Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Journal of Forensic and Legal Medicine
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/yjﬂm
Research Paper
Eye injuries from electrical weapon probes: Incidents, prevalence, and legal
implications
Mark W. Krolla,∗
, Mollie B. Ritterb
, Eric A. Kennedyc
, Nora K. Silvermand
, Roman Shinderd
,
Michael A. Bravee
, Howard E. Williamsf
a
Biomedical Engineering, University of Minnesota, California Polytechnical Institute, United States
b
Piedmont Health System, Atlanta, GA, United States
c
Biomedical Engineering, Bucknell University, Lewisburg, PA, United States
d
Department of Ophthalmology, SUNY Downstate Medical Center, Brooklyn, NY, United States
e
LAAW International, LLC, United States
f
School of Criminal Justice, Texas State University, San Marcos, TX, United States
A R T I C L E I N F O
Keywords:
Blind
CEW
ECD
Electrical weapon
Eye injury
TASER
A B S T R A C T
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Results: We report 20 previously-unpublished cases of penetrating eye injury from electrical weapon probes in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.
1. Introduction
Electronic control with a conducted electrical weapon (CEW) has
broad acceptance with law-enforcement as the preferred less-lethal
force option due to its proven injury reduction compared to other
control tools. Large prospective studies ﬁnd subject injury rate reductions
of about 65%.1
This is consistent with a 2/3 reduction in fatal
police shootings where CEW usage is not overly restricted.2
A prospective
study found that 5.4% of CEW uses clearly prevented the use of
lethal force by police.3
Of the 310 000 annual CEW ﬁeld uses, 1 in 3500
is involved in a non-ﬁrearm arrest-related death (ARD) vs. the baseline
ARD rate of 1:1000.4
CEWs are also reported as the most eﬀective force
option with up to ∼75% of uses being eﬀective, from mere presentation,
without the need for CEW deployment or discharge.5
The short-duration (60–110 μs) electrical pulses applied by CEWs
are engineered to stimulate Type A-α motor neurons to control skeletal
muscles but with minimal risk of stimulating cardiac myocytes.
Eﬀective application of a CEW causes a loss of regional muscle control
and can result in an uncontrolled fall to the ground to end a potentially
violent confrontation.6,7.
Despite documented decreases in injuries to suspects, the use of
electrical weapons have rare, but signiﬁcant, risks, including fatalities
from falls and burns.8–10
CEWs launch probes with darts, and, hence,
there is a risk of signiﬁcant eye injury. See Fig. 1. The goal of this paper
is to present the risks of such injury and discuss the present warnings
and legal decisions.
A CEW has both LASER and ﬁxed aiming sights. The X26 CEW series
has a single LASER that approximately aligns with the top probe. The
lower probe is launched at a separation angle of 8° below the LASER
line as shown in Fig. 2. To obtain signiﬁcant motor-nerve mediated
neuromuscular incapacitation there must be a probe separation of at
least 30 cm (12 in) on the front of the body.6
This required probe spread
increases the risk of facial impact and eye injury due to dart penetration
and impact from the main probe body (see Fig. 3).
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jﬂm.2018.02.013
Received 6 August 2017; Received in revised form 2 January 2018; Accepted 11 February 2018
∗
Corresponding author.
E-mail address: mark@kroll.name (M.W. Kroll).
Journal of Forensic and Legal Medicine 55 (2018) 52–57
Available online 14 February 2018
1752-928X/ © 2018 Elsevier Ltd and Faculty of Forensic and Legal Medicine. All rights reserved.
T
2. Methods
We searched open source media (Google News) and legal databases
(Westlaw) for cases of ocular probe penetrations up to 1 Aug 2017. In
addition, a survey was sent to 507 Axon (fka TASER) Inc. Master
Instructors in the manufacturer's database, and 128 completed the
survey. Master Instructors are responsible for the training of the 20 500
certiﬁed basic instructors at the various agencies. Larger agencies such
as London Metropolitan and Los Angeles Police Departments have their
own Master Instructors but smaller agencies share regional ones. These
responding instructors covered 52% of CEW-adopting agencies, and we
believe that these responders had knowledge of most of the dramatic
incidents in those agencies. The results were then cross-referenced to
the 12 published injury case reports (comprising 8 globe penetrations
and 4 peri-ocular landings of probes) to eliminate duplications (of
which there was only 1).
We used the manufacturer's estimate of worldwide ﬁeld uses for the
denominator. The statistical model has been published and the number
is updated on their website.11
The Wilson score interval was used for
estimating the binomial proportion conﬁdence interval.
3. Results
We found 20 cases of penetrating eye injury that had not been
previously reported in the indexed medical literature. There were 15
from open source media, 3 from legal databases, and 2 from the instructor
survey. See Table 1 for the listing. The searches also developed
4 injury cases that did not involve ﬁeld-use but were due to law enforcement
oﬃcer and civilian accidents.
Including the 8 previously published cases, there were 28 such injuries
out of 3.44 million ﬁeld uses, giving a demonstrated risk of approximately
1:123 000. Conﬁdence limits [85 000, 178 000] by Wilson
score interval. The mean age (for the new cases) was 30.3 ± 11.7
years; combined with the published cases the mean age was
31.1 ± 12.1 years. Both age distributions are consistent with the typical
CEW-force recipient according to Strote (32.0 ± 10.7).12
In combination with the 8 published case reports we report 12 enucleations
and 6 cases of complete blindness and thus the majority (18/
28) resulted in a loss of vision. In total there have been 7 cases of partial
blindness, and 2 cases of normal vision after successful surgical repair.
(There was a case lost to follow-up after a surgical repair attempt.) With
18 identiﬁed cases, there is a risk of .64, CI [0.47–0.82] for unilateral
blindness or enucleation from a penetrating eye injury, primarily from
globe rupture. See Table 2 for summary.
Fig. 1. X26(E) CEW during probe deployment.
Fig. 2. The lower probe is launched at an angle of 8° below the LASER line.
Fig. 3. Single-shot probe as used in X26 models. Dart portion is 13 mm long; other version
has 9 mm dart.
M.W. Kroll et al. Journal of Forensic and Legal Medicine 55 (2018) 52–57
53
Our survey of master instructors found only 2 additional cases that
were not found in media and legal databases or that were previously
published. We assume that master instructors would be aware of all
dramatic incidents in the agencies that they are responsible for. Based
on the survey response rate of 25% (128/507) covering 52% of agencies,
we speculate that there may be another 2–6 unreported cases —
probably not involving blindness or enucleation.
A surprising ﬁnding was the 4 accidental deployments resulting in
globe penetrations of oﬃcers or a family member. These 4 incidents are
not included in the risk statistics as there is no meaningful denominator;
they are summarized at the end of the Appendix.
4. Discussion
We believe that this paper represents the ﬁrst systematic analysis of
the risk of penetrating eye injury from electrical weapon probes. We
found 20 previously-unpublished cases of penetrating eye injury due to
CEW probes during oﬃcial usage. In combination with the 8 published
case reports we report 12 enucleations and 6 cases of complete blindness
and thus the majority (18/28) resulted in a loss of vision.
Prospective injury studies have not reported eye injuries from CEW
probes.13,14
Given the low rate of such injuries and the total cases
analyzed (1705) this is to be expected.
Globe penetration and rupture may not be the only mechanism by
which a CEW probe could damage the eye. Electroporation from the
voltage spikes of CEWs has been suggested as a possible means of tissue
injury. This has been well studied and electroporation eﬀects appear to
be limited to < 1 mm from the probes where it helps sterilize the
probes.15,16
We suspect that there may have been some confusion
caused by the misunderstanding that CEWs deliver 50 000 V to the body
vs the actual 600 V seen with typical physiological loads.17
Case-report
authors could then draw on the lighting and powerline injury literature
to expect remote electrical damage to the eye.18
We remain open-minded but somewhat skeptical of the occasional
hypothesis of non-penetrating electrical eye injuries from electrical
weapons such as subretinal hemorrhage or cataracts.19,20
This is for two
reasons: (1) The electrical output (< 2 W) appears too low to cause
such damage, and (2) cases such as that reported by Jey et al., where
there was a peri-ocular probe yet no reduction in vision.21
We have recently reported on 4 non-fatal major burn injuries from
CEW-exposure with gasoline fumes present.10
With the present 18 case
of unilateral blindness and enucleation, it appears that these penetrating
eye injuries may be the dominant major crippling injury risk
demonstrated with electronic control. While head-injuries from falls are
reported, there have been no published estimates of non-fatal chronic
brain injury so that prevalence is unknown.8,22
4.1. Warnings and legal issues
No court decisions on CEW-induced eye injury were found in the
legal databases for the United Kingdom, Australia, and Canada. Hence,
the legal discussion below focuses on US rulings.
The major manufacturer, Axon, warns that CEWs are not precisionaimed
weapons:
Warning: Probes may deviate. CEWs are not precision-aimed
weapons. Probe discharge, ﬂight trajectory, and impact location can
be aﬀected by numerous factors, including cartridge or probe accuracy;
failure of cartridge to properly deploy; strong air movements;
user and subject movements; …
In Forrest v Prine, in a jail cell setting, a CEW was aimed at the
subject's upper back, but a probe ended up striking him in the face due
to his sudden (head spinning) movement “like a duck.”23
The Court
concluded that a police oﬃcer is not expected to always precisely hit his
target when the target is moving.
Projectile eye-injury cause-and-eﬀect is common knowledge and
should not require a speciﬁc warning. However, the major manufacturer,
Axon, warns:
Warning: Eye Injury Hazard. A TASER probe, electrode, or electrical
discharge that contacts or comes close to an eye can result in serious
injury, including permanent vision loss. DO NOT intentionally aim a
CEW, including the LASER, at the eye of a person or animal without
justiﬁcation.
In September 2009, the company lowered the preferred point of aim
from the torso center to lower-center in part to lessen the risk of probe
placement into undesirable areas, including the head and face. See
Fig. 4. The oﬃcer's objective in launching the projectile, the targeting
point, and the totality of circumstances are important components in
determining whether a projectile aﬀecting the eye is legally justiﬁable
or not.
These issues are not conﬁned to electrical weapons. For example,
the JPX pepper-spray gun pyrotechnically launches an 11 cc charge of
OC (Oleoresin Capsicum) at a high velocity of ∼170 mps (570 fps) for
an eﬀective range of 7 m (23 ft). The muzzle energy is 160 J compared
to the 2.6 J of a typical CEW probe. The high energy drives the OC
deeper into the skin than an aerosol propellant would. In 2012, a
Table 1
Penetrating globe injury ﬁeld use cases.
Year Age Sex State Source Code Case# in Appendix or Citation
[superscript]
2004 50 M AU CR N 28
2005 21 M CA Media P 1
2005 21 M OR CR P 29
2007 27 M TX Survey B 2
2007 18 M CA Media P 3
2008 24 M CA Legal B 4
2008 25 M Ont CR N 30
2008 46 M KR CR E 31
2009 43 M TN Legal E 5
2009 26 M MO CR E 32
2011 52 M PA Media E 6
2011 19 M TX Media B 7
2011 34 M NM Survey P 8
2011 27 M FL Media P 9
2012 47 F TX CR ? 33
2013 24 M OH Media P 10
2013 22 M FL Media B 11
2014 36 F QU Media E 12
2014 55 M Sctl Media E 13
2014 31 M CA Media E 14
2014 21 M WA Media B 15
2014 24 M NY CR E 34
2014 36 M TX CR E 35
2015 22 F MO Media P 16
2015 26 M AL Legal E 17
2015 20 M QU Media B 18
2015 53 M FL Media E 19
2017 31 M NY Media E 20
CR = Case Report. Ont = Ontario, Canada. Sctl = Scotland. QU = Queensland, Australia.
N = normal vision, P = partial blindness (pinhole or blurred vision), B = blindness,
E = enucleation.
Table 2
Summary of outcomes of penetrating injury.
Enucleation Blindness Partial
Blindness
Normal
Vision
Unknown Total
New Cases 8 6 6 0 0 20
Published
case
re-
ports28–35
4 0 1 2 1 8
Total 12 6 7 2 1 28
M.W. Kroll et al. Journal of Forensic and Legal Medicine 55 (2018) 52–57
54
California oﬃcer eﬀected a traﬃc stop of a female driver and ended up
shooting her from a distance of < 30 cm (1 ft), in violation of the JPX
warned 1.5 m (5 ft) minimum safety distance.24
The parties disputed
whether she was hit in the face or in the side of the head but her right
eye was “ripped apart” and the left eye was severely damaged leading
to bilateral blindness. The Police Department determined that the ofﬁcer's
use of the JPX was an unreasonable and excessive use of force. As
a result, he was terminated from employment and indicted for felony
assault by a public oﬃcer, and assault with a deadly weapon among
other things.
A fundamental issue for excessive force is the intent of the oﬃcer.
There are several categories of intent, including:
1. Intentional: Intentional CEW deployment to the head, dart
striking the eye. In Stephens v. City of Tarrant (our case #17), an
oﬃcer had been chasing the ﬂeeing criminal subject, reported to be
armed with a ﬁrearm.25
Stephens alleges that he fell to the ground
prone, unarmed and unresisting, and the oﬃcer caught up to him
and shot him in the face with his CEW so that a probe punctured the
right eyeball. The pursuing oﬃcer states that the ﬂeeing Stephens
stopped and turned around in an aggressive stance and the oﬃcer
aimed for lower center mass. Under the oﬃcer's version, the use of
the CEW was objectively reasonable under the totality of the circumstances
as reasonably perceived by the oﬃcer. Under plaintiﬀ's
version the oﬃcer's CEW deployment would not be objectively
reasonable.
2. Negligent: Improper handling of CEW resulting in dart in eye.
In Khansari v. City of Houston (our case #7), plaintiﬀs alleged that
the oﬃcers did not aim their CEWs at subject's head or eye but
because of improper handling, they caused a probe to deploy in the
direction of subject's eye, which was negligent.26
Simple negligence
does not reach the level of a U.S. Constitutional rights deprivation.
However, in some states negligence by an oﬃcer can be a legal
cause of action.
3. Indiscriminate: Undiﬀerentiated targets. In Nelson v. City of Davis
an oﬃcer, shooting pepperballs into a crowd, struck a college student
in the eye with a pepperball without any warning, causing him
multiple surgeries, and permanent eye injuries.27
According to the
student, he did not disobey police orders (which were not even
given until after the projectile was shot), but was merely part of a
large party that police were trying to break up. Indiscriminate intentional
launching of projectiles into a crowd (without individual
threat justiﬁcation) will foreseeably rise to the level of a Constitutional
violation.
An intentional CEW probe in the eye is a serious event requiring
signiﬁcant legal justiﬁcation. Oﬃcers are prohibited from intentionally
targeting a subject's head, including face and eyes, unless the subject is
reasonably perceived as an immediate threat of death or serious bodily
harm to oﬃcers or others, not just himself (e.g. suicidal). In most US
jurisdictions, oﬃcers have enhanced thresholds for using force against a
suicidal subject who is not an immediate signiﬁcant threat to oﬃcers or
others. Where the sole justiﬁcation — for the apprehension of a subject
— is preventing self-harm, the government has little interest in using
force.
5. Limitations
A prospective experimental study would generate superior data
compared to our retrospective data. However, a relevant experiment
would have diﬃculty obtaining ethical approvals.
There is no national database that records data in such incidents, so
secondary sources are the only sources of information available to
identify the relevant cases. Also, primary sources of data, such as police
reports are not available in all states and countries, depending on their
public information laws. Police reports, and news accounts are also
subject to bias. US hospital records are protected by the US Federal
HIPAA privacy law. Most likely due to the sensationalistic nature and
litigation potential of such incidents, there does not appear to be signiﬁcant
underreporting of penetrating eye injury from CEW probes.
Due to the extensive media coverage of any arrest-related-catastrophic
injury, we are conﬁdent that we have missed few enucleation
cases. For the less-severe cases, our conﬁdence decreases with the decreasing
severity. Based on the few new cases found by the Master
Instructor survey, we estimate that there are another 2–6 partial
blindness cases that we failed to ﬁnd.
We also note that the sampling frame is less rigorous than we would
prefer. However, there is no practical alternative. We invested signiﬁcant
time searching open records sources to identify cases for this
study. We focused our examination on those cases when the electrical
weapon use resulted in an eye injury. Those instances are very rare, but
they are critically important to understanding the risks of using such
weapons.
6. Conclusions
We report 20 previously-unpublished cases of penetrating eye injury
from electrical weapon probes in law-enforcement ﬁeld uses. With the 8
previously published cases there have been a total of 28 such cases out
of 3.44 million ﬁeld uses, giving a demonstrated CEW ﬁeld-use risk of
penetrating eye injury of 1:123 000 uses. There have been 18 identiﬁed
cases of unilateral blindness or enucleation, giving a risk of .64, CI
[0.47–0.82] from a penetrating eye injury, primarily from globe rup-
ture.
Disclosures
MWK is a member of the corporate and scientiﬁc advisory boards of
Axon (fka TASER) who partially funded this work. MAB is litigation
counsel for Axon and Member/Manager of LAAW, LLC. HEW is a retired
police chief and received a speaking honorarium from Axon. MWK,
MAB, and HEW have done expert witnessing in use-of-force cases. MBR,
EAK, NKS, and RS report no conﬂicts.
Fig. 4. Preferred targeting was lowered to lower center mass in September 2009.
M.W. Kroll et al. Journal of Forensic and Legal Medicine 55 (2018) 52–57
55
Appendix. Summaries of previously unpublished cases
CEW ﬁeld deployments (unintentional Probe-Eye contacts)
1. A 21-year-old deaf and mentally disabled man was involved in a
disturbance with his girlfriend. When oﬃcers arrived, he began to
walk away and then turned toward police with a hand in his jacket
pocket. He failed to comply with oﬃcers' orders to stop and show
his hands. An oﬃcer deployed his CEW, and a probe struck the man
in the left eye. He suﬀered permanent blindness.
2. A 27-year-old-male subject ducked to tackle an oﬃcer while the
oﬃcer deployed his CEW. A probe hit the subject in the eye. The
suspect then pulled the probe from his eye and ran away. The
subject was re-arrested weeks later by the same oﬃcer and reported
only mildly blurred vision in the injured eye.
3. An 18-year-old suicidal male called police. The man had departed
his residence before oﬃcers arrived, but they found him nearby
driving his vehicle away. The oﬃcers eventually cornered his vehicle,
but he resisted their eﬀorts to remove him. During the
struggle, an oﬃcer deployed a CEW striking the man in the eye. He
suﬀered permanent partial blindness.
4. A severely intoxicated (0.31% BAC) 24-year-old man was being
sought for domestic violence. He walked briskly toward a police
oﬃcer and refused commands to stop. The oﬃcer recalled that the
top probe was aimed at the center of the chest, but instead it landed
in the right eye. The subject denied the presence of a probe in his
eye even after being informed of this. Emergent non-consented
surgery for globe rupture revealed that the probe was ﬁrmly implanted
through the temporal sclera and corneal limbus and was
attached to the posterior sclera choroid and retina. After surgery
and retinal healing, right-eye vision was 20/200.
5. A 43-year-old suicidal male suﬀering from depression and other
mental disorders and holding a knife, was on the front porch of his
residence. An oﬃcer deployed CEW probes contacting the subject's
chest and left eye. After 3 unsuccessful surgeries, the damaged eye
was removed.
6. A 52-year-old mentally-ill male was creating a disturbance. When
oﬃcers arrived, he was combative so an oﬃcer deployed his CEW
probes striking the man in his right eye. The eye was later removed.
7. Parents of a suicidal 19-year-old male called police for assistance.
During a confrontation in their front yard, an oﬃcer deployed a
CEW, with a probe striking the subject in the right eye. The man
pulled the probe from his eye and went back into the house. He was
later subdued, but lost vision in the eye.
8. An oﬃcer deployed his CEW as a 34-year-old male charged him.
The subject ducked and was struck in the left eye. Physicians removed
the probe and he suﬀered partial blindness.
9. Police responded to a ﬁght that had spilled out of a bar. An oﬃcer
on horseback said he tried to have his horse shoulder the ﬁghters
apart and told them to stop, but they ignored him. The oﬃcer then
aimed his CEW at the primary aggressor's right lower shoulder
blade and yelled, “Taser! Taser! Taser!” As the oﬃcer deployed the
CEW, the 27-year-old man turned toward him and ducked down.
He ended up being hit by the prongs in the shoulder and right lower
eye lid. The retina of his right eye was torn and had to be surgically
lasered together leaving him with partial blindness.
10. A 24-year-old male was asleep in his pickup truck when oﬃcers
attempted to awaken him. When they tried to remove him from the
truck, he resisted. A deputy deployed his CEW, striking the man in
his right eye. The man later ﬁled a lawsuit claiming to have severely
limited vision in that eye.
11. A 22-year-old male was involved in a disturbance in front of a bar.
When an oﬃcer approached, the man was holding a handgun.
When the subject refused to drop the gun, the oﬃcer deployed his
CEW, striking the man in the right eye resulting in permanent
blindness.
12. An intoxicated 36-year-old female became upset and created a
disturbance following a visit from her social worker. When police
arrived at her home, she threatened them with a broken table leg
with protruding nails. An oﬃcer deployed his CEW and a probe
struck the woman in her left eye, leading to removal of the eye.
13. A 55-year-old suicidal male armed with a large knife locked himself
in his bathroom. When oﬃcers arrived, the man refused to drop his
knife. Oﬃcers deployed a pyrotechnic distraction device and then a
CEW. A probe penetrated the man's eyeglasses and lodged in his left
eye. The injury required removal of the eye.
14. A 31-year-old male and 2 other people were sitting in a vehicle
when oﬃcers approached. The oﬃcers, smelling burning marijuana,
spoke with the occupants and ordered them to get out. A
struggle ensued with the man, and oﬃcers deployed a CEW with a
probe striking the man in his left eye leading to its eventual re-
moval.
15. An oﬃcer ordered a 21-year-old driver to return to his vehicle, but
he ran towards his house. The oﬃcer grabbed the driver by his
sweatshirt, and a struggle ensued. The oﬃcer deployed his CEW
and a probe struck the man in his left eye, resulting in loss of sight
in that eye.
16. A 22-year-old schizophrenic female threw a bottle at another woman's
car who then started ﬁghting the female with help from a 3rd
woman. An oﬃcer arrived and stopped the assault, but the female
then turned on her attackers. When she refused the oﬃcer's orders
to stop, he deployed his CEW. A probe struck her in the left eye,
apparently due to her erratic movements. The injury required
several surgeries to repair, and she has partial blindness.
17. A 26-year-old male received a probe in the right eye during an
arrest and it punctured the eye. It was removed and the man is
serving a 20-year prison sentence, awaiting an ocular prosthesis.
18. Police were called to a residence after reports of a mentally ill 20year-old
male threatening others with knives. The man charged at
police with a knife. An oﬃcer deployed his CEW, which caused the
man to drop the knife. However, when he picked up a second knife,
the oﬃcer deployed a second CEW cartridge, this time striking the
man in the left eye. The eye was salvaged, but the man lost his vison
in that eye.
19. A 53-year-old suspect in the disappearance of a woman and their 9year-old
daughter lost his right eye after police attempted electronic
control as he stabbed himself in the neck with a box cutter
while sitting in his truck in a parking lot. The man was hit in the
eye after he raised the box cutter, which deﬂected the CEW probe.
The right eye had to be removed.
20. Police responded to a NY City call of a wife-beating. When the
oﬃcers arrived, the assault was still going on, with the wife holding
the couple's 2-year-old daughter. At that point, the suspect punched
a sergeant in the face, cutting his chin. The sergeant then deployed
his CEW at the suspect, but it did not work. Then another oﬃcer
deployed his CEW, with a dart striking the man in the chest and the
other in his right eye. The suspect was charged with assault, assaulting
a police oﬃcer, resisting arrest and acting in a manner
injurious to a child. His eye was removed.
Law enforcement training unintentional CEW deployment incidents
(not included in statistical analysis)
1. A 27-year-old oﬃcer accidentally discharged a probe into her own
eye with permanent reduced vision.
2. During training, an oﬃcer pulled his CEW trigger to verify battery
operation. He then inserted a cartridge before the 5-s cycle ended,
thus accidentally deploying the probes. A probe struck his left eye.
Surgery was planned to remove the probe from the eye.
M.W. Kroll et al. Journal of Forensic and Legal Medicine 55 (2018) 52–57
56
Non-training unintentional CEW deployments
(not included in statistical analysis)
1. A police oﬃcer was showing his 14-year-old stepdaughter how to
spark-test a CEW when it deployed the probes and a probe struck her
in the eye. The girl had a blind spot in her right eye and is expected
to have cataracts requiring surgical correction. The oﬃcer pleaded
guilty to 2 misdemeanor counts — knowing and reckless child abuse
resulting in bodily injury and prohibited use of a weapon.
2. A 2-year old girl was struck in the eye by a CEW probe deployed by
siblings. The probe was removed by a trauma surgeon. Despite rapid
intervention, the child now has a shrunken nonfunctioning eye.
References
1. MacDonald JM, Kaminski RJ, Smith MR. The eﬀect of less-lethal weapons on injuries
in police use-of-force events. Am J Public Health. 2009;99(12):2268–2274.
2. 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 Q. 2014
1098611114548098.
3. Eastman AL, Metzger JC, Pepe PE, et al. Conductive electrical devices: a prospective,
population-based study of the medical safety of law enforcement use. J Trauma.
2008;64(6):1567–1572.
4. Kroll MW, Lakkireddy DR, Stone JR, Luceri RM. TASER electronic control devices
and cardiac arrests: coincidental or causal? Circulation. 2014;129(1):93–100. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.113.004401.
5. Grove N, Grove C, Peschel O, Kunz S. Welfare eﬀects of substituting traditional police
ballistic weapons with non-lethal alternatives: medico-economic comparative study.
Rechtsmedizin. 2016;26(5):418–424. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00194-016-0117-y.
6. Ho J, Dawes D, Miner J, Kunz S, Nelson R, Sweeney J. Conducted electrical weapon
incapacitation during a goal-directed task as a function of probe spread. Forensic Sci
Med Pathol. 2012;8(4):358–366. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s12024-012-9346-x.
7. Criscione JC, Kroll MW. Incapacitation recovery times from a conductive electrical
weapon exposure. Forensic Sci Med Pathol. 2014;10(2):203–207. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1007/s12024-014-9551-x.
8. Kroll MW, Adamec J, Wetli CV, Williams HE. Fatal traumatic brain injury with
electrical weapon falls. J Forensic Leg Med. 2016;43:12–19. http://dx.doi.org/10.
1016/j.jﬂm.2016.07.001.
9. Clarke C, Andrews SP. The ignitability of petrol vapours and potential for vapour
phase explosion by use of TASER(R) law enforcement electronic control device. Sci
Justice. 2014;54(6):412–420. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.scijus.2014.04.004.
10. Kroll M, Ritter M, Williams H. Fatal and non-fatal burn injuries with electrical
weapons and explosive fumes. J Forensic Leg Med. 2017;50:6–11.
11. Brewer J, Kroll M. Field statistics overview. In: Kroll M, Ho J, eds. TASER Conducted
Electrical Weapons: Physiology, Pathology, and Law. New York City: Springer-Kluwer;
2009.
12. Strote J, Walsh M, Angelidis M, Basta A, Hutson HR. Conducted electrical weapon
use by law enforcement: an evaluation of safety and injury. J Trauma.
2010;68(5):1239–1246. http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/TA.0b013e3181b28b78.
13. Bozeman WP, Hauda 2nd WE, Heck JJ, Graham Jr DD, Martin BP, Winslow JE.
Safety and injury proﬁle of conducted electrical weapons used by law enforcement
oﬃcers against criminal suspects. Ann Emerg Med. 2009;53(4):480–489. http://dx.
doi.org/10.1016/j.annemergmed.2008.11.021.
14. Bozeman WP, Stopyra JP, Klinger DA, et al. Injuries associated with police use of
force. J Trauma Acute Care Surg. 2017. http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/TA.
0000000000001783.
15. Gowrishankar TR, Esser AT, Smith KC, Burns SK, Weaver JC. In silico estimates of
cell electroporation by electrical incapacitation waveforms. Conf Proc IEEE EMBC.
2009;2009:6505–6508. http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/IEMBS.2009.5333138.
16. Kroll MW, Ritter MB, Guilbault RA, Panescu D. Infection risk from conducted electrical
weapon probes: what do we know? J Forensic Sci. 2016;61(6):1556–1562.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1556-4029.13148.
17. Dawes DM, Ho JD, Kroll MW, Miner JR. Electrical characteristics of an electronic
control device under a physiologic load: a brief report. Pacing and clinical electrophysiology.
PACE. 2010;33(3):330–336. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-8159.
2009.02612.x PACE2612 [pii].
18. Saﬄe JR, Crandall A, Warden GD. Cataracts: a long-term complication of electrical
injury. J Trauma. 1985;25(1):17–21.
19. Sayegh RR, Madsen KA, Adler JD, Johnson MA, Mathews MK. Diﬀuse retinal injury
from a non-penetrating TASER dart. Doc Ophthalmol. 2011;123(2):135–139. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10633-011-9287-9.
20. Seth RK, Abedi G, Daccache AJ, Tsai JC. Cataract secondary to electrical shock from
a Taser gun. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2007;33(9):1664–1665. http://dx.doi.org/10.
1016/j.jcrs.2007.04.037 S0886-3350(07)00900-5 [pii].
21. Jey A, Hull P, Kravchuk V, Carillo B, Martel JB. Emergent diagnosis and management
of TASER penetrating ocular injury. Am J Emerg Med. 2016;34(8)http://dx.doi.org/
10.1016/j.ajem.2016.01.005 1740 e3-5.
22. Mangus BE, Shen LY, Helmer SD, Maher J, Smith RS. Taser and Taser associated
injuries: a case series. Am Surg. 2008;74(9):862–865.
23. Forrest v. Prine. 620 F.3d 739. 7th Cir, (Illinois); 2010.
24. Hernandez v City of Beaumont. Case No. EDCV 13–00967 DDP (DTBx). (US CD CA).
2016.
25. Stephens v. City of Tarrant, Slip Copy, 2017 WL 34829 (N.D.Ala. Jan. 4, 2017).
26. Khansari v. City of Houston, 14 F.Supp.3d 842 (S.D.Tex.) Apr. 9, 2014.
27. Nelson v. City of Davis, 685 F.3d 867. 9th Cir. (Cal.) Jul. 11, 2012.
28. Ng W, Chehade M. Taser penetrating ocular injury. Am J Ophthalmol.
2005;139(4):713–715.
29. Chen SL, Richard CK, Murthy RC, Lauer AK. Perforating ocular injury by TASER®
.
Clin Experiment Ophthalmol. 2006;34(4):378–380.
30. Han JS, Chopra A, Carr D. Ophthalmic injuries from a TASER. Cjem.
2009;11(1):90–93.
31. Park KH, Kim WJ, Kang YJ, Park JO, Kang W, Lee SG. A case of penetrating eye
injury induced by Taser gun. J Kor Soc Emerg Med. 2009;20(5):590–592.
32. Teymoorian S, San Filippo AN, Poulose AK, Lyon DB. Perforating globe injury from
Taser trauma. Ophthal Plast Reconstr Surg. 2010;26(4):306–308. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1097/IOP.0b013e3181c15c36.
33. Li JY, Hamill MB. Catastrophic globe disruption as a result of a TASER injury. The J
Emerg Med. 2013;44(1):65–67. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jemermed.2011.03.010.
34. Rafailov L, Temnogorod J, Tsai FF, Shinder R. Impaled orbital TASER probe injury
requiring primary enucleation. Ophthal Plast Reconstr Surg. 2017;33(3S Suppl
1):S176–S177. http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/IOP.0000000000000486.
35. Cahill C, Jardeleza M. Penetrating ocular injury from Taser. Austin J Clin Ophthalmol.
2015;2(2):1–2.
M.W. Kroll et al. Journal of Forensic and Legal Medicine 55 (2018) 52–57
57