New Force Science Studies: The Stand Up Speed Of Proned-out Suspects, Plus The Impact Of Physical Exertion On Shooting Performance

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Some surprising findings are surfacing in the preliminary analyses of two new studies conducted by the Force Science Institute.

One study concerns the speed with which a suspect can scramble up from a proned-out position to a flight-or-fight stance. Results are showing that the time involved is far shorter than you may think, despite positioning tweaks that officers commonly believe will impede sudden threatening movement.
The other study explores the impact of exertion and stress on shooting performance. The surprise here relates to whether the physical drain of pursuing and grappling with a resistant suspect affects deadly force decision-making.

Research data are still being processed, but findings that may ultimately have training implications already are emerging.

Study 1: The speed to rise from prone to standing

Proning out a suspect is widely accepted by officers as a tactic that will buy them a reactionary edge in case the subject decides to launch an assault or attempt to flee. But how much of an edge does it really buy?

At an academy in the Midwest, a research team headed by Dr. John O’Neill, a behavioral scientist on the FSI staff, assembled a group of recruit volunteers to find out. The participants on average fit the physical characteristics of suspects who typically attack LEOs, as determined by an earlier study led by Dr. Anthony Pinizzotto, a former Force Science instructor: male, mid-20s in age, just under 6 ft. tall, and weighing about 175 lbs.


One at a time, 89 recruits acting as suspects were videotaped starting in two prone positions frequently seen on the street: 1) flat on their belly, hands tucked under their chest (a position that offenders may assume in direct defiance of officers’ positioning orders); 2) arms out to the side in a T position, palms up.

Then 66 of the same volunteers were tested starting in two additional prone positions: 3) arms out and legs crossed at the ankles; 4) arms out, ankles crossed, legs bent so the feet were angled back toward the butt.
As cameras rolled, each “suspect” was given the same simple command: “Stand up as fast as you can.”


“We were expecting to find a lot of variance” among the positions, O’Neill told Force Science News. But when the video footage was time-coded and analyzed frame by frame with the help of computer software that allows for measurements in milliseconds, “very surprising data” became clear.

“From all four positions flat on the ground,” O’Neill says, “the subjects rose up to standing in one second or less. They got up in different ways, but in no more than a second—faster than we expected—they were up with their hands off the ground and their body weight fully supported by their feet in kind of a crouch from which they could launch an aggressive move or start to escape.

“Across the four positions, the most extreme difference between the slowest time to rise and the fastest time was less than only two-tenths of a second. Usually the difference was less than one-tenth of a second.

Statistically, the suspects were able to rise up fastest from the position with hands tucked under their chests. The slowest was with feet bent back toward seat.

“From an analysis standpoint, these minuscule differences have some statistical significance,” O’Neill says, “but from a practical standpoint they appear essentially of no major consequence.”


“Our conclusion is that prone positioning, even with supposed hindrances like crossing the legs, is not as safe or as inhibiting to suspects as many officers believe,” O’Neill says. “A proned-out suspect still presents significant potential danger and officers should remain vigilant.”

While the research findings do not lend themselves to recommending a preferred method of prone positioning, O’Neill hopes that future experiments will lead to tactical improvements. “If readers have other variations they’d like to see tested, we’d welcome hearing from them,” he says.

Meanwhile, when the current results are finalized, we’ll be reporting on these tests in more detail.

Study 2: Exertion, stress, and the deadly force option

Like the study described above, this research project is believed to be the first of its kind.

Led by staff behavioral scientist Dr. Dawn O’Neill, a team from the Force Science Institute tracked 30 recruits as they maneuvered an integrated DT/firearms exercise developed and routinely used by trainers at the Kansas City (MO) PD’s Academy.


Wearing a chest heart monitor and full duty gear, each volunteer was told to jog outdoors in chilly weather for about 100 yards down a hill from a training building to conduct a “pedestrian check.” The recruit found a role player lying on the ground initially. But as the participant approached, the man bolted up and took off, tossing aside a baggie as he ran.

As the recruit pursued on foot “really fast” around three sides of the training building, he or she was suddenly intercepted by two of the suspect’s “buddies” intent on stopping the chase. One attacked, “realistically” grappling and maneuvering the recruit to the grass and fighting to seize his/her handcuffs and sidearm, requiring the dynamic application of DT and weapon retention techniques across a period of about four minutes. Ultimately, the recruit won and successfully handcuffed the adversary.

After a quick safety check, the participant was then promptly brought to an indoor range for a shooting-accuracy test under a low-light setting.
Earlier in their training, all the recruits had passed their firearms qualification tests. “Now from a distance of five yards, each was to fire 10 rounds within seven seconds at a turning target of a young male pointing a gun at them,” says O’Neill. “The goal was to hit a five- by seven-inch rectangle positioned at high center mass and ideally to hit even a small black square within that rectangle.”

Immediately following that, the recruit was thrust into a tense decision-making exercise. While tactically clearing a series of simulated alleyways said to potentially harbor hidden “hostiles,” the recruit was forced to react in fast sequence to nine turning targets, randomly presenting threats that warranted deadly force or benign images that should be no-shoots.

Finally, in a separate room, each trainee underwent a brief test of short-term memory. “This involved the ability to remember and repeat a spoken series of up to nine numbers both forward and backward,” O’Neill says.


Five days earlier, the recruits’ resting heart rates had been recorded in a non-stressful setting and they had been given the same shooting and memory tests under non-exertion conditions. “Their performance at that time became the ‘control’ against which we measured the effects of the intense physical activity of the grappling and foot chase,” O’Neill explains.

“Physiologically, we found a huge difference,” O’Neill says. “During the grappling phase, heart rates of all participants spiked up more than 100 beats per minute from the typical control reading, with one individual hitting 216 bpm.

“Besides the physical exertion, there was a lot of psychological stress involved, with the officer being alone, being attacked, being outnumbered, their weapon jeopardized, and so on. Most said they were ‘very exhausted’ physically and mentally after the fight.”

On the range, with heart rates still significantly elevated, “we saw evidence of a trade-off we believe resulted from their exhaustion,” O’Neill says. “They tended to shoot faster and fire more rounds than they had in their control tests—but they fired less accurately.” All the participants were able to place rounds on the targets 100% of the time—no misses. But significantly fewer rounds struck within the rectangle and the square, the intended ideal locations.

“This was not surprising to us,” O’Neill explains. “What was unexpected was the outcome of the shoot/don’t shoot decision-making tests.
“Essentially, we found no erosion in the percentage of correct decisions between the control scores and those registered after exertion. In both conditions, the recruits were correct in their choices more than 80% of the time.”

Some of the shoot/don’t shoot targets included photos of police officers in undercover clothing but displaying badges or other law enforcement identification instead of threatening weapons. These targets tended to draw the most significant number of judgment errors in both the control and exertion conditions, O’Neill reports.

Ironically, however, in these blue-on-blue confrontations, the recruits’ scores improved in addressing these targets when they were under the physiological and psychological stress of exertion, although the improvement still did not equate to “passing” scores for the majority of blue-on-blue targets, O’Neill says.

Another surprising finding concerned memory. As a group, the recruits’ ability to remember a spoken series of numbers did not change from control to exertion.


Currently, O’Neill and her team are “exploring the data more deeply” to better understand these outcomes and, hopefully, to offer practical “field implications” for improving officer training and performance.

“This study is breaking new ground on the relationship between physical exertion and shooting performance,” O’Neill says. “The only previous research on this topic that we’re aware of involved testing shooting proficiency after officers pedaled an exercise bike for 60 seconds—not at all comparable to measuring performance under realistic conditions.”
She commends KCPD trainers Sgt. Ward Smith, a certified Force Science Analyst, and Sgt. Kurt Schmidt for suggesting a study based on their exertion exercises, and Capt. Stephenie Price for her support of the research. O’Neill urges other trainers and officers with study proposals to contact the Force Science Institute.

Collaborating with FSI on this study was the Police Research Laboratory at Carleton University in Ottawa, Canada. The Lab provided two team members, Dr. Craig Bennell of the university’s psychology department, who served as the principal investigator, and Simon Baldwin, an Advanced Force Science Specialist who also works as a use-of-force data analyst for the Royal Canadian Mounted Police.

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.