Talk:Slips and capture

Contested deletion

This article should not be speedy deleted as lacking sufficient context to identify its subject, because... (your reason here) --UnifiedLeftOnTwitter (talk) 21:20, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Because the article is about a real and valid, though controversial, subject that individuals such as myself are likely to search for on Wikipedia. And the article has been expanded and is now more encyclopedic in nature. Kjphill1977 (talk) 01:13, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

ONLY Referenced?

I'm uncertain that the addition of the word ONLY is actually justified by a reference in regard to when slip and capture has been used by law enforcement. I don't recall such an assurtion in any of the references, and such an assertion is very hard to make. It may be the only high profile cases in which this argument has been made, but has anyone examined ALL law enforcement records to vertifiy that these are the only two instances of allleged slip and capture EVER? If so, this should have a reference from a reputable source. If not, the word ONLY represents bias and should be deleted. Kjphill1977 (talk) 07:24, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

I removed it for now, until someone finds a cite. Ookoshi (talk) 19:25, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Deleted unsupported assertion

I reverted to a previous state, deleting the following:

The use of this obscure scientific-sounding term in cases where the need for force was in question suggests an attempt by investigators to skew an investigation in favor of officers by rationalizing their behavior. Such rationalization has drawn the ire of the public, especially when video evidence of police conduct appears to contradict the elaborate explanations.

No support or reference was provided for this assertion and it is worded in a very biased way. We also need to consider the possibility that the "rationalizing" here is accurate. This may indeed be why the two shootings occurred. A reference at the end of the sentence was to an irrelevant story about twitter posts related to one of the shootings. I can see considerable room for criticism of this concept, but that probably should go in its own section and should be backed by relevant references. -- KarlHallowell (talk) 11:15, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

To contribute a bit more, I note this article on "slip and capture" errors which discusses the BART shooting. The officer in question trained regularly with a handgun, but only a few times with a taser. So he had a well trained response with the lethal handgun, but not the taser, which apparently is a key part of the basis for a "slip and capture" error. There is also discussion of a different sort of slip and capture error, drivers used to non-ABS brakes, braking in the inappropriate, but ingrained way when using ABS brakes. -- KarlHallowell (talk) 11:29, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Why are there references to race in this article? This phenomena, to the extent it is scientifically provable, has nothing to do with race. Any allusions to white cops shooting black suspects is outside the context of this subject. Ookoshi (talk) 19:21, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Changing the Focus of this Article?

The shooting of Eric Harris is an important subject that probably warrants it's own article. However, it seems that this section has been expanded to include a great deal of information that is not relevant to the subject- slips and capture. It seems that basic information about the event with a focus on commentary about the slips and capture theory would be appropriate. Much of this section, as it stands, should be moved to a new article about the shooting of Eric Harris, imo. Thoughts?

Also, a little bit of research on my part (which I cannot access from the closed network I am on right now) reveals that slips and capture is more than just a law enforcement term. Slip is a phycological/error term referring to a mistake in behavior (eg freudian slip), and capture refers to participating in a commonly performed behavior over an intended one (like driving home instead of to the store that is on your way home). Several sources are easily found with a basic google search. If/when I get a chance I will try to include this information if no one else gets to it before me, but this would mean moving the entirity of the existing article to a "law enforcement" or "controversies" section. Any input before I tackle this.

Lastly, which term is correct? "Slips and capture" or "slip and capture". Most articles I have read use the latter, while our Wikipedia article uses the former.

Kjphill1977 (talk) 02:57, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Edit: I see that someone did indeed create the Eric Harris article. I did add and reference the other materials I found, which led to rewording some statements to make them WP:NPOV. As far as slip vs. slips, I guess that's just singular vs. plural, not a big deal. Kjphill1977 (talk) 02:43, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Slips and capture. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/01/30/BABI15KCD5.DTL&type=adfree

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

N An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked= to true

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 06:21, 2 April 2016 (UTC)