What's Wrong with Using Electronic Control Devices?

The purpose of this column is to discuss technology. However, technology does not exist in a vacuum - it must be used. The way that technology is used can have a far-reaching impact on how we do police work.

The Most Controversial Technology

We have talked about electronic control devices (ECDs) here before. We have discussed what makes them work, and how to deploy them tactically. We have even explored what to do when they fail to have the desired incapacitating effect. What we have not considered in this space is the theory, or as some would say, the ethics of ECD use.

Let's keep things simple and on-point. Here are some verifiable facts:

• ECDs are handheld battery powered devices - they are not nuclear powered.
• ECDs deliver short duration low current electrical pulses to the body when a satisfactory circuit is established.
• In order to incapacitate someone, that charge needs to create neuro-muscular incapacitation (NMI), rendering the subject incapable of resisting (at least while energy is delivered to the person's body).
• Other non-lethal tools and techniques that officers have, including impact weapons and aerosol sprays, use pain compliance to gain control.
• Pain compliance devices leave it up to the subject when, and if, to comply - in effect hurting them until they give up.
• If the subject isn't affected by the pain, or decides to fight anyway, then pain compliance tools don't give you control.

So, in order to force compliance from a resisting subject, you need something that takes the decision to submit away from the subject, and involuntarily incapacitates them until you can gain physical control. The only non-lethal tool that you have with which to force that compliance is your ECD.

Of course, the use of an ECD is painful, just like other use-of-force tools and techniques. The question is not whether or not you should hurt someone while gaining control, it's how much and how long should you hurt them.

Why Would You Hurt Someone More than You Have To?

When you're going to take someone into custody, they will either resist or they won't. If they resist, you will have to use some means to overcome that resistance. If the resistance is physical, you need to use physical means to overcome it. If they offer strong resistance, you'll need to use stronger control to overcome their resistance.

That may seem obvious - and it usually is to anyone who has worked the street and made arrests - but many people just don't get it. Let's say it again - stronger (as in more violent) resistance requires stronger (as in more violent) control. And here's the thing... more violent often means more injury, for officers and subjects - and sometimes for by-standers.

That is never a good thing.

So, there is an absolutely "reasonable" reason why we would use a tool that forces compliance, and is unlikely to result in serious injury. The only tool you have that does that is your ECD.

Wait a Minute... ECDs are Dangerous. Aren't They?

No, they're not. Whether you like them or not, ECDs are demonstrably unlikely to result in death or serious injury. Here are some more verifiable facts:

• There is a large and growing body of knowledge - from departmental studies to peer-reviewed research, from the U.S. and Canada to Great Britain and other countries, from practitioners and attorneys to academics and medical professionals - that supports the idea that use of ECDs, while not risk-free, is unlikely to result in death or serious injuries.
• There have been several hundred thousand exposures to the effects of ECDs in training. There have been hundreds of exposures, some continuous exposures as long as 45 seconds, in research environments. There have been very few injuries, and no deaths.
• ECDs have been in the hands of the public for many years, and also in the hands of law enforcement. Since the late 1990s, a growing number of law enforcement agencies have deployed ECDs. Today, nearly two-thirds of the law enforcement agencies in the U.S. have ECDs, many with full deployment to all officers. Who knows how many usage incidents have occurred on the street, in real world scenarios? Informed estimates from top researchers put the number at over ½ million.
• Collectively, there have been approximately 1.2 million exposures to the effects of an ECD, between training and real-world deployments.