The act of one human being exerting his will over another against their will and in the face of active resistance is never pleasant to watch. Countless examples exist of adverse public reactions when these incidents have been witnessed or broadcast. Although unpleasant, the officer’s ultimate goal in using force is to bring the sometimes violent, uncooperative suspect into compliance. To understand specialty weapons, their effects, and potential consequences, tactical emergency medical service (TEMS) providers must understand the principles officer’s use to gain suspect compliance. Traditionally, force continuums have relied on a stepwise escalation of these techniques to guide the use of force.

Psychological compliance is always the first level of force use in bringing a subject under control. This relies on a number of factors. First, the officer’s appearance, demeanor, and presence of his uniform often are enough to gain control of the situation. Forceful commands and “verbal judo” techniques often initiate a psychological response in the suspect to submit and follow the officer’s instructions.

Pain compliance is the mainstay of most force techniques and is the principle that most specialty munitions are based upon. There are a number of systems and techniques, ranging from soft, empty-handed takedowns and joint locks, to hard, impact weapons. By the infliction of pain on the subject, an officer is able to gain control and exert his will after suspect submission.

A more recent development and a subset of the principle of pain compliance that has generated a tremendous amount of interest of late is that of “mechanical compliance.” Devices like conducted energy weapons (CEWs) that cause electromuscular disruption and incapacitation of voluntary skeletal muscle are an example of this type of compliance induction.

Last, when all other options have failed or when presented with a significant threat, the ultimate action to gain suspect control is the application of deadly force. Deadly force confrontations, often thought of as the use of an officer’s firearm, can also be resolved with knives, choke holds, and a number of other techniques taught in officer survival courses. Advocates of specialty weapons often point to a reduction in deadly force confrontations
in jurisdictions that have progressive specialty weapon programs.

One of the first impact munitions developed was the “bean bag,” a ballistic canvas filled with small pellets or sand that was fired from a standard 12-gauge shotgun. These “bean-bag” rounds have a relatively large mass (40 g) and travel at a high velocity (300 fps), which together impart a significant amount of kinetic energy to whatever they strike. When the projectile strikes a surface with the flat side of the bag, injuries tend to be blunt in nature (i.e., splenic rupture, pneumothorax, subcapsular liver hematoma). However, when it strikes skin with the corner, it can penetrate the surface and cause significant damage. There are several reports of penetrating and blunt injuries after bean bag use (1, 2, 3, 4 and 5). To decrease penetrating injuries, manufactures began making the bean bag with a softer cotton or nylon canvas. One disadvantage to the bean bag is its poor aerodynamic properties, which decreases it’s accuracy at longer ranges. To improve its aerodynamics, manufacturers began making a drag stabilized bean bag that is essentially a bean bag with one or more strips of canvas on one end that stabilizes the projectile during flight. This improves the effective range by approx 5 to 10 yards and eliminates corners seen with the square bag, decreasing the chance of penetration. Bean bags have also been developed that can be fired from a 37 mm or 40 mm launcher.

Another type of impact munition is the “rubber bullet.” These also come in a variety of shapes and sizes as well as delivery methods. Options fired from a launcher or shotgun include round rubbers balls of varying sizes (typically 0.30 to 0.60 inches ) and numbers that can disperse and hit a broader target. They spread their cumulative kinetic energy to a larger surface area which may decrease the chance of penetration. Despite this, many studies have reported severe blunt and penetrating injuries from this type of weapon (6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 and 12). There are also larger fin stabilized rounds that have improved aerodynamics and a longer effective range. Finally, there are rubber baton rounds, designed to be fired from a 37- or 40-mm launcher, which carry more mass than rubber balls and typically come in singles or triplets (13). Most of the rubber bullets, fin stabilized rounds, and rubber batons are meant to be fired low on the body or skip fired (aimed at the ground and skipped up into the target) to increase dispersion and decrease the risk of injury. A variation of the rubber bullet is the hand thrown grenade that fragments into small rubber pieces dispersed in a 360-degree pattern. This device may be useful for crowd control situations or deployment into a room where direct target acquisition is not feasible, and these have also been combined with chemical irritants to increase pain and thus increase compliance.

A variation on the rubber impact weapons, “wood baton” rounds are much harder and have an increased risk of inflicting damage if used improperly. They are also designed to be skip fired, which spreads them out making the injury pattern broader and also slows them down to decrease the chance of injury. Some jurisdictions have limited their use to defeat windows and obstacles rather than use to gain suspect control.

Newer impact devices have been developed using foam that can be spin stabilized, which allows for greater control at distances. The density of foam can be altered to find the best compromise between stopping power and lethality.