Evaluating Less-Than-Lethal Weapons: Impact on Injuries and
School
Bahir Dar University**We aren't endorsed by this school
Course
BUSINESS A MISC
Subject
Sociology
Date
Dec 10, 2024
Pages
37
Uploaded by PresidentManateeMaster322
Does the Use of Less-Than-Lethal Weaponry and Tactics Help in Decreasing PoliceOfficer and Offender Injuries?Edsel L. Robinson3 December 2013Senior Seminar CJ*4600*01
IntroductionOfficers of the law are are given certain powers to maintain peace and stability within a society. There are many nations that provide their officers with essential tools that allow them to subdue certain offenders. In the United States (US) it has become normal for police officers to have a need for lethal force weaponry, such as firearms. As stated by Bulman (2010), the use of firearms came about due to better-equipped criminalsduring the late 1800’s. With arming police officers with lethal weaponry, it gives them the ability to take someone’s life at anytime, at his or her discretion. This has caused great concern in the U.S., being that police officers hold greater power over the citizens. As stated by Ross and Jones (1996), police officers are allowed to use a certain level of force that is deemed rational and equivalent to the situation at hand in order to make an arrest and to overcome any illegitimate opposition. The amount of force used by police officers when subduing a suspect has always garnered much attention. The use of deadly force can be very detrimental to a police department mainly by causing bad publicity and legal issues. In today’s society police departments have been implementing the use of non-lethal weaponry, such as conducted energy devices (CED) or Oleoresin Capsicum (OC) sprays, in order to incapacitate and subdue certain violent offenders without causingserious injury to the offender(Morabito & Doerner, 1997; Mesloh, Henych, & Wolf, 2008).Having the police use less lethal weaponry however may not lower the chances ofan offender being injured while being subdued. Studies have shown that less lethal weapons have been suspected of causing unintentional injuries to and deaths of citizens(MacDonald, Kaminski, & Smith, 2009). As stated by Bulman (2010), with the use of Robinson 2
any force there is a probability that injury may occur. With this research, it will take a look at whether or not the use of less-than-lethal weaponry and tactics can decrease injuries among officers and offenders. With many police department implementing the use of non-lethal weapons, it is important for this research to examine what types of non-lethal weapons are being used and how effectively do they serve officers. The next part of the research that needs to be examined is how harmful are the use of less-than-lethal weapons on the offenders. Another variable that must be examined is whether or not raceand gender plays a part in the deployment of a certain level of force. The last part of the research that needs to be examined is what type of training should police go through before being allowed to carry these weapons.Literature ReviewNon-lethal weapons and their effectivenessAs stated by Gau et al(2009), police agencies have been under public and legal pressure to efficiently apply the law without causing any undue injuries. By giving the police agencies the ability to use less lethal weapons it may allow them to decrease the possibility of injuring an assailant. CEDs, or better known as TASER’s, have lately become the primary weapon for over 7,000 law enforcement agencies in the US (Mesloh,Henych, & Wolf, 2008; White & Ready, 2008; MacDonald, Kaminski, & Smith, 2009). CEDs are electric conductive devices that send a certain amount of voltage through the human body and can cause someone to have the inability to move(Bulman, 2010). The reason for the rise in use of CEDs is due its effectiveness in subduing violent assailants. Another effective tool utilized by police agencies are OC sprays, better known as pepper sprays. Morabito et al (1997) had conducted a study on the use of OC sprays by the Tallahassee Police Department (TPD). The TPD had implemented a level system to Robinson 3
determine what type of force is needed to subdue a suspect; it starts from level 1 and went up to level 6, which is the use of deadly force. OC sprays were placed into level 4 where they were used as a means to stop a suspect that was displaying an effective physical struggle. The TPD then moved the OC sprays down to level 3 which involved the use of minor physical force upon an offender. The reason for the downgrade was thatthey found them to be very effective in disabling an offender’s intention to resistance.HarmfulnessWith the use of less-than-lethal weaponry gaining much popularity among many police agencies, it is important to note that these tools can cause harm upon an individual.The main purpose of non-lethal weapons is to cause a certain degree of pain upon the offender(Downs, 2007). Non-lethal weapons are meant to cause a sensory imbalance on the person that it is applied upon. By doing this it gives police officers enough time to gain control of the assailant. Though the use of non-lethal devices can sometime even cause death, there has been medical research that has found deaths associated with non-lethal devices were the result of foregoing health illness(MacDonald, Kaminski, & Smith, 2009). MacDonald et al(2009) believes that the uses of non-lethal devices are best to be used on fit and healthy individuals.Race and GenderWith policing in the US, there has always been a stigma surrounding how police execute their duties. That stigma surrounding the police is that racial profiling plays a factor in their decision-making. As stated by Gau et al(2009), there has always been tension amongst minorities and police. With the proliferation of non-lethal devices in today’s society it’s important to look at how they are deployed against whites and Robinson 4
minorities. In a study conducted by MacDonald et al(2009), the authors examined what were the causal factors for the deployment of CEDs and OC sprays. To conduct the study, MacDonald et al(2009) took a total of 12 police departments’ records, which consisted of 24,380 police use of force occurrences. Within the data there were 8 departments that kept suspects’ information, such as their sex, age, race, and gender. There where another 3 department record that only kept race and gender. The result fromthis research found that 31% of the suspects from the 11 departments that had race information were white. This shows that whites are more likely to be on the receiving end of non-lethal force. Also within their findings 87.7% of the suspects in the data collection were males. This meant that white males were assaulted more than minorities from the use of non-lethal devices.TrainingSince the implementation of less-than-lethal devices, there has always been a needto train police officers on how to properly execute the use of them. By failing to train officers properly, the chance of misuse increases, which will cause a department to be liable for any misconduct(Ross & Jones, 1996). As stated by Bulman (2010), CEDs canbe misused, but police departments can control that problem by implementing policies and training procedures, along with a good supervising and liability system that properly set guidelines on when and in what situation my CEDs be used. It is important that officers are capable noting what type of device to use in certain circumstance and if the assailant is healthy enough to withstand the pain from a non-lethal device. Within an officers trainer it is also necessary that they know when to release pressure off the assailant if they were to conduct less-than-lethal hand to hand combat.Robinson 5
ContributionIn summary, this research seeks to find weather or not the uses of less-than-lethal devices are a vital tool for police to have. As stated throughout the literature review, it is important to examine weather the devices are harmful against the offender and also if it ishelpful for police officers. Many of the researchers within my literature review did face some limitations. One major limitation many faced was that data collection on the use of less-than-lethal weapons by police was very limited (Taylor et al2011; Wolf et al, 2009).This limitation faced by the researchers will be addressed by my study, by asking respondents if they agree or disagree to whether the police should keep records of any useof less-than-lethal devices.Research DesignThe best design for this research was a survey. The survey was conducted in order to see where the public opinion on less-than-lethal weaponry stands. Along with the survey there were two articles attached on the topic of less-than-lethal force. Each person that took part in the survey wrote a letter to the editor of the articles on whether the use of less-than-lethal force was justifiable in each situation. With conducting the survey it provided a better understand of the public point-of-view on the topic. Since the public are the main people who are afflicted by the use of CEDs or OC spray it is necessary the findings show if they view the use of the weapons justifiable.For this the survey a convenience sampling was conducted, along with a purposive sampling. With conducting this type of sampling it allowed for a better understanding for each variable. The convenience sampling will allow me to select people with ease. The sample size for the survey consisted of 80 Kean University students, with 40 being criminal justice (CJ) majors and 40 consisting of non-CJ majors. Robinson 6
From the 40 CJ majors, I surveyed 20 females and 20 males at random when walking around the campus; the same consisted of the non-CJ majors. With the 20 females and 20 males, I looked for 10 minority respondents and 10 white respondents from each gender. Using the convenience sample enabled me to gain readily available respondents, along with the purposive sampling, this allows me to gain a better understanding of how each race and gender views the use of non-lethal force on the public. But before handing out the survey, the consent form was signed by whoever took part in the questionnaire. I informed all the respondents that their responses in the survey will remain confidential and that their names will not be needed on the survey itself.With the survey the respondents answered ten questions regarding the use of less-than-lethal force. In the survey the question that are regarding my dependent variable tried to find a statistical amount of times the public feels an offender is injured by the use of CEDs and OC sprays. To find the independent variable for the research, the survey looked to see how public feels about how race, gender or better training of officers will lead to a decrease in officer and offender injuries.Data AnalysisFor analyzing the data from the survey I used the program SPSS and Microsoft Word on the Kean University campus and also on my personal computer. I took the coding grid that I created along with my survey and input each data into SPSS to find a statistic of the overall respondent’s answers to each question on the survey. I then ran crosstab frequencies to obtain my demographics. The reason I ran crosstab descriptive statistics is that I wanted to highlight my purposive demographic grouping. From there I also ran a frequencies pertaining to my dependent variable, along with my independent variables. Then I had to run frequencies and cross tabulations my dependent and Robinson 7
independent variables again. It was necessary for me to run the Chi Square test. The reason is that I used it to test my hypothesis to my variables to see if they correlate in anyway. From there I then ran frequencies on my independent variable along with the covariates. Once that was completed I then ran my dependent in a cross tabulation Chi-Square test with “what is your major.” This was to examine what major responded to mydependent more often. Then I ran a Y-X1 test to assess the relationship. From there I also ran additional tests for my dependent and the covariates. Finally, I ran a few frequencies for wrinkle. I had two wrinkles that I cross-tabulated with “What is your gender?” and “What is your race/ethnicity?”Robinson 8
ResultsSection 1: DemographicsTable 1: Age of ParticipantsStatisticsWhat is your age? NValid80Missing0Mean22.08Minimum18Maximum40What is your age?FrequencyPercentValid PercentCumulativePercentValid1845.05.05.01978.88.813.8201316.316.330.0211822.522.552.5222025.025.077.52345.05.082.52456.36.388.82522.52.591.32622.52.593.82711.31.395.03011.31.396.33311.31.397.53911.31.398.84011.31.3100.0Total80100.0100.0Within table 1 it shows the frequency of all 80 respondents age within my survey. It is noticeable that 22 year olds make up 25% of my respondents, which is the largest group. 18 year olds are the second largest within my survey holding 22.5% of the Robinson 9
respondents. The top table shows that 22 year olds are the mean and they youngest of therespondents are 18 while the oldest is 40.Table 2: Cross tabulation of Race and GenderWhat is your race/ethnicity? * What is your gender? CrosstabulationWhat is yourgender?TotalMaleFemaleWhat is your race/ethnicity? CaucasianCount202040Expected Count20.020.040.0% of Total25.0%25.0%50.0%African AmericanCount8917Expected Count8.58.517.0% of Total10.0%11.3%21.3%HispanicCount7916Expected Count8.08.016.0% of Total8.8%11.3%20.0%AsianCount314Expected Count2.02.04.0% of Total3.8%1.3%5.0%OtherCount213Expected Count1.51.53.0% of Total2.5%1.3%3.8%TotalCount404080Expected Count40.040.080.0% of Total50.0%50.0% 100.0%Table 2 is a cross tabulation table of both the race and gender of the respondents within this survey. The above table displays the frequency of which race/ethnicity took part within my survey, along with the frequency of all the respondents’ gender. As statedRobinson 10
within the research design, this is apart of the purposive sampling, which allows for a better out look on the public’s view of less lethal devices.Table 3: Cross tabulation of Major and GenderWhat is your major? * What is your gender? CrosstabulationWhat is your gender?TotalMaleFemaleWhat is your major?Criminal JusticeCount202040Expected Count20.020.040.0% of Total25.0%25.0%50.0%OtherCount202040Expected Count20.020.040.0% of Total25.0%25.0%50.0%TotalCount404080Expected Count40.040.080.0% of Total50.0%50.0%100.0%Table 3 shows the even split of 40 Criminal Justice majors respondents and 40 other majors respondents, with also displaying the spilt between male and female from each major. There are 20 male and 20 female respondents from each major. As stated within the research design, this is to get an overall look at the publics viewTable 4: Cross tabulation of Race and MajorWhat is your race/ethnicity? * What is your major?What is your major?TotalCriminalJusticeOtherWhat is your race/ethnicity? CaucasianCount202040Expected Count20.020.040.0% of Total25.0% 25.0%50.0%African AmericanCount9817Expected Count8.58.517.0Robinson 11
% of Total11.3% 10.0%21.3%HispanicCount7916Expected Count8.08.016.0% of Total8.8% 11.3%20.0%AsianCount314Expected Count2.02.04.0% of Total3.8%1.3%5.0%OtherCount123Expected Count1.51.53.0% of Total1.3%2.5%3.8%TotalCount404080Expected Count40.040.080.0% of Total50.0% 50.0% 100.0%Table 4 shows the cross tabulation between the race/ethnicity and the major of therespondents of the survey. Caucasian have an even 20/20 spilt which was the aim in order to understand the perception of each group correctly. The African American hold the most in the minorities group with 21.3% respondents. With conducting this purposivesampling it will give a better understanding of the use of less-than-lethal devices.Section 2: Dependent Variable (Y)Table 5: Survey dependent How many offenders do you think gets injured by the use ofCED's?FrequencyPercentValidPercentCumulativePercentValid1 in 503442.542.542.51 in 1003037.537.580.01 in 5001417.517.597.51 in 100022.52.5100.0Robinson 12
Total80100.0100.0In table 5 it shows that 42% of the respondents felt that only 1 in 50 offenders get injured by the use of CED’s. While 37.5% feel that only 1 in 100 offenders get injured while 17.5% feel 1 in 500 gets injured. This frequency shows that the public feels that the use of CED’s does cause more harm to an individual than expected.Table 6: Survey dependentHow many offenders do you think gets injured by the use of OCsprays?FrequencyPercentValidPercentCumulativePercentValid1 in 503341.341.341.31 in 1003037.537.578.81 in 5001215.015.093.81 in 100056.36.3100.0Total80100.0100.0In table 6, it shows that 41.3% of the respondents felt the use of the OC sprays injures 1 in 50 offenders. It also shows the 37.5% of the respondents feel that 1 in 100 offender get injured from the use of OC sprays, while only 15% feel that 1 in 500 get injured from the use of OC sprays. This table shows that the public views the use of OC sprays as more dangerous than CED’s. The public may feel that due to its availability andhow server of a burn it may be from the spray, it can cause damage to some offenders.Table 7: Descriptive based on writingNumber mention of less-than-lethal or non-lethal useFrequencyPercentValidPercentCumulative PercentValid0810.010.010.013240.040.050.022328.728.778.831215.015.093.8Robinson 13
456.36.3100.0Total80100.0100.0Within table 7 it shows the amount of times less-than-lethal or non-lethal were mentionedthroughout the writing exert from the survey. The language for less-than-lethal or non-lethal varied. Many of the participants even referred to non-lethal devices as lethal devices within their writings. Since there were two articles within my survey many people spoke on both. For the first article some people stated that the use of a CED was unjustified and that it needs to be used in certain situations, but definitely not that situation. For the second article many people felt the use of a CED was justified because it was used to protect the little girl from harming herself. When trying to analyze how many time less-than-lethal or non-lethal uses were mentioned it showed up overall 67 times throughout the entire surveys.Section 3: Independent Variables (X1) & covariates (X2, X3, X4)Table 8: Survey Independent (X1)Race plays a part in whether the police use lethal (Firearms) or non-lethal(Taser or Pepper spray) force.FrequencyPercentValidPercentCumulativePercentValidStrongly disagree78.88.88.8Disagree2227.527.536.3Agree3948.848.885.0Strongly Agree1215.015.0100.0Total80100.0100.0Table 8 displays frequency of whether race plays a part in the use of lethal or non-lethal force. Within the table it shows that 48.8% of the respondents agree that race does play a part and it can influence an officers decision on whether to use a certain type of force. The table also shows that 27.5% of the respondents disagree with the belief that Robinson 14
race plays a factor. Having the public feel that race plays a factor shows that there is a damaging stigma towards officers and the use of less-than-lethal devices.Table 9: Descriptive based on writing (X1)Number of mention of raceFrequencyPercentValidPercentCumulativePercentValid06783.883.883.811113.813.897.5222.52.5100.0Total80100.0100.0In table 9 it shows the number of times race was mentioned within the writing part of the survey. About 83.8% of the respondents did not mention race at all within the writing part of the survey. Of the 13 respondents that did mention race within their writing, they felt that the young man in the first article was being racially profiled or racially discriminated against. Some of the respondents truly felt that the issue of race is still a prevalent issue in today’s society.Table 10: Survey Independent (X2)Gender plays a part in whether the police use lethal (Firearms) or non-lethal (Taser or Pepper spray) force.FrequencyPercentValid PercentCumulativePercentValidStrongly disagree67.57.57.5Disagree1822.522.530.0Agree3240.040.070.0Strongly agree2430.030.0100.0Total80100.0100.0Table 10 asks the respondents if they agree or disagree with if gender plays a part in whether the police use lethal or non-lethal force. About 40% of the respondents agree Robinson 15
that gender does play a role in whether police use a certain type of force. Another 30% of the respondents strongly agree that gender is a factor in how police use force. The majority of the respondents believe that gender is a major factor and it is something that officers take into account when they apply force to an offender.Table 11: Descriptive based on writing (X2)Number of mention of genderFrequencyPercentValidPercentCumulativePercentValid05973.873.873.811620.020.093.8233.83.897.5311.31.398.8511.31.3100.0Total80100.0100.0Table 11 shows that 59 respondents did not mention anything about gender within their writing but out of the 80 respondents 21 respondents did mention something about gender. Many of the respondents who mentioned gender in their writing felt that the girl within the second article did deserve the use of the CED while also feeling the boy in the first article did not deserve the use of the CED. Many of the respondents pointed to the situation at hand. This shows that in certain situations gender really is an unimportant factor.Table 12: Survey Independent (X3)Training officers on the use of less-than-lethal weapon is important.FrequencyPercentValidPercentCumulativePercentValidStrongly disagree22.52.52.5Disagree78.88.811.3Agree2227.527.538.8Strongly agree4961.361.3100.0Total80100.0100.0Robinson 16
In table 12, it shows that 61.3% of the respondents feel that training officers on the use of less-than-lethal weaponry is important. There are though 8.8% of people who feel that it isn’t important at all.Table 13: Descriptive based on writing (X3)Number of mention of training required for officersFrequencyPercentValidPercentCumulativePercentValid05568.868.868.811721.321.390.0278.88.898.8311.31.3100.0Total80100.0100.0Within table 13 it shows that about 31.4% of the respondents mentioned something about training officers within their writing. Some respondents felt that the officers should be trained to handle suicidal situation such as in article 2 without resortingto the use of a CED. Many of the other respondents felt that the officers needed to be trained in hand-to-hand combat in order to disarm someone with ease.Table 14: Survey Independent (X4)Rank: Understanding of a suspect's medical history.FrequencyPercentValidPercentCumulativePercentValidLeast effective3543.843.843.8Somewhat effective1923.823.867.5Effective911.311.378.8Most effective1721.321.3100.0Total80100.0100.0According to table 14, only 17 respondents found that understanding a suspect’s medical history is the most effective way of decreasing officer and offender injuries. While those 17 respondents make up 21.3% of the response, 35 people feel that it is the Robinson 17
least effective in reducing officer and offender injuries. Those 35 respondents make up 43.8% of the people who answered that question. There are though 19 people who find itsomewhat effective and feel that it may play an important part after all.Table 15: Descriptive based on writing (X4)Number of mention of medical historyFrequencyPercentValid PercentCumulativePercentValid05872.572.572.511822.522.595.0245.05.0100.0Total80100.0100.0Table 15 displays the number of mentions of medical history within the writing section of the survey. Within the overall respondents written survey, only 22 respondentsmentioned medical history, which made up 27.5% of the response. Overall 58 respondents didn’t mention anything about medical history playing apart in an officer’s use of force. For the people who did mention medical history, many of the language spoke about the girl in the second article and how it can be detrimental to hurt someone who has a suicidal tendency. Some say the officers should have tried to talk her out of hurting herself or try understanding her pain and help her through it.Section 4: Significance testing to test your research question or hypothesis 4a: Y by CJ vs. Non-CJ majorsTable 16: Y1 by CJ vs. Non-CJ majorsHow many offenders do you think gets injured by the use of CED's? * What isyour major? CrosstabulationWhat is your major?TotalCriminalJusticeOtherHow many 1 in 50Count161834Robinson 18
offenders do you think gets injured by the use of CED's?Expected Count17.017.034.0% of Total20.0%22.5%42.5%1 in 100Count161430Expected Count15.015.030.0% of Total20.0%17.5%37.5%1 in 500Count7714Expected Count7.07.014.0% of Total8.8%8.8%17.5%1 in 1000Count112Expected Count1.01.02.0% of Total1.3%1.3%2.5%TotalCount404080Expected Count40.040.080.0% of Total50.0%50.0%100.0%Chi Square is N.S.The Chi Square is non-significant for table 16. Within table 16 it shows that about 16 CJ majors feel that 1 in 50 offenders are injured by the use of CED’s while 18 Non-CJ majors feel the same way. For 1 in 100 about 16 CJ majors still felt that way, while for Non-CJ only 14 respondents felt that way. Now with 1 in 500 both CJ and Non-CJ split 7 to 7. Table 17: Y2 by CJ vs. Non-CJ majorsHow many offenders do you think gets injured by the use of OC sprays? * Whatis your major? CrosstabulationWhat is your major?TotalCriminalJusticeOtherHow many offenders do you think gets injured by the use of OC sprays?1 in 50Count161733Expected Count16.516.533.0% of Total20.0%21.3%41.3%1 in 100Count181230Expected Count15.015.030.0% of Total22.5%15.0%37.5%1 in 500Count5712Robinson 19
Expected Count6.06.012.0% of Total6.3%8.8%15.0%1 in 1000Count145Expected Count2.52.55.0% of Total1.3%5.0%6.3%TotalCount404080Expected Count40.040.080.0% of Total50.0%50.0%100.0%Chi Square is N.S.Within table 17, this examines how many offenders the use of OC sprays injures? 16 CJ majors feel that its use injures 1 in 50 and 17 Non-CJ feel the same way. When analyzing which one both CJ and Non-CJ agree with it seem that 1 in 50 is the amount of people who get injured by the use of OC sprays.Table 18:Y3 by CJ vs. Non-CJ majorsNumber mention of less-than-lethal or non-lethal use * What is your major?CrosstabulationWhat is your major?TotalCriminalJusticeOtherNumber mention of less-than-lethalor non-lethal use0Count268Expected Count4.04.08.0% of Total2.5%7.5%10.0%1Count141832Expected Count16.016.032.0% of Total17.5%22.5%40.0%2Count131023Expected Count11.511.523.0% of Total16.3%12.5%28.7%3Count8412Expected Count6.06.012.0% of Total10.0%5.0%15.0%4Count325Expected Count2.52.55.0Robinson 20
% of Total3.8%2.5%6.3%TotalCount404080Expected Count40.040.080.0% of Total50.0%50.0%100.0%Chi Square N.S.Table 18 examines which major mentioned the less-than-lethal or non-lethal use within the writing section of my survey. The table shows that Non-CJ respondents mentioned my dependent variable a lot more than the CJ majors.4b:Y-X1 testTable 19: Y-X1 testCorrelationsNumbermention ofless-than-lethal or non-lethal useNumber ofmention ofraceNumber mention of less-than-lethal or non-lethal usePearson Correlation1-.163Sig. (2-tailed).149N8080Number of mention of racePearson Correlation-.1631Sig. (2-tailed).149N8080With table 19 it is a correlations of number of mention of race and number of mention of less-than-lethal or non-lethal use. With analyzing the data it clear that the non-significance of .149 shows that it does not support my hypothesis.4c:Y-X2, Y-X3Table 20: Y-X2Number mention of less-than-lethal or non-lethal use * Number of mention ofgender CrosstabulationNumber of mention of genderTotalRobinson 21
01235Number mention of less-than-lethal or non-lethal use0 Count610018Expected Count5.91.6.3.1.18.0% of Total7.5%1.3% 0.0% 0.0% 1.3%10.0%1 Count25520032Expected Count23.66.41.2.4.432.0% of Total31.3%6.3% 2.5% 0.0% 0.0%40.0%2 Count19400023Expected Count17.04.6.9.3.323.0% of Total23.8%5.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%28.7%3 Count7410012Expected Count8.92.4.4.2.212.0% of Total8.8%5.0% 1.3% 0.0% 0.0%15.0%4 Count220105Expected Count3.71.0.2.1.15.0% of Total2.5%2.5% 0.0% 1.3% 0.0%6.3%TotalCount591631180Expected Count59.016.03.01.01.080.0% of Total73.8% 20.0% 3.8% 1.3% 1.3% 100.0%Chi-Square TestsValuedfAsymp. Sig.(2-sided)Pearson Chi-Square30.720a16.015Likelihood Ratio17.78616.337Linear-by-Linear Association.4011.526N of Valid Cases80a. 20 cells (80.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is .06.Robinson 22
With examining table 20 it shows that the use of less than lethal force is influenced by the gender. With a Chi-Square test score of .015 it shows that this hypothesis is significant to the research.Table 21: Y-X3Number mention of less-than-lethal or non-lethal use * Number of mention oftraining required for officers CrosstabulationNumber of mention of trainingrequired for officersTotal0123Number mention of less-than-lethal or non-lethal use0 Count33118Expected Count5.51.7.7.18.0% of Total3.8%3.8%1.3%1.3%10.0%1 Count2174032Expected Count22.06.82.8.432.0% of Total26.3%8.8%5.0%0.0%40.0%2 Count1841023Expected Count15.84.92.0.323.0% of Total22.5%5.0%1.3%0.0%28.7%3 Count921012Expected Count8.32.61.1.212.0% of Total11.3%2.5%1.3%0.0%15.0%4 Count41005Expected Count3.41.1.4.15.0% of Total5.0%1.3%0.0%0.0%6.3%TotalCount55177180Expected Count55.017.07.01.080.0% of Total68.8%21.3%8.8%1.3%100.0%Robinson 23
Chi Square is N.S.As seen in table 21, this is cross tabulation of the number of mentions of less-than-lethal or non-lethal use and mention of training required for officers. What was found was that these were in non-significant and that many of the respondents gave the same amount of mentions to both parts.Table 22: Y-X4Number mention of less-than-lethal or non-lethal use * Number of mention of medicalhistory CrosstabulationNumber of mention of medicalhistoryTotal012Number mention of less-than-lethal or non-lethal use0Count7108Expected Count5.81.8.48.0% of Total8.8%1.3%0.0%10.0%1Count265132Expected Count23.27.21.632.0% of Total32.5%6.3%1.3%40.0%2Count176023Expected Count16.75.21.223.0% of Total21.3%7.5%0.0%28.7%3Count75012Expected Count8.72.7.612.0% of Total8.8%6.3%0.0%15.0%4Count1135Expected Count3.61.1.35.0% of Total1.3%1.3%3.8%6.3%TotalCount5818480Expected Count58.018.04.080.0% of Total72.5%22.5%5.0%100.0%Chi-Square TestsValuedfAsymp. Sig.(2-sided)Robinson 24
Pearson Chi-Square38.583a8.000Likelihood Ratio20.4438.009Linear-by-Linear Association12.0221.001N of Valid Cases80a. 9 cells (60.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is .25.As shown in table 22, the cross tabulation between Y-X4 shows that there is a significant correlation between the two. The table also shows that the hypothesis could be right.4d: New Wrinkle TestTable 23: Wrinkle #1Officers should record every use of less-than-lethal devices.FrequencyPercentValid PercentCumulativePercentValidStrongly disagree45.05.05.0Disagree45.05.010.0Agree3847.547.557.5Strongly agree3442.542.5100.0Total80100.0100.0Within table 23 it shows, that almost every respondent agrees that ever use of less-than-lethal devices should be recorded by the police officers. 38 agreed that officers should record every use, while 34 strongly agreed that they should do the same. Only 8 people where against officers recording the use of the devices.Table 24: Wrinkle #2Would you be suprised to learn that the police do not keeprecords on their officers' use of non-lethal force againstsuspects?FrequencyPercentValid PercentCumulativePercentRobinson 25
ValidYes3138.838.838.8No4961.361.3100.0Total80100.0100.0Table 24 looks at whether the respondents would be shocked at knowing that records are not kept on the use of non-lethal force against suspect. 61.3% of the respondents feel that it is not a surprising issue. While 38.8% feel that it is. This shows that the public does not really care to know about police use of non-lethal devices.Table 25: Wrinkle #1 -RaceOfficers should record every use of less-than-lethal devices. * What is yourrace/ethnicity? CrosstabulationWhat is your race/ethnicity? TotalCaucasianAfricanAmerican Hispanic Asian OtherOfficers should record every useof less-than-lethal devices.StronglydisagreeCount111014ExpectedCount2.0.9.8.2.24.0% of Total1.3%1.3%1.3%0.0%1.3%5.0%Disagree Count202004ExpectedCount2.0.9.8.2.24.0% of Total2.5%0.0%2.5%0.0%0.0%5.0%AgreeCount17874238ExpectedCount19.08.17.61.91.438.0% of Total21.3%10.0%8.8%5.0%2.5%47.5%StronglyagreeCount20860034ExpectedCount17.07.26.81.71.334.0% of Total25.0%10.0%7.5%0.0%0.0%42.5%TotalCount4017164380Robinson 26
ExpectedCount40.017.016.04.03.080.0% of Total50.0%21.3%20.0%5.0%3.8% 100.0%Chi Square N.S.For table 25, it takes a look at what race said that officers should record every use of non-lethal devices. From analyzing the table it shows that Caucasian’s strongly agreesthe most with having officers record all uses of non-lethal devices. This table also shows that if all the other races where joined together, other than Caucasian, it would show that they also strongly agree that officers should record all uses.Table 26: Wrinkle #2- RaceWould you be surprised to learn that the police do not keep records on theirofficers' use of non-lethal force against suspects? * What is your race/ethnicity?CrosstabulationWhat is your race/ethnicity? TotalCaucasianAfricanAmericanHispanic Asian OtherWould you be suprised to learn that the police do not keep records on their officers' use ofnon-lethal force against suspects?Yes Count18660131ExpectedCount15.56.66.21.61.231.0% of Total22.5%7.5%7.5%0.0%1.3%38.8%NoCount2211104249ExpectedCount24.510.49.82.51.849.0% of Total27.5%13.8%12.5%5.0%2.5%61.3%TotalCount4017164380ExpectedCount40.017.016.04.03.080.0% of Total50.0%21.3%20.0%5.0%3.8% 100.0%Like table 24, table 26 provides a break down by race. From the table, it can be seen that Caucasians make up 27.5% of the people who would not be surprised that Robinson 27
officers don’t keep records. With join the other races together just like table 25 it can be seen that the other races make up the 33.8% that also would not be surprised by officers not recording their usage. This table gives a general idea of how each race feel about knowing how police use their force.Table 27: Wrinkle #1-GenderOfficers should record every use of less-than-lethal devices. * What is your gender?CrosstabulationWhat is your gender?TotalMaleFemaleOfficers should record every use of less-than-lethal devices.Strongly disagreeCount224Expected Count2.02.04.0% of Total2.5%2.5%5.0%DisagreeCount134Expected Count2.02.04.0% of Total1.3%3.8%5.0%AgreeCount231538Expected Count19.019.038.0% of Total28.7%18.8%47.5%Strongly agreeCount142034Expected Count17.017.034.0% of Total17.5%25.0%42.5%TotalCount404080Expected Count40.040.080.0% of Total50.0%50.0%100.0%Chi Square N.S.Table 26 goes by gender. It looks to see which gender feels that officers should record every use of less-than-lethal devices. With males 46.2% agree that all officers should record any usage of less-than-lethal devices. With the females 43.8 % agree that Robinson 28
officers should record their usage of less-than-lethal devices.Table 28: Wrinkle #2- GenderWould you be suprised to learn that the police do not keep records ontheir officers' use of non-lethal force against suspects? * What is yourgender? CrosstabulationWhat is yourgender?TotalMaleFemaleWould you be suprised to learn that the police do not keep records on their officers' use of non-lethal force against suspects?YesCount181331Expected Count15.515.531.0% of Total22.5%16.3%38.8%NoCount222749Expected Count24.524.549.0% of Total27.5%33.8%61.3%TotalCount404080Expected Count40.040.080.0% of Total50.0%50.0%100.0%Chi Square N.S.With table 28, it looks at who would be more surprised about learning that police do not keep records on their officer’s use of non-lethal force against suspects. In the table it shows that males would be more surprised to learn that officers don’t keep records of their usage of non-lethal force against suspects. There were 22.5% male respondents who felt it would be shocking for police to do such a thing.Robinson 29
DiscussionTo return to my research question, does the use of less-than-lethal weaponry and tactics help in decreasing police officer and offender injuries? Well from my research I found that from the public point of view, less-than-lethal devices are very effective tools that can help detain and apprehend a suspect with ease. A majority of the surveyed population does feel that 1 in 50 offenders are injured by the deployment of these devices. The population though does feel that the use of less-than-lethal devices should only be used in certain situations, mainly most of the response are toward the type of situation such as if someone’s safety or life is at risk then the use of non-lethal devices are justifiable.All studies have limitation, and mine is no exception. The weaknesses of my study are the small sampling size and not enough fieldwork. My research seemed to onlygear towards the public point of view, it would have been best to work outside and speak to police officers or security guards that do use the non-lethal devices. My research couldhave benefited more by talking to people who have been Tasered or pepper sprayed. Also with the small sample size that was confined to only Kean University, it truly affected my research. I feel that the general public can benefit from taking part in such a research.Pertaining to the research question I feel as though I would continue to research this topic in graduate school. There are though some things I would do differently. I would instead go by existing data rather than handing out surveys. The existing data would have benefited this research a lot more than asking the general public questions that they might not know anything about.Robinson 30
ReferencesBulman, P. (2010). Police Use of Force: The Impact of Less-Lethal Weapons and Tactics. The National Institute of Justice (NIJ) Journal (267), 4-11.Downs, R. L. (2007). Less lethal weapons: A technologist's perspective. Policing: An International Journal of Police Strategies & Management, 30(3), 358-384.Gau, J. M., Mosher, C., & Prat, C. T. (2009). An Inquiry Into the Impact of Suspect Race on Police Use of Tasers. Police Quarterly, 13(1), 27-48.MacDonald, J. M., Kaminski, R. J., & Smith, M. R. (2009). The Effect of Less-Lethal Weapons on Injuries in Police Use-of-Force Events. American Journal of Public Health, 99(12), 2268-2274.Mesloh, C., Henych, M., & Wolf, R. (2008). Less Lethal Weapon Effectiveness, Use of Force, and Suspect & Officer Injuries: A Five-Year Anaylsis.Florida Gulf Coast University Research Institute, Weapons & Equipment. Fort Myers: National Institue of Justice.Morabito, E. V., & Doerner, W. G. (1997). Police use of less-than-lethal force: Oleoresin Capsicum (OC) spray. 20(4), 680.Ross, D. L., & Jones, M. (1996). Frequency of Training in Less-Than-Lethal Force Tactics and Weapons: Results of Two-State Survey. Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice, 12(3), 250-263.Taylor, B., Alpert, G., Kubu, B., Woods, D., & Dunham, R. G. (2011). Changes in officeruse of force over time: a descriptive analysis of a national survey. Policing: An International Journal of Police Strategies & Management, 34(2), 211-232.Robinson 31
White, M. D., & Ready, J. (2008, February 26). The Impact of the Taser on Suspect Resistance: Identifying Predictors of Effectiveness. Crime & Delinquency, 70-102.Wolf, R., Mesloh, C., Henych, M., & Thompson, L. F. (2009). Police use of force and thecumulative force factor. Policing: An international Journal of Police Strategies &Management, 32(4), 739-757.Robinson 32
Pleas answer the following questions:1.What is your age? 2.What is your gender? Male Female3.What is your race/ethnicity? (Circle all that apply)CaucasianAfrican AmericanHispanicAsian Other 4.What is your major? Criminal JusticeOther, List 5a.In your own opinion, when is it viable for an officer to use a Conducted Energy Devices (CED) or better known as a TASER? 5b.In your own opinion, when is it viable for an officer to a use an Oleoresin Capsicum (OC) spray or better known as Pepper Spray? 6a.How many offenders do you think gets injured by the use of CED’s?_____1 in 50_____1 in 100_____1 in 500______1 in 10006b.How many offenders do you think gets injured by the use of OC sprays?_____1 in 50_____1 in 100_____1 in 500______1 in 10006c.How many offenders do you think die from the use of less-than-lethal devices?_____1 in 50_____1 in 100_____1 in 500______1 in 10007.Race plays a part in whether the police use lethal (Firearms) or non-lethal (Taser or Pepper spray) force.[] strongly disagree [] disagree [] agree [] strongly agree8.Gender plays a part in whether the police use lethal (Firearms) or non-lethal (Taser or Pepper spray) force.[] strongly disagree [] disagree [] agree [] strongly agree9.Training officers on the use of less-than-lethal weapon is important.[] strongly disagree [] disagree [] agree [] strongly agree10.Officers should record every use of less-than-lethal devices.[] strongly disagree [] disagree [] agree [] strongly agree11.Would you be surprised to learn that the police do not keep records on their officers’ use of non-lethal force against suspects?[] Yes[] No12.Please rank the following factors from 4 (most effective) to 1 (least effective) in terms of decreasing officer and offender injuries. Please do not assign the same ranking to more than one factor:_____Better training of police on CED and OC sprays_____Change in gun laws_____More hand to hand combat training for police officers_____Understanding of a suspect’s medical history Robinson 33
Please turn to the page and read the attached news blurbs. Then write a short paragraph expressing your opinion on whether the use of less-than-lethal force is justifiable?Source:http://rt.com/usa/cops-taser-teenager-testicles-679/California cops sued for firing Taser at teenager's testiclesA black teenager is suing the city of Richmond, CA after a local police officer reportedly tasered him in thetesticles. Andre Little, who was involved in the altercation at a train station with Officer Kristopher Tong, claims that both his civil rights and state laws were violated. According to the lawsuit filed, Little said that he was waiting for a train when Tong moved toward him and asked if he was involved with another group of teens, also black, according to the Courthouse News Service. That group had been “previously detained for questioning,”but Little denied that he was associated with them. Little claims that Tong then told him to move down to another section of the platform. When he refused, Tong and another officer reportedly pulled the teenager down to the ground as Little yelled that they had the wrong guy. At this point, Little’s complaint states, "Tong then pulled out a Taser and pointed it at [Little's] head.”The teen pushed the Taser away, but then Tong pointed the device at his scrotum, causing Little to shout, "Don't tase me bro! Please don't tase me in the balls! You don't have to do this!"According to the suit, though, Tong tasered the boy in the scrotum anyway, placed the teen on his stomach, and used the Taser one more time on his back. U.S. District Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley ruled that Little did not sufficiently prove that Tong singled the teen out or was motivated by race. She noted the complained failed to describe Little’s position relative to other passengers at the station as well as the group previously detained by the police. Still, Corley said that Little will be offered an opportunity to amend his suit in order to clarify the details of the situation. “If it can be plausibly inferred that Tong approached Little and questioned him about his association with the detained African-American men because Little is also African-American, such racial animus provides the further plausible inference that Tong’s actions occurring in close temporal proximity — ordering Little to move down the platform and the use of force — were also motivated by racial animus,”the judge wrote. Source: http://www.lansingstatejournal.com/article/20131009/NEWS01/310090064/PIERRE, S.D.— The police chief here is defending an officer’s use of an electroshock weapon against an 8-year-oldgirl threatening to harm herself.Parents of the child, who was with a babysitter at the time, want the officer disciplined for using excessive force. Police Chief Bob Grandpre said three officers responded Friday night to a report of a suicidal 8-year-old girl who had stabbed herself in the leg. She was holding a 4½-inch knife to her chest when officersarrived, and she refused to put it down. One officer took a step toward the child but stopped when she turned the knife toward him. “She immediately put the knife back at her chest,” said the chief of police in this city of about 14,000 that is the capital of South Dakota. That’s when an officer deployed his Taser, with prongs hitting her chest and stomach. Emergency medical personnel soon arrived and checked the child, he said, who was taken to a hospital and placed on a 24-hour hold. The child had no stab wounds on her leg.The chief is reviewing the incident, but the officer, whose name was not released, still is on the job. Grandpre said the Taser was the least forceful way to get the child under control. The chief added that the officer has children and feels terrible about the incident, but “we can’t control if the threat is 8 or 80.”The child’s parents say police should have found another way. “Tasers are for grown adults, not 8-year-oldgirls,” said Bobby Jones, the child’s father. “They say it was for her own safety, but there is no justification for that.” The girl was not seriously injured, but “she was in pain the whole night,” said her mother, Dawn Robinson 34
Stenstrom. The prongs of a Taser send electricity into the muscles, briefly incapacitating the body, and the company says on its website that the shock is generally mildly to moderately painful.The girl was released the following morning, before the 24-hour mark had passed. Stenstrom described the knife as “a little paring knife,” and said she’s never known her daughter to get far enough out of control as to require physical restraint.Please write a short paragraph explaining your opinion on whether the use of less-than-lethal force is justifiable in each situation. (A minimum of 5 sentences is required)Robinson 35
Does the Use of Less-Than-Lethal Weaponry and Tactics Help in Decreasing Police Officer and Offender Injures?Student Researcher: Edsel L. RobinsonYou are invited to participate in an undergraduate student research project that looks at whether or not the use of less-than-lethal weaponry and tactics help in decreasing police officer and offender injuries.This study is being conducted in partial fulfillment of a bachelor’s degree in criminal justice at Kean University. You have been selected using a convenience sampling approach. Your participation will include reading a newspaper article on this topic, then completing a few survey questions and writing an anonymous letter to the editor of The Columbian Newspaper. The estimated amount of time required for your participation is 10-15 minutes. Your participation is completely voluntary. You may refuse or withdraw participation at any point without penalty. Your identity will be kept completely confidential. At no time will your survey responses or letter to the editor be linked to your name on your consent form. (Please be sure to NOT write or sign your name on your letter.) In accordance with Kean University and U.S. federal policy regarding research involving human subjects, this research is being conducted for educational purposes only. As a result, no sensitive questions have been included in the survey, and I have promised not to attempt to publish my results. As a result, there are little to no risks to you participating in this study.If you have questions regarding this study or would like a copy of the results, please email me at: Robineds@kean.edu. If you have questions regarding your rights as a participant, please contact my sponsoring professor, Dr. Connie Hassett-Walker at 908-737-4156 or at chassett@kean.edu. If you agree to participate in this study, please sign and print your name below. Your signature indicates that you have read and understand the information provided, and that you have voluntarily agreed to participate. Also check off the box below asserting that you are currently enrolled at Kean University as a student. Please keep one copy of this consent form for your records, and return one copy to me.[] I assert that I am a current Kean University student. [] I assert that I am 18 years of age or older. Participant Signature: ___________________________________________ Date: _____________Name of Participant (please print) ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________Signature of Student ResearcherDate_________________________________________________________________________Signature of Sponsoring Professor, Dr. Connie Hassett-WalkerDateRobinson 36
Robinson 37