I work with some of the finest law enforcement officials in the country. They love their work, they believe in service, and they believe in using their intellect to diffuse difficult situations, and their training to get to the truth.
When a police officer is seen abusing his officer, they all feel the sting.
When a video of an event emerges, it allows us to see our analysis confirmed. Sometimes, we do not have a news story until both the statement and the video are released; at the same time.
Here we have a statement regarding a physical altercation between a police officer and a citizen released to media alongside of the video release.
First, the Statement, then the Analysis, and then the video. Following this is the local news story of the case.
A statement can differ from a video without being deceptive. Errors are made and should you or I be "incorrect", it will not show up as deception because the intent to deceive is absent.
Also, a video can be a different angle than one's own eyesight, and, as we have repeatedly seen, our own experiences can color our "verbalized perception of reality."
This, too, is not necessarily deception, but perception.
This now leads us to an entirely different level which is unique and a great opportunity for analysis:
If you knew that a video tape of what you just did existed, and it will be compared to your statement, and are told this before you write your statement, would you lie?
If, under the microscope of definitive proof: an actual video tape of what happened, which is stronger than eye witness testimonies, the subject is deceptive, the subject is announcing that he is one of the rare outright liars, who fabricates reality, and is utterly confident in his own abilities to deceive. If he lies, knowing a video exists of which his statement will be compared to, his testimony on every case he has ever been involved in, is now suspect.
Also, if true, he besmirches the reputations of every honorable law enforcement official in the country, at a time when it is particularly sensitive and much of the 'bad apple' reporting has been dramatically disproportionate to truthful reporting of all the good that is done by police.
The biggest question is: Would you lie if you were told a video existed of your actions?
It is only when one signals intent to deceive that we pick up the sensitivity in language.e
I. The statement
"I told Ainsley he was under arrest he again pushed himself back towards me. At this time, I feared that Ainsley would become physically combative towards me. I assume a defensive stance and pushed Ainsley away from me to put distance between myself and he. At that time, Ainsley stumbled as he was trying to push towards me. Ainsley fell to the ground."
Note "again" indicates missing information that has not been reported since he has not reported the "first" pushing.
"At this time, I feared" is to include a specific emotion at the perfect or logical point of the account; a signal that it is placed there artificially. Yet, we do not conclude deception on this alone.
It is, however, something much more sensitive:
"I assume" is to use his fear to explain why he took a particular posture.
He has not been asked, "Why did you...?", instead, pre-empts the question.
Also, note the change from past tense verb to present tense.
This is not "I was assuming", as in an incomplete activity, but the straight present tense, "I assume", which is not only unreliable, but when taken in the hyper sensitive "because" mode, is deceptive. The emotion here is, in fact, an artificial placement and is another indicator of deception.
Did you note "at this time" became "that" time, with distancing language? He did not mind psychologically associating with "this" time, where he informed the suspect he was under arrest, but when it came to the altercation, he distances himself with the word "that" in his language. Even when trying to deceive, knowing that video exists, he is unable to tell the truth.
IV> The News Story
FOX6 News has obtained new video that shows an incident that led to a Kenosha police officer receiving a 60-day suspension. Authorities say it was an unjustified use of force — and on top of that, the officer’s report did not match the video.
Kenosha police say at first, they did not get a citizen complaint about this incident. Instead, they say the investigation started when a supervisor was doing a routine check of dashcam video. He saw something that led him to pull up the incident report.
“It does look bad. The video looks terrible,” said Lt. Brad Hetlet of the Kenosha Police Department.
The sight of Officer Peter Bisciglia shoving a man to the ground, his head hitting the pavement, got the attention of Kenosha police supervisors. They were looking for something very different.
“To make sure the microphones are on, the squad videos are working properly. And in doing so, the captain on second shift came across a video he thought needed to be looked into,” said Hetlet.
Police went to Westown Foods in Kenosha on January 27th for a shoplifting call. According to the initial report, Bisciglia described the scene as “chaotic” and he “didn’t know who was friend or foe.”
On the indoor surveillance video, a man with a red hat seems to touch Bisciglia’s shoulder to get his attention. The officer responds by knocking his hand away — and then shoving the man back. Bisciglia does not mention this in his incident report.
“Credibility is everything when you’re a police officer. You have to be a credible witness for the state for prosecution purposes and we expect certain things of our officers,” said Hetlet.
Bisciglia then shoves another man outside the front door — knocking him to the sidewalk.
According to the internal investigation documents, Kenosha police brought in an outside use-of-force expert. He described Bisciglia’s actions as “unreasonable” and “probably based on emotion rather than sound tactics.”
“Most officers do the right things for the right reasons. In this case, we found there were policy violations. He didn’t do the right things for the right reasons and he was disciplined for it,” said Hetlet.
Bisciglia was suspended in May, but will continue to serve the suspension into next year. That’s because his punishment is broken down to six days a month for ten months. Police say that’s also to limit the financial hardship on the officer — and to keep him ineligible for unemployment benefits.