I was 10 when Neil Armstrong walked down a short ladder from the lunar landing module into the dust of the moon. But my parents let me stay up late into the night to watch it. And I vividly remember sitting with my Dad on the couch in our old house and watching it on a black-and-white TV. But I'm not really sure if I remember what I saw on that TV.
The point here is that memory is both fluid and fragile. So it's unrealistic for people to expect anyone to remember anything, no matter how momentous or traumatic in 100% high-definition detail. But that's what some activists are demanding of police officers following the trauma of a shooting or otherwise violent use of force.
The American Civil Liberties Union and other police critics have been extremely vocal in advocating that law enforcement officers not be able to review the video captured on their body-worn or in-car video systems before writing their reports. This is quite frankly an asinine stance by police critics and no agency should listen to this nonsense.
Denying officers access to the video records of incidents before they write their reports serves only one purpose: It's a trap. The goal here is to play "gotcha" with the officers and try to catch them in a lie. Which is disgusting. The goal of any official report should be to document the facts whether they are from the memory of the officer or from the video.
Our brains are not DVRs, not even for the most pleasant and memorable events of our lives and certainly not for trauma. Memory is flawed and it often makes traumatic events worse than they actually were. What we perceive as the truth of traumatic events is affected by body chemistry, speed of the action, and the fact that each person only sees the event from his or her perspective.