<?xml version="1.0" encoding="ISO-8859-1"?>

<rss version="2.0" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/">
	<channel>
		<title>American Sheepdog Community Forums - Blogs</title>
		<link>http://americansheepdog.com/Forum/blog.php</link>
		<description>Discussion on Concealed Carry, Gun Laws, and CCW Information</description>
		<language>en</language>
		<lastBuildDate>Fri, 18 May 2012 17:38:45 GMT</lastBuildDate>
		<generator>vBulletin</generator>
		<ttl>120</ttl>
		
		<item>
			<title>Packing Gun on Airline Travel</title>
			<link>http://americansheepdog.com/Forum/entry.php?37-Packing-Gun-on-Airline-Travel</link>
			<pubDate>Wed, 15 Sep 2010 23:09:21 GMT</pubDate>
			<description>I have not seen this discussed in this forum, but it is discussed a lot on many other gun forums, so I thought I would just provide a few tips that I...</description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<blockquote class="blogcontent restore">I have not seen this discussed in this forum, but it is discussed a lot on many other gun forums, so I thought I would just provide a few tips that I have encountered when air traveling with a gun...yes, I take a gun everywhere that I can legally!  YES you can take a gun on an airline to your destination...but you must first ensure that your <u><b><i>permit</i></b></u> is recognized by the state you are traveling to...and yes the state you are traveling to must be in reciprocity with the state which you are from.  You should do a Google search on TSA and the airline you plan to travel on.  The TSA site will give you the Federal rules on traveling with firearms and ammunition and then the airline website will state their policy for checking an firearm and ammunition.  The gun must be in a locked container and the ammo, if you are carrying ammo, must be seperate and locked inside a checked bag .  Now you can use TSA locks, but most of the airline sites discourage that. You should provide your own locks and be prepared to stand by and wait for the TSA inspection, which may or may-not occur, but you will be notified by the airline when the bag passes TSA. When you check in with the airline, you should state that you have an &quot;UNLOADED&quot; FIREARM to check and don't use the word gun. You should also explain to TSA that there is an &quot;UNLOADED FIREARM&quot; that is in a bag.  This is very brief, but the no-nonsense approach, and field tested, to traveling with guns and ammunition on airlines.</blockquote>

]]></content:encoded>
			<dc:creator>NWFFT</dc:creator>
			<guid isPermaLink="true">http://americansheepdog.com/Forum/entry.php?37-Packing-Gun-on-Airline-Travel</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Pocket Carry Why not give it a try?</title>
			<link>http://americansheepdog.com/Forum/entry.php?36-Pocket-Carry-Why-not-give-it-a-try</link>
			<pubDate>Tue, 14 Sep 2010 17:55:12 GMT</pubDate>
			<description><![CDATA[“Pocket Carry” Why not give it a try? 
 
 
 
 
Pocket Carry, it's nothing new but with the advancements in handgun technology and small caliber...]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<blockquote class="blogcontent restore">“Pocket Carry” Why not give it a try?<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
Pocket Carry, it's nothing new but with the advancements in handgun technology and small caliber ammunition advances it is making a come back. I say come back due to the fact that in years past it was more common than you think. Contrary to the western movies many citizens in the day carried some type small pocket pistol. Yes the cowboys and gunslingers had guns holstered on their hips but many businessmen and women had heat in their pocket. A derringer or a small revolver out of sight out of mind. The same was true through I would say the mid 1960s. Very few civilians carried a handgun on their hip. Even police detectives (usually .38 or .38 special)and famed criminals such as John Dillinger(a Colt .32 auto I believe) carried their handgun in their pocket. These where again of small caliber usually .38 or .32,25,22 along with the .380 in later years. They where small, convenient and at the time fairly powerful in their larger calibers . The larger framed Colt 1911 45acp , 9mm Luger and a few other revolvers calibers available (until the .357 came along) were their only rivals, remember that back then most police offices carried the .38 or .38 special. <br />
<br />
“The Pants” I remember growing up in the 60s and 70s when allot of men still mostly wore “slacks” not jeans, which made pocket carrying for these small guns more convenient.<br />
<br />
I don't know if it was the coming of age of the .357 and .44 magnums in the movies but I remember that they where the thing of the times and everyone had to have one. As you know at that time these where large heavy guns, this along with the “jeans” era starting people seemed to stop pocket carrying and went to hip or shoulder carrying these large guns. The “bring enough gun” mentality also seemed to replace the smaller pocket gun convenience. I kind of see this with the “bring enough ammo” mentality today.<br />
<br />
Today however there are many options for pocket carry. The advancements in ammunition has brought the .380+P to about the same ballistics as the the .38 special and the .38 special+P to that close of the first .357 magnums. The size of the larger caliber guns has gotten smaller and lighter the.357 magnums and .45 acp now being able to fit in a pocket with ease. Now I am not saying that you can put a J frame or a sub compact .45 in your nut tugger jeans pocket, but in lose fitting carpenter jeans, Dockers or Cargo pants you will be surprised. For those tight jeans wearers out there one of the small .380s or kahr arms PM9 works fine. All of these should of course be in a pocket holster, with nothing else in the pocket. You will have to clean your gun every few days of that pocket lent.<br />
<br />
I feel the main advantage to pocket carry is convenience. Mine goes in my pocket every day just <br />
like carrying a pocket knife it is part of “loading your pants' for the day, wallet, cell phone, pocket knife GUN.<br />
I carry a Kahr PM 45 or a S&amp;W 638 and an extra mag or speed loader daily every day everywhere until I go to bed. This bring up another plus, who wants to sit around watching TV or mowing the grass with a gun on their hip. I use to do that, but after becoming a gentleman farmer I found it too inconvenient. Climbing through fence ,crawling under the tractor putting on bibs in the winter I found myself just leaving my handgun in the house. If I need to run to town I had to go holster up before heading out. This just wasn't working for me especially after two woolly looking guys came up the drive one day while I was mending the fence a ½ mile from my gun. I thought there had to be a better way. I then rediscovered pocket carry. I say rediscover due that I use to pocket carry off duty when I was a Deputy Sheriff in the 80s. I forgot how nice it was, it took me awhile to find the gun for me. I wanted the largest caliber I could comfortably handle and shoot accurately in a small package.<br />
<br />
The only drawback I see to the pocket carry is access from a sitting position. I my vehicles I always keep a larger high capacity pistol handy, actually I keep it on the center hump in a small soft side cooler. This work great for access when driving and not to many crooks are going to break in to get a lunch bag. While out in public restaurants and such I just try to keep my situational awareness higher which gives me the time to covertly access my pocket gun if need be...<br />
<br />
A few tips for new pocket carriers: Always use a holster. Practice access and drawing your gun unloaded of course. The draw should consist of accessing, proper grip, pulling up and out of the pocket clearing it completely with your weak hand on your chest, rotating the gun then join you weak hand without muzzling yourself and/or weak hand. You can put your thumb on the hammer of a revolver or back of the slide of an auto to help prevent snagging as you draw the gun. Finger off the trigger. With these things in mind grip the gun high in the web of your hand just as you would to shoot it, you will not have time to re position your grip in a gun fight. Remove the holster from your pocket to re holster the gun holding the holster from the top with finger and thumb like holding a tea cup, put the barrel in pointing downward and away from yourself. Too many people cup the holster in their weak hand and push the gun in pointing the muzzle right at the palm of their weak hand, this is asking for trouble. Trace and cut out of cardboard the out line of your gun before going pants shopping, you can try pocket fit before you go to the dressing room and have your unloaded gun with you so you can check the gun fit when you are in there. Think about another gun for your vehicle, you may already have one if not this gives you the excuse to get another one.<br />
All in all you will have to weigh your own threat assessment, there are obviously times and places where you will want to hip carry a larger high capacity handgun but for everyday carry in most situations you will find with the right pocket gun you will not be under powered . A gun in your pocket beats the one in the car or drawer closest whatever.<br />
<br />
<br />
Brad Norton<br />
Indiana Handgun Training<br />
<a href="http://www.indianahandguntraining.com/" target="_blank">www.indianahandguntraining.com</a></blockquote>

]]></content:encoded>
			<dc:creator>latigo</dc:creator>
			<guid isPermaLink="true">http://americansheepdog.com/Forum/entry.php?36-Pocket-Carry-Why-not-give-it-a-try</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Why?</title>
			<link>http://americansheepdog.com/Forum/entry.php?33-Why</link>
			<pubDate>Wed, 11 Aug 2010 01:19:51 GMT</pubDate>
			<description><![CDATA[Did you ever wonder why Arizona's SB1070, a bill endorsed by 73% of Arizona's citizens, and 66% nationwide, can't get by the courts? Or why...]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<blockquote class="blogcontent restore">Did you ever wonder why Arizona's SB1070, a bill endorsed by 73% of Arizona's citizens, and 66% nationwide, can't get by the courts? Or why California's Proposition 187, limiting welfare for illegal aliens and favored by 88% of California's population is declared unconstitutional? Why have the news outlets thrown away their vigilance of government, and now whore for the Left? Why is one of the Left's major constituents single mothers under 30?<br />
 <br />
Angelo M Codevilla, professor  emeritus of international relations at Boston University among many other credentials, lays out the answers to these questions at some length, in his 17-page missile in the July/August 2010 issue of The American Spectator. The link to this remarkable narrative is:<br />
 <br />
<a href="http://spectator.org/archives/2010/07/16/americas-ruling-class-and-the" target="_blank">http://spectator.org/archives/2010/0...-class-and-the</a><br />
 <br />
Because of it's length, I would recommend actually purchasing the magazine, rather than sitting in front of a tube to real it all. <br />
 <br />
In the article, Codevilla identifies The Ruling Class in America. Who they are, how they reached their positions of power, and how the system works. He also explains why these movers and shakers are mostly Left of Center, and what that means for America <br />
 <br />
Everyone with hands on the levers, wants to be accepted and loved by this class, and maneuver endlessly to gain acceptance. Not all of the class are wealthy, as an example, powerful opinion makers in the press can be accepted, as long as they further the &quot;correct&quot; political line of reasoning. When Republicans win an election, the Ruling Class accepts this temporary setback as a snit by what the press calls &quot;angry white guys&quot; or a &quot;populist temper tantrum&quot;. Behind our backs, they call us The Country Party.....basically convict-class vulgarians, and like little children must be herded back into line. <br />
 <br />
As grim as all this is, Codevilla lays out steps to return America to it's former greatness. A sobering narrative, but well worth the read.  <br />
 <br />
Rossi</blockquote>

]]></content:encoded>
			<dc:creator>Rossi</dc:creator>
			<guid isPermaLink="true">http://americansheepdog.com/Forum/entry.php?33-Why</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Member permission to create articles</title>
			<link>http://americansheepdog.com/Forum/entry.php?32-Member-permission-to-create-articles</link>
			<pubDate>Sat, 07 Aug 2010 20:44:10 GMT</pubDate>
			<description><![CDATA[Attachment 1398 (http://americansheepdog.com/Forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=1398)I'm looking to add a special usergroup with permission to create...]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<blockquote class="blogcontent restore"><img src="http://americansheepdog.com/Forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=1398&amp;d=1312065248" border="0" alt="Name:  &amp;#65;&amp;#83;&amp;#68;&amp;#49;&amp;#46;.png
Views: 730
Size:  5.2 KB" class="align_left" />I'm looking to add a special usergroup with permission to create articles to the online magazine. These permissions would allow you to create and publish your own articles directly on the front page and have other permissions that give you more control and access. This is an effort to increase content and allow those members that show an above average interest and participation to have privileges like direct website control. The are functions and buttons unseen to average members and they will be unlocked for you. If you are interested in becoming a part of this group, please let me know. Think of it like having a master key. <br />
<br />
You can write opinion articles, product reviews and even news stories directly from the content management system (CMS). Each member of this group will be considered website staff. You won't have deadlines or quota's, each member will simply contribute content as they please for the benefit of members and guests alike.</blockquote>

]]></content:encoded>
			<dc:creator>UGA</dc:creator>
			<guid isPermaLink="true">http://americansheepdog.com/Forum/entry.php?32-Member-permission-to-create-articles</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>The Brady spin machine</title>
			<link>http://americansheepdog.com/Forum/entry.php?31-The-Brady-spin-machine</link>
			<pubDate>Sun, 01 Aug 2010 13:56:18 GMT</pubDate>
			<description>Attachment 1376 (http://americansheepdog.com/Forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=1376) 
 
By Phillip Williams || ASD Founder 
  ©2010...</description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<blockquote class="blogcontent restore"><a href="http://americansheepdog.com/Forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=1376&amp;d=1280671040" id="attachment1376" rel="Lightbox_31" ><img src="http://americansheepdog.com/Forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=1376&amp;d=1312065268" border="0" alt="Click image for larger version

Name:	&amp;#65;&amp;#83;&amp;#68;&amp;#32;&amp;#70;&amp;#111;&amp;#117;&amp;#110;&amp;#100;&amp;#101;&amp;#114;&amp;#46;.jpg
Views:	617
Size:	17.9 KB
ID:	1376" class="align_left size_thumbnail" /></a><br />
<br />
By Phillip Williams || ASD Founder<br />
  <span style="font-family: Georgia">©</span>2010 AmericanSheepdog.com<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
In the last 20 years, great progress has been made in allowing  law-abiding citizens to carry handguns for protection. In recent years  larger victories have been seen in SCOTUS decisions regarding the 2nd  Amendment itself. This has, to say the least, been a heavy blow to the  anti-gun crowd. All too often we hear their rebuttals and rants in the  mainstream media reports; rarely do they offer an opposing view.<br />
   <br />
  Almost all states now have some form of carry laws in place to issue a  license to carry a handgun openly, concealed or both. The general terms  used are <i>Shall Issue</i> and <i>May Issue </i>regarding the type of  licensing system they have. <br />
   <br />
  <b><u>May Issue licensing system</u></b> - also referred to as  discretionary permit<br />
  systems, allow legal authorities to grant licenses to carry concealed  firearms to<br />
  citizens who establish a compelling need for doing so.<br />
   <br />
  <b><u>Shall Issue licensing system</u></b> - also referred to as  presumptive right-to-carry<br />
  laws, require authorities to provide a license to any applicant who  meets specified<br />
  criteria. <br />
   <br />
  Florida was the first state to effectively develop a licensing system  to allow its citizens to carry. Although their concealed carry bill  began in the early 1980’s and the legislature passed it several times,  Democratic Governor Bob Graham vetoed it. That is until 1987 when  Republican Governor Bob Martinez signed it into law. Since then many  states have modeled their carry bills based upon the Florida bill and  the anti-gun crowds have told of the horror and tragedy that would  occur. A very common phrase used is “It will be like the Wild West  again, there will be shootouts on every corner” with added things like  the streets turning red with blood. This has never happened and never  will. The Brady Campaign (formerly Handguncontrol.org) likes to paint a  picture of savage attacks and bloody battles between everyday Americans.  They have great access to the media and share common goals. If a tragic  shooting occurs, you can bet the network news media calls upon them  first to add them to their story. Do they call the NRA for an opposing  view? When a gun-control advocate gives false information and distorted  facts in a TV interview, you will not hear a retraction. It fades away  into oblivion and viewers that fail to investigate or think for  themselves are left believing it as fact. <br />
   <br />
  A recent Blog on the Brady Campaign website caught my attention. The  Blog centers around John Lott’s book; “More Guns = Less Crime”. The  facts in the book cannot be discredited, but those for gun control  always try to distort and confuse the facts. The following is quote is  by one of the Brady Campaign bloggers. You can read the full Blog by  clicking provided link in the quote. <br />
  <br />
  <br />
<br />
<div class="bbcode_container">
	<div class="bbcode_quote">
		<div class="quote_container">
			<div class="bbcode_quote_container"></div>
			
				by Dennis Henigan on July 23rd, 2010 <b>||</b> You can view the  full Blog <b><a href="http://blog.bradycampaign.org/?p=2538" target="_blank">HERE  </a></b><br />
<br />
Apart from the statistics, the deterrence theory poses an interesting  conundrum. If criminals are deterred by the prospect that their victim  may be armed, how can we account for attacks by armed criminals against  other armed criminals? Why do armed drug dealers have anything to fear  from other armed drug dealers? Why do armed gangs have anything to fear  from other armed gangs? Pro-gun researcher Gary Kleck of Florida State  University reports that street gang members are over eight times more  likely to own handguns than other youths, and nineteen times more likely  to be homicide victims. Drug dealers are almost four times more likely  to own a handgun and six times more likely to be homicide victims. Why  doesn’t their gun possession deter attacks on these criminals? Surely it  can’t be true that bad guys fear only armed good guys, but not other  armed bad guys.<br />
   <br />
  The real problem with the deterrence theory is that it little to do  with the real world. It has a tough time explaining, for example, what  happened last Saturday in Lake Sammamish State Park near Seattle. A  fistfight broke out between two groups of people with apparent gang  affiliations, and ended in a gun battle in which two were killed and  three others were wounded. It seems safe to assume that when the  fistfight began, those present had reason to believe that some in the  two groups were armed with guns. Yet the likely presence of guns did  nothing to deter violence. The guns simply made the violence more  lethal. What started as a fistfight ended up with two dead and three  wounded (with the attendant public cost of treating the wounded).<br />
   <br />
  More guns means less crime only in the imaginary world of the “gun  rights” movement as it tries to push us toward an America where there is  nowhere to go to escape the guns – even into churches. The real world  was last Saturday in that state park near Seattle.
			
		</div>
	</div>
</div>  In an attempt to confuse readers about the fact that  criminals do fear the prospect that their innocent victim could be  armed, he tries to compare <u>criminal vs. innocent victim</u> to <u>criminals  vs. criminals</u>. Let’s explore the difference between the two. When a  gang member attacks a rival gang member, they expect them to be armed.  Whether it’s over one gang disrespecting another, drugs or territory,  they are going to attack one another regardless of them being armed.  They don’t hold them at gun point to rob them and run away afterward,  they kill them. Gangs don’t threaten to rob one another or give them  bloody noses, they are prepared to kill. Why do gangs use “drive by’s”  as a means of assault? They expect them to be armed and shoot back so  they remain mobile to quickly get away. Let us not overlook the fact  that these same criminals illegally arm themselves to protect themselves  from other illegally armed criminals. The fact that criminals are  already ignoring and breaking gun laws escapes them when they cry for  more gun control laws. When a criminal engages with another criminal,  they expect to be shot if they do not shoot first. The specific case the  author speaks of near Seattle is a story of rival gangs crossing paths  and doing what gang members do… they kill each other. There is a  completely different circumstance in a pack-mentality such as the two  gangs shooting it out after a fist fight as the author mentions. Being  compelled to keep the respect of fellow members and acquaintances, or  flat out self-defense is a factor. Though they are criminals, illegally  armed and placing themselves in situations and a lifestyle that could  kill them, self-defense is human nature and they will use anything to do  so. Whether it’s a gun, knife or claw hammer, they will fight back! I  respectfully submit that it is not “gang savvy” for a member to pack a  claw hammer and have respect from their friends…<br />
   <br />
  Would a lone gang member try to carjack a known rival gang member  knowing they are armed? Only if they could approach and shoot before the  other could defend their self. Picture this scene, a gang member  approaches a known rival knowing that he is armed and pulls out a gun  and says “Give me your wallet and all your jewelry!” Does that seem  likely? Armed criminals do not attack other armed criminals as a normal  armed robbery, carjacking or rape. The motivation is completely  different. They attack and kill for respect, drugs, drug territory and  revenge. Do they fear each other? Absolutely! <br />
   <br />
  In the matter of criminals attacking innocent victims, criminals are  wolves that prey on the weak. There is a selection involved and they  will avoid attacking anyone they fear as being able to resist enough to  cause harm to them unless they are in absolute desperation. They observe  and strike when they find the easy target. If the choice is between a  man walking with his head up, confident and observing his environment  and another who is walking with his head down, failing to make eye  contact and oblivious to their environment, a criminal will choose the  lesser threat in the oblivious citizen. Picture a woman walking to her  car in the mall parking lot, chatting on a cell phone unaware of any  potential threats. Now picture a woman in the same situation, scanning  the parking lot and walking with her hand in her purse, if you were a  criminal, which would you choose to attack? Who is most likely armed?<br />
   <br />
  Another comment made in the Blog regards states passing pro-carry laws  to allow citizens to carry firearms in church. He refers to guns in  churches as a bad thing, well I agree that guns in churches is a bad  thing only because we have reached a point where carrying in church is  needed. He made no mention of the countless shootings in churches across  the nation. Google “church shootings” for yourself and see the results.  Criminals and deranged gunmen often seek venues where their victims are  less likely to be armed, like churches, schools and government  buildings. Because criminals ignore and break the law, these “Gun Free  Zones” are actually “Criminal Safe Zones.” They take advantage of this  relative safety to kill as many people as they can, then take their own  lives before the police can arrive and shoot back. <br />
   <br />
  I admit that the authors Blog on the Brady website is preaching to the  choir with its followers just as this article is to the pro-carry  crowd. The problem lies with the uninformed. Those that fail to think  for themselves and believe the first point of view which most often  comes from the message of the gun-control crowd and the drive-by media. <br />
   <br />
  I conclude with the following quote:<br />
   <br />
<div class="bbcode_container">
	<div class="bbcode_quote">
		<div class="quote_container">
			<div class="bbcode_quote_container"></div>
			
				&quot;Remember that Jefferson told us that the Second Amendment would  not be needed until they tried to abolish it. There are people who have  that in mind right now. The personal ownership and usage of firearms is  not a common aspect of today's culture worldwide. It is up to Americans -  those who know what it means to be an American - to uphold the light of  liberty in the face of those both here and elsewhere who would  extinguish it. We see the hysterics who feel that the abolition of  firearms would bring about major changes in the human psyche, and that  crime would disappear. We cannot reason with these people because they  are impervious to reason, but we can expose them to ridicule and  frustrate their political clout. That is a job not just for the National  Rifle Association, but for everyone. If you want to make a resolution  for the coming century, resolve to do something in defense of liberty  every day, and by liberty, of course, we mean true liberty - the right  to keep and bear arms. Without that liberty all other liberties are  meaningless.&quot;<br />
 <br />
 <br />
  -Col. Jeff Cooper
			
		</div>
	</div>
</div></blockquote>

]]></content:encoded>
			<dc:creator>UGA</dc:creator>
			<guid isPermaLink="true">http://americansheepdog.com/Forum/entry.php?31-The-Brady-spin-machine</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Heat seeking bullets?</title>
			<link>http://americansheepdog.com/Forum/entry.php?30-Heat-seeking-bullets</link>
			<pubDate>Sun, 01 Aug 2010 13:26:34 GMT</pubDate>
			<description>All too often, someone in the gun control crowd tries to make a statement and give a compelling argument in the ban of this or that. The following...</description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<blockquote class="blogcontent restore">All too often, someone in the gun control crowd tries to make a statement and give a compelling argument in the ban of this or that. The following video is of a group giving a press conference about banning .50 caliber rifles and ammunition from civilians with the common rhetoric of only the police and military should have them. See for yourself...<br />
<br />

<iframe class="restrain" title="YouTube video player" width="640" height="390" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/BRQqieimwLQ" frameborder="0"></iframe>
<br />
<br />
Real incendiary bullets are military grade. They are illegal for civilian purchase and possession. They are designed to penetrate and ignite fuel or munitions inside vehicles, light armored vehicles and structures. You can't run down to the local Sportman's Warehouse and purchase these things. The woman that calls them &quot;heat seeking bullets&quot; obviously hasn't a clue as to what she is talking about, but I guess it sounds really scary to say they are. Two things here... Either she knew they weren't heat seeking or she was clueless. Either way she is a knucklehead for giving a false statement or simply being ignorant.<br />
<br />
This happens all too often in media reports. I was once driving home from work listening to a news update on the radio when a young local female reporter was giving a story of a shooting that occurred the night before. She began to describe the events that took place and said that the weapon used was a .22 caliber shotgun. Now... I will accept that she was probably a young and eager reporter wanting to give a good story and has absolutely no knowledge of firearms. The point I want to make is that she did not do her homework. Did her recorded story have to pass by anyone that could have corrected it before airing over the radio?<br />
<br />
Here Wayne Lapierre of the NRA tells of a false report that aired on CNN. <br />
<br />

<iframe class="restrain" title="YouTube video player" width="640" height="390" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/YumfuMNM08c" frameborder="0"></iframe>
<br />
<br />
The gun control crowd loves to misrepresent information to make it scarier and more appalling to those that do not now the difference. There is a statistic they use to say that guns in the home are dangerous because 58% of gun murders occur between acquaintances.  What they don't tell you is that an acquaintance is simply knowing the person and shootings between drug dealers and gang members are included in the study. <br />
<br />
Get it right knuckleheads...</blockquote>

]]></content:encoded>
			<dc:creator>UGA</dc:creator>
			<guid isPermaLink="true">http://americansheepdog.com/Forum/entry.php?30-Heat-seeking-bullets</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Insane Dream 7-8-10</title>
			<link>http://americansheepdog.com/Forum/entry.php?29-Insane-Dream-7-8-10</link>
			<pubDate>Thu, 08 Jul 2010 20:20:47 GMT</pubDate>
			<description>I woke up and HAD to write this down. Maybe I can find a dream mapper at work and have them look at it. Last night I was drinking some beers with a...</description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<blockquote class="blogcontent restore">I woke up and HAD to write this down. Maybe I can find a dream mapper at work and have them look at it. Last night I was drinking some beers with a buddy and watching .... You know what :) , I think I kinda know why the dream was the way it iwas now. We were watching Invisible Empire and Don't Tread On Me on youtube. My bud passed out &quot;he had to drive across Texas a couple hours later anyway&quot; and I watched some Beavis and Butthead and an episode of the show Oz. Anyway, here is the dream.<br />
 <br />
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~`<br />
 <br />
I was a band member of Rob Zombie, GWAR, and some band I've never heard of called Cretyl or Caykeet or something weird. Had really wicked looking album art that was all red and the letters were bright yellow and in that death metal type font like Job for a Cowboy. We were touring in a place that was empty and dark. I don't remember why but I was uncomfortable and afraid of something. Rob Zombie was talking to me about something and I was feeling really stress by whatever he was saying. A few of my friends were living nearby somehow. My hometown Alpine was transported to the sunless land so i went to go visit them but they were acting really out of it and were surrounded with people I had never met before. I got bored of the whole thing so I said that I'm going to the show and left. <br />
 <br />
Then I was at a rodeo and they gave out free food to every person. Ribs, brisket, and stuff like that. MY plate was put on the ground so the 2 women passing it out could grab more plates, and had 2 tiny 6 inch long pigs licking at it and when I yelled at the hostess for letting it happen, she pretended pigs like that don't exist. <br />
 <br />
I had a camping site, which was now sunny and in another part of the world. I found another little pig and killed it by throwing it way into the air because it was eating wires from my truck. Somehow it set off my shotgun that I stuck in between my seats in my truck &quot;and had a bolt for some reason&quot;. I went up a hill near by to get some water and a European looking cop was giving me the 3rd degree and asking where the gun was. I asked him why he thought I had a gun. He said &quot;You and your neighbor are the only ones camping right here and we heard a gunshot so either you fired at your neighbors, or they fired at you.&quot; I told him they didn't fire a gun and that they were fine. He demanded that he see where the gun was and for some reason I wanted to show him. <br />
 <br />
I went down and showed him and told him I can own guns. He said &quot;Yeah, it okay to own guns, but not where I can see them&quot;. I told him he just asked to see it and just then an out of control ambulance comes at us down the road. It fishtailed from side to side lik ein a cartoon. The cop looked scared. I grabbed my shotty rifle and told him to deputy me so I can get them. He refused. I told him I could get a shot at the driver and save some people if he deputized me but he kept refusing. The ambulance spins to a break in front of the meighbor's tent and empties out 8 men in yellow &quot;Kinda chartruese or however its spelled&quot; coats and they took the family I was camping next to. It was a large woman and 7 kids. THEN one of the jerks came up to me, screaming at me and aiming a little device at me through my truck. Both my truck doors were open and as I was near the driver's side, he was leaning in through the passenger. I loaded a round into the bolt, aimed,  and told him he better not do something stupid. <br />
 <br />
He shot me in the left arm pit with a small needle thing and I almost immediately felt like I was going to be knocked out. I looked at the needle and pulled it out because a liquid was leaking for the back end. It was a little vac tube and has springs in it. I pulled it out and threw it at him but he turned and tried to get away. I shot yellow jacket dude in the spine between the shoulders. He was still alive and running somehow and the Europe cop guy was pissed that I shot him. He took out a can and sprayed a yellow liquid lightly on my shoulders and face. I didn't know what it was but I wasn't about to take it all by myself. I ran up and rubbed it on his face. He began to freak out and scream trying to get it off, but from what I could tell it wasn't burning me. I looked around and the yellow jackets are all just standing there watching me. More European cops were running at me from the hill.<br />
 <br />
The dream became nothing and then I was thrusted fast upward through a bunch of dirt. When I hit ground level I woke up.</blockquote>

]]></content:encoded>
			<dc:creator>Damaged_1</dc:creator>
			<guid isPermaLink="true">http://americansheepdog.com/Forum/entry.php?29-Insane-Dream-7-8-10</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title><![CDATA["You Were Born, And Then What Happened....."]]></title>
			<link>http://americansheepdog.com/Forum/entry.php?28-quot-You-Were-Born-And-Then-What-Happened-quot</link>
			<pubDate>Tue, 01 Jun 2010 03:43:18 GMT</pubDate>
			<description>Force Science News, Transmission #149 dated 7May10, discusses interrogation of subjects and witnesses. This is not really something shooters need all...</description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<blockquote class="blogcontent restore">Force Science News, Transmission #149 dated 7May10, discusses interrogation of subjects and witnesses. This is not really something shooters need all the time, but interesting to our LEO's or others. Actually, I was amazed.....we have come so far in law enforcement, but let this important skill erode. The title of the blog was the phrase I was taught, sometimes adding ...&quot;Give me the Reader's Digest version, starting last Saturday night&quot;.<br />
<br />
One horrid thought......post-shooting, you can tell how good the interrogator is. <br />
<br />
Rossi <br />
___________________________ <br />
 <br />
I. New study: Cops use wrong tactics in questioning witnesses <br />
 <br />
Officers interviewing witnesses are &quot;potentially reducing the amount of information retrieved&quot; by talking too much, asking too many closed-end questions, and failing to adhere to science-based methods for mining memory, according to new findings by a Canadian research team. <br />
 <br />
Analyzing a sample of 90 interviews with witnesses to violent crimes, the team discovered that: <br />
 <br />
• On average, officers interviewing cooperative subjects talked roughly 36% of the time, compared to a rule-of-thumb 20% that is considered desirable. Indeed, the 80/20 Rule was violated in nearly 90% of the interviews studied. <br />
 <br />
• Only about 6% of the interviewers' questions were considered open-ended; that is, encouraging a broad range of response beyond a simple yes or no or other narrowly restricted replies. &quot;We estimate that between 20 and 30% of all questions asked should be open-ended,&quot; the researchers state. <br />
 <br />
• In 12% of the interviews, witnesses were warned in advance about the legal consequences of providing false information, a procedure that appeared to cause &quot;significantly shorter&quot; responses and may have hindered the development of rapport. <br />
 <br />
&quot;[T]hese mistakes [are] somewhat disappointing given the extensive amount of research devoted to improving police interviewing practices,&quot; the researchers write. Yet the findings are &quot;predictable&quot; because of the &quot;inadequate&quot; training in investigative interviewing afforded to officers, including instruction &quot;on science-supported interviewing practices such as the cognitive interview.&quot; <br />
 <br />
The study was conducted by Dr. Brent Snook and Kathy Keating of the psychology department at Memorial University of Newfoundland. A report on their results will be published later this year in the journal Legal and Criminological Psychology, issued by the British Psychological Society. <br />
 <br />
The shortcomings they identified are virtually certain to crop up during interviews of surviving officers after a shooting or other use-of-force incident, in the opinion of Dr. Ed Geiselman, who lectures on interviewing techniques for OIS investigations but was not involved in the team's recent project. Geiselman has pioneered the use of cognitive interviewing in police work. <br />
 <br />
Dr. Bill Lewinski, executive director of the Force Science Institute, agrees. &quot;The kind of interviewing style the researchers describe is consistent with what I have found in many officer-involved-shooting investigations,&quot; he says. <br />
 <br />
The problem, Geiselman told Force Science News, is that &quot;detectives commonly fail to distinguish between interrogating a suspect and interviewing a cooperative witness, and generally take an approach that inhibits the free flow of information needed from witnesses.&quot; <br />
 <br />
The interviews analyzed by Snook and Keating were evaluated in transcript form and were conducted primarily by constables (and some sergeants) at a police department in Canada's Atlantic region during a recent 10-year period. Mostly males, the interviewers ranged in age from 34 to 48 and had from 8 to 25 years of law enforcement experience. The interviewees predominately were witnesses to assaults, homicides, and sexual attacks. They were 16 to 63 years old, half were female, and 90% were not victims of the crime in question. In ? of the cases, only 1 interviewer was involved in the questioning. <br />
 <br />
&quot;Although the sample is limited, similar results have been obtained whenever broader studies have been conducted regarding police interviews in the U.S. as well,&quot; Geiselman says. <br />
 <br />
The researchers noted that the officers in many cases followed good interviewing practices. For the most part, for example, they avoided expounding on their own opinions or statements, asking leading questions that suggested an answer, posing questions that forced a witness to pick between a limited number of responses, voicing multiple questions at one time, and interrupting witnesses in the midst of an answer. &quot;[I]t is encouraging that many of the interviewing officers...appear to be aware of these important interviewing practices,&quot; the study observes. <br />
 <br />
However, the evaluation results show that &quot;several best practices have yet to become commonplace,&quot; the researchers report. Specifically: <br />
 <br />
• Who talks. While most officers violated the recommended 80/20 Rule regarding words spoken during an interview, some did so to an extreme. In 16% of the interviews, the &quot;total number of words spoken by the primary interviewer was greater than the total number of words spoken by the witness,&quot; the study reveals. Younger officers tended to talk excessively more often than older interviewers. <br />
 <br />
Over-talking by officers &quot;can cause interviewers to be less effective at getting witnesses to dictate the pace and structure of their recollections, and ultimately, potentially reduce the amount of information that is retrieved,&quot; the researchers warn. <br />
 <br />
• Warnings. More experienced officers in the study tended not to issue warnings about false testimony as often than their less experienced colleagues. As evidence of the &quot;detrimental effect&quot; of such cautions, the researchers found that &quot;the average length of responses were significantly shorter&quot; in interviews where they were issued. <br />
 <br />
&quot;Witnesses may become anxious about the interviewing process and concerned over what they are expected to report,&quot; the study explains. &quot;Poor rapport can also lead to interviewee passivity and foster poor communication.&quot; <br />
 <br />
If such warnings are considered essential, &quot;efforts should be made to minimize their length, apparent complexity, and severe style.&quot; Damage may be lessened if someone other than the interviewing officer delivers the information. <br />
 <br />
• Question types. Consistent with findings from previous research, officers in the new study &quot;rarely asked open-ended questions,&quot; which often begin with &quot;Tell me about...&quot; and cannot be answered with a simple yes or no, or other one-phrase reply. Open-ended questions are foundational to cognitive interviewing, which encourages free-form narratives of recollections by interviewees and has been scientifically established to have the greatest potential for thoroughly tapping memory. The dearth of such questioning in this survey &quot;suggests that interviewers obtained less information than what was possibly available from the witnesses,&quot; the researchers write. <br />
 <br />
&quot;[C]losed-ended questions are problematic,&quot; they explain, &quot;because the elicited information is tied to the specific request and, as a result, no unsolicited information is generated. Consequently, information will not be generated if the interviewer forgets to ask a relevant question.&quot; <br />
 <br />
&quot;This approach seems to stem from the desire or notion that the officer should rigidly control the interview, treating cooperative witnesses like they're on the stand in court,&quot; Geiselman observes. &quot;That's not the optimum way to gather information.&quot; <br />
 <br />
As examples, Lewinski offers 4 categories of open-ended prompts that can be effective in eliciting useful and thorough responses: <br />
 <br />
• DESCRIPTIVE: &quot;Tell me what happened....&quot; <br />
 <br />
• CAUSAL: &quot;What do you think brought this about....&quot; <br />
 <br />
• HISTORICAL: &quot;Give me time-frames as to when and how this evolved....&quot; <br />
 <br />
• COMPARATIVE: &quot;Have you ever seen or experienced anything like this before....&quot; &quot;How did that compare....&quot; <br />
 <br />
&quot;These approaches can be repeated over and over again--&quot;Tell me some more about this....&quot;--as the witness responds with more information,&quot; Lewinski explains. &quot;I equate it to peeling an onion, layer after layer, probing for more recollections with the same types of open-ended questions. You end up with maximum information in the witness's own words.&quot; <br />
 <br />
Again, more experienced officers in Snook's and Keating's study &quot;tended to request a free narrative more often than their less experienced counterparts.&quot; Female officers, for reasons that are not explained, asked for free-form responses less often than males. <br />
 <br />
Given the importance of police interviewing in the pursuit of justice, &quot;one would expect that training on best interviewing practices would be commonplace,&quot; the researchers write. Unfortunately, they conclude, their study adds to &quot;findings from countless studies around the world&quot; that current police training in and use of scientifically grounded interviewing skills is woefully inadequate. <br />
 <br />
&quot;In some respects, we haven't made much progress in interviewing since the late 1970s,&quot; Geiselman says. &quot;At that time, studies showed that only about 2% of detectives had any formal training in interviewing, as opposed to interrogation techniques. And that is still a big void that needs to be filled.&quot;</blockquote>

]]></content:encoded>
			<dc:creator>Rossi</dc:creator>
			<guid isPermaLink="true">http://americansheepdog.com/Forum/entry.php?28-quot-You-Were-Born-And-Then-What-Happened-quot</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Will The Camera See The Same Thing You Do?</title>
			<link>http://americansheepdog.com/Forum/entry.php?27-Will-The-Camera-See-The-Same-Thing-You-Do</link>
			<pubDate>Thu, 06 May 2010 03:14:20 GMT</pubDate>
			<description>In Force Science News, Transmission 147, the subject was films of an incident, against what the participant remembers about the same event. Many...</description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<blockquote class="blogcontent restore">In Force Science News, Transmission 147, the subject was films of an incident, against what the participant remembers about the same event. Many times these will simply not match up. FSNews study the reasons why this is, and suggests the best technique for reporting such instances.<br />
<br />
What brought this to mind, was the array of cameras available in the Times Square bombing recently.Yes, I must call this a bombing, because it was successful. The bomb was constructed, and driven to it's desired location and detonated. That is a bombing. <br />
<br />
Ok, new subject. Bomb-making materials and techniques...need to kinda' work on that. BUT, somewhere in Bora-Bora, someone is reading the NYT about how easy it was to put this operation underway. <br />
<br />
At any rate, a street crime confrontation may include you, and your recollection may be much different than what the cameras show.<br />
<br />
______________________ <br />
<br />
II. Officer-Involved Video Issues Draw Reader Questions, Comments <br />
<br />
In Transmission #145, sent 3/12/10, Force Science News (Ed note: I have #145, but generally, it talked about the study and requested input. Available if you want.) explored the fact that video recordings from head cameras and dash-cams may not always jibe with how involved officers remember a life-threatening, high-stress force encounter. And we recommended a cautionary Video Advisory than can be given to viewers to alert them that significant differences between officer perceptions and recorded evidence may legitimately exist. <br />
<br />
Here are 3 responses that typify reactions we received from readers, plus additional comments from police attorneys: <br />
<br />
How should video/memory discrepancies be handled? <br />
We have already had issues with video recordings and officers' recollections of an incident being different. When an officer writes his report, should he write: 1) What he/she actually remembers; 2) What the video depicts happened (basically writing a story of what he/she is watching); or 3) What he/she remembers and then later in the narrative address the discrepancies between the recollection and the video? <br />
<br />
I understand that the officer should bond the 2 versions together, but if the officer truly believes he/she acted in response to a suspect's action and the video shows otherwise, the report and the video will contradict, yet both could still be considered truthful. <br />
<br />
Sgt. Denny Corbett <br />
Riverside (CA) PD <br />
<br />
John Hoag, a member of the Force Science National Advisory Board and a police attorney with the law firm Snyder and Hoag, LLC, of Portland, OR, responds: <br />
<br />
I'd recommend #3. The report must be truthful, so if the officer perceived something different from what is shown in the video, that's what the officer should report, then if possible address the video record. If there is an explanation for the difference that the officer feels qualified to make--for example, tunnel vision or diverted attention that caused the officer to look elsewhere and miss something the camera captured--then give that explanation. However, don't engage in pure speculation. If the speculation is proven wrong, then things will get worse for the officer. <br />
<br />
William Everett, also a member of the Force Science National Advisory Board and an attorney with the law firm Everett &amp; VanderWiel, PLLP, of Buffalo, MN, agrees and elaborates: <br />
<br />
There is a definite disadvantage to having an officer view the video and try to consolidate the video record with his or her recollections into one report. This kind of report can make it look like the officer, at the time of acting, knew about each and every aspect of the encounter that was recorded on the video. This simply isn't reality. <br />
<br />
Imagine a situation where a suspect is pointing a gun at you, and your partner is standing a few feet to your left. At the moment you encountered the threat and shot, you may have had no awareness at all of your partner's presence--it was information in your theoretical field of vision, but it just didn't register in your brain in the process of making an immediate decision or in forming memories of the event later. You were focused instead on the subject and the gun. <br />
<br />
So combining the video with your own memories in your report creates a false impression of your reality, which is what your report should convey. The problem here is that your report could be used in an effort to hold you accountable for information that never entered into your decision-making process or memory. <br />
<br />
Perhaps the better approach is to write the report, based on your recollections, then supplement it with comments about the video. In your supplement, it is important to be very clear and to plainly describe each important aspect of the video, as to whether it refreshes your recollection (i.e., triggers an actual memory), or whether you are observing things on the video for the first time that you didn't notice at the time of the event. <br />
<br />
In the end, the key is for people reading the reports, or questioning officers, to remember that the video and the officer's recollections may very well be different. This difference between the digital account and the officer's account is not necessarily an indication of deception. It may instead be a reflection of the reality that we evolved as a species to pay attention to the information we need to survive, not to recall and recount details later with mechanical accuracy. <br />
<br />
Whatever approach an agency chooses to follow, it is important to do things consistently from one case to another. Inconsistencies from case to case, or departures from accepted practice, feed the suspicion mill later about whether an officer or agency was trying to &quot;cover&quot; something up. <br />
<br />
Those judging officers' actions should view tapes in real time <br />
I concur with your suggested Video Advisory regarding officer-worn cameras. I encourage you to go one additional step. The initial viewing by any trier of fact should be limited to the &quot;real time&quot; of what the officer viewed, and the jury (or judge, if a bench trial) should be admonished to then make an initial evaluation regarding what was just viewed without the benefit of continuing review. <br />
<br />
Additional review may take place after the initial evaluation, but that first &quot;snapshot&quot; viewing should not be disregarded, because that is closer to what the officer perceived than repetitive replay. <br />
<br />
Maj. R. F. Borger <br />
Adams County (ID) SO <br />
<br />
____________________________</blockquote>

]]></content:encoded>
			<dc:creator>Rossi</dc:creator>
			<guid isPermaLink="true">http://americansheepdog.com/Forum/entry.php?27-Will-The-Camera-See-The-Same-Thing-You-Do</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Ammo Dump</title>
			<link>http://americansheepdog.com/Forum/entry.php?26-Ammo-Dump</link>
			<pubDate>Fri, 19 Mar 2010 04:22:14 GMT</pubDate>
			<description>At least once a year since 2006, someone drags out this email with alleged comments by Sheriff Grady Judd. Although a little bombastic, there was...</description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<blockquote class="blogcontent restore">At least once a year since 2006, someone drags out this email with alleged comments by Sheriff Grady Judd. Although a little bombastic, there was indeed such a shooting. Here, Snopes recaps the alleged incident:<br />
<br />
POLK COUNTY    FLORIDA SHERIFF GRADY JUDD<br />
<br />
An illegal alien in Polk County Florida who  got pulled over in a routine traffic stop ended up  'executing' the deputy who stopped him. The deputy was  shot eight times, <br />
including once behind his right ear at close range. <br />
<br />
Another deputy was wounded and a police dog killed. A state-wide manhunt ensued..<br />
 <br />
The murderer  was found hiding in a wooded area and as soon as he took a shot at  the SWAT team, officers opened fire on him. They hit the guy 68  times.  <br />
<br />
Naturally, the liberal  media went nuts and asked why they had to shoot the poor undocumented immigrant  68 times.<br />
 <br />
Sheriff Grady Judd  told the Orlando Sentinel: 'Because  that's all the ammunition we had.'  Now, is that just about the all-time greatest answer or  what! <br />
<br />
 Snopes then went on to explain what really  happened.<br />
____________________________________________<br />
<br />
Just before noon on 28 September 2006, Polk County Deputy Doug Speirs pulled over a speeding rental car bearing Kentucky tags. That vehicle was being driven by Angilo Freeland, a 27-year-old who had been arrested on various charges in 1999 but had skipped bail. Freeland offered Speirs a fraudulently obtained drivers license in another man's name; something about the proffered I.D. bothered Speirs, so he called for backup. Deputy Matt Williams and his police dog, DiOGi, were dispatched to the scene.<br />
<br />
Likely sensing things weren't going well, Freetand broke from the officers and ran into the woods. He took cover in the densely forested area near a fallen oak tree that made him all but impossible to see. The two officers and the dog went into the woods after him, Williams and DiOGi working one area, and Speirs another.<br />
<br />
As DiOGi closed on the suspect's hiding place, Freeland shot the dog in the chest from close range at an upward angle, killing it. He then fired on nearby Deputy Williams, wounding him in the right wrist, left bicep, rear left thigh, right leg, right buttock, and upper right arm. One of the shots penetrated to the officer's spine. Freeland then approached the immobilized man and delivered two shots to Williams' head at point-blank range.<br />
<br />
Deputy Speirs heard the shots from a nearby ridge, moved towards the sounds of the gunfire, and was shot at by Freeland. The two exchanged fire, and the deputy was wounded in the leg. He radioed for help and made his way out of the woods.<br />
<br />
 Every available unit and canine team descended on the area. Freeland briefly appeared at the perimeter of the woods to fire at the officers but then took cover again. He dug in under another fallen oak tree and hid there. Later that afternoon the body of 39* year-old Deputy Williams, a father of three, was found and carried from the wooded area. Officers noted that the slain man's gun and ammo were missing.<br />
<br />
Freeland remained under the oak tree overnight, where a 10-member SWAT team found him the next morning. When they saw Freeland raise his right hand clutching a gun (one they would later learn belonged to the slain deputy), nine of the ten officers fired, hitting him with 68 of 110 shots. Freeland was dead at the scene.<br />
<br />
Afterwards, when called upon by the media to make a statement about the manhunt and its outcome, Polk County Sheriff Grady Judd told various reporters, &quot;That's all the bullets we had or we would have shot him more. Quite frankly, we weren't taking any chances.&quot;<br />
<br />
____________________________________<br />
 In Force Science News, Transmission 144, they cover this very subject of (what might appear to be) excessive rounds shot during a gunfight. This is pretty heavy lifting, but an interesting study. If your pressed for time, be sure to note the paragraph &quot;Time to Stop&quot;. <br />
<br />
&quot;Excessive&quot; shots and falling assailants: A fresh look at OIS subtleties <br />
A new look at why officers often fire controversial &quot;extra&quot; shots after a threat has ended has been published by an independent shooting reconstructionist and certified Force Science analyst. <br />
<br />
Researcher Alexander Jason reports that even under benign experimental conditions brain programming compels roughly 7 out of 10 officers to keep discharging rounds after being signaled to stop shooting. &quot;In a real gunfight, under extraordinary stress and threat of death, an even much higher percentage would likely deliver extra shots,&quot; Jason asserts. <br />
<br />
On average, additional findings show, officers may &quot;reasonably&quot; fire 6 rounds or more into suspects who initially are standing and then begin falling and who, in fact, may already be mortally wounded. And that's 6 rounds per officer involved in the confrontation. <br />
<br />
&quot;Understanding why this occurs can be critical in shooting investigations and in criminal proceedings and civil lawsuits that allege excessive force by officers for firing 'too many' shots,&quot; says Dr. Bill Lewinski, executive director of the Force Science Institute. &quot;As Jason explains, so-called 'extra' shots are generally beyond an officer's control. They're more likely to be an involuntary reaction under stress than a conscious decision with malicious motivation.&quot; <br />
<br />
About 7 years ago, Lewinski performed widely cited experiments in Tempe, AZ, that documented the tendency of officers to &quot;over-shoot,&quot; that is to discharge 1 or more additional rounds after perceiving a stop stimulus during rapid-fire discharges. <br />
<br />
Jason's work, conducted in California, essentially confirms some of the Tempe factors and adds important new elements. His full report appears in the current issue of Investigative Sciences Journal, a peer-reviewed professional quarterly, and can be downloaded free of charge in pdf format at  Click on the paper, &quot;Shooting Dynamics: Elements of Time &amp; Movement in Shooting Incidents.&quot; <br />
<br />
Background <br />
<br />
A crime scene analyst specializing in shooting analysis and reconstruction, Jason heads the Anite Group in Pinole, CA, and has been involved in a number of high-profile cases, including New York City's Sean Bell incident in which a prospective bridegroom was killed shortly before his wedding in a fusillade of 50 rounds fired by undercover and plainclothes officers. <br />
<br />
 Time to Stop <br />
<br />
The core of Jason's paper is his research on how long it takes an officer in rapid-fire mode to stop shooting once he perceives that he should do so. <br />
<br />
The test subjects were 32 officers (30 of them male), ranging in age from 23 to 56, with the median age 33. They averaged nearly 11 years' service, but ranged in experience from less than a year to more than 2 decades. <br />
<br />
Using the semiautomatic pistols and leather gear they normally wear on duty, they one at a time faced a &quot;hostile man&quot; target at a distance of 5 ft. Hands at their side, they were told to draw and &quot;start shooting at the buzzer. Shoot as fast as you can,&quot; and stop shooting when 2 100-watt spotlights pointed at them flash on. An electronic shot-timer provided the start signal and the &quot;stop&quot; lights came on at random intervals, after a minimum of 4 intended shots. <br />
<br />
&quot;Most of the officers were unable to immediately stop shooting at the stop signal,&quot; Jason reports. Indeed, 69% fired at least 1 &quot;extra&quot; shot, with 17% firing 2 extra and 8% firing 3. Fewer than 1/3 were able to stop fast enough to prevent discharging surplus rounds. <br />
<br />
Although the shooters &quot;reacted as quickly as they could,&quot; Jason writes, most continued to pull the trigger past the stop signal &quot;because the brain-to-trigger finger impulse was still 'in motion.' &quot; In other words, they could not perceive the light signal, transmit that perception to the brain, have the brain interpret it, and send back a &quot;stop&quot; command before the trigger finger was already proceeding with subsequent shots based on the mental program that had been put in action by the start buzzer. <br />
<br />
Benchmark findings by other researchers, cited by Jason, suggest that as a rule of thumb the brain may need about 3/10 of a second to evaluate an incoming stimulus, and then at least 16/100 of a second minimum to &quot;inhibit (cancel) an anticipated action (like firing the next shot).&quot; <br />
<br />
Such reaction times, of course, vary among individuals. And if an officer does not instantly see a stop signal because his visual attention is narrowed and intensely concentrated on his sights and/or the target, the delay in responding can be much longer, Jason explains. <br />
<br />
Extra Shots on the Street <br />
<br />
Jason writes: &quot;It is important to compare and note the different effects on performance between the conditions facing a shooter in [the] safe and relatively stress-free [experiment] with an urgent, life-threatening and highly stress-inducing situation [of] a real-life shooting incident. <br />
<br />
&quot;The shooters in the test only had one, clearly defined stimulus to stop firing.... A shooter in a genuine shooting incident will [experience] both a higher level of physiological arousal (stress) and additional choices (Should I take cover? Is the target person no longer a threat? Should I look around for other threats? Are there others who may be exposed to my gunfire?, etc.). <br />
<br />
&quot;Human performance research has determined that as the number of choice alternatives increases, reaction time (including perception, decision, and action) will increase. The elevated arousal and multiple-alternatives effect will likely cause the shooter to fire additional 'extra' shots--more than [were] measured in this test study.&quot; <br />
<br />
Lewinski found in the Tempe study that the more motivated a shooter was to shoot, the longer it took before he was able to stop shooting. &quot;And an officer firing to save his life is about as 'motivated' as a human being can be,&quot; Lewinski says. &quot;Once the human dynamics of ceasing shooting under stress are understood, the less sinister the connotation of 'extra' shots generally will seem.&quot; <br />
<br />
Time to Fall <br />
<br />
In his most recent study, Jason measured the amount of time required for a person to fall to the ground from a standing position and explored the implications of shots fired by officers at the falling figure, whether those shots are deliberate or involuntary because of reaction time. <br />
<br />
During a confrontation with a standing armed offender, &quot;the most commonly understood and accepted indication that the [suspect] is no longer a threat is when that person either releases the gun from his hand(s) and/or drops to the ground&quot; from being shot, Jason states. <br />
<br />
He asked 5 volunteers (4 males, 1 female) to stand &quot;erect with hands out in front, as if holding a gun&quot; and, upon verbal command, to drop to a padded mat &quot;as quickly as possible.&quot; This, he concedes, was an imperfect attempt to mimic a rapid collapse (&quot;dropping like a sack of potatoes&quot;) such as would occur from &quot;a significant disruption of the central nervous system or sudden loss of consciousness.&quot; Genuine collapses from such causes, of course, cannot be tested in an experimental environment. <br />
<br />
Thirty-five drops were recorded with a digital video camera and later analyzed on a computer. Timing began &quot;at the first detectable motion initiating the movement of the body&quot; toward the ground and ended when the upper torso was on the mat and &quot;horizontal to the ground.&quot; <br />
<br />
On average, the subjects took 1.1 seconds to fall down. During this amount of time, Lewinski's research has shown that &quot;4 shots could be fired by an 'average' police officer,&quot; Jason writes. &quot;A crumple fall [going to the knees first, then down] will take more time and could result in several more shots fired during the movement. Additional shots could also be fired until the shooter perceives that the person is no longer a threat and is able to interrupt his shooting sequence.&quot; <br />
<br />
In all, Jason writes, &quot;the total number of [rapid-sequence] shots fired at a person standing then going to the ground could reasonably be a minimum of 6 shots: 1 or more before the [suspect] begins to fall; 4 shots during the fall; 1 or more as the body contacts the floor&quot; during the time required for the brain to recognize and process that the threat has ceased. <br />
<br />
&quot;In situations with more than one shooter firing, the total number of reasonable shots could be 6 x Number of Shooters; i.e., if 3 officers were firing simultaneously, then 18 shots (6 x 3) would be expected....etc.&quot; <br />
<br />
Depending on a suspect's positioning through the fall, at least some of these shots may end up entering through his back, Jason points out, deepening the illusion that the shooting was an unjustified &quot;execution.&quot; In his paper, he includes graphics showing how &quot;posterior entries&quot; can innocently occur under these circumstances. <br />
<br />
Further Considerations <br />
<br />
Apart from the reaction-time phenomenon, a falling assailant may invite continued gunfire because a collapse or crumple can be an ambiguous movement. Falling from incapacitating wounds cannot always be &quot;distinguished from a deliberate tactical maneuver of someone who has decided to go to ground to avoid being shot or to assume a less exposed position while returning or preparing to return gunfire,&quot; Jason writes. &quot;Even a mortally wounded person can fall to the ground and fire one or more shots before becoming incapacitated and/or unconscious.&quot; <br />
<br />
Moreover, because of the nature of bullet wounds an officer may not know whether his rounds are hitting his assailant--another motivation to keep shooting. Jason explains: <br />
<br />
&quot;There is no significant momentum or 'push' from a bullet strike. This means that there would be no significant...motion effect of a bullet striking a standing or falling person.... Also...unlike the shootings seen in dramatic films and TV shows, it is most often not possible to visually determine if a shot has actually struck a target person. Bullet entry holes do not project large amounts of blood and the defect in the skin--always smaller than the bullet diameter--may not be visible at all if the shot was fired through clothing, particularly loose or layered clothing.&quot; <br />
<br />
In short, Jason concludes, police shootings can be complex occurrences. For persons untrained in forensics and the science of human behavior to jump to conclusions in judging an officer's actions can lead to grave misinterpretations and injustices. <br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
EPILOG: In the Polk County incident....the bottom line.<br />
<br />
In response to the Florida Civil Rights Association's complaint that the police had shown disregard for human life when they shot Angilo Freeland after an all-night manhunt, the U.S. Department of Justice asked the FBI to look into the matter. In November 2006, the latter agency announced it would investigate whether authorities used excessive force in the incident. In June 2008, the U.S. Department of Justice (DoJ) announced it had cleared the Polk County Sheriff's Office of any wrongdoing in the incident, stating: &quot;After careful consideration, we concluded that the evidence does not establish a prosecutable violation of the federal civil rights statutes. Accordingly, we have closed our investigation.&quot;<br />
<br />
Rossi<br />
<br />
Credits: Force Science News (Transmission 144). Snopes Web site.</blockquote>

]]></content:encoded>
			<dc:creator>Rossi</dc:creator>
			<guid isPermaLink="true">http://americansheepdog.com/Forum/entry.php?26-Ammo-Dump</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>86,400</title>
			<link>http://americansheepdog.com/Forum/entry.php?24-86-400</link>
			<pubDate>Fri, 12 Feb 2010 04:06:35 GMT</pubDate>
			<description><![CDATA[I use to give the cadets that were graduating from bootcamp a rubber bracelet that had "WWSgtTD" on one side and "86400" on the other. The "WWSgtTD"...]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<blockquote class="blogcontent restore">I use to give the cadets that were graduating from bootcamp a rubber bracelet that had &quot;WWSgtTD&quot; on one side and &quot;86400&quot; on the other. The &quot;WWSgtTD&quot; is probably fairly obvious in it's meaning, &quot;What Would Sgt T Do?&quot; After spending eight months at bootcamp and hearing my many lectures about right and wrong, and my own conservative slant on things, I would tell the cadets that if they were in doubt about something that they should ask themselves WWSgtTD? I know that I'm blatantly ripping off the WWJD theme, but since I can't proselytize at work (and wouldn't want to anyway) it works for me. At some level it may work for them as well.<br />
<br />
The 86400 on the other side of the bracelet was a to remind the cadets of their most precious commodity and that it should be invested wisely. It was to remind them of what was important in life.<br />
<br />
My question is, What are you doing with your 86400?</blockquote>

]]></content:encoded>
			<dc:creator>Sgt T</dc:creator>
			<guid isPermaLink="true">http://americansheepdog.com/Forum/entry.php?24-86-400</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Stranded in Charlotte</title>
			<link>http://americansheepdog.com/Forum/entry.php?23-Stranded-in-Charlotte</link>
			<pubDate>Sat, 06 Feb 2010 11:29:20 GMT</pubDate>
			<description>Leaving Ohio yesterday was a little crazy. A large winter storm was moving in and I needed to fly back home after 3 weeks in the buckeye state. Once...</description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<blockquote class="blogcontent restore">Leaving Ohio yesterday was a little crazy. A large winter storm was moving in and I needed to fly back home after 3 weeks in the buckeye state. Once arriving at the airport in Dayton, I was a nervous ball of energy expecting any second that my flight would be canceled. After all, it was snowing heavily with a good 6 inches on the ground in a couple hours. Charlotte announced that they were good to go and didn't expect any bad weather until Saturday, so this meant that once I left Dayton, all was well.<br />
<br />
When they announced &quot;Now boarding flight 2...&quot; I was excited. After getting on the plane, the Pilot announced that we would need to de-ice, we did have a lot of snow and ice on the wings. This took quite a while and delayed our landing in Charlotte by an hour. Not really bad I guess, since I was expecting a 1.75 hour layover anyway I thought GREAT they just saved an hour. No biggie right?<br />
<br />
I am now on layover hour # 10.5 out of 16!!!!!!!<br />
<br />
Seems they canceled my connecting flight to home. They say it was due to weather, but I think it was due to being a small flight with not so many butts in the seats. Flights out to Atlanta, Knoxville and Nashville continued all night, they were full of course, I TRIED!<br />
<br />
Point being, the weather wasn't bad and you have to fly the same route to get to these cities. Any who, have you seen the movie &quot;Terminal&quot; or &quot;The Terminal&quot; with Tom Hanks? That's me right now. They made us leave the terminals about 2300 last night. I had just found a comfortable rocking chair too.<br />
<br />
After spending some time trying to get comfortable in the mid-evil chairs available in the Check in area, I made my way down to baggage claim. It was a ghost town except for a few others that had the same idea I did. I was shopping for a home and I didn't have time for a real-estate agent... I managed to find a really great, freezing cold patch of carpet covered concrete just behind some payphones. This is where I slept from 0100-0500 using my laptop bag as a pillow. Luckily though, all kidding aside, I just purchased a new Webkinz stuffed animal for my daughter and it was in the side pocket of my laptop bag. I love that Swan... That brings us to right now, I woke up just over an hour ago and I'm trying to keep my mind busy. Many more hours to go. <br />
<br />
If they make a movie about this experience of mine, who do you think should play me in the movie? Brad Pitt? Nah, too girly, and definite not good-looking enough.</blockquote>

]]></content:encoded>
			<dc:creator>UGA</dc:creator>
			<guid isPermaLink="true">http://americansheepdog.com/Forum/entry.php?23-Stranded-in-Charlotte</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title><![CDATA["The Danger To America"]]></title>
			<link>http://americansheepdog.com/Forum/entry.php?22-quot-The-Danger-To-America-quot</link>
			<pubDate>Thu, 04 Feb 2010 00:00:27 GMT</pubDate>
			<description>On a quiet afternoon the other week, a missile wandered onto my radar screen, the electronic equivalent of a written document rapped in a rock and...</description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<blockquote class="blogcontent restore">On a quiet afternoon the other week, a missile wandered onto my radar screen, the electronic equivalent of a written document rapped in a rock and &quot;thrown over the transom&quot;. <br />
<br />
It was from a Texas border watch bud, who advised he had not verified the Reuters part, but asked for a second opinion about the narrative. <br />
<br />
The missile read:<br />
_______________________________<br />
<br />
 A comment on Reuters <br />
 <br />
“The danger to America is not Barack Obama but a citizenry capable of entrusting a man like him with the presidency. It will be easier to limit and undo the follies of an Obama presidency than to restore the necessary common sense and good judgment to a depraved electorate willing to have such a man for their president. The problem is much deeper and far more serious than Mr. Obama, who is a mere symptom of what ails us. Blaming the prince of the fools should not blind anyone to the vast confederacy of fools that made him their prince. The republic can survive a Barack Obama, who is, after all, merely a fool. It is less likely to survive a multitude of fools such as those who made him their president.” <br />
________________________________<br />
<br />
Actually, for a period after the current President was elected I felt much like this author. I had such faith in the American electorate, that they couldn't have possibly elected this obviously underqualified empty suit to be the leader of the most powerful and influential country on the planet. But.....they had.<br />
<br />
And much like this author, I despaired over &quot;the confederacy of fools&quot; that had bought into this so obviously unqualified executive.  <br />
<br />
I paused at this point to digress from the mission, and identify this author. In an investigation, the details of which are not important here,  I found that this post had come from a patriot with the handle &quot;Support and Defend&quot; who lives in Delavan, WI, and posted the narrative at 11:26 hours on 12-28-09 at the site ResistNet.com. <br />
<br />
I'm not sure about the Reuters connection, but it is known that Reuters, in 2006, had hooked up with several political blog sites which allowed them to quote from many political sources.<br />
<br />
But, to continue. In the world of politics, 12-28-09 was a long time ago, and hopefully our Wisconsin poster has become more encouraged, as I have. Massive Tea Parties have come and gone, and still remain viable. Web sites have sprung up to instruct organizers how to produce rallies and Town Hall Meetings. After all, patriots generally have been busy running America, and didn't have spare time to learn how to resist anti-American positions, and politicians. These organizers are important, as they are, many times, the driving engine that turns elections, where a presidential candidate who is basically a &quot;One Hit Wonder, and will end up with the peanut farmer, and others on the trash-heap of failed one-term Presidents.<br />
<br />
In spite of zero media exposure with the exception of the Fox News Network, Mark Levin's book &quot;Liberty and Tyranny&quot; remains at the top of Amazon.com and The New York Times, and followed closely by such conservatives as Palin, Hannity, Beck, Coulter, Morris and of course OReilly and Limbaugh. <br />
<br />
On the other side, Barbara Boxer's &quot;Blind Trust&quot; never got higher than 120th on Amazon, and book reviewer Van Ramsey (who I admire) called the author &quot;almost child-like&quot; in her approach to the subject of politics. <br />
<br />
I also understand that Glenn Beck was completing a study of Social Studies textbooks to see how American History is presented to our young people, and was starting with the Texas school districts, as generally, publishers use that state as a testing site for their textbooks. <br />
<br />
And so my friends, I remain encouraged about the future of the Republic, and the ultimate courage and wisdom of the electorate. <br />
<br />
Rossi</blockquote>

]]></content:encoded>
			<dc:creator>Rossi</dc:creator>
			<guid isPermaLink="true">http://americansheepdog.com/Forum/entry.php?22-quot-The-Danger-To-America-quot</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Front Sight, Day 2</title>
			<link>http://americansheepdog.com/Forum/entry.php?21-Front-Sight-Day-2</link>
			<pubDate>Mon, 01 Feb 2010 06:37:13 GMT</pubDate>
			<description><![CDATA[At Front Sight "regular" students classes start at 0800. Instructor Development students, like the instructors, have to show up earlier to set up...]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<blockquote class="blogcontent restore">At Front Sight &quot;regular&quot; students classes start at 0800. Instructor Development students, like the instructors, have to show up earlier to set up their range, do dry practice, or prep for lectures. At 0700 we all showed up and set up our range and prepared for our presentations. Each student had a meeting with Mr Bishop and Mr Morello.<br />
<br />
During my meeting Mr Bishop, Mr Morello and I discussed the logistics and prerequisites of becoming an instructor. Mr Bishop and Mr Morello expressed to me that of the students in the class I had the strongest shooting and instructing skills. They also informed me that taking a 4 Day Handgun course is a prerequisite for being hired as an instructor. Unlike my situation (living in Texas), most of the instructors at Front Sight live reasonably close and can attend a 4-Day course with relative ease. After discussing the matter we agreed that my moving into the 4 Day Handgun class, at Fronts Sights expense, would be a more constructive use of my training time since I was already a competent instructor but needed the 4 day class. I would be able to attend another Instructor Development at my convenience. Mr Morello walked with me to the range where the handgun class was being conducted and introduced me to the range master. This was day 2 of the 4 Day Handgun course.<br />
<br />
As is the standard at Front Sight, the class started at precisely 0800. The topic was stoppage drills, which I admit is my weakest area. That is the problem with having a gun that always works. The instructors explained and demonstrated the procedures to the class. The students then went to the line.  Front Sight uses the Student/Coach method of instruction. After completing the stoppage drill exercises the students took a seat for another lecture. The next class was on controlled pairs. Shortly after the students returned to the firing line one of the instructors approached me, since he knew I had come from ID, and asked if I would work with a lady who was paired with her husband. (Most you you know that is not an optimal situation) The husband was moved to the opposite end of the line. I continued to coach this lady for the rest of the morning. The class then broke for lunch.<br />
<br />
While on the lunch break I received a text from my brother asking me to call him. When we spoke he indicated that the Doctors were very concerned about my mom's recovery, that is guardedly hopeful. After much thought, and with consultation with Mr Morello, I decided that my returning home was the correct course of action. Mr Morello gave me his card and told me that I was being invited to return and attend, at Front Sights expense, a 4 Day Handgun course  and Instructor Development course. Two hours later I was packed, checked out of my hotel, and on the road for my return to Texas. Exactly 24 hours later I pulled into my mother's driveway. <br />
<br />
When I went to the ICU and visited with my mom she was heavily sedated and and on strong pain medications. When I spoke to her, although she was unable to open her eyes or speak because of a breathing tube, she  nodded her head indicating she knew I was there, then fell asleep again. My mom went into the hospital about a week ago because of pain in her abdomen. I talked to her on the phone and she said, &quot;I'll be ok, you continue on with your trip and your training.&quot; I had daily updates with my sister and she kept telling me the same thing. When my brother sent the text asking me to call him on Day 2 I knew that the training would have to wait for a future date.<br />
<br />
Although my training at Front Sight was very abbreviated I was very impressed with the staff and their level of commitment to producing a quality product, their students. Because of the volume of students who attend Front Sight on an annual basis a very high level of professionalism and consistency is required. I would recommend, without reservation, to anyone I know that they attend a course at Front Sight. I plan on returning.</blockquote>

]]></content:encoded>
			<dc:creator>Sgt T</dc:creator>
			<guid isPermaLink="true">http://americansheepdog.com/Forum/entry.php?21-Front-Sight-Day-2</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Narrate The Story Backwards</title>
			<link>http://americansheepdog.com/Forum/entry.php?20-Narrate-The-Story-Backwards</link>
			<pubDate>Mon, 01 Feb 2010 04:47:12 GMT</pubDate>
			<description>In Force Science News, Transmission #142, researchers discuss a technique that appears to give indicators that reflects deception in the relating of...</description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<blockquote class="blogcontent restore">In Force Science News, Transmission #142, researchers discuss a technique that appears to give indicators that reflects deception in the relating of an incident. About half-way through this article, I'll give you a stopping place, if you would want to test yourself. Although not fool-proof, there appears to be valuable indicators that further investigation is called for. <br />
<br />
Rossi<br />
____________________________________<br />
<br />
Theories abound about how best to tell if a suspect is lying to you, short of hooking him up to a polygraph. But based on recently reported experiments, a Force Science advisor thinks one of the best ways to surface cues to possible deception may be simply to have the subject tell his or her story backwards. <br />
<br />
This approach is not foolproof, admits Dr. Edward Geiselman. &quot;No method for detecting deception is,&quot; he says. &quot;But this technique is scientifically based and appears to be the quickest and easiest way to provoke indicators of potential fabrication--'red flags' or 'hot spots' that should prompt you to investigate further what someone is telling you.&quot; <br />
<br />
Dr. Bill Lewinski, executive director of the Force Science Institute, thinks Geiselman's new work may have a role to play in officer-involved shooting investigations, and Geiselman agrees. <br />
<br />
Geiselman is a professor of psychology at UCLA, as well as a faculty member of the popular Force Science Analysis certification course for law enforcement personnel. He has testified as an expert witness in more than 300 criminal trials and has written over 100 research papers and 6 books. He and his colleague Dr. Ron Fisher are considered the &quot;godfathers&quot; of cognitive interviewing, the multi-sensory memory-enhancement method for questioning witnesses, crime victims, and others whose personal recollections are important to capture as fully and accurately as possible. <br />
<br />
The idea of having a subject recite a narrative account of an occurrence backwards, beginning in the present and telling what happened step by step in reverse order, was utilized by Geiselman initially years ago as he and Fisher fine-tuned their cognitive interviewing tactics. &quot;We found that when someone tells of an experience in chronological order and then is prompted to re-tell it in reverse sequence, frame by frame, they tend to remember more details as they go backwards,&quot; Geiselman told Force Science News. <br />
<br />
More recently, he became intrigued with suggestions from some researchers that backwards narration might cause certain indicators of deception to surface more readily when concocted stories are being told because of the extra mental stress involved in reverse recounting. With a group of senior psych students, he devised a complex research project to explore and more precisely define that possibility. <br />
<br />
Each of 24 volunteers was given a list of several topics (winning a sports event, being involved in an auto accident, taking a trip to Las Vegas, etc.) and told to select 2 of them, one about which to tell a true autobiographical story and the other to tell a confabulated autobiographical story. Each participant was given 5 minutes to think about &quot;what you want to say&quot; in each story. Then he or she was told to tell the stories separately in private to a tape recorder &quot;in about as much detail as you would if you were telling it to a friend over coffee.&quot; <br />
<br />
There was one catch, though. Each story was to be told in reverse chronological order: &quot;Start at the very end of your story,&quot; participants were instructed, &quot;and systematically work backward with what happens right before that and then right before that and so on&quot; back to the beginning. <br />
<br />
The average time to tell a story proved to be about 4 minutes. Later, the tapes were played for members of the research team acting as &quot;scorers.&quot; They were listening for certain &quot;vocal and verbal cues&quot; that researchers in previous studies had identified as &quot;primary indicators&quot; for evaluating the truthfulness of a narrative account. &quot;These had to do with voice characteristics, content, presentational style, and so on,&quot; Geiselman says. <br />
<br />
Because of a coding system that was kept confidential, the scorers did not know which stories were truthful and which were made up. But when their independent analyses were completed and correlated with the secret codes, there was a striking, &quot;statistically reliable&quot; consensus: certain &quot;story attributes&quot; were significantly greater in the invented accounts than in the genuine recollections.<br />
<br />
____________________________________<br />
(Poster inset: I might stop your reading at this point. If you want to actually think, write or tape  real and made up stories for later evaluation, you might want to stop here and do it. I actually ruined it for myself, as I read the whole article before I thought about testing myself--Rossi)<br />
_____________________________________ <br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
Geiselman itemizes these telltale deception cues and explains why the reverse story telling was critical in causing them to emerge: <br />
<br />
1. Extreme brevity. <br />
<br />
&quot;The made-up stories tended to be bare-bones narratives,&quot; Geiselman says. &quot;Actually, I expected just the opposite, figuring if I was going to tell a fabrication I'd want to add details to make it seem more authentic. But instead we found that the false stories typically were much shorter than the genuine accounts, offering only 'highlights' of the action that supposedly took place. Imagining more perhaps required too much additional effort.&quot; <br />
<br />
2. Sparse details. <br />
<br />
&quot;When lying, our subjects generally offered very few details or elaborations. Their truthful stories, in contrast, tended to be spontaneously embedded with contextual details--specific times and places were given, interactions with other people and impressions of what was going on were described, sights and sounds and other sensory stimuli were often mentioned.&quot; <br />
<br />
3. Justifications. <br />
<br />
&quot;When details were offered in the fabrications, they tended to be in the form of justifications or rationalizations. When being untruthful, the subjects significantly more often would spontaneously offer explanations for why they took some action or encountered particular circumstances--'I headed down that street because...' or 'My brother is a traditionalist, which is why...'--even though these explanations were not key elements of the story. It may be that they thought that by volunteering 'logical' explanations for various things they made it seem more authentic, or maybe this was a way they convinced themselves that their fabricated story was holding together. In any case, they were much less likely to throw in justifications and rationalizations when they were being truthful.&quot; <br />
<br />
4. Flawed speech. <br />
<br />
&quot;We found that the truthful stories were told with a certain fluidity of speech. This makes sense because when giving factual accounts they were simply 'reading out' of an actual memory record. In their deceptive stories, they had many more starts, stops, sentence fragments, corrections--hesitant, labored speech, not smooth. Also we found a tendency when lying to alternate between slow moments and accelerated bursts. They seemed to be slowing down to think hard about the concocted story, then speeding up as if to make up for lost time.&quot; <br />
<br />
5. Non-verbal giveaways. <br />
<br />
The subjects didn't realize it, but they were watched through one-way glass by some of the research team while recording their tales. When reciting false material, they tended to exhibit certain gestures not seen so much during truthful accounts. &quot;During deception, they'd more often press their lips together firmly and look away like they were trying to think, to concentrate hard,&quot; Geiselman says. &quot;Also their hand gestures were different. When being truthful, they tended to gesture away from their body, the opposite--toward their chest--when telling making up stories. And, when lying, grooming gestures were more evident.&quot; <br />
<br />
Telling a story in reverse order is difficult for anyone, Geiselman explains. &quot;But people who are being deceptive have an unusual difficulty with this. They must tell their story based solely on their imagination because they have no stored perceptual experience to draw upon. <br />
<br />
&quot;At any one time, a person has a particular capacity for holding information in their conscious mind. This is called your 'working memory.' <br />
<br />
&quot;Inventing an account and telling it in reverse puts an exceptional load on their cognitive capacity, and while they're concentrating so intensely on keeping their story straight, the indicators of deception are more likely to 'bleed out.' This is especially true if they have not carefully fabricated and thoroughly rehearsed a story in advance, which most suspects probably have not before coming in contact with police.&quot; <br />
<br />
As part of a program funded by the Dept. of Homeland Security's Center for Domestic Preparedness to the Los Angeles Metropolitan Transportation Authority, Geiselman has devised training to teach mass transit officers to monitor for deception cues when questioning potential terrorist suspects. He believes that similar instruction, based on his research, would be useful for patrol officers and detectives dealing with run-of-the-mill criminals and witnesses as well. <br />
<br />
&quot;In field situations when you encounter a suspicious individual, spend a little time chatting him up so you get a feel for his baseline verbal patterns, then catch him by surprise by having him tell his story in reverse, repeatedly prompting him to tell you '...and what happened before that,'&quot; Geiselman suggests. &quot;Watch for the kind of deception indicators we found as a quick-and-dirty assessment of him. They're not reliable enough to prove he's lying, but they are enough to motivate you to dig deeper.&quot; <br />
<br />
The backwards-narrative technique &quot;is really a good procedure,&quot; in Lewinski's estimation. &quot;Increasing the cognitive load to provoke deception cues is a very important concept. It could be recommended in OIS investigations when there's suspicion that an officer is not being truthful in his account of what happened. <br />
<br />
&quot;It's essential to remember, though, that these are imperfect cues, just indicators of possible deceit, not guarantees. After an OIS, for example, an officer's statement may be sparse on details because he genuinely does not remember or never perceived a lot of what happened in a brief, rapidly evolving, life-threatening encounter. Yes, lying takes a cognitive load, but so does trying to remember things that were on the periphery of your attention when they occurred. <br />
<br />
&quot;More research should help in refining and applying the information Dr. Geiselman has documented.&quot;</blockquote>

]]></content:encoded>
			<dc:creator>Rossi</dc:creator>
			<guid isPermaLink="true">http://americansheepdog.com/Forum/entry.php?20-Narrate-The-Story-Backwards</guid>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>

