How Safe Are TASER Weapons?
Our mission is to protect life and we prioritize the safety of our customers and the people they serve above all else. This is why all TASER energy weapons undergo rigorous and comprehensive testing before they are released, and continue to be tested and studied both internally and by independent experts even after they are released.
Today, TASER energy weapons are the most studied use-of-force tool available to law enforcement. With over 1,000 reports, abstracts, letters, studies and resource materials on the tool, and more than 5 million field deployments in nearly 30 years, TASER energy weapons are the most safe and effective less-lethal tool on an officer’s belt.
300,000+
LIVES SAVED
from death or serious bodily injury. (Source)
5,618,407
USES IN THE FIELD
by officers around the world. (Source)
99.75%
RESULTED IN NO SERIOUS INJURY
in 1,201 field cases of TASER use. (Source)
Robust data and analytics
Our TASER technology features robust data and analytics. Axon Evidence allows users to analyze this data to learn how TASER energy weapons are used during calls:
Event Logs: Save every user action for record-keeping, including safety activations and trigger event durations with time, date and battery life information.
Pulse Logs: Displays a pulse-by-pulse record of weapon output.
Confidence in court
"I was called to be an expert witness for a case where a violent, drug-intoxicated subject was subdued with a TASER X2. The subject filed an intent to sue for excessive use of force. While in court the TASER X2’s firing logs were presented as evidence, corroborating the deputies’ accounts and helping prevent a lawsuit from developing."
Kevin Sailor, Westminster PD
Top 10 studies on the safety and effectiveness of TASER energy weapons
Note: TASER energy weapons are also referred to as conducted energy weapons (CEW), conducted energy devices (CED) and electronic control devices (ECD) in the following studies.
STEVENSON, R., & DRUMMOND-SMITH, I.
Medical implications of Conducted Energy Devices in law enforcement. Journal of Forensic and Legal Medicine, 101948 (2020).
This retrospective study of approximately 60,000 uses of force in the United Kingdom found that TASER energy weapons were only discharged 18% of the time they were drawn, as their mere display often gains compliance before deployment becomes necessary. It further found when TASER energy weapons were deployed, they resulted in fewer injuries than use of police dogs, batons, OC spray and physical confrontation.
“It is accepted by the police that no use-of-force option is risk free, however, data provided showed a greater incidence of injury to both officers and subject, as a proportion of use, when baton, irritant spray or physical confrontation was used.”
BOZEMAN WP, STOPYRA JP, KLINGER DA, ET AL.
Injuries Associated with Police Use of Force. The journal of trauma and acute care surgery (2018).
Finding that out of 1399 uses of force by 3 different agencies, a CEW was used 36% of the time and resulted in no moderate or severe injuries.
“...conducted energy weapon use was the force modality least likely to result in significant injury.”
BRANDL, S. PR.
OC & CEWs A Comp of Factors Predicting Use & Effectiveness. Crim Just Pol. (2015).
Analyzed 504 use-of-force incidents in large police agency wherein OC spray or TASER energy weapons were used, and found TASER energy weapons were substantially more effective than OC spray, with energy weapons effective 90.2% of the time and OC spray effective only 73.8% of the time.
“Given the research that has been conducted, it is safe to say that TASER [energy weapons] have inherent advantages over OC spray in their ability to incapacitate subjects.”
FERDIK FV, KAMINSKI RJ, COONEY MD, SEVIGNY EL.
The Influence of Agency Policies on Conducted Energy Device Use and Police Use of Lethal Force. Police Quarterly (2014) 17: 328-358.
Comparing numerous agencies with more restrictive energy weapon policies to agencies with less restrictive energy weapon policies, and finding that where the policies are less restrictive (allowing more use), firearm use could be reduced by 2/3. The results show that agency policies which allowed wider use of energy weapons, were "substantially and significantly associated with decreases in the number of fatal police shootings."
BOEHME, H., KAMINSKI, R., LEASURE, P.
A comparative interrupted time-series assessing the impact of the Armstrong decision on officer-involved shootings. Police Practice and Research (May 2022) 2-9.
This study analyzed the impact of the Fourth Circuit’s 2016 decision in Armstrong v. Village of Pinehurst, 810 F.3d 892 (4th Cir.), which limited the use of TASER energy weapons to instances where “a police officer is confronted with an exigency that creates an immediate safety risk that is reasonably likely to be cured by using the taser [sic].” The study found there was an estimated 2.90 additional officer involved shooting per month on average in the Fourth Circuit states following Armstrong, and an estimate 4.17 fewer officer involved shootings in comparison states. It concluded:
“When the option to use CEDs is restricted only to encounters the pose an ‘immediate danger,’ officers may more often resort to the use of firearms and thus more OISs [officer involved shootings] . . . . As the Fourth Circuit police departments adapted to the decision, the potential to de-escalate both life-threatening and non-life-threatening encounters with the CED may also have declined.”
LAUB, J.
Study of Deaths Following Electro Muscular Disruption. National Institute of Justice (2011)
Conducted mortality reviews of nearly 300 CEW-related deaths and 175 peer-reviewed articles. Concluded that “the current literature as a whole suggests that deployment of a CED has a margin of safety as great as or greater than most alternatives.”
“The risk of death in a CED-related use-of-force incident is less than 0.25 percent, and it is reasonable to conclude that CEDs do not cause or contribute to death in the large majority of those cases.”
TAYLOR, B. AND WOODS, D.
Injuries to Officers and Suspects in Police Use-of-Force Cases: A Quasi-Experimental Evaluation. Police Quarterly, (2010)13: 260-289.
This Police Executive Research Forum (PERF) study compared 4 years of use of force data between agencies that use conducted energy weapons with matched agencies that do not use conducted energy weapons. The study found that with the use of conducted energy weapons, the odds of a suspect needing medical attention for an injury is reduced by 79%, and the odds of an officer needing medical attention is reduced by 87%.
BOZEMAN, W., HAUDA, W. HECK, J., ET AL.
Safety and Injury Profile of Conducted Electrical Weapons Used by Law Enforcement Officers Against Criminal Suspects. Annals of Emer Med (2008) 53: 480-489.
This US DOJ-funded study by the Wake Forest University Baptist Medical Center was the first large, independent, multicenter study of conducted energy weapon injury epidemiology. It analyzed 1,201 field uses of TASER energy weapons at 6 law enforcement agencies, and found that 99.75% resulted in safe outcomes, demonstrating that TASER weapons “can be safely substituted for more injurious intermediate force or lethal force options.”
EASTMAN AL, METZGER JC, PEPE PE, BENITEZ FL, DECKER J, RINNERT KJ, FIELD CA, FRIESE RS.
Conductive electrical devices: a prospective, population-based study of the medical safety of law enforcement use. J Trauma (2008) 64:1567-1572 .
Finding that out of 426 consecutive CEW deployments by the Dallas Police Department, no subject suffered injuries requiring more than first aid, except one that died from a lethal dose of cocaine, and 5.4% of deployments “clearly prevented the use of lethal force by police.”
MESLOH, C, HENYCH M, WOLF R.
Less Lethal Weapon Effectiveness, Use of Force, and Suspect & Officer Injuries: A Five-Year Analysis. National Institute of Justice (2008):
Studied 4,303 use of force incidents in two large agencies over a five-year period and concluded that TASER CEWs are deployed more frequently and have the highest success rate at conflict resolution when compared with all other less-lethal uses of force. The study further concluded that TASER CEWs result in fewer serious injuries than other uses of force and their ability to resolve a confrontation quickly reduces injuries to both suspects and officers.