Uh, no, Tom. Non-relevant real-life experience vs scientific psychology studies. But thanks for not reading carefully...

"Looks like we got ourselves a reader"

freeman

Whether or not race factored into the decision of those officers to shoot is impossible to say, but it's likely it had something to do with it.

Probably... but then the experiences of the cops since they began their careers, and their personal life experiences are also hard to cleave from physcological soup that preceded the event.
The primary factor, however, is probably the prevalence of hand guns. Police expect hand guns and react to signals that indicate a gun is about to be pulled. Self preservation, and the expectation of danger mean that they will always assume the worst.
The victim, probably didn't understand that an innocent action, in the circumstance, could get him killed.
Thats also part of the equation.
No matter what other elements you deal with, until and unless hand guns are reduced .... cops will act in this way.

None-relevant?
I would take DF's real life experiences as a cop over your book.
Call it what you like "scientific psychology studies" or call it a book, it's the same thing when you prefer to read about it vs learning from real life experiences.
"Looks like we have a reader" ...must be talking about yourself reading your pretty little book?

GMTom wrote:None-relevant?
I would take DF's real life experiences as a cop over your book.
Call it what you like "scientific psychology studies" or call it a book, it's the same thing when you prefer to read about it vs learning from real life experiences.
"Looks like we have a reader" ...must be talking about yourself reading your pretty little book?

It's really pointless to argue with "experts."

Here's a funny one: did you know every applicant to the LASD has to take a psychological exam?

I didn't when I applied. For whatever reason, I slipped through the cracks. But, they now force everyone to do it.

I worked with those people. Some of them were clearly psychologically unfit for the job--overt bullies or those who had spent a lifetime being bullied. Both were in the habit of provoking unnecessary incidents. There was one guy who kept his weapon with him, literally, 24/7. I would guess 10-20% of them should not have been hired.

To me, that speaks volumes about the expertise and insights of psychologists.

But that is nothing more than a anecdotal story, we must dismiss your real life experiences as nothing more than "fancy" and instead embrace a book written by "scholars" who think they know more.

Tom - it's a Bill Hicks reference. I just love to see people dismissing 'book learning', takes me back to my youth.

danivon wrote:Tom - it's a Bill Hicks reference. I just love to see people dismissing 'book learning', takes me back to my youth.

There's nothing wrong with "book learning." There are some things in life for which "book learning" does not prepare one nor guarantee expertise.

Perhaps, Tom, then you can explain to me how real-life experience can supply one with the expertise to give an opinion on whether a policeman's decisions are based on "unconscious" biases. If you can't, then while DF's real-life experiences as a Sheriff's deputy, while pertinent in many instances, do not have relevance here. If you are going to be incredulous about someone else's posts then at least know what you are talking about.

I did not know the reference it was from but I did google it to find it was Bill Hicks (from getting caught in a waffle house reading a book or something like that)

freeman3 wrote:Perhaps, Tom, then you can explain to me how real-life experience can supply one with the expertise to give an opinion on whether a policeman's decisions are based on "unconscious" biases. If you can't, then while DF's real-life experiences as a Sheriff's deputy, while pertinent in many instances, do not have relevance here. If you are going to be incredulous about someone else's posts then at least know what you are talking about.

Did you argue this with regard to your expertise in the Zimmerman case?

I'd like to know how any psychologist can accurately measure the vast variety of responses one may have under life/death situations. There are some things that can be explained biologically (adrenaline, etc.). However, I seriously doubt that when a suspect is reaching, or is perceived to be reaching, for a weapon race is a part of the thinking. Again, I don't think that can be proved. However, I'm sure it sets the hearts of liberals aflutter.

Well, I don't think I even criticized your opinion and Tom's opinions because you are non-lawyers, so I am not sure the two topics are analogous. You brought up the book knowlede criticism, Tom parroted it, and I simply pointed out that unconscious bias is something beyond the experience of a policeman.

And by the way I don't think psychologist would prove a theory that black suspects get shot more than white suspects in similar situations by measuring the vast variety of responses. He would compile data regarding shooting of black suspect vs. white suspects, perhaps look at the cases to see if there were different factors involved (type of crime, suspect armed/unarmed, experience of the officer, etc.). Presumably, if you compile enough shootings data and blacks are getting shot at a higher rate (and you cannot isolate other factors that explain the discrepancy) then you probably are going to suspect that there is a bias against black suspects overall.

myself, I "parroted" what was said after an attempt was made to simply dismiss DF's real life experiences. Is his experience always right? ...hardly, but to waive it off as a simple anecdotal story is what i was replying to. But then again, that was apparent and the attempted put down was not made by myself was it?