Drunk, Drugged, Violence-Prone Suspects Most Likely To Be Shot By Police

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

An important new study examines officer-involved shootings from a different perspective, focusing not on what police bring to these encounters but on certain behavioral characteristics of the people they most often use deadly force against.

The research, based on the shooting experiences of one large sheriff’s department in California, shows that subjects who are under the influence of drugs or alcohol and/or have a history of violence are far more likely to be on the receiving end of police gunfire.

Specifically, among subjects the sheriff’s personnel responded to with deadly force, those under the influence of drugs were 3 times more likely to be shot or shot at by officers than those who weren’t; intoxicated suspects 3.4 times more likely than those who were sober; and people with previous arrests for violent crimes 3.7 times more likely than those without that history.

“This is the first major study of its kind,” says Dr. Bill Lewinski, executive director of the Force Science Research Center at Minnesota State University-Mankato. “It supplies really important data that will help us more clearly understand the dynamics of force interactions. The more we know about the factors involved in these confrontations, the better we can help officers face the challenges that arise out of them.”

“Most research on police use of force fails to look at the suspect’s actions or behavior,” writes Lt. James McElvain of the Riverside County (CA) Sheriff’s Dept., who conducted the study.

Typically, studies on police shootings explore their frequency, the impact of policy, the officers’ decision-making, and the race or ethnicity of the cops and suspects involved. Also typically they refer to the subjects who get shot in these encounters as the “victims.”

One prominent academic researcher has gone so far as to conclude that in cases where the legitimacy of force is challenged, “it appears that in every instance harm could have been averted by exercising some other options.” In other words, better policies and officer decisions could prevent police shootings.

This approach, McElvain notes, “overlooks the fact that the citizen also is making decisions that lead up to the point at which the officer fires his or her weapon.”

Lewinski agrees that past deadly force research too often has reflected “a biased view and doesn’t give us a clear picture of the encounter. In reality, it is very clear from most investigations, grand jury proceedings, review board hearings, trials and so on that most officer-involved shootings in the U.S. are fully justified and result from the officer shooting in self defense because he or she is victimized by an actual or threatened assault by the subject.”

McElvain’s study, titled “Shots Fired: An Examination of Police Shootings and Citizen Behaviors,” was successfully submitted last December as his dissertation for a PhD in sociology from the University of California-Riverside.

McElvain, 42, now a patrol lieutenant with 21 years’ experience in law enforcement, has not personally been involved in using deadly force against a human subject, but he has investigated police shootings in a previous assignment with internal affairs. During the course work toward his degree, he took a class on alcohol, drugs, and violence and, reflecting on his investigative experiences, began to wonder what role these factors might play in officer confrontations.

“I grabbed 5 years’ of data from records at the Sheriff’s Dept. and did a quick calculation of percentages,” he told Force Science News recently. He found that about 70% of the civilians in officer shootings were under some kind of chemical influence.”

With the approval and encouragement of Sheriff Bob Doyle, he ended up examining 15 years’ of data–all instances of officers on the department delivering gunfire at human beings from 1990-2004, including toxicological reports and criminal histories. In all, he analyzed 186 shootings, involving 314 officers and 190 civilians. (The agency currently has some 1,200 sworn personnel on the street and polices a socio-economically diverse population of more than 500,000.)

Each element of McElvain’s study–drugs, alcohol, and violent background–showed a significantly higher correlation with being shot or shot at by the police when measured independently against subjects of shootings who did not have those characteristics. “In combination,” he found, “citizens with prior violent criminal arrest records and who are under the influence of an intoxicant provide the strongest association with police shootings.”

These correlations proved to be far more significant than race or gender on either side of the shooting relationship, McElvain reports.

His findings do not surprise him, McElvain says. Obviously both alcohol and drugs can “disinhibit a person from coherent thinking,” and if not spur aggressive behavior at least contribute to noncompliance that “an officer can interpret as a threat to his/her immediate safety or that of another.” Sober or drug-free, the subject might “have realized the grave circumstances he/she was creating, and in turn, cooperated with the officer, which would have prevented the shooting.

“Arguably, a person who engages in criminal conduct as a matter of routine and is comfortable with using violence as a means to further his/her activities is also less likely to be intimidated by the police when confronted.”

McElvain’s research is complemented by an FBI study recently published by the federal Bureau of Justice Assistance under the title “Violent Encounters.” This study, by Dr. Anthony Pinizzotto, Edward Davis, and Charles Miller III, analyzed 40 attacks by 43 offenders on 50 officers.

About 35% of those offenders reported using alcohol within 2 hours before committing their assaults; in fact, they had consumed an average of 10 drinks each in that time period. More than 75% said they routinely used illicit drugs, on average twice a week; nearly half had used drugs within 2 hours before assaulting an officer. Of 13 gang members included in that study, only 1 indicated no alcohol or drug use prior to the incident being evaluated, and this was a regular drug and alcohol user who didn’t abuse substances as usual that day because he wanted to be “sharp” while robbing a bank.

A significant portion of the offenders in the FBI study had a history of committing violent crimes, including prior assaults on LEOs.

“Both these studies,” says Lewinski, “show that officers in deadly force situations are commonly dealing with individuals who are very difficult to deal with. The challenge is to try to come up with things that can help officers ‘read’ these situations more quickly and then influence subjects who we know can be only minimally influenced at best to reduce their threatening behavior.

“More research will be necessary before effective training methods can be established, but these studies are major steps in broadening our understanding of the dynamics of dangerous encounters. They also can help the civilian community understand how complex and difficult force confrontations can be.”

McElvain sees the possibility of some immediate practical applications of his findings. For example, “If we can identify citizens who are under the influence and have a history of violence, we may be able to approach them differently,” he told Force Science News. “It may be helpful in those instances to get a second officer on the scene, armed with less-lethal force.”

Dispatchers can play a vital role in conveying important information by probing complainants about the sobriety status of suspects and by running record checks on criminal history and prior contacts when an offender’s name is known, he says.

Advanced training programs may also be able to help officers better pick up cues to an offender’s mental state. “But when you talk about training, you’re talking about money,” he says. In agencies where armed encounters are rare, administrators may not feel this problem represents a training priority.

Lewinski points out, however, “If we can’t figure out better ways for officers to deal with drunk, drugged, and violence-prone subjects, it not only is going to be dangerous for those citizens but also for officers who are victimized by the subjects’ impulsiveness and altered state.”

Meanwhile, McElvain has plans to mine his research database for more fresh findings. Among other things, he is currently exploring how officers’ education, age, military experience, gender, race, and prior shooting involvement may correlate to uses of deadly force, and he wants to map out how police shootings relate to neighborhood types. “I think there are 5 or 6 different studies to come off of this data,” he predicts.

[Our thanks to Tom Aveni, a member of FSRC’s Technical Advisory Board, for alerting us to Lt. McElvain’s research project.]

Leave a Reply


  • Privacy Policy

Privacy Policy

Effective date: January 06, 2019

Force Science Institute, Ltd. (“us”, “we”, or “our”) operates the https://www.forcescience.org/ website (hereinafter referred to as the “Service”).

This page informs you of our policies regarding the collection, use, and disclosure of personal data when you use our Service and the choices you have associated with that data. Our Privacy Policy for Force Science Institute, Ltd. is based on the Privacy Policy Template from Privacy Policies.

We use your data to provide and improve the Service. By using the Service, you agree to the collection and use of information in accordance with this policy. Unless otherwise defined in this Privacy Policy, the terms used in this Privacy Policy have the same meanings as in our Terms and Conditions, accessible from https://www.forcescience.org/

Information Collection And Use

We collect several different types of information for various purposes to provide and improve our Service to you.

Types of Data Collected

Personal Data

While using our Service, we may ask you to provide us with certain personally identifiable information that can be used to contact or identify you (“Personal Data”). Personally identifiable information may include, but is not limited to:

  • Email address
  • First name and last name
  • Phone number
  • Address, State, Province, ZIP/Postal code, City
  • Cookies and Usage Data

Usage Data

We may also collect information on how the Service is accessed and used (“Usage Data”). This Usage Data may include information such as your computer’s Internet Protocol address (e.g. IP address), browser type, browser version, the pages of our Service that you visit, the time and date of your visit, the time spent on those pages, unique device identifiers and other diagnostic data.

Tracking & Cookies Data

We use cookies and similar tracking technologies to track the activity on our Service and hold certain information.

Cookies are files with small amount of data which may include an anonymous unique identifier. Cookies are sent to your browser from a website and stored on your device. Tracking technologies also used are beacons, tags, and scripts to collect and track information and to improve and analyze our Service.

You can instruct your browser to refuse all cookies or to indicate when a cookie is being sent. However, if you do not accept cookies, you may not be able to use some portions of our Service. You can learn more how to manage cookies in the Browser Cookies Guide.

Examples of Cookies we use:

  • Session Cookies. We use Session Cookies to operate our Service.
  • Preference Cookies. We use Preference Cookies to remember your preferences and various settings.
  • Security Cookies. We use Security Cookies for security purposes.

Use of Data

Force Science Institute, Ltd. uses the collected data for various purposes:

  • To provide and maintain the Service
  • To notify you about changes to our Service
  • To allow you to participate in interactive features of our Service when you choose to do so
  • To provide customer care and support
  • To provide analysis or valuable information so that we can improve the Service
  • To monitor the usage of the Service
  • To detect, prevent and address technical issues

Transfer Of Data

Your information, including Personal Data, may be transferred to — and maintained on — computers located outside of your state, province, country or other governmental jurisdiction where the data protection laws may differ than those from your jurisdiction.

If you are located outside United States and choose to provide information to us, please note that we transfer the data, including Personal Data, to United States and process it there.

Your consent to this Privacy Policy followed by your submission of such information represents your agreement to that transfer.

Force Science Institute, Ltd. will take all steps reasonably necessary to ensure that your data is treated securely and in accordance with this Privacy Policy and no transfer of your Personal Data will take place to an organization or a country unless there are adequate controls in place including the security of your data and other personal information.

Disclosure Of Data

Legal Requirements

Force Science Institute, Ltd. may disclose your Personal Data in the good faith belief that such action is necessary to:

  • To comply with a legal obligation
  • To protect and defend the rights or property of Force Science Institute, Ltd.
  • To prevent or investigate possible wrongdoing in connection with the Service
  • To protect the personal safety of users of the Service or the public
  • To protect against legal liability

Security Of Data

The security of your data is important to us, but remember that no method of transmission over the Internet, or method of electronic storage is 100% secure. While we strive to use commercially acceptable means to protect your Personal Data, we cannot guarantee its absolute security.

Service Providers

We may employ third party companies and individuals to facilitate our Service (“Service Providers”), to provide the Service on our behalf, to perform Service-related services or to assist us in analyzing how our Service is used.

These third parties have access to your Personal Data only to perform these tasks on our behalf and are obligated not to disclose or use it for any other purpose.


We may use third-party Service Providers to monitor and analyze the use of our Service.

  • Google AnalyticsGoogle Analytics is a web analytics service offered by Google that tracks and reports website traffic. Google uses the data collected to track and monitor the use of our Service. This data is shared with other Google services. Google may use the collected data to contextualize and personalize the ads of its own advertising network.You can opt-out of having made your activity on the Service available to Google Analytics by installing the Google Analytics opt-out browser add-on. The add-on prevents the Google Analytics JavaScript (ga.js, analytics.js, and dc.js) from sharing information with Google Analytics about visits activity.For more information on the privacy practices of Google, please visit the Google Privacy & Terms web page: https://policies.google.com/privacy?hl=en

Links To Other Sites

Our Service may contain links to other sites that are not operated by us. If you click on a third party link, you will be directed to that third party’s site. We strongly advise you to review the Privacy Policy of every site you visit.

We have no control over and assume no responsibility for the content, privacy policies or practices of any third party sites or services.

Children’s Privacy

Our Service does not address anyone under the age of 18 (“Children”).

We do not knowingly collect personally identifiable information from anyone under the age of 18. If you are a parent or guardian and you are aware that your Children has provided us with Personal Data, please contact us. If we become aware that we have collected Personal Data from children without verification of parental consent, we take steps to remove that information from our servers.

Changes To This Privacy Policy

We may update our Privacy Policy from time to time. We will notify you of any changes by posting the new Privacy Policy on this page.

We will let you know via email and/or a prominent notice on our Service, prior to the change becoming effective and update the “effective date” at the top of this Privacy Policy.

You are advised to review this Privacy Policy periodically for any changes. Changes to this Privacy Policy are effective when they are posted on this page.

Contact Us

If you have any questions about this Privacy Policy, please contact us:

  • By email: support@forcescience.org
  • By visiting this page on our website: https://www.forcescience.org/contact
  • By phone number: 866-683-1944
  • By mail: Force Science Institute, Ltd.