Just days ago, a PBS NewsHour segment claimed that more than 1,000 people died between 2012 and 2021 “after police used physical force that is considered non-lethal.” The piece cited batons, CEWs, physical restraint techniques and chemical agents as the “non-lethal” elements involved.
“The death of George Floyd, which sparked a national reckoning over policing resulted from a police technique that is considered non-lethal,” the segment begins. “A new investigation led by the Associated Press has now found that is much more common than had been thought.”
“This report is not only misleading, it’s downright false,” responded Calibre Press instructor Kelly Degman after watching the segment. “In today’s world, those who speak the loudest or most frequently are often the ones who garner the most attention as is the case here,” he said.
“As most people know, in any research process it is important to be ethical, objective and thorough to ensure the validity and reliability of your findings,” Kelly continued. “This was not the case here. In my opinion, this ‘investigation’ was based on initial assumptions and subsequent ‘research’ was conducted to validate their preconceived beliefs without substantial empirical evidence to support it.”
Watch the segment HERE, then look at the use-of-force data Kelly cites.
Kelly: In their investigation, they described the use of “non-lethal weapons.” There is no such thing. In law enforcement we use less-lethal tools which are typically designed to incapacitate or disable a potential threat without causing serious and lasting injury. However, these are not “non-lethal” tools and unfortunately, in a very few instances, they can cause the death of a person.
On the other hand, there is additional research that was conducted using unbiased, ethical, objective, and validated results. In 2018, the Journal of Trauma and Acute Care Surgery (Bozeman et al, 2018) conducted research on injuries associated with police use of force. The observational study of use-of-force incidents was conducted through mandatory investigations at three mid-sized police agencies over a two-year period. Expert physicians reviewed police and medical records to determine injury severity using predefined injury severity stratification criteria.
Here are the results of their research:
There were 893 UOF incidents, representing a UOF rate of 0.086% of 1,041,737 calls for service (1 in 1167) and 0.78% of 114,064 criminal arrests (1 in 128).
Suspects were primarily young (mean age, 31 years; range, 12–86 years) males (89%).
The 1,399 force utilizations included:
— Unarmed physical force (n = 710, 51%)
— CEWs (504, 30%)
— Chemical (88, 6.3%)
— Canines (47, 3.4%)
— Impact weapons (9, 0.6%)
— Kinetic impact munitions (8, 0.6%)
— Firearms (6, 0.4%)
— Other (27, 1.9%).
Among 914 suspects, 898 (98%) sustained no or mild injury after police UOF.
Significant (moderate or severe) injuries occurred in 16 (1.8%) subjects.
(Logistic regression analysis shows these are most associated with firearm and canine use).
There was one fatality (0.1%) due to gunshots.
No significant injuries occurred among 504 CEW uses (0%; 95% confidence interval, 0.0–0.9%).
Of the 355 suspects transported to a medical facility, 78 (22%) were hospitalized.
Most hospitalizations were unrelated to UOF (n = 59, 76%), whereas a minority (n = 19, 24%) were due to injuries related to police UOF”.
In this study, without cherry-picking data, it shows that police UOF is rare. When force is used officers most commonly rely on unarmed physical force and less-lethal tools to control a person and, unfortunately, during those attempts to control someone can get hurt, to include the police officers themselves.
[Resources Cited: Bozeman et al (2018) “Injuries associated with police use of force.” Journal of Trauma and Acute Care Surgery 84(3):p 466-472, March 2018.]
COMMENTS? E-mail us at: editor@calibrepress.com
As a threshold issue, it’s a blatantly false narrative that George Floyd died at the hand of former Officer Chauvin and others. Floyd’s post-mortem toxicology report shows he had three (3) times the lethal amount of fentanyl in his system at the time of his death. He was dying upon police arrival, at crime scene. There was nothing done by the police that caused the death of George Floyd; he died of a drug overdose.
OK, Chief, here’s what a non-partisan review says: “No Change in George Floyd’s Cause of Death, Despite Viral False Claims.” (from https://www.factcheck.org/2023/11/no-change-in-george-floyds-cause-of-death-despite-viral-false-claims/).
From the site: “The county medical examiner who conducted the autopsy listed Floyd’s death as a homicide and determined that the cause was “cardiopulmonary arrest complicating law enforcement subdual, restraint, and neck compression.”
This finding was highlighted in the first set of charges leveled against Chauvin in May 2020 and was explained in detail by the medical examiner, Dr. Andrew Baker, during Chauvin’s trial.”
Factcheck.org is listed as “Least Biased” by another non-partisan site, Media Bias / Fact Check (not related).
I don’t put much faith in fact checking organizations since the money has to come from somewhere and when money is involved, people have bias even when they don’t realize it. Also, a list of Factcheck.org’s so-called investigations are listed here: https://www.allsides.com/news-source/factcheckorg-media-bias where they discovered the “fact checker” leans left and tends to support democratic opinions in their “investigations.” I prefer to read the actual files and watch testimony myself since I am skeptical of all of them whether left or right.
Aside from that, in the trial and even among liberal news sources such as CNN, they stated that hypertensive heart disease and fentanyl were major contributors to Floyd’s death. It was noted that there were multiple drugs found in his system. No one single thing caused it – it was basically the perfect storm and that his state of health showed he did not have long life prospects. Dr. Baker also testified that there was a “lack of anatomical findings that would support the conclusion Floyd died of asphyxiation.” He did the autopsy BEFORE watching any videos of the altercation. After seeing the video, Dr. Baker said, in his opinion, “the placement of Chauvin’s knee would not cut off Floyd’s airway,” based on his extensive knowledge of anatomy.
Add to this fact that in all the videos, Floyd is profusely sweating and saying he can’t breathe when he is in the car, before he gets out, before he goes to the ground, and while on the ground.
While we cannot predict if he would or would not have died from this overdose, Dr. Baker’s testimony was, in laymen’s terms: Floyd died of a heart attack that was brought on by the combination of heavy drug use AND a tense interaction with police that raised his heart rate to a point it could not sustain. If that is murder, then every person who’s heart speeds up when being pulled over could claim the cops tried to kill them.
The unfortunate thing here is that Chauvin’s department failed him since they trained him in this technique (surprising since many departments were already moved away from any kind of pressure on the neck, head, or spine) and they tossed him into the pit claiming this was all on him. That in itself is a wake up call to officers to use their own GOOD judgement on techniques and to absolutely avoid moves like this despite being trained or authorized to use them.
(Disclaimer: obviously in a deadly force fight, you are fighting for survival. This was not that.)
This is a great article. It shows how people with an agenda will print anything to get their message out. Thank you Calibre Press for showing us the real evidence. We do not go out looking to hurt anyone, but when we have to enforce the law, we have a force continuum to adhere to. While utilizing the continuum, we use one force higher that is being used against us. I will never condone or agree with an officer who uses unnecessary force on anyone. We have had a lot of bad things in law enforcement lately, but the media only wants to hype something up that is not true. Again, thank you Calibre Press for what you do! I have followed you all for all 30 years and I will continue to read your articles. Stay Safe and Press the Fight! I have always remembered what you all said, Professionalism demands that we strong in our tactics, and controlled in our emotions. I have lived by this motto throughout my career.
This “research” project was completed with the University of Maryland’s Howard Center for Investigative Journalism [1]. The research methods show that the cases “typically” included verifiable government documents. Although the described efforts to garner data are impressive – the actual process for linking the cause of death with police interaction is vague. However, they do state that in half the cases – the medical examiner or coroner “concluded that law enforcement contributed to or caused the death” [2]. Therefore, taking the authors at their word – at least 500 or so cases have some solid evidence behind the link to law enforcement.
There is a searchable database that describes the incident(s) in more detail [3]. Of interest – are the 142 cases they link to “excited delirium,” – a cause of death now banned in California and for which doubt is cast by the American Psychiatric Association and the American College of Emergency Physicians (even though a new name, “hyperactive delirium syndrome” covers similar symptoms).
Did these incidents happen? I can’t verify each one, but they appear to be actual incidents. The AP’s presentation of the information might be biased (I didn’t watch it), but that’s expected at this point. I agree that the AP and associates aren’t putting things in perspective. For instance, Statistica reports upwards of 100 million arrests between 2012 and 2021. Therefore, over nine years, 0.001 percent of arrests involving less-lethal force were associated with death. In looking through the searchable database – they are including incidents where the cause of death is “methamphetamine toxicity” or some other drug, but the AP leaves a reader with the impression the death is causally linked/correlated with Taser usage. Did that death have anything to do with the use of the Taser? – was the death even proximal to the use of the Taser? – Was the suspect attempting to seriously injure or kill another person prior to the Taser deployment? The AP doesn’t tell you that.
Like the Washington Post Fatal Force Database – this will likely be used as a talking point in various settings – including legislative. We should be prepared to discuss the results in context. For instance, the AP only shows us the variables they want us to see. They don’t present the behaviors of the “suspect,” nor do they present the context of the incidents. External sources have not verified this work, the database has not been provided for others to review, the methods are vague, and there is no statistical analysis. A list of “reporters,” “editors,” and “fact checkers” are listed as having contributed to the research – but I don’t see any “researchers” or “Ph.D.s” that were consulted. This is not peer-reviewed research, even though several academic institutions were involved. “Support” for the research was received from the public welfare foundation, Columbia University’s Ira A. Lipman Center for Journalism and Civil and Human Rights, and Arnold Ventures.
Police use of force is statistically very rare. Police-related homicides are rarer still – with most being justifiable homicides. These ARD cases are also very rare and although tragic – a large number of deaths report drug intoxication as the primary factor. As with all data, be skeptical until you verify.
Dave Blake, Blake Consulting and Training Group
1. https://merrill.umd.edu/howard-center-for-investigative-journalism
2. https://apnews.com/projects/investigation-police-use-of-force/methodology/
3. https://apnews.com/projects/investigation-police-use-of-force/all-cases/
Great points Dave Blake! There have been multiple peer-reviewed research studies on CEWs “safety & efficacy”, on prone restraint, and other less lethal systems, etc. This PBS “story” is more of a fable – CREATED to bolster the false narratives around “police brutality”, “police excessive force” and, of course, “racism”. It is truly disgraceful what is deliberately being done to influence the perception of the masses.
C’mon. What is wrong with y’all at Calibre?
Don’t you realize that you cannot let FACTS get in the way of AGENDA?
So……………..None of the high speed, low drag, college educated researchers and “experts” noticed the term NON-lethal rather than LESS-lethal?
Destroys their credibility before watching 3 seconds of their documentary.
While it is true that police use of force is rare when compared to the number of calls police field every day across the country, the instructor quoted in this article, however, falls into a similar trap for which he criticizes the “PBS News Hour.”
The instructor states, “In my opinion, this ‘investigation’ was based on initial assumptions and subsequent ‘research’ was conducted to validate their preconceived beliefs without substantial empirical evidence to support it.”
This may be true, but while criticizing the program for not having “substantial empirical evidence to support” their claim, the instructor then proceeds to do the same thing by citing one study of “three mid-sized police agencies over a two-year period.” That study IS a good study, and seems, from the author’s notes, to be well-documented and well-executed…but one study is not “substantial empirical evidence.” How many studies would the instructor and author consider enough to be “substantial?” Five? Ten? Fifty? I’m not sure I have an answer to that myself, but one is not enough.
It’s interesting to note that the study mentioned by the instructor is a two-year study while the “PBS News Hour” study reviewed a nine-year stretch of data.
I know space is limited in the article, but notations and / or links to other studies supporting the author’s claim would be helpful, as well as links to the PBS study (and not just the televised news piece) for comparison data.
For years I have thought an organization advocating for police officers (Fraternal Order of Police?) should buy ads on TV to make this information known. As we have seen, no “news” agency is going to report these facts or this information. The only place this is reported is in industry papers such as this one and subscribed podcasts. In both cases you are preaching to the choir. Just like your PBS example the “news” is slanted, at best, if not downright dishonest.
I agree completely and have been saying the same thing for years. We, as a profession, have done an almost non-existent job of publicly explaining law enforcement use of force. The use of actual violence (justified use of force) on another human is ugly and cannot be “dressed up” to make it look better. The majority of good people are shocked by this reality because they have little to no contact with law enforcement; and, certainly not in a situation where force must be used. Many times I have explained to a friend or member of the public the use of force video on the news. After that explanation, almost every person I have spoken to understands how and why the force was used.
The anti-police factions are a small, but very vocal percentage of the population. Their repeated slanted and intentionally misleading narrative of use of force is propaganda. Those “news” outlets who give them a platform to broadcast their inaccurate and dangerous propaganda to the country are doing a disservice to the entire country without learning, understanding, and verifying the facts of each individual case–like an actual journalist would be required to do. The good people of out country when they are bombarded with propaganda are left to believe the lies when the truth is not brought forward. They wonder why the police are not “defending” themselves or telling what really happened. When they hear nothing from us, they assume that the false propaganda must be true because why wouldn’t someone defend themselves when they have the truth on their side. Therefore, WE must not have the truth on our side. Think about how propaganda was used during WWII by all sides. Every nation used propaganda to strengthen their citizens beliefs that their side was the right and just side and their enemies were evil. That same type of propaganda has been used by anti-police factions to pull the good people away from us as they categorize police as the evil and dangerous “enemy”.
The police profession needs a national message that is put forward routinely, and especially after a use of force event has garnered the attention of the country. We must explain our actions to the good people, who WANT to believe in us, so that they understand what actually happened and can understand the justification of use of force–a visually ugly reality.
How the data is interpreted is important. In an incident that occurred several years ago, a State Trooper used a taser to stop a 16 year old female from fleeing an investigation at the HP offices, the girl died. If you take that statement at face value without looking into it any further, you’d correlate the death with the taser use. If you looked into it and discovered that the Trooper deployed a taser, while the girl was in full sprint away from him, while running over concrete. It adds more data. When you know that the girl locked up when the taser hit her, falling forward, and striking her head on the concrete parking lot, causing severe brain injury and eventual death, it becomes more clear. When you are being objective, you can determine that the taser device was deployed inappropriately and under the wrong circumstances. The taser pulse didn’t lead to the cause of death directly. The impact with the pavement did. If you’re dishonest and you want to find fault with the tool because of a preconceived idea, you’ll focus on the results of the tool. If you actually understand that its just a tool that was used improperly, you can improve training and reduce the odds of the event occurring again. Some of our officers don’t help, by making excuses for inappropriate uses of the less-lethal devices. It isn’t the girls direct fault that she died, her flight set a series of actions in motion. The taser didn’t kill the girl. The trooper didn’t intentionally cause her death, but he should have been better trained and more intelligent to be able to discern the potential cause and effect chain that he was setting in motion in order to avoid it. The effort being used to attack or defend a tool is infantile. A hammer is a hammer, it was designed to drive a nail into a surface. If a person uses it inappropriately, it isn’t the fault of the tool.
This is the best explanation yet. Thank you for the example as well!
Absolutely training is the key – as well as the officer being able to recognize when some training needs to be shelved. All agencies that I have interacted with in the past 10 years have policy stating NOT to put any pressure at all on the neck, head, or spine. Of course, when fighting a subject, sometimes this happens, but in the long run supervisors and officers recover quickly because they are trained not to do this. Hearing that Chauvin’s department had a training and policy that allowed this move in the year 2020 was surprising at the least. My take is that all officers need to be able to recognize when a technique doesn’t sound right and to use good judgement despite having been given training and permission… the old saying, “just because you can, doesn’t mean you should.”
Again, outstanding comment.
Unfortunately, this story has been amplified across the “mainstream media” for the past week. Along with the call for a “ban” on prone restraint! Add this to the “pile” of recommendations/legislation by, perhaps well-intentioned folks (but more likely, by political knee-jerk, virtue-signalers with zero real-world experience in dealing with violent, angry, high, resistant, dangerous people). Once again creating a “solution” to a perceived problem that will result in far more harm than simple adjustments to training and methodology – where-required. Placing the near shin bone at at a 45 degree angle down and across the shoulder blade, while tucking the far knee tightly into the subject’s armpit, while keeping the controlled arm fully extended and “locked”, is a safe, effective method of prone restraint. The “problem” these “helpers” have fixated on here, is the extremely-few (and highly-public) unfortunate outcomes where prone restraint has been involved in a much-more complex process. And once again they have left out basic math – they ignore the denominator. These unfortunate outcomes (including the oft-referred-to “George Floyd” drug overdose debacle) frequently have less to do with the restraint methodology, and more to do with the subject’s behaviour, and self-induced physiological and mental state – which is precisely why police are now tasked in dealing with them (the “reporter” in this fable refers to “drug use and mental health crises” as factors – leaving out the part about this being what makes them often particularly violent, irrational, and exceptionally-difficult to control). This restraint method is used multiple millions of times per year (denominator) across the continent, with very few negative outcomes (numerator). The negative outcomes, by any other standard (including medicine and actuarial work), would be regarded as “statistically insignificant”. And it’s used because it’s necessary. One cannot control a violent, resistive human in a “face-up” (supinated) position. It simply does not work. It protracts the struggle, thereby increasing the risk for all-involved and increasing the likelihood of escalated force response. It is truly idiotic! Sadly, the lying to the public continues. I note they managed to wedge in a theme of racism as well.