Computer Simulations and Use of Force Investigations

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Editor’s Note: When officers lawfully respond to deadly threats, their money, reputation, and freedom still hinge on whether society believes their version of events.  Dr. Geoffrey Desmoulin, a Certified Force Science Analyst and Principal of GTD Scientific Inc., developed an impressive testing and shooting reconstruction methodology to scientifically evaluate use of force narratives.  Attendees at the Annual Force Science Conference had a front row seat as Dr. Desmoulin described how he used biomechanical models and human factors research to assist a California jury as they considered the fate of an officer accused of excessive force and wrongful death.  The following article details that incredible experience. – Von Kliem   

Handcuffed Before the Shooting?

In response to a 911 call of a violent domestic, two officers arrived in time to see the suspect running from the house.  One officer pursued the suspect on foot, giving him multiple orders to stop before finally catching him in a narrow, deserted corridor.

According to the officer, while trying to detain the suspect, a struggle ensued and he used a “leg sweep” to bring the suspect to the ground. After the leg sweep, the officer noticed that his backup firearm had dislodged from his ankle holster and was now lying next to the suspect. In his attempt to move the backup firearm a safe distance away, the officer turned and retreated from the suspect.  As he pivoted back towards the suspect, he unholstered his primary firearm in time to see the suspect getting up and lunging toward him with both hands now reaching for his primary firearm. Believing his life to be in danger, the officer discharged his firearm twice, in quick succession, striking the suspect with both rounds.

The officer’s description of the arrest was challenged by the deceased’s family and the media who suggested that the suspect had been handcuffed prior to the shooting.

Injuries and Angles

Biomechanical modeling uses live humans, physical models (“dummies”), and computer simulation models to represent human movements.  But before the biomechanical model could be used to evaluate the officer’s version of events, we needed to collect relevant data; data that would be used to set up the simulation and evaluate the results.  We began with the Medical Examiner’s report. 

The Medical Examiner documented one gunshot wound to the abdomen, with the entrance wound just left of and above the navel (“belly button”). The bullet was recovered from the left buttock suggesting a path that was backward, downward, and slightly left. It was noted that the bullet had just passed through the sacrum before coming to a stop in the soft tissue of the buttock.

Another entry wound was found on the back of the neck, with the bullet path traveling downward, frontward, and minimally rightward.  According to the Medical Examiner, the bullet settled in the diaphragm after causing catastrophic damage to the spine, resulting in paralysis.

Notably, the suspect also presented with multiple abrasions to the elbows and forehead. These injuries would prove to be important as abrasions frequently provide independent evidence of movement patterns.1

With a bullet entrance wound to the abdomen and a second entrance wound to the back of the neck, it became clear that biomechanical modeling would be an important tool to determine whether a man lunging toward an officer can get shot in the back of the neck.

Ballistic Testing

Before using biomechanical modeling, static and dynamic shooting tests were performed. The firearm used for the testing was the same make and model as that fired by the officer (Sig Sauer P229) and equivalent ammunition was used (9mm, 147 grain, Luger, hollow point).

From the static shooting test, we were able to determine the force of the bullet impact as it penetrated the suspect’s body.  In measuring this force, we used ballistic soap and bone simulant set at distances estimated from the autopsy report.  The test results showed appropriate wound depths through the synthetic bone and the second ballistic soap block. Later, we used the bullet force data to increase the accuracy of the biomechanical modeling.

A dynamic shooting test was also performed during which a pistol was fired in rapid succession from a single hand, bent arm position.  This test provided a reference by which to anticipate the placement of the second shot when fired in the manner described by the officer.  In this case, the dynamic shooting tests resulted in the second round being above and to the left of the first round. This information was important as we would compare the trajectory of the wound paths found by the Medical Examiner with that reflected in the modeling.  

Biomechanical Modeling

Biomechanical modeling uses live humans, physical models (“dummies”), and computer simulation models to represent human movements. Most readers are likely familiar with biomechanical “crash test” dummies, used to predict the body’s movement when subjected to the force of an automobile collision.

In our case, we would use the ballistic testing results, live humans, and a computer human body model to determine the expected movement and resultant injuries of the suspect.  The computer model, which is designed to respond similarly to a “dummy,” was scaled to match the height and weight of the deceased.  

We began human movement testing with a live reenactment of the shooting as it had been described by the officer. Measurements from the re-enactment video and results from the ballistic testing were used to construct the input to the computer model (simulation). We then compared the computer model’s simulation results against the physical evidence independently documented by the Medical Examiner.2

By analyzing the ballistic tests, the reenactment video, and other relevant independent values (including friction between skin and asphalt), we obtained the initial conditions for the computer model.  These conditions included the body positions and motion velocity involved in the altercation.

Modeling Results

From the model, we noted that the first gunshot wound would likely have hit the suspect at waist level—a result that matched both the location and trajectory detailed by the Medical Examiner. Thereafter, the model’s initial momentum carried the “suspect” forward slightly at the waist against the force of the bullet.

In order to achieve the impact location and trajectory in the neck, like that found in the autopsy, the second bullet had to be fired 282 milliseconds (ms) later. The timing of this shot interval is consistent with independent research on shot-to-shot time intervals when rapidly firing a semi-automatic pistol.3

We next observed the model falling only under the acceleration of gravity. Here the model was consistent with the movement of a paralyzed subject falling limply to the ground. Notably, upon hitting the ground, the model’s forehead and elbows impacted the ground as shown in figure 1. The simulation then showed the head and elbows slide along the ground for approximately 60 ms.  The injury type and location documented by the Medical Examiner were consistent with injuries reasonably expected from someone falling and sliding in the manner portrayed through the biomechanical model.

Figure 1: (a) Side view and (b) bottom view of the forehead and elbow impact with the ground.

Discussion and Conclusion

Through biomechanical modeling and the scientific method, we were able to objectively evaluate the officer’s use of force narrative.  Based on the results of the testing, the officer’s description of the altercation was not only probable, but likely.

First, despite the gunshot entry wounds being on two different sides of the body (abdomen and back of neck), the model was able to show how it is probable for the two shots described by the officer to generate these injuries—even as they were shot from essentially the same position.

Second, the time between shots was consistent with independent research that suggests that officers rapidly discharging their weapon take approximately 200 to 333 ms between shots when firing a semi-automatic pistol.4

Third, the forehead and elbow impacts seen in the model matched the abrasions reported by the Medical Examiner and conclusively refuted any suggestion that the suspect’s hands were cuffed prior to the shooting.

As this case was presented in federal court, I provided my opinion that, within a reasonable degree of professional engineering certainty, the movement patterns seen in the model simulation agree with the events described by the officer involved.  For the judge’s part, he accepted our credentials and our methodology. 

As for the jury, they unanimously found the officer “not guilty” on all counts.

About the Author

Dr. Geoff Desmoulin
Geoffrey Thor Desmoulin, PhD., RKin.

Dr. Desmoulin is a Certified Force Science Analyst and the Principal of GTD Scientific Inc. GTD offers Biomechanical Consulting Services on behalf of clients throughout North America, as well as abroad. Focused practice areas include Injury Biomechanics, Incident Reconstruction and Physical Testing with a sub-specialty in the Science of Violence™. GTD has been retained in significant complex injury litigation cases involving municipal police department use of force, violent encounters and TASER International to name just a few examples. Furthermore, landmark testing and shooting reconstruction methodology developed by Dr. Desmoulin was recently upheld as reliable and admissible by the U.S. Federal District Court for the 9th District of California.

In addition, Dr. Desmoulin was selected from an international pool of applicants to be the science and engineering host for Viacom Networks hit television show “Deadliest Warrior”. In this high-profile position he assessed engineering aspects, injury potential, and overall battlefield effectiveness of weapons used by warriors throughout history. The series filmed thirty-three episodes (1-hour format) and highlighted sixty-four warriors. Deadliest Warrior continues to air throughout the world in over sixteen countries, thirty- two different languages, and is available in over 96-million homes in the United States alone.”

  1. Reddy, K. and Lowenstein, E.J., 2011. Forensics in dermatology: part I. Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology, 64(5), pp.801-808. []
  2. The biomechanical model used for this case was a MADYMO model (TASS International, 2010, MADYMO Theory Manual, Release 7.2, Helmond, Netherlands ). The human body model was scaled to match the height and weight of the deceased (TASS International, 2017, MADYMO Utilities Manual; Release 7.4.2; Section 2 MADYMO Scaler, Helmond, Netherlands). []
  3. Warren, G., 2011. Reaction Time – Lethal Force Encounter Shooting Scene Considerations. Columbia Int’l Forensics Laboratory, pp. 12. []
  4. Haag, L.C., 2000, Rates of Fire for Some Common Semi-Automatic and Fully Automatic Firearms, AFTE Journal vol. 32, issue 3, pp. 252-258; Lewinski, B., 2002. Biomechanics of lethal force encounters—officer movements. The Police Marksman, 26, pp.19-23; Palmer, B., 2009, Available at: http://www.slate.com/articles /news_and_politics/explainer/2009/11/how_many_times_can_you_shoot_a_handgun_in_seven_minutes.html. [Accessed 30 October 2018]; Warren, G., 2011. Reaction Time – Lethal Force Encounter Shooting Scene Considerations. Columbia Int’l Forensics Laboratory, pp. 12. []
1 Response

Leave a Reply

GDPR

  • 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.

Analytics

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