Regulations, data lacking on less-lethal weapons

Manufacturers are competing aggressively to put less-lethal weapons in the hands of police officers across the country, but critics say the quickly evolving industry remains unregulated, training is sporadic, and product information is often incomplete.

Even law-enforcement officials who embrace the technology express serious concern about the use and abuse of less-lethal options, such as the plastic projectile fired by Boston police in the death of an Emerson College student in October.

According to specialists in less-lethal weapons and law-enforcement authorities:

There are no government standards for the design and manufacture of the weapons. By contrast, hundreds of laws, regulations, and licensing requirements are applied to the manufacturers of conventional firearms used by police.

Training in the weapons is generally organized by local police departments, which often have only a rudimentary knowledge of the weapons, or is provided by third-party companies for profit. In some departments, officers fire at each other in training and demonstrations to familiarize themselves with the weapons.

Less lethal, a term covering weapons intended to subdue targets without killing them, does not mean that the weapons cannot cause death or serious injury.

Manufacturers warn police about the possible lethal effects of their weapons, but specific information about the effect of the munitions on the human body can be difficult to obtain. Manufacturers are often reluctant to disclose performance data, including critical data such as accuracy, that could place them at a competitive disadvantage.

"There's no one out there who is totally honest or frank, I can tell you that," said Los Angeles Sheriff's Commander Charles S. Heal, a globally recognized authority on less-lethal weapons. Dealing with the manufacturers, Heal said, has "definitely made me a cynic."

Nearly every less-lethal device currently in the US law-enforcement arsenal was invented less than 20 years ago. The most popular is the shotgun-fired beanbag, which is generally a birdshot-filled pad or a drag-stabilized sock. Other less-lethal weapons include pepper-filled projectiles; blunt wooden, rubber, or plastic impact munitions; and sponge grenades that provide more accuracy at greater ranges.

Thousands of municipal police departments across the country have less-lethal options ranging from pepper spray to sting-ball grenades to Taser stun guns, which deliver 50,000 volts of electricity through wire-connected probes to incapacitate a target.

The rapid speed at which the weapons have been developed has been driven by police departments' desire to control crowds in a way that is more effective than clubs and less deadly than bullets. Police have used beanbags since the early 1970s, but the modern inventory of less-lethal weapons did not begin to take shape until US Marine General Anthony Zinni pushed for new options in the mid-1990s to respond to civilian unrest in Somalia.

The new generation of weapons, which replaced older crowd-control equipment such as batons and shields, has allowed police to put greater distance between themselves and their targets. But training varies from department to department. In Massachusetts, for example, police recruits are required to take 40 hours of training in conventional firearms, but there is no minimum requirement for less-lethal weapons, according to Jack Collins, general counsel for the Massachusetts Chiefs of Police Association.

Former US attorney Donald Stern, who is directing an independent panel established by the Boston police to investigate the death in October of Victoria Snelgrove by a less-lethal projectile, said he has found a broad lack of regulatory controls and training requirements for the weapons.

"It's not clear to me that there's been a good focus on how they're to be used, when they're to be used, what training is appropriate, and how this is mixed in with traditional police tactics," Stern said.

Although the US Supreme Court has ruled that lethal force only can be used by police when the target is considered a threat to cause death or serious injury, police departments are generally on their own regarding proper application of less-lethal weapons.

Law-enforcement officials and researchers said the questions raised by the Snelgrove shooting -- whether use of the weapons in the case was appropriate and whether the officers who used them had been properly trained -- reflect concerns that are growing as the use of the weapons increases. Since 1971, law enforcement officials acknowledge, 16 deaths have been attributed to impact munitions, including the Snelgrove fatality.

"As tragic as Victoria Snelgrove's death is," Stern said, "it may have come at a time when we are on the verge of police departments wanting to purchase more and more less-lethal weapons."

In Methuen, police last month added a state-of-the-art weapon when they bought five Tasers.

"If there's even one instance when we could employ a Taser in lieu of lethal force, then that would be potentially a life saved," said Methuen police Sergeant Frank Korn, who recently received Taser training with three other Methuen officers. The department also uses pepper spray.

Taser International, the Arizona company that makes the weapons, has faced scathing criticism from civil-rights groups. Amnesty International contends the weapons have been linked to at least 74 deaths in the United States and Canada during the last four years.

Although Taser officials reject Amnesty's contention and said that their weapons have never caused a death or serious injury, the Securities and Exchange Commission has launched an inquiry into its safety record. On Saturday, a Florida man died after being shot by police using a Taser. Some argue that Tasers elevate the risk of heart failure, particularly when they are used on people under the influence of drugs.

Even critics agree that less-lethal weapons have enormous potential to save lives. But they worry that police officers can be lulled into believing the weapons are a safer alternative to deadly force. The result can be devastating in fast-moving crowds when a target suddenly changes position and a bystander is struck, weapons specialists said.

"This technology always has that potential to have an unintended effect, such as a fatality or a serious injury, if some unaccounted-for situation develops or if they are used improperly," said Andrew Mazzara, a former Marine colonel who directed the Pentagon's first program for the weapons.

In addition, Heal said, manufacturers generally do not provide information on what effect their weapons will have on a person who is hit. Although some less-lethal weapons, when used appropriately, do nothing more than momentarily stun their target, popular impact munitions such as rubber batons or beanbags often inflict deep bruises that take days to heal.

Heal said performance testing by the manufacturers is also inadequate. "They test these things under lab conditions: There's no wind, [the weapon is] bench-mounted, and they use stationary targets," Heal said. "In the field, we don't get any of those."

Manufacturers, however, say they rigorously test their products for both safety and effectiveness. Officials at one major US manufacturer, A.L.S. Technologies Inc., argued that the welfare of both police and the public is paramount in their designs.

"All I can tell you is my opinion that, in the industry as a whole, it has become so competitive that it has raised the bar," said Daniel Alvirez, vice president of the corporation, which is based in Bull Shoals, Ark.

Although less-lethal munitions were used thousands of times last year, David Maddon, a member of the A.L.S. board of directors, said "it takes one lethal incident for all kinds of hell to break loose and to denigrate an entire industry. I'm not sure that's a fair perspective."

The industry "is incredibly watched," Maddon said.

"Less-lethal munitions are great," he added, "and they've saved a lot of lives."

Maddon also said that A.L.S. willingly provides performance information about its product. "A.L.S. has expert marksmen on staff and test-fires all of our products in all types of environmental conditions to ensure the ranges of use are valid," Maddon said.

The federal government has yet to conduct a comprehensive, comparative study of less-lethal weapons, despite repeated appeals by law enforcement officials.

To date, the only broad comparison of the performance of less-lethal weapons was funded by Pennsylvania State University in a 2001 study that Mazzara directed. Nothing that has been introduced to the market since then has been independently tested, Heal said, including the FN303 that fired the projectile that killed Snelgrove.

As a result, each department acts independently in the choice and deployment of these weapons. Boston police purchased the FN303, manufactured by Belgian-based FN Herstal, in anticipation of the need to control crowds during the Democratic National Convention in July.

Three months later, as part of an attempt to quell a raucous celebration after the Red Sox's American League championship, Boston police fired the plastic projectile that struck Snelgrove, 21, in the eye.

Three investigations are being conducted into that shooting. In addition to the Stern commission, the Suffolk District Attorney's Office and Boston police also are pursuing inquiries. Repeated calls for comment were not returned by FN Herstal officials.

Howard Friedman, a Boston civil-rights lawyer, said he hopes the Stern commission recommends guidelines that police departments across the state can adopt for their less-lethal arsenals. "These weapons are all different." Friedman said. "Each weapon needs to be examined and tested, and they need to have a policy for each weapon."

Brian MacQuarrie can be reached at macqua@globe.com.