By Jamie Borden for Calibre Press | calibrepress.com
Editor’s note: Human factors expert Jamie Borden, who frequently testifies in high-profile use-of-force cases and instructs across the country, has released a book, Anatomy of a Critical Incident: Navigating Controversy (highly recommended, incidentally.) In it, he dives deep into the vast realm of human performance under extreme stress and explains the many critical factors that must be taken into consideration when evaluating officer behavior in these highly complex encounters.
“My mission,” he says, “is to help officers, investigators, legal professionals, and trainers understand the realities of human limitation and the many factors that can affect an officer cognitively, physically, and emotionally when facing potentially life-or-death situations so their understanding and analysis of the encounter is thorough, accurate and fully factual.”
Here is an excerpt from the book…
Controversy in the analysis of critical incidents often arises from the clash between emotional perceptions and factual realities surrounding law enforcement actions. A significant catalyst for flawed narratives is the emotional response elicited by the appearances in the incident, which can dramatically shape public and institutional perceptions of officer behavior. Viewers may react strongly to video footage of forceful encounters, leading to a simplified interpretation of complex situations. Such emotional reactions can overshadow the nuanced realities of the officer’s experience, painting a misleading picture that fuels public outrage or supports preconceived biases against law enforcement.
Additionally, societal expectations of officers’ abilities — expecting them to perform flawlessly under extreme stress — can aggravate controversy when perceived mistakes are made, particularly in high-stakes scenarios. This disconnect between expectation and reality may result in harsh judgments regarding an officer’s performance, even when situational pressures and human limitations heavily influenced their actions during the incident.
When analyzing critical incidents, human limitations must also be acknowledged. Officers often operate within a narrow focus of attention during crises, concentrating only on the aspects they deem relevant to their immediate decision-making processes. The constraints of time, coupled with the potentially grave consequences of their reactions, can lead to perceptual distortions that skew an officer’s recollection of events. In hindsight analyses, these limitations can manifest when investigators overlook the intricacies of an officer’s perspective, such as the intense pressure they experienced in the moment.
Analytical tools like the OODA loop can aid in reversing the typical analytical process by dissecting the sequence of actions taken by the officer and the preceding cognitive decisions. By mapping out the observations made by the officer in real-time, one can gain a clearer understanding of the thought process that led to critical decisions, thus revealing the inherent human limitations faced during high-stress encounters.
The use of the D.A.T.A. zone, another hindsight analytical tool, can further enrich the analysis by illuminating the officer’s competence and confidence in navigating the incident. By examining distance, awareness, time, and attention, investigators can assess an officer’s situational awareness and decision-making effectiveness. This clarity can lead to productive discussions around the improvement of officer training and behavior. Ultimately, employing a calculus for objective reasonableness as connective tissue in hindsight analysis provides a framework that avoids conflating analytical assessments with legal conclusions. This careful delineation can expose the components that contribute most significantly to the controversy surrounding specific officer actions during critical incidents.
A thorough exploration of limitations within the evidence — whether physical, forensic, or testimonial — is crucial in facilitating a dispassionate investigation. The investigator’s perspective matters significantly in this context; establishing a triangulated approach to evidence collection enhances the credibility of conclusions drawn. Connecting data points across various pieces of evidence enables a more holistic understanding of the incident, highlighting inconsistencies in recollection between the officer and witnesses.
This is particularly pertinent given the human frailty of memory, which may overlook or misinterpret critical details under stress. Furthermore, navigating the controversy that emerges from overlooking human factors, limitations, and memory recall frailties hinges on recognizing the disparity between the totality of the circumstances perceived by an officer in the moment and the interpretations made after the fact. Integrating these elements into the critical incident framework fosters a balanced analysis that respects the complexities of real-world encounters while striving for accountability and understanding.
