• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Police and Psychics

Couldn't let this one slide....

Luci, calling me "sonny"? What happened to your rationality? And whilst we are on that subject my ARSE do you know more than me!...anecdotal but there you go! Grow up? Luci I have seen far more than you could imagine - you are showing your class luvvie.

If you have the experience, why not respond to my points in kind? I welcome debate - seriously I do! What I do not take kindly to is you pretending you know how I do my job. Luci YOU are the one who is wrong...and I can rattle of a list of police officers with over 30 years experience to back up my claims...but again we are down to anecdotes.

What then wre we left with? Questions without answers and responses based on emotion not logic. If you are the skeptic you claim to be then youwould use the "razor" in thought processes. Why do you never respond to DIRECT questions? Why do you hide behind evasion and innuendo? Luci, there is no debate with you because you do not debate!

And by the way you haven't shown me ◊◊◊◊ about being wrong - save anecdotal evidence (and someone elses at that). Call me a skeptic (even though I have consistently stated I am not ) but haven't you just argued yourself out of the equation? (think of God and the babel fish dearie...)

Also, are you still using velvet curtains?
 
Lucianarchy said:


I *know* I have a far, *far* reaching depth of experience than you. But in the case of these discussions here on this board, it is completely irrelevant, which is why I ahven't brought it up
Click to expand...

Oh, 12 years as an 'expert' witness isn't relevant. Yeah, sure.:D

Actually, I forgot to mention the fact that I have been Chief of Police for the Entire Universe for the last fifty years. Didn't think it was relevant.



Come on Luci, Doris Stokes. You beleive in her or what?
 
Lucianarchy said:


In my opinion, in respect of some 'psychics', yes. There is too much credible evidence which suggests that remote viewing / 'psychics' can obtain information by means not fully understood by science. To ignore *out of hand* all information coming from 'psychics', simply because the *method* of information detection is not fully understood, would be irresponsible. In light of that evidence, If I were a police officer who knew details on on a case and had access to a 'psychic' with a history of accuracy, I would asses whatever information they came forward with. If they gave a location, for instance, for a missing person, in light of their previous accuracy it would be irresponsible and stupid to ignore such information - particularly if, like in the case in the Police Fed article, the psychic demonstrated a history of verifiable accuracy. I may not be able to use that evidence in *Court*, but that alone could and should not stop me *acting* on the information recieved.

Now, a question for you. If you had a missing relative, had tried all avenues to locate them, but still couldn't find them, would you act on the information given to you from a 'psychic' with a history of accuracy, as in the case of the 'psychic' described in the Police Federation article? If not, why not?
Click to expand...

You continue to ignore my questions:

Has any court in any country (at least in the last 100 years) ever accepted evidence revealed by a "psychic" for any proposition?

If police, as you say, do rely on psychics and have a "positive" relationship with them, shouldn't police be forced to disclose that relationship to a court? A defendent?

Would you, if you were accused of a crime, want to know if the evidence against you were developed through use of a "psychic?"

Shouldn't police who rely on a "positive" relationship with a psychic, and who, as a result of that relationship, develop leads that may lead to a criminal charge being filed, submit all of the psychic studies you site to the courts so that "psychic" evidence can be established as scientifically valid evidence? If not, why not?

Is psychic evidence, proven as you would have it by years of study, as good as finger prints? DNA? If not why not?

You have suggested that police have a positive relationship with psychics and has, as a result, developed leads that have helped to solve cases...in any of these instances, has anyone ever been accused of a crime? IF so, was the relience on "psychic" evidence by police in developing the case revealed to the court and/or jury? If not why not? Wouldn't that be important information for a Jury to know?

Do you think someone should be convicted on evidence developed from a proven psychic? How would you convince a court that a psychic is "proven?" If a psychic could be "proven" to a court, don't you think that psychic could win the $1,000,000 Randi Challenge?

Just a few of the issues that are raised by your assertions.....

P.S. you seem to rely on two pieces of "information" for this proposition -- your police federation magazine and the BBC -- can you state, catagorically, that neither has ever been wrong about a story or "fluffed" a story up to make it more interesting?
 
Hannibal said:


What then wre we left with? Questions without answers and responses based on emotion not logic. If you are the skeptic you claim to be then youwould use the "razor" in thought processes.
Click to expand...

Indeed. Let's do just that. Given the evidence for 'remote viewing', in total, disregarding the rubbish, what you are left with is some hard core evidence that defies an explanation. Now you can disagree with that if you like, I don't have a problem with that, but don't expect me to take any notice unless you can provide credible and verifiable *evidence* that there is either error or fraud. People are left accusing people of crimes and conspiracies, but those claims are coming from the pseudo-skeptic side. The hard core evidence, ranging from the SAIC through to PEAR, Koestler, Rhine etc., and credible records like the Police Federation article, only go to show that most likely explanation is that they are reporting exactly what they say they are reporting. There is currently no other rational mundane explanation. The simplest explanation is that science doesn't yet fully understand the full potential or action of the human 'mind'.
 
Luci, let's change the subject, this horse is well and truly expired.
Are you going to watch "Reputations" tonight? (BBC 2, 9 pm)

The subject might be of interest to you.
 
LOOOOOOOCY! Please come home!

Lucy, please stop annoying all these nice people for a while.

Ethyl and Fred are sitting around waiting for the martinis, and the chocolate factory wants to know when you're coming back.

And where's my dinner?
 
Well hell. If I'd known, I never would have bothered with this thread...

Robbin Roberts
I hate James Randi
Tue Nov 20 12:48:20 2001

As one of the few men involved in Wicca, I take great exception to James "The Amusing" Randi dismissing my faith. He is a right bastard and I urge you to help me shut his hate site down.

- Robbin aka Lucianarchy
Click to expand...

Source.

Ack!!! I've engaged in gratuitous troll-feeding, and deserve to be punished accordingly. :(
Bad me. *Hits self with rolled up newspaper*

Dragon: I look forward to news concerning the episode you mention.

Speaking of which:
Robbin Roberts
Re: an anoying,self-rightious little geek..
Sat Dec 1 17:54:25 2001

James "The Amusing" Randi is a closed-minded twit who remains bitter regarding the whole Geller affair. As an award-winning journalist I have dedicated my life to the amazing accomplishments of Mr. Geller and I am appalled at what I have uncovered about The Amusing One. Randi gets his y-fronts twisted over Geller because he remains jealous of his success.
Click to expand...
 
headscratcher4 said:


You continue to ignore my questions:

Has any court in any country (at least in the last 100 years) ever accepted evidence revealed by a "psychic" for any proposition?
[/i]

Your questions are irrelevant to what I am talking about. I know 'psychics' aren't used in a legal sense, they can't
because there isn't the body of scientific evidence *yet* to uphold the claim in a Court of Law. Regarding their relationship with psychics, if a psychic leads them to a body the police don't need to reveal their sources of intelligence to anyone. If it were to be used as legal evidence, then it would depend.



If police, as you say, do rely on psychics and have a "positive" relationship with them, shouldn't police be forced to disclose that relationship to a court? A defendent?

Yes, if it was necessary.



Would you, if you were accused of a crime, want to know if the evidence against you were developed through use of a "psychic?"


Yes, if that's all the evidence there was, of course.



Shouldn't police who rely on a "positive" relationship with a psychic, and who, as a result of that relationship, develop leads that may lead to a criminal charge being filed, submit all of the psychic studies you site to the courts so that "psychic" evidence can be established as scientifically valid evidence? If not, why not?



It's not necessary to do that, a remote viewer can tell the police to 'look for x in the x', they can go there and if they find the x at x then that's that the evidence is with the police, how they made the decision to check on something is irrelevant. Can you imagine the burglar caught red handed by the policeman walking past the house, demanding in Court that he be told *why* the officer was there at that time?!


Is psychic evidence, proven as you would have it by years of study, as good as finger prints? DNA? If not why not?


No, not as good a DNA, bloody hell! Not yet anyway. But
it does seem that it has applications for some detective work.



You have suggested that police have a positive relationship with psychics and has, as a result, developed leads that have helped to solve cases...in any of these instances, has anyone ever been accused of a crime? IF so, was the relience on "psychic" evidence by police in developing the case revealed to the court and/or jury? If not why not? Wouldn't that be important information for a Jury to know?



This is what I meant by irrelevant. I'm not claiming psychics are used in any legal sense, I am saying they may have a complimentary intelligence application.



Do you think someone should be convicted on evidence developed from a proven psychic? How would you convince a court that a psychic is "proven?" If a psychic could be "proven" to a court, don't you think that psychic could win the $1,000,000 Randi Challenge?


Yes, they could, but it is not necessary for that to happen, as I said the police can act on intelligence gathered to gain their evidence it is the evidence which is in question in Court, not how the decision was arrived at in order to get the evidence!




Just a few of the issues that are raised by your assertions.....

P.S. you seem to rely on two pieces of "information" for this proposition -- your police federation magazine and the BBC -- can you state, catagorically, that neither has ever been wrong about a story or "fluffed" a story up to make it more interesting?
Click to expand...


No more than you could say about any other source of information, that applies to anything *you* want to cite as evidence too though, so be careful! Seriously, there is no rational reason to doubt the credibility of the BBC News or The Police Federation.

Now, as I've answered your questions, perhaps you'd be good enough to answer just one of mine.

If you had a missing relative, had tried all avenues to locate them, but still couldn't find them, would you act on the information given to you from a 'psychic' with a history of accuracy, as in the case of the 'psychic' described in the Police Federation article? If not, why not?
 
Wolverine said:
Well hell. If I'd known, I never would have bothered with this thread...



Source.

Ack!!! I've engaged in gratuitous troll-feeding, and deserve to be punished accordingly. :(
Bad me. *Hits self with rolled up newspaper*

Dragon: I look forward to news concerning the episode you mention.

Speaking of which:
Click to expand...

Oh for ◊◊◊◊◊ sake, your posting ◊◊◊◊◊ written in my name somewhere else on the 'net and reposted by some idiot here in this Forum. Do you want me to go and find something written by Wolverine in the 'Net. Perhaps now you see the depths some will sink to in order to try and discredit me.
 
Lucy, I think that last batch MetaVitaVegamin was recalled by the FDA. Didn't I tell you to stop drinking it? I think it's making you crazier, and you remember what happened last time?

Where's my dinner? Little Ricky is crying again and I think he needs you.

(Fred, just pour me another martini. I don't think she's coming home for a while).
 
Lucianarchy said:



If you had a missing relative, had tried all avenues to locate them, but still couldn't find them, would you act on the information given to you from a 'psychic' with a history of accuracy,
Click to expand...

I would.

as in the case of the 'psychic' described in the Police Federation article? If not, why not? [/B]
Click to expand...

You have not demonstrated any history other than the nickname. The other two insights apply to you (I presume by your refusal to answer) , me and many other people. With no HISTORY of accuracy I would not use this avenue. However this is in the position of not having a missing relative. In such a position who knows if I will abandon judgement and consult tea leaf readers, astrologers or whoever.
 
Hannibal, if it matters any, you have my permission to cease responding to the crap posted by Luci. We can all see she's just trolling you. Your credibility and reputation are intact on this board, regardless of anything Luci posts.
 
Luci, we have arrived at commonground. You are now stating pretty much what I have said all along (ignoring the "jesus" reference which I have already explained). It can be said now that Police do not employ psychics.

I don't want to continue on this subject any further as it is starting go off topic. I have never said psi/psychics/Ybo do not exist, merely that Police do not use them in any manner other than they would if it was any member of the public. I do not have velvet curtains and my beliefs are held close to my heart. Never assume I am stating anything beyond what I say. I challenged an assertion you made and now we have reached an agreement. Isn't that the purpose of debate? Don't you feel better?:)
 
xouper said:
Hannibal, if it matters any, you have my permission to cease responding to the crap posted by Luci. We can all see she's just trolling you. Your credibility and reputation are intact on this board, regardless of anything Luci posts.
Click to expand...

Thank you.

Be well to all (yes you too Luci!;) )

And BAHALA NA!
 
If you had a missing relative, had tried all avenues to locate them, but still couldn't find them, would you act on the information given to you from a 'psychic' with a history of accuracy, as in the case of the 'psychic' described in the Police Federation article? If not, why not?
Click to expand...

First, and I can't believe I am doing this, thank you for your response. You tried to answer my questions and I appreciate the effort, and I am even willing to accept, in this instance, some of your criticism of my questions and their relevance to this thread.

The anser to your above question, I think, is two-fold. First, clearly you and I would completely disagree on the whole concept of a "psychic with a history of accuracy". No such creature exists. Much of what you've written and asserted provides no foundation for the claim that there are such people -- and, further not only the million dollar challenge but the lack of general scientific agreement with any of the "proofs" you often site would suggest that there is no such bird. This is both opinion and fact -- fact being that no psychic has submitted to clearly objective verification of powers, other than in poorly designed or otherwise flawed tests.

Second, I don't know what I would do if a relative went missing. I would like to think that I would not go completely irrational, but that, I think, is too much to be hoped for. And I note, that it would be irrationality that would drive such a decision. In any event the question reminds me -- and I don't know if you are in the U.S. or G.B. -- of the question asked of Micheal Dukakis in the U.S. Presidential Debate many years ago: How would you feel about capital punishment if your wife were raped and murdered?

He, politically, blew the question because he ansewered it correctly .. he was rational, consistent with his beliefs, and with the law as he understood it and enforced it as a governor. He also appeared to have no soul and to be indifferent to his own emotion.

In the end, emotion that promotes certain irrationality are sometimes good things in relationships. It is not a good way to conduct an investigation of a potential crime or to find a missing person.
 
Lucianarchy said:
Oh for ◊◊◊◊◊ sake, your posting ◊◊◊◊◊ written in my name somewhere else on the 'net and reposted by some idiot here in this Forum. Do you want me to go and find something written by Wolverine in the 'Net. Perhaps now you see the depths some will sink to in order to try and discredit me.
Click to expand...

Uh-huh. It's just a coincidence. :rolleyes:
 
Hi, I'm new.

I think this thread has struggled over the use of the word 'use' as in 'Do the police use psychics?'

The problem is that like many other words in English, there are multiple shades of meaning.

The police have a number of established investigative procedures that they actively use. Interviewing witnesses, collecting forensic evidence and checking computer databases are examples.

'The police certainly use DNA testing' means the police will actively search for any DNA traces at the scene, and then analyse them.

However I don't believe any police force considers psychics in this sense (as per Scotland Yard's response earlier in this thread).

Now every police force gets anonymous tips. This is not something they actively pursue (though in say a kidnapping case, there may be an public appeal for any sightings etc).

So my opinion is that psychics are at best rated as an anonymous tips. Police forces don't use psychics, but they will look at the information, in case there's anything to it.

Also the psychic may be a witness, or even the criminal...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom