Homicide Manner-of-Death Classification in Arrest-Related Death.

ABSTRACT: Multiple studies have documented various factors that influence or determine forensic pathologist classification of manner of death. There do not appear to be any published studies on manner of death classification specifically regarding arrest-related deaths (ARDs). The goal of this study was to consider a large body of cases of nonfirearm ARDs to analyze the homicide classification with regards to numerous decedent and practitioner (medical examiner/coroner [ME/C]) variables. We analyzed 1145 US autopsy reports from the years 2006-2020, inclusive, and considered decedent variables of age, ethnicity, height, weight, body mass index, toxicology, and mention of a conducted electrical weapon and ME/C influence variables of gender, country region, and year. We found that the homicide classification likelihood increased by a factor of 1.04-1.05 per year, 1.34-1.37 for a female medical examiner, and 1.4-1.5 going from Southern states to Western states. There is an increasing trend for ME/C to label nonfirearm ARDs as homicides in the United States. The homicide classification is more common in Western states and less common in Southern states, and it was more common with a female ME/C.

Confusion between firearms and electrical weapons as a factor in police shootings.

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.

Pneumatic Impedance of Spit Socks and N95 Masks: The Applicability to Death Investigation.

INTRODUCTION: Restrained subjects often spit on law enforcement and corrections officers and medical responders. Based on the droplet-transmitted risk of COVID-19, such spitting could be considered a potentially life-threatening assault. Officers commonly use "spit socks" over the head and neck of spitting subjects to reduce this risk. The pneumatic impedance of such socks has not been published, so this remains an open issue for arrest-related death investigation. METHODS: We purchased samples of 3 popular spit sock models, 3 insect-protecting "bug" socks and hats, 3 N95 masks, a standard 3-ply surgical mask, and a common dust mask. We used a BTmeter model BTN8468 digital anemometer, an HTI model HT-1890 digital manometer, and an AC Infinity Cloudline model S6 inline controllable fan to measure air flow versus pressure drop. We compared the curves graphically and also calculated a pneumatic pseudo-impedance by dividing the pressure drop by the air velocity. RESULTS: The spit and bug socks allowed nearly maximum airflow with minimal pressure (≤1 mm Hg), whereas none of the masks allowed greater than 2 m/s of airflow at maximum pressure of 3 mm Hg. All of the spit and bug masks were grouped together with the lowest pneumatic impedances, whereas all of the N95 masks were grouped together with the highest values. The dust mask and surgical mask were in between with the dust mask closer to the spit and bug masks, whereas the surgical mask was closer to the N95 masks in impedance. CONCLUSIONS: Commonly used spit socks offer nearly zero resistance to breathing. The highest resistance spit sock was still 100 times better than the best N95 mask for airflow during inhalation. Our results do not support the occasional hypothesis that spit socks might contribute to an arrest-related death.

Police shootings after electrical weapon seizure: homicide or suicide-by-cop.

PURPOSE: Risks of handheld electrical weapons include head impact trauma associated with uncontrolled falls, ocular probe penetration injuries, thermal injuries from the ignition of volatile fumes, and weapon confusion police-involved shooting. There is also an uncommon but critical risk of a shooting after a subject gained control of an officer's electrical weapons. METHODS: The authors searched for police shooting incidents involving loss of control of TASER® weapons via open-source media reports, crowd-sourced internet sites, litigation filings, and a survey of Axon law-enforcement master instructors. RESULTS: The authors report 131 incidents of subjects attempting to or gaining control of an officer's electrical weapon from 2004 to 2020, 53 of which resulting in a shooting. These incidents demonstrated a risk of 11.8 shootings per million electrical weapon discharges (95% confidence limits of 9.0 to 15.1 per million by Wilson score interval). CONCLUSIONS: The use of electrical weapons presents a rare but real risk of injury and death from a shooting following a subject's attempts to gain control of the weapon.

Eye injury from electrical weapon probes: Mechanisms and treatment.

PURPOSE: While generally reducing morbidity and mortality, TASER® electrical weapons have risks associated with their usage, including burn injuries and head and cervical trauma associated with uncontrolled falls. The primary non-fatal complications appear to be significant eye injury but no analysis of the mechanisms or suggested treatments has been published. METHODS: We used a biomechanical model to predict the risk of eye injury as a function of distance from the weapon muzzle to the eye. We compared our model results to recently published epidemiological findings. We also describe the typical presentation and suggest treatment options. RESULTS: The globe rupture model predicted that a globe rupture can be expected (50% risk) when the eye is within 6 m of the muzzle and decreases rapidly beyond that. This critical distance is 9 m for lens and retinal damage which is approximately the range of the most common probe cartridges. Beyond 9 m, hyphema is expected along with a perforation by the dart portion of the probe. Our prediction of globe rupture out to 6 m (out of a typical range of 9 m) is consistent with the published risk of enucleation or unilateral blindness being 69 ±â€¯18%, with an eye penetration. CONCLUSIONS: Significant eye injury is expected from a penetration by an electrical weapon probe at close range. The risk decreases rapidly at extended distances from the muzzle. Not all penetrating globe injuries from electrical weapon probes will result in blindness.

Eye injuries from electrical weapon probes: Incidents, prevalence, and legal implications.

PURPOSE: While generally reducing morbidity and mortality, electrical weapons have risks associated with their usage, including burn injuries and trauma associated with uncontrolled fall impacts. However, the prevalence of significant eye injury has not been investigated. METHODS: We searched for incidents of penetrating eye injury from TASER® conducted electrical weapon (CEW) probes via open source media, litigation filings, and a survey of CEW law-enforcement master instructors. RESULTS: We report 20 previously-unpublished cases of penetrating eye injury from electrical weapon probes in law-enforcement field uses. Together with the 8 previously published cases, there are a total of 28 cases out of 3.44 million field uses, giving a demonstrated CEW field-use risk of penetrating eye injury of approximately 1:123 000. Confidence limits [85 000, 178 000] by Wilson score interval. There have been 18 cases of total unilateral blindness or enucleation. We also present legal decisions on this topic. CONCLUSIONS: The use of electrical weapons presents a rare but real risk of total or partial unilateral blindness from electrical weapon probes. Catastrophic eye injuries appear to be the dominant non-fatal complication of electronic control.

Fatal and non-fatal burn injuries with electrical weapons and explosive fumes.

INTRODUCTION: While generally reducing morbidity and mortality, electrical weapons have risks associated with their usage, including eye injuries and falls. With the presence of explosive fumes or fuels there also exists the possibility of burn injury. METHODS: We searched for cases of fatal and non-fatal major burns with TASER® electrical weapon usage where there was a possibility that the weapon ignited the explosion. RESULTS: We confirmed 6 cases of fatal burn injury and 4 cases of major non-fatal burns out of 3.17 million field uses. The mean age was 35.5 ± 9.7 years which is consistent with the typical arrest-related death. Moderate, minor, and noninjurious fires - typically due to a cigarette lighters in a pocket, petrol, recreational inhalants, or body spray were also noted. CONCLUSIONS: The use of electrical weapons presents a small but real risk of death from fatal burn injury. It also presents a small risk of major non-fatal burn injury. The ignition of petrol fumes dominates these cases of major fatal and nonfatal burns.

Fatal traumatic brain injury with electrical weapon falls.

INTRODUCTION: While generally reducing morbidity and mortality, electrical weapons have risks associated with their usage, including eye injuries and falls. With sufficient probe spread, an uncontrolled fall to the ground typically occurs along with the possibility of a fatal brain injury. METHODS: We analyzed possible risk factors including running and elevated surfaces with established head-injury criteria to estimate the risk of brain injury. We searched for cases of arrest-related or in-custody death, with TASER(®) electrical weapon usage where fall-induced injuries might have contributed to the death. We found 24 cases meeting our initial inclusion criteria of a fatal fall involving electronic control. We then excluded 5 cases as intentional jumps, leaving 19 cases of forced falls. Autopsy reports and other records were analyzed to determine which of these deaths were from brain injury caused by the fall. RESULTS: We found 16 probable cases of fatal brain injuries induced by electronic control from electrical weapons. Out of 3 million field uses, this gives a risk of 5.3 ± 2.6 PPM which is higher than the theoretical risk of electrocution. The mean age was 46 ± 14 years which is significantly greater that the age of the typical ARD (36 ± 10). Probe shots to the subject's back may present a higher risk of a fatal fall. CONCLUSIONS: The use of electronic control presents a small but real risk of death from fatal traumatic brain injury. Increased age represents an independent risk factor for such fatalities.