|
Less-lethal Weapons for the
New Millennium: Electro-Muscular Disruption (EMD) Weapons
. D
The past 30 years have seen
significant advancements in the area of less-lethal weapons. Back in the
1960s, there were very few options for law enforcement beyond lethal
force. Today, there are many less lethal options and new tools being
introduced every year. About a year ago, I undertook a program to evaluate
less-lethal weapons for use in the city of Victoria, Canada. After quite a
bit of research, I decided to evaluate TASERŽ technology - the less-lethal
weapons which shoot out two probes up to a distance of 15 feet, and use an
electrical impulse to stun the target. Most people remember TASERs from
the Rodney King incident, where the weapon unfortunately did not keep King
down.
As I conducted my research, I found
that there were many myths about the TASER. In fact, Canadian law had
prohibited these less-lethal weapons until recently, based upon some of
these misconceptions. However, during the course of my department's
six-month field study, I found TASER technology to be a valuable tool -
one which saved several lives during our deployment. Lives which may not
have been saved using any other tool currently available. Since I
published the results of my department's field test, many law enforcement
agencies in Canada are now showing real interest in TASER technology as
well.
During the last phase of
my research, one of the manufacturers of TASERŽ technology systems - TASER
International in Scottsdale, AZ - showed me their next generation weapon
system which they have called the "ADVANCED TASER M-26," a less-lethal
weapon which will be unveiled at the 1999 IACP show in North Carolina.
This weapon, the first in a new class of Electro-Muscular Disruption
Weapons (EMD), is different from any other less-lethal weapon in one key
respect: this system is the only less-lethal weapon I've tested, which
will stop a focused, goal-oriented attacker. And it's the only one that
has stopped me.
One of the challenges
facing less-lethal weapons, historically, is that they all primarily rely
upon a psychological impact to achieve maximum effect. Whether it's the
pain from a chemical spray, the impact of a kinetic round, or the stun
effect from a TASER, none of the current technology actually debilitates a
subject 100% of the time.
To test the hypothesis
that these weapons work largely on a psychological basis, I designed a
test where I separated two groups of 5 volunteers each in different rooms.
One group was shown a video where a person was hit with 5-Watt TASER
technology (the same type that are currently in use by law enforcement)
and the person fell immediately to the ground. After viewing the video,
this group of individuals each volunteered to be hit with the 5-Watt
system. Every one of these individuals dropped to the ground just like
they had seen the subject in the video do. The second group was also shown
a video of a person being hit with a 5-Watt system - except this time the
subject was mentally focused and was able to remain standing despite the
electrical stimulation. After viewing the video, each person in the group
was subjected to the 5-Watt output. Every one of the volunteers was able
to stand and function (although they were impaired to differing degrees)
despite the fact they were being subjected to the TASER current.
Clearly, this test
supports the hypothesis that the effects of the traditional 5-Watt TASER
technology are primarily psychological in nature. The stimulation of the
electrical output creates a tremendous amount of disturbance in the
nervous system (just ask anyone who's tried it!) - enough to cause most
people to drop to the ground. However, subjects could be taught to
overcome these sensations. Similar tests have been conducted on pepper
sprays by well known self-defense expert Phil Messina - who found that
focused and goal-oriented individuals were able to function and continue
attacks despite extreme pain and discomfort.
The result here is not to
say that these devices are not useful tools - pepper sprays, CS/CN, TASER
technology and other less-lethals have saved thousands of lives over the
years. However, the effects of these systems are effectively distraction
or pain oriented and rely upon a psychological impact - hence the problems
sometime encountered where these less-lethals simply don't seem to affect
certain individuals, particularly those under the influence of various
narcotics, or those suffering from certain types of emotional and
psychological instabilities.
The problem of immediate
stopping power does not apply only to less-lethal weapons. At a recent use
of force conference in Calgary Alberta Canada , Dr. Alexis Artwohl, who is
a police psychologist and the author of a book entitled " Deadly Force
Encounters," gave a presentation on the results of FBI analysis of fatal
shooting incidents. According to Dr. Artwohl and the FBI, an individual
who sustains a fatal shot directly to the heart or aorta may have enough
oxygen in the brain and skeletal muscles to continue aggressive behaviour
for approximately 14 seconds. Hence, after receiving a fatal gun shot
wound, a suspect can return fire or stab an officer for another 14 seconds
- enough time to do a lot of damage. If an individual is highly agitated,
combative, focused and goal-oriented there is only one thing that will
reliably stop him immediately: a bullet shot to the central nervous system
which will immediately eliminate the command and control of the body. I
believe there is now a second method for central nervous system override:
the ADVANCED TASER, a new 26-Watt Electro-Muscular Disruption (EMD)
Weapon.
I have personally tested
the weapon on 10 volunteers in the course of my evaluation, all of whom
were chosen from the elite of Canadian law enforcement trainers. The
effects were immediate and overwhelming - all subjects were completely
incapacitated in less than ˝ second. In fact, when I was hit with the
unit, I took a shot to the right leg. My entire body went rigid as the
energy pulsed into my leg. Even my arms seemed to be dramatically
affected.
I have always personally
believed that the only way to reliably stop a deadly force threat
immediately, is a shot with a bullet to the central nervous system. Based
upon my own personal experiences, I believe the ADVANCED TASER M26 EMD
comes extremely close to the same effect, but from a less-lethal
perspective.
As with anything, there
are trade-offs with the M26. The fact that this is a new technology means
that it does not have the benefit of years and years of field use and
background data. The medical information behind the M26 supports that it
is still well within electrical safety limits. But we are currently
working in Canada to obtain further input from medical experts. I also
understand that TASER International is conducting further medical studies
for publication when the product launches. If these bio-medical studies
come back with positive results, as I suspect they will, the ADVANCED
TASER M26 should be a less-lethal weapon system that all law enforcement
agencies should have a definite look at.
The design of the weapon
also has positive and negative attributes. The product was designed to
function exactly like a firearm - it even looks a like a semi-automatic
hand gun. This offers a definite advantage for officers who are trained in
firearms: they can use the same muscle motion and memory as they train for
their side arms, thereby increasing the reliability and accuracy of the
weapon in high stress scenarios. Conversely, there is a risk that the unit
could be mistaken for lethal force, causing an unnecessary force
escalation. From what I understand, the company will be shipping yellow
coloration kits with each unit so that the unit can be brightly coloured
to differentiate it from lethal force - similar to the colour schemes used
on less-lethal shotguns in many departments. I am waiting to see the final
unit to see if this approach will be effective.
Some people may wonder if
we truly need that much stopping power in a less-lethal system. But,
imagine what would have happened (or actually what would not have
happened) had the less-lethal weapon been more effective in the Rodney
King scenario. It has been argued that the failure of the TASERŽ to keep
King down lead to the over-reaction of the officers on scene. The results
cost the city of Los Angeles dearly in every conceivable way. And it
tarnished the relationship between law enforcement and communities across
North America.
Imagine if the NYPD had
been able to subdue Gary Busch with a less-lethal weapon a few weeks ago.
Gary Busch was a disturbed person who assaulted officers with a hammer.
Officers deployed less-lethals, but Busch did not respond and the officers
had no option but to escalate to lethal force. While an assault with a
hammer is clearly a deadly force situation, had the less-lethal force been
more effective, the whole situation could potentially have been avoided,
saving Busch's life and millions of dollars from NYPD's litigation budget
which could be productively employed putting more officers on the street.
I am a firm believer that
police will always need lethal force options. However, less-lethal force
must continue to improve if law enforcement is to meet effectively the
challenges of the next century, now only two months away. We've come a
long way in the last 30 years. It will be interesting to see where we are
30 years from now.
(Darren Laur is the
Control Tactics Coordinator for the Victoria Police Department in Canada.
Sgt. Laur is an active duty law enforcement officer and expert in
less-lethal weapons. To contact the author, email:
eightball@pacificcoast.net ) |
