Why is it problematic to judge a police officer's use of force in hindsight from a video?

The court can watch a video endlessly, slowed down and zoomed in, while the officer had a few seconds to grasp, assess and act, often exhausted and under extreme stress. Judging by the video alone ignores the conditions of the decision.

The example is the first verdict against a police officer after the G20 summit in Hamburg (2017). The defence argued that everyone involved could watch the video countless times, slow it down and zoom in, while the officer had four seconds to understand, classify and act. Officers described it as the hardest operation of their careers: they had been on duty for 24 hours with no breaks, little sleep and few meals, and 797 officers were injured during the summit.

The ethical point is about fair judgement. An act must be judged by what the person could know and do at the time, not by what is visible afterwards (hindsight bias). That does not excuse excessive force, but it shows why body-cam footage alone cannot settle whether force was proportionate.

Go deeper:

• Wikipedia: Hindsight bias — why outcomes look predictable once they are known.