Originally published on the Force Science Institute website. Republished here with permission.
By Lewis “Von” Kliem, MCJ, JD, LLM
When a suspect disarms an officer and threatens to use their TASER (or other CEW) against them, the stakes are exceedingly high. Not just because of the threat posed by the TASER, but because any defensive action taken by the officer will be met with intense scrutiny.
For many, whether the TASER is considered a dangerous weapon in the hands of a suspect turns on whether the probes have been deployed. Others believe that, although the threat of immediate incapacitation diminishes once the cartridges are used, the device still poses a significant threat due to its drive-stun capability, operational lasers and potential as a blunt weapon.
Sword and shield
The dangerousness of the TASER without operational probes will continue to be debated. If we conclude that only TASERs with operational cartridges should be considered dangerous weapons, video evidence and TASER logs can definitively answer that first question and be used as a sword against the officers.
Of course, an officer’s response is not supposed to be judged based on the actual threat posed by a weapon. Instead, it is their reasonable perception of the threat that matters. In other words, whether the officer was aware of the number of TASER cartridges fired is what matters when evaluating their perception of the threat and the reasonableness of their response. If this second question is prioritized, video and TASER logs can become a shield against unreasonable and unjust accountability.
High-profile debate: TASER deployments in the Rayshard Brooks incident
The 2020 fatal shooting of Rayshard Brooks by Officer Garrett Rolfe brought intense scrutiny to the details of their encounter. For many, the reasonableness of Rolfe’s use of force turned on whether he was aware that Brooks had fired both TASER cartridges.
Critics of Rolfe suggested that he was aware that Brooks had fired both TASER cartridges, implying this should have indicated a diminished threat. Still, others believed that even with depleted cartridges, the TASER remained a dangerous weapon in the hands of a suspect. For those willing to concede, even for the sake of argument, that the TASER posed a diminished threat without operational probes, it still had to be proven that Rolfe was aware of the deployments.
Evidence and statements regarding TASER use
In his initial on-scene statement, Rolfe described responding to a DUI investigation when Brooks took control of another officer’s TASER and fled. Following the pursuit, Rolfe confirmed that the TASER was fired at least once during the chase, but he was unsure about any previous deployments.
Video evidence and TASER logs showed that Brooks had not only fired both cartridges before being shot by Rolfe, but he was directly in front of Rolfe when he did. For many, this made it critical to know how Rolfe could have missed the first TASER deployment. The video evidence and TASER logs would be central to answering this question.
The precise timing and context of TASER deployments
In the Brooks investigations, TASER logs indicated precisely when Brooks fired the first TASER cartridge. Investigators were able to use the logged time to locate the moment of deployment on the video. At the moment Brooks was firing the TASER, video evidence showed Rolfe deploying his own TASER. With this information, investigators compared the TASER logs from each TASER and showed that these deployments occurred within .25s of each other.
The nearly simultaneous deployments of the TASERS raised questions about whether Rolfe could have perceived Brooks’ TASER deployment amidst the chaotic and high-stress environment. While video evidence provided a clear view of the sequence of events, it was essential to recognize that human factors would influence what Rolfe actually saw or perceived in real-time.
Human factors affecting perception
Human factors can impact an officer’s ability to perceive and process information during high-stress encounters. The TASER logs and video evidence allowed investigators to pinpoint the timing of TASER deployments to better understand the context surrounding Rolfe’s decision-making and performance.
Dr. Marc Green, a human factors expert with over 45 years of research experience, has authored over 100 publications in the areas of vision, visual search, attention, perception, reaction time and human cognition. In “33 Reasons for Not Seeing,” Dr. Green published a table of 33 reasons why viewers might fail to see otherwise available information [1].
Investigators looking at the case, looked to Dr. Green’s research as they considered those factors that might reasonably explain how an officer in Rolfe’s position might fail to notice the timing and frequency of Brooks’ TASER deployment.
Where the video evidence and TASER logs could pinpoint the precise moments of the deployment, they might serve as a shield against those that would otherwise argue that Rolfe must have seen the TASER probes discharged and that he is simply lying if he says he didn’t.
Want to dive deeper into how officers can better manage stress in high-pressure situations? Register now for our free upcoming Police1 webinar titled, “Mastering Stress: How Neuroscience Can Transform Police Decision-Making,” which will take place on Monday, Oct. 28, at 1 p.m. ET / 12 p.m. CT / 10 a.m. PT.
Lying or ordinary and expected perception issues?
Every investigation must leave room for the possibility that a witness is lying about their experience. Write that possibility on the metaphorical whiteboard and then move on to the other 33 reasons why a human might not perceive or remember an experience with precision.
In the Rayshard Brooks investigation, multiple human factors were considered when evaluating whether it was reasonable to assume that Rolfe perceived Brooks’ initial TASER deployment.
The following factors were evaluated, not to determine whether they occurred, which would require unreasonable speculation, but to determine whether it was reasonable to assume that Rolfe must have seen the initial TASER deployment such that any denial would be a lie.
Potential human factors influencing perception
- External obstructions: Physical obstructions, such as an officer’s own equipment, can block their field of view. An officer’s TASER, held with extended arms, can obstruct their vision, preventing them from seeing the simultaneous deployment of another TASER.
- Attention and focus: Attention filters sensory information, prioritizing some details while ignoring others. In high-pressure situations, an officer’s focus might be narrowed to immediate threats, potentially causing them to miss other relevant details.
- Tunnel vision: Concentration on a central element can lead to not seeing peripheral information. Focusing on the sites on their own TASER might lead officers to miss external or peripheral details like a TASER deployment.
- Accommodation: In simple terms, accommodation is the eye’s ability to change its focus to see things clearly at different distances. It is impossible to clearly focus on both near and far objects at the same time. If an officer is focusing on their sites, it is expected that they will not be simultaneously focused on more distant objects or activity.
- Stress hypervigilance: High stress can narrow an individual’s focus to specific aspects of the situation, reducing their ability to notice other information. An officer focusing on their response to a suspect’s aggressive behavior might not perceive changes in the environment or suspect’s activity.
- Mental workload: Critical incidents demand a high cognitive workload, limiting an officer’s capacity to process all information. An officer’s attention might be consumed by the immediate threat and their response, leaving less capacity to monitor details (like the number of TASER discharges).
- Inattentional blindness: Intense focus on a specific task can lead to missing other visible information. An officer’s concentration on accurately deploying their own TASER might not perceive the activity or changing threats posed by a suspect.
- Heuristic decision-making: In high-pressure situations, people often rely on intuitive judgments rather than detailed analysis. An officer’s decisions might likely be guided by immediate and often incomplete threat assessments rather than a precise count of TASER uses.
- Satisficing: People might stop information gathering once they believe a sufficient threshold is met. An officer who is satisfied that the threat is sufficient to warrant a response might shift their focus to their response, potentially overlooking additional relevant information.
The influence of hindsight bias
It is beyond debate that human factors can impact an officer’s perception, which often prevents us from concluding that an officer is lying simply because their reported perceptions fail to capture information observed on video.
Video evidence and TASER logs can offer valuable insights, but they can also contribute to hindsight bias. Hindsight bias is the tendency to view events as predictable after they have occurred. This bias can lead to an oversimplified understanding of what an officer should have known or perceived in the heat of the moment while downplaying the potential influence of human factors on real-time perception.
Honest accountability
The debate over the dangerousness of a TASER in the hands of a suspect, especially after the probes have been deployed, highlights the complexities involved in assessing an officer’s actions during high-stress encounters. Video evidence and TASER logs can serve as powerful tools in reconstructing events, but they must be used with caution. These tools can either be a sword, used to critique an officer’s decisions based on clear but retrospective evidence, or a shield, protecting against unfair judgments by accounting for the human factors that influence real-time perception.
The case of Officer Garrett Rolfe and Rayshard Brooks underscores the importance of context, timing and perception in evaluating the reasonableness of an officer’s response. While video footage and TASER logs offer definitive data points, they cannot fully capture the cognitive and perceptual challenges faced by officers in the heat of the moment. Understanding these limitations is crucial in ensuring that accountability remains fair and grounded in the realities of human experience.
Ultimately, while video and TASER logs are invaluable in providing a factual record, they should not be the sole determinants in judging an officer’s actions. The interplay between objective evidence and the subjective experience of the officer must be carefully balanced to ensure honest accountability.
References
1. Green, M.G., 33 Reasons for Not Seeing, visualexpert.com, last accessed July 6, 2022, at https://www.visualexpert.com/Resources/failuretosee.html
About the author
Lewis “Von” Kliem, MCJ, JD, LLM, has worked as a civilian police officer, attorney, educator and author. Von is the executive editor of Force Science News and co-owner of Von Kliem Consulting, LLC, where he trains and consults on constitutional policing, use of force analysis, crisis communications and trauma-informed interviewing.
