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 ...
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.
If they aren’t earning their keep then approach the city manager with a program to cut their numbers.
Now you are playing pathetic semantic games. It's absolutely laughable. My point is that Lewinski has met the Daubert standard, you have not met any standard of review. You flippantly brush this aside as the courts being "deferential" to law enforcement.
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! PROVE IT. You've not established any of your points in this area. NONE. In fact, many of your points are bold faced defamatory lies. For instance, the Union Institute is regionally accredited by The Higher Learning Commission and is a member of the North Central Association of Colleges and Schools, calling it a degree mill is a bold face lie.
As for the Psy.D program, Union merely hasn't reached the stage where it can receive full accreditation from the APA. It will apply for that accreditation when it meets the initial requirements, this is nothing out of the ordinary, and is similar to the process that the ABA uses to accredit new law schools. (Incidentally, the APA has no business being involved in the accreditation process at all, considering that the APA is nothing but a marxist left-wing organization bent on the destruction of America, but that is a topic for another thread.)
It doesn't really even provide support for premeditation.
It may be evidence of a negligent if not overt disregard for the lives of suspects by that officer. It's something that should be investigated.
True, but I still do not like another civilian referring to me as a civilian. For most of my life I was a soldier, do you think the police correctly referred to me as civilian at that time? It seems kind of hokey.
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?
If I ever decide that I need to carry a concealed weapon, I will also be wearing a bullet proof vest. One without the other seems somewhat illogical, to me anyway.
Not really true. The minimum requirements are obviously low. But meeting those requirements and being selected by whatever method they use to select among the candidates only gets you to whatever the police academy is called in that state. They have to graduate from the academy before they end up on the street with a badge and a gun.
Some police forces do require college degrees for new officers or a number of years experience for those transferring in from other forces, but I believe that is the exception rather than the rule.
At a minimum, the cops handled it wrong by approaching the guy in the most crowded spot they could find. The risk to innocent bystanders was huge and not needed.
Also - speed in making the shooting decision isn’t critical. If a man is shot anywhere but the brain or CNS, he can shoot back for 10-20 seconds...long enough to empty most semi-automatics. If you are going to trade shots with a guy, firing your shot .5 seconds before he shoots you means he’ll die a moment before you do -assuming you both hit the target.
If you have set up the arrest so that trading shots toe-to-toe can happen, then you have already accepted your death as a reasonable outcome - assuming the BG is really a Bad Guy and not a shopper with a CCW permit.
One of the faults with most gun training is that they emphasize speed in getting your shot off. In reality, accuracy is far more important, and the extra half second to confirm the threat isn’t going to hurt you much - IF he is a hard case bad guy. Of course, if he is innocent, it helps one kill an innocent man faster...
Yes, those are the minimum requirements to apply. The majority of depts will use a college degree as a factor during the hiring process. I know a lot of LEOs and none of them hold anything less then a Bachelor’s degree. I know LEOs of all ranks, from patrolman, to D/SGT, to CPT, to Police Chief and Sheriff. The officers I know that hire, will not hire anybody without the minimum of an Associate’s degree. If they don’t get any applicants that hold a degree, they will re-open the posting.
some cops behave like gang members with a license to kill.
“These guys would already be locked up if they were in the Army and did this to some Taliban villager.”
Recently our military wasn’t even allowed to have a round chambered on patrol.
Kill a civilian in Iraq (a war zone) and you go to jail. Kill a civilian in a Costco and be hailed as a hero.
Yes Dorothy we are living in a police state.
“I agree. If you have cops carry military style gear and have military style haircuts, what do you expect them to act like?”
One other thing, its more than gear and haircuts. Its hiring, training, weapons, culture, equipment and so forth. Everything is more military than some military units.
“//one officer ordered Scott to disarm while the other officers shot him as he attempted to disarm, thinking that he was going to shoot at them//
probably what happened”
Which is why I would never do that, I would at most lie down and let them disarm me.
In a sense, human reaction time doesn’t matter a lot. If someone is 30 feet from you and they rush you, then maybe you will get a shot off - depends on your speed. But a determined bad guy WILL survive the shot in almost all cases and be able to stick a knife in you - or shoot you. If you remain stationary, there is no viable way with a handgun of any size to prevent the bad guy from shooting you, and probably not from stabbing you.
That is part of why cops need to accept some risk. If you can shoot him, then he can return fire in almost every case if he is determined to do so. That is true for at least 10 seconds and often more.
In this case, the cops COULD have maintained a discrete distance, get closer to the guy as he approached his car and ordered him to stop and raise his hands while they were protected by cars between him and them. ONE guy might have to close to a more dangerous range - but if he doesn’t have a gun in hand, they will have the advantage.
The cops could not have handled it worse.
“Several witnesses at the scene say that Erik Scott never acted confrontational or touched a weapon when he was shot.”
This is common for the LVMPD, trust me.
BINGO!
A Million shots that miss are ALWAYS inferior to the one that hits.
In the situation at Cosco, from what I understand he was among a group of people and had not been confronted by store security. He may very well have been surprised and confused as to if he was who they were referring to.
If he didn't do anything wrong, and didn't have reason to suspect that someone thought he did something wrong, the natural reaction would be confusion and an inclination to look around to see who the officers are after.
By being afraid to say anything to the "man with a gun" store security set him up for a dangerous confrontation with the police.
I'm not sure what policies the police can implement to make such confrontations safer. I don't expect officers to take unreasonable chances when dealing with armed suspects, but you can't expect a surprised person who has actually done nothing wrong to react with instant and complete obedience. The officers are the ones with the training and the knowledge that the confrontation is about to occur. They do need to have a responsibility to take steps to properly assess the situation.
“Silly rabbit, involuntary manslaughter’s for pigs.”
(No offense to actual public servants, who happen to be law enforcement, just the ones that murder people and get away with it, there are many good cops out there, but I’d so no where near as many as the bad, especially in the LVMPD).
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.