NYT Article on Force Science and Dr. Lewinsky

[Terence]

Its the NYT, so don't expect a fair shake, but I'm curious to know what people here think of the article or of Lewinsky:

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/02/us/training-officers-to-shoot-first-and-he-will-answer-questions-later.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&module=photo-spot-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news&_r=0

[voodoo_man]

Typical of the NYT to use "hot topics" to attempt to discredit people who have far more experience in a certain field than others.

Their attempt to use a professor in a field other than that of Dr. Lewinsky to discredit his teaching is expected.

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/interactive/nyregion/180turn2.gif

Oh look, that's a pretty good "test" done, but it probably isn't up to snuff for the scientific minds the NYT found to attempt to discredit him.

[Paul]

When I read the article this morning, I though that it's the NYT way of getting out in front of the "problem" that when an expert is able to explain that Officer Tensing was actually dragged and why he thought is was a long distance, that it's really just a mouthpiece for cops speaking on behalf of cops.

[Chance]

I haven't seen Lewinsky's work, but it's potentially true that what he's published doesn't qualify as science, in the strictest sense of the word. That doesn't mean what he's presented is invalid, or incorrect, just that his conclusions can't be proven or disproven by experiment, at least as he's framed them. It's a minor issue of semantics to most people, but in the research/academic world, the distinction is a big deal.

I'm shocked the NYT even acknowledged the possibility that cops might have a point. The editors must have had the day off.

[K.O.A.M.]

I am a Force Science Graduate-December, 2014. What I took from the class is that his experiments show what is possible. He shows how quickly the human body can move and compares them to reaction times. Does it qualify as peer-reviewed science? No. It is, however, demonstrated evidence that things could happen a certain way and the dangers one human can pose to another. The plaintiff's bar doesn't like him because he creates that doubt that allows a jury to find that an officer acted "reasonably" and precluding an award of damages in many lawsuits.

What I don't like is all the other stuff you are force-fed during certification. During my class, there was a block on lawsuits and representation taught by a lawyer from suburban Chicago. She knew nothing about how representation and conflict of interest worked when it came to individual officers. That material wasn't helpful, yet we had to sit through it anyways. He's now offering an "Advanced Force Science Analyst" program -for $5000-that requires travel and a bunch of other stuff. I'm curious to see if that's going to get into the hard science or be some hard science wrapped in a few layers of other stuff that doesn't get to the core mission.

[John Hearne]

I wrote this elsewhere, though I'd share it here:

Very rarely do we get an example this good. When a progressive's world view doesn't match the real world, they have little choice but to attack the person who is creating the cognitive dissonance they are facing.

They want to live in a world where every police use of force is a carefully measured decision that is arrived based on hours of careful reflection. They want to live in a world where actions, typically non-cooperation with legitimate law enforcement commands, have no consequences. They want to live in a world without the deficit inherent in action versus reaction.

When they can't get these things, when ugly realities are shown to them, they can't do anything but attack the messenger. In this case it's Dr. Lewinski and his research on police use of force.

What I find most amusing is how hard they have to stretch to criticize the work.

"He doesn't use control groups." That sounds serious, that doesn't sound scientific. Until you realize that almost all of his work is observational. How long does it take someone to draw a gun, fire and run? How long does it take an officer to deliver a shot from the ready? What is the average of these numbers? How do they overlap? Controls are needed when you're offering treatment - not when you're describing the world as it is.

I like the critique of his testimony - “He won’t give an inch on cross-examination.” Guess who doesn't give inches during cross - people telling the truth. Apparently the greatest sin you can commit with their ilk.

[SeriousStudent]

John - very well said.

Thanks for posting that, and stay safe.

[okie john]

I like the critique of his testimony - “He won’t give an inch on cross-examination.” Guess who doesn't give inches during cross - people telling the truth. Apparently the greatest sin you can commit with their ilk.

That remark stuck out for me as well. I remember thinking, "He doesn't have to--he's not negotiating."


Okie John

[Terence]

There are a couple of major flaws in that article, from a journalistic or reporting perspective, but one of the biggest is that the criticisms are far too vague.

The quotes that the reporter provided make a nice starting point, but without any specific examples, they fall flat.

Unless you are just determined to believe that Lewinsky is the devil, in which case you'll accept any amount of sloppy reporting.

[joshs]

I wish the article would have better developed what I see as a problem with the way Dr. Lewinsky sometimes presents his work. His work is often used to show that if an officer hadn't acted at a specific point, the suspect could have killed the officer without the officer being able to stop the suspect. But, this isn't the standard for the use of lethal force. There are a lot of situations where someone could kill you and there is nothing you could do to stop them, but it would still be unreasonable to use lethal force. For example, in the first example given in the article (assuming no other facts, which were likely available in the real record) if an officer ordered an individual to remove his hand from his pocket and then shot him when the individual began to comply, I would have a hard time seeing how this could be construed as reasonable conduct given the circumstances.

[John Hearne]

For example, in the first example given in the article (assuming no other facts, which were likely available in the real record) if an officer ordered an individual to remove his hand from his pocket and then shot him when the individual began to comply, I would have a hard time seeing how this could be construed as reasonable conduct given the circumstances.

That's the problem, the article seems biased and doesn't provide enough information to make an informed decision one way or another. With the limited information provided, it sounds inappropriate and wrong. I'd be willing to be dollars to donuts that there's more to the story than that simple fact pattern.

[Paul]

I wish the article would have better developed what I see as a problem with the way Dr. Lewinsky sometimes presents his work. His work is often used to show that if an officer hadn't acted at a specific point, the suspect could have killed the officer without the officer being able to stop the suspect. But, this isn't the standard for the use of lethal force. There are a lot of situations where someone could kill you and there is nothing you could do to stop them, but it would still be unreasonable to use lethal force. For example, in the first example given in the article (assuming no other facts, which were likely available in the real record) if an officer ordered an individual to remove his hand from his pocket and then shot him when the individual began to comply, I would have a hard time seeing how this could be construed as reasonable conduct given the circumstances.

Based off a NYT article how do you know how this individual actually responded? Comply doesn't mean non-threatening. It's easy to assume that guy that got shot slowly lifted his hands out of his pocket in a vertical manner with his hands open and fingers spread. He could of also quickly jerked his hand out of his pocket and quickly extended a closed fist like he was holding a firearm. Who knows? You might be surprised how many people do dumb, "brave" and smart ass stuff when they have a gun pointed at them.

[joshs]

Based off a NYT article how do you know how this individual actually responded? Comply doesn't mean non-threatening. It's easy to assume that guy that got shot slowly lifted his hands out of his pocket in a vertical manner with his hands open and fingers spread. He could of also quickly jerked his hand out of his pocket and quickly extended a closed fist like he was holding a firearm. Who knows? You might be surprised how many people do dumb, "brave" and smart ass stuff when they have a gun pointed at them.

That's why I said:


(assuming no other facts, which were likely available in the real record)

It was just a simple example of the distinction between being able to be killed and a reasonable person perceiving a threat of death or great bodily harm at that point.

[Glenn E. Meyer]

Interesting debate. I haven't met Dr. Lewinski so this will be some general comments.

1. Most behavioral research on firearms is funneled through a political lens. John H. is quite correct here. There are analyses of biases in the social sciences. Guns are not viewed positively. For example see: http://chronicle.com/article/The-Case-Against-More-Guns-on/232093/?cid=at&utm_source=at&utm_medium=en

In this piece, a 20/20 flawed study with six participants is taken as conclusive proof that an armed citizen cannot protect against a rampage killer. This is by a research director.

One also notes two faked but politically correct studies that were highly praised. Recently we have the retracted fake study on convincing folks about gay marriage - http://www.npr.org/2015/05/24/409210207/author-says-researcher-faked-gay-marriage-opinon-study.
One also had the case of Bellesiles award winning antigun historical study that was faked - http://chronicle.com/article/Michael-Bellesiles-Takes-An/123751/

It is quite likely that an scholarly article indicating that police use guns correctly might have some trouble. On the other hand recent studies indicating that racial bias in police shootings isn't as powerful as thought are getting published.

That being said - it would have been a good idea for works to be submitted to the scholarly journals first. The psych journals might be hard but the criminological journals or human factors journals might be more accepting. There is a lot of work on human factors in shooting out there.

However, a demonstration of an effect in a video for a trial need not be submitted to a journal if it is done well. Other simulations are done and there are some computer simulations of the shoot'em in the back effect.

2. I have to say that his degree is not standard. Is this challenging by opposing counsel? Perhaps.

3. The critiquing psychologist - one has to ask if she has a political bias or has a financial interest in testimony. This influences experts. We see paid 'guns' who will denounce any child victim of rape as delusional. Since there have been proven cases of false memories implanted, some folks will say this for any case (even if there is good evidence - I saw this myself in a case and the lawyer will tell you not to give a neutral analysis - sleaze bag). Being an editor of the American Journal of Psychology is not a big deal.

4. Her article does make interesting theoretical points about his analysis of RT problems. He's in a Donder's mode and she thinks it's not a good RT model. Probably right on that but is it relevant to a particular case?

5. One would be interested to know if he turns down cases. That's a key statistic in evaluating an expert. If every shoot is good or is not good (for another expert), then you have to wonder. There should be ratio of such, as with doctors and their diagnoses of appendicitis.

6. The issue of how much risk to take with threatening or furtive movements is a tough one. Recall the guy who was told to get his ID and reached in his car and was shot. Yep, could be going for a gun or his ID? Do you always shoot? If an expert says -always shoot as you might be at risk - that's problematic.

I was thinking about that with the current cases of officers who reach into the car to turn it off or drag someone out. That seems a disaster waiting to happen. With folks carrying guns and knives, with no offense, if you stick yourself into a car - you are finished if the person has a modicum of ability or is nuts. Given that is the case, some movement leads to shooting a person that is not up to the standard of lethal force.

That's what I think. The article though is a hit piece.

[Jason M]

For those who are interested, Dr. Lewinski is scheduled to be on CNN tonight at 1030 pm Eastern time to talk about the NYT article.