警察使用武力事件中的低致命武器和平民伤害:多机构分析。

IF 4.3 2区 医学 Q1 MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL Journal of Urban Health-Bulletin of the New York Academy of Medicine Pub Date : 2024-11-11 DOI:10.1007/s11524-024-00940-1
Kevin Petersen, Christopher S Koper, Bruce G Taylor, Weiwei Liu, Jackie Sheridan-Johnson
{"title":"警察使用武力事件中的低致命武器和平民伤害:多机构分析。","authors":"Kevin Petersen, Christopher S Koper, Bruce G Taylor, Weiwei Liu, Jackie Sheridan-Johnson","doi":"10.1007/s11524-024-00940-1","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Police use-of-force is a growing public health concern, with recent estimates suggesting that over 70,000 people are injured by police each year. To reduce the risk of injury to civilians, most police agencies authorize the use of various less-lethal weapons. However, to date, there is little consensus as to which types of less-lethal weapons are most effective at reducing injury risk. In this study, we test the differential effects of less-lethal weapons on civilian injury and injury severity using data on 2348 use-of-force incidents originating from 17 large urban and metropolitan law enforcement agencies from 2015 to 2019. Specifically, we assess the injury risks associated with conducted energy devices, chemical agents, impact weapons, and police canines, while controlling for a robust set of officer, civilian, and situational characteristics. Our results indicate that chemical agents reduce the risk of hospitalization or death significantly more than other weapon types, while police canines increase the risk of all injury outcomes significantly more than other weapon types. Adjusting for incident characteristics, chemical agents are predicted to cause hospitalization or death in 4% of cases, compared to 13% for conducted energy devices, 16% for impact weapons, and 37% for police canines. These findings suggest that civilian injury may be reduced through use-of-force policies that prioritize less severe modalities of force, though more research is needed on the contextual and long-term effects of these weapons.</p>","PeriodicalId":49964,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Urban Health-Bulletin of the New York Academy of Medicine","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":4.3000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Less-Lethal Weapons and Civilian Injury in Police Use of Force Encounters: A Multi-agency Analysis.\",\"authors\":\"Kevin Petersen, Christopher S Koper, Bruce G Taylor, Weiwei Liu, Jackie Sheridan-Johnson\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s11524-024-00940-1\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>Police use-of-force is a growing public health concern, with recent estimates suggesting that over 70,000 people are injured by police each year. To reduce the risk of injury to civilians, most police agencies authorize the use of various less-lethal weapons. However, to date, there is little consensus as to which types of less-lethal weapons are most effective at reducing injury risk. In this study, we test the differential effects of less-lethal weapons on civilian injury and injury severity using data on 2348 use-of-force incidents originating from 17 large urban and metropolitan law enforcement agencies from 2015 to 2019. Specifically, we assess the injury risks associated with conducted energy devices, chemical agents, impact weapons, and police canines, while controlling for a robust set of officer, civilian, and situational characteristics. Our results indicate that chemical agents reduce the risk of hospitalization or death significantly more than other weapon types, while police canines increase the risk of all injury outcomes significantly more than other weapon types. Adjusting for incident characteristics, chemical agents are predicted to cause hospitalization or death in 4% of cases, compared to 13% for conducted energy devices, 16% for impact weapons, and 37% for police canines. These findings suggest that civilian injury may be reduced through use-of-force policies that prioritize less severe modalities of force, though more research is needed on the contextual and long-term effects of these weapons.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":49964,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Urban Health-Bulletin of the New York Academy of Medicine\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":4.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-11-11\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Urban Health-Bulletin of the New York Academy of Medicine\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1007/s11524-024-00940-1\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Urban Health-Bulletin of the New York Academy of Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s11524-024-00940-1","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

警察使用武力是一个日益严重的公共健康问题,最近的估计表明,每年有超过 70,000 人被警察打伤。为了降低平民受伤的风险,大多数警察机构授权使用各种低致命性武器。然而,迄今为止,对于哪类低致命性武器能最有效地降低伤害风险还没有达成共识。在本研究中,我们利用 2015 年至 2019 年间 17 个大型城市和大都市执法机构发生的 2348 起使用武力事件的数据,检验了低致命性武器对平民伤害和伤害严重程度的不同影响。具体而言,我们评估了与传导能量装置、化学制剂、冲击武器和警犬相关的伤害风险,同时控制了一组可靠的警官、平民和情境特征。我们的结果表明,化学制剂降低住院或死亡风险的程度明显高于其他武器类型,而警犬增加所有伤害结果风险的程度明显高于其他武器类型。对事件特征进行调整后,预计化学制剂导致住院或死亡的比例为 4%,而传导能量装置为 13%,冲击武器为 16%,警犬为 37%。这些研究结果表明,尽管还需要对这些武器的背景和长期影响进行更多的研究,但可以通过优先使用不那么严重的武力方式的武力使用政策来减少对平民的伤害。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Less-Lethal Weapons and Civilian Injury in Police Use of Force Encounters: A Multi-agency Analysis.

Police use-of-force is a growing public health concern, with recent estimates suggesting that over 70,000 people are injured by police each year. To reduce the risk of injury to civilians, most police agencies authorize the use of various less-lethal weapons. However, to date, there is little consensus as to which types of less-lethal weapons are most effective at reducing injury risk. In this study, we test the differential effects of less-lethal weapons on civilian injury and injury severity using data on 2348 use-of-force incidents originating from 17 large urban and metropolitan law enforcement agencies from 2015 to 2019. Specifically, we assess the injury risks associated with conducted energy devices, chemical agents, impact weapons, and police canines, while controlling for a robust set of officer, civilian, and situational characteristics. Our results indicate that chemical agents reduce the risk of hospitalization or death significantly more than other weapon types, while police canines increase the risk of all injury outcomes significantly more than other weapon types. Adjusting for incident characteristics, chemical agents are predicted to cause hospitalization or death in 4% of cases, compared to 13% for conducted energy devices, 16% for impact weapons, and 37% for police canines. These findings suggest that civilian injury may be reduced through use-of-force policies that prioritize less severe modalities of force, though more research is needed on the contextual and long-term effects of these weapons.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Journal of Urban Health-Bulletin of the New York Academy of Medicine
Journal of Urban Health-Bulletin of the New York Academy of Medicine 医学-公共卫生、环境卫生与职业卫生
CiteScore
9.10
自引率
3.00%
发文量
105
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: The Journal of Urban Health is the premier and authoritative source of rigorous analyses to advance the health and well-being of people in cities. The Journal provides a platform for interdisciplinary exploration of the evidence base for the broader determinants of health and health inequities needed to strengthen policies, programs, and governance for urban health. The Journal publishes original data, case studies, commentaries, book reviews, executive summaries of selected reports, and proceedings from important global meetings. It welcomes submissions presenting new analytic methods, including systems science approaches to urban problem solving. Finally, the Journal provides a forum linking scholars, practitioners, civil society, and policy makers from the multiple sectors that can influence the health of urban populations.
期刊最新文献
Urban Environments, Health, and Environmental Sustainability: Findings From the SALURBAL Study. Trends in Coverage and Content of Maternal and Neonatal Care in Bamako, Mali. From Neighborhood to Household: Connections Between Neighborhood Vacant and Abandoned Property and Family Violence. Less-Lethal Weapons and Civilian Injury in Police Use of Force Encounters: A Multi-agency Analysis. Temporal Trends of Early COVID-19 Infections in New York City Transit Workers and Residents: March 01, 2020-May 02, 2020.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1