What happens when a decision made in a fraction of a second is later examined for months, or even years, by attorneys, experts, judges, investigators, and jurors? In this episode of Making Shooters Better, Terry sits down with Lewis “Von” Kliem, a nationally recognized expert in use-of-force law, constitutional policing, human performance, and police practices. With more than 30 years in the criminal justice profession, Von has served as a police officer, prosecutor, legal advisor, military attorney, educator, policy specialist, and litigation consultant. He currently serves as the Chief Consulting and Communications Officer at Force Science, where he works on high-profile use-of-force cases across the United States and internationally. This conversation bridges both the law enforcement and civilian self-defense worlds. Von explains what the law actually means when it asks whether a person’s actions were “reasonable.” That question is far more complex than whether a weapon was ultimately found or whether a threat was visible on video. The legal analysis must consider what the person perceived, what those facts meant to them in the moment, the context surrounding the encounter, and whether their response fell within a reasonable range of options. Terry and Von explore the difference between fast, intuitive decision-making during a violent event and the slow, deliberate analysis that follows afterward. As Von explains, force decisions are often made under stress, uncertainty, time pressure, incomplete information, and the permanent consequences of getting it wrong. Those same decisions are then evaluated later in quiet courtrooms, where footage can be paused, replayed, slowed down, and examined frame by frame. They also discuss why video does not necessarily reveal what the officer or civilian actually perceived, how still images can be weaponized in court, and why hindsight can distort the evaluation of a rapidly unfolding event. The conversation moves deeply into jury psychology as well. Many jurors have learned about violence primarily through television and movies. They may underestimate the danger of a single punch, misunderstand the speed of an edged-weapon attack, or assume that a person under threat had more time and more options than were realistically available. Von shares examples from both police and civilian cases where jurors were asked to judge shootings, physical altercations, mental-health encounters, and self-defense claims. He explains how prosecutors and opposing experts may build competing narratives, how personal beliefs can influence verdicts, and why even legally justified actions can produce unpredictable outcomes once a case reaches a jury. For armed civilians, the episode delivers an especially important warning: carrying a firearm is only one part of being prepared. Training should also include decision-making, de-escalation, avoidance, verbal commands, movement, retreat when practical, threat recognition, and the ability to explain why certain actions were taken. Von refers to these as law-driven tactics: actions incorporated into training before an incident so they become available under stress and can later be clearly articulated. The episode also examines the importance of documenting training, understanding the legal principles of innocence, imminence, avoidance, proportionality, and reasonableness, and considering the financial realities of defending a use-of-force case. Expert witnesses, attorneys, video analysts, engineers, medical specialists, and human-performance experts can all become part of a legal defense, making self-defense coverage an important consideration for responsibly armed citizens. Finally, Von speaks directly to anyone who may one day sit on a jury. His message is simple but critical: recognize what you do not know about violence, remain open to expert testimony, understand that the reality of violence rarely resembles television, and follow the law even when you dislike the outcome. Whether you are a police officer, firearms instructor, concealed carrier, attorney, trainer, or potential juror, this episode provides a powerful look at how force is perceived, evaluated, defended, and judged. It is a conversation about fear, responsibility, preparation, human performance, and the enormous gap between making a decision in the moment and defending it afterward.
