Disturbances in memory are commonly reported in shoot-
ing cases. About half of these involve impaired recall for at
least some of the events during the shooting scene; the other
half involve impaired recall for at least part of the officer’s
own actions. This, in turn, may be associated with the “go-
ing-on-automatic” response. More rarely, some aspects of
the scene may be recalled with unusually clarity – a flash-
bulb memory. More than a third of cases involve not so
much a loss of recall as a distortion of memory, to the extent
that the officer’s account of what happened differs markedly
from the report of other observers at the scene. In general, it
is common for officers not to remember the number of rounds
they fired, especially from a semiautomatic handgun.
A few cases I’ve interviewed could be described as “tun-
nel memory,” that is, some part of the scene is recalled espe-
cially vividly, while others are fuzzy or distorted. As with
research on eyewitness memory in general (Loftus, Greene,
& Doyle, 1989), one’s subjective vividness of recall is often
uncorrelated with the accuracy of the material recalled. An
administrative implication is that discrepant accounts among
eyewitnesses to a shooting scene should not be automati-
cally interpreted as one or more persons lying or consciously
distorting his or her report (Artwohl, 2002), but may well
represent honest differences of perception and recall.
A general neuropsychological explanation for these con-
strictions of sensation, perception, and memory is that the
brain naturally tries to tone down the hyperarousal that oc-
curs during a critical shooting incident, so that the individual
can function through the experience using his or her “mental
autopilot” responses. In a smaller number of cases, the of-
ficer experiences heightened perceptual awareness of those
features of the scene that are essential for his survival. Simi-
larly, in emergencies the processing of accurate memories for
later use seems to take a neuropsychological back seat to the
mechanisms necessary for getting the subject through the
situation alive, right here and now (Miller, 1990). The implica-
tions for training are that a greater depth, range, and flexibil-
ity of attention and arousal control will allow officers to use
such automatic responding adaptively in a wider range of
extreme situations (Miller, 2006).
Reactions of Fellow Officers
The etiology of post-shooting reactions often lies in the
emotional disconnect between an officer’s expectations of a
heroic, armed confrontation and the reality of most shooting
scenarios, which typically involve petty criminals, mentally
disordered suspects, domestic hostage-barricade situations,
or accidents (Geller, 1982; Miller, 2005b, in press-b; Kennedy,
Homant & Hupp, 1998; Mohandie & Meloy, 2000; Perrou &
Farrell, 2004; Russell & Biegel, 1990).
Post-Shooting Reaction Typologies
Although the reaction to an OIS will necessarily be in-
fluenced by the individual personality and experience of the
officer (Miller, 2003a; Twersky-Glasner, 2005), certain com-
mon factors seem to underlie different types of reaction.
Several analyses (Anderson, Swenson, & Clay, 1995;
Blau, 1994; Blum, 2000; Nielsen, 1991) have suggested a tri-
partite typology of post-shooting reactions, which parallels
the three types of reaction noted to occur in the wake of
traumatically stressful events in general (Bowman, 1997).
These, of course, should be thought of as a continuum rather
than discrete categories. In addition to individual officer
characteristics, the severity of a post-shooting reaction will
be determined by a host of situational factors, such as the
nature of the shooting itself, the post-incident investigation,
reactions of supervisors, peers, and family, and so on. Each
of these reaction types also has its own therapeutic implica-
tions for helping officers in distress.
The first type of reaction involves a transitory period of
post-incident psychological distress, which the officer is able
to resolve within a few weeks, largely by self-coping efforts,
such as talking with colleagues and family, praying and re-
flecting, and reexamining and renewing life priorities and
goals. The psychological distress does not appear to sub-
stantially affect the officer’s daily functioning. Peer counsel-
ing, a critical incident stress debriefing (Miller, 1999a; Mitchell
& Everly, 1996), and perhaps one or two visits with a mental
health professional, clergyperson, or peer support person is
usually the extent of any intervention required.
The second type of reaction is a somewhat more in-
tense, intermediate response, with posttraumatic symptoms
persisting for several weeks or months. The officer’s daily
functioning may be impaired, often with a “good days/bad
days” pattern. In addition to peer support and group
debriefings, short-term crisis counseling with a psychologist
over several weeks may be indicated to help the officer work
through the traumatic elements of the shooting (Blau, 1994;
Miller, 1998, 2000; Wester & Lyubelsky, 2005), as well as to
provide support through any contentious administrative pro-
IJEMH • Vol. 8, No. 4 • 2006 241