Interpreting Video Evidence Without Hindsight Bias

Video evidence has become central to modern use-of-force review. Body-worn cameras, in-car cameras, surveillance systems, and publicly recorded footage frequently provide valuable information about police encounters. At the same time, video evidence presents unique analytical challenges, particularly the risk of hindsight bias.

Hindsight bias occurs when knowledge gained after an event influences how earlier decisions are judged. In the context of use-of-force review, this often means evaluating an officer’s actions based on information that was not available to the officer at the time force was used.

Avoiding hindsight bias is essential to fair, accurate, and standards-based analysis.

Understanding the Limits of Video

Video does not capture events exactly as they were perceived by participants. Camera angle, lighting, distance, frame rate, and audio quality all shape what is visible and audible. Body-worn cameras, in particular, record from a fixed position and may not reflect where an officer’s attention was directed at a given moment.

Video may also omit critical contextual information, such as peripheral activity, environmental conditions, or cues perceived through senses other than sight. A complete review recognizes that video is an important source of information, but not a complete reconstruction of human perception.

The Problem of Pause, Replay, and Slow Motion

Reviewers often have the ability to pause, replay, and slow down video footage. Officers involved in use-of-force incidents do not.

Frame-by-frame analysis can reveal details that were not observable in real time. While this can be useful for understanding what occurred, it can also distort evaluation if those details are treated as information the officer should have recognized during a rapidly evolving encounter.

Proper analysis distinguishes between what is visible to a reviewer after repeated viewing and what was reasonably perceivable to an officer making split-second decisions.

Separating Outcome from Decision-Making

Another common manifestation of hindsight bias is allowing outcomes to influence evaluation of decisions. Injuries, severity of force, or the eventual resolution of an encounter may color perceptions of earlier actions.

Standards-based review focuses on decision-making at the time force was used, based on the information available to the officer and the circumstances then present. The appropriateness of force is not determined by whether an outcome was favorable or unfavorable, but by whether decisions were reasonable within the totality of the circumstances.

Integrating Video with Other Evidence

Video should be evaluated alongside other evidence, not in isolation. Reports, witness statements, physical evidence, training materials, policies, and scene documentation all contribute to understanding what occurred and how decisions were made.

When video appears to conflict with other evidence, the task is not to elevate one source automatically, but to assess how each piece of information fits within the broader context. This integrated approach reduces the risk of overreliance on video alone.

Documenting Analytical Assumptions

A defensible use-of-force review documents how video evidence was interpreted. This includes acknowledging limitations, noting what is and is not visible, and explaining how video was weighed relative to other information.

Explicitly addressing these factors demonstrates that conclusions were reached thoughtfully and without reliance on hindsight or outcome-based reasoning.

Maintaining Objectivity in a Public Environment

Video evidence is often viewed by multiple audiences, including the public, media, and decision-makers. External reactions to video footage may be immediate and emotionally charged. A professional review process remains grounded in standards, evidence, and objective analysis, regardless of public reaction.

Maintaining this discipline is essential to credibility and fairness.

Video evidence is a powerful tool in use-of-force review, but it must be interpreted carefully. Avoiding hindsight bias requires disciplined analysis, attention to context, and a clear understanding of what information was available to officers at the time decisions were made. When video is evaluated thoughtfully and in conjunction with other evidence, it enhances accountability without distorting judgment.

Independent use-of-force review and analysis grounded in objective evaluation of video and other evidence are among the services offered by Riggs Advisory Group.

What To Look for in a Use of Force Investigation

A use-of-force investigation is only as strong as the steps taken in the earliest moments and the thoroughness of the follow-up. Whether conducted internally or reviewed externally, the quality of the investigation often determines whether decision-making, supervision, and accountability can be meaningfully assessed.

Several core elements consistently distinguish a comprehensive use-of-force investigation from a deficient one.

On-Scene Investigation and Scene Management

A proper investigation begins at the scene. This includes securing the location, identifying involved areas, and documenting conditions as close in time to the incident as possible. Early scene management helps preserve evidence and prevents later disputes about what was present or observable at the time force was used.

The investigator should be a supervisor who had no involvement in the use-of-force incident. This includes any supervisor who was on scene and in a position to direct or control the use of force, participated in planning the incident if it was pre-planned, or otherwise directed or took part in the incident.

Investigators should canvass the scene to identify physical evidence, potential witnesses, and relevant vantage points. This step is critical, particularly in public settings where bystanders, vehicles, and nearby structures may affect what was seen or recorded.

Identification and Documentation of Evidence

A thorough investigation requires active searching for evidence, not simply relying on what is immediately visible. This includes locating and documenting physical evidence, markings, damage, or environmental features that may be relevant to the use of force.

Equally important is documenting where evidence was found and how it relates spatially to the incident. Photographs, diagrams, and measurements help preserve context that cannot be reconstructed later.

Witness Identification and Perspective

Witness identification should extend beyond those who come forward voluntarily. A scene canvass should include efforts to locate individuals who were present but may not immediately identify themselves as witnesses. The investigating supervisor should document the extent and results of the canvass, including specific street addresses and whether they spoke with someone at each address.

Witness interviews should capture not only what each person reports seeing or hearing, but also where they were positioned at the time of the incident. Documenting witness viewpoints through photographs taken from their stated locations or diagrams showing lines of sight adds critical context when evaluating the reliability and scope of witness observations.

Review of All Available Video Evidence

Comprehensive video review is a cornerstone of modern use-of-force investigations. Investigators should make reasonable efforts to identify and review all available video sources, including:

• Body-worn cameras

• In-car cameras

• Fixed surveillance cameras

• Private or commercial security video

• Cell phone video recorded by witnesses or bystanders

Video review should be systematic and documented. The absence of video from an expected source should be noted and explained, rather than assumed.

Video from News Media and Public Sources

In addition to agency-generated video, use-of-force reviews should consider whether footage exists from news media or has been captured and disseminated publicly. In many incidents, video may be recorded by journalists, bystanders, or community members and later broadcast, uploaded to social media platforms, or otherwise shared online.

Such footage can provide additional perspectives, timelines, or context that may not be captured by body-worn or in-car cameras. Investigators and reviewers should make reasonable efforts to identify, preserve, and review publicly available video, recognizing that online content may be edited, reposted, or removed over time.

When video originates from external sources, it is important to document where the footage was obtained, what portion was reviewed, and any limitations related to angle, continuity, or authenticity. The existence of publicly circulated video should be acknowledged in the review, even when it does not materially alter investigative findings.

Failure to identify or account for widely available video may raise questions about the thoroughness of a use-of-force review and undermine confidence in the investigative process.

Interview of the Person Upon Whom Force Was Used

A complete investigation includes an effort to interview the individual upon whom force was used, when medically and legally appropriate. This interview provides information that may not be captured elsewhere, including the individual’s perceptions, physical condition, and account of events.

Investigators should also address medical considerations, including requesting a medical records release. If a release is refused, that refusal should be documented. Medical records, when available, can provide important information about injuries, timing, and treatment related to the force event.

Officer Statements and Involved Personnel

Investigations should obtain statements from all involved officers and any witnessing officers. These statements should be evaluated in light of training, policy, assigned roles, and individual responsibilities at the scene.

Supervisory actions and command decisions should also be documented, including notifications, approvals, and post-incident responsibilities. Use-of-force investigations are not limited to the actions of a single officer; they encompass the broader operational response.

Supervisory Intervention and Timely Retraining

When a supervisor conducting a use-of-force investigation identifies a concern with tactics, decision-making, or policy application, timely corrective action is critical. Waiting until an investigation is formally completed or closed may allow problematic practices to continue unchecked.

Supervisory intervention does not necessarily mean discipline. In many cases, it means immediate retraining, clarification, or corrective guidance to address an identified issue. If no feedback or retraining occurs, the involved officer may reasonably conclude that their actions were acceptable and repeat the same behavior in subsequent encounters.

Timely retraining reinforces expectations, supports professional development, and reduces the likelihood of repeated errors. From an accountability and risk-management perspective, addressing issues as they are identified is often more effective than relying solely on post hoc conclusions.

Documenting corrective action taken during the investigative process also demonstrates active supervision and a commitment to continuous improvement, rather than passive review.

Equipment and Force-Option Data

When force options involving equipment are used, relevant data should be preserved and reviewed. This may include downloading and documenting data from conducted electrical weapons, reviewing deployment information, and ensuring that associated evidence is retained in accordance with policy.

Failure to preserve or review available equipment data can significantly undermine the completeness of an investigation.

Documentation, Completeness, and Review

Finally, a use-of-force investigation should demonstrate completeness. Required investigative steps should be clearly documented, deviations from policy should be explained, and supervisory review should be evident in the record.

An investigation that omits key steps or leaves unanswered questions makes it difficult to assess decision-making, supervision, or accountability. Thorough documentation supports transparency, defensibility, and meaningful review.

However, the investigation itself is only the first step in the accountability process. A complete review requires an independent adjudicative determination, in which the designated reviewer evaluates all collected evidence and explicitly determines whether the force used was reasonable under the totality of the circumstances and consistent with agency policy. This review should also identify any tactical, training, or decision-making issues revealed by the investigation, or clearly document that such issues were already addressed by the investigating supervisor through timely corrective action or retraining.

A well-conducted use-of-force investigation is foundational to accountability, risk management, and organizational learning, but it is not the endpoint. Meaningful oversight requires both a thorough investigation and a documented, independent evaluation of the incident’s reasonableness, policy compliance, and training implications. Attention to investigative fundamentals—such as scene management, evidence collection, witness perspective, video review, and documentation—allows agencies and reviewers to evaluate use-of-force incidents within the totality of the circumstances and in alignment with professional standards.

Independent review of use-of-force investigations and investigative quality is among the services offered by Riggs Advisory Group.

Why Critical Incident Review Matters in Litigation and Risk Management

In litigation involving law enforcement, attention often focuses on the actions of individual officers during a critical incident. While those actions matter, courts, juries, and experts increasingly examine what occurred before and after the incident, including supervision, command response, and organizational accountability.

Critical incident review plays a central role in this analysis.

A critical incident review is distinct from a criminal or administrative investigation. Its purpose is not to determine culpability or discipline, but to assess organizational performance: how supervision functioned, how command decisions were made, whether policies and training were followed, and whether post-incident processes were complete and consistent with professional standards.

From a litigation perspective, this distinction is significant.

First, critical incident review helps distinguish isolated conduct from systemic issues. In civil cases, particularly those alleging patterns or practices, the presence or absence of structured review mechanisms can inform whether an incident reflects individual decision-making or broader organizational deficiencies. A documented, standards-based review process provides evidence of institutional oversight and accountability.

Second, post-incident processes themselves are frequently scrutinized. Investigative completeness, supervisory involvement, command notifications, and documentation practices may become subjects of discovery and expert analysis. A well-designed critical incident review examines these elements proactively, rather than allowing gaps to be exposed later through adversarial examination.

Third, critical incident review supports risk management by identifying predictable vulnerabilities. Repeated supervisory failures, unclear policies, inconsistent investigative practices, or training gaps often emerge across incidents. As risk management expert Gordon Graham has observed, “If it’s predictable, it’s preventable.” Critical incident review allows organizations to identify and address these predictable failure points before they recur and create additional exposure.

Fourth, independent review enhances credibility. When critical incident review is conducted objectively and grounded in accepted law enforcement standards, it provides a defensible framework for explaining organizational response. Independent analysis can help courts and decision-makers understand complex operational environments without advocacy or hindsight bias.

Finally, critical incident review informs corrective action. From a risk perspective, the value of review lies not only in identifying deficiencies, but in demonstrating that an organization is capable of learning and adapting. Policy revisions, training updates, and supervisory guidance arising from review findings may be relevant in assessing future conduct and organizational intent.

For attorneys evaluating law enforcement cases, critical incident review provides essential context. It bridges the gap between individual actions and organizational responsibility, offering a structured way to assess whether systems functioned as designed and whether leadership exercised meaningful oversight.

When conducted properly, critical incident review is not merely an internal exercise. It is a key component of defensible policing and informed legal analysis. Independent critical incident review and performance analysis are among the services offered by Riggs Advisory Group.