Assessing “Reasonable” Police Uses of Force After Barnes v. Felix: How Time Framing Affects Public Perceptions

Abstract

Recent Supreme Court doctrine rejects a narrow “moment of threat” lens in favor of evaluating police use-of-force under the totality of the circumstances. Whether expanding the temporal frame changes how reasonableness and culpability are assigned remains unclear. We test this question using a nationally stratified experiment fielded the day Barnes v. Felix was decided (N = 2,401). Participants were randomly assigned to view one of three temporally distinct dashcam clips from the Barnes incident: a four-second final frame, a thirteen-second partial-context clip, or an approximately two-minute totality-of-circumstances clip. Respondents then evaluated officer reasonableness, responsibility, criminal liability, and internal discipline. Expansion beyond the final frame reduced perceived reasonableness and increased punitiveness. However, effects were non-linear: limited additional context produced the strongest condemnation, while full context tempered reactions. Temporal framing shapes public evaluations of police use-of-force, with the direction and magnitude of effects dependent on what the selected temporal frame reveals.