Replies

If you wish to claim that Lewinski's "research" makes your case, then it is incumbent upon you to prove that: 1) He is properly credentialed to claim expertise in his field. 2) He is trained and qualified to apply the scientific testing standards of that field. 3) He met those standards while conducting his tests. 4) He subjected his research to the rigors and scrutiny of scientific peer review. So far you have demonstrated none of these four things. Incidentally, in all four areas he is also suspect.

NO. As one who wants to dispute the validity of the Tueller drill, you have a responsibility to show how the drill is flawed, to state your evidence regarding human reaction times, and to demonstrate how your contentions regarding to those reaction times as they relate to law enforcement purposes are valid.

With that in mind, let's establish a few baselines.

1. What is the average human reaction time?

2. Is human reaction time instantaneous?

3. How does reaction time relate to law enforcement shootings?

4. Is it your contention that it is impossible for a person to "beat the drop?"

5. What is the LEGAL STANDARD that we use to evaluate use of force encounters?

NO. As one who wants to dispute the validity of the Tueller drill, you have a responsibility

BS. You haven't even established the validity of the Tueller drill to begin with. Keep in mind:

- YOU brought up the Tueller drill as part of your argument
- YOU claimed the Tueller drill was scientifically grounded
- YOU continue to maintain that the Tueller drill is a valid demonstration of your point.

That means it is also incumbent upon YOU to establish the scientific validity of the claims you are making. So far you haven't. And when pressed on it all you seem capable of producing is (1) the original Tueller article, which does not present itself as scientific, and (2) a junk science non peer reviewed "study" by some uncredentialed hack who bought himself a degree off the internet.