BehindBlueI's
Grandmaster
- Oct 3, 2012
- 26,608
- 113
Generally, yes. It's evidence and reviewing the evidence before writing a report or probable cause is to be expected, I would think. The report *should* include what you're calling hindsight. If I grab your wrist because I think you just pulled a knife from your pocket and it turns out to be a switchblade comb, I can justify my action based on my reasonable belief *but* my report should include that it turned out to be a comb. That's something I learned after the fact of the use of force, but still impacts the overall event, including if you pulled a weapon on me or not, right?
I suppose it's possible for an officer to see some threat on the BWC he didn't see in real time and then use it to justify what would have been a bad use of force mentally that was in reality reasonable? I think that'd be a pretty rare event though. I punched him because he was mouthy and I lost my temper...but wait, he was pulling something a weapon out at the exact time I did that? Just doesn't seem like a thing to me.
To get even deeper in the weeds, look up Force Science's studies on memory formation and why it's not advisable to give details of a high stress event immediately afterward. Especially things like how many shots were fired/punches thrown may not have "written" to long term memory yet until you've slept a time or two. The general citizenry has the right to not give a statement, and then do it through a lawyer, though it's advisable to give a higher level overview of the facts (that guy tried to rob me, I defended myself, he fled that way then collapsed, I think his gun slid under that truck, he was alone, that guy witnessed it, I will assist in anyway I can but due to the stress of this event I don't want to discuss this further at this time sort of statement). Police will be compelled to give a statement or risk termination. So, watching the video is a crutch to long term memory that's not yet firmly in the brain for access.
