ARL

Human Effects of Non-lethal Force in Field Settings

Cdr. Charles S. Heal, MPA MS John M. Kenny, PhD, MBA

Viktor E. Bovbjerg, PhD MPH W. Bosseau Murray, MD, FFA

ARL

ARL

The need for operational data• Underpinnings for NLW human effects and

effectiveness• biophysical, physiologic• human and animal experimentation• physical and computer modeling• “sentinel events”/case series

• Relatively little from observational settings• difficulty of data collection, verification, generalizability• inconsistency in data definitions• failure to translate outcomes to those meaningful at

operational and medical levels

“The business of human effects characterization is absolutely fundamental to the entire Non-Lethal Weapons Program… The value added of human effects characterization will drive change in acquisitions”COL (Ret) G. Fenton (Past Director, JNLWD) 5 Dec 01

ARL

Specific aims

• Describe NLW use in a large metropolitan area, similar to those encountered in military operations other than war and civilian law enforcement

• Describe the range of biobehavioral effects of NLW use, including desired and achieved behavior change, and identify weapon-, setting-, and target-level predictors of successful NLW use

• Describe the range of biomedical effects of NLW use, and identify weapon-, setting-, and target-level predictors of health effects

ARLLos Angeles Sheriff’s Department• Personnel: 8,271 sworn; 2nd largest in US• 23 regional stations; wide range of specialized

bureaus (e.g. Aero, Special Enforcement, Emergency Operations)

• National/international leader in NLW development, adoption, doctrine

• LA County: c 10m residents, 4,000+ sq mi, population density 29-14,555 people/sq mile; wide range of geography, built environment, activity

Experience in areas of NLW core capabilities: deny access, clear facilities, crowd control, incapacitate, area denial

ARL

Data collection

Data Systems Bureau-force reports: weapons,

injuries, treatment-demographics, armed &

intoxication status-incident identification

Electronic dataReserve Forces Bureau-incident details: target

activity, range, clothing, countermeasures, injuries

-intended and achieved response, objective

-statements, photos

“Paper” datalinked by incident number

identifiers stripped

University of Virginia

ARLLASD Force Data

ARL

Human health effects data• Approved by UVA IRB and LASD• Abstracted from incident reports

• Injury data from EMS, ED, hospital, jail medical facilities, deputy observations, suspect statements

• All NLW incidents documented by medical personnel external to LASD

• Any incident involving complaint of pain, suspected injury evaluated by ED/hospital

• Weapon use, weapon-specific injuries and injury sites extracted• Weapon-specific rates calculated• Complete injury ascertainment, 1997-2003

ARL

Uses of force*, LASD, 1995-2003

0

2000

4000

6000

8000

10000

1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003*defined as any force greater than unresisted handcuffing

ARLNLW use, LASD, 1995-2003

11,169Chemical (OC spray)302Baton (impact)

143Chemical (tear gas)454TASER644Sting ball261Stun bag11437 mm stinger145ARWEN

UsesWeapon

ARLChanges in LASD non-lethal weapons use, 1995-2003

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003

37mmARWENOCsting ballstun bagtaser

% c

hang

e fro

m 1

995

ARLPercentage of NLW use resulting in injury, by weapon, 1997-2003

0.81.00.40.80.22.9Fracture

0.2Paralysis

0.11.0Sprain/twist0.2Dislocation

12.810.612.43.234.04.221.010.5Abrasion0.20.45.1Burn

10.123.231.30.737.82.325.720.2Bruise

0.10.459.72.10.9Puncture wound3.95.54.32.45.92.13.81.8Laceration

2.94.79.02.25.55.7Soft tissue damage

0.4Organ damage

0.20.4Concussion46.931.424.524.09.277.029.559.6None

“Hand to hand”

Flash-lightBatonTASER

Stun bag

Sting ballARWEN37mmInjury

ARLInjury sites, among LASD NLW uses resulting in injury, percentage

by weapon, 1997-2003

ARWEN37mm Stinger Stingball

17.7%

60.8%

19.1%

15.2%

34.8%

47.9% 36.0%

31.1%

32.9%

Head, neck, face

Torso

Extremities

Stun bag TASER

19.4%

71.7%

7.0%

19.0%

76.6%

3.5%

* % of injuries in each site, by weapon

ARLLimitations• Rare events• “Type of injury” may be insufficient to classify injury• Potential for biased documentation by severity• Documentation of complete recovery• Unanswered questions

• When does a large kinetic round result in no injury?• What is the range of injury severity within “type” of injury

(e.g. laceration, puncture wound)?• Which injuries posed greater threat of disability? • Are some weapons more often associated with other uses

of force, injuries to deputies?• Which weapons were effective, in which settings, against

which opponents?

ARLCurrent effort: record review• Verification, detail of effects

• Specific information on injury, injury site, extent of injury, treatment provided

• Injuries to deputies• Effectiveness

• Specifics of setting: range, suspect characteristics and activity, countermeasures

• Rounds fired, hits• Need for follow-on force, lethal force• Achievement of behavioral goal (e.g.

incapacitation, deterrence)• Achievement of operational objective

ARLUnintendedConsequence

Dose

Prob

abili

ty o

f Eff

ect (

%)

0

100

50

DesiredEffect

Des

ired

Ope

ratin

gEn

velo

pefo

r NLW

Very few will experience unintended effects

Most willbe affected

Operational effectiveness vs. unintended consequences

“Calculating lethal weapon effectiveness…is familiar. There is a vast amount of data characterising weapon effects, target characteristics, and weapon-target combinations…“This is not the case, however, for non-lethal weapons (NLWs). It isn’t possible to tap a long history of operational experience, past analysis, and existing models to assess the effectiveness of non-lethal systems…”

NATO SAS-035 Study Team, March 2003, with permission

Both the ‘effect’ and ‘effectiveness’ must be clearly understood…LTC Mark C. Wrobel, Human Effects Officer, JNLWD, 30 OCT 03

ARLUsing study results• Estimate NLW effectiveness, human effects

• Identify situations in which effectiveness is likely to be achieved with minimal unintended effects

• Support larger efforts to characterize NLW effects and effectiveness (e.g. NATO SAS-035)

• Feasibility and methodology for collecting field NLW data• Support further systematic field studies

• Benchmark effectiveness and safety for NLW developers

• Inform doctrine/training• Inform modeling of NLW human effects