THE TASER™ CHALLENGE AND NEUROLINGUISTICS
Considerations:
The TASER™ as a tactical weapon presents serious considerations in the crafting of an
appropriate perpetrator challenge phrase. As stated in my Brain Software lectures to
numerous police services, the proper application of neurolinguistics, the science of language
and neurology, can have a profound effect in reducing aggression and resistance in tactical
situations. On the other hand, poorly crafted challenge phrases can intensify conflict and may
actually exacerbate the very problem that the officer was attempting to avoid.
For example, the challenge “Police! Don’t move!” was evidently designed with no thought to
neurolinguistic processes. Experience in the field among police officers throughout North
America has proven the folly of this methodology. It is now well established that the human
brain is unable to process negation, only deletion. The old example “Don’t think of a pink
elephant!” serves to illustrate this concept rather well. In order to comprehend the sentence it
becomes necessary to form a mental image of a pink elephant and then delete it. It is actually
impossible to understand this command without doing the very thing one was told not to do.
Any parent with a young child has experienced this phenomenon first hand. The command
“Don’t spill that milk on the carpet!” will often elicit the very behaviour the parent was
proscribing. In order to make sense of the sentence, the child is forced to form an internal
(although possibly unconscious) representation of the prohibited action. The action to be
avoided, i.e., “Don’t spill that milk…” must now be deleted. The problem lies in the fact that
young children will often fulfil a proscribed action before getting around to deleting it.
Unfortunately, perpetrators of crimes and aggressive suspects will sometimes do the very
same thing due to an adrenaline dump in their bloodstream. When confronted by a peace
officer certain persons will respond by producing an excess of epinephrine to activate the
“fight, flight or freeze” reflex. When the body is thus galvanized for action, the suspect is
operating from a visceral, survival instinct and the higher critical thinking functions of the brain
are temporarily suspended. Once again, the suspect will process the challenge “Police! Don’t
move!” and typically respond by running away.
Another consideration in the choice of an appropriate Taser™ challenge, is the length of the
challenge, i.e., the number of words. Since it becomes far more difficult to process long
sentences when under stress, as well as harder for an officer to remember a complex
command, brevity is an important issue. Generally speaking, the shorter the command the
more effective it will be. In tactical situations time is of the essence.
Simplicity of language is also vital and overly complex sentences must be avoided. The
Taser™ is particularly effective in situations involving psychiatric patients and those under the
influence of PCP and other psychotropic drugs. It therefore stands to reason that these are
the very situations in which the Taser™ would likely be deployed as the weapon of choice.
The challenge phrase must be easily understandable to those whose judgement may be
impaired due to substance abuse or psychopathology.
In summary, the choice of words for an effective Taser™ challenge would take into account
the neurolinguistic factor, length of phrase, and comprehensibility in a high-stress
environment. The underlying aim is to create a neurolinguistically sound challenge that will
lead to compliance without the Taser™ being utilized as anything more than a threat
deterrent.

As part of my research, I contacted the manufacturer of the Taser™ and was given the
following example of a Taser™ challenge that was utilized by the Sheriff’s Department in
Reno Nevada:
“I'm Deputy ------, I have with me an Electronic Immobilization Device. If you continue
to resist or fail to follow instructions, this device may be used against you. Do you
understand?”
Note that the above challenge fails to meet our criteria in several respects. First, it is not
necessary to give one’s name as part of the challenge. Perhaps the Reno Sheriff’s
Department requires the officer to identify himself, but this has no part in our construction of
an adequate phrase. It only serves to waste time and adds to the complexity of the
communication. Note too that the challenge contains nearly 50 syllables.
Second, the phrase “Electronic Immobilization Device” is at a very high level of complexity on
any ease of reading or comprehension scale. Uneducated persons or those whose higher
brain functions are adversely affected by drugs may have difficulty sorting and understanding
the language in that phrase, especially in the context of a long challenge as above.
The next part of the challenge, “If you continue to resist or fail to follow instructions, this
device may be used against you” contains several neurolinguistic infractions. Again, the
phrase is simply too long. There is no logical reason to overtax the language center of a
possibly confused and potentially violent suspect. Notice too, the focus on the negative. The
phrase mentions that the subject might “continue to resist”. Hypnotically speaking, this is a
very poor choice of words. Depending on how the phrase is spoken, the words “continue to
resist” maybe inadvertently marked by a vocal shift and become a hidden command that slips
past the critical faculty directly into the unconscious. The same problems arise with the words
“fail to follow instructions”. Once again, the suspect is forced to create and then delete what it
means to “continue to resist” and “fail to follow instructions”. There is a very real possibility of
the phraseology creating a non-compliant suspect by putting the thought into his mind. Notice
too the phrase “this device may be used against you”. Then again, it may not…is the clear
implication and does little or nothing to ensure compliance. This is not the same as reading
the suspect his rights and informing him that anything he says may be used in evidence
against him. The suspect must be clearly informed that if he does not comply, then the
Taser™ will be used against him. The officer’s commands must be clear and straight forward
with certain absolute consequences following non-compliance.
Finally, the challenge fails by asking “Do you understand?” What is the implication here? If
the suspect answers “No, I don’t understand” will the Taser™ not be utilized? Will the officer
instead sit down with the suspect to explain in greater detail the problem at hand, or will he
then resort to a simpler Taser™ challenge to ensure understanding?
Clearly an adequate Taser™ challenge is needed to eliminate these difficulties. For all of the
above reasons, I offer the following phrase:
“Police! Stand still or you will receive a powerful electric shock!”
The advantages of this challenge are manifold:
It begins by identifying the challenging officer as a policeman / policewoman. There is a
paralyzing shock value when the word “Police!” is spoken clearly and loudly. This results in a

brief pause in the subject’s mind set as he evaluates the situation and awaits instruction
(although the entire challenge is given without a pause.)
The subject is then instructed to “Stand still”. Note that he is told in the clearest possible
manner what to do rather than the negative what not to do (i.e., “Don’t move”, etc.) which
would require subsequent deletion on the part of the suspect. (Note too that in a tactical
situation, the words “Sit still” or “Lie still” are easily substituted by the officer without having to
think through complex alternatives.)
The conjunctive “or” is now presented along with the unpleasant alternative, “you will receive
a powerful electric shock”. The subject is thus forced into an either/or decision, neither of
which is pleasant for the subject, but either one is acceptable from the peace officer’s
perspective as compliance is assured. Either the subject stops whatever he’s doing and
complies, or else he receives a Taser™ shock and complies. From the subject’s perspective,
although both alternatives are unpleasant, the possibility of receiving a “powerful electric
shock” is clearly the worst alternative. It is clearly stated and implied that in order to avoid the
shock the subject need merely comply with the officer’s request. In neurolinguistic psychology
this is known as a double bind. (Erickson and Rossi, The American Journal of Clinical
Hypnosis, January, 1975) Two alternatives are presented, either of which will produce the
desired response, in this case compliance. In hypnosis, a therapist may ask “Would you like
the hypnosis chair or the trance chair?” Whatever the response, the client has unconsciously
agreed to enter a hypnotic state. The subject has the illusion of free choice which tends to
depotentiate resistance. In the case of the challenge, he feels “free” to choose to comply and
thus avoid the unpleasant alternative of electric shock.
The words “powerful electric shock” are deliberately chosen and should not be substituted. All
humans in Western society have some experience with electricity and its dangers. We have
heard of those struck by lightning as well as those who have received shocks from defective
appliances. Many people go out of their way to avoid even the tiny shocks of static electricity
that develop in a dry environment. We know that electricity can burn, render unconscious or
even kill. When confronted by a police officer holding a high tech piece of hardware that
vaguely resembles a firearm and being warned of an impending “powerful electric shock”, all
the mythology and respect for electricity moves to the forefront of the mind.
Conclusion
It is my professional opinion that the “Mandel Taser™ Challenge” is the best available, and
constitutes a profound shift in the direction of suspect compliance. It utilizes the best
advanced psychological techniques available, while avoiding the problems inherent in
challenges that discount or ignore the neurolinguistic model including unconscious deletion
processes.
-

MIKE MANDEL C.Ht., CGA, D.C.H.(c) July 4, 2000

Mike Mandel Enterprises Inc.
18 Eglinton Square
Box 51016
Scarborough, Ontario
Canada
M1L 4T2
(416) 750-7999