Police Profanity and Public Judgments of Guilt and Effectiveness in Officer-Involved Shootings

Abstract

Police shooting decisions have come under increasing scrutiny, and the degree to which potential jurors and witnesses understand those decisions is increasingly important. Officers under the stress of shooting situations may use profanity which may be recorded, but which does not relate to tactical outcomes. This research addressed how such profanity may influence public assessment of police performance. A paragraph was provided to respondents, describing a situation in which a male officer shot an armed adult male perpetrator. The officer was presented as either having used or not used profanity in the situation. Respondents were asked to address the officer’s performance under these two different sets of conditions. Profanity resulted in a significantly higher perceived level of officer guilt in these situations, and a diminished perception of his professionalism, but did not result in a lower level of perception as to whether the officer had successfully resolved the situation or had done the “right thing.” Results are discussed in terms of current cognitive theory and of practical application in the field and in court.