8 “Key Findings” From New Study On Killing Of Unarmed Suspects

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Probably no single force event raises more questions, inflames more protests, and generates more misperceptions than the police killing of an unarmed suspect.

Now, thanks to a new 437-page study published in book form, we know more about the circumstances that drive these fateful encounters and the lessons for training and street performance to be drawn from them.

In Context: Understanding Police Killings of Unarmed Citizens presents the research of a team headed by Nick Selby, a Texas detective who’s an expert in law enforcement data analysis and founder of the Dallas-area analytics technology firm StreetCred Software, Inc.

In a previous Force Science News , we reported on this project while the data collection was still underway. Now we supply a summary of the findings and the conclusions reached by Selby and his law enforcement-backgrounded co-authors, Ben Singleton and Ed Flosi (a certified Force Science Analyst).


The killing of unarmed individuals compelled examination, Selby explains, because that seemed in the popular mind to be the deadly force area most likely to harbor unacceptable police conduct. Other sources assembling data on the subject, such as the Washington Post, he writes, were good at “counting the high-level number of people killed by police” but tended to ignore important facts, “such as why the decedent was killed.”

In short, “There was no context…which makes it impossible for the police to learn from mistakes and build on strengths” and for the public to better understand officers’ deadly force decisions.

“[T]his lack of research and analysis,” notes former Cmsr. Lawrence Murphy of the Nassau County (NY) PD in a foreword to the study, “has allowed the media to run unchecked with a narrative that claims the police are killing unarmed people of color at an alarming rate.”

The task Selby and his co-authors set “was to search as far and wide as possible to get context”–from witness statements, audio and video recordings, medical examiner and coroner reports, grand jury hearings, police accounts, toxicology reports, news stories, and other publicly available information.

In the end, they documented and detailed what they believe is every so-called “unarmed” fatality at the hands of LEOs in the U.S. last year–153 in all.

The cases were not “cherry-picked” to support a point of view, Selby insists. The objective was “to be objective,” not to “defend officers indiscriminately.” Indeed, the researchers concluded that while most controversial killings were fully justified, in some cases the cops were “just plain wrong.”


Nearly 300 pages of the book are devoted to describing and dissecting the 153 fatalities, one by one, month by month throughout the year. For each, the basic circumstances are reconstructed and then the three authors, each drawing on his own policing experience and other relevant expertise, offer observations on the human dynamics and other influential factors that shaped the encounter.

Among the important findings are these:

1. The cause of these deaths is often not shooting

“Belying a powerful media narrative to the contrary,” the authors write, “nearly half of the 153 cases involved no shooting, and the decedent died by other cause.” Most often, that cause was “an abnormal reaction or complication after officers deployed tools or techniques with the intent of using non-deadly force.”

In other words, involved officers were trying to avoid the likelihood of an unarmed suspect’s death or serious bodily harm. Even in cases where there were shootings, 27% of the time officers deployed a TASER before going to a firearm.

“To me,” Selby told Force Science News, “this says that officers tried to do absolutely everything they possibly could to avoid taking a life in at least a quarter of incidents.”

2. Police are not targeting minorities for special attention

“Media narratives that the police are more likely to target black people in deadly encounters are, statistically speaking, demonstrably wrong,” Selby writes.

Contacts with about 70% of unarmed people who died at the hands of police were initiated by citizens complaining that the subjects were posing some danger to the community, the research shows. Even when police do select their targets, that group “does not vary significantly from the racial composition” of the group collectively identified by citizen complaints.

But the authors state they could not determine, given the data at hand, whether the police treat white people differently once an event begins. “This is a separate question that must be answered, using a much wider array of contextual data,” they note.

The study points out: “[T]he majority of those ultimately killed by police were themselves engaging in behavior that was criminal (which brought the police to the scene) and posing direct threats to law enforcement or other civilians (which most often precipitated the use of force).” All told, 70% of the unarmed subjects killed “were in the process of violent crimes or property crimes at the time of their fatal encounter with police.

3. Drugs & mental illness are strong factors

“While media, political, and activist attention has been centered on race, in our research the most significant findings by group of decedents involved illegal drug use and mental health issues,” the study states. “Almost half the cases, 46%, involved suspected or proved acute narcotic intoxication and/or mental health crises–from a public health standpoint, an astonishing number.”

Unarmed mentally ill people accounted for 19% of the death toll, while 27% were under the influence of acute narcotic intoxication, meth-induced psychosis, PCP, or synthetic drugs. In almost every acute drug case, the researchers report, the “decedents fought with the police and others, and after they were immobilized, suffered heart failure or heart attacks.” In nearly 70% of these cases, officers had used tools “intended to be non-deadly.”

4. There is no systematic illegal use of force by American LEOs

In their case-by-case analysis, Selby and his colleagues did find more uses of force that they considered questionable than they expected; about 7% of cases “appeared to involve the unjustified use of deadly force by a police officer.”

But is there anything approaching an “epidemic” of systematic and illegal use of force against unarmed civilians, as some activist groups would have us believe? No, the authors conclude, there is not.

They invite readers to “compare our analysis to your own and point out where you disagree” and they provide over 500 source notes where the facts they report can be checked.

5. Officers need to build confidence with hand-on techniques

Taking what they admit is a controversial position, the authors argue that officers today may be too quick to use control tools like CEWs or OC, instead of applying hands-on tactics to subdue some unarmed subjects. The researchers say they were “struck by several incidents…that might have easily been addressed [successfully] by going hands-on” instead of resorting quickly to a less-lethal or deadly weapon.

Sometimes unarmed “rowdy” people need to be “grabbed and secured,” even though they may fight in response, Selby writes. “Officers should be expected not to treat every assault as a life-and-death situation….

“Over-reliance on TASER or pepper spray has its own set of dangers. Officers who do not practice fighting…risk being surprised by physicality, over-powered or out-maneuvered by those they confront… [T]hose who practice their physical skills are mentally and physically [better] prepared.”

6. Expansion of police video is urgently needed

In only 26% of the 153 “unarmed” cases studied were video recordings available, and often these came from bystanders or non-police surveillance cameras. Aggressive efforts of agencies “to expand their video coverage…can’t be delayed any longer,” the study warns.

While video is by no means a panacea, without it officers are not protected from [false] accusations, and the agency loses community trust,” the study states. Within three years, the researchers predict, “if video is unavailable, the police will be disbelieved on principle.”

7. Police must release more data–and soon

“The key finding that can drive the greatest impact from a policy perspective was informed by the very difficulty we faced finding data to support the police account of incidents,” the researchers assert.

“Law enforcement agencies simply must find better ways to release more data…more quickly. There is a significant public interest in this data, and the public has a legitimate right to understand how it is being policed….

“Police agencies failing to release information look like they’re hiding something, [while] agencies that release data when they have it are invested with the trust of their communities….

“Release early, release often, put a face to the investigation, and don’t ever appear to be hiding.”

8. A reminder, to ward off complacency…

To correct media and protester implications and as a reminder for officers, Selby and his team offer this nugget of reality: “It is a mistake to equate ‘unarmed’ to always mean ‘not dangerous.’ ”

Seven out of 10 unarmed people killed by police during the study period “were in the middle of committing crimes such as robbery, carjacking, assault, serious destruction of property, or burglary.” More than one-quarter had already assaulted and injured civilians in violent attacks, and two had committed murders before police cut short their crimes–“this despite the fact that the decedent was not armed.”

The book In Context can be ordered on line, in Kindle or print formats, by searching the title on Amazon.com or in B&N Nook format by searching the title on barnesandnoble.com. Lead author Nick Selby can be reached at: nick.selby@gmail.com


Another new book that sets the record straight about unarmed offenders, as well as other “narrative distortions” about police use of deadly force, is The War on Cops: How the New Attack on Law and Order Makes Everyone Less Safe, by Heather Mac Donald, praised at this year’s ILEETA annual training conference as “one of the few journalists who advocates for police officers.”

For more details, see the recent review of this hard-hitting book by Doug Wyllie of PoliceOne found when you CLICK HERE.

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.