Quote:
Originally Posted by edl
You are not going to be able to note the percentage that did not stop from Marshall and Sanow because they deliberately excluded situations where one shot was not enough and additional shots had to be fired.
They have been debunked since the mid to late 1990s. Many departments where they claimed they got their shooting date from came forward and said that either Marshall and Sanow grossly misrepresented the information they provided, or that shootings that Marshall and Sanow attributed to their department never took place.
Their methodology as well as Ellifritz are so flawed that you cannot draw anything useful useful from them.
|
Marshall and Sanow looked at multiple hits in their later work.
—-
But you are also missing the larger point that any research relying on field reported data will have methodological flaws from things like a failure to have a common report form, resulting in different elements being reported or failed to be reported by different agencies.
But again, when you have a sufficient body of data, common threads do emerge and accurate conclusions can be made from the aggregate data.
And those conclusions are where the FBI’s ballistic gelatin standards came from. Ballistic gel just allows for a reliable test media to see if individual loads and load and pistol combinations achieve established standards. But those standards were derived from field performance data.
Was there cherry-picking of the field data used? Absolutely. That’s also where a lot of the mud got thrown at various researchers when arguments and debates about different incapacitation theories were being promoted and argued. It’s worst noting the FBI also got it incredibly wrong, not once but twice, first with a shallow penetration energy dump approach and then with an opposite end of the pendulum swing penetration approach that resulted in an extremely ineffective 147 gr 9mm load.
In each case it was field results and field data that prompted the corrections.