When a police officer uses force, the aftermath is rarely black-and-white. In a heated discussion, veteran investigators Jamie Borden and Danny King expose the messy reality of how “reasonableness” is judged in use-of-force cases—and why the system often screws over cops who did nothing wrong.
The Problem: Hindsight Bias and Outcome Obsession
Borden and King argue that the “objective reasonableness” standard, rooted in Graham v. Connor, is misunderstood and misapplied, especially at the lower levels of the investigation and analysis. Officers make split-second decisions based on what they know in the moment—subjective, incomplete information. Yet, their actions are judged in hindsight with perfect 20/20 vision, often by people far removed from the chaos of the street. This hindsight attribution is literally forbidden by the application of the “calculus for objective reasonableness.”
Take a case they discussed: an officer, skilled in martial arts, performs a takedown on a combative suspect at a jail. The suspect, who’d been threatening to fight and assaulted two officers, ends up with a broken nose. Lower-level supervisors, close to the action, call the force reasonable. But higher-ups, fixated on the injury, deem it excessive. Why? Because someone got hurt, and that looks bad for the department.
This obsession with outcomes—rather than the officer’s actions in the moment—creates a dangerous gray area. Borden slams this approach: “The fact that someone got injured is irrelevant to whether the force was reasonable. People get hurt when force is used. That’s just the nature of the beast.” If the behavior up to the point the force was used, including the use of force itself, taking the outcome out of the equation, was acceptable and within the standards of departmental training and the policy when looked at through the analytical lens, then how can the force itself be unreasonable just because someone was injured? This is the unpredictable element that has no bearing on what the officers perceived at the time, in the context they perceived it in, and the expectation of the use of force or the expectation had the force NOT been applied.
The Investigation Trap: Leaving Facts on the Table
The bigger issue? Investigations often fail to capture the full context. Officers and investigators, assuming everyone “gets it,” skip critical details about why force was used. King recounts a case where officers responded to a shoplifting call at a busy strip mall. The suspect, armed with two stolen guns, fled and fought, injuring a civilian. The officers’ reports stuck to bare facts: suspect ran, we fought, we arrested. Sounds solid, right?
Wrong. The civilian sued, and the department lost big. Why? The reports never mentioned the thousands of people outside the store, the suspect’s armed accomplices, or the sergeant’s tactical choice to confront the suspect inside to avoid a worse public threat. These omissions let the plaintiff’s attorney paint the officers as reckless, endangering the public. A jury, clueless about policing, ate it up.
Borden stresses: “We leave information on the table because we understand why the officer did what they did. But no one else does.” When those details surface later—in court, years down the line—they sound like excuses, not explanations. And that’s a death knell for the officer’s defense.
The Expert Con: Specious Arguments Win
Plaintiffs’ experts exploit these gaps with what King calls “specious” arguments—claims that sound reasonable to a jury but are total nonsense to anyone who’s worn a badge. In the shoplifting case, an expert argued the officers should’ve contacted the suspect “past the point of sale” or cordoned off the entire strip mall. Borden scoffs: “I’ve never put up crime scene tape for a misdemeanor shoplifting call. No cop would. Especially before the crime has been investigated!!” This is the bullshit hindsight narrative trap that the officer “should have, could have, or would have” done something differently to achieve a better outcome. It just doesn’t work that way.
Borden and King stress that these experts, often with zero real-world experience, spin narratives that thrive on missing context. And because officers and investigators didn’t document the “why” behind their actions, there’s nothing to counter the BS. The result? Juries side with the plaintiff, and departments pay millions.
The Fix: Get It on the Record Early
Borden and King’s solution is simple but urgent: officers and investigators must document everything—especially the context and reasoning behind decisions. Why did you confront the suspect inside? What did you know about the crowd outside? What did the suspect say or do that shaped your response? These details aren’t just for the report; they’re armor for the inevitable lawsuit or prosecution.
Borden puts it bluntly: “If we don’t get it on the record early, it turns into an excuse later. Explain and educate from the start.” This means asking officers tough questions during interviews—not to challenge them, but to capture their thought process. It means writing reports that go beyond the bare minimum. And it means recognizing that the attorney defending you years later won’t know policing from your perspective unless you spoon-feed them the context.
The Stakes: Freedom and Fortunes
King and Borden highlight that the consequences of half-assed investigations are brutal. Officers face criminal charges or civil suits where their freedom or life’s savings are on the line. Departments hemorrhage millions in settlements because a jury couldn’t grasp why the officer acted the way they did. And the public’s trust in policing erodes when cases look like cover-ups due to missing details. The tragedy is, that the details are only missing because we didn’t capture the details early in the investigation, because WE understand the “why.” These aren’t missing details, these are overlooked details that could have been identified.
King sums it up with a chilling example: “You’re sitting on the stand, years later, and someone’s about to win $20 million because you didn’t explain why you did what you did. That attorney’s going to eat you alive.”
Call to Action
Borden and King aren’t just preaching—they’re teaching. Their training at CriticalIncidentReview.com dives deep into these issues, showing cops and investigators how to bulletproof their reports and interviews. They’ve got classes coming up in Nashville this May and June 2025. If you’re a cop, a supervisor, or an investigator, they’re worth checking out.
So, what’s your story? Ever had a case where missing details burned you or you felt the need to get more on the record but got shut down? Or one where nailing the context saved your ass? Drop your thoughts at CriticalIncidentReview.com. Because in the gray area of use of force, the only thing worse than a bad call is a good call you can’t explain, don’t explain, or aren’t given the chance to explain.
Critical Incident Review – Bulletproof Your Use-of-Force Report: A Context Checklist
Critical Incident Review – Bulletproof Your Use-of-Force Report: A Context Checklist
To avoid the pitfalls outlined in “The Gray Area of Police Use of Force: Why Investigations Fail Officers,” use this checklist to ensure thorough documentation and context capture during use-of-force investigations.
- Establish Lawful Purpose
- Confirm the officer was legally present and acting within their authority.
- Document the call or incident that led to the encounter (e.g., dispatched to a shoplifting call).
- Capture the Officer’s Perception and Context
- Ask: What did the officer see, hear, or know at the time of the incident?
- Record specific details (e.g., suspect’s threats, actions, or environmental factors like a crowded strip mall).
- Note pre-existing information (e.g., suspect’s belligerence or known accomplices).
- Document the “Why” Behind Actions
- Ask the officer to explain their decision-making process.
- Record tactical choices (e.g., why contact was made inside a store vs. outside).
- Avoid assuming others will “get it”—spell out the reasoning explicitly.
- Detail the Suspect’s Behavior
- Document specific actions (e.g., verbal threats, physical resistance, or assaults on officers).
- Include evidence like body-worn camera footage or witness statements.
- Know the issues prior to the interview to elicit complete data in the interview process
- Identify what behaviors make sense to you and ask questions to quantify the behavior; don’t leave this information out for interpretation.
- Identify what doesn’t make sense to you – remember to qualify why the behavior made sense to the officer involved, at the time – This is the context.
- Address the Environment and Task Context
- Note relevant surroundings (e.g., busy public area, confined space like a jail).
- Describe the operational constraints (e.g., limited manpower, time pressure and constraints).
- Focus on Actions, Not Outcomes
- Evaluate the officer’s behavior based on what they knew in the moment, not the result (e.g., a suspect’s injury or an officer’s injury in the aftermath).
- Avoid letting injuries or outcomes bias the assessment of reasonableness.
- Ask Probing Questions During Interviews – (Cognitive Interview; EFI Course)
- Challenge the officer respectfully to explain alternatives considered and why they were rejected.
- Get details on the record to preempt false narratives (e.g., why entrances weren’t cordoned off).
- Write Comprehensive Reports – (Cops Perspective: Critical Force Dynamics – CIR Course)
- Go beyond bare facts—include context, officer’s thought process, and environmental factors.
- Ensure reports are clear to non-police readers (e.g., attorneys, juries).
- Anticipate Civil and Criminal Scrutiny
- Document with the assumption the case will face a lawsuit or prosecution.
- Include details that counter potential “specious” expert claims (e.g., unrealistic tactics, like cordoning off a strip mall prior to the contact in a misdemeanor complaint).
- Review and Train
- Double-check reports and interviews for missing context before final submission.
- Attend training (e.g., CriticalIncidentReview.com classes in Nashville, May/June 2025) to sharpen investigation and reporting skills.
Note: Thorough documentation early on turns explanations into evidence, not excuses. Protect officers and departments by closing gaps that plaintiffs exploit. (Educate & Explain v. Advocate and Excuse.)
Check out CIR’s training: Click on the class link below for more information
Force Analysis: Video Review and Examination.
Enhanced Force Investigations: Investigation, Evidence and the Interview
