How the Lab classifies less-lethal force

The single indicator that says whether any less-lethal option was used, and exactly which options it counts.

Methods entries document how EWRL research is produced. Findings and conclusions appear in the Reports and Evidence Base collections.

What it is

The Lab records less-lethal force in two ways: each option separately, and one derived indicator that records whether any of them was used. The indicator covers intermediate force options deployed at the subject before, or at the same time as, the final application of lethal force.

How the Lab records it

Codebook variable: I_LessLethal. Calculated from the individual options listed below rather than coded independently.

Value labels: 1 = any less-lethal force deployed (derived); 0 = no less-lethal force documented.

The indicator is coded 1 when any of the following options is coded 1:

The following are not counted: the lethal firearm options (pistol, shotgun, rifle) never trigger this indicator — see Lethal force — nor do the presence-only flags that record resources on scene rather than force applied to the subject: crisis negotiators, tactical teams, and armored vehicles.

The list includes options that do not strike, such as shields and remote restraints, so “less-lethal” here refers to any intermediate or protective option deployed at the subject, not only weapons that make contact.

What the record can and cannot show

The indicator records that at least one option was used; it does not specify which option, how many deployments occurred, or whether the less-lethal attempt preceded the lethal force or occurred simultaneously. Because every encounter in the dataset ended in a death, the indicator cannot show how often less-lethal force is used in encounters that end differently, or how effective any particular option is. A value of zero combines “no less-lethal force used” with “none documented.”

Research in the Lab’s library

A review of 143 suicide-by-cop incidents found 23 cases in which police used less-lethal force requiring an instrument or technology. Comparing those cases with other incidents, the authors reported that 44% of the less-lethal incidents ended without the subject’s death, against 11% of the comparison incidents, while stressing that no cause-and-effect relationship is implied (Homant & Kennedy, 2000). The sample was limited to suicide-by-cop incidents and does not generalize to all edged-weapon encounters.

General reviews of less-lethal weapons address the technical, operational, and management considerations in acquiring and using them (Downs, 2007), their medical implications (Vilke & Chan, 2007), and impact munitions specifically (Klinger, 2007). A book chapter on the reasons agencies adopt less-lethal options is also held in the library (Wyant & Burns, 2014).

References

Downs, R. L. (2007). Less lethal weapons: a technologist’s perspective. Policing: An International Journal of Police Strategies & Management, 30(3), 358–384. https://doi.org/10.1108/13639510710778796

Homant, R. J., & Kennedy, D. B. (2000). Effectiveness of Less than Lethal Force in Suicide-by-Cop Incidents. Police Quarterly, 3(2), 153–171. https://doi.org/10.1177/1098611100003002002

Klinger, D. (2007). Impact munitions: a discussion of key information. Policing: An International Journal of Police Strategies & Management, 30(3), 385–397. https://doi.org/10.1108/13639510710778804

Vilke, G. M., & Chan, T. C. (2007). Less lethal technology: medical issues. Policing: An International Journal of Police Strategies & Management, 30(3), 341–357. https://doi.org/10.1108/13639510710778787

Wyant, R, & Burns, T. (2014). Why We Use Less Lethal. In Risk Management of Less Lethal Options (pp. 27–42). CRC Press. https://doi.org/10.1201/b16847-3

How to cite

Edged-Weapon Response Lab. (2026). How the Lab classifies less-lethal force. In EWRL Methods Documentation (Version 1.0). https://droptheknife.org/methods/I_LessLethal