Cops Lives Matter Most of All...?

    Exhibit One on why it will be a very uphill battle to reduce cop shootings. Dr. William J. Lewinski, 'psychologist' from the Force Science Institute. Teaching cops the 'science' of why they must kill in the blink of an eye. The guy you never heard of unless you were on a jury deciding the fate of a killer cop.

    NYT Training Officers to Shoot First, and He Will Answer Questions Later.

    A 'scientist' profiled in the NYT and a huge success in cop circles, with a million subscribers to his newsletter.  His 'research' is published in non-peer reviewed magazines.

    America. Guns readily available to anyone with the money to buy them.

    More guns per person, almost 1 gun per 1 person, than any nation in the world.

    The highest homicide rate in the industrialized world.

    Background checks that don't happen or work.

    Guns guns guns everywhere, real guns, toy guns, things that look like guns.

    Hand movements that cops claim might be for grabbing an unseen gun.

    Cops being excused of the murder of unarmed persons.

    Defended by testimony from an Institute whose purpose is to profit from and exonerate killer cops.

    De-escalation? Expected? Taught? As dead as.....?

    Cops shoot not because they thought they saw a gun, because the cop THOUGHT that IF the suspect HAD a gun they NEVER SAW, then the suspect MIGHT grab it and shoot. In 1/2 second. Gotta think fast.

    A Force Science Institute video. Showing why cops must kill unarmed persons at traffic stops, because.....the citizen can blow you off in a flash, so shoot first:

    Dr. William J. Lewinski. $1000 an hour fee. He says criticism of him is 'politics'.

    Dr. Lewinski also has a theory called "inattentional blindness". He invented that word 'inattentional', a mind that comes up with stuff like that is worth $1000/hr. In America anyway.

    When an officer’s version of events is disproved by video or forensic evidence, Dr. Lewinski says, inattentional blindness may be to blame. It is human nature, he says, to try to fill in the blanks.

    The Dr. Lewinski small print:

    Dr. Lewinski acknowledged that there was no clear way to distinguish inattentional blindness from lying.

    Cops call him their hero, saying what Lewinski promotes is scientific.

    Dr. Lewinski and his company have provided training for dozens of departments, including in Cincinnati, Las Vegas, Milwaukee and Seattle. His messages often conflict, in both substance and tone, with the training now recommended by the Justice Department and police organizations.

    And the Holder/Obama administration paid him $55,000 to defend a federal drug agent who killed an unarmed teenager. His gig pays well.

    And the Holder/Obama administration paid him $15,000 to train federal marshals. In America everything is for sale, even your principles. So you hire this guy cause he is good, convincing with the jury.

    A NYT comment:

    ..Lewinski is a psychopath with a license to train and defend other psychopaths. I know there are cops who would LIKE TO BE good cops, but as long as they stand behind the blue wall of silence, they are in league with the bad cops. It's almost as if they are being programmed to shoot, particularly Black people. We thought cameras were the answer, but now we have people telling us not to believe our eyes.


    More guns per person, almost 1 gun per 1 person, than any nation in the world.

    Good blog, but I take issue with this statement. It skews the reality. Much of what I've read claims the number of people owning guns has been dropping for years while the number of guns has increased. This is because many gun owners own more than one gun. I own 3, and I'm a liberal who favors much more strict gun control laws.

    Thanks. It is a statistic. Apparently it includes 1 year olds as well as guys with closets full of guns. We are just ahead of Serbia. I don't know if the NRA or Dr. Lewinsky offer their advice or services there.

    I notice this article has almost disappeared from the NYT website. Too powerful?

    Even though it was listed #1 in the US section 'most emailed'. Some have noticed it.

    It is at the very bottom of the NYT 'US' section as of Sunday evening August 2. It apparently was on the front page of the print edition today.

    And forget about seeing anything about this guy or 'Inattentional Blindness' on corporate TV News. Any of them. It will never be on your TV News.

     You have to be an avid reader to even notice articles like this, and stuff like this is why I subscribe to the NYT (even though the paper provides a sinecure for David Brooks - he will never discuss inattentional blindness either).

    One other comment by Citixen, NYC, at the article was interesting:

    .....A society that requires police to shoot first and ask questions later, is a society asking for an adversarial relationship with law enforcement and, by extension, the law itself when the entire system gears itself toward protecting officers from prosecution.

    There is no better way to alienate citizens from their own government than to insist that such behavior is consistent with constitutional norms. And if that isn't an argument to label the NRA an organization undermining the constitution and the very fabric of the nation itself, I don't know what is.

    Note the very powerful logic and concluding thesis of the statement.

    I agree with it.

    We are seeing the results predicted by the poster across America today.


    NCD, thanks for posting this.




    Thanks Oxy.

    I read through a small portion of the 1000+ NYT comments.

    One person made the apt observation that if Dr. Inattentional Blindness never testified to support the conviction of a cop, he is not an unbiased scientific consultant suitable to put before a jury.

    Granted, such biased paid off  'experts' are probably the norm in courts.

    Asking him that point on the witness stand though might seriously deflate the impact of his testimony. (or would such a question be over ruled by the judge as irrelevant 'Counsel question out of order the witness is not on trial')


    Juries fall for this.  Often.  That is a huge part of the problem here.

    Yes, he is a Very Serious Person defending a uniformed officer of the law, none of whom ever lie.

    And if his testimony is to a Grand Jury, it is normally never made public.

    Totally disgusting and unacceptable. And a bad sign of how deeply the dysfunctional "Compliance Policing" approach has sunk into training.

    The ACLU has a lawsuit against a sheriff in Kenton County, Kentucky who shackled an 8-year old Latino male and 9-year old black female with ADHD. The two were "misbehaving". We need better trained police. The incident happened last fall.

    In other police news, Sam DeBose the man shot in the head by a UC police officer told the officer that the contents in a bottle labeled "Gin" was actually air freshener. The coroner's preliminary analysis of the contents of the bottle showed that there was no ethanol. The contents were consistent with compound found in perfumes and air fresheners.

    Not gin? Did anybody check the cop car for alcohol?

    I recall the dumbest in high school became cops.

    Seems cops haven't changed.

    Just their training, demeanor, supervision and the new industry of lawyers and guys like Lewinski who make a living off the execution of citizens.

    'We' lost this argument, a long time ago.

    And then the Supremes just went ahead and confirmed all those unconfirmed bastards.ha

    I have lost faith.

    But there is or are loopholes, so to speak.

    The states still have rights with regard to regulation.

    So now, we must work within our own states?

    That is all I got.

    Latest Comments