FREE e-Newsletter
Important News - Hot Topics
Get them Now!
Randy Sutton

Randy Sutton

Randy Sutton is a 33-year law enforcement veteran, a trainer, and the national spokesman for The American Council on Public Safety. He served 10 years with the Princeton (N.J.) Police Department and 23 years with the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department, retiring at the rank of lieutenant. He is an author who has published multiple books on law enforcement.

Security Policy and the Cloud

Ask The Expert

Mark Rivera

FBI-CJIS Security Policy Compliance Officer

Mark Rivera, Customer Retention Manager and CJIS Security Compliance Officer with Vigilant Solutions, served for sixteen years with the Maryland State Police, retiring at the rank of First Sergeant with thirteen of those years at the supervisory and command level. He holds a Master of Science Degree in Management from The Johns Hopkins University and Secret clearance through the FBI, Baltimore.

June 2016 (2)
May 2016 (3)
April 2016 (2)
March 2016 (1)
February 2016 (3)
January 2016 (1)
December 2015 (1)
November 2015 (5)
October 2015 (1)
September 2015 (3)
August 2015 (3)
July 2015 (6)
June 2015 (3)
May 2015 (2)
April 2015 (3)
March 2015 (5)
February 2015 (1)
January 2015 (1)
December 2014 (9)
October 2014 (2)
September 2014 (2)
August 2014 (2)
July 2014 (1)
June 2014 (2)
May 2014 (2)
April 2014 (4)
March 2014 (2)
February 2014 (3)
January 2014 (3)
December 2013 (2)
November 2013 (2)
October 2013 (3)
September 2013 (5)
August 2013 (3)
July 2013 (3)
June 2013 (3)
May 2013 (4)
April 2013 (3)
March 2013 (5)
February 2013 (3)
January 2013 (3)
December 2012 (5)
November 2012 (2)
October 2012 (4)
September 2012 (2)
August 2012 (5)
July 2012 (4)
June 2012 (3)
May 2012 (5)
April 2012 (6)
March 2012 (5)
February 2012 (3)
January 2012 (5)
December 2011 (5)
November 2011 (3)
October 2011 (3)
September 2011 (3)
August 2011 (2)
July 2011 (2)
June 2011 (3)
May 2011 (4)
April 2011 (3)
March 2011 (5)
February 2011 (3)
January 2011 (3)
December 2010 (2)
November 2010 (4)
October 2010 (4)
September 2010 (5)
August 2010 (4)
July 2010 (4)
June 2010 (4)
May 2010 (4)
April 2010 (3)
March 2010 (3)
February 2010 (1)
January 2010 (3)
December 2009 (4)
November 2009 (4)
October 2009 (2)
September 2009 (3)
August 2009 (4)
July 2009 (5)
June 2009 (3)
May 2009 (5)
April 2009 (4)
March 2009 (4)
February 2009 (3)
January 2009 (2)
December 2008 (4)
November 2008 (3)
October 2008 (3)
September 2008 (3)
August 2008 (2)
July 2008 (3)
June 2008 (4)
May 2008 (5)
April 2008 (5)
March 2008 (4)
February 2008 (5)
January 2008 (3)
December 2007 (2)
November 2007 (5)
October 2007 (4)
September 2007 (4)
August 2007 (5)
July 2007 (4)
June 2007 (4)
May 2007 (5)

A Shocking Proposition

Do officers equipped with TASERs still need backup? You bet they do.

June 06, 2008  |  by - Also by this author

I received this question in our "Ask the Expert" mailbox the other day, and I felt it needed a comprehensive response. It reads: "One of our department personnel recently commented (something to the effect) that the effective and proper use of TASERs has reduced the need for backup officers. Any thoughts on this?"

I thank the poster for taking the time to share this question with the rest of us. And yes, I do have some thoughts on it.

First, to think that a fellow law enforcement like the officer on the poster's department would claim that TASERs have obviated the need for backup officers is stunning.

Don't get me wrong. Personally, I love the TASER, having been witness to its efficacy in numerous field situations. I believe that officers should have a variety of less-lethal options available to them, and I would be hard pressed to think of another less-lethal tool that is as widely deployed and equally effective as the TASER.

Indeed, the public's growing awareness of the TASER is such that it has even gained the psychological impact of a shotgun being racked: Once aware of its presence, many subjects display instant compliance. Those who don't become converts soon enough. You can watch testimony from the converted at this link.

But as much as I am a believer in the TASER, I also believe even the strongest TASER proponents would pause before claiming that the TASER has negated the need for a backup officer.

And with good reasons.

For one, the TASER is much like any other tool. Sometimes when you use it, it doesn't achieve the effect that you hoped it would. A suspect's size, his or her degree of intoxication, the distance between him or her and the TASER wielding officer, the type of clothing he or she is wearing, his or her movements, and other factors can reduce the effectiveness of a TASER.

In a study of the Seattle Police Department's first-year use of the M-26 TASER, officers were able to make "verified TASER contact" only 86 percent of the time. The reason for this is easily understood; people tend to move when you try to TASER them.

That same Seattle study documented that in five percent of the cases in which contact was confirmed, the M-26s did not deliver "a disabling or partially disabling effect." This was probably due to weak batteries in the TASERs. And I would bet that the results are better with the X26, and its improved battery pack.

The Seattle study doesn't mean that the TASER isn't a great tool. Believe me, it is. I would put the TASER's success rates up against any other less-lethal weapon, and I would win that bet.
But there are times when a TASER should never be deployed such as when you are confronted by a suspect wielding a firearm. Sadly, more than one officer has paid the price for thinking otherwise.

Such realities factor into how we handle volatile field situations and why we appoint designated shooters, less-lethal weaponry officers, and arrest teams. These clear-cut areas of responsibility simultaneously give us a wide range of force options while freeing individual officers from the distraction of having to make some split-second use-of-force adjustment. Such designations of force options have helped officers successfully end thousands of field situations involving everything from domestic disturbances to agitated drunks to violent offenders of all stripes.

Yes, I can imagine situations where a TASER has mitigated the need for a backup officer. But in a vast majority of such cases, I believe that determination could only be made with the advantage of hindsight and well after the incident has been resolved.

This is part of the reason that I find a categorical claim that the availability of TASERs in the field mitigates the need for a backup officer is not only grossly irresponsible, but a prescription for disaster. Not only does such thinking encourage "one man army" attitudes, it also removes other options such as the availability of a second officer who may develop a rapport with the subject in question, thereby negating the need for force.

Personally, I think we need all the backup we can get. I'm an advocate for two-person cars. Realistically, I know that we ain't going back to that system. But I do think it's reasonable for us to expect sufficient field coverage so that officers have a realistic expectation of prompt backup.

My read of the poster's question leaves me with the nagging suspicion that someone on his agency may have been trying to use the availability of TASERs to justify an environment wherein backup officers are either not deployed or not requested, probably to save money.

And that concept is not only stunning, it's dangerous.

Get Your FREE Trial Issue and Win a Gift! Subscribe Today!
Yes! Please rush me my FREE TRIAL ISSUE of POLICE magazine and FREE Officer Survival Guide with tips and tactics to help me safely get out of 10 different situations.

Just fill in the form to the right and click the button to receive your FREE Trial Issue.

If POLICE does not satisfy you, just write "cancel" on the invoice and send it back. You'll pay nothing, and the FREE issue is yours to keep. If you enjoy POLICE, pay only $25 for a full one-year subscription (12 issues in all). Enjoy a savings of nearly 60% off the cover price!

Offer valid in US only. Outside U.S., click here.
It's easy! Just fill in the form below and click the red button to receive your FREE Trial Issue.
First Name:
Last Name:
Zip Code:
We respect your privacy. Please let us know if the address provided is your home, as your RANK / AGENCY will not be included on the mailing label.
E-mail Address:

Police Magazine