Witnesses, Memories, Evidence and Lies

Since the Ferguson shooting has direct influence on our civil rights, owning and carrying firearms being part of those rights, I thought it wise to repeat what Michael Schermer had to say about memories, evidence and so-called eye witnesses.

Personally, I would not be too pleased to rely solely on the memories of allege witnesses.

What Really Happened in Ferguson?

When eyewitness testimony collides with contradictory evidence

BY MICHAEL SHERMER

Psychologists have known for decades that memory does not operate like a video camera, with our senses recording in high definition what really happens in the world, accurately stored in memory awaiting high fidelity playback on the viewing screen of our mind. Instead, fragments of scenes are processed by our senses, filtered through our emotions, biases, and prejudices, and put into context created by earlier memories, subsequent events, and the interpretations of our social group and culture. The world-renowned memory expert Elizabeth Loftus, in her 1991 book Witness for the Defense—a critical analysis of eyewitness testimony—explained the process this way:

As new bits and pieces of information are added into long-term memory, the old memories are removed, replaced, crumpled up, or shoved into corners. Memories don’t just fade…they also grow. What fades is the initial perception, the actual experience of the events. But every time we recall an event, we must reconstruct the memory, and with each recollection the memory may be changed. Truth and reality, when seen through the filter of our memories, are not objective facts but subjective, interpretative realities.

Loftus turned her research acumen to this problem when, in 1987, she was asked to testify for the defense of John Demjanjuk, a Ukrainian-born Cleveland autoworker who was on trial as “Ivan the Terrible,” the Nazi who murdered tens of thousands of Jews at Treblinka during the Second World War. But was Demjanjuk really Ivan? A witness named Abraham Goldfarb initially recalled that Ivan was killed in a 1943 uprising, but when he saw Demjanjuk he changed his story, now identifying him as the mass murderer. On the heels of Goldfarb’s testimony another witness named Eugen Turowski changed his original story of not recognizing Demjanjuk, now fingering him as the killer. The prosecution presented five witnesses who positively identified Demjanjuk as the man they had seen at Treblinka, but the defense countered with 23 other survivors of the concentration camp who could not positively ID Demjanjuk as Ivan the Terrible. An initial guilty verdict was overturned when another man was found guilty of the crimes.

In the 1990s there were two eyewitness-driven moral panics—the Recovered Memory Movement and the Satanic Panic—both of which involved court cases that turned entirely on the memories of eyewitnesses to satanic ritual abuse and sexual abuse claims, all of which unraveled before the facts (or the lack thereof), but not before destroying the lives of countless innocently accused. The Innocence Project, founded in 1992, uses DNA evidence to exonerate people on death row who were wrongfully convicted, the vast majority of which based on faulty eyewitness testimony—a total of 321 so far.

This process of mixing fantasy with reality to such an extent that it is impossible to sort them out is called confabulation, and Loftus has conducted numerous experiments showing how easy it is to plant false memories in people’s minds through simple suggestion and repetition, until the fantasy becomes a memory of reality. She famously concocted a story for little children about how they were once lost in a mall but rescued and returned to their parents—an event that never happened to any of her child subjects—and by merely asking them to recall details of the incident her child charges were able to recollect rich details. It was a chilling reminder of the frailty of human memory.

These historical examples should be kept in mind when assessing current events, most notably what really happened between 12:01pm and 12:03pm on August 9, 2014 in Ferguson, Missouri when police officer Darren Wilson shot and killed teenager Michael Brown during a physical altercation after Wilson confronted Brown who had shoplifted cigarillos from a local market. When a grand jury failed to indict Wilson for murder, moral outrage trumped rational analysis and rioting ensued. When the documents reviewed by the grand jury were made public, however, it became clear why an indictment was dropped. The eyewitness accounts that would have indicated criminal wrong-doing on the part of the police officer were inconsistent, unreliable, provably wrong, changed over time, and even fabricated.

One woman, for example, reported that there was a second police officer in the passenger seat next to Wilson, a white “middle age or young” man in uniform. Wilson was alone. A number of bystanders said Wilson shot Brown in the back, including Brown’s friend standing next to him, Dorian Johnson. Johnson’s initial story that Wilson’s shot “struck my friend in the back” contradicted his grand jury testimony that the shot caused Brown’s body to “do like a jerking movement, not to where it looked like he got hit in his back, but I knew, it maybe could have grazed him.”

Another eyewitness said Wilson shot Brown in the back and then “stood over him and finished him off.” Under oath in front of the grand jury, however, he admitted that he made it up “based on me being where I’m from, and that can be the only assumption that I have.” His recantation was classic memory redaction based on new information. “So it was after you learned that the things you said you saw couldn’t have happened that way,” a prosecutor pressed him, “then you changed your story about what you seen?” The witness responded, “Yeah, to coincide with what really happened.” Whatever really happened we know what didn’t happen: the autopsy report concluded that Brown was not shot in the back.

More memory confabulation was apparent in another eyewitness who told a federal investigator that when he heard the first shot fired he looked out the window to see a police officer with his gun drawn and Brown “on his knees with his hands in the air. I seen him shoot him in the head.” When later told by the investigator, “What you are saying you saw isn’t forensically possible based on the evidence,” the man admitted that he based his account on what someone else told him because he was in a stairwell at the time and didn’t see it.

The moral outrage is understandable if Brown had his hands up or was face down in surrender, which would imply that Wilson executed him in cold blood. Knowing that is not what happened, however, should give us all pause before we dial up our moral modules to 11 and seek self-help justice in the form of rioting and looting, rather than the criminal justice system that, flawed as it is, still insists that indictments be based on facts instead of emotions, which are fed by long-simmering prejudices and all the cognitive biases and memory distortions that come packaged in the human mind.

Posted with Blogsy

Rode Hard, and Put Away Wet

Bullard IWB

That's an old saying from my Texas childhood, which has survived the test of time. It's a compliment of the highest order in one way, signifying something that is used hard for it's intended purpose and that doesn't have to be pampered afterwards. As I've said here many times before, a holster for a concealed handgun is a very important piece of equipment, second only to the gun itself. Many people who carry concealed spend considerable time and money getting the right gun for them. Size, weight, caliber, shape, ergonomics, all of these play a role. But, what do these actually mean when it comes to carrying that gun on your person?

We have a retired deputy in town who is a nice and well-meaning man. He often appears for community events in the summer with his deputy hat and badge and his Glock stuck into the waistband of his jeans. No holster. I asked him about it one day and he merely said he preferred "Mexican carry". His term. I hoped he didn't manage to accidently shoot himself or someone else. He wasn't too pleased and told me his gun was "modified" against this eventuality. Didn't say how.

The point is, for the rest of us, carrying our handgun in the right holster for the time, place and person is critical. Why? Well, it must be all of these things: comfortable (or you won't carry), safe (so you don't have a negligent discharge), secure (so your gun stays put and doesn't come out at inopportunte moments), effective (so you can draw easily and quickly when necessary).

Which holster is best? I've tried most, if not all, of the major styles, except for the ankle holster: leather, kydex, plastic, hybrid. They all have their uses and some carry, for me, better than others, but the "best" holster is a personal and relative decision. My vote goes for those made by David Bullard in Azle, Texas.

David's holsters are all made from quality leather to the highest standards. His designs are based on years of experience by him and his customers, and those now not with us who have carried a gun all of their adult lives, both professionally and personally. I know some internet experts who declare leather to be old school and a dead issue, preferring plastics and hybrids, but I don't agree. I think the leather and the gun form a symboitic relationship over time, each complimenting the other. The leather molds to the gun, and to the wearer, conforming to both and settling in to a comfortable, secure and effective carry combination. The leather takes on a patina and markings reflective of its service and duty life. It's comfortable and feels good, not like a chunk of plastic hanging off or inside your waistband.

Bullard hosters work exceptionally well for the types of carry I need: strong side, appendix and cross draw. All of these carry positions have their advantages and work better in some situations than others. Probably the most little understood and appreciated is the cross draw. Since most of us spend more time sitting than standing or walking, the cross draw enables one to carry concealed in any of those situations and have the firearm remain always accessible. Think about sitting in your car at a stoplight, securely buckled in, wearing a light jacket. If your gun is sitting in the strong side position, three to five o'clock, getting to it in a hurry is going to be a problem. Carrying it at the appendix position makes the task easier, but the shoulder strap and the jacket are going to be problems. The cross draw carry though is right there where you need it. This works in restaurants, theatres, and other places where one might be sitting down when the need to draw a firearm presents itself.

Bullard's OWB cross draw holsters excel at this, especially in the smaller framed and single stack handguns. They are secure and hold the weapon close enough for good concealment, draw easily and are quality pieces of gear. I use one for my Ruger LCP frequently, even in the summer with a loose shirt, or T-shirt. I think small frame revolvers and single stacks such as the S&W M&P Shield would also be ideal for this holster. Bullard's IWB design, shown above, is so versatile, with the adjustable belt loop, that I wear it IWB at any of the three positions: strong-side, appendix or cross draw.

Bullard's best seller, according to his website, is his Bodyguard model. This one is made to carry behind the hip. Not small-of-back (which I can't recommend), but at the 4 - 5 o'clock position for right handers. It incorporates a more radical "rake" or cant than most strong side holster designs but this is to aid concealment of any handgun, and especially larger ones like the 1911 .45 pistols. The position of the grips is such that they don't show and the design still permits a secure hold and fast draw. You might see some people wearing these on their hip, and complaining, but that's because they are not using the holster correctly. It belongs behind your hip, not on it. I have one each for my LCP and my Shield.

For basic, on the hip, 3 o'clock OWB carry I have a well-worn Bullard Bandit, now called a belt slide. Sure, I know I'm wearing it because you don't carry a gun on your hip without feeling the presence and the weight, but it is the most comfortable, and probably conservative of holsters. It does everything well and has definitely earned its keep. I should have one for each of my guns, and someday probably will.

If this sounds like a commercial for Dave Bullard and his crew, I guess it is. I like his stuff. I've tested a lot of holsters, and I have used most of Bullard's designs with both large and small handguns, and when all is said and done, I usually reach for a Bullard holster when leaving the house. Or, while at the house for that matter.

Check them out and tell Dave I sent you.

 

Posted with Blogsy

Urban World

I'm here in Colorado Springs on a five week course of radiation as part of my treatment program for cancer. Ugly word, cancer, but I don't see it that way. It's a condition that's sometimes very bad and sometimes not so good. I'm in the not so good camp. Treatment is possible and promises a good outcome, so life goes on. My alien pest, as I call it, has taken me to Colorado Springs to live for five weeks while this part of the treatment continues, so I'm now in the Urban World. Our little town where we live is definitely not 'urban', but really a village in the sense of being small, having primarily dirt streets, few choices for places to shop and eat, and the nearest stoplight being fifteen miles away.

The other evening, I ventured downtown here in Colorado Springs for some exercise, change of scenery and dining choices. Because of the circumstances I am currently living with, I am relying on my Ruger LCP as my carry gun. I had it with me in a small holster at 2:00 o'clock and a spare magazine clipped on the other side in it's Kytex holder. Now, living temporarily in a nice neighborhood and frequenting a hospital daily, I leave the LCP locked in a secure box in my room unless I venture out. I certainly did not leave it behind the other night and was glad I had it. Not that I needed it, but the security that it offered was comforting. But, walking the streets with the other urban dwellers, some of them sketchy enough that one needed to keep an eye out, made me realize an uncomfortable fact. My usual level of situational awareness has dropped considerably. I live in a non-threatening world most of the time. Our little town is pretty tame with few instances of crime or violence. This has tended to make me a little too comfortable.

While I do believe in carrying where legal and possible, I have come to take it for granted that I have a gun, and my level of situational awareness has dropped. But here in the urban world, where there are many more people, and more opportunity for crime, that is not appropriate. It's become obvious to me that the most important self-defense tool is that of situational awareness. Always thinking one can rely on a firearm to survive a bad situation is not a good idea. That might turn out to be the case, and we'd rather be armed than not, but being aware and avoiding or defusing a potential situation is much more effective and has no subsequent consequences.

So, I'll still carry, but even at home, but I will work to keep my situational awareness more keen and on the job. I suggest that you do too.

Posted with Blogsy

Some Holsters Updates, and Mexican Carry

I'll begin with Mexican Carry. This term may be somewhat ethnocentric, but since it's the one in use around here in the southwest, I'll stick with it. We have a retired law enforcement officer in town who carries a pistol tuck into his waistband and belt. Often, only part of the grips are visible and it appears the gun may slide down his leg and drop on the floor at any time. You can tell he has something to do with law enforcement by looking at his cap, which has a badge embroidered upon the front declaring him to be a retired LEO. Sometimes he wears his badge on his belt or shirt, but usually only on special occasions when there are tourists in town. Most of the locals don't bat an eye when they see someone walking around wearing a holstered gun.

When I first saw him in a local eatery and spied the grips of the Glock sticking out above his waistband I mentioned that he might want to get a holster for that. He disagreed, saying he preferred "Mexican carry" over a holster. I wondered if he might be in danger of a negligent discharge and getting shot by his own gun, but he assured me that the pistol had been especially made to prevent that. Looked like a basic Glock to me. No manual safety, just the trigger safety, but I didn't feel like pursuing the notion so I let it go. He's a nice man and since our law enforcement people are spread really thin around here, it is good that he is around, helpful and visible. I just worry about him and that Mexican carry.

That brings me to holsters. I have been testing a few different models for a few months now. I believe one of the critical aspects of concealed carry is having the right selection of holsters for the individual. We all are different, different sizes, weights, shapes and opinions. There is no all-around right holster for everyone. The only "right" holster is the one that you will use, and use consistently. In fact, there are "right" holsters, plural, for any concealed carry proponent because conditions and firearms change. Here, winter approaches, the days are getting cooler and the nights cold. Soon it will be mostly cold and we will be wearing heavier clothing, sweaters, down vests, hoodies, coats... all of the normal cold weather clothing. Gone will be the light shirts, t-shirts, and blouses of summer.

It will be much easier to carry bigger handguns more comfortably. A good OWB leather holster can be easily concealed beneath winter clothes much easier than with summer garb, for example. You options have increased.

Also, as I've discussed before, some holsters are suitable for some people but not others. I have a friend in town who carries a Glock 9mm, but hates IWB holsters. He's always wearing some kind of over garment. I will often carry a S&W Shield in a kydex IWB holster under a T-shirt. Some occasions call for a small pistol in a pocket holster. The main thing is that you need to develop your own small carry systems based on your build, preference (hate IWB?) and the outfits you'll be wearing. You'll need more than one holster and you should get a few good ones that will last and that you will use with comfort and confidence when you need them.

If you don't have a gun and holster combination that you like, and are comfortable with, you won't carry, and that can mean you might not have your firearm for protection when and if you finally need it. Hence, my frequent postings on holsters, and the small group of them I've been using and testing for months. I sometimes read reviews (these are especially prevalent on gun forums) of holsters that have not been used enough to properly evaluate them. There is a honeymoon period with holsters, as there is with any new acquisition. Sometimes the new thing we buy is immediately perceived as a bad deal. It's wrong, doesn't work right or broken. But, often, people will get a new holster, try it for a day or three and give glowing reports of how cool it is. Many times these same holsters end up in a box with a dozen others, unused and unloved because after some time had passed, issues developed that were not recognized at first. That's why I give them a good work out before I report back on what I think.

I have been testing IWB holsters from SwapRig, Cook's Holsters, Blade-Tech, pjholster and D.M. Bullard all summer and into the fall. My preferred carry is in the appendix position, so these holsters all accommodate this. Now, when I grab the Shield, I usually reach for the Cook's IWB kydex holster as my preferred carry, except when I don't have to worry about cover and am wearing something more than a T-shirt. Then, I will as likely go with the D.M. Bullard IWB with belt loop.

These two work the best for me, although all of them do a good job of providing security, access and comfort.

The Cook's is surprisingly comfortable especially for a kydex holster, and it has the advantage of an adjustable belt clip, secured with two screws. This enables me to fine-tune the cant on the gun for best concealment, and, if I want to wear it strong side on or behind the hip, I can adjust for that too. Bullard's holster is similar in that the angle of the belt loop can be adjusted for different cant positions and, being leather, is more comfortable and covers more of the gun between the body and metal than the Cook's. Besides, I like the feel and look of well crafted leather.
http://www.cooksholsters.com
http://www.dmbullardleather.com

The SwapRigs are excellent IWB (and, with some models, also OWB) carry holsters because of three things: outstanding customer service and attention to details; quality workmanship and materials and the ability to swap out "skins" (kydex shells made to fit a particular handgun) inexpensively so that your holster can be used for practically any handgun you have or will get in the future. If you like the hybrid style – leather backing, kydex shell – then you should consider SwapRig holsters. They provide value for the money and Swap-Rig's service is among the best.
http://www.swaprigholsters.com

The IWB Blade-Tech Klipt holster is not made from kydex, but from injection molded plastic that is light and tough, and, happily, inexpensive as synthetic holsters go. You can get one for under $30 which is a good deal these days for a well made holster. I recommend these especially if you are looking for a budget holster, or something to try out with IWB carry before moving to a more expensive solution. http://shop.blade-tech.com/product_info.php?cPath=1_13_131&products_id=66548#!prettyPhoto[Product]/0/

With any of these holsters you can be assured of quality, comfort, security and good access to your firearm and that you shouldn't resort to Mexican carry.