Saturday, March 7, 2015

Intuitive Driver Notices Change of Language

Always tell the truth! 
A driver (with a dash cam) was behind an ambulance on a single lane highway in which the driver sought to pass the ambulance, who drove without lights on.

The ambulance driver was annoyed and did a bit of "cat and mouse" techniques, speeding up to stop the pass, slowing down to annoy  the driver, not wishing to yield 'control' over the drive, but the driver finally passed him.

                                                     The ambulance driver was not happy.

The driver wondered if he would now be pulled over should the ambulance driver attempt to report him to 911.

A few miles later, he was, indeed,  pulled over and the officer said he received a call from the driver saying "you passed him at 70mph" to which the driver said, "that's interesting" but refused to say more, remaining calm and polite.  He let the officer do the talking.

The officer then said, "and there was a police officer in the ambulance, too."

The driver remained silent, while the officer went back to the patrol car to run the license plate and registration.

The officer returned and affirmed that he had gone 70mph and passed the ambulance to which the driver remained silent.  The silence was awkward.

The officer then gave him additional information.

This is key.

He said, "I have no reason to doubt the word of a federal law enforcement officer in the ambulance that you passed him at 70."

The driver remained silent in that he was trusting in the dash cam to prove his innocence.

He did, however, notice something, intuitively, about the traffic stop:

The "police officer" became a "federal law enforcement officer" which is a change of language.

A change of language represents a change of reality.

We also note that the subject went from shorter to longer, the opposite of the expected.

The driver said he just "felt" that it was deceptive questioning why the need to add the single word "federal" (his question, but for us, we see even more words) to the equation.

When first told, there was a "police officer" in the ambulance, but when called upon to "not doubt the word" of the "police officer", he became a "federal law enforcement officer"

One word, "police" used to describe what kind of "officer" now changed to "federal law enforcement"  to describe what kind of officer was alleged to have been in the ambulance.

Since at the opening of this short entry you have noticed I added, as if a "private conversation" the parenthetical view of "dash cam", how do you think this account ended?

Both police and civilian were polite and respectful.
The civilian said very little, and allowed the officer to do the talking.

This is an example of Statement Analysis as "Discourse Analysis", or the ability to analyze "on the fly" from one who was on heightened alert for words.

Put your analysis and conclusion in the comments section.

Regarding Dashcams and cell phone from videos:

Every law enforcement officer should conduct himself, or herself, knowing that it is always possible that someone is recording your every word, and every move.

These videos can be manipulated.

The manipulations can be discerned, too.

Every citizen who is pulled over should conduct himself or herself as if they are being recorded.

Video protects us all.

Broad paint brushes are not always accurate.

Speeders can endanger the public, while speed traps and quotas are for revenue, not safety.

Drivers consider this:

Statistics show injury and death to law enforcement comes in traffic.

The officer, while armed, approaches a vehicle in the "theater of the unknown" before him or her. The driver can conceal a weapon.
The driver can reach for a cell phone and in a moment's time, self defense reflex can cause tragedy.

"Do unto others as you would have them do unto you."

Officers:  be truthful and honest with drivers.  Consider the element of fear as you, with deadly force, approach them.

Citizens:  be truthful and honest with officers.  Consider the element of fear that he or she may have, approaching you, not knowing your intentions or even well being.  The scourge of drugs, especially in the realm of the  hallucinogenic makes the scenario less predictable for them.

Put yourself in the shoes of the other, and act accordingly.  The simple, eternal words of "do unto others..." solves issues...

sometimes before they arise.

Statement Analysis training for traffic officers can help them discern, quickly, the intent of the driver. Those with de-escalation skills, who rely upon brain power, are the most valuable.  Those who seek to intimidate cause the most fear.

Use first impressions, drivers, to communicate to this officer that you are a respectful, law abiding citizen and pose no risk to anyone.






43 comments:

Anonymous said...

The phrase

"I have no reason to doubt"

is not an affirmation of belief.

Why not say "I believe"?

Julie said...

If the cop gave the driver a ticket, I hope he fought it and his dash cam gave proof positive that he was not speeding. Besides that, the ambulance shouldn't have been going so fast that they thought someone had to do 70 to pass them, and last I knew ambulances don't carry radar detectors....

Peter Hyatt said...

I should have added that I do not know the PSL there.

my guess?

55mph.

If it were 65, I don't think 70 would have been at issue.

Also, the driver was aware not to pass an ambulance with its lights on.

Anonymous said...

Either the officer did start to doubt (but without proof) the fed officer's account, or the officer learned something about the citizen when running the plates, something that necessitated reporting a superior authority. The driver is called citizen, so I'm assuming he's not an officer. But now that I look, he is called "driver" consistently until near the end then called "citizen" twice, so I'm wondering why the language used to identify the driver has changed.

Anonymous said...

Yes, it'
s easy to see why a policer officer changing to "federal..." would indicate why someone would be all that concerned about a passing motorist. It's cheesey!

Unless, the reporting officer had insecurity issues. That'd be my first guess.

I was pulled over recently. It was my fear. Thus, is why I hit the brakes when I noticed I was coasting 3 miles above the limit. I have a friend in the area and know first hand of the traffic tickets handed out. And, he expressed his fear of me in no uncertain terms.

I wondered why he would have even pulled me over when he could have radioed ahead and had an Interstate patrol car pull me over. He had no back up should I have turned out to be a dangerous criminal zooming past his city and endangering lives.

My opinion: he endangered his own life.

tania cadogan said...

My first thought would be, why was there a police officer in the ambulance when usually it is 2 medics?

AND at the start indicates missing information.

Was he using the phrase "federal law enforcement officer" to imply someone with more authority than a local law enforcement officer?
Would overtaking a federal officer at speed be more serious than overtaking a local officer?

If the lights weren't on then there was clearly no emergency, again why then would an officer be in the ambulance?

Anything in the negative is sensitive "I have no reason to doubt the word of a federal law enforcement officer in the ambulance that you passed him at 70."

I would be interested in asking what was said in the initial call to make the complaint.
I also want to know what happened once the dash cam evidence was reviewed.

Why do i wonder if this happened to you Peter? :)

Julie said...

Peter did this happen to YOU? :)

Anonymous said...

It's code for what type of injury does an officer sustain when beating the sh@t out of a padded vehicle seat? WTF? If the suspect moves into assist, then it's officer endangerment!

Peter Hyatt said...

Julie,

No.

Peter

Sus said...

"The ambulance driver was annoyed."
"...not wishing to yield control over the driver."
"The ambulance driver was not happy."
"The driver wondered if he would now be pulled over..."

Erasing these statements and looking only at the stopping officer's statements, my guess is he gave a verbal warning to the driver. The officer realized by the second interaction that he was used by the federal officer to check out and get traffic away from the ambulance. The officer spoke in the negative and changed labels. He knows it's a common practice to use local and state in this manner. He also dropped "mph" showing a lack of commitment. A federal officer only rides in an ambulance while transporting a federal witness or important federal prisoner. That's my guess and I'm probably not sticking to it. :-)

Lemon said...

Was the "federal law enforcement official" a patient in the ambulance?

Peter Hyatt said...

Some excellent observations.

The driver said he was let go with a warning.

Peter

PS: I did not, deliberately, ask what state this was in. :)

Anonymous said...

Yeah, he was the one in the straight jacket!

tania cadogan said...

A warning for what?

Was this warning just to bring an end to he uncomfortable situation (uncomfortable for the officer that is?)

Anonymous said...

Speeding.

Anonymous said...

OT
Beverly Carter's death won't be in vain. At least her cause is raising funds for domestic violence though, technically, being stalked and murdered for extotion by unknown persons isn't in that category. Or is it?
http://www.people.com/article/suspects-in-beverly-carter-murder-plead-not-guilty

We're watching you, too.

Anonymous said...

Was he using the phrase "federal law enforcement officer" to imply someone with more authority than a local law enforcement officer?
Would overtaking a federal officer at speed be more serious than overtaking a local officer?


There's an element of "he's my superior" but also an element of "he's not one of ours".

Keep in mind we have no denial that he was speeding. In fact, we get an reason as to why he felt the need to speed to pass. He wonders if he is going to be reported and pulled over. Also, he doesn't tell the officer about the "cat and mouse" game. Yet the officer tones down his belief in the speeding charge, makes it clear the officer is not of the same jurisdiction, and let's him off. Since the driver citizen said little, the change must have come from what was said by people in the ambulance (he detected deception) or something he learned when running the plates.

Anonymous said...

Tow paths: coal in the mouth vs. stfu

Peter is making up crap. A beotch fight. Cover for Websleuth hackers, Hokey supporters, and those that hope to get others murdered for their cause.

This scenerio was fabricated entirely.

If enough footage is gathered and featured on NG show, who profits?

BTW, I never flinched when a blk ford dead headed toward me after getting the front end knocked out and not totally repaired yet. No one wants to loose their vehicle. No one.

Anonymous said...

Duh- option 3: the officer noticed the dash cam, reported it to those in the ambulance and they changed their tone/tune.

linnet said...

So you were the driver then, Peter? If not, you would be unable to know word for word what was said.

I also think the "being silent" thing is your trademark when talking about yourself or your students.

;)

Linnet France said...

When will the SA for Charles Lindbergh come? I am so looking forward to it.

Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Anonymous said...

One lawyer once posioned herself to see if a crime had been committed as LE said it had been. Why? To get "experts" to retry the case.

They wait outside targeted industries to target people. You park away from where you think they are and when you move four spaces forward, they do too.

It is their beleif people owe them something because they are working as a group. They have a charity. They are not terrorists.

Peter Hyatt said...

linnet said...
So you were the driver then, Peter? If not, you would be unable to know word for word what was said.

I also think the "being silent" thing is your trademark when talking about yourself or your students.

;)
March 8, 2015 at 5:56 AM


Hence the dilemma of a personal blog.

The purpose of the blog is to educate and even push for justice. It isn't to spread ignorance.

Delete or not delete?

I enjoy good debate and the confrontation of ideas from people of good will.

I also do not wish to propagate ignorance.

I will answer.

I was asked if I was the driver and wrote "no." I also wrote that I did not know the PSL.

The above comment assumes deception. This is a blog on discerning deception, through a process that is evenly applied and not gnostic magic as per the silly FB 'experts' and 'psychics.'

I will let someone who reads answer the question:

If I was not the driver, how did I know the quote?

Post answer and reason for answer.

Peter

Peter Hyatt said...

Hobs wrote, "Warning for what?" which is an astute question.

The answer is not clear. My assumption is a warning for "passing an ambulance at 70mph", from the allegation, but, without giving away the answer to the question I just posted, you can guess the source of the answer!

hint: re-read the article.

Peter

Anonymous said...

You saw the dash cam video?

Hey- while we're working on this could you give us the answer to the persuasion question? It seems like the guessing on that assignment has ceased.

Anonymous said...

I probably should have said "heard."

Sus said...

The driver related the account to you.

I don't know about dash cams. Do they record speeds?

When I guessed the driver got a warning, I thought verbal warning. Nothing recorded...except the dash cam in this case.
It's like a draw. We'll leave it like you're guilty, but I won't try to prove it.

Single lane highway. Spl = 55 or 60. Warning was for speeding. Passing an ambulance without lights on is completely legal. It's the words "at 70 mph" that are added and important.

tania cadogan said...

You were the passenger Peter

Anonymous said...

Brilliant!

Sus said...

"Peter HyattMarch 7, 2015 at 4:37 PM
Some excellent observations.

The driver said he was let go with a warning.

Peter

PS: I did not, deliberately, ask what state this was in. :)"

I don't see how Peter was a passenger with this statement.

tania cadogan said...

Sus said...

"Peter HyattMarch 7, 2015 at 4:37 PM
Some excellent observations.

The driver said he was let go with a warning.

Peter

PS: I did not, deliberately, ask what state this was in. :)"

I don't see how Peter was a passenger with this statement.

March 8, 2015 at 4:15 PM


Anything in the negative is sensitive :)


Sus said...

Oh, yes it is. I'm too trusting. :-)

Ann Soule said...

Was the citizen an off duty police officer thus the change in reality/language after he returned from running the license/registration?

Anonymous said...

You were a passenger in the car that was pulled over.


Kathead

Peter Hyatt said...

No.

I was not the driver.
I was not a passenger.
I do not know what State this took place in.

The information all came from the Dash cam.

Peter

Peter Hyatt said...

Anonymous Anonymous said...
You saw the dash cam video?

Hey- while we're working on this could you give us the answer to the persuasion question? It seems like the guessing on that assignment has ceased.

March 8, 2015 at 11:17 AM



I just saw this, and Anonymous got it. The info came only from the Dash cam.

As to the persuasion question, I am going to answer it in an article.

It is a powerful principle and...

the world's top sales persons, top therapists, top communicators...often know it intuitively.

It is similar in vein to the husband wife entering into each other's language.

It is not mere parroting.

And...

someone in the social work field may catch it first.

Once learned, however, the depths will require not just an article, but lots of exploration.

Peter

Anonymous said...

I'll make a guess on what the principle is: Liking?

I guess this because of the work of Robert Cialdini and his six principles of influence. Principle 4 is liking. Also, because Peter said it is similar to entering into another's language in a marital sense, because it is something that requires strict boundaries and because if used properly, is very powerful.

Even if my guess is wrong, I still recommend Ciadini's book. It is excellent.

Lastly, I just finished Mark McClish's book I Know You Are Lying. It is a good read but after reading this blog for a long time I didn't find any surprises.

-Akula

Lemon said...

I think the answer to Peter's persuasion question has something to do with what people want or want to hear.

Ann Soule said...

Peter ' s persuasion question - trust. When trust starts to develop and vulnerability increases. Our guard goes down letting them see and become a part of ourselves this includes our personal subjective internal dictionaries, etc.

Peter Hyatt said...

Ann has hit the target.

The most comfort the brain receives in language is from "familiarity."

This is why long term married couples stop "parroting" each other, but "enter into" each other's language.

When a skilled interviewer, analyst, salesperson, etc, does this, there is a comfort that the subject experiences, even when not overtly recognized, which allows for a better flow of truth.

Sales

Confessions

Admissions

Tangents pushed aside for critical issues...
and so on.

I am holding trainings in this specifically for sales forces.

It may take a lot of work, but the results are worth it.

As this is considered, think about how, as one gets older, one speaks more and more of their upbringing. This is sometimes even seen in wards where the elderly begin to 'converse' with their long deceased parents.

Our upbringing is critical. We either fight it, or embrace it (the third choice is the most frequently employed: a little of both), but we deal with it daily.

Great addition, Ann.

Peter

Peter Hyatt said...

Lemon,

Excellent point.

I am working on an article on persuasion and when it is believed, ethically, to deceive, with the deception carefully qualified.

Peter

Child Advocate said...

My daughter is in college majoring in social work. Her goal is to become a LCSW. She either wants to work in a prison or a mental hospital. I have recommended she read your blog.