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...=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.



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.