(Updated) Jury Of Inquest: Day One, Hour Seven
Note: This post has been updated. Any and all updates appear at the end of the original post.
Continuing Dr. Lewinksi's testimony at the top of the new hour. What is it the officers are reacting to needs to be looked at, says Lewinski.
He says they've studied how long it takes to draw a gun out of a waistband and point it at an officer. The subject has done their thinking and is simply moving... the officer must think/react still.
Most officer-involved shootings occur at a distance of 5-7 feet, rarely farther away than this. All subjects in his study were young males who had little to no experience with guns before. He is showing video of these tests. In general, these are meant to illustrate how "action beats reaction" but it's difficult to capture their specifics are they are being played. He also played a video of a situation of a subject with a gun at console level who fires it at an officer.
April 28, 2004
Update
The sound has become distorted and it is impossible to detect what Lewinski is talking about now.
All of whatever he's discussing at the moment are experiments showing action to be slower than reaction.
He's been asked to put it into context. All action, he says, is seen within the context in which it is performed. He put his hand in his pocket and then took it out. "There are armed police officers in this courtroom and they haven't shot me," he said.
He says that most actions are symbolic and we interpret them based upon what and how we think. He says that everyone in the courtroom has an opinion on his presentation and it fits without their own interpretation of reality.
(In other words, you are all biased agianst me, even though I am clearly setting up testimony that defends the actions of the police officers. Which is easy when you're using clinical experiments, not real-world situations, and haven't really addressed the pertinent question about perception of race..)
April 28, 2004
Update
Officers, he says, are taught to understand the qualities, intonations, etc. of sound. The "para-verbals." Also, they are taught to understand how close one is to someone else. A "reactionary distance."
If you are too close to someone, they can't react to what you are doing, he says.
The third element is kinesics -- resistive tension, facial demeanor, what a subject's body tells the officer. Within all of this, the officer looks for contextual clues -- the circumstances in whcih the officer is encoutnering the subject.
(Note to Lewinski: This is where you need to address the perception of white officers about black subjects. Duh.)
It's not the intended delivery of a message, he says, but it's the officer's interpretation of that message.
Schrunk wants to bring things back to action and reaction, to sum it up in simplifed terms. First in generalities, then in this case.
How quickly could someone bring a gun from a console or a pocket area, with an officer standing close to that subject, even if they've decided to wait to see the gun? At a minimum, the officer, he says, will have at least two, maybe three, bullets already coming at him.
"In simple terms," asks Schrunk, "if I see the gun, I'm dead?" Yes, says Lewinski.
Schrunk gets into the fact there was no gun, so is this situation about the contextual training. Lewinksi says yes, although he doesn't know specifically about Portland's contextual training. But he does say -- in other places, not Portland, where he's watched these things -- he has seen officers not reacting lethally to contextual cues that might indicate danger.
Back again to the question of the perception of race, white officer to black subject. Are there cues read differently?
Studies indicate that among civilians there is some degree, but not statistically significant, that race can influence a thinking that people of color are mor ethreatning. For officers, he says, it's a loss of control they fear, or a perception they will lose control.
But does race contribute to the feeling of the loss of control? Violence is usually the trigger, Lewinksi says. The main element was fear of their own death.
(He is steadfastly evading the issue of whether or not the officer might feel more fear because of the race of the subject involved. It's the obvious and most relevant question, and he refuses to consider it. But at least Schrunk pushed him on it, although not quite hard enough.)
April 28, 2004
Update
Question from Perez attorney: When there is a physical stalemate between officer and arrestee, how do you extricate yourself form that?
The best way, Lewinski says, is "disengagement" presuming one can do so safely. You either disengage or you escalate. Officers need to control all the situations they encounter, in some form, he says.
If there is a stalemate, what cues are the backup officers trained to look for?
Often they use contact/cover anyway, and the cover officer is looking for element of threat, of uncontrolability, danger to the officer or someone else. Emotional intensity, resistence, tension level of the subject, level of determination, and also the inability of the contact officer to control the subject. Also the influence of verbal commands.
We tend to view these things in simplistic terms, but there's a whole range of elements, he says. It's not just simply "resistence" but the whole picture. They are looking for "threat elements."
Schrunk asks if Lewinksi has any guidance for the juror regaridng the simulation they are going to be takent hrough. It's important, he says, to read the situation and make a decision at the point of which your reaction is appropriate. At some point the situation goes sour, goes threatening for you or someone else. This is what these simulations are about: Reading the context of what is happening and recognizing that line into threatening.
Schrunk references "several tragedies" in the past ten months and how Portland is grappling wit how to address them, and how to deal with training, etc.
Lewkinski wants to "advance the knowledge" of training and dealing with these things in new ways to better the safety of officers and the community. He says our Bureau is trained as well or better than most other departments around the country in the matters of lethal force.
Is there ongoing research into the ethnicity factor?
Lewinski's research center is awaiting funding for research in which race and ethnicity will be a factor. They hope to be studying that issue as it applies to law enforcement. "It's an importnat issue," he says (despite dodging it as best he could.)
Lewinski said he was involved in a study group on racial bias in the criminal justice system. The major complaint of the community was that the "council of color" in Minneasota were mainly concerned that when a shooting happened they couldn't count on a fair, neutral and fact-finding process. So he and his colleagues created a curriculum to address this.
After input from the "councils of color," they added role playing in addition to the classroom instruction, most based upon law enforcement interaction with minority communities. They also addressed what internal affairs needs to do when dealing with conflicts with communities of color.
If fear is so important in decision-making, should officer's fear levels be determined to eliminate officers with low thresholds?
Lewinski said he was going to research fear levels, but also style of fear levels, but they have not gone there yet. When people encounter a situation that is frightening, some people are externally focused on the threat, but other people "recoil inside their head." So it's not only the fear level but a "fear response style." But the tests for this were too expensive for them to include.
One last question: Is lethal weapon training only a small part of the total officer training?
Lewinski says that our Bureau "teaches an integrated system" -- mechnical aspects, legal elements of decision-making, empty-hand control, take-down techniques, etc. As the officer progresses, he says, these paths of learning become integrated and the officer begins to see that what they come to a scene with is a toolkit. Our Bureau then adds scenario-based training.
This concludes Lewinski's testimony. The jury will be heading to the jury room and then be transported to go through the simulation that officers themselves go through during training, which will be recorded and played in the courtroom at 8:30 AM tomorrow, followed by the first witness at 9:10 AM.
And so ends the first day of the jury of inquest into the officer-involved shooting death of James Jahar Perez. Wrap-up and random thoughts to follow in a later post.
« Previous Next »