Tuesday, November 10, 2015

Distinct Police Advantage in Analysis

rank and file 
Recently, I wrote about how cynicism can infect patrol as it does in child protective investigators as both are exposed, intensely, to elements of human behavior that left unchecked, causes depression, anxiety, hopeless, self medicating, substance abuse, and a myriad of health issues.

Those who become acutely cynical in life struggle in analysis due to the 'expected' overly leaning towards deception, and remove the element of confrontation in analysis that is necessary for not only lie detection but content analysis. 

Yet, there is something else that addresses a distinct advantage afforded to patrol: 

Human nature understanding under a specific condition.  

Patrol has the opportunity for, easily, a dozen interviews per day, though they may not consider it an interview because it is outdoors, unplanned, in standing positions, at traffic stops, and other non-conventional times.  In  crime areas, it is a learning experience that may not be found anywhere else in life.  

                        Low IQ = poor impulse control.  

Readers know that Heather and I are fans of "old movies" and in particular, our favorites are those with pithy, understated dialog as it is rich, and often from novels.  Of our favorite era, though most point to 1939 as "The Golden Era", (no argument here), we love the "pre code" movies of the early 30's; the "naughty" movies before censors decided that married couples living in separate beds was "moral."  Many of these "B" movies are very enjoyable, and although this one is post code, it is still one of our favorites:  "The Divorce of Lady X" with Merle Oberon who uses her smile to disarm Laurence Olivier and the audience.  Olivier plays an attorney, in particular, a divorce attorney who has some very humorous lines about his unusual view of women.

Stuck at a hotel due to weather conditions, the two strangers bicker over his hotel room where she wishes him to be "chivalrous" and give up his room and sleep on the couch.  He is exhausted and has an important court appearance awaiting him in the morning.  The clash is between a male, fatigued and in desperate need of 8 hours of sleep, versus the beauty and charms of Merle Oberon's character, "Lady X" (she did not want him to know her name) who not only uses her beauty, but her wit to out flank him.  

He boldly claims to know human nature, and in particular, to "know" how women think due to his profession, and it is a valid point for some attorneys.  

"At least men admit not knowing much about themselves, but women know everything,  but only about other women and not themselves.", he replies with feigned bitterness. 

To drive home the point, instead of being taken in by their beauty, he said, "I pay close attention to what is behind the lips of women!" 

Without missing a beat, Merle: 

"Oh, are you a dentist?" she impishly asks, pushing his buttons and in no need of a reply.  He agrees to let her stay but she gets the couch and must find something for herself to wear to bed.  She asks for his help to which he replies:   "You can wear nothing for all I care" to which she said,

"You're always thinking of yourself." It's a great moment.  

No spoilers.  It is a cute movie worth catching the clever dialog as fans of Statement Analysis find that over time:  they love rich dialog far more than the endless bodily gas jokes from adults.  

The attorney's claim to know human nature comes because of his setting:   he deals with wealthy people who have had infidelity and are about to have their finances destroyed and are very stressed.

The key is:

Speaking to people in heightened states of alert, for whatever reason, is a marvelous instructor in human nature and interviewing.  

Some are really good at diffusing dangerous anger.  Low IQ  equates impulse control issues and this is where the "energy", or in older language, "demeanor" of the law enforcement officer, itself, can help diffuse an angry situation.  The officer, therefore, must remain professional in situations where most of us would want to scream.  This is pressure and it is relentless. 


Patrol not only has volume providing large amounts of sample to learn from (like CPS and like busy attorneys) but it is fair to say that they do de fact interviewing all shift long.  Yet there is something about patrol interviewing that must be considered:

many of these interactions (they are interviews) come during heightened emotional stress for the subjects.  

This is along the vein of "excited utterance" that we look at in analysis.


People are emotional; victims do not often care to use a filter, and the accused can become highly defensive and they are, at an incredibly tense and rapidly changing environment, "interviewing" intense individuals and often has to decide, on the spot, who is telling the truth, if a crime has been committed, and how to handle the situation:

do I listen with empathy?
do I draw my weapon?
Can I listen to her, while keeping one eye on him?
What is his point?
Do I call for back up?
What does the law say here?

In one instant, the patrol officer is now:

a Security Guard or soldier

a therapist 

a marriage counselor 

a minister or rabbi

a referee

an expert in civil law who must know the myriad of traffic laws, criminal laws, civil laws and should he or she be wrong, the criticism is acute.  

a financial planner

a parent

an advisor

a lie detector

a janitor 


and it may be that his every move and every word is being recorded by angry citizens who may or may not edit the video to fulfill a narrative that may not include truth.  This can end up on a "hate police" website that his children or his children's friends might see online.  

Oh, and by the way, many officers have to "moonlight", which is a nice word for:  2nd job.  This, along with teachers, represents one of the worst pay disparity in American history when looking at job requirements versus pay.  

There is, perhaps, no greater need for training and it is here that patrol can not only practice his skills from Statement Analysis training, but can gain traction for his career while sorting out truth from deception, well serving the people he or she has dedicated his life to.


Medical doctors pay insane insurance premiums to protect them from law suits.  To think that this does not interfere with what they say and do is to not understand human nature.  The reservedness due to potential suits is appointment by appointment, not necessarily only for crisis.

Not understanding human nature will not allow for analysis.

A recent example was from the medical professional who wrote from Germany about the violence in the hospital.  Some wrote that the letter was false because 'medical professionals would never talk like that', was the only linguistic argument I could find.  In others that concluded it was fake, either did not assert why or they attributed it to the make-shift set up for triage, signaling either having never been in a hospital (nor seen video) during a rush time or emergency, or...perhaps the letter did not fit their narrative.  Recently, German medical professionals confirmed in MSM what this letter had asserted.  It was true.  What causes some to dismiss? If it is an inferior understanding of human nature, can they learn to change this viewpoint?

Patrol does not have the luxury of being an ideologist.

Patrol is constantly in stressful situations.  Very few people who receive tickets are happy campers.  These stressful situations are not just opportunity to practice deescalation techniques, but are opportunities to build a personal "data bank" of

*Language in your region
*Language differences among people
*Language changes and comparisons from high stress situations or low stress situations
*How certain people react to the patrol's wording, body language, etc.

and on and on the list to learn goes.

Patrol can be a marvelous learning opportunity for Statement Analysis as well as an opportunity for career building for those who wish to move and succeed in investigations.

The higher the stress of the situation, the greater potential for learning.  

Patrol:  "How many drinks did you have, sir?"

Subject:  "Just two, officer." 

The word "just" is a comparative word indicating that the driver is comparing his number "two" to another number:  perhaps the actual number of drinks he really had.  

Consider every conversation you have, in all settings, as an "interview", learn the principles of Statement Analysis from formal training, and learn how Analytical Interviewing is so successful in obtaining confessions or admissions.

Hyatt Analysis Services 

7 comments:

Anonymous said...

Topic within similar vein as post:

http://www.idahostatesman.com/news/local/article43654638.html

John mcgowan said...

OT Update:

"Crime Watch Daily" films in Myrtle Beach for story about Heather Elvis case

http://www.myhorrynews.com/news/crime/article_01dc0e2a-87d5-11e5-9810-9f49faf896fd.html

Anonymous said...

new videos from isis are making the rounds http://www.clarionproject.org/news/witches-and-gays-beware-isis-latest-graphic-video

witches and smokers and drinkers of alcohols and homosexuals.

all short and to the point.

is this in obdencie to islam?

Anonymous said...

OT
8 yr old charged with murder of 1 yyr oid

Mother staying @ friend's left child with friend's five other children under the age of 8.
http://www.stltoday.com/news/national/year-old-charged-with-murder-of-toddler-while-mother-went/article_d6fecefb-49ba-5899-88b0-f761a9562536.htmlhttp://www.stltoday.com/news/national/year-old-charged-with-murder-of-toddler-while-mother-went/article_d6fecefb-49ba-5899-88b0-f761a9562536.html

MISSING INFO: Mother charged with manslaughter though her infant is murdered. Nothing is said of the other person that left the children alone with the infant...YET.

John mcgowan said...

OT:

EXCLUSIVE: Ben Carson's MOTHER contradicted claim he attacked her with a hammer - and said it was actually the other way round

Snipped:

Asked by Megyn Kelly: 'Dr Carson I know that you’ve said this feels like a witch hunt but let me ask you flat out whether you stand by the claim that you as a young man, a 14-year-old boy, attempted to stab another boy and attacked your own mother with a hammer.'

He replied: 'Those claims are absolutely true, you know I am 100 percent sure that they’re true and this is simply an attempt to smear and to deflect the argument as we’ve seen many times before.'
Last month speaking on NBC’s Meet the Press Carson insisted: 'I am soft-spoken. I do have a tendency to be relaxed. I wasn’t always like that.


Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3312824/Ben-Carson-s-MOTHER-Sonya-Carson-contradicted-claim-attacker-hammer-said-actually-way-round.html#ixzz3rCa3SEyO

Apple said...

John Mcgowan,

'Those claims are absolutely true, you know I am 100 percent sure that they’re true and this is simply an attempt to smear and to deflect the argument as we’ve seen many times before.'
-------
"those" distances his claims
"absolutely" weakens true
"you know" shows he is aware of his audience? Persuade?
"I am 100 percent sure" why not just say they are true?
"they're true" distancing

How am i doing? I feel bad for the guy either way!

elf said...

People really knew how to flirt back in the day :)