averted through less-lethal technology if it is supported by appropriate police training, tactics, supervision and review processes that are designed to continuously improve the weapons' performance. Police agencies must provide dynamic training that puts officers into tense, realistic circumstances so they will be better prepared for the real thing. Part of the bad news, however, is that most agencies don't.
The federal government has been dilly-dallying around with this subject for 10 years. After the Persian Gulf War, the research-and-development folks panicked when the Clinton administration cut back the military. They implemented a program for "military technology transfer to civilian law enforcement," and it hasn't yielded anything of use to the average field police officer.
We ought to try to prevent incidents that cause riots. Riots in America tend to be sparked by police use-of-force incidents involving a bunch of cops working in radio cars. Too much federal money is being spent on equipment that has nothing to do with helping officers put violent suspects in jail without injuring them.
If we can put a man on the moon and return him safely to Earth, why can't we put a man on the ground and take him safely to jail?
Greg Meyer is a member of the Executive Board of the American Society for Law Enforcement Training and a captain with the Los Angeles Police Department. The views expressed are his own.
#334659
Columnist
Daily Journal Staff Writer
For reprint rights or to order a copy of your photo:
Email
Jeremy_Ellis@dailyjournal.com
for prices.
Direct dial: 213-229-5424
Send a letter to the editor:
Email: letters@dailyjournal.com