Officers In Costco Shooting Identified (NV)

fox5vegas.com ^ | 12 July, 2010 | NA

[conimbricenses]

BTW: I noticed that you completely ignored Dr. Andrew Welchman and his team from the University of Birmingham.

Apparently literacy is not your strong suit either:

"We placed pairs of participants in competition with each other to make a series of button presses. Within-subject analysis of movement times revealed a 10 per cent benefit for ****reactive**** actions. This was maintained when opponents performed dissimilar actions, and when participants competed against a computer, suggesting that the effect is not related to facilitation produced by action observation. Rather, faster ballistic movements may be a general property of ****reactive**** motor control, potentially providing a useful means of promoting survival."

In other words, it suggests the exact opposite of Lewinski's claims. That's because it was done by a team of real scientists.

[conimbricenses]

Or in laymen's terms, scientists have demonstrated that the person REACTING to a gun draw has about a 10% advantage in time than the person who draws first.

http://scienceblogs.com/notrocketscience/2010/02/why_does_the_gunslinger_who_draws_first_always_get_shot.php

These findings would seem to largely discredit the claims about the Tueller drill, and more importantly all the police tactics and procedures based on it.

[an amused spectator]

This incident should be a teachable moment for CCW holders

1. Don't flash your gun.
2. Don't argue with store clerks as what CCW laws are.
3. If you are foolish enough to argue: expect a confrontation with LEOS
4. When you have that confrontation, particularly if they have guns drawn
5. STOP
6. SLOWLY,
7. VERY SLOWLY
8. RAISE YOUR HANDS
9. WAIT FOR A DE-ESCALATION

10. It's possible that an anti-gun Liberal can have you executed for CCW

CCW holders nationwide should now be aware that the mere act of carrying can result in their death.

Even ex-LEOs are in danger from this set of circumstances. If an anti-gun weasel sees your concealed piece, they can call 911 unbeknownst to you, and make up a story about belligerent gun-waving. When the Man arrives, the anti-gun weasel whispers in their ears about the crazed CCW guy, who may be unaware of being the center of attention. At this point, even former law enforcement will be in danger from LEOs with an attitude. The former LEO may have a better chance of extricating themselves undamaged from the situation, but they will still be in danger, percentage-wise, until they can either identify themselves or disarm themselves.

Former LEOs should NOT like the way this is going.

[TruthConquers]

Yes, exactly, it will be the basis of the victims family to sue the h*ll out of Costco.

[freedomwarrior998]

"We placed pairs of participants in competition with each other to make a series of button presses. Within-subject analysis of movement times revealed a 10 per cent benefit for ****reactive**** actions. This was maintained when opponents performed dissimilar actions, and when participants competed against a computer, suggesting that the effect is not related to facilitation produced by action observation. Rather, faster ballistic movements may be a general property of ****reactive**** motor control, potentially providing a useful means of promoting survival." In other words, it suggests the exact opposite of Lewinski's claims. That's because it was done by a team of real scientists.

DID YOU READ YOU IGNORANT FOOL? Welchman found that those initiating the action almost always beat the one reacting in the gunfight.

Dr Welchman explained that it took around 200 milliseconds to respond to what an opponent was doing, so, in a gunfight, the 21 millisecond reactionary advantage would be unlikely to save you. WHICH IS THE POINT I'VE BEEN MAKING FROM THE BEGINNING, and which is the exact same point that Lewinski makes time and time again.

You just utterly destroyed everything that you've been rambling about in this thread, "PW."

[freedomwarrior998]

"So what does this mean for Western gunslingers? Is it always better to draw second? Well, not quite. Welchman also found that the 21 millisecond benefit of reacting quickly was totally overwhelmed by the 200 milliseconds it took to react in the first place. Despite their faster movements, the reactors very rarely beat the initiators. If Greedo hadn't been such a bad shot, Hans would have died (not counting the subsequent editing)."

Apparently "PW" has trouble realizing that the Tueller drill was based on the initial reaction time problem, one that Dr. Welchman confirmed. Let's see if "PW" is honest enough to admit that he has been beat.

[freedomwarrior998]

1. You do not own the internet and if you continue to willfully misrepresent and attack me, I'll respond as I please. Making frivolous threats of "reporting" someone to the moderators for nothing more than embarrassing you in a debate, and blustering about it as if "they" will intervene on your side simply because you ask them to is a sure sign of an internet troll. 2. If you think a "distance learning" school that does all its classes online, has a poor academic reputation, has no visible admission standards to its programs except willingness to pay, has a long history of accreditation problems and accompanying lawsuits, and offers most of its "degrees" in non-recognized and non-traditional fields and specializations is anything other than a degree mill, then you are an even bigger sucker than the fools who shell out thousands of dollars to those places and think they're going to get a six figure job with their fancy new "degree" that's not worth the paper it's printed on. Come to think of it, if you're really that stupid then I've got a bridge for sale in Brooklyn, a secret Nigerian government bank account that I need you to smuggle out of Africa, a doctorate in "life studies" you can earn online, and a vitamin distribution pyramid that can earn you millions...and all you gotta do for everything to be yours is email over your bank account number and your social! 3. Relevant to our own discussion, you have still yet to establish any actual academic credentials of your fake expert, "Dr." Lewinski, to back up his claimed expertise. If you do not like his credentials being challenged you should have chosen your expert more carefully and picked somebody who could withstand the scrutiny that Lewinski's dubious reputation invites. In that area you have only yourself to blame. 4. A general tip: if you intend to devote a large part of your argument to accusing other people of ad hominem personal attacks and other fallacies, you should at least make a pretense of avoiding indulgence in the very same things. It makes you into a hypocrite. 5. Another general tip: don't pick a fight if you're going to whine about it when you get hit back. I have little patience for people who enter into a discussion with guns blazing - as you did - and by impugning the motives of the person they are debating - which you also did to me in your very first post on the Tueller drill - only whine incessantly and now threaten to tattle tale to some anonymous moderator after it became evident you couldn't maintain your original bluster under scrutiny. If you can't take the heat get out of the kitchen. I wasn't referring to the moderators, PW. I was referring to criminal statutes regarding electronic harassment, and the tort claims that these universities and Dr. Lewinski would have against you.

[conimbricenses]

http://scienceblogs.com/notrocketscience/2010/02/why_does_the_gunslinger_who_draws_first_always_get_shot.php

"In Western films, the gunslinger that draws first always gets shot. This seems like a standard Hollywood trope but it diverted the attention of no less a scientist that Niels Bohr, one of history's greatest physicists. Taking time off from solving the structure of the atom, Bohr suggested that it takes more time to initiate a movement than to react to the same movement. Perversely, the second gunslinger wins because they're responding to their opponent's draw.

Now, Andrew Welchman from the University of Birmingham has found that there's something to Bohr's explanation. People do indeed have a "reactive advantage", where they execute a movement about 10% more quickly if they're reacting to an opponent."

As previously noted, literacy is apparently not your strong suit.

[freedomwarrior998]

Apparently literacy isn't "PW's" strong point. "Dr Welchman explained that it took around 200 milliseconds to respond to what an opponent was doing so, in a gunfight, the 21 millisecond reactionary advantage would be unlikely to save you." The entire point of the Tueller drill is that one can't react to an opponent's initial action in time to effectuate a response if the distance is too close. This is the same thing that Dr. Lewinski found. Now that "PW" has been caught, he's grasping at straws and trying to reinterpret what Dr. Welchman found.

[freedomwarrior998]

http://www.lvrj.com/news/lv-officer-at-costco-recorded-in-911-call-98397599.html?numComments=83

A 911 call made by a Summerlin Costco employee captures police shouting orders to 39-year-old Erik Scott before the U.S. Military Academy graduate was shot and killed, according to Las Vegas police.

Capt. Patrick Neville said an employee was talking to dispatchers and was close enough to the scene on Saturday that a recording of the conversation caught an officer clearly yelling, "Get on the ground."

Investigators have interviewed more than 40 witnesses, including more than a dozen who said they saw Scott with the gun in his hand and out of his waistband, Neville said.

(Let me guess, the 911 tape was fabricated... and all the witnesses are lying... ITZ A KONSPIWACY!!!!!!!!!)

[conimbricenses]

I wasn't referring to the moderators, PW. I was referring to criminal statutes regarding electronic harassment, and the tort claims that these universities and Dr. Lewinski would have against you.

1. Surely you know that to sustain such a tort you would have to demonstrate both material harm and some degree of malice on my part, with the added burden of Lewinski being a public figure and thus requiring a higher standard of evidence.

2. You would also have to demonstrate that I said something counterfactual and defamatory about Lewinski. Stating that he got his "doctorate" off the internet is not defamatory because he did indeed obtain his "doctorate" over the internet from a school that grants degrees almost exclusively online. Nothing you have posted here has demonstrated otherwise.

3. Surely you also realize that if you and/or Lewinski were to sue me for pointing out the FACT that he got his "degree" from an internet school, it would immediately permit me to make a lengthy and expensive discovery request from Lewinski that would open virtually his entire education record to court scrutiny, thus revealing detailed information about his claimed academic credentials, or lack thereof, which would assuredly further dampen his credibility as an "expert."

4. What is a PW?

5. It is becoming increasingly obvious that you have worked yourself into a frenzied state of emotional delirium over the course of this discussion. You are behaving as if you have been irked on a personal level, and thus answer arguments not with counterarguments but threats both veiled and otherwise, angry personal attacks, willful misrepresentations, and multiple other examples of the very same type of ad hominem blustery you accuse in others, thus only further affirming your palpable hypocrisy.

[conimbricenses]

http://www.8newsnow.com/Global/story.asp?S=12801643 "If I give you a command to drop the weapon or get on the ground, or whatever I happen to do, and you don't comply with that and you have a weapon in your hand, you continue moving forward and pointing at me, I'm going to definitely think that my life is in danger. I would definitely think, in my mind, that you're going to shoot me," said Metro Capt. Patrick Neville." Hmmm...so which is it, Captain Neville? A command to drop the weapon? Or a command to get on the ground?

Or was it both, as witness accounts seem to indicate, in which case if Scott did one he got shot for not doing the other!

[JDW11235]

I have not read through all of it yet (37 Pages), but I did find this, “Use of Force by Police,” by the DOJ, which talks about police force and studies in 6 jurisdictions. If anyone is a fast reader, it might help to give a summary.

“Use of Force by Police”

http://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/176330-1.pdf

[freedomwarrior998]

1. Surely you know that to sustain such a tort you would have to demonstrate both material harm and some degree of malice on my part, with the added burden of Lewinski being a public figure and thus requiring a higher standard of evidence.

Malice is nothing more than a reckless disregard for the truth. It has nothing to do with your ill will or feelings toward Lewinski. Further, a fairly high threshold of activity is needed to elevate someone to the status of a public figure, the fact that you think Lewinski is one, doesn't mean that he is.

2. You would also have to demonstrate that I said something counterfactual and defamatory about Lewinski. Stating that he got his "doctorate" off the internet is not defamatory because he did indeed obtain his "doctorate" over the internet from a school that grants degrees almost exclusively online. Nothing you have posted here has demonstrated otherwise.

Stating that he "bought" his degree off the internet, is a lie. He obtained his degree from a regionally accredited institution. What you suggested is not a fact, and is easily disproved.

3. Surely you also realize that if you and/or Lewinski were to sue me for pointing out the FACT that he got his "degree" from an internet school, it would immediately permit me to make a lengthy and expensive discovery request from Lewinski that would open virtually his entire education record to court scrutiny, thus revealing detailed information about his claimed academic credentials, or lack thereof, which would assuredly further dampen his credibility as an "expert."

4. What is a PW?

You know. I don't have to explain it to you. (BTW: Why don't go you back to channeling Radley Balko?)

5. It is becoming increasingly obvious that you have worked yourself into a frenzied state of emotional delirium over the course of this discussion. You are behaving as if you have been irked on a personal level, and thus answer arguments not with counterarguments but threats both veiled and otherwise, angry personal attacks, willful misrepresentations, and multiple other examples of the very same type of ad hominem blustery you accuse in others, thus only further affirming your palpable hypocrisy.

Actually, that would describe your posts in this thread. You've become emotionally attached to your position, solely because of your hatred of the police, so much so, that you will lie, harass and abuse anyone who dares to challenge your false assumptions. (BTW: Ad Hominem Tu Quoque is also a fallacy.)

Once again, please do not ping me or post to me again. (Second request.)

[conimbricenses]

Did he or did he not give money to the Union Institute in exchange for one of their internet degree programs?

I highly doubt they hand out them out for free, and we know for a fact that the Union Institute IS an internet college. The fact that it is accredited (by one of the less reputable accrediting agencies) also does not change the fact that it is an internet college that gives out degrees for "online classes." In that case, saying he bought himself a degree from an internet college is both truthful and accurate.

And that's just what we do know about his "doctorate." I guess the rest of the dirt will just have to wait for discovery in your threatened lawsuit, fallacy boy.

I'm still not clear what a writer for Reason Magazine has to do with any of this except that he writes about cop stuff from time to time. As far as I can tell though he hasn't posted anything about Scott yet (see http://reason.com/people/radley-balko/blogs). Not that it matters though - you're obviously a paranoid freak of some sort...which is why I've long since given up at trying to reason with you.

Now i'm just entertaining myself by pushing your buttons and the crazed reaction you are giving - rants in huge font and all caps, blusterous threats of lawsuits, paranoia about apparently being watched by Radley Balko or something - is clear evidence that it's working. And once again you are reminded that you do not own Free Republic. You are perfectly free to ignore my posts, but attacking me and simultaneously demanding that I not respond to your delusional attacks is not something you can expect to get away with. So go quoque on that!

[untrained skeptic]

But you must understand that our nation lives now uin an era where political correctness now moves people instead of the law. What if these officers disagreed with the concealed carry law, for example?

But fortunately for all but a very few people, there is a very big difference between disagreeing, and premeditated murder.

Even when people go crazy over things they are obsessed with it is usually an over massive overreaction to some stimulus rather than a premeditated act.

If we get to the point where a significant portion of the populace plans on just killing anyone who disagrees with them, then we will find ourselves in hell on earth.

[Candor7]

If we get to the point where a significant portion of the populace plans on just killing anyone who disagrees with them, then we will find ourselves in hell on earth.>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Look at Germany circa 1929. Thats the road we are on. My antennae are extended and this incident fits the bill in form if not by intent.

Hell on earth. Its ugly head is raised from the WHite House, and we need to sent the entire Junta Movement to hell.

This shooting gives me the willies as you can tell.

[OneWingedShark]

Can you put your finger on what aspect[s] disturb you the most?

[Candor7]

What disturbs me the most is the second volley, he was shot and down, convulsing.I guess we do not have all the facts yet. WItnesses have said he had a gun in hand but is there a video that shows no gun? Others have stated that he had no gun in hand.So there is a conflict.

What disturns me is that he may have been shot woith no gun in hand, and a srcond volley unleashed with no gun in hand? There is something very disturbing about that.

This is right out of the SS annals of 1929 Germany, but we do not seem to have the facts.

This man was shot in cold blood, without a gun in hand? Execution style? Is that truly what happened?

[OneWingedShark]

I’d like to know what happened too.
There are too many things that don’t fit together... well, unless it is in a really sinister way. (Someone mentioned that it was an execution, but that brings up the questions: who wanted him killed? Why?)