TexasCHLforum.com

baldeagle wrote:Average reaction time:
Black Armed:573.56ms
White Armed:609.6ms

Interestingly, statistics like those, from that very game, are being used to make the argument that people have an "implicit racial bias" against blacks in the Police on Police Shootings study commissioned by Governor Patterson of New York.

So before these "scientists" pick up on "implicit racial bias", they might want to do a bit more in depth research.

I also question whether 37ms is a statistically significant different in reaction time. That's about 5% faster in the case that you quote, but we're still talking milliseconds.

A real scientist would not make any conclusions. The results posted are incomplete data, not "statistics." There is simply not enough data to make any statistically valid conclusion.

Excaliber wrote:

Fangs wrote:That man is soooooo lucky they didn't shoot him dead when he reached for his cell phone.

Quite possibly his worst decision of his life. If LEOs have guns on me I am keeping my hands up until they cuff me, or specifically tell me otherwise.

I can't figure out what he was trying to accomplish with that move. It certainly escalated the pucker factor for no apparent gain.

It was a very stupid and dangerous move. I believe that he was trying to show the LEOs that it wasn't a concealed gun.

Excaliber wrote:Wild Bill, I'm not making excuses for these folks - I'm just trying to make how several smaller and seemingly unrelated circumstances can cascade into an incident like this a bit less bizarre. It happens in many small steps, not one horrific decision.

A similar process happens in private industry - AIG and Enron would be case studies on the corporate scale.

I understand completely. One can not excuse the inexcusable.

Excaliber wrote:

WildBill wrote:

Excaliber wrote:This was clearly a despicable abuse of power by very poorly trained and led LEO's. It does not speak well for the agency that an extended action of this type involving multiple officers did not merit a visit by a field supervisor to the scene.

I would have to second the comment at the end - what happens at the level of execution reflects the values and actions of the agency's senior leadership. The agency's post incident response shows that the senior administration has no regard for the constitution, feels no obligation to ensure that officers adhere to their oaths of office, and does not see its role as one of either protection or service to the public.

It appears that the LEOs and their supervisors were trained well enough to have the knowledge to start a conspiracy to justify their illegal search and seizure.

This whole scenario makes me ill. As you stated, the senior adminstration has no regard for the constitution and their oaths of office. This is a clear violation of the constitution and civil rights. Where is the FBI when you need them?

In my experience things like this rarely happen because one or more officers set out to deliberately trample the constitution or people's rights. I don't think the call handling we saw here, as atrocious as it was, started out as a conscious decision to do wrong. I'd be willing to bet none of the involved officers would have gone nearly as far if he had been alone on the call.

I am not suggesting that when the officers recieved the call, they deliberately set out to trample the defendant's rights. But when they all arrived on the scene there was a cascading effect where they turned into a vengeful mob, where each officer contributed and condoned the other's illegal actions.

I believe that this was a result of their "training" to a certain extent. When these officers were taught the law, they were also led to believe that it was acceptable to stretch the truth or confuse the truth with "colorful language" as long as it could be justified by arresting and prosecuting the "bad guy."

Whether or not they would have done it "alone" is besides the point. Perjured testimony under the color of authority is powerful evidence in court. Their corraborating false testimony is even more odious.

Excaliber wrote:Concoctions and embellishments never hold up very long when smart people start asking pertinent questions.

That a poor consolation for the person who is arresting and sitting in jail. An innocent person should never be put in the position where these questions have to be asked.

TXlaw1 wrote:

WildBill wrote:

baldeagle wrote:

WildBill wrote:Where is the FBI when you need them?

Investigating Arizona.

Sorry, I forgot.

Probably not a Federal criminal case so no FBI jurisdiction - unless the Justice Department would deem it a violation of civil rights (but the dude was not a minority) or he files a case in Federal Court for such a violation. Even then it would be a civil case so I don't think the FBI would get involved.

I didn't realize that civil rights only applied to minorities.

baldeagle wrote:

WildBill wrote:Where is the FBI when you need them?

Investigating Arizona.

Sorry, I forgot.

Excaliber wrote:This was clearly a despicable abuse of power by very poorly trained and led LEO's. It does not speak well for the agency that an extended action of this type involving multiple officers did not merit a visit by a field supervisor to the scene.

I would have to second the comment at the end - what happens at the level of execution reflects the values and actions of the agency's senior leadership. The agency's post incident response shows that the senior administration has no regard for the constitution, feels no obligation to ensure that officers adhere to their oaths of office, and does not see its role as one of either protection or service to the public.

It appears that the LEOs and their supervisors were trained well enough to have the knowledge to start a conspiracy to justify their illegal search and seizure.

This whole scenario makes me ill. As you stated, the senior adminstration has no regard for the constitution and their oaths of office. This is a clear violation of the constitution and civil rights. Where is the FBI when you need them?