Norwegian Police Use of Firearms: Critical Decision-Making in Dynamic and Stressful Situations

1.1 Previous research

The purpose of the literature review is to form an overview of research on police use of firearms that is relevant to this study, and to position this study in relation to similar research conducted internationally and in Norway. Internationally, an extensive body of research has addressed various perspectives on police use of firearms. These studies include: police use of firearms (Belur, 2014; Best & Quigley, 2003; Glass, 2007; Klinger & Rosenfeld, Isom & Deckard, 2016; Petersson et al., 2017), police use of lethal force (Belur, 2010; Fyfe, 2002: Klinger, 2012; McElvain & Kposowa, 2008; Nix, Campbell, Byers & Alpert, 2017; Shane & Swenson, 2018; Zimring, 2016); use of firearms and perceptual distortions (Klinger & Brunson, 2009); policies and police use of firearms (Jennings & Rubado, 2017; Punch, 2010; Squires & Kennison, 2010; White, 2001); shooting performance and behaviour under threat (Nieuwenhuys, Cañal-Bruland & Oudejans, 2012, 2017); the impact of professional experience and personality on shooting performance under pressure (Landman, Nieuwenhuys & Oudejans, 2016); the development of reporting on police use of firearms (Arslan & Farkas, 2015; Richardson, Vil & Cooper, 2016); police officer features and use of firearms (Donner, Maskaly, Piquero & Jennings, 2017; Ridgeway, 2016) and consequent implications for police firearms training (Lewinski, Avery, Dysterheft, Dicks & Bushey, 2015; Morrison, 2009). Although this diverse literature addresses a wide range of factors that influence police use of firearms, previous research on police use of firearms and decision-making is of special importance for this study. For example, Burrows (2007) who explored issues affecting critical decision-making by police firearms officers in the United Kingdom. He concludes that the outcome of the first contact between the subject and the police is dependent on the officer’s competence, and that “procedures developed in firearms training will be ultimately reflected in the operational arena” (Burrows, 2007, p. 282). In this context, Boulton & Cole (2016) examined the impact that expertise had on British police decision-making during armed confrontations. Their findings showed that expert firearms officers are more flexible in adapting to changes in the operating environment than less experienced officers. Focusing on individual capacity, Kleider & Parrott (2009) examined whether working memory capacity affected shooting decisions in (simulated) tasks with various levels of threat. Their findings suggested that, irrespective of threatening circumstances, limited working memory capacity can increase the risk of aggressive shooting behaviour. Furthermore, Mitchell and Flin (2007) investigated whether briefing information, provided prior to seeing a firearms incident in a simulator, affected police officer’s decisions to shoot in Scotland. The findings in this study suggested that briefing information did not influence the shooting decisions by the firearms officers, but they attended to the cues in the scenario and responded accordingly. Verhage, Noppe, Feys and Ledegen (2018) reported on two studies, focusing on experiences from the use of force, and the influence of stress on Belgian police officer’s decision-making, assessment abilities and shooting accuracy. Amongst their findings, results showed that stress and fear affected officers’ decision-making process. A main finding in this study is that “Belgian police officers are anxious about the consequences of their actions because they know they will be held accountable for them” (Verhage et al., 2018, p. 345). Finally, Wheeler (2018, p. 48) examined police firearms incidents in the USA, and found that situational factors in terms of whether the subject was armed and whether an officer was injured were the best predictors of police decisions to shoot. Given the widespread international research on police use of firearms, it is fair to say that comparable research in Norway is limited. For example, the police`s use of firearms in Norway (Myhrer & Strype, 2010); examination and comparison of police use of firearms in Norway and Sweden (Strype & Knutsson, 2002; Knutsson & Strype, 2003), and in the Nordic countries (Knutsson, 2005; Knutsson & Norèe, 2010).The present study was funded by the Norwegian Ministry of Justice and Public Security.

1.2 Purpose of the study

The research problem examined in this study is how Norwegian police emergency response officers make decisions on the use of firearms, and which contextual factors underlie these decisions. The remainder of the article is organized into six sections, as follows. Following the introduction, we describe the theoretical framework in Section 2. In Section 3, we report the research methods. In Section 4, we present our findings concerning selected key characteristics and the interview results. In Section 5, we discuss the findings through the lens of our theoretical framework, before we conclude and provide suggestions for future research in Section 6.

2.1 Crisis and crisis management

Whether a situation can be defined as a crisis often involves subjective points of view (Engen, Kruke, Olsen, Olsen & Pettersen, 2016). Rosenthal, Charles and ‘t Hart (1989, p. 10) define a crisis as “a serious threat to the basic structure or the fundamental values and norms of a system, which under time pressure and highly uncertain circumstances necessitates making critical decisions”. It is fair to assume that an armed confrontation (i.e. threatening or violent direct contact between the parties where firearms have an inherent potential to be used) can be defined as a crisis. The context in which armed confrontations exist or occur can be characterized by time pressure, risk, ill-structured problems, uncertainty, unpredictability, multiple and shifting goals, several individuals, stress and the need for critical decision-making, as described by many researchers (e.g. Boin & ‘t Hart, 2001; Endsley, Hoffman, Kaber & Roth, 2007; Gundel, 2005; Klein, 2008; Kruke, 2012; Lintern, 2010; Orasanu & Martin, 1998; ‘t Hart & Boin, 2001). There are many typologies of crises, such as development and termination patterns (‘t Hart & Boin, 2001), and examinations of the degree to which crises are predictable and influenceable (Gundel, 2005). A fast-developing and unpredictable crisis will be particularly challenging to the responder, calling for swift decision-making. Thus, crisis management concerns management practices in response to non-routine phenomena and developments (Rosenthal, Boin & Comfort, 2001, p. 15). Within the Norwegian police, the designated on-scene commander (alternatively, another designated police officer) is responsible for on-scene incident management (Politiet.no, 2019c, p. 147). However, the police response and crisis management must rely on the actual police resources present at the scene of the incident (NOU 2012:14). Ultimately, regardless of his or her level of professional experience, the individual police officer facing the threat has to manage the situation and undertake critical decision-making during an armed confrontation.

2.2 Decision-making

Naturalistic decision-making attempts to understand how individuals make decisions in real-life situations that are familiar to them (Lipshitz, Klein, Orasanu & Salas, 2001) and, specifically, seeks to provide descriptions of how these decisions are made (Nemeth & Klein, 2010). The environments on which NDM focuses may involve time pressure, risk, ill-structured problems, uncertainty, multiple and shifting goals, several individuals, and experienced decision makers (Endsley et al., 2007; Klein, 2008; Lintern, 2010; Lipshitz et al., 2001; Orasanu & Martin, 1998). Zsambok (1997, p. 5) describes naturalistic decision-making as consisting of four defining markers: (1) contextual factors; (2) experienced research participants; (3) a focus on the decision strategies that individuals actually use rather than “should” use; and (4) inclusion of situational awareness (SA), diagnosis and plan generation in the decision period, rather than just focusing on the moment of decision. Naturalistic decision-making studies examining important factors influencing how experienced professionals make decisions cover contexts including fire ground command (Klein, 2008), aviation (Orasanu & Fischer, 1997) and police situational judgement (Flin et al., 2007). The factors considered include SA and failure to recognize a situation (Orasanu & Martin, 1998). SA is defined as “the perception of the elements in the environment within a volume of time and space, the comprehension of their meaning and the projection of their status in the near future” (Endsley, 1995, p. 36). Weick and colleagues follow a similar logic in their research on collective mindfulness and sensitivity to operations when organizations strive to create and maintain an integrated “big picture” of the moment through ongoing attention to real-time information (Weick, Sutcliffe & Obstfeld, 1999). Another research trend is sense-making, popularly described by Boin and colleagues as “what the hell is going on” (Boin, ‘t Hart, Stern & Sundelius, 2005), and defined by Weick, Sutcliffe and Obstfeld (2005, p. 409) as “the ongoing retrospective development of plausible images that rationalize what people are doing”. However, a notable difference between sense-making and situational awareness is that sense-making generally involves looking backward, whereas situational awareness involves looking forward (Endsley, 2015).

Recognition Primed Decision-making is a naturalistic decision-making model that describes decision-making in situations characterized by time pressure and changing conditions (Klein, 1997). The key factor in recognition-primed decision-making is recognition. Experienced individuals can recognize and judge a situation as familiar or typical based on recognition of one or more critical elements in the current situation compared with a similar previous experience. This recognition then supports development of a course of action comparable with the one that had been effective in the prior experience (Klein, 1998; Lintern, 2010). Decision makers rely on their experience and ability to quickly recognize a situation as a way of providing effective options in a given context (Klein, Calderwood & Clinton-Cirocco, 2010) and in attempting to project into the future and predict what is going to happen or prepare for it (Klein, 1998). Reliance on previous experience to recognize elements in a given situation makes situational awareness a key factor for decision-making in dynamic contexts. Thus, SA and naturalistic decision-making are decisively connected (Pfaff et al., 2013). Situational awareness provides “the primary input to the decision process and the basis for decision strategy selection” (Endsley, 1997, p. 281). Endsley (1995, p. 36) distinguishes between three levels of situational awareness. Level 1 encompasses the individual’s perception of information in the environment, and comprehension of the meaning of these elements represents level 2. Decision makers who have achieved level 3 are able to project the future status of the environment, and may use this ability to project probable future outcomes when choosing one course of action over another (Pfaff et al., 2013). Situational awareness forms a quick and intuitive impression of the situation based on principles for pattern recognition, and the situation is categorized into possible outcomes. This intuitive situational understanding can be based on learned relationships from previous complex situations (Eid & Johnsen, 2006). Individual factors, such as the decision maker’s training and experience, are essential factors for situational awareness during dynamic decision-making, particularly for experienced decision makers (Endsley, 1997).

The key aspect of naturalistic decision-making is experience (e.g. Klein, 1997; Pruitt et al., 1997; Zsambok, 1997), which implies that the decision maker may draw upon previously experienced situations. Experience is considered the most important factor for learning within the police (Paoline & Terrill, 2007), and Lindøe (2003) refers to such experiential learning as a form of learning based upon practical situations, which provides personal experience as well as learning. In real-life contexts, police officers’ assessments of an individual’s behaviour will rely on both given information and previous experiences in training and real-life situations (Burrows, 2007). However, naturalistic decision-making research underlines that there are distinct differences between expert and novice decision-making (Kahneman & Klein, 2009), and inexperience has been identified as contributing to poor judgement because the inexperienced decision maker did not have an adequate understanding of the situation (Klein, 1993). Dreyfus (1997, p. 19) describes a five-stage model of skill acquisition, progressing from novice, to advanced beginner, then competent, proficient and, finally, expert. At the highest level of skill, experts have sufficient experience gained from a variety of situations to replace consideration of each situation with intuitive and immediate responses.

In line with the five-stage model, skilled intuition is an endpoint of learning and a central aspect of expertise. Klein (2011, p. 71) describes intuition as the way in which we use our experience without consciously thinking things out. Simon (1992, p. 155) provides the following definition of skilled intuition: “The situation has provided a cue: this cue has given the expert access to information stored in memory, and the information provides the answer. Intuition is nothing more and nothing less than recognition.” Intuitive decision-making is based on previous experience (Eid & Johnsen, 2006; Klein, 2011), and Sjøberg (2003) finds that extensive training can lead to a semi-automatic mode of functioning, comparable with intuition. Experience enables the individual to draw upon associations from previous experienced situations, and quickly make a decision without the need for an actual comparison between alternative courses of action (Klein, 2008), such as normally occurs in analytical reasoning. Analytical reasoning and decision-making focuses on goals and is a systematic process evaluating different options to identify the best decision (Boulton, 2014). According to Helsloot and Ruitenberg (2004), individuals may use two very different approaches in deciding how to act when confronted by an accident or crisis. Intuitive reasoning is associative, affectionate, automatic, emotional and unconscious. In contrast, analytical reasoning is founded on rules of reasoning, algorithms and formal logic. An analytical approach is slow, whereas intuitive reasoning is swift. The distinction between the two styles of thinking, one intuitive and fast and the other deliberate and slow, has been widely supported (Frankish & Evans, 2009). Kahneman (2011, p. 20) refers to the two ways of reasoning as “system 1” and “system 2”. System 1 operates automatically and is fast, involuntary and effortless, whereas the deliberate activities of system 2 are voluntary, controlled and effortful. System 2 reasoning imposes demands on restricted attentional resources (Kahneman & Klein, 2009, p. 519) and may be disrupted if attention is drawn away (Kahneman, 2011).

2.3 Decision-making under stress

Police officers exposed to armed confrontations experience acute stress, as occurs when individuals face sudden danger or life-threatening situations (Verhage et al., 2018). According to Kowalski-Trakofler and Vaught (2003), stress is one of the crucial factors underlying the demands imposed on decision makers in such situations. Salas, Driskell and Huge (1996, p. 6) define stress as “a process by which certain work demands evoke an appraisal process in which perceived demands exceed resources and result in undesirable physiological, emotional, cognitive and social changes”. A key factor is that demands exceed resources or the decision maker’s capacity. The demands may arise from factors such as threats or social factors interacting with the human resources, which are reliant on several factors, such as training, experience, physiological limitations and individual perception (Kowalski-Trakofler & Vaught, 2003, p. 2). Activation of a stress response in such contexts may affect perception and cognition, and a primary cognitive reaction to stressors is reduced working memory capacity (Klein, 1996). In addition, acute stress may elicit physiological and psychological responses, such as increased heart rate, perceptual narrowing (tunnel vision), time distortion (slow time perception), auditory exclusion (temporary loss of hearing) and focused attention (Cooke, Kavussanu, McIntyre, Boardley & Ring, 2011; Kavanaugh, 2006; Kowalski-Trakofler & Vaught, 2003; Verhage et al., 2018). Stress resistance may vary with the familiarity of the problem at hand, and stress may especially affect decision-making in situations characterized by ambiguous cues and goal conflicts (Orasanu, 2016).

4.1 Selected key characteristics

During the period 1 January 2005 to 31 December 2018, the NBIPA routinely investigated a total of 28 incidents in which police had discharged their firearms against a person. As four of these incidents were still under investigation or occurred during this study, they were not included in the data portfolio. Table 1 provides a summary of the findings from the reports of the key characteristics of police use of firearms. These findings are based on analysis of the 24 Decisions of Prosecution documents by NBIPA and related forensic reports.

The main findings presented in Table 1 show that in the vast majority of armed confrontations, Norwegian police officers attempted less coercive measures unsuccessfully before making use of firearms. When shots were fired, the officers were close to the subject, which is common when an attack is being carried out. The police officers fired one or a few shots, which regularly hit the subject’s limbs (e.g. the legs). In the vast majority of situations, the subjects were physically injured but not the police officers. A few of the cases will be presented in more detail in Section 4.2.

4.2 Interviews

The interviewees’ ranking of how similar they found the incident to their previous operational training and professional experience, showed that operational training received a mean score of 8, whereas professional experience received a mean score of 4. All the interviewees related varying degrees of recognition regarding the overall incident or parts of the situation. All had received acute assignments assigned by the operations centre, been required to perform an emergency response at a scene, and had experienced a confrontation with an armed subject. The descriptions of the confrontations were more detailed, with the interviewees providing information about their assessments, attempts to stop the subject and the perceived threat. The interviewees also explained their understanding of the situation, their attempts to set limits for the subject, the physical and psychological impacts on themselves and what specifically triggered their decision to fire.

Based on the findings in this study, we divide acute armed assignments into four phases: (1) receiving the assignment; (2) mobilization and deployment; (3) confrontation, and (4) decision-making on the use of firearms. The following presentation of findings is structured accordingly.

5.1 Context

Context can be defined as “the situation within which something exists or happens, and that can help explain it” (Cambridge Dictionary, 2019). The context in which armed confrontations exist or occur have many of the defining characteristics of crises (e.g. Rosenthal et al., 2001), such as time pressure, risk, ill-structured problems, uncertainty, unpredictability, multiple and shifting goals, several individuals, stress and the need for critical decision-making. The findings in this study show that in nearly half of the incidents, it appears that the police officers had approximately one minute or less time from when confrontation with the subject occurred until shots were fired. Thus, an additional contextual factor of armed confrontations, which underlies critical decision-making in these contexts, is the speed of the situational development and termination, a typical characteristic of a fast-burning crisis (‘t Hart & Boin, 2001). Furthermore, given that the police service in Norway is routinely unarmed, any situation in which the police arm themselves with firearms is already extraordinary. We define armed assignments as assignments that, based on the information provided, cause the police to arm themselves with firearms and thus, they have an inherent potential for firearms being used. The Norwegian police preparedness system distinguishes between planned and acute assignments, with planned assignments being known and planned before completion (Politiet.no, 2019c, p. 152). In contrast with planned assignments, all the interviewees in this study spoke of acute assignments characterized by limited information, restricted or no time for planning and time pressure in terms of emergency response. Based on these contextual characteristics, it is fair to say that, in the early phase, the subjects have taken the initiative, decided the context and ultimately determine the first police response. The development of such potentially critical incidents is not self-evident, and the police must make sense of them (Boin et al., 2005) and develop plausible images that rationalize what people are doing (Weick et al., 2005). In the initial phase of the assignment, the police officers received limited information to guide their initial planning. This limited information is the foundation for their sense-making upon arrival at the scene of the incident. However, the findings in this study indicate that police officers, in the early phases of incidents, have different expectations when making sense of the acute armed assignments. Whereas half of the interviewees perceived the assignment as serious and requiring a quick response, other interviewees did not initially expect the assignment to develop into a severe situation. For example, one of the interviewees specifically stated that there was nothing special about the assignment because the interviewee had been on many similar ones. However, the main initial task for the interviewees when arriving at the scene of the incident was to gain an overview of the situation and situational awareness through the elements in the environment, to comprehend their meaning and to project their status in the near future (Endsley, 1995). Arriving at the scene of the incident, all interviewees experienced a confrontation with an armed subject, ranging from dynamic pursuit to stagnant situations with some kind of communication between the parties, after which all interviewees feared that the situation would result in severe outcomes. Thus, a marked distinction during the assignment is the shift from initial mixed expectations to unequivocal fear of serious consequences of the situation after confronting the subject. This suggests that it is situational cues in the present context of armed confrontations, and not the initial information, that predominantly forms the basis for police officers’ situational awareness and decision-making.

5.2 Recognition

Recognition can be defined as the “knowledge or feeling that someone or something present has been encountered before” (Merriam-Webster, n.d.). Recognition represents a key factor in the recognition-primed decision-making model, in which elements of the present context are recognized as similar to previous experiences, and this recognition supports development of a course of action that has been effective in prior situations (Klein, 1998; Lintern, 2010). During 2016 (up to November), Norwegian police handled 786,686 assignments, of which 5,816 were armed assignments (Politiet.no, 2019a) and they discharged their firearms against a person in two assignments (approximately 0.034 % of the armed assignments). During the period 2002–2014, on average, there were 62 cases per year in which police threatened to make use of firearms but did not discharge their weapons (Politiet.no, 2019b). Because police use firearms so infrequently, it is difficult to determine when an officer can be regarded as experienced in this matter (Mitchell & Flin, 2007). Given these numbers, it is reasonable to argue that Norwegian police officers’ recognition of armed assignments is likely to be based on situations involving no confrontation or de-escalation. Thus, a challenge is to distinguish between statistics and previous experiences, and the context of the current assignment. Training and professional experience can form an experience base that is acquired independently of the present context, and police officers may draw upon these experiences when recognizing them as similar to the situation at hand. In this study, all interviewees found the incident very recognizable based on their previous training, but less so based on their real-life experiences. This suggests that in-service training provides a better experience base for promoting recognition of armed confrontations than do the situations that officers experience during their service. Furthermore, particularly given the rare nature of incidents in which firearms were discharged, it was anticipated that the context of the studied armed confrontations posed specific elements. Half of the interviewees described contextual elements of which they had no previous experience; for example, less lethal options not having any effect. All descriptions of these experienced anomalies related to the subjects’ actions, suggesting that it was less possible for interviewees to draw on recognition from previous experience of armed assignments involving handling an armed subject.

5.3 Decision-making

When confronted by potentially critical situations such as armed confrontations, police emergency response officers must perform decision-making of the utmost importance. An important factor underlying this critical decision-making is how the contexts of armed confrontations can affect the officers. In this study, most of the interviewees experienced various physical and psychological effects, for example, an increased heart rate and tunnel vision, and one interviewee related that his hearing disappeared when shots were fired. This suggests that these contexts involve stressful conditions that underlie the officer’s decision-making, and that the officers perceive armed confrontations as critical situations. It is reasonable to compare such critical situations with crises, defined as “a serious threat to the basic structure or the fundamental values and norms of a system, which under time pressure and highly uncertain circumstances necessitates making critical decisions” (Rosenthal et al., 1989, p. 10). Critical situations call for critical decision-making and individuals can use intuitive or analytical approaches when deciding how to act (Helsloot & Ruitenberg, 2004). As noted earlier, Kahneman (2011) refers to intuitive reasoning as system 1 thinking, which is fast, effortless and involuntary, and describes intuition as the use of experience without deliberately thinking things out. In contrast, analytical reasoning forms the deliberate activities of system 2, which are controlled, voluntary and effortful and place demands on limited attentional resources (Kahneman & Klein, 2009, p. 519). Thus, analytical or system 2 reasoning is more likely to be disrupted if attention is disturbed (Kahneman, 2011), as is likely to occur in a dynamic armed confrontation. A police officer’s response to such an unfolding armed confrontation combines training, professional experience and subjective assessments of the imminent threat (Burrows, 2007, p. 277).

Furthermore, several studies have shown that an important factor influencing police officers’ use of firearms is the policies of the police agency (Jennings & Rubado, 2017; White, 2001). The Norwegian Firearms Instructions direct police officers, if the situation permits, to attempt less coercive measures before firearms are used and as far as possible, to avoid harm to bystanders (Myhrer, 2016). Initiation of an attack or violent actions is not required for the use of firearms to occur. It is sufficient that there is a real possibility that a threat may materialize in the form of such actions and the probability of this threat must be judged specifically in the actual situation (Myhrer, 2005). The legal framework provides guidance for vital assessments and analytical decisions and, at the same time, allows for faster and more intuitive decision-making if necessary. The formulations of the instructions allow for the use of judgement and discretion in the context. Thus, the decisions of the individual police officer become more important. Adequate response in armed confrontations depends on critical decision-making at the right moment of time, to maintain or regain police initiative and control of the situation. Based on the data used for this study, it appears that most of the interviewees attempted unsuccessfully to restrain the subject using less coercive measures (e.g. pepper spray) before resorting to the use of firearms. A few of the interviewees held their fire on some occasions during the confrontation if their surroundings were not sufficiently secure, in that bystanders were present who could have been injured. Thus, it is fair to say that these interviewees somehow performed conscious and controlled assessments during the confrontation, which are the defining characteristics of analytical reasoning forming the deliberative activities of system 2 thinking (Kahneman & Klein, 2009). These findings suggest that the interviewees made use of analytical reasoning during the confrontation, which is further substantiated by the informants’ own descriptions of their assessments during the confrontation, especially their descriptions of considering how they could manage to stop the subject.

Based on the Decisions of Prosecutions by the NBIPA, it was anticipated that police officers were relatively cautious in making use of their firearms. In this study, most of the interviewees referred to setting limits on how severe they would allow the threat to become before they would make use of their firearms. In fact, however, the subjects crossed these limits before firearms were used for various reasons. One interviewee specifically elaborated on this and said that he wanted to avoid firing to the very end, thus, the subject was let far across the interviewee’s limits. The median distance between the subjects and the interviewees was 5 metres when shots were fired, which underpins the interviewees’ descriptions that they allowed the subjects to get very close to them before discharging their firearms. In this context, a key question is how close is too close? In a subsequent legal assessment of the police use of firearms, the Norwegian Director of Public Prosecution referred to definitions of other specialists, such as the Norwegian naval special forces. They consider an attack with a knife within a radius of 6–8 metres as deadly. The Swedish police’s dignitary protection considers this distance to be 10 metres (Riksadvokaten.no, 2019). Thus, it is fair to say that the interviewees may have been in imminent danger. When asked exactly why they made the decision to fire, all the interviewees referred to the perceived threat to themselves or to bystanders. Most of the interviewees made the decision to fire at a point of time when the subject directed firearms against them, or advanced against them with weapons (e.g. a knife) in their hands and the distance became short. In their study of shooting decisions by police firearms officers (officers authorized to carry out armed assignments) in Scotland, Mitchell and Flin (2007) find that briefing information did not influence the officers’ decisions to shoot, but the officers attended to the situational cues in the simulated scenarios and responded accordingly. These findings support this study, based on the interviewees’ specific descriptions of the subjects’ actions as the cause for their use of firearms. The subjects’ actions and commonly short distances between the parties indicates a reactive response from the interviewees, in which the majority have made split-second decisions to fire in potentially life-threatening situations. Contrary to the more analytical decisions made earlier in the confrontation, these findings suggest that the critical decision to fire is predominantly swift, with severe time constraints limiting the possibility of deliberately assessing alternative courses of action. In addition, the findings in this study show that the interviewees experienced a high degree of recognition of the situation based on their previous training. These findings largely correspond to what Kahneman (2011) denotes as intuitive system 1 reasoning, which is fast, effortless thinking based on experience, without deliberately thinking things out. These findings suggest that the critical decision to fire is predominantly intuitive, made in the instant moment when officers rapidly respond to the perceived threat at close range. These decisions simultaneously represent an end of all the phases of an acute armed assignment (Section 4.1).

Figure 1 displays experiences in terms of previous training and professional experience as contextually independent factors that support police officers’ decision-making. It also displays the context-dependent factors, information and situational awareness, that underlie police officers’ decision-making on the use of firearms in the specific situation.

Figure 1