1. Viktor E. Bovbjerg, PhD MPH W. Bosseau Murray, MD, FFA John M. Kenny, PhD, MBA Commander Sid Heal, LASD Behavioral and Medical Outcomes of Nonlethal Weapons Use

2. LASD Force Data

3. Data Collected System characteristics Device used, Munition used Measures of performance Number of rounds fired, number of “hits,” body location of “hits,” physical environment, meteorological conditions Measures of response Type of incident, change in behavior, countermeasures, health/medical effects on target, bystanders, operator Measures of system effectiveness Intended effect, achieved effect, need for follow-on NLW, lethal weapon use, close combat Measures of operational effectiveness Operational goal, operational goal achievement

4. Study Objectives All LASD force data 1995-2004 N > 21,000 Weapons, range, clothing, environment, injuries, countermeasures, effects on “target,” estimate of effectiveness, etc. Most comprehensive study of its kind Identify trends (study covers a decade) A work in progress! Final report due about April 2005

5. 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 bio-behavioral 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

6. Suspect Info Weighed an average of 173 pounds (78 kilograms) 4% were armed with firearms 24% had a criminal history 5% had a mental health history 23% were under the influence of drugs and/or alcohol 71% of these were at least alcohol 21% were using stimulants relevant for TASER death hypotheses

7. LASD NLW weapon use by year, 1995-2003 (as % change from 1995) 37mm ARWEN OC Stunbag TASERER Stingball

8. Types of Force Used (1995-2004) Riot Control Agents 1% Canine 2% Stingball 5% Stunbag 2% Taser 4% 37mm 2% Baton 3% OC (Pepper Spray) 81% N = 15,573

9. Strike Sites—TASER & ARWEN 0% 3% 5% 4% 25% 33% 51% 14% 13%19% TASERARWEN

10. What’s Next? (Final Analysis) NLW employment: descriptive Weapons and munitions employed, type and number of munitions employed, employment ranges, settings: events, targets, environment Health/unintended effects: descriptive and predictive Health effects to target: nature of injury, location of injury, on site medical treatment/transport Health effects to bystanders Unintended effects to property (e.g. structures, vehicles) Effectiveness: descriptive and predictive Intended vs. achieved target behavior change Need for follow-on NLW Need for follow-on lethal force Ability to maintain stand-off Intended vs. achieved operational objective Multivariable prediction of outcomes based on weapon, munition, employment, setting, target, etc.

11. Questions? (or notification of availability of report) Commander Sid Heal Los Angeles Sheriff’s Department 4700 Ramona Ave. Monterey Park, CA 91754 323-526-5466 CSHeal@lasd.org