ICE told to get the eff out

MNW67 said:

My expert would concede the lab conditions point.

But the rest is nonsense. There is no difference between reaction time and thinking time in this research. And the 0.3 seconds already includes the shots fired after the decision to stop. Have you actually read the two research papers.

Click to expand...

MNW67 said:

Also, can you explain how somebody has the time to stumble, regain their footing, adjust their stance and body position and reacquire the target, but can't simply manage to not pull the trigger.

Click to expand...

motorbiking said:

yes - and I know a thing or two about reaction time, hazard perception and the human brain. There is oodles of research on it, relating to driving. It is established that the time taken to assess a developing situation is 0.5s - 1.5s. Your witness is confused

in 0.7s. less than the time it takes to click your fingers.

Click to expand...

motorbiking said:

no doubt people will await the facts.

Click to expand...

MNW67 said:

I posted something similar the other day.

The agent seems to have extremely good reactions. Which is one of the reasons why I believe he had time to stop before the second shot. Even an untrained civilian only need 350 milliseconds.

Click to expand...

Highway Man said:

Your obsessed with your ridiculous findings which bare no meaning or have any legal standing whatsoever, you are sounding more and more insane by the post. If you think the court has missed your silly findings and made a mistake, think on...

Click to expand...

MNW67 said:

I know. But the whole point of that case is about whether they could use his prior behaviour to justify the shooting. They had just chased him for more than ten miles, in the course of which he had almost killed dozens of people. Therefore, when he sped away again, they were permitted to take all that information into account when assessing whether he was a serious danger to the public, and whether it was correct to shoot him. However, if instead they had been confronted with a sweet, friendly soccer mom, the calculus would have been very different.

Click to expand...

MNW67 said:

Would you have felt that you were still in danger when this shot was fired.

View attachment 405686

Click to expand...

MNW67 said:

I am applying the law and using first principles. You are trying to reverse the burden of proof. You need to find a leading case which says that officers can keep shooting once the threat has actually passed.

Click to expand...

MNW67 said:

My expert would concede the lab conditions point.

But the rest is nonsense. There is no difference between reaction time and thinking time in this research. And the 0.3 seconds already includes the shots fired after the decision to stop. Have you actually read the two research papers.

Also, can you explain how somebody has the time to stumble, regain their footing, adjust their stance and body position and reacquire the target, but can't simply manage to not pull the trigger.

Click to expand...

MNW67 said:

My expert witness tells the court that all the research shows that a well trained officer can stop in less than 0.3 seconds. How does the defendant explain why he kept on shooting for more than twice that amount of time.

Click to expand...

Highway Man said:

You are very much wrong, you do not understand the business of killing which is actually surprising.

Click to expand...

MNW67 said:

????

Click to expand...

Highway Man said:

Think on... Norman Bates, Michael Myers, Hannibal Lecter. etc.

Click to expand...