NYT Article on Force Science and Dr. Lewinsky

[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-Cas...&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/2015/05/24/409210...e-opinon-study.
One also had the case of Bellesiles award winning antigun historical study that was faked - http://chronicle.com/article/Michael...kes-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.