Mixing up your taser with your handgun

[Anomalocaris]

1.  By what objective standard do you determine two things are sufficiently unlike that there is no reasonable probability of their being confused?      For that matter how do you compute this probability of any two things being confused in general, much less by a specific person?  

Considering its only 15 times in the whole history of the US and of those only one incident even comes close to this one. That seems improbable. And consider the two things in question feel look and are specifically placed on an officer's belt to avoid the two objects being confused, And the specific person in question is likely both trained in that protocol and trained with both objects.

2. Protocol is neither here nor there.  Obviously, protocol failed

Nope, it's relevant because it was designed to avoid this outcome and you don't just get to dismiss that as a failure.

3. What is the indication?  How do you know what level of panic the 26 years veteran has, or should have? What is the level of panic that would preclude accidents?  Does mistake require panic?    Are no mistakes made when people are not panicked?

Lol yeah, I bet people who constantly with stress are in no way able to handle it after 26 years? As for your rest of the tedious questions. If it wasn't panic then it was incompetence and the answer to both remains the same. There no indication she was incompetent. 

4. Again, do you have to be in a panic (by whatever definition or measure) to make a mistake or have an accident? Trained responders can have very high-stress levels without changing their tone or voice,  so how do you measure panic with certainty from the body cam?

To once again answer the same tedious question see above. I never mentioned her voice I said there was an indication of panic that would cause her to make that mistake.

You pointed out it is unbelievable TO YOU, for whatever reason.  

Yes and more than backed up why. 

 I pointed out it is not only entirely believable to me, but the it is Indeed the only explanation supported by any evidence so far, so the only one that can be believed.

Yup and you failed to defend your position and no evidence so far favors your opinion over mine. So both can be believed equally.

 
You make 4 mistakes:

1. you assert the fact that measures were taken to prevent accidents means no accidents of the type meant to be prevented can happen,  if that were true awful lot of plane actual crashes would be impossible and inexplicable. 

2. You assert mechanism to deal with stress, once developed to a degree that allows one to function over a period of rime, guarantees permanent and certain immunity to similar stresses forever afterwards,   If that were true no one who has a pilot with perfect record for 25 years can have an accident due to his own fault on the 26th year

3. You assert If an event is know to have only happened once or a few times, that mean when it happened it must have been made to happen on purpose.   Creationists would love you. 

4  You think 1, 2, and 3 constitute “back up”




But I suspect those were not mistakes, just expendienrv positions to take to get you to where your agenda demand you go.