The X2 is slightly larger than the X26. From their spec sheet, the X2 is ½” longer, 1” taller, and ½” wider than an X26. It also weighs twice as much. Okay, so it adds a bit of bulk to the gun belt.

A major advantage to the X2 is dual sighting lasers. The dual lasers help with a main culprit of ECD ineffectiveness: probes missing their target. I found that the top and bottom dart lasers were dead-on inside 25 feet.

Accurate hits are easier when you don’t have to guess where the bottom dart is going to land. The top dart laser is constant on, while the bottom dart laser pulses. This comes in handy if you need to cant the weapon for prone suspects or difficult shots.

Another real improvement to the platform is the back up shot capability. No more fumbling with a second cartridge for a reload. Missed with the first shot? Just fire the second.

The X2 allows you to engage two suspects and “control” either one, or both, using the trigger and ambidextrous secondary buttons. These secondary buttons toggle between cartridges or can activate both sets of probes.

Through the use of the secondary buttons, drive stuns can be accomplished without firing the cartridges. They also allow for the daily spark test without removing the cartridges. What agency hasn’t had someone negligently fire off a set of probes while spark testing?

The Smart Cartridges for the X2 are recessed in the housing, so they cannot be knocked off, as can those on the X26 or M26. If you’ve ever had a cartridge get unseated in an older Taser, you can appreciate this feature.

Unlike an X26, the X2’s casing is waterproofed to IPX-2 standards, which equate to the device withstanding 3-5mm rainfall per minute for 10 minutes and the device tilted 15 degrees from normal in four directions.

These are the main improvements, though there are more that I don’t feel are all that important to the operator, such as internal self diagnostics or advanced display options.

Something I think may be a bit difficult is transitioning officers to the X2 from the X26. In an average X26 engagement, after deploying the probes into a suspect, an additional application of the ECD involves depressing the trigger again.

With an X2, this procedure will fire off the second cartridge into wherever the thing is pointed. Re-energizing the first fired cartridge is accomplished by pushing one of the secondary buttons, not the trigger.

I think training repetitions with the new X2 will overcome any confusion with this functional difference. We conducted drills alternating targets and toggling between the two expelled cartridges.

The basic way the X2 effects neuromuscular incapacitation is little different than with previous Tasers. The real advances of the X2 are in the total package that delivers the NMI. Taser’s solutions have increased this device’s overall field effectiveness and durability.

Randall is a twenty-four year sworn police officer in a mid-sized Florida police department. He has been an FTO, K9 Handler, Detective, and SWAT Team Leader. He is currently the K9 Unit Sergeant and department SWAT Coordinator.

A jury should have been allowed to decide if her mistake was reasonable, the 9th circuit appellate judges said in overturning a district judge’s decision and remanding the case for fresh action.

“Whatever the ultimate outcome, this case bears watching and studying because of the critical issues it raises regarding training, weapons placement, personal responsibility, and decision-making,” says Dr. Bill Lewinski, executive director of the Force Science Institute. As we have reported previously, Lewinski was involved as an expert witness in the BART incident, a widely publicized mistaken-weapon shooting by a transit officer in the San Francisco area.

The current case, Torres v. City of Madera (CA), is a 1983 civil action brought by parents of a suspect who was fatally shot in the chest while handcuffed in the backseat of a patrol car. The involved officer intended to Tase him because he was kicking the rear door and she feared he would cut himself if he broke the window. Unwittingly, she grabbed and fired her sidearm instead of her Taser.

Among other things, these factors emerged as evidence at trial:

• As instructed when it was issued, the officer carried her Taser “in a thigh holster immediately below her holstered Glock on her dominant right side.” Earlier on the night of the shooting, she had turned off the safety on her Taser, to enable its quicker deployment.

• Reaching down, she unsnapped the holster holding her Glock, removed the gun, aimed its laser at the suspect’s center mass, put her left hand under the gun for support, and pulled the trigger, “all without looking at the weapon in her hand.” Both weapons had laser components.

• Twice previously the officer had confused the 2 weapons, once when trying to reholster her gun and her Taser after a jail visit and again when trying to drive-stun a combative suspect during a field encounter. The latter time she ended up pointing her mistakenly drawn pistol at her partner’s head.

• Frightened by that potentially tragic error, she told her sergeant, who advised her to “keep practicing” in drawing her Taser and in distinguishing between the 2 weapons. She informally “practiced” daily on her own for 9 months leading up to the shooting, but underwent no “formal” retraining.

• Her initial training had consisted of a single 3-hour class, during which she fired the weapon only once. There was no discussion during that session of the weapon-confusion risk nor of weapon-confusion incidents that had occurred on other departments.

The district court found that the officer’s mistake in drawing her gun was “reasonable” and granted summary judgment in favor of her and the city. But the appeals court declared that the district judge had over-reached with that decision. “While a jury might ultimately find [the officer's] mistake of weapon to have been reasonable, it was inappropriate for the [lower] court to reach this conclusion,” the appellate decision states.

Further action by the district court is now pending. To read the appellate decision in full, with more details of this case, click here.

For an article about the case from the Legal & Liability Risk Management Institute, click here

For a complimentary subscription to Force Science News, an e-newsletter provided free by the Force Science Institute, visit www.forcescience.org or e-mail your contact information to: editor@forcescience.org

Despite efforts by Amnesty International, the ACLU, and other activist groups to link Tasers to in-custody deaths, the NIJ’s final report on its exhaustive “Study of Deaths Following Electro Muscular Disruption” asserts:

“There is no conclusive medical evidence…that indicates a high risk of serious injury or death to humans from the direct or indirect cardiovascular or metabolic effects of short-term [Taser] exposure in healthy, normal, nonstressed, nonintoxicated persons.”

Indeed, the report says, the risk of death in a force incident involving a conducted energy device “is less than 0.25 percent, and it is reasonable to conclude that CEDs do not cause or contribute to death in the large majority of [even] those cases…. [C]urrent research does not support a substantially increased risk of cardiac arrhythmia in field situations, even if the CED darts strike the front of the chest.

“Law enforcement need not refrain from using CEDs to place uncooperative or combative subjects in custody, provided the devices are used in accordance with accepted national guidelines and appropriate use-of-force policy.”

The conclusions were reached by a medical panel composed of forensic pathologists, medical examiners, and experts in cardiology, emergency medicine, epidemiology, and toxicology. Their 60-page report can be accessed in full free of charge by clicking here or by visiting www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/233432.pdf

A 19-page companion document, “Police Use of Force, Tasers and Other Less-Lethal Weapons,” is available free by clicking here or by visiting www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/232215.pdf.

This study looked at injuries that occur to LEOs and subjects during use-of-force events and found–not surprisingly–that the use of physical force and hands-on control “clearly” increase the risk of injury to officers and suspects alike. “[O]fficers, rather than suspects, face the most increased injury risk when suspects resist more vigorously,” the report states.

Among agencies studied, use of pepper spray “reduced the likelihood of injury to suspects by 70%,” but its use increased injury risk to officers by as much as 39%–a finding that was “unexpected” and begs “more research.”

Analysis of more than 24,000 use-of-force cases “showed the odds of suspect injury decreased by almost 60% when a CED was used.” Compiling reports from multiple agencies, the researchers found that Taser use also tended to result in a significant decline in officer injuries.

More than 15,000 law enforcement and military agencies now issue Tasers, the report notes. “They are rapidly overtaking other force alternatives.”

[Our thanks to use-of-force instructor Tom Moy of the University of Delaware Police Dept. for alerting us to these reports.]

For a complimentary subscription to Force Science News, an e-newsletter provied free by the Force Science Institute, visit www.forcescience.org or e-mail your contact information to: editor@forcescience.org

For readers of the BlueSheepdog newsletter, you will remember where I highlighted in the May issue a tragic case of a Taser failure leading to a police officer’s death.  In that case, a Taser failed to stop a violent subject from pulling out a gun and shooting the officer.

Right now, ITS Tactical is running an article I wrote called Taser Trouble: Is EID Technology a Crutch for Law Enforcement? I take a look at the problem of law enforcement using the Taser when higher levels of force are clearly justified.

Take a few minutes to read the article and join the discussion.  This is a serious issue that we in police work need to address.

(Note: I also discussed Tasers and deadly force in the article Recognize A Deadly Force Situation: Tasers Are Not Appropriate.  Make sure you sign up for the free newsletter to get additional content not available publicly on the site.)

Did you know there was an alternative to the TASER?  Randall takes a look at the Karbon Arms MPID, an affordably priced alternative to the TASET X26.

In September 2010, the Karbon Arms company purchased Stinger Systems, Inc. and its holdings.  Stinger Systems had marketed an electronic control device that was an alternative to the ECD’s offered by Taser International.  The Stinger ECD, called the S-200, became the focus of a lawsuit for patent violations.

While Karbon Arms still sells other products originally developed by Stinger, the Karbon MPID, or multi-purpose immobilization device, is purportedly new technology not derived from the S-200, according to a conversation I had with Karbon Arms Regional Sales Director George DiScioscia.

The Karbon MPID seeks to improve on Taser’s M and X series by introducing these features:

• A recessed cartridge
• An illuminated front sight
• Top-mounted push button on and off
• Use of off the shelf batteries
• A simplified rear display
• One handed cartridge ejection
• Rubber side grips
• Single shell construction
• No spark test required

In examining existing ECD’s, Karbon Arms, and Stinger Systems before it, took what they perceived to be design deficiencies and tried to eliminate their drawbacks.  For instance, because the MPID’s cartridge is recessed, it cannot be dislodged by side pressure or an impact.

Reloads with the MPID should be quicker because the cartridge can be ejected while the officer retrieves a second, unfired one with his support hand.  This is analogous to reloading a magazine in a semi-automatic handgun.

According to DiScioscia, the top-mounted on and off button is hardy, is still ambidextrous, and is not prone to breakage as is a plastic toggle switch.  The other features listed above are similarly seen by Karbon as advantages over Taser.  The MPID includes standard ECD compliments such as a forward white light, a laser sight, computer download docking, and an optional camera.

A key priority for Karbon Arms was to attempt to create a refined ECD at a lower price point than competitive units.  The Karbon MPID’s M.S.R.P. starts at $549.00, which DiScioscia said is far below that for a Taser X-26.

If the Karbon MPID can deliver what it promises, and at its lower cost, it may well catch on in light of the current purchasing constraints of money-starved government agencies.  MPID’s are already being fielded by local police departments and sheriff’s offices.

Randall is a twenty-three year sworn police officer in a mid-sized Florida police department.  He has been an FTO, K9 Handler, Detective and SWAT Team Leader.  He is currently the Midnight Shift K9 Sergeant and department SWAT Coordinator.

Among the advantages to the X2 are a second shot capability without reloading, dual laser sights, an increased battery life, and a more weather resistant housing (optional).  The X2 also allows for a “warning shot,” which would previously have require removing a cartridge, ala the “spark discharge” which Taser had advocated in its training curriculum.

The dual lasers of the X2 remind me of the dual laser emitters integrated into the last Tasertron model in the late 1990’s.  The two laser dots give the officer a better idea of where both probes will strike upon firing.  It is a move to improve operator accuracy, which is one of the main failures of ECD’s.

In March of 2002, Taser International bought out Tasertron in a move to solidify their place in law enforcement circles.  Tasertron, in its dying gasps to retain market share, had tried to improve on their dated TE-86 by introducing the TE-93 and TE-95 models, making them more similar to the Taser International M26.  All these ECD’s were more like a pistols, and therefore seen as easier to integrate into a police officers’ training.

For the record, I have been a certified instructor for Tasertron and for Taser International.  Both of my instructorships have lapsed, so I have no latent allegiance.  On street duty, I have carried a Tasertron TE-86 and Taser’s 34000, M26, and X26 models.

At the 2011 SHOT Show in Las Vegas, I was able to handle a Taser X3 in their booth.  Despite its improved function, I found it a bit large for my tastes, so the X2, which is a scaled down iteration, is welcome by size comparison.

The X2 is a Taser International’s compromise between size and improved technology.  With price and space on an officer’s duty belt at a premium, it will remain to be seen whether the X2’s upgrades will outweigh the added bulk.

Randall is a twenty-three year sworn police officer in a mid-sized Florida police department.  He has been an FTO, K9 Handler, Detective and SWAT Team Leader.  He is currently the Midnight Shift K9 Sergeant and department SWAT Coordinator.

During the course of the chase, a police officer deploys a TASER, but misses.  Soon after, the suspect wrecks his bicycle and falls into the path of a patrol car.  The suspect is killed due to the trauma of being hit by the cruiser.

However, the suspect is labeled a victim of police brutality, and the Southern Christian Leadership Conference demanded a change in the department’s TASER policy. “If it had not been for the reckless use of the Taser gun, this tragic accident could have been avoided,” said Dexter Wimbish.

Mind you, the TASER never struck the suspect, nor was it even mentioned in the cause of death report issued by the medical examiner.  Let’s not forget that had the TASER probes struck home, the chase would have likely ended with no more than some minor abrasions of the suspect falling from the bicycle.

I guess facts have no bearing on the SCLC’s agenda to take TASERs and other tools from police officers.

However, Tasers are not 100% reliable. For the Taser to work properly there has to be a completed circuit with electricity flowing through a wide section of muscle mass. The failure of a Taser to effectively work can happen if only one probe hits the suspect, or the probes land too close together, or there is a faulty battery, or thick clothes do not allow the probes to get close to the skin. I’ve seen Tasers fail to incapacitate in each of these situations. The point is: the X26 is effective but not 100%.

There is an understandable reluctance by police officers to use deadly force. Cops are not evil people and they do not want to harm or kill anyone. So, many times when a police officer faces a situation in which deadly force is the appropriate level of force, the officer may hesitate or seek some other lower level of force, which generally decreases their own safety. While in some respects this is admirable, the fact is the officer must survive and win the encounter, not just for his or her own well being, but for the community as a whole. For if the officer is incapacitated or killed due to their attempt at a lower force option, their killer is now free to harm other innocents…perhaps even with the officers own weapons.

If a police officer encounters a suspect armed with a deadly weapon, the officer’s appropriate response will be deadly force, not a Taser. A suicidal subject armed with a knife or a gun needs to see the business end of your AR, shotgun, or pistol…not the blast doors of a ‘green’ X26 cartridge. If you have appropriate deadly force cover (say your two zone partners are in a position of advantage covering the suspect with .223 rifles), then you might –in certain circumstances– attempt to use a Taser to subdue the suspect. The idea is that your backup can employ deadly force should the Taser attempt go wrong.

Keep in mind that the vast majority of us have Taser cartridges that are good to a maximum of 21′ or 25′. Perhaps 21′ sounds familiar? That distance should be known to all police officers as it relates to the Tueller Drill. The Tueller Drill was developed by Sgt. Dennis Tueller of the Salt Lake City PD. Sgt. Tueller discovered that an average person could cover 21′ and begin stabbing an officer in 1.5 seconds: the same amount of time an officer could draw his weapon and put a round on the threat. That, of course, does not take into account that a fatal shot is not likely to instantly stop the attack.

So, if you encounter a violent subject armed with an edged weapon AND you have lethal force cover AND you want to try to use a Taser, you better hope it works. If it doesn’t, you will likely have a subject on top of you in less than two seconds. Your partners better be very accurate and very quick. Even then you stand a pretty decent shot at getting hurt.

If the subject has a firearm, you don’t even have 1.5 seconds, as they just have to point and pull the trigger.

So, read your department SOP’s, know your state laws of the use of force, and work out plans with your zone partners before you encounter a deadly force situation in which you may want to try a Taser.

Generally, these types of stun guns are not nearly as incapacitating as compared to the TASER M/X-26.

A quick Google search turned up a wide variety of these being sold under names like Pretender Cell Phone Stun Gun and Titan Multi-Functional Cell Phone Stun Gun. Prices start at about $60 and go up. These are perfectly legal in most US jurisdictions, and are probably used by far more honest citizens than criminals.  However, mere possession may be a crime in your area, and regardless, no law ever stopped a criminal from attacking a police officer.
Keep an eye out for these things when dealing with suspects. All of the photos below are of actual stun guns being sold today.

Stay safe!

What is the XREP? XREP stands for eXtended Range Electronic Projectile. In a nutshell, the XREP is a 12-gauge shotgun round with a X26 loaded inside. Launched from a standard 12-gauge shotgun, the XREP is a fin stabilized projectile moving at about 300 feet per second. Effective range? Up to 100 feet, or about four times the distance of the X26 cartridge most of us are carrying.

On impact, the XREP delivers the same NMI pulse the X26 delivers. The discharge lasts 20 seconds, which gives officers plenty of time to cover the distance to the suspect, and take him into custody.

The TASER XREP will be in field tests for 6-12 months starting this fall. I imagine by next summer we will know when this little gem will be on the market.

Police officers everywhere will testify to the effectiveness of the TASER. If the XREP delivers as advertised, I imagine they will have another winner on their hands, and an effective tool in ours.