Default Acceptance of "Expert" Advice: Why?

[Double Naught Spy]

There have been several threads here and on other forums where the merits of Masaad Ayoob's credentials have been debated. I have been told several times that he is a "court expert" or "expert witness" and that basically he is the be all to end all when it comes to legal issues concerning guns, ammo, and virtually any other sort of facet that is related to self defense and law enforcement.

Basically, folks defend Ayoob as a great 'expert' for reasons that go beyond me...

http://www.thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=165420&highlight=ayoob+expert
http://www.thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=164946&highlight=ayoob+expert
http://www.thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=155031&highlight=ayoob+expert
http://www.thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=148332&highlight=ayoob+expert
http://www.thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=55451&highlight=ayoob+expert (I really liked this one as there is court testimony of Ayoob describing exactly how it is that he is an expert and Buzz_Knox referred to Ayoob as a gun whore.)
http://www.thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=34526&highlight=ayoob+expert
http://www.thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=34549&highlight=ayoob+expert
http://www.thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=3258&highlight=ayoob+expert

so I thought I would have a little fun here. In the May 2005 issue of "Guns & Weapons for Law Enforcement," Ayoob gives the low down on the pros and cons of unmarked patrol cars. Cool. The subtitle is "Survival lessons from eight cases - when/how "invisibility can kill!"

I will just start off by saying that as a supposed expert, Ayoob has some very fundamental issues with understanding cause and effect. As noted by Ayoob, unmarked police cares differ in that they usually don't have overt lights that can be seen from all direction. They also don't have a cage separating the front half of the car from the rear. Okay.

Case One, unmarked t-boned in intersection. A truck driver stopped to let an ambulance pass, but did not know the next vehicle coming was an unmarked police car that he t-boned. Ayoob would have the readers believe that this is a problem of unmarked police cars, and it is, along with other emergency responders. What Ayoob failed to note is the fault of the police officer in addition to the fault of the driver of the truck. The ambulance and police officer were running the intersection against a light. The truck driver expected the unmarked police car to stop at the light as it would other vehicles, but the officer didn't stop. So the officer blew through the light without first being certain he could cross safely. As for some recent events in the DFW area, the officer would be deemed at fault for this wreck. This has been the case where marked cars without their lights on have been responding to calls and crossed against lights and collided with other vehicles. Lights or not, it is the responsibility of the officer, fire truck driver, ambulance driver, etc. to make sure that an intersection can be safely crossed when crossing against the light.

Case 1 - officer negligence, crossing insection against the light when passage was not safe. Ayoob never explained why the officer needed to be running Code 3 behind an ambulance.

Case 2 - Ayoob would have us believe that because the car was unmarked, hence is invisible the invisibility is partially due to not having a cage. It was this lack of a cage that resulted in two officers being killed, supposedly. No doubt, a cage would have helped, but Ayoob's description indicates that the officers were negligent in their duties. They were transporting a murder suspect who was handcuffed in the front. He reached over the seat, grabbed a gun, and shot both officers dead. Bottom line, the prisoner was incorrectly sectured.

Case 2 - officer negligence

Case 3 & 4 are great as Ayoob notes that cages won't guarentee officers will be kept safe. At this point, I have no idea why these cases are relevant to unmarked and hence "invisibile" police cars. In these cases, officers were shot from behind and killed by suspects who produced their own small guns. In other words, the suspects were not properly searched or secured. Sure, Ayoob notes these as examples of how a cage won't necessarily protect officers (when they are lax in their duties), but Ayoob also claimed to present 8 cases where invisibility can kill and these were two of the cases. Obviously, they don't support his premise.

Cases 3 & 4 - officer negligence for not securing suspects in their custody.

In Case 5, an officer in an unmarked car that was not stocked with a long gun borrowed a long gun from other officers involved in a manhunt. Apparently the officers carried AR15s which this officer didn't know how to use and he was helpless when he came under fire from the suspects. I don't know how it is that Ayoob is blaming the car for an officer not knowing how to operate a rifle, but he does. Once again, this is wrong.

Case 5 - officer negligence on accepting a weapon he could not operate.

Case 6 was of an off duty detective asked to drop off an unmarked car for repair. He was in plain clothes and left his gun in the office, but when a call came over the radio about trouble with a man with a gun, he responded to the scene. He was subsequently slaughtered by the man as he was totally unarmed. Once again, this is apparently the fault of the car because the officer didn't look like and officer, wasn't in police clothes, and so didn't realize that he was ballistically naked.

Case 6 - officer negligence for not carrying a gun, not wearing armor, and yet still responding to a call in a police vehicle he was supposed to be taking in for repairs. Just how the hell do you blame the car for leaving your gun back at the office?

Case 7 is similar. An officer was not carrying a sidearm and was not on a beat, but he was involved in a shooting. He obtained a shotgun from the trunk, but was shot by a bad guy. When the bad guy approached, the officer killed the bad guy. The officer retired because of his injuries.

Case 7 is the fault of the bad guy, plain and simple, but maybe of the officer for not wearing armor and still responding to a call unprepared. Being in an unmarked car had nothing to do with the fact that the bad guy shot him. He was apparently shot AFTER he got his shotgun from the trunk. I have no idea why this case is relevant.

In Case 8, a gunfight ensued between two undercover officers and two suspects. The surviving suspect believed the officers were muggers. This may or may not be true, but that was the argument made. So Ayoob blames the lack of a marked car and lack of uniforms for the officer going to trial for the killing of the bad guy. He was aquitted.

Case 8 - typical problem of suspects not believing undercover cops are really cops, or not caring. This has nothing to do with an unmarked car since undercover officers would not be driving a marked squad car.

What I find so amazing is that I see these stories written by Ayoob and it is amazingly blatant how Ayoob is twisting the information around. So for all you folks who believe and defend Ayoob because he is an 'expert' on all things, can you tell me how it is you can blame cars being unmarked for all these problems as Ayoob does? Just how do you blame the car for things like not securing or searching prisoners, not carrying a gun, and accepting a gun you don't know how to use?

Ayoob, as an expert, has clearly demonstrated an inability to understand cause and effect...just more Ayoobian nonsense.

 

[FrankDrebin]

Maybe he's just jealous because the full time Captain won't let him drive the department's plain car.

 

[Sir William]

I agree that people don't always ID and respond to lights and sirens. It is not the fault of the vehicle markings or lack thereof. I have had people cut me off while running code 3 in intersections. I had overhead lights, markings, uniform and cage. I sense that Ayoob is trying to alibi incompetent LEOs. Any idiot who would respond to a call for service while unarmed, in plainclothes and without back-up getting shot seems to be inevitable. Stupidity hurts.

 

[Double Naught Spy]

As my non-LEO boss says, "It is inherently dangerous to go outside." He is right, but that danger is nothing compared to some of the acts described by Ayoob in the various scenarios. Stupidity hurts, no doubt. It hurts more and longer, if you live through it.

 

[Rich Lucibella]

I was an Ayoob skeptic, once upon a time. I've changed my opinion.

Why? Pretty simple: I have yet to hear ANYONE who ever took an LFI Class fail to praise what they learned.

That says something.
Rich

 

[Double Naught Spy]

I have no doubt folks learn stuff at LFI. It is hard to find folks who claim not to learn things at any gun school. That aspect is not in question. As you noted for Saurez, the issue is one of promoting irresponsible concepts or transferring of information. http://www.thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=159985&highlight=promotion+saurez

Maybe you can help. My ultimate goal is not to relegate Ayoob to the retirement home, but to bring to light the fact that not everything he says necessarily makes sense. As oh-so-well informed gun owners who are masters of our own destiny and who look down on the mindless sheeple that we feel are something less than adequate in society because of their mindless acceptance of notions such as the government, military, or police will be looking out for their best interests, I find it shocking that some of the very same gun owners will mindlessly accept something that is in print by a so-called gun 'expert' or "expert witness." No doubt this stems from the nearly religious following that many gun school instructors have like Ayoob.

There are both LEO and non-LEO folks who idolize Ayoob. And sort of like in Rich's thread above, I just wish to point out that which is erroneous and potentially dangerous. Ayoob gives out legal advice on matters about which there is little or no substance that support the claims and quite sadly, people make gun, ammo, and behavioral decisions based on his suggestions and those decisions are likely not optimal for the particular individual who is following his legal advice when they decide on their gear.

Now Ayoob is letting fellow officers know that their unmarked cars are death traps and that because of unmarked cars, officers are getting injured and killed. There is some validity in that there are inherent issues in whether you use a marked or unmarked police car and they are most definitely situational. Ayoob ends his article by noting...

An unmarked duty vehicle can sometimes help you do your job better, but there are times when it can put you in more danger. it's up to you, the responding officer, to know the difference and tailor your tactics accordingly.

No doubt there is some truth in this closing comment, but the whole article could have been written about general cop behavior as there is nothing substantive in the article about unmarked cars causing undue trouble for officers that the officers involved could not have prevented. It is the job of the responding officer to tailor his/her tactics accordingly in regard to ANY situation. For example, prisoners should be properly secured and all guns removed form their possession. Unarmed and off duty officers should not respond to situations where they know there is a bad guy and a guy and try to take action. The case noted by Ayoob was horrendously reckless, but Ayoob would have us believe that it had something to do with the car being unmarked.

Ayoob puts a lot of things into print and a lot of them really don't make sense. Putting trust into Ayoob for his gun training is one thing. Putting trust into some of his legal advice and tactical analysis is something all together different. As noted in the court testimony given by Ayoob above, he doesn't have a lot of experience and he passes on what he learned in seminars to other people.

And yes, I know that a lot of you folks love him and feel that my posts are like speaking against God. I am sorry if I have offended you, but just because he is a good shooter, good guy, and well intentioned does not mean that the information he conveys in necessarily proper. If those of you who will attack my analysis of Ayoob will put the same energy in looking at Ayoob's publications and do so with a critical eye, you will most definitely find some things that are just plain wrong. You will also find some things that are solid as rocks. Discard the garbage and keep the diamonds.

 

[Robert Hairless]