Training Officers to Shoot First, and He Will Answer Questions Later
August 3, 2015 7:43 AM Subscribe
"When police officers shoot people under questionable circumstances, Dr. Lewinski is often there to defend their actions." ... "His conclusions are consistent: The officer acted appropriately, even when shooting an unarmed person. Even when shooting someone in the back. Even when witness testimony, forensic evidence or video footage contradicts the officer’s story." [SLNYT]
Just like the FBI has, never, ever, fired a shot that was not justified.
posted by T.D. Strange at 7:57 AM on August 3, 2015 [4 favorites]
posted by T.D. Strange at 7:57 AM on August 3, 2015 [4 favorites]
So you just never know who might have a gun, and if someone does have a gun, then they can kill the officer with it more quickly than the officer can react.
He is literally arguing that it is justifiable self defense for a police offer to shoot anybody at any time.
posted by Naberius at 7:57 AM on August 3, 2015 [32 favorites]
He is literally arguing that it is justifiable self defense for a police offer to shoot anybody at any time.
posted by Naberius at 7:57 AM on August 3, 2015 [32 favorites]
Some insight into where cops are getting the idea that it's okay to shoot anyone for any reason.
Even if/when juries do convict, judges won't sentence them.
She'd be alive if cops were held to the same high standards as the rest of us.
posted by Pogo_Fuzzybutt at 7:58 AM on August 3, 2015 [37 favorites]
Even if/when juries do convict, judges won't sentence them.
Another jury found Dautovic guilty of using excessive force and obstructing justice. He faced a twenty year maximum sentence for his crime. Dautovic was without remorse throughout his trial, insisting he did the right thing. US District Court Judge John A. Jarvey determined that the federal sentencing guidelines recommendation of eleven to fourteen years in prison was "unreasonable" and that twenty months was sufficient.He was free on bail earlier this year, when he hanged himself after killing his girlfriend.
She'd be alive if cops were held to the same high standards as the rest of us.
posted by Pogo_Fuzzybutt at 7:58 AM on August 3, 2015 [37 favorites]
He is literally arguing that it is justifiable self defense for a police offer to shoot anybody at any time.
Yup.
posted by Jacqueline at 7:59 AM on August 3, 2015 [4 favorites]
Yup.
posted by Jacqueline at 7:59 AM on August 3, 2015 [4 favorites]
I'd be interested to read a report correlating the ratio of officer shootings which end up being unjustified in the aftermath, versus, say the deaths related to some surgeries. Not justifying the actions, but everyone makes mistakes, and I don't envy those folks who make literal life and death "in the moment" decisions as part of their daily jobs.
posted by Debaser626 at 8:00 AM on August 3, 2015
posted by Debaser626 at 8:00 AM on August 3, 2015
I wonder what people who say things like "S/he shouldn't have run," or "S/he should've just done what the officer said" or the like will think of this. There is literally no amount of compliance, especially if you are not white, that is sufficient to insure you will not be killed if police decide to stop you.
posted by rtha at 8:01 AM on August 3, 2015 [27 favorites]
posted by rtha at 8:01 AM on August 3, 2015 [27 favorites]
I'd be interested to read a report correlating the ratio of officer shootings which end up being unjustified in the aftermath, versus, say the deaths related to some surgeries.
In the vast majority of surgeries in the US, the patient or their medical proxy are informed, to the fullest extent possible, of the risks of surgery, up to an including death. Doctors can tell you how many patients have died as a result of a surgery, both nationally and under their own knife.
I don't imagine that cops would agree to reporting this information at the start of every civilian encounter.
posted by muddgirl at 8:05 AM on August 3, 2015 [14 favorites]
In the vast majority of surgeries in the US, the patient or their medical proxy are informed, to the fullest extent possible, of the risks of surgery, up to an including death. Doctors can tell you how many patients have died as a result of a surgery, both nationally and under their own knife.
I don't imagine that cops would agree to reporting this information at the start of every civilian encounter.
posted by muddgirl at 8:05 AM on August 3, 2015 [14 favorites]
There is literally no amount of compliance, especially if you are not white, that is sufficient to insure you will not be killed if police decide to stop you.
It's bullshit anyway. Did anyone tell Cliven Bundy he had to "comply with law enforcement" ?
posted by Pogo_Fuzzybutt at 8:07 AM on August 3, 2015 [30 favorites]
It's bullshit anyway. Did anyone tell Cliven Bundy he had to "comply with law enforcement" ?
“The safety of our law enforcement officers and the safety of people that represent land managers at every level is of paramount importance to me,” Jewell told the newspaper.It is perfectly acceptable to have an armed stand off with police if you are white.
posted by Pogo_Fuzzybutt at 8:07 AM on August 3, 2015 [30 favorites]
I read this earlier, and this man and his teaching are just vile. Most of the things you are asked to do at a traffic stop require you to make moves that could be used as an excuse to shoot you - reaching for a license, for one. So going by this logic, police should shoot every person they stop, because that person could shoot them.
Oh, I see: it's every black person, because reasons.
posted by lesbiassparrow at 8:23 AM on August 3, 2015 [20 favorites]
Oh, I see: it's every black person, because reasons.
posted by lesbiassparrow at 8:23 AM on August 3, 2015 [20 favorites]
So you just never know who might have a gun, and if someone does have a gun, then they can kill the officer with it more quickly than the officer can react.
He is literally arguing that it is justifiable self defense for a police offer to shoot anybody at any time.
Given this conclusion, one might think that we would deem it beneficial as a society to make sure fewer people, not more, have guns. But of course, geniuses like Rick Perry et al actually suggest the opposite: that everyone should be allowed to carry a firearm, because then we'd all be safer and we wouldn't have people getting killed when someone decides to walk into a movie theater and shoot everyone inside. Talk about your strange loops.
posted by holborne at 8:25 AM on August 3, 2015 [3 favorites]
He is literally arguing that it is justifiable self defense for a police offer to shoot anybody at any time.
Given this conclusion, one might think that we would deem it beneficial as a society to make sure fewer people, not more, have guns. But of course, geniuses like Rick Perry et al actually suggest the opposite: that everyone should be allowed to carry a firearm, because then we'd all be safer and we wouldn't have people getting killed when someone decides to walk into a movie theater and shoot everyone inside. Talk about your strange loops.
posted by holborne at 8:25 AM on August 3, 2015 [3 favorites]
I know this is horribly reductive, but all I could think as I was reading this was, gah, another old, white dude denying the consequences of his actions. I know, I know, I'm profiling...
posted by dawg-proud at 8:33 AM on August 3, 2015 [1 favorite]
posted by dawg-proud at 8:33 AM on August 3, 2015 [1 favorite]
Yada, yada, yada. Lewinski is an expert witness (paid for by the union) in trials where accused police officers get to defend themselves against criminal charges brought by the government. I don't think it's outrageous in any way for a jury to hear such testimony and to consider reasonable doubt even in the most egregious situations. Indeed I think this is what most people would call "a fair trial."
posted by three blind mice at 8:36 AM on August 3, 2015
posted by three blind mice at 8:36 AM on August 3, 2015
I know this is horribly reductive, but all I could think as I was reading this was, gah, another old, white dude denying the consequences of his actions. I know, I know, I'm profiling...
That's charitable. The guy's a grifter, plain and simple. They exist wherever there are large systems that leak money. This person has decided that he doesn't mind making money at the expense of other people's lives. He's morally indistinguishable from a street level killer.
posted by Maugrim at 8:45 AM on August 3, 2015 [12 favorites]
That's charitable. The guy's a grifter, plain and simple. They exist wherever there are large systems that leak money. This person has decided that he doesn't mind making money at the expense of other people's lives. He's morally indistinguishable from a street level killer.
posted by Maugrim at 8:45 AM on August 3, 2015 [12 favorites]
I'd be interested to read a report correlating the ratio of officer shootings which end up being unjustified in the aftermath, versus, say the deaths related to some surgeries.
Leaving all else aside, the underlying issue is that a disproportionate number of the unarmed and/or totally innocent people getting shot by cops are Black. And then there's the fact that no matter how strong the evidence of police incompetence or malice, the officers are almost never convicted or punished.
If I went into surgery and the surgeon made an obvious fuck-up and I died, my family would sue. Also, there wouldn't be national media response to attempt to justify, like, leaving a sponge in my intestines.
More, if there were a series of cases of predictable surgical screw-ups, hospitals would start to change their procedures to try to prevent them.
Still more, patients are considered innocent. People of color who get shot* by cops are pre-emptively considered guilty no matter what they're doing. No matter how innocent they turn out to be, they're still tainted by suspicion and people try to second guess what they were doing.
*Or beaten and harassed, let's not forget that. Beatings and harassment are everyday occurrences that are largely invisible to white people - largely invisible to me, honestly, and I try to keep my eyes peeled. Cops don't like to do that shit in front of white middle class people, because if for some reason we go off-pattern and report it, we are somewhat more likely to be believed. But I hear about stuff.
posted by Frowner at 8:50 AM on August 3, 2015 [15 favorites]
> Indeed I think this is what most people would call "a fair trial."
My idea of a fair trial doesn't actually involve someone coming up and lying under oath. This guy might be sufficiently delusional that he believes his lies, but it doesn't make them true.
My idea of a fair trial involves some sort of adult supervision that prevents a batshitinsane person from being presented to jurors as "a famous expert".
posted by lupus_yonderboy at 8:52 AM on August 3, 2015 [16 favorites]
My idea of a fair trial doesn't actually involve someone coming up and lying under oath. This guy might be sufficiently delusional that he believes his lies, but it doesn't make them true.
My idea of a fair trial involves some sort of adult supervision that prevents a batshitinsane person from being presented to jurors as "a famous expert".
posted by lupus_yonderboy at 8:52 AM on August 3, 2015 [16 favorites]
Oh, I see: it's every black person, because reasons.
No. It's not "because reasons". It's because most americans are more afraid of black people than white people. Period. That's your reason. This is not a reasonable fear, but it is a real fear, and it is purposefully supported and used by certain people in power (on both sides of the aisle).
There's ton's of little tricks in the legal system that are the direct causes of patently unjust results ("stand your ground", Mike Brown was "a demon", too many to examples to count tbh), but all of those tricks rely on people irrationally fearing black people as compared to white people.
It's not "because reasons". It's "because white people are insane when it comes to black people, and we've made insane laws as a result".
posted by DGStieber at 8:52 AM on August 3, 2015 [11 favorites]
No. It's not "because reasons". It's because most americans are more afraid of black people than white people. Period. That's your reason. This is not a reasonable fear, but it is a real fear, and it is purposefully supported and used by certain people in power (on both sides of the aisle).
There's ton's of little tricks in the legal system that are the direct causes of patently unjust results ("stand your ground", Mike Brown was "a demon", too many to examples to count tbh), but all of those tricks rely on people irrationally fearing black people as compared to white people.
It's not "because reasons". It's "because white people are insane when it comes to black people, and we've made insane laws as a result".
posted by DGStieber at 8:52 AM on August 3, 2015 [11 favorites]
My own experience in a criminal/civil case leads me to believe that in a lot of cases expert witnesses are people with some sort of credential who will say anything to support the side who are paying them. I have doubts about juries being able to see through the hired expert testimony.
posted by njohnson23 at 8:53 AM on August 3, 2015 [3 favorites]
posted by njohnson23 at 8:53 AM on August 3, 2015 [3 favorites]
And going through all these studies, the message is, "As a police officer you should be in fear of your life at every second, and react with maximum violence at the slightest provocation."
Why are we allowing this? Who is so insane that they think this is a good attitude for a cop to have?
posted by lupus_yonderboy at 8:54 AM on August 3, 2015 [15 favorites]
Why are we allowing this? Who is so insane that they think this is a good attitude for a cop to have?
posted by lupus_yonderboy at 8:54 AM on August 3, 2015 [15 favorites]
Who is so insane that they think this is a good attitude for a cop to have?
The cops themselves.
posted by Talez at 8:55 AM on August 3, 2015 [4 favorites]
The cops themselves.
posted by Talez at 8:55 AM on August 3, 2015 [4 favorites]
How often does a person pull out a gun and in the same move turn and run away so quickly you could not but help shoot them in the back... I'm guessing on average, never.
There was a documentary series on The Metropolitan (ie London) Police on tv here in the uk a few weeks back, and had short bit on one of the officers who is allowed to be armed... he attended an incident where it was reported that someone had a gun (turned out to be a replica) and it came over that he had been trained to be ultra cautious and only fire if absolutely necessary - at one point he was looking through a window and it looked like the potential bad guy could have had a gun in his hand but he was wasn't sure so he didn't fire. Not that innocent people don't get shot but it's a rare exception (if fact anyone getting shot is an exception).
posted by fearfulsymmetry at 8:58 AM on August 3, 2015 [3 favorites]
There was a documentary series on The Metropolitan (ie London) Police on tv here in the uk a few weeks back, and had short bit on one of the officers who is allowed to be armed... he attended an incident where it was reported that someone had a gun (turned out to be a replica) and it came over that he had been trained to be ultra cautious and only fire if absolutely necessary - at one point he was looking through a window and it looked like the potential bad guy could have had a gun in his hand but he was wasn't sure so he didn't fire. Not that innocent people don't get shot but it's a rare exception (if fact anyone getting shot is an exception).
posted by fearfulsymmetry at 8:58 AM on August 3, 2015 [3 favorites]
Of course, I'm sure the jurors aren't told this guy's history as a professional witness who always defends cops, even though that would be supremely relevant to the matter at hand.
Actually, they more than likely are. As you note, it's perfectly relevant, and it's standard practice for experts to be asked these types of questions on cross-examination. The problem isn't that the jurors don't understand that the expert is a hired gun; the problem is that the jurors want to believe the cops didn't do anything wrong because they want to believe the world is just. They don't need a whole lot of justification to acquit, and Lewinski gives it to them.
posted by holborne at 9:00 AM on August 3, 2015 [2 favorites]
Actually, they more than likely are. As you note, it's perfectly relevant, and it's standard practice for experts to be asked these types of questions on cross-examination. The problem isn't that the jurors don't understand that the expert is a hired gun; the problem is that the jurors want to believe the cops didn't do anything wrong because they want to believe the world is just. They don't need a whole lot of justification to acquit, and Lewinski gives it to them.
posted by holborne at 9:00 AM on August 3, 2015 [2 favorites]
I wonder what people who say things like "S/he shouldn't have run," or "S/he should've just done what the officer said" or the like will think of this.
They will probably go on thinking nothing of any particular value, as per usual.
posted by poffin boffin at 9:00 AM on August 3, 2015 [10 favorites]
They will probably go on thinking nothing of any particular value, as per usual.
posted by poffin boffin at 9:00 AM on August 3, 2015 [10 favorites]
If Lewinski was only a professional court expert, that would still be bad as a symptom of the benefit of the doubt that police get in trials (since his testimony is boilerplate bullshit) but he trains police officers. Yes, every defendant is entitled to have people testify on his/her behalf, and it's the jury's job to weigh their credibility and logic, but would you want a lawyer whose job is to convince juries that no doctor's error has ever risen to the level of malpractice also training them on how to perform surgery?
posted by Holy Zarquon's Singing Fish at 9:07 AM on August 3, 2015 [11 favorites]
posted by Holy Zarquon's Singing Fish at 9:07 AM on August 3, 2015 [11 favorites]
But of course, geniuses like Rick Perry et al actually suggest the opposite: that everyone should be allowed to carry a firearm, because then we'd all be safer and we wouldn't have people getting killed when someone decides to walk into a movie theater and shoot everyone inside. Talk about your strange loops.
Plus push stand your ground laws to make randomly shooting people on zero pretext legal. Yay NRA!
posted by Artw at 9:07 AM on August 3, 2015 [1 favorite]
Plus push stand your ground laws to make randomly shooting people on zero pretext legal. Yay NRA!
posted by Artw at 9:07 AM on August 3, 2015 [1 favorite]
in a lot of cases expert witnesses are people with some sort of credential who will say anything to support the side who are paying them. -- njohnson23
Well.... expert trucks-a-comin'....
posted by symbioid at 9:08 AM on August 3, 2015 [1 favorite]
Well.... expert trucks-a-comin'....
posted by symbioid at 9:08 AM on August 3, 2015 [1 favorite]
This sort of thing is what comes to mind whenever I hear that Thin Blue Line argument about how the police are defending us against those who would do us harm. The role of a shield is not to thwack someone across the face, it's to absorb a strike. Training police officers (training, not just testifying in favor of police officers after the fact) that they need to have the mentality that shooting first if they think that maybe they might be in possible danger runs counter to that.
posted by Etrigan at 9:12 AM on August 3, 2015 [6 favorites]
posted by Etrigan at 9:12 AM on August 3, 2015 [6 favorites]
There is a special circle of hell reserved for expert witnesses.
posted by mygoditsbob at 9:16 AM on August 3, 2015 [3 favorites]
posted by mygoditsbob at 9:16 AM on August 3, 2015 [3 favorites]
A former Minnesota State professor, he says his testimony and training are based on hard science, but his research has been roundly criticized by experts. An editor for The American Journal of Psychology called his work “pseudoscience.” The Justice Department denounced his findings as “lacking in both foundation and reliability.” Civil rights lawyers say he is selling dangerous ideas.…
In separate cases in 2011 and 2012, the Justice Department and a private lawyer asked Lisa Fournier, a Washington State University professor and an American Journal of Psychology editor, to review Dr. Lewinski’s studies. She said they lacked basic elements of legitimate research, such as control groups, and drew conclusions that were unsupported by the data.
“In summary, this study is invalid and unreliable,” she wrote in court documents in 2012. “
Lewinsky is basically helping produce an extra-textual legal regime for police officers. I have read scores, if not low-hundreds, of police use-of-force guidelines, and what Lewinski claims about appropriate force is contrary to literally every one I have ever encountered. (For reference, here's the basic page on use-of-force from the National Institute of Justice.)
That's an interesting conundrum, no? That his testimonies and "trainings" run contrary to the actual documents by which police officers are supposed to adhere, backed up by studies of incredibly dubious quality…
Which means that you and I are expected to follow the letter of the law, and yet (somehow) the letter of the law is recognized to be inappropriate for those who (are supposed to) enforce it.
posted by migrantology at 9:25 AM on August 3, 2015 [15 favorites]
In separate cases in 2011 and 2012, the Justice Department and a private lawyer asked Lisa Fournier, a Washington State University professor and an American Journal of Psychology editor, to review Dr. Lewinski’s studies. She said they lacked basic elements of legitimate research, such as control groups, and drew conclusions that were unsupported by the data.
“In summary, this study is invalid and unreliable,” she wrote in court documents in 2012. “
Lewinsky is basically helping produce an extra-textual legal regime for police officers. I have read scores, if not low-hundreds, of police use-of-force guidelines, and what Lewinski claims about appropriate force is contrary to literally every one I have ever encountered. (For reference, here's the basic page on use-of-force from the National Institute of Justice.)
That's an interesting conundrum, no? That his testimonies and "trainings" run contrary to the actual documents by which police officers are supposed to adhere, backed up by studies of incredibly dubious quality…
Which means that you and I are expected to follow the letter of the law, and yet (somehow) the letter of the law is recognized to be inappropriate for those who (are supposed to) enforce it.
posted by migrantology at 9:25 AM on August 3, 2015 [15 favorites]
Speaking of The Thin Blue Line, I finally watched it very late last night/very early this morning (on Netflix now, BTW). Morris originally started researching another notorious expert witness, Dr. James Grigson:
Nicknamed "Dr. Death" for his willingness to testify against capital murder defendants, Grigson was a witness in hundreds of death penalty cases. His pleasant manner, down-to-earth vocabulary and air of certainty helped persuade juries that the defendant -- just about every defendant -- would kill again if given the chance. That Grigson often had not met with the defendant did not deter him from forming an opinion about him and defending it to the hilt. ...posted by maudlin at 9:25 AM on August 3, 2015 [4 favorites]
Grigson was at the center of an important U.S. Supreme Court decision. In 1981, the court unanimously decided that defendants could not be examined by a psychiatrist without their permission, nor could the information obtained be used at trial unless the defendant was warned that it would be. Before that, capital defendants were routinely examined by Grigson, who did not tell them he might testify against them at time of punishment.
She'd be alive if cops were held to the same high standards as the rest of us.
IMO, as agents of the state, they should be held to *higher* standards.
If I shoot someone for a stupid reason, at least I'm not being paid to do so at the behest of society.
posted by Jacqueline at 10:34 AM on August 3, 2015 [5 favorites]
IMO, as agents of the state, they should be held to *higher* standards.
If I shoot someone for a stupid reason, at least I'm not being paid to do so at the behest of society.
posted by Jacqueline at 10:34 AM on August 3, 2015 [5 favorites]
If being afraid for your life was a reasonable reason to kill a person, there would be a lot of cop-killers that would be found not guilty by jurors.
I mean, who isn't afraid of the cops (okay, a lot of white middle-class folks)...
"You're honor, I saw the cop reaching for his gun, so I had no choice but to kill him, I thought my life was in danger"
posted by el io at 10:42 AM on August 3, 2015 [6 favorites]
I mean, who isn't afraid of the cops (okay, a lot of white middle-class folks)...
"You're honor, I saw the cop reaching for his gun, so I had no choice but to kill him, I thought my life was in danger"
posted by el io at 10:42 AM on August 3, 2015 [6 favorites]
Police officers are not heroes unless they're willing to put their lives on the line to save innocent people. A real police officer would prefer to take a bullet rather than accidentally shoot an unarmed citizen.
posted by straight at 10:51 AM on August 3, 2015 [4 favorites]
posted by straight at 10:51 AM on August 3, 2015 [4 favorites]
Beatings and harassment are everyday occurrences that are largely invisible to white people - largely invisible to me, honestly, and I try to keep my eyes peeled. Cops don't like to do that shit in front of white middle class people, because if for some reason we go off-pattern and report it, we are somewhat more likely to be believed.
Over the past couple of years I've made a conscious effort to hang around conspicuously watching whenever I see a police officer talking to a black man. I've only had two opportunities to do this so far and I doubt that it actually made any difference in either situation, but I decided to start cultivating this as a new habit as a result of the discussions here on MetaFilter.
I grew up in a town that was almost all-white and where the cops were actually pretty nice and thus it would have never occurred to me that many (most?) cops are pretty racist if I hadn't been exposed to all the tales of lived experiences people have shared here. So, thanks, MetaFilter!
posted by Jacqueline at 10:53 AM on August 3, 2015 [2 favorites]
Over the past couple of years I've made a conscious effort to hang around conspicuously watching whenever I see a police officer talking to a black man. I've only had two opportunities to do this so far and I doubt that it actually made any difference in either situation, but I decided to start cultivating this as a new habit as a result of the discussions here on MetaFilter.
I grew up in a town that was almost all-white and where the cops were actually pretty nice and thus it would have never occurred to me that many (most?) cops are pretty racist if I hadn't been exposed to all the tales of lived experiences people have shared here. So, thanks, MetaFilter!
posted by Jacqueline at 10:53 AM on August 3, 2015 [2 favorites]
I love you guys.
posted by Jacqueline at 10:56 AM on August 3, 2015
posted by Jacqueline at 10:56 AM on August 3, 2015
"You're honor, I saw the cop reaching for his gun, so I had no choice but to kill him, I thought my life was in danger"
Ah, but you should have know that if the cop shoots you, then you deserved it! Life without parole, you cop-killer.
From the article: For example, in a 2009 case that revolved around whether a Texas sheriff’s deputy felt threatened by a car coming at him, Dr. Lewinski said that the officer was so focused on firing to stop the threat, he did not immediately recognize that the car had passed him.
In other words, the officer was focused on a threat that didn't exist. And that's supposed to excuse his shooting? That just makes it worse. I can't even make fun of Dr. Lewinski's positions, because he's more extreme that any parody.
posted by Rangi at 11:06 AM on August 3, 2015 [3 favorites]
Ah, but you should have know that if the cop shoots you, then you deserved it! Life without parole, you cop-killer.
From the article: For example, in a 2009 case that revolved around whether a Texas sheriff’s deputy felt threatened by a car coming at him, Dr. Lewinski said that the officer was so focused on firing to stop the threat, he did not immediately recognize that the car had passed him.
In other words, the officer was focused on a threat that didn't exist. And that's supposed to excuse his shooting? That just makes it worse. I can't even make fun of Dr. Lewinski's positions, because he's more extreme that any parody.
posted by Rangi at 11:06 AM on August 3, 2015 [3 favorites]
For example, in a 2009 case that revolved around whether a Texas sheriff’s deputy felt threatened by a car coming at him, Dr. Lewinski said that the officer was so focused on firing to stop the threat, he did not immediately recognize that the car had passed him.
I just wonder what the hell caliber sidearm he had. After all, the car was clearly so close to him that the bullet would carry enough kinetic energy to stop the car rather than just kill the driver and let the car coast to a stop before hitting the officer.
posted by Etrigan at 11:13 AM on August 3, 2015
I just wonder what the hell caliber sidearm he had. After all, the car was clearly so close to him that the bullet would carry enough kinetic energy to stop the car rather than just kill the driver and let the car coast to a stop before hitting the officer.
posted by Etrigan at 11:13 AM on August 3, 2015
Dr. Lewinski, who grew up in Canada, got his doctorate in 1988 from the Union for Experimenting Colleges and Universities, an accredited but alternative Cincinnati school offering accelerated programs and flexible schedules. He designed his curriculum and named his program police psychology, a specialty not available elsewhere.
This is the most disturbing part. Some guy invents a degree at a questionable institution and he's an expert?
posted by Fister Roboto at 11:22 AM on August 3, 2015 [6 favorites]
This is the most disturbing part. Some guy invents a degree at a questionable institution and he's an expert?
posted by Fister Roboto at 11:22 AM on August 3, 2015 [6 favorites]
"We used to be able to use the baton and hit people where we felt necessary to get them to comply. Those days are gone.”
Well boo fucking hoo.
posted by Merzbau at 12:16 PM on August 3, 2015
Well boo fucking hoo.
posted by Merzbau at 12:16 PM on August 3, 2015
Also is it just me or are cops basically Sovereign Citizen kooks who actually get away with the black magic law-spells they come up with?
"As this court's flag has a gold fringe, Officer Shootfirst is acquitted."
posted by rum-soaked space hobo at 2:12 PM on August 3, 2015 [5 favorites]
"As this court's flag has a gold fringe, Officer Shootfirst is acquitted."
posted by rum-soaked space hobo at 2:12 PM on August 3, 2015 [5 favorites]
It's the other way around; Sovereign Citizens are people who think the black magic contortions of law are how the law works, rather than the method by which powerful people get off scott-free.
posted by Holy Zarquon's Singing Fish at 2:57 PM on August 3, 2015 [6 favorites]
posted by Holy Zarquon's Singing Fish at 2:57 PM on August 3, 2015 [6 favorites]
Lying for a living has a long history. I believe those who do it are either literally or figuratively motivated by a religion, whether it be a theistic or materialistic one.
posted by Mental Wimp at 3:43 PM on August 3, 2015
posted by Mental Wimp at 3:43 PM on August 3, 2015
« Older Fairest of Them All - Sequel to Mirror, Mirror | HOOBASTANKONIA Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
Ugh.
posted by Jacqueline at 7:44 AM on August 3, 2015 [1 favorite]