Originally published on the Force Science website. Republished here with permission.
What does it take to make life-or-death decisions in an instant? How do officers assess threats, act under extreme stress and still maintain legal accountability? The reality is far more complex than public narratives suggest. In law enforcement, officers are expected to make split-second decisions in chaotic, high-risk situations — only to have those actions scrutinized later with the benefit of hindsight
At SHOT Show 2025, Force Science and VirTra teamed up to present an in-depth session on these critical issues, led by Von Kliem and Lon Bartel. This session wasn’t just about theory — it was about real-world application. The discussion covered the science of human performance, decision-making under stress and how high-fidelity training can bridge the gap between expectation and reality. Here’s what you need to know.
The Graham standard and the erosion of reasonableness
At the core of police use-of-force assessments is Graham v. Connor, which requires officers to be judged by the perspective of a “reasonable officer on the scene, without the benefit of hindsight.” However, as Von Kliem emphasized, in many jurisdictions, courts and prosecutors are moving away from this standard, allowing juries to convict officers based on what they personally believe should have been done to avoid the outcome. “We’re literally in trials right now where officers are facing decades in prison simply because a juror thinks they would have done it differently,” Kliem stated
Compounding this issue is the unrealistic expectation placed on officers in some jurisdictions to use the “minimum force necessary,” an arbitrary and impossible standard. “Telling an officer they must use the minimum force necessary is like telling a football player to tackle with the minimum force necessary — it’s a level of prediction that is beyond human capability,” Kliem noted.
Decision-making under stress: The Cynefin framewo
One of the most effective ways to understand police decision-making is through the Cynefin Framework, which categorizes environments into five domains:
- Clear: The problem and solution are obvious (e.g., enforcing a straightforward traffic violation).
- Complicated: The problem is known but requires expertise to solve (e.g., investigating a domestic violence call where the primary aggressor is unclear).
- Complex: The problem itself is uncertain (e.g., responding to an unknown disturbance where threats and variables emerge unpredictably).
- Chaotic: Immediate action is required without full understanding (e.g., an officer responding to a fight in progress without knowing the primary aggressor).
- Disorder (Confusion): A state where it’s unclear which of the other domains apply. The primary goal is to break down the situation into manageable parts and assign each to the appropriate domain for effective decision-making.
“The challenge in policing,” Bartel explained, “is that officers are constantly forced to operate in the complex and chaotic domains. The expectation that they can perfectly predict threats, perfect responses, or outcomes is completely unrealistic.
Officer-created jeopardy: A dangerous legal theory
A growing trend in use-of-force cases is the concept of officer-created jeopardy, a controversial theory that argues officers are responsible for creating the circumstances that lead to force. This approach too often ignores the unpredictability of human behavior and the suspect’s agency. It places an unrealistic burden on police to control every variable and predict every possible outcome before taking enforcement action
In real-world cases, critics argue that officers caused or provoked an attack because they did not create more distance, take cover, or use additional de-escalation strategies. This argument presumes that officers know an attacker’s intentions in advance, a luxury that does not exist in dynamic incidents.
“Opposing experts love to say, ‘The officer should have just slowed things down, created space, and negotiated from a position of cover’ but that ignores the reality that suspects get a vote. They control when and how they move, and ultimately when or how to attack or threaten officers,” Kliem pointed out. “Tactics aren’t just about slowing things down — they require an imperfect balance of risks, benefits, and tradeoffs. Sometimes, creating space and delaying action exposes the community to greater dangers, provides the suspect with tactical advantages, or results in officers losing control, especially when a suspect has not been contained and threatens other critical government interests, like escape, destruction of evidence, or even the efficient administration of justice. Too often, those advocating for officer-created jeopardy misunderstand the decision-making domain officers operate in. They assume officers have clear, predictable choices when, in reality, officers are often navigating complexity or disorder — where events unfold unpredictably and decisions must be made in real-time.”
| RELATED: Officer-created jeopardy: A legal theory that threatens effective policing
The impact of body cameras on use-of-force evaluations
Body-worn cameras (BWCs) have revolutionized how police encounters are viewed, but they come with significant limitations. The assumption that video provides an objective account of an officer’s perspective is flawed for several reasons:
- BWCs do not replicate human vision. Officers’ attention is guided by training, threat perception, and stress-induced physiological changes, none of which are captured by a chest-mounted camera.
- Perspective distortions affect interpretation. Lens angles and positioning can make threats appear farther away than they were in reality, leading to incorrect assessments of danger.
- Limited field of view. The camera does not track where an officer is looking. Research by Force Science found that over 75% of critical information identified in the study was not captured on bodycams — even though it was recorded via eye-tracking technology.
- Hindsight bias influences judgment. Jurors, prosecutors and the public view video knowing the outcome, which affects how they evaluate the certainty and predictability of threats and the reasonableness of responsive force.
“We have research showing that what the officer saw [and experienced] and what the body camera recorded are often two completely different things,” Bartel emphasized. “Yet we routinely see chiefs, politicians, and the media judge officers based solely on video.
| RELATED: Uncovering the hidden distortions in body-worn camera footage
Training for reality: The importance of high-fidelity simulations
Law enforcement training must reflect the reality of human performance. High-fidelity simulations provide officers with realistic scenarios that require them to recognize contextual cues, respond to evolving threats, and improve decision-making under pressure. Effective training incorporates:
- Contextual decision-making: Teaching officers to assess the entire situation rather than relying solely on object identification (e.g., distinguishing between a suspect pulling a cell phone versus a gun based on the totality of behavior, not just visual cues).
- Force-on-force scenarios: Providing realistic encounters where officers must react dynamically to suspect behavior.
- Stress inoculation: Exposing officers to escalating and controlled levels of stress to improve their ability to function under pressure.
- Situational understanding over situational awareness: Officers must not only recognize threats but also understand the meaning behind behaviors (e.g., recognizing pre-assault indicators rather than waiting to see a weapon).
Measuring training effectiveness: Retention and transfer
For training to be effective, it must lead to retention (the ability to recall skills later) and transfer (the ability to apply skills in real-world settings). Many agencies focus on “check-the-box” training — such as classroom lectures on de-escalation — that provide little skill development. “Teaching someone how a piano is played doesn’t make them a musician, and lecturing about de-escalation doesn’t make officers proficient in it,” Bartel noted.
The focus must shift from theoretical or awareness training to experiential learning, where officers repeatedly practice decision-making in realistic environments. Tools like simulation training, force-on-force exercises and virtual reality (VR) systems allow officers to build “file folders” of experience, enabling them to recognize threats faster and make better judgments under stress.
Honest accountability requires realistic expectations
Accountability in policing is essential, but it must be honest accountability — accountability that recognizes the limitations of human performance and the realities of high-stakes decision-making. Holding officers to hindsight-based standards or expecting perfection, or even optimal performance, in chaotic situations leads to unjust outcomes and erodes trust in the system.
By understanding human factors, improving training methodologies and ensuring use-of-force evaluations reflect the realities of policing, agencies can support officers while maintaining public confidence. “Training must be operationalized,” Kliem emphasized. “It’s not enough to put it on paper — we must find ways to safely and effectively operationalize policy and train skills. That’s why our collaboration with VirTra has been so important.”
Law enforcement must demand that officers are held to standards that reflect the realities of human performance, ensuring decisions are grounded in facts, not speculation. Communities, too, should no longer be satisfied with anything less than honest accountability and expect training that effectively equips officers for the challenges of public safety.
