The Emotional Conductivity of Police Video

We had a couple of cases. As you know, we have not been back on our blog in quite some time, and it’s been mostly because we’ve been working on things for CIR. Obviously, from the website, people can see that there’s been a lot of work done on our web platform, thanks to you. And that’s taken up an enormous amount of time.

During that time, I’ve been filming and preparing our four-hour online certification course, which is an introduction to the three-day enhanced Force Investigations course. That literally took a month to film a four-hour segment because it needed to be interactive and inclusive to emulate what we do in the class in person.

So in an effort to make that effective, the extra time had to go into preparation. We’ve also developed a book along with that class that’s available for those students, but that took up a lot of time.

Since then, as some of you know, we’ve been involved in several major trials across the country, so we haven’t been on our blog in some time. We’ve been busy in our own circles and busy within the CIR circle. But I’m glad to be back. I’ve got a lot to talk about.

I’d like to just hit a couple of subjects quickly and keep these messages pointed so that individuals coming into the upcoming classes—such as our forensic force analysis, video review, and examination course in Chandler—can stay updated. I want to try to keep our participants up to date on what we’re experiencing out in the trenches as we analyze, review, and conduct hindsight investigations on these cases for the purposes of trial.

We’re also seeing certain hurdles and potential errors in the field. Not necessarily mistakes, but rather a case of “not knowing what you don’t know.” These gaps in knowledge are creating significant problems in the aftermath of these cases.

Let’s stop for a second and talk about what you don’t know. There are a lot of things that we’re just oblivious to—whether it be video force analysis or something else entirely. A vast majority of the time, we are woefully unaware of what a person can know.

Today, we’re going to talk about video specifically. If you’ve had training in video analysis or examination, and you’ve actually worked on cases, then you recognize that the class you took—or your experience—is often woefully insufficient for most cases.

When you jump into these cases, every case becomes a masterclass in what you had no idea about. You can make your way through it because there’s a lot that you do know, but every case has new, unknown elements that completely change your perspective.

So when you’re talking about emotional conductivity, what do you mean by that? And how does it affect cases.

That’s a great place to start.

I recently spoke at an artificial intelligence (AI) conference based on law enforcement and the usability of AI, as well as the cautions associated with it. AI is still so new, and it is exactly what it claims to be: artificial intelligence. That has to be at the core of our understanding of it. AI learns as it goes, just like human beings. That’s the beauty of AI—it’s a useful tool.

However, it’s also a treacherous tool when it comes to law enforcement, particularly in areas like report writing. Many engaged in law enforcement—especially those analyzing incidents—are relying on AI for various applications. And while AI can be a great thing, it’s also creating significant issues.

Now, let’s bring it back to emotional conductivity.

Emotion is an interpretation of what you see and hear. Emotional conductivity is a staple in video analysis and hindsight investigations. It drives what we believe is right or wrong in a case. The biggest problem? Investigators develop theories based on emotions rather than facts.

If you’ve been to any of my classes or read our blogs, you know that the most damaging component of a case is looking at it and developing a theory about what happened—without knowing why it happened.

When you watch a video, your mind automatically interprets it based on your past experiences. It’s human nature. The perception of a human being processes information emotionally flat at first—but once we apply interpretation, emotions start shaping our conclusions.

When you watch a police use-of-force video, you start anticipating what’s going to happen, especially if you’ve seen the headline before watching the footage. That anticipation builds tension.

The danger is that emotional conductivity obliterates objectivity. We must recognize this bias and navigate it. If you’re feeling tension while reviewing a video, that’s your first red flag. If you don’t properly account for it, that tension will shape your theories about the case

A couple of important points here:

First, this happens without conscious awareness. I’ve had investigators call me, responsible for reviewing use-of-force incidents, and what I hear in their voice is: “I don’t like the way this looks.”

They may not say it directly, but with a little questioning, you find out that their primary concern isn’t the facts, but the appearance of the event. Once they get emotionally invested in a belief, their brain starts focusing on information that justifies that belief.

If you’re an investigator or reviewer, you will feel this reaction. It’s completely normal. The key is to not give in to it. Instead, ask yourself:
✔ What actually happened here?
✔ What are the facts of the case?
✔ What does my investigative methodology say?

You will feel as though something is wrong, but you must push beyond that initial reaction.

Additionally, if you’re reviewing a video and you feel a strong emotional rise, take note of it. That’s the exact point where others will focus their concerns as well. These emotional triggers are often where cases start to unravel.

If this is your first bottleneck, it’s crucial to investigate that point in detail. We need to determine early on whether a moment was reasonable or not—before it gets out of hand in the court of public opinion.

Would you agree

I would. And to put a cap on this conversation, I just want to make sure everyone understands this:

Most of the time, an investigator or reviewer receives a video with an opinion already attached—something like, “Hey, take a look at this. I think it looks bad.”

That immediately frames the review process through a biased lens. And any of you who have been to my classes know my mantra:

“I don’t care what you think. I don’t care what you feel. I care about what you KNOW.”

If all you have is a video, you only have surface-level knowledge of the case. You must recognize emotional bias and navigate it properly.

For example, I recently reviewed a case from a Midwestern state. When I first watched the video, my initial reaction was that it was indefensible. But after further review and analysis, it turned out that all three uses of force were reasonable.

The difference? Emotional conductivity.

We’ll be back next week for a continuation of this discussion—where emotional conductivity leads if we’re not aware of it.

In the meantime, if you’re watching this on YouTube, Facebook, or LinkedIn, drop a comment. Let us know what techniques you use to overcome emotional bias, and share examples of how emotional reactions have influenced case reviews.

Thanks for your time.