The use of deadly force by law enforcement personnel is a hot-button issue in contemporary society. Their responsibility is to handle life-threatening situations while, as much as possible, avoiding fatalities or serious injuries of suspects, bystanders, or themselves. In these settings, the use of lethal weapons must be weighed against reactions to circumstances that do not pose an imminent threat of a fatal outcome. Moreover, use of intense physical restraint instead of lethal weapons in less ominous situations is not without risk either, in that fatal events due to asphyxia have occurred as an unintended consequence of this nonlethal control strategy. In addition, the decision whether deployment of a lethal weapon, as opposed to physical restraint, is the proper action in a specific confrontation often must be made quickly, leaving little time for assessing options. Article see p 2417 The development of electronic control devices (ECDs), or stun guns, emerged as an alternative strategy, allegedly effective for controlling a threatening confrontation without resorting to needless serious injuries or fatalities. In principle, the ECD is more forgiving of errors of judgment than a firearm. The ECD is designed to deliver a painful and physically disabling electric shock, temporarily incapacitating a threatening individual. Although a significant number of deaths in association with, or following the use of, ECDs have been cited in a lay publication,1 peer-reviewed literature on the topic has been limited to several case reports, largely in the form of letters to the editors of journals.2 However, associations or correlations, in the absence of extremely strong population-based hazard ratios,3 are inadequate to support a scientific conclusion of causation, without additional information supporting the likelihood of a direct causal relation in an individual case. Data limited to a few case reports make it difficult to provide informed statements …