Citation

Kroll MW, Melinek J, Martin JA, Brave MA, Williams HE. Forensic Sci. Med. Pathol. 2022; ePub(ePub): ePub.

Copyright

(Copyright © 2022, Holtzbrinck Springer Nature Publishing Group)

DOI

10.1007/s12024-022-00457-6

PMID

35067809

Abstract

Conducted electrical weapons (CEW) have risks including trauma associated with uncontrolled falls, probes penetrating the eye, and fume ignition. A lesser-known risk is weapon-confusion error with officers mistakenly discharging their firearm when they intended to deploy their electrical weapon. We searched for incidents of possible weapon confusion with the TASER® brand CEWs via open-source media, litigation filings, and a survey of CEW law enforcement master instructors. We found 19 incidents of possible CEW weapon confusion in law enforcement field uses from January 2001 to April 2021. We eliminated a case as not meeting our criteria for probable weapons confusion leaving 18 cases, thus giving a demonstrated CEW discharge risk of 3.9 per million with confidence limits (2.4-6.2 per million) by Wilson score interval. Ipsilateral carry of the weapons was historically correlated with increased risk vs. contralateral carry. Officer gender was not a predictor of weapon confusion. The psychological issues behind weapon confusion under stress are discussed. The concurrent carry of electrical weapons and firearms presents a very small but real risk of injury and death from confusion between an electrical weapon and a firearm.

Language: en

Keywords

Firearm; Axon; CEW; ECD; Electrical weapon; Gunshot injury; TASER; Weapon confusion