Replies

I'm not saying that Teuller himself made his advice column into a hard and fast rule. Rather cops misinterpret it as if it were a hard and fast rule to guide their decision to use deadly force, and to justify a nearly paranoid concern for "officer safety" in any situation where the suspect is within 21 feet. I have explained that distinction many times now, thus it is you who committing the straw man by continuing to misrepresent what I have said.

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.

- 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.

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.

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.

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.