Posted on 07/13/2010 3:47:06 AM PDT by marktwain
Edited on 07/13/2010 4:51:40 AM PDT by Admin Moderator. [history]
LAS VEGAS -- Las Vegas Metro police on Monday identified the three officers who shot and killed an armed man outside a Costco store in Summerlin.
They are Officer William Mosher, 38, a five-year veteran of the department, Officer Joshua Stark, 28, who has been with the department since September 2008, and Officer Thomas Mendiola, 23, who joined the department in March 2009.
(Excerpt) Read more at fox5vegas.com ...
Nope.
1. The original Tueller article. What does it contain? A completely anecdotal guesstimation in a trade magazine based on the author's experiences. It doesn't even pretend to be scientific, and most of the article is devoted to its real purpose: discussing how officers can improve their response time and better defend themselves.
Straw man. No one said that the Tueller drill was a hard and fast rule. Even Tueller stated that it was important to recognize that the "21 Foot Rule" isn't really a "rule." You are the only one who seems to be taking that position and then applying it to others. (IOW: Constructing a Straw Man.) However, his point on reaction times is scientifically valid and documented. Unless you want to suggest that human reaction is instantaneous. Why don't you provide some documentation for that assertion? Oh wait, you can't.
2. Lewinski's website. First a little bit about Lewinski - he's a notorious pro-police shill who gets paid $425 an hour to serve as an "expert witness" for hire in defense of cops facing criminal prosecution for excessive force, and rakes in over $100,000 a year giving testimony to help get cops off the hook. He is best known for developing an absurd pseudo-scientific theory to explain away cases where police shoot somebody in the back on the specious claim that they were probably looking backward and shooting while running away. Lewinski's academic credentials are highly suspect, to put it mildly. His "doctorate" is in "police psychology," a pseudo-scientific field that was invented by law enforcement agencies themselves and wasn't even recognized as a legitimate specialization by the APA until it granted a "trial period" in 2008 after intense lobbying from law enforcement. Equally telling, he isn't even a real Ph.D. in the normal sense. He got his "degree" from the Union Institute - a degree mill in Cincinnati that grants "Ph.Ds" over the internet. The Union Institute does not even have accreditation to grant degrees in psychology. It also has a long history of legal and accreditation trouble over granting unaccredited Ph.D's that misrepresent their field.
Ad Hominem. Pretty pathetic one at that. Typically when one resorts to Ad Hominem tactics, one has automatically conceded the debate. You spend paragraphs attacking Lewinski because you are incapable of refuting any research he does with real points.
3. Moving on to Lewinski's research, it's junk science and nothing more. The "Forced Science Institute" is his own self-funded organization, which also serves as an in-house publisher for his stuff and which is not subjected to the rigors of the scientific peer review process. He has a long history of being on the losing side of excessive force lawsuits, and offering testimony well outside his own highly questionable "expertise" - for example medical forensics, a field in which he has absolutely no training. Nor does he have any academic credentials that would allow him to properly analyze human biomechanics as his "high speed camera" research purports to do. Contrary to his tendency to portray himself as "groundbreaking," this type of research is something kinesiologists and other fields that specialize in biomechanics perfected decades ago...through established and peer-reviewed scientific standards, in which Lewinski has absolutely ZERO training. His research in this area is of little more value than if it was conducted by a random guy on the street with a stopwatch and a camcorder from Wal-Mart - to the point that he likely doesn't even know what he's looking at or how to properly interpret human muscle reactions.
Surprise, MORE Ad Hominem. Apparently since you can't attack the research, you attack Lewinski. It's a pretty juvenile tactic, and quite obvious as to what you are doing. Where are the peer-reviewed studies that back your assertions? Can you point to your expertise in this field? What exactly are YOUR credentials? I suppose the Lewinski rigged the cameras too? (Why does everything always boil down to "ITZ A KONSPIWACY!!! with you people?).
So where does that leave us? Back where we originally started: the Tueller Drill is junk science, and your "expert" Lewinski only proves that further.
If you are such an expert, please provide documented evidence that the Tueller Drill is junk science, and then provide your own research into this area to show what the "real story" is. Until you can do that, you've done nothing but throw out wild accusations at others, all while hiding behind the anonymity of the internet. So "internet expert", are you going to put up or shut up?
Up in the Chicago area on I-90 etc. traffic moves at 80 mph and cops whiz right by you (unless they are looking for someone to pull over)
Having a high end Volvo pass you at 100 mph+ happened all the time and I never saw one pulled over.
Of course though we could drive like that in conditions that would shut down the entire state of Texas. and I am from Texas.
Suppose it was an off duty cop. Seems like they did’t wait for any words to be exchanged.
I have read a lot of comments at the Las Vegas TV station and newspaper websites. Some were eyewitness. Best I can tell is Scott got conflicting commands from the police who were all revved up by the 911 call from a Costco employee which falsely indicated it was a bad situation with an erratic gunman
I like citizen. I think that one of the big problems with cops is that many of them are wannabe military. That is why they call citizens civilians.
So now you are a liar as well? I merely used the Tueller drill to illustrate reaction times. I never said it was a hard and fast rule. You merely invented that straw man because you are incapable of engaging in not fallacious reasoning.
No. Those ITT Tech-style internet schools offer "criminal justice" programs that are tailored to cops who need a couple hours of college credit for promotion. As to the requirement of a college degree, simply look at the hiring websites of just about any given random police department in the United States. Standard entry level qualifications to become a cop: - High school diploma or GED - Have no felony convictions - Minimum age somewhere in the 18-21 range - Valid driver's license - Be able to pass a VERY minimal physical fitness test - Affirmative Action bonus points for being a minority or other protected class. Now it is true that promotions are usually contingent upon completing some college credits, and that is where ITT Tech comes into play. But an entry level cop is no more qualified than an entry level burger flipper.
Really? So Police do not have their own State Mandated Academy Training? Let me guess, that doesn't could as "education" right? I suppose you would apply the same rule to the military, since military training doesn't count as an education either? Right?
Not to mention, as I stated, the trend is to require a four year degree for entry level law enforcement work.
http://www.lakewood.org/index.cfm?&include=/PD/employment.cfm
http://naperville.il.us/npdcareers.aspx
http://www.mcso.us/public/hr_faq.htm
http://www.wheaton.il.us/departments/police/detail.aspx?id=1614
I agree. If you have cops carry military style gear and have military style haircuts, what do you expect them to act like? From what I have read in the past few months, they appear to have more robust ROE than the real military does in Afghanistan. These guys would already be locked up if they were in the Army and did this to some Taliban villager.
It is not an "ad hominem" to point out a clear and well-documented conflict of interest by a guy who is being passed off as an objective, scientific "expert" to strengthen his opinion. The fact that Lewinski has a sizable direct financial stake in protecting police officers accused of misconduct substantially biases his "research" into police tactics.
Nor is it an "ad hominem" to point out that there are serious and substantive problems with the claimed credentials of a guy who passes himself off as an expert. You presented Lewinski as one such expert and said he is doing "scientific" work that validates your position. I have only demonstrated that:
- Lewinski is not a credentialed psychologist despite professing to practice a type of psychology
- The type of psychology he purports to practice is not an established or widely recognized subfield of the discipline
- His "doctorate" on which he stakes his "expert" opinion is from a highly suspect degree mill internet college with a long history of accreditation problems
- Lewinski frequently ventures out into areas of science well beyond his claimed expertise including medicine and human biomechanics, despite having no evidence of formal training in the scientific standards of these fields
- Lewinski appears to have ZERO scholarly publications in reputable, peer-reviewed scientific journals in any discipline. His only published work is done in-house from the "Force Science Institute" that he runs and funds himself Taken cumulatively, these factors are more than sufficient to completely discount Lewinski's research up to and included the purported results of his camera study, which were conducted without any training in human biomechanics and do not meet the scientific standards of that field.
Returning to the Tueller drill, science works on proving an affirmative, not disproving a negative. If you wish to assert its scientific validity then it is incumbent upon YOU to provide that evidence. So far you've only produced a notorious practitioner of junk science who isn't even credentialed to conduct the studies he purports to be doing. Feel free to try again though.
What exactly are YOUR credentials?
They're none of your business, save to say what I have already noted - I am confident that they well exceed the typical GED-toting, ITT Tech educated cop.
On the other hand, you have present a guy - Bill Lewinski - as a credentialed expert on the biomechanics of human reaction time. Yet as I have already shown, Lewinski lacks any credentials in that area of study, his other claimed credentials are highly suspect, and his purported research is self-published and not subject to peer review or any established scientific standards. So while credentials are relevant to this discussion, I'm not the one that needs to be demonstrating them.
No law shall abridge the right of the citizen to keep and bear arms for security and defense, for lawful hunting and recreational use and for other lawful purposes, but nothing herein shall be held to permit the carrying of concealed weapons. No municipality or county shall regulate, in any way, an incident of the right to keep and bear arms.
30-7-2. Unlawful carrying of a deadly weapon.
30-7-2.1. Unlawful carrying of a deadly weapon on school premises.
30-7-2.2. Unlawful possession of a handgun by a person; exceptions; penalty.
30-7-2.4. Unlawful carrying of a firearm on university premises; notice; penalty.
30-7-3. Unlawful carrying of a firearm in licensed liquor establishments.
You have consistently and continually claimed that everyone was interpreting the "21 foot rule" as a hard and fast rule, when no one did any such thing. You invented that Straw Man in a pathetic attempt to attribute that position to others. Indeed, you attributed that very position to me, when I was the one who pointed out to you that even Tueller didn't intend for it to be a hard and fast rule.
It is not an "ad hominem" to point out a clear and well-documented conflict of interest by a guy who is being passed off as an objective, scientific "expert" to strengthen his opinion. The fact that Lewinski has a sizable direct financial stake in protecting police officers accused of misconduct substantially biases his "research" into police tactics.
1. Person A makes claim X.
2. Person B makes an attack on person A.
3. Therefore A's claim is false.
Yep, that's what you did. You are still doing it.
Nor is it an "ad hominem" to point out that there are serious and substantive problems with the claimed credentials of a guy who passes himself off as an expert. You presented Lewinski as one such expert and said he is doing "scientific" work that validates your position. I have only demonstrated that: - Lewinski is not a credentialed psychologist despite professing to practice a type of psychology - The type of psychology he purports to practice is not an established or widely recognized subfield of the discipline - His "doctorate" on which he stakes his "expert" opinion is from a highly suspect degree mill internet college with a long history of accreditation problems - Lewinski frequently ventures out into areas of science well beyond his claimed expertise including medicine and human biomechanics, despite having no evidence of formal training in the scientific standards of these fields - Lewinski appears to have ZERO scholarly publications in reputable, peer-reviewed scientific journals in any discipline. His only published work is done in-house from the "Force Science Institute" that he runs and funds himself Taken cumulatively, these factors are more than sufficient to completely discount Lewinski's research up to and included the purported results of his camera study, which were conducted without any training in human biomechanics and do not meet the scientific standards of that field.
You actually didn't demonstrate anything. All you did was throw out a bunch of accusations in an attempt to smear Lewinski, because you are incapable of attacking his research. What you are doing is the textbook definition of Ad Hominem Fallacious "reasoning." Textbook. I offered you the opportunity to assert your own credentials and provide documented evidence to support your position, you can't.
Returning to the Tueller drill, science works on proving an affirmative, not disproving a negative. If you wish to assert its scientific validity then it is incumbent upon YOU to provide that evidence. So far you've only produced a notorious practitioner of junk science who isn't even credentialed to conduct the studies he purports to be doing. Feel free to try again though.
So as I suspected, all you have are Ad hominems and typical internet blowharditis. You have no credentials of your own, nor can you produce any peer-reviewed research that supports your assertion. So in essence, all we have are the ramblings of a deranged cop-hater who hides behind the anonymity of the internet pretending to be an "expert." Yes, you fail.
Prove it? Until you do, you are nothing.
On the other hand, you have present a guy - Bill Lewinski - as a credentialed expert on the biomechanics of human reaction time. Yet as I have already shown, Lewinski lacks any credentials in that area of study, his other claimed credentials are highly suspect, and his purported research is self-published and not subject to peer review or any established scientific standards. So while credentials are relevant to this discussion, I'm not the one that needs to be demonstrating them.
You haven't shown anything. You've merely made a bunch of wild accusations and engaged in pathetic ad hominem attacks. That's all you have done, that's all you are capable of doing.
Since you are making wild assertions regarding the validity of human reaction time, you do have a duty to present evidence and your credentials if you want anyone to take anything that you say seriously.
Lewinski has passed the Daubert Standard, YOU have not.
And yet, see post #350...
Not only the city manager (Houston, Katy, etc.) but the JOP in two counties, Texas Highway Patrol and County Sheriff stand between me and my destination.
We’ve got cops everywhere. I still can’t for the life of me understand why we still pay for Constables and Sheriff.
We have as many as FOUR law enforcement agencies prowling the roads and highways looking for revenue and an easy mark. All willing, wanting, ready and able to treat any citizen as a full blown dangerous criminal. Some, I hope, are honorable but many are simply drunk with power and bravado with little brains and big guts.
what about the murder suspect that doesn’t realize he’s a murder suspect that exits the car and didn’t hear your command about empty hands clearly? If he had a driver’s license in his hand he should have been shot and killed because you suspected him based on bad information?
The person I pulled over WAS a murder suspect. He turned out later to be innocent.
You've merely made a bunch of wild accusations and engaged in pathetic ad hominem attacks. That's all you have done, that's all you are capable of doing.
...says the guy who flippantly dismisses evidence that Lewinski lacks basic credentials by calling it names. Ah, irony.
Not everyone a cop encounters is a citizen.
What about if aliens came down and replaced his brain too? You can toss around suppositions all day long but I was there. I know what really happened. There were no “what abouts” the man did as he was told. He lived.
Lewinski has passed the Daubert Standard, YOU have not.
Aside from your inability to know that information based on this forum alone, one does not "pass" the Daubert Standard. One meets federal rules on the admissibility of testimony or, more commonly, withstands a challenge to its admissibility. As courts are generally deferential to both law enforcement and claimed expertise, it is not difficult to do.
But what Lewinski does not have, and what you have failed to produce for him, are valid scholarly credentials in his claimed area of expertise.
- He does not have credentials or training to be doing the kind of research he claims
- He does not have a real credentialed certification in psychology
- His doctorate is from an academically suspect degree mill
In short, he acts as if he's an expert in fields where he has no training or expertise, he always sides with law enforcement no matter what, and he ordered his degree with a credit card off the internet. No wonder cops like this guy so much - he's just like most of them!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.