suicide by cop
student in many respects is their ability to consume and understand the peer reviewed empirical research in their particular area of interest. A regular review of such literature refines the students acuity and challenges their assumptions on a daily basis. The following assignment challenges the student to move beyond anecdote and learn more about how other scholars succeed at failing to disprove their theories. This is the essence of research and highlights the purity of academic freedom. At the very least, a regular consumption of academic peer reviewed material makes the student a much better writer.
For this assignment, the student will select a peer reviewed journal article[1]. The article will relate in some way to the reading material the student has reviewed for this particular module. After the student reads the article, they should download the Journal Article Review Template. The student will then complete a Journal Article Review of the article they read. The assignment is not to be too much shorter or longer than the example in the template. Ensure that you focus on discussing implications the article has on criminal justice as this is the most important aspet of this process. How does the articles content relate the field of law enforcement? This can be accomplished in the conclusion of the assignment.
[1] A peer reviewed journal article is an article written by experts and is reviewed by several other experts in the field before the article is published in an academic journal in order to insure the articles quality.
topic (suicide by cop)
**template is attached
REVIEW OF A JOURNAL ARTICLE: AN EXAMPLE
Bibliography (in APA format)
Author, F. (1776). Effects of classroom testing by microcomputer. Journal of ABCDE, 99(9), 9-19.
Problem
Microcomputers are being used for a variety of purposes, but research about their instructional effectiveness lags behind adoption rates for the technology. Further, there is a limited research base about the effects of microcomputers in vocational agriculture on learning in the affective, cognitive, and psychomotor domains. The research base is even more shallow when effects of testing students by computer technology are explored.
Comments: The problem statements agreed with the title and seemed to be of educational significance. The problem was not clearly visible to the average reader, and it required several readings to establish why the researchers felt this study needed to be done. It was limited to the researchers capabilities and resources.
Review of Literature
The author cited no clear review of literature; however, several appropriate references were used in the introduction section. These statements contributed to the overall understanding of the subject and to the reasoning for establishing the problem statement. Suggested section titles would have been: (1) competencies vocational education teachers need to use computer technology effectively; (2) effects of microcomputers on learning; and (3) effects of testing students by microcomputer.
Hypothesis
This research tested hypotheses about how effectively microcomputers could be used to administer an objective classroom test to students who had studied and used computer technology.
Comments: The purpose was clearly and concisely stated and agreed with the title. It was limited to the researchers capabilities and resources.
Objectives
Specifically, the study sought to determine: (a) the effect taking an objective final examination by microcomputer would have upon student cognitive performance; (b) the effect this method of testing would have on student attitude about computers immediately after the examination; and (c) whether this method of testing would require more time than conventional paper and pencil testing procedure.
Comment: The authors objectives were answerable, and they chose to obtain them by testing null hypotheses. These hypotheses were testable and served to help explain the problem.
Methodology
The treatment followed the post-test only control group design; consequently, the study involved two replications. Both replications were conducted during a Nostate State University course. A two stage random assignment was used in assigning groups and treatments. The three dependent variables measured in this study were: (a) minutes to complete the test; (b) score on the test; and (c) score on the attitudes about computers.
Comments: The methods used to gather the data for this article were clearly explained. The instruments and development were explained, and the reliability coefficients of all possible tests were given. The population used was adequate. No discussion of the statistical techniques was given in this particular section.
Findings
Personal data by treatment and control group was provided in table form and explained with a short narrative.
Hypothesis one: A one way analysis of covariance revealed that the two groups were not significantly different in terms of their scores on the 35 item final examination.
Hypothesis two: The mean attitudinal scores of the two groups were positive in both replications, and there was no significant difference in the two groups attitudes about computers.
Hypothesis three: There was a significant difference in minutes required to complete the exam in replication one; however, there was no significant difference in replication two.
Comments: The findings were well organized, sectioned, and reported objectively. The tables were well organized but, due to the difficulty of the statistical tests employed, would not stand alone to the average reader.
Summary
There was no summary given. Or the authors summary was misguided because
Conclusions
Conclusions and implications were formulated with the knowledge that subjects for this study used microtechnology extensively during a computer applications course. In this investigation, final examination scores were independent of the method of testing. The method of testing was not a determinant of how students felt about computers. Since time required was not consistent over the two replications, the methods of testing as well as other factors appear to influence the time requirements of test completion.
Comments: The conclusions were based on the findings and logically stated.
Recommendations
“Additional research is needed in other classroom settings to see if consistent findings about cognitive performances, time requirements, and attitude are achieved.”
Comments: The recommendations were limited to a call for additional research in the area. Article
Police Responses in
Officer-Involved Violent
Deaths: Comparison
of Suicide by Cop
and Non-Suicide by
Cop Incidents
Vivian B. Lord
1
Abstract
Officers responses in suicide by cop (SbC) situations often include use of deadly
force. Given their training and experience, officers use of deadly force should mean
that they reasonably believe that they or other people are in immediate threat of
death or serious bodily harm. Using National Violent Death Reporting System data,
the current study compares police responses in SbC and non-SbC cases and the
possible influences of the characteristics of the situations and of the subjects on
officers use-of-force decisions. Multivariate analysis reveals different significant pre-
dictors impacting different levels of police actions between and with SbC and non-
SbC cases.
Keywords
officer involved, violent deaths, suicide by cop, use of force
Introduction
Suicide by cop (SbC) incidents are police shootings that could be considered
suicides due to the actions or verbalizations of the subjects demonstrating suicidal
motivations (Lord & Sloop, 2010). The uncertainty officers often face after any
1
University of North Carolina at Charlotte, NC, USA
Corresponding Author:
Vivian B. Lord, University of North Carolina at Charlotte, 9201 University City Blvd., Charlotte, NC
28223, USA.
Email: [emailprotected]
Police Quarterly
2014, Vol. 17(1) 79100
! The Author(s) 2014
Reprints and permissions:
sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/1098611114522040
pqx.sagepub.com
http://crossmark.crossref.org/dialog/?doi=10.1177%2F1098611114522040&domain=pdf&date_stamp=2014-02-13
use-of-force is magnified in SbC cases where subjects often are highly emotional
or have mental illness (Johnson, 2012). Family members of the subjects and the
public often judge the officers, questioning the need for them to use lethal force.
Civil action against the police agency and individual officers is highly probable
(Flynn & Homant, 2000), placing additional emotional burden on the officers and
financial outlay on the municipalities involved in these shootings.
The increase in technological advances in low-lethal weapons for law enforce-
ment officers has led to changes in the once-straightforward linear use-of-force
continuum. In the past, officers were trained to react to the actions of a subject in
a stepwise process (Hough & Tatum, 2012) such that officers moved up the levels
of force as the offender became more aggressive and less compliant (Robinson,
2011). Unfortunately, offenders rarely act in an orderly fashion, and the add-
itional tools such as chemical spray, conducted energy devises (CEDs), and low-
lethal shotguns available to officers have increased the complexity of use-of-force
decisions (Hough & Tatum, 2012; Joyner & Basile, 2007; Las Vegas
Metropolitan, 2012). Also, while the use of deadly force usually is spelled out
in specific criteria in law enforcement agencies policies and includes the officers
determination of immediate threat of death or serious bodily harm to themselves
or others, officers still must respond based on their split-second decisions.
While policy directs officers actions, means to guide their perceptions of
immediate threat of death or serious bodily harm is more difficult to devise
and cannot be separated from individual officers experiences, beliefs, and
values that contribute to their assessment of danger. Some use-of-force research
examines the impact that personal characteristics of subjects and officers, as well
as situational factors, have on officers use-of-force and subjects actions
(Garner, Buchanan, Schade, & Hepburn, 1996). Using National Violent Death
Reporting System (NVDRS) data, the current study examines police responses
in SbC cases and the possible influence of the characteristics of the SbC subjects
and situations on officers use-of-force decisions.
Literature Review
Force and the Use-of-Force Continuum
The authority to use force differentiates police from most other professions
(Bittner, 1970). This authority is limited by law and to the performance of
their duties (Walker & Katz, 2002). Decisions by the U.S. Supreme Court
have differentiated between deadly or lethal (force that is likely or intended to
cause death or great bodily harm) and nonlethal force, outlining the context in
which each can be used by law enforcement (Black, 1990, p. 398 as cited in
Kappeler, 2002).
Force used by police as reported by citizens primarily includes pushing, point-
ing a gun, and using chemical spray. Threats, shouting, and cursing by the police
80 Police Quarterly 17(1)
often accompany the force used. Of those citizens who report use-of-force inju-
ries, these injuries occur most frequently with low-lethal weapons such as flash-
light, baton, and canines (Durose, Schmitt, & Langan, 2008; Smith,
Kaminksi, Alpert, Fridell, MacDonald, & Kubu, 2009). About one third of
involved offenders are arrested during the incident in which police force is
used (Durose et al., 2008).
During incidents that entail force, officers are injured in 10% to 38% of the
cases. As with citizens, the closer officers are physically to individuals, such as
through the use of hands-on tactics, the more likely officers will be injured
(Alpert et al., 2011). Studies examining use of low-lethal weapons such as chem-
ical spray and CEDs found substantial declines in officers and subject injuries in
agencies that adopted their use (Alpert et al., 2011; Hough & Tatum, 2012;
Police Executive Research Forum, 2009; Smith et al., 2009).
Studies examining the traditional stepwise, use-of-force continuum conclude
that there is not one accepted model nor universal accepted definitions of the
different levels or means of force. The International Association of Chiefs of
Police (IACP) use-of-force continuum includes six levels of force to be used by
the officer (Robinson, 2011). These levels of force are (a) passive interference, (b)
commands, (c) physical coercion, (d) incapacitation, (e) threat of deadly force,
and (f) deadly force. Others (Hough & Tatum, 2012) recommend a matrix model
that includes six levels of subject resistance from presence to aggravated physical
resistance on the vertical vertex and six corresponding levels of officer response
on the horizontal vertex (officer presence, communication, physical control,
intermediate weapons, incapacitating control, and deadly force). Low-lethal
weapons are categorized in the intermediate and incapacitating control range.
While the IACP Use of Force Model Policy suggests that use-of-force policies
should be short and simple, Hough and Tatum (2012) argue that the policy
should include definitions of deadly force, nondeadly force, and reasonable.
They also believe that the policy should include force options, response/resist-
ance levels, report requirements, the process to review the use-of-force policy
annually, criteria for providing medical aid, and training requirements. Policies
such as those used by Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department are more
extensive than the IACP model and include not only information recommended
by Hough and Tatum (2012) but also definitions for resistance and specific low-
lethality tools/restraints and techniques.
Primarily based on Tennessee v. Garner (1985), law enforcement agencies
policies on the use of deadly force usually outline the criteria in which the use
of firearms can be used by officers. These criteria describe the need to consider
protection of themselves or others from what is reasonably believed to be an
immediate threat of death or serious bodily harm or to prevent the escape of a
fleeing felon in which there is probable cause to believe the felon would pose a
significant threat to human life if the escape occurred with justification for the
action being clear and immediate. As noted by Homant (2004), in assessing what
Lord 81
a reasonable person would consider immediate threat of death, officers decisions
are usually made in emergency situations with little time to reflect.
Overview of Individual and Situational Correlates of Police
Use-of-Force
There is extensive research on police use-of-force even though use-of-force is a
fairly infrequent response in citizenofficer encounters (Alpert & Dunham,
2004). For example in 2005, of the 43.5 million people who interacted with
police, only 1.6% reported use-of-force by the police (Durose et al., 2008).
Males, African Americans, and younger citizens are more likely to experience
force used by law enforcement. Males have about twice as many interactions as
females with law enforcement that result in police use-of-force, and in one study,
African Americans contacts with police resulted in use-of-force in 25% of the
incidents, a rate four times higher than Whites and two times higher than
Hispanics (Durose et al., 2008). Although younger citizens have more inter-
actions with police, there are inconsistent findings among reports of higher
rate of police use-of-force toward them (Garner et al., 1996; Johnson, 2012).
Subject characteristics of physical aggression, noncompliance with officers
commands, possession of a weapon, and display of a hostile demeanor consist-
ently are found to be major predictors of police use-of-force (Johnson, 2012), but
these characteristics do not explain all or necessarily a large proportion of the
variation in the amount of force used by police. Other significant predictors
include personal characteristics of the offender such as gang involvement, history
of resisting, presence of bystanders, arrest for a violent offense, use of cover
tactics by the police officers, and increased number of police present at the inci-
dent (Garner et al, 1996).
Kaminski, DiGiovanni, and Downs (2004) introduced the concept, judg-
mentally impaired, which they define as persons who have a mental disorder,
or are intoxicated or impaired by drugs. Even after controlling for resistance and
possession of a weapon, persons who were judgmentally impaired were more
likely to experience police use-of-force. On the contrary, Johnson (2012) found
that police do not treat individuals with mental disorders more harshly, but
people who are mentally unstable are significantly more likely to physically
resist, assault officers, and possess a weapon. Therefore, officers are influenced
most by the violence threat and level of resistance they encounter (p. 141). In
addition, use-of-force incidents in which officers are attempting to effect an
arrest of an offender may appear different to the public from those incidents
in which individuals are emotionally or mentally disturbed, and officers duties
are arising from their peace-keeping functions.
Incidents that are categorized as SbC may include a criminal component such
as an aggressive act toward another person, but they also often include individ-
uals who communicate that they are suicidal or known to have mental illness.
82 Police Quarterly 17(1)
Officers responses in SbC situations often include use of deadly force. Given
their training and experience, officers use of deadly force should mean that they
reasonably believe that they or other people are in immediate threat of death or
serious bodily harm. Whether SbC subjects threatening actions and communi-
cations are sufficient to warrant officers perception of immediate threat, or
whether other characteristics, such as arrest for a violent offense or increased
number of police present as concluded by Garner et al. (1996), has not yet been
examined.
Suicide by Cop
A phenomenon now accepted by the courts (Boyd v. City and County of San
Francisco, 2009), SbC is a term that has been used by law enforcement officers
for a number of decades with its introduction into the literature in 1992 (Geller
& Scott, 1992; Noesner & Dolan, 1992). Geberth (1993) defined SbC as inci-
dents in which individuals, bent on self-destruction, engage in life-threatening
and criminal behavior in order to force the police to kill them (p. 105). Hutson
et al. (1998) expanded the definition to include more observable details of lethal-
ity and intent:
intentionally engage in life threatening and criminal behavior with a lethal weapon
or what appears to be a lethal weapon to gain attention of law enforcement offi-
cers . . . . These suicidal individuals then intentionally escalate the potential for a
lethal encounter by threatening officers or members of the civilian population . . . .
This forces officers to use deadly force by shooting the suicidal individual. (p. 666)
A number of researchers describe SbC subjects as those individuals who
through verbalizations and behaviors confront the police with a dangerous
weapon or what the police believe is a dangerous weapon, virtually forcing the
officer to shoot (Kennedy, Homant, & Hupp, 1998; Lord, 2000; Lord & Sloop,
2010).
Researchers (Drylie, 2006; Homant & Kennedy, 2000; Lord, 2000, 2004, 2012;
Parent & Verdun-Jones, 1998) conclude that there are a number of individual
and situational factors that are common to SbC subjects. For example, mental
illness, or the involvement of the subjects in therapy or past inpatient mental
health treatment (when known through information gathered at the scene or
past complaints), often is reported as a characteristic of SbC subjects (Hamlin,
2004; Lord, 2000; Parent & Verdun-Jones, 1998). Unique to SbC subjects is the
use of an outrageous act such as committing a violent crime for the purpose of
attracting police attention (Drylie, 2006; Lord, 2004; Mohandie & Meloy, 2000).
Lord and Sloop (2010) and Lord (2012) used a modification of Best, Quigley,
and Baileys (2004) decision tree composed of primary, secondary, state, and
minimal indicators to assess the suicidal intentions of subjects involved in
Lord 83
police shootings. The researchers examined cases from the Hostage Barricade
Data System of the Federal Bureau of Investigation Crisis Negotiation National
Data and the NVDRS. Their studies synthesize factors, such as suicidal ideation
or history of suicide attempts, mental illness, abuse of drugs or alcohol, and
termination of relationships or other family problems, from a number of studies
(Hutson et al., 1998; Klinger, 2001; McKenzie, 2006; Mohandie & Meloy, 2010;
Parent & Verdun-Jones, 1998). Primary indicators are classified as planned,
showed, or communicated intent to induce police to shoot. Secondary indicators
are previous suicide attempts, interruptions in the commission of a crime or
domestic dispute, or service of criminal papers such as search or arrest warrants.
Evidence of irrational thought, or state indicators, is intoxication at time of
incident, mental illness, drug or alcohol addiction, and interpersonal crises.
Minimal evidence of suicidal intentions is refusal to surrender and a criminal
history. The researchers conclude that to reach a decision about individuals
intent to commit SbC, more than one point of data should be considered; the
more behavioral, verbal, or planned indicators, the more likely the subject
intended to be killed by law enforcement. To be considered SbC, there should
be evidence that the person intended to die, but manipulated police officers to
shoot rather than carrying out the act of suicide himself/herself.
Most SbC data are composed of officers articulation of the events in their
reports. The officers hear the subjects verbal threats or receive information from
the subjects significant others that the subjects are threatening to act in such a
way as to induce officers to shoot. The officers also observe subjects behavior
that appears to be life threatening to the officers and others. As noted by Flynn
and Homant (2000), most SbC incidents are considered highly dangerous, usu-
ally including lethal force by the subject. A majority of incidents classified as
SbC are also categorized in police-involved shooting incidents.
The current study compares the influence of SbC and non-SbC subjects per-
sonal characteristics and the actions of these subjects toward the police or others
on officers use-of-force decisions. The researcher hypothesizes that the subjects
threatening actions and communications are sufficient to warrant officers per-
ception of immediate threat in both the SbC and non-SbC cases. Other factors
such as subjects personal characteristics and secondary SbC factors should not
significantly impact officers actions.
Methodology
Sample and Description of NVDRS Data Set
Sponsored by Centers for Disease Control, beginning in 2003, NVDRS operates
in 17 states compiling data on violent deaths from a variety of sources such as
death certificates, medical examiner reports, and law enforcement reports. The
purposes of the NVDRS are to (a) link records to describe in detail the
84 Police Quarterly 17(1)
circumstances that may contribute to a violent death, (b) identify violent deaths
occurring in the same incident to help describe the circumstances of multiple
homicides or homicidesuicides, (c) provide timely preliminary information on
violent deaths, and (d) better characterize the relationship of the victim to the
subject (NVDRS, 2011).
In July 2010, the researcher requested from NVDRS 100 fields of data. The
data fields included cause of death; personal characteristics of the subject who
died; tested results of the presence of a variety of drugs; geographical informa-
tion; prior suicide attempts; criminal offenses, domestic violence incidents, and
other related contributors to the violent death; weapons used; and medical exam-
iner and police-accompanying narratives of the incidents. The data set contained
12,550 reported incidents for the years between 2004 and 2008.
The manner of death was listed as suicide, homicide, unintentional firearm,
legal intervention, undetermined intent, unintentional nonfirearm, pending
investigation, natural, and unknown. Cases listed under legal intervention
(n508 of the total 918 cases) that contained sufficient information (subject
and officers action were described and subjects demographic information was
contained) were selected for use in the current study. Legal intervention cases are
those cases in which at least one decedent is killed by the police. For purpose of
this study, the subjects selected were killed by the police. Content analyses were
conducted by the author and a criminal justice practitioner on the medical
examiners and police narratives of these cases, allowing additional information
to be incorporated especially focusing on the subjects background, the sequence
of events leading up to and involving the situation, the subjects actions, and the
officers corresponding actions. Interrater reliability was 92.4% in agreement on
the subjects actions and the officers corresponding action. There was no sys-
tematic reason for the differences.
The additional information from the narratives also allowed the tally of those
individuals who possessed at least one primary indicator of SbC: verbal, behav-
ioral, or planned intent to induce officers to shoot them. If the narratives
included information that the subject stated to officers or to family or friends
a desire to be killed by police or that the police would have to kill him/her rather
than surrendering, verbal intent was recorded. If the subject used life-threatening
behaviors with a lethal weapon or what appeared to be a lethal weapon toward
law enforcement officers or toward others while exposing himself or herself to
law enforcement officers weapons, behavioral intent was recorded. Planned
intent was recorded if the subject left a note detailing his/her actions or delib-
erately contrived contact with police by direct telephone contact with police or
by carrying out an outrageous act. Outrageous acts are criminal actions, serious
traffic violations, or suicidal actions that are carried out so that they are
observed by or involve the police. For example, a subject drives to a neighbors
house and tells the neighbor to contact the police because he has just killed his
wife. In reality, he has not killed his wife or anybody, but the police respond to
Lord 85
his residence, at which time the subject points and shoots a shotgun toward the
police. Those subjects who possessed a minimum of one indicator were included
in the final sample (n262), 28.5% of the total sample. While there is no
national database documenting an actual number of SbC cases reported by
law enforcement agencies, Hutson et al. (1998) were among the first researchers
who concluded that 11% of officer-involved shootings in Los Angeles County
between 1987 and 1997 were SbC. Kennedy et al. (1998) examined officer-
involved shootings as reported nationally by the media and extrapolated that
SbC cases could range between 16% and 46%. Mohandie, Meloy, and Collins
(2009) placed the figure at 41% of the officer-involved shootings. So, 28.5% is
well within the scope of the SbC literature.
There were significant differences between the SbC and non-SbC subjects in
several personal and situational characteristics. The typical SbC subject in the
current study was a married, White male older than 34. The majority threatened
(48%) or used (45%) lethal force toward officers or others. While 64% of the
subjects limited their SbC intent to behavior, an additional 22.5% verbalized and
showed their intent, and 12% used all three indicators. Subjects were frequently
involved in a criminal act (30.5%) or domestic dispute (34%), and more than
25% had been reported to have previously attempted suicide. Possession of a
firearm (51%) followed by knives (32%) were reported.
The non-SbC subject was single, equally likely to be White or African
American, between the ages of 25 and 34. Lethal action (54.1%) was more
likely than with SbC subjects. The non-SbC subject was more likely to be
caught in a criminal act (75%) and have a criminal history (62.6%).
Possession of firearms was similar to SbC subjects (55.7%) followed by much
higher number of other weapons (19.5%). Hitting and running over police offi-
cers with motor vehicles were frequent and listed as other (Table 1).
Dependent Variable
The dependent variable is police responses obtained and measured by examining
the narratives. The police action is categorized as closely as possible to the IACP
use-of-force continuum (Robinson, 2011): passive interference (police presence),
commands (verbal orders), physical coercion (grabs, but no kicks or body
strikes), incapacitation (body strikes, CEDs, chemical sprays, or blunt objects),
and deadly force. Attempts by the police to expand their communication to
negotiations with the subject are included separately from commands. Physical
coercion and incapacitation are combined and labeled use of low-lethal or phys-
ical restraints. Officers might use commands only, negotiate, and low-lethal or
physical restraint before the inducement to shoot. If the narrative indicates that
they only shot without any indication of attempting to de-escalate, shooting is
the only engagement measured. The distribution of officers level of force is
displayed in Table 1. If the officers level of force increased from commands
86 Police Quarterly 17(1)
Table 1. Descriptive Statistics.
SbC Non-SbC
Characteristics n % n %
Gender
Male (1) 249 95.0 236 95.9
Female (2) 13 5.0 10 4.1
Race***
White (0) 201 76.7 124 50.4
African American (1) 51 19.5 113 45.9
Others (2) 10 3.8 9 3.6
Age***
Younger than 25 (0) 41 15.7 72 29.3
2534 (1) 65 24.8 90 36.6
3544 (2) 80 30.5 43 17.5
45 or older (3) 77 29.0 41 14.2
Education
Drop out (0) 41 15.6 34 13.8
High school (1) 47 17.9 42 17.1
College or trade (2) 22 8.4 13 5.3
Marital status***
Single/widowed (0) 75 28.6 145 58.9
Married/cohabitate (1) 121 46.2 53 21.5
Divorced/separated (2) 57 21.8 42 17.1
Subjects actions***
No threat or action (0) 18 2.3 20 4.9
No lethal threat or action (1) 12 5.0 32 13.0
Lethal threat (2) 118 47.7 61 24.8
Lethal action (3) 114 45.0 133 54.1
Level of SbC Intent
Behavior intent only (1) 168 64.1 NA NA
Behavior and verbal intent (2) 59 22.5
Behavior, verbal, and planned intent (3) 32 12.2
Crime in Progress (1)*** 80 30.5 177 75.0
Domestic Dispute in Progress (1)*** 90 34.4 30 12.2
Interpersonal Crisis (1)*** 96 36.6 28 11.4
Suicidal History (1)*** 74 28.2 4 1.6
Intoxication During Incident (1) 82 31.3 72 29.3
(continued)
Lord 87
or negotiation to use of low-lethal or physical restraints before shooting, then
their level of force is recorded at the higher level of force.
Independent Variables
Subjects aggressive action. As noted earlier, much of the use-of-force literature
concludes that physical aggression, noncompliance with officers commands,
possession of a weapon, and display of a hostile demeanor consistently are
found to be the major predictors of police use-of-force. In the current study,
the offenders aggressive actions were categorized between 0 and 3 beginning
with no aggressive action toward the police, threatening nonlethal action such as
attempting to hit or kick officers, threatening lethal action such as pointing a gun
or knife at the police officer, and lethal action such as shooting a gun or moving
aggressively toward the officers with a knife pointed as if to stab them.
Subjects weapons. Subjects weapons were recorded as a separate variable and
included no weapon, firearm, edged weapon such as knife or ax, other weapons
such as motor vehicles driven directly at a police officer, multiple weapons, and
fake weapons that appeared to be lethal at the time of the incident.
Table 1. Continued.
SbC Non-SbC
Characteristics n % n %
Drug Addiction/Mental Illness (1)*** 72 27.5 29 11.8
Subject weapon***
None 13 0 27 11.0
Gun (1) 134 51.1 137 55.7
Knife (1) 84 32.1 15 6.1
Multiple (1) 11 4.2 3 1.2
Other (1) 13 5.0 48 19.5
Fake (1) 7 2.6 1 .4
Criminal History (1)*** 65 24.8 154 62.6
Refusal to Surrender (1) 236 90.1 219 89.0
Police action***
Use of commands/warnings 67 25.7 29 11.8
Use of negotiations 23 8.8 3 1.2
Use of low-lethal or
