Important New Reaction-Time Study Addresses What’s “Reasonable” In Armed-Suspect Encounters

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

You are confronting an armed suspect, no cover available. He faces you, with his gun at his side, pointed at the ground. Your gun is aimed at him and you’re ready to shoot. He ignores your commands to drop his weapon.

Are you justified in pulling the trigger before he makes any move to point his gun at you?

According to conclusions reached by researchers in a unique new reaction-time study, your preemptively shooting under such circumstances may well be considered reasonable by the standards of Graham v. Connor.

If the offender suddenly points his gun in your direction, you are highly unlikely to get a shot off to defend yourself before he shoots, the researchers documented. Even under ideal circumstances, you probably can fire no faster than simultaneously with the attacker.

These findings “serve to illustrate the extreme danger that armed suspects present to police officers,” the researchers report. “Even when a police officer has his or her gun aimed at [an armed] suspect and the suspect is not aiming at the officer, the officer is still in extreme danger….

“The reasonableness standard [set forth by Graham] is based on what a well-trained, prudent officer would do in a given situation…. Our results show that even well-trained officers…with their guns aimed at a suspect cannot reasonably be expected” to react faster than a suspect can raise his or her gun and fire.

“This is an important study that advances the understanding of the dynamics of deadly force encounters, which often are quite different from the perceptions held by the general public and the media,” says Dr. Bill Lewinski, executive director of the Force Science Institute. “While the Institute was not involved in this project, the findings are fully compatible with our earlier discoveries regarding officers’ reaction times in life-threatening situations.”

The new study was headed by Dr. J. Pete Blair, an associate CJ professor at Texas State University and a former interviewer/trainer for John E. Reid & Associates. His investigative team included representatives of the Advanced Law Enforcement Rapid Response Training (ALERRT) Center at the university and was supported financially by the CJ Division of the Texas governor’s office.


“Suspects” in the research were 30 male and female CJ students, averaging about 22 years old and mostly Caucasians. The test subjects were 24 male volunteers recruited from an active-shooter training class at a regional SWAT conference. They averaged nearly 10 years’ policing experience, with nearly 5 years on SWAT, and were considered “elite…particularly [in] the use of deadly force.” They averaged about 34 years old and slightly more than half were Caucasian.

Armed with a Glock training pistol that fired marking cartridges, each officer progressed through a series of 10 rooms in an abandoned school, presumably in response to a “generic ‘person with a gun’ call.” In each room, the officer confronted a suspect armed with a similar pistol at a distance of 10 feet. In some cases, the suspect’s gun was at his/her side, pointed at the floor. In others, the gun was pointed at the suspect’s own head in a suicidal pose.

According to prior instruction, one-fifth of the suspects followed the officer’s order to surrender peaceably. The rest, designated as attackers, were told to try to shoot the officer any time they chose “after an initial command to put down the gun was given.” In all cases, officers had their gun up and on target at the outset of the encounter and were instructed to “attempt to shoot first” as soon as they perceived a move to shoot them.

Later, the research team conducted a meticulous frame-by-frame analysis of video recordings of 159 of the shooting exchanges.


Analysis showed that the suspects on average were able to fire in just 0.38 second after initial movement of their gun. Officers fired back in an average of 0.39 second after the suspect’s movement began.

Specifically, suspects moved the gun up from their side and fired in an average of 0.36 second and from their head, on average, in 0.40 second. The average officer responded fractionally faster to movement from the side (0.38) than to movement from the head (0.40).

Statistically, the researchers point out, the hair-splitting differences between these various measurements are inconsequential. The initial gun position “did not appear to significantly affect the firing times of suspects,” the team reports. Nor did it “appear to affect the speed with which the officers fired.” Overall, “officers and suspects appear to have fired at about the same time.”

The miniscule edge did go to the suspects, technically. Examined case by case, they shot faster than officers or precisely simultaneously in more than 60% of the encounters. “Even in situations where the officer was faster, there was less than a 0.2-second difference, suggesting that the suspect would still get a shot off in most of these encounters,” the researchers state.

“The process of perceiving the suspect’s movement, interpreting the action, deciding on a response, and executing the response for the officer generally took longer than it took the suspect to execute the action of shooting, even though the officer already had his gun aimed at the suspect.”

And this was in near-ideal conditions from the officers’ perspective. The volunteers were “highly experienced” and “knew they would be encountering suspects with guns.” The confrontations took place in “well-lit rooms,” with only a single offender, “with both parties remaining stationary,” with no distractions, with no attempts by the suspects to deceive the officers by feigning compliance before shooting, with officers not nearly as stressed as they would be “during an actual life-or-death situation,” and with none reporting “confusing sensory and perceptual distortions.”

Moreover, “the suspects extended their arms to bring the gun in line with their eyes before shooting in almost every exchange,” rather than “simply rotating the gun and firing.” Thus their assault was slower than a spontaneous street encounter might be.

The researchers concede that “many of the elements that occur in real-life shootings” would doubtless add significant time to the average officer’s reaction time.

The good news in this study concerns accuracy. Suspect role-players, largely untrained in gun-handling, scored hits only about half the time. With their already on target, officers were able to successfully shoot suspects nearly 90% of the time. This is contrasts with actual OISs, where the reported police accuracy rate is “generally less than 50%,” the study team notes.


“Police officers have a legal right to use force, including lethal force, when it is reasonable to do so,” the researchers state. “An officer may shoot when there is an imminent risk of harm to self or others, or to stop someone who poses a danger to others if allowed to escape….

“There is a perception amongst some community members that officers are too quick to shoot those who only appear to pose a threat…. There are people who seem to believe that the ‘reasonable’ officer should wait until a suspect with a gun begins to use the gun against the officer before the officer utilizes lethal force. [But] would waiting be reasonable in situations where the suspect has his weapon in hand but not aimed?”

That’s the critical question Blair’s study addresses. “As our findings show, most officers can’t fire faster than a suspect with a weapon in hand, even if it is not aimed at the officer,” his team writes. Consequently, “we think that an officer who decided to shoot [in the kinds of situations tested] meets the legal definition of reasonableness,” given the “close range of the encounter, the lack of available cover, the failure of the suspect to comply with multiple warnings, and the data” collected.

The researchers stress, however, that they “do not believe that the findings support” automatically shooting “everyone with a gun” or “everyone with a gun who does not comply.” Armed encounters vary in their details, and “the individual officer must consider the totality of circumstances” in choosing a fitting response, including whether issuing commands is feasible or desirable before firing.

The researchers believe that certain training implications are clear from their findings. First, they support having officers participate in scenarios similar to those they used to convey “a better understanding of the dynamics involved” in armed confrontations and to “help correct inaccurate beliefs about shooting ability.” Also they believe training should “teach officers how to mitigate the dangers posed by armed suspects” through such means as distance and cover.

They hope that their findings “will help officers, and those who judge the actions of officers, to make more informed decisions about the reasonableness of officers’ actions” in deadly encounters.

A full report on the study has been accepted for publication later this year in the peer-reviewed journal Police Quarterly. Publication can be tracked at: http://pqx.sagepub.com.

Meanwhile, Blair has 2 research projects on the board that Force Science News will be following up on in the future. He is underway with a study of room-entry tactics, designed to identify which technique is fastest for revealing subjects hidden in corners, best suited for accurate fire from officers, and least conducive to hits from offenders.

He plans also to comprehensively catalog and analyze active-shooter incidents. Results from the building-entry study, at least, are expected by this fall.

Leave a Reply


  • Privacy Policy

Privacy Policy

Effective date: January 06, 2019

Force Science Institute, Ltd. (“us”, “we”, or “our”) operates the https://www.forcescience.org/ website (hereinafter referred to as the “Service”).

This page informs you of our policies regarding the collection, use, and disclosure of personal data when you use our Service and the choices you have associated with that data. Our Privacy Policy for Force Science Institute, Ltd. is based on the Privacy Policy Template from Privacy Policies.

We use your data to provide and improve the Service. By using the Service, you agree to the collection and use of information in accordance with this policy. Unless otherwise defined in this Privacy Policy, the terms used in this Privacy Policy have the same meanings as in our Terms and Conditions, accessible from https://www.forcescience.org/

Information Collection And Use

We collect several different types of information for various purposes to provide and improve our Service to you.

Types of Data Collected

Personal Data

While using our Service, we may ask you to provide us with certain personally identifiable information that can be used to contact or identify you (“Personal Data”). Personally identifiable information may include, but is not limited to:

  • Email address
  • First name and last name
  • Phone number
  • Address, State, Province, ZIP/Postal code, City
  • Cookies and Usage Data

Usage Data

We may also collect information on how the Service is accessed and used (“Usage Data”). This Usage Data may include information such as your computer’s Internet Protocol address (e.g. IP address), browser type, browser version, the pages of our Service that you visit, the time and date of your visit, the time spent on those pages, unique device identifiers and other diagnostic data.

Tracking & Cookies Data

We use cookies and similar tracking technologies to track the activity on our Service and hold certain information.

Cookies are files with small amount of data which may include an anonymous unique identifier. Cookies are sent to your browser from a website and stored on your device. Tracking technologies also used are beacons, tags, and scripts to collect and track information and to improve and analyze our Service.

You can instruct your browser to refuse all cookies or to indicate when a cookie is being sent. However, if you do not accept cookies, you may not be able to use some portions of our Service. You can learn more how to manage cookies in the Browser Cookies Guide.

Examples of Cookies we use:

  • Session Cookies. We use Session Cookies to operate our Service.
  • Preference Cookies. We use Preference Cookies to remember your preferences and various settings.
  • Security Cookies. We use Security Cookies for security purposes.

Use of Data

Force Science Institute, Ltd. uses the collected data for various purposes:

  • To provide and maintain the Service
  • To notify you about changes to our Service
  • To allow you to participate in interactive features of our Service when you choose to do so
  • To provide customer care and support
  • To provide analysis or valuable information so that we can improve the Service
  • To monitor the usage of the Service
  • To detect, prevent and address technical issues

Transfer Of Data

Your information, including Personal Data, may be transferred to — and maintained on — computers located outside of your state, province, country or other governmental jurisdiction where the data protection laws may differ than those from your jurisdiction.

If you are located outside United States and choose to provide information to us, please note that we transfer the data, including Personal Data, to United States and process it there.

Your consent to this Privacy Policy followed by your submission of such information represents your agreement to that transfer.

Force Science Institute, Ltd. will take all steps reasonably necessary to ensure that your data is treated securely and in accordance with this Privacy Policy and no transfer of your Personal Data will take place to an organization or a country unless there are adequate controls in place including the security of your data and other personal information.

Disclosure Of Data

Legal Requirements

Force Science Institute, Ltd. may disclose your Personal Data in the good faith belief that such action is necessary to:

  • To comply with a legal obligation
  • To protect and defend the rights or property of Force Science Institute, Ltd.
  • To prevent or investigate possible wrongdoing in connection with the Service
  • To protect the personal safety of users of the Service or the public
  • To protect against legal liability

Security Of Data

The security of your data is important to us, but remember that no method of transmission over the Internet, or method of electronic storage is 100% secure. While we strive to use commercially acceptable means to protect your Personal Data, we cannot guarantee its absolute security.

Service Providers

We may employ third party companies and individuals to facilitate our Service (“Service Providers”), to provide the Service on our behalf, to perform Service-related services or to assist us in analyzing how our Service is used.

These third parties have access to your Personal Data only to perform these tasks on our behalf and are obligated not to disclose or use it for any other purpose.


We may use third-party Service Providers to monitor and analyze the use of our Service.

  • Google AnalyticsGoogle Analytics is a web analytics service offered by Google that tracks and reports website traffic. Google uses the data collected to track and monitor the use of our Service. This data is shared with other Google services. Google may use the collected data to contextualize and personalize the ads of its own advertising network.You can opt-out of having made your activity on the Service available to Google Analytics by installing the Google Analytics opt-out browser add-on. The add-on prevents the Google Analytics JavaScript (ga.js, analytics.js, and dc.js) from sharing information with Google Analytics about visits activity.For more information on the privacy practices of Google, please visit the Google Privacy & Terms web page: https://policies.google.com/privacy?hl=en

Links To Other Sites

Our Service may contain links to other sites that are not operated by us. If you click on a third party link, you will be directed to that third party’s site. We strongly advise you to review the Privacy Policy of every site you visit.

We have no control over and assume no responsibility for the content, privacy policies or practices of any third party sites or services.

Children’s Privacy

Our Service does not address anyone under the age of 18 (“Children”).

We do not knowingly collect personally identifiable information from anyone under the age of 18. If you are a parent or guardian and you are aware that your Children has provided us with Personal Data, please contact us. If we become aware that we have collected Personal Data from children without verification of parental consent, we take steps to remove that information from our servers.

Changes To This Privacy Policy

We may update our Privacy Policy from time to time. We will notify you of any changes by posting the new Privacy Policy on this page.

We will let you know via email and/or a prominent notice on our Service, prior to the change becoming effective and update the “effective date” at the top of this Privacy Policy.

You are advised to review this Privacy Policy periodically for any changes. Changes to this Privacy Policy are effective when they are posted on this page.

Contact Us

If you have any questions about this Privacy Policy, please contact us:

  • By email: support@forcescience.org
  • By visiting this page on our website: https://www.forcescience.org/contact
  • By phone number: 866-683-1944
  • By mail: Force Science Institute, Ltd.