Originally published on the Force Science Institute website. Republished here with permission.
By Lewis “Von” Kliem, MCJ, JD, LLM
Although policing continues to evolve, the scrutiny placed on officers’ decision-making in use-of-force situations remains intensified. Every critical incident is dissected in public forums, legal arenas and the media, often resulting in expectations that officers perform under pressure with unrealistic precision. This, however, ignores a fundamental truth: police officers, like all humans, are perfectly imperfect with inherent physiological and cognitive limitations.
Any evaluation of an officer’s use of force that ignores these qualities reflects a system of unjust accountability, where officers are unfairly judged against impossible standards. Any fair assessment of policing needs to align with the same human performance standards scientifically validated in other high-risk professions such as military operations, NASA missions and professional sports.
Human performance in high-stress professions
Across high-stakes professions, such as military operations, professional sports and emergency response, human decision-making and performance is constrained by common physiological and psychological factors. Police officers, who often make split-second decisions in dynamic environments, face the same challenges. Evaluating their actions without acknowledging even the most well-settled scientific research into human performance creates unjust standards of accountability.
Reaction time: A common limitation
Although there is not a “universal reaction time” that can be applied to every human, reaction time is a universal human limitation. Whether in combat, sports, or law enforcement, it takes time for the brain to process a threat and initiate an appropriate response. Studies consistently show that even the most well-trained individuals cannot instantly respond to unexpected threats.
Police officers, like professionals in other high-stakes fields, require time to perceive, assign meaning, make decisions and act. Expecting perfect or even optimal performance during these moments not only sets unattainable standards but also undermines honest accountability.
Video evidence allows us to analyze officer movements, speed and biomechanics. This can provide crucial insights into how officers transition between force options and react under pressure. However, evaluating an officer’s actions must involve an understanding of how stress impacts these transitions.
Sensory distortion under stress
High levels of stress can significantly impact sensory perception, causing tunnel vision, auditory exclusion and time distortion. In military combat, for instance, soldiers frequently experience these sensory distortions, with similar phenomena occurring in sports and aviation. Law enforcement is no exception — during intense, life-threatening situations, officers may not perceive or remember details accurately.
Officers, under extreme pressure, may not be fully aware of certain aspects of a situation. Evaluating them without taking these sensory distortions into account leads to unjust accountability, where officers may be blamed for perceptual failures outside their control.
Cognitive load and decision fatigue
Another crucial factor is the impact of cognitive load and decision fatigue on performance. High-risk professions, such as military commanders or air traffic controllers, operate under immense pressure to make rapid decisions, and they face diminishing accuracy and efficacy as cognitive load increases. Police officers, particularly during use-of-force incidents, must process vast amounts of information, often with very little time to do so.
By analyzing the mental strain and decision fatigue that officers endure, we can better understand how cognitive overload might lead to errors or delayed reactions. This understanding is crucial for establishing accountability frameworks that are fair and grounded in human limitations.
Resilience and recovery
Beyond the immediate physiological and cognitive challenges of decision-making, police officers face the long-term impacts of their work, which can include trauma and burnout. In other high-risk professions — such as professional sports or the military — resilience training is widely recognized as essential. Without it, professionals are more prone to errors due to the cumulative stress and trauma they endure.
The need for clear, realistic standards in policing
For accountability to be just, the standards of evaluation must be clear enough that an officer can predict the lawfulness of their behavior in advance of using force. This requirement reflects the principle of due process notice, a constitutional safeguard that ensures officers have fair warning of the legal boundaries of their conduct.
Without clear and predictable standards, officers are left guessing whether their actions will be judged lawful. This uncertainty not only increases the likelihood of hesitation during critical moments but also fosters unjust accountability, where officers are penalized for actions they reasonably believed were lawful.
In professions such as aviation or NASA operations, clear procedural frameworks guide decision-making in crisis situations, helping professionals act within defined legal and ethical boundaries. Police officers deserve the same clarity in their standards, which must also consider the real-world limitations of human performance.
It should go without saying that expectations must align with human performance capabilities. It is unjust to hold officers to standards that exceed what is achievable within the constraints of human cognition, perception, and physical performance. In fields like professional sports or military operations, accountability systems are built around a realistic understanding of what individuals can and cannot do under pressure.
NEXT: 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.
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.
