I recently read a FANTASTIC article called "Why the Gun is Civilization" by a blogger name Marko Kloos. The article is widely attributed to a United States Marine Corps Major named "L. Caudill", however, that is a false attribution. I presume the fictitious USMC Major is given credit to establish credibility for the article, but I can't say for sure.
The relation to law enforcement here is threefold. First, as law officers, you are sworn to uphold and defend The Constitution of the United States, and this is an important 2nd Amendment issue. Secondly, the premise of the author's argument suggests there are only two ways to conduct business: the use of reason or the use of force. Police officers know these two factors are the only two, and they deal with them on every single contact they make. Third and last, police officers must realize there is a distinct possibility a person they are speaking with is armed, and this essay is a not-so-subtle reminder the force and reason factor the author presents is a two way street. A citizen will almost invariably realize there is no reasoning with you, the cop. His only alternative then will be force. I hope you enjoy the article as much as I did.
Derek
Human beings only have two ways to deal with one another: reason and force. If you want me to do something for you, you have a choice of either convincing me via argument, or force me to do your bidding under threat of force. Every human interaction falls into one of those two categories, without exception. Reason or force, that’s it.
In a truly moral and civilized society, people exclusively interact through persuasion. Force has no place as a valid method of social interaction, and the only thing that removes force from the menu is the personal firearm, as paradoxical as it may sound to some.
When I carry a gun, you cannot deal with me by force. You have to use reason and try to persuade me, because I have a way to negate your threat or employment of force. The gun is the only personal weapon that puts a 100-pound woman on equal footing with a 220-pound mugger, a 75-year old retiree on equal footing with a 19-year old gangbanger, and a single gay guy on equal footing with a carload of drunk guys with baseball bats. The gun removes the disparity in physical strength, size, or numbers between a potential attacker and a defender.
There are plenty of people who consider the gun as the source of bad force equations. These are the people who think that we’d be more civilized if all guns were removed from society, because a firearm makes it easier for a mugger to do his job. That, of course, is only true if the mugger’s potential victims are mostly disarmed either by choice or by legislative fiat–it has no validity when most of a mugger’s potential marks are armed. People who argue for the banning of arms ask for automatic rule by the young, the strong, and the many, and that’s the exact opposite of a civilized society. A mugger, even an armed one, can only make a successful living in a society where the state has granted him a force monopoly.
Then there’s the argument that the gun makes confrontations lethal that otherwise would only result in injury. This argument is fallacious in several ways. Without guns involved, confrontations are won by the physically superior party inflicting overwhelming injury on the loser. People who think that fists, bats, sticks, or stones don’t constitute lethal force watch too much TV, where people take beatings and come out of it with a bloody lip at worst. The fact that the gun makes lethal force easier works solely in favor of the weaker defender, not the stronger attacker. If both are armed, the field is level. The gun is the only weapon that’s as lethal in the hands of an octogenarian as it is in the hands of a weightlifter. It simply wouldn’t work as well as a force equalizer if it wasn’t both lethal and easily employable.
When I carry a gun, I don’t do so because I am looking for a fight, but because I’m looking to be left alone. The gun at my side means that I cannot be forced, only persuaded. I don’t carry it because I’m afraid, but because it enables me to be unafraid. It doesn’t limit the actions of those who would interact with me through reason, only the actions of those who would do so by force. It removes force from the equation…and that’s why carrying a gun is a civilized act.
Written by Marko Kloos
http://munchkinwrangler.wordpress.com/2007/03/23/why-the-gun-is-civilization/
Monday, August 2, 2010
Friday, July 9, 2010
First award?
I just received an email from the folks at Cirminaljusticedegreeschools.com telling me the Cover Car was listed in their "top 50 Law Enforcement" blogs list. I'm not sure what their affiliation or commercial purposes are, but it was still pretty cool. Well, it's no Pulitzer, but it's still flattering. Here's the link:
Also, it looks like I came in ahead of the official blog for the LAPD if the blogs are ranked. Hey, LAPD, need a cop / blogger?
Also, it looks like I came in ahead of the official blog for the LAPD if the blogs are ranked. Hey, LAPD, need a cop / blogger?
Wednesday, February 24, 2010
The Riverside Stop: A good tactic?
On the Riverside California website, there's a passage that says "Several tactics developed by the Riverside Police Department, such as the High-Risk or Felony Traffic Stop, have been adopted as the standard throughout the country." The Riverside Police Department is pretty proud of that, and rightfully so. I know if I wrote something the whole nation practiced, I'd be proud of that as well. However, if my tactic was dangerous and left people at risk of unnecessary injury or the possibility of death, I may not be so proud.
If you're a cop, you know what the Riverside Felony Stop is, even if you don't know it by name. You may just call it a high risk stop, felony stop, or something else entirely. At any rate, you know it, you train on it, and you do it on the street. For those of you who are lucky enough to work in a place like Aurora Colorado, you do something else entirely.
For those of you who don't know, the Riverside, or felony stop, is a tactic police officers use when pulling over a vehicle when there is credible information the occupants are armed or otherwise dangerous. The theory behind the stop is sound, but the implementation of the theory leaves much to be desired. While conducting a Riverside Stop, there must be at least two police cars behind the suspect vehicle. The two cars are generally side by side, and the passenger door of the car on the left is opened all the way, as is the driver door of the car on the right. The two opened doors are purported to be a "safe zone" by Riverside Stop advocates. Yes, the two open doors may provide you with concealment, and a moderate degree of cover, but this area is by no means "safe".
The way the Riverside Stop doctrine advises you to use this "safe zone" is calling the individual occupants, one at a time, out of the car, and walking them back to this area. Upon the suspect entering the "safe zone", the suspect is ordered to kneel, and the officers behind the doors take him into custody. The other officers, on the opposite sides of the two police cars continue to watch the suspect vehicle for safety purposes. A different variant is taking the suspects into custody in front of the two doors, exposed to any incoming fire. On its surface, the technique isn't really that bad, and allows officers to "slow things down". When you look a little further into the method, the Riverside Stop breaks down, and creates dangerous conditions.
The reason you perform the high risk stop to begin with, is because you believe the suspects to be dangerous. They may be armed, violent, or just adverse to being arrested. All of these conditions require special consideration on your part. You know a person backed into a corner or with "nothing to lose" is capable of violent response, whether by planning or fear. Bearing these factors in mind, why are we bringing a potentially violent suspect into our "safe zone"?
Another consideration to be made in this technique, is our inherent compulsion to help our fellow officers and...well, let's face it, cops are nosy. We want to know what's going on. How do these factors play into the Riverside Stop? Let's assume PPCT's teachings are 100% correct, and the "first touch" is the most dangerous one. What this implies is the very first time you touch a suspect is the most likely time you'll receive a violent response from your suspect. That first touch, in the Riverside Stop, is when you start putting handcuffs on. So, if we assume our potentially violent suspect is in our "safe zone", and we attempt to put handcuffs on them, this will be the most likely time we'll be in a fight. We may have one or two officer there to subdue this suspect, true. But, what about the other officers there who are supposed to be minding the activities of suspects in the suspect vehicle? Will they leave their post to join in the fight and protect their partners? Maybe...or they may just look over to the officers in the fight to make sure they're ok. Both of these are perfectly normal, reasonable reactions from cops, but they're just not acceptable. Those other officers' sole responsibility is the goings-on in the suspect vehicle. By "giving up" the car and checking on your partners, you place the entire situation in jeopardy. This can be overcome by a having the right mindset and copious training, but what if you throw a gunshot into the mix? No matter how disciplined you are, a gunshot from five feet away WILL distract you.
Your average passenger in a vehicle involved in a felony stop will not be a grandmother on her way home from church, nor will they be the neighborhood watch block captain. Ordinarily, when a felony stop is conducted, you're dealing with the criminal element. Maybe these folks are brand new to the bad guy world, but more than likely, that won't be the case. Criminals talk. Especially in jail, where they have nothing better to do. They even train to be better criminals. As a part of your officer safety training, you may have seen the video of prisoners training to overcome officers from the "hands on the hood" pat-down position. We know for a fact, bad guys train to hurt cops. In Aurora Colorado last year, there was a rash of suspects getting pulled over, bailing on foot, then doubling back during the foot chase and getting back in their cars, or even stealing the police car.
With the Riverside Stop being nearly universal in high risk type stops, criminals all over the country have had quite a while to figure this one out. They know if the first person out of the car puts up a struggle, the remaining occupants can get out and run away. As long as the first guy doesn't talk, the rest are off the hook. That's the best case scenario. The worst is they all disappear, and wind up behind you. I don't need to tell you how likely that is to wind up as a bad day.
What's the solution to the high risk stop problem? I'd love to tell you, but this is a public forum, and I don't want to give it out to anyone who shouldn't have the information. I will, however, be glad to answer the question if you email me. There is a much better system out there that deserves to be used because it's more safe and much more effective. If you'd like to know more about it from the authority, I'd recommend getting in touch with the Koga Institute or the Aurora Police Department in Colorado.
So, I have done some trash talking about the Riverside Stop in this article, but that doesn't mean I have anything bad to say about Riverside PD or any agency that uses the stop. My purpose for this article was to provide some food for thought, and allow the opportunity for officers and agencies to re-evaluate the tactics they use and make themselves more safe. If anyone knows where I can upload the video of the prisoners training to overcome officers in a frisk, let me know so I can post a link to it.
If you ever need a cover car, just ask.
Derek
If you're a cop, you know what the Riverside Felony Stop is, even if you don't know it by name. You may just call it a high risk stop, felony stop, or something else entirely. At any rate, you know it, you train on it, and you do it on the street. For those of you who are lucky enough to work in a place like Aurora Colorado, you do something else entirely.
For those of you who don't know, the Riverside, or felony stop, is a tactic police officers use when pulling over a vehicle when there is credible information the occupants are armed or otherwise dangerous. The theory behind the stop is sound, but the implementation of the theory leaves much to be desired. While conducting a Riverside Stop, there must be at least two police cars behind the suspect vehicle. The two cars are generally side by side, and the passenger door of the car on the left is opened all the way, as is the driver door of the car on the right. The two opened doors are purported to be a "safe zone" by Riverside Stop advocates. Yes, the two open doors may provide you with concealment, and a moderate degree of cover, but this area is by no means "safe".
The way the Riverside Stop doctrine advises you to use this "safe zone" is calling the individual occupants, one at a time, out of the car, and walking them back to this area. Upon the suspect entering the "safe zone", the suspect is ordered to kneel, and the officers behind the doors take him into custody. The other officers, on the opposite sides of the two police cars continue to watch the suspect vehicle for safety purposes. A different variant is taking the suspects into custody in front of the two doors, exposed to any incoming fire. On its surface, the technique isn't really that bad, and allows officers to "slow things down". When you look a little further into the method, the Riverside Stop breaks down, and creates dangerous conditions.
The reason you perform the high risk stop to begin with, is because you believe the suspects to be dangerous. They may be armed, violent, or just adverse to being arrested. All of these conditions require special consideration on your part. You know a person backed into a corner or with "nothing to lose" is capable of violent response, whether by planning or fear. Bearing these factors in mind, why are we bringing a potentially violent suspect into our "safe zone"?
Another consideration to be made in this technique, is our inherent compulsion to help our fellow officers and...well, let's face it, cops are nosy. We want to know what's going on. How do these factors play into the Riverside Stop? Let's assume PPCT's teachings are 100% correct, and the "first touch" is the most dangerous one. What this implies is the very first time you touch a suspect is the most likely time you'll receive a violent response from your suspect. That first touch, in the Riverside Stop, is when you start putting handcuffs on. So, if we assume our potentially violent suspect is in our "safe zone", and we attempt to put handcuffs on them, this will be the most likely time we'll be in a fight. We may have one or two officer there to subdue this suspect, true. But, what about the other officers there who are supposed to be minding the activities of suspects in the suspect vehicle? Will they leave their post to join in the fight and protect their partners? Maybe...or they may just look over to the officers in the fight to make sure they're ok. Both of these are perfectly normal, reasonable reactions from cops, but they're just not acceptable. Those other officers' sole responsibility is the goings-on in the suspect vehicle. By "giving up" the car and checking on your partners, you place the entire situation in jeopardy. This can be overcome by a having the right mindset and copious training, but what if you throw a gunshot into the mix? No matter how disciplined you are, a gunshot from five feet away WILL distract you.
Your average passenger in a vehicle involved in a felony stop will not be a grandmother on her way home from church, nor will they be the neighborhood watch block captain. Ordinarily, when a felony stop is conducted, you're dealing with the criminal element. Maybe these folks are brand new to the bad guy world, but more than likely, that won't be the case. Criminals talk. Especially in jail, where they have nothing better to do. They even train to be better criminals. As a part of your officer safety training, you may have seen the video of prisoners training to overcome officers from the "hands on the hood" pat-down position. We know for a fact, bad guys train to hurt cops. In Aurora Colorado last year, there was a rash of suspects getting pulled over, bailing on foot, then doubling back during the foot chase and getting back in their cars, or even stealing the police car.
With the Riverside Stop being nearly universal in high risk type stops, criminals all over the country have had quite a while to figure this one out. They know if the first person out of the car puts up a struggle, the remaining occupants can get out and run away. As long as the first guy doesn't talk, the rest are off the hook. That's the best case scenario. The worst is they all disappear, and wind up behind you. I don't need to tell you how likely that is to wind up as a bad day.
What's the solution to the high risk stop problem? I'd love to tell you, but this is a public forum, and I don't want to give it out to anyone who shouldn't have the information. I will, however, be glad to answer the question if you email me. There is a much better system out there that deserves to be used because it's more safe and much more effective. If you'd like to know more about it from the authority, I'd recommend getting in touch with the Koga Institute or the Aurora Police Department in Colorado.
So, I have done some trash talking about the Riverside Stop in this article, but that doesn't mean I have anything bad to say about Riverside PD or any agency that uses the stop. My purpose for this article was to provide some food for thought, and allow the opportunity for officers and agencies to re-evaluate the tactics they use and make themselves more safe. If anyone knows where I can upload the video of the prisoners training to overcome officers in a frisk, let me know so I can post a link to it.
If you ever need a cover car, just ask.
Derek
Tuesday, February 2, 2010
The Gunslinger's Paradox
The Gunslinger's Paradox...now there's an interesting arrangement of words. What do they mean? How many movies have you seen with a gunfight? If you're anything like me, probably half the movies or TV shows you see have at least one gunfight. Of those, how often does the guy who draws first also get shot first? I can't think of one where that wasn't the case.
New research by the University of Birmingham has proposed this phenomenon does have some merit, biologically speaking. According to Dr. Andrew Welchman, the second person's reaction to a scenario like the Gunslinger's Paradox, is around 21 milliseconds faster than the person who initiated the gunfight. Dr. Welchman attributes the quick response times to the necessity for people and animals to evade dangers posed by predators and other life threatening hazards.
What does this mean to you, the law enforcement officer? Well, a couple things. The first of which is, you may have a slight advantage when you're ambushed. Now, don't get all cocky, and think you don't have to practice "when, then" thinking. You still need to practice officer safety. When I say practice, I mean practice and get better. I also mean practice as in "incorporate it into your life and make it a habit".
The more important part of this to know is, like everything,this is a two-way street. Most of you in law enforcement have had to draw your weapon and point it at a person numerous times. The average person, or even prison-conditioned violent felon will consider this as a threat...just like you would. The will to live, or escape, is very strong in the human mind. The person you are pointing the weapon at gauges the threat to their safety the same way a police officer would. The majority of the contacts you make are with unarmed people, but there is still dangerous potential for that not to be the case.
The research conducted by Dr. Welchman suggests reactionary responses are much less accurate than planned ones. This is probably something you already knew, but do you use this knowledge to your advantage? When I was in the Army, the cardinal sin of range conduct was moving while shooting. From a few friends I have that are still serving, I have been informed this is no longer the case. When I got hired by a police department with an excellent firearms training program, I realized how important it is to incorporate motion while shooting. As you know, it's easier to hit a stationary target than a moving one. Bearing this in mind, it's in your best interest to be a moving target, and train to shoot while moving. Additionally, when you draw your weapon from the holster, draw like you mean it. Every time. Secondly, if practical, take a big sidestep in one direction or the other, preferably to a covered position. If no cover is available, take the big sidestep anyway. It is much more difficult for the suspect to hit a moving target, especially one that is traversing. This also forces your adversary to "find" you again now that you're in a different place than the last time he saw you.
If you're interested on more details of the study, you can find an article here: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/science/article7012803.ece
That's all for now, and if you ever need a cover car, just ask.
Derek
New research by the University of Birmingham has proposed this phenomenon does have some merit, biologically speaking. According to Dr. Andrew Welchman, the second person's reaction to a scenario like the Gunslinger's Paradox, is around 21 milliseconds faster than the person who initiated the gunfight. Dr. Welchman attributes the quick response times to the necessity for people and animals to evade dangers posed by predators and other life threatening hazards.
What does this mean to you, the law enforcement officer? Well, a couple things. The first of which is, you may have a slight advantage when you're ambushed. Now, don't get all cocky, and think you don't have to practice "when, then" thinking. You still need to practice officer safety. When I say practice, I mean practice and get better. I also mean practice as in "incorporate it into your life and make it a habit".
The more important part of this to know is, like everything,this is a two-way street. Most of you in law enforcement have had to draw your weapon and point it at a person numerous times. The average person, or even prison-conditioned violent felon will consider this as a threat...just like you would. The will to live, or escape, is very strong in the human mind. The person you are pointing the weapon at gauges the threat to their safety the same way a police officer would. The majority of the contacts you make are with unarmed people, but there is still dangerous potential for that not to be the case.
The research conducted by Dr. Welchman suggests reactionary responses are much less accurate than planned ones. This is probably something you already knew, but do you use this knowledge to your advantage? When I was in the Army, the cardinal sin of range conduct was moving while shooting. From a few friends I have that are still serving, I have been informed this is no longer the case. When I got hired by a police department with an excellent firearms training program, I realized how important it is to incorporate motion while shooting. As you know, it's easier to hit a stationary target than a moving one. Bearing this in mind, it's in your best interest to be a moving target, and train to shoot while moving. Additionally, when you draw your weapon from the holster, draw like you mean it. Every time. Secondly, if practical, take a big sidestep in one direction or the other, preferably to a covered position. If no cover is available, take the big sidestep anyway. It is much more difficult for the suspect to hit a moving target, especially one that is traversing. This also forces your adversary to "find" you again now that you're in a different place than the last time he saw you.
If you're interested on more details of the study, you can find an article here: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/science/article7012803.ece
That's all for now, and if you ever need a cover car, just ask.
Derek
Friday, January 29, 2010
Helpful links for cops
Quite often, as a police officer, I needed to track someone down to arrest, interview, or identify them. Unfortunately, most agencies don't teach their new officers how to do this. After a few years, I learned quite a few little tricks to help in tracking someone down. It's taken me quite a while to compile all of these things in one place, and I hope people can find them of use. Even if you're not a cop, the resources below can help you track down that girlfriend, boyfriend, or classmate from years ago. Happy hunting!
Derek
Derek
- Search tools
- Hoax, Fraud, Scam, Phishing and Misinformation resources
- Pipl - People Search
- Reverse Email Search Email Address Lookup Spokeo
- More people searches
- Zip code reference
- Address search tools
- Even more Google tricks
- More Google tips
- Zabasearch
- More people searches
- Email Tracker
- Public Records search
- Public Records Search
- Sherry's Index
- IP Address Lookup - IPAddresser.com
- CO Sex Offenders
- 25 Free People Search Engines to Find Anyone
- WolframAlpha
- Spokeo
- 100+ Google Tricks
Interview Basics
One of the most important things you will do in law enforcement is interview people. Some interviews may be casual affairs on the street, casual ones in an interview room, or more formal interviews where Miranda applies. After a while, you develop your own style, and things seem to go a little more smoothly. If you're new to interviewing, or a seasoned pro, check out some of the things that work for me. Everyone has a style, and none is more right than the next (unless you just flat out never get confessions). Make no mistake about it, it's a battle...one of wits. As a Field Training Officer, I had the opportunity to pass on this information to recruits, and now, I can pass it along to you.
The battlefield
The interview room should be set up in a way that maximizes your effectiveness. To obtain the "high ground", the suspect should be in a corner, furthest from the door and facing it. In most interview rooms, there is a small table, move it to the corner the suspect's chair is in, and position it so there is just enough room between the table and the wall for their chair. He/she should be at the "head" of the table. Your chair should be at the center of the table, with only the table's corner between the two of you.
Arm yourself!
The most important thing you can have going into an interview is information. Gather everything you know about the incident: Names of the players, evidence, location, timeline, and any other detail you can think of. Take this information, and make a "fact sheet" out of it. Be sure it's easy for you to read; you'll need it in the interview. You'll also need the criminal history printout of your suspect. Gather any paper relating to the incident together, place the criminal history on top, then just grab a bunch of paper out of the recycle bin and put it underneath. The purpose for this is to allow your suspect to see his history, and think the whole stack is his information. Encourage that kind of thinking. A suspect who thinks you know everything, in my experience, is more likely to talk about what they did to "get the record straight". Once you have your information ammunition, it's time to preplan a few questions. Personally, I never did much of this and just went on the fly, but it's never a bad idea. Put your game face on, and head into the interview room. Don't forget witness statements, a pen, and of course the Miranda waiver. Having the ability to record the interview somehow is a bonus too. Before bringing the suspect in the interview room, put your stack of paper on your chair. When the suspect walks in, the only available chair for them should be the one in the corner. Invite, don't order them, to sit. Anything you can do to show "voluntariness" is a good thing.
Surveillance / Reconnaissance
Now for the fun part! The first order of business in the interview room is to establish a rapport with the suspect. There is no more important task in an interview than this. I'll repeat it...ESTABLISH A RAPPORT with the suspect. I like to start off firming up the suspect's contact information so as to get a little inside information to talk about. I'll ask where they work, and try to carry on three to five minutes about what they do. Get their mind off of the offense and their current setting. Try to ask open ended questions that require them to elaborate a little. Really engage them, and try to probe for their interests. Talk about some kind of connection you have to what they're talking about. This is a little dirty, but appearing to them like a friend is more likely to result in a confession (and that, unlike the hokey-pokey, is what it's all about).
After a few minutes, shift the conversation, and tell them you have a pretty good understanding of the events that brought them to "this unfortunate circumstance". Tell the suspect there are a few details needing to be sorted out, because you want to make sure they aren't charged with something worse than what they actually did. This does a couple things in the suspect's mind. First, it gives the appearance you care about them and their situation, and in a sense, you do. Just not the way they want you to. Secondly, they don't want to be charged with something worse than what they did. These two factors really take a toll on the suspect's mind if presented properly. After that statement, tell them in order to "clear things up for" them, you'll have to ask a "couple questions", and ask something like "Would you be OK with that?" Generally, the answer will be yes. If not, change the topic, and keep the rapport building process going. If they assert their 5th Amendment right to silence, or specifically ask for a lawyer, stop the questioning. You don't want to waste any more of your time. If they say something to the effect of "Do you think I need a lawyer.", be on your toes and say "It's not my call." and keep on going.
For the Miranda waiver, pull out the form from your stack and downplay "reading their rights" by saying something like "Like they do on cops". Once the form is signed, BURY it under your stack of paper and CHANGE THE SUBJECT. Go back to their job or their kids...whatever they were interested in. Do this for another five or ten minutes to remove the idea from their head they can stop answering questions when they want, or to have a lawyer. Again, this is dirty, but it works. More importantly, it is legal.
The attack
After the rapport / waiver portion is complete, it's time to start the interview. Many interviewers will differ when it comes to this part of the interview. This is the way I do it, and the way I have achieved good results. Tell the suspect everything you know about the incident, but let on you know more. I usually do a timeline of what happened, and fill in the blanks with some creative license. After my account, I ask the suspect to "fill in the blanks" or say "what did I miss?". Let them get through their narrative completely, and take notes while they're talking. Afterward, just don't say anything. Let them sit and review the lies in their head, and wonder if you know. At this point, it's OK to look at them, in silence, with the "That was a load of BS" look. They may, get uncomfortable with the silence and start patching the holes in their story. This is a good thing. If you can demonstrate in court the suspect had multiple different stories, your odds of a conviction are considerably better.
Counterattack
Now that you've heard their "story" (which is probably just that; a story), it's time to start pointing out the holes and flaws in it. Don't accuse them of being a liar...people get defensive and clam up. Instead, I prefer to play dumb, and ask them to clarify certain points. Usually, I say something like "I don't get the part where..." or "I don't understand...". When they clarify, and they continue to lie to you, don't worry. It's OK. The more their story changes, the better off you are. While all this is going on, you should be a little more focused on their body language than you are on their speech. Lies are stressful for people to tell, and they "dump stress" in a variety of ways. Some people play with objects, their hair, pick at their skin, tremble, take lots of deep breaths, or bounce their legs. These are just a few examples of things to look for. Maybe I'll cover body language in a different article. When you identify the suspect's particular "tell", make a mental note of it, as you may need it later. When this part is done, I'll recount their telling of the story and ask if I missed anything. Along the way, I'll make a big deal when I get to one of their lies, but still won't accuse them.
Gaining the upper hand
At this stage of the interview, they have told the lies they're going to tell. It's time to get past those. Earlier I mentioned the importance of not accusing the suspect of lying. In this portion, we'll work on turning the lies into the truth. By calling a liar out, it puts them on the defense, and they'll lie until the end. Instead of calling the liar out, give them the opportunity to save face. Everyone makes mistakes, and when we can save face, we'll often admit our mistakes much more readily. This is the premise for the following technique. Admit to one of your mistakes, and minimize theirs in the light of yours. I have a loose script I use, and I'll share a portion here, just to give you an idea of what it's like. "Everyone does so-and-so" at one point in their lives. A few years ago, before I was a cop, I did X. I knew I made a mistake, and what I did was wrong. I told the truth about it, and the police department overlooked it because of my honesty. They know everyone messes up at some point, and the 'big person' can admit their mistakes and learn from them. They hired me, and here I am. Imagine you saw your neighbor hit your car, and then drive off. If he pretended like it never happened or lied about it, you'd be pretty angry with that guy. Now, if he came to you, told the truth, and offered to make it right, you'd respect that guy MORE than before. Heck, you may even offer to buy him a beer! Now, you know this is going to court...and there will be a jury. A jury OF YOUR PEERS. Peers are people JUST LIKE YOU. Remember the neighbor that hit your car, and how you felt about it when he lied? You don't want the jury of people JUST LIKE YOU to have that feeling about you, do you? I sure wouldn't. Wouldn't you rather have them think you acknowledge you made a mistake, admit your fault, and that you'll never do something like that again? That's what I would rather them think about me. I know you get mad when people lie to you, and I bet the jury, those people JUST LIKE YOU would feel the same way. You know I'll be writing a report about this. Now, I'm not going to call you a liar in it, but I will write what I know is the truth. Then, I write what you told me. Obviously, those two things will not be the same. Who do you think the jury is going to call a liar? If you want the jury to help you out, I suggest you don't lie to them. Now that we've talked about this, is there anything you might want to change about what you said happened?" If so, it's time to cajole them into writing a witness statement. Say "I know your story, but I think the jury would appreciate it more in your words, in your writing" and hand them a pen.
The big guns
Generally, the truth will come out after that speech. If not, it's time for another weapon. If the lies still persist, ask them to recount their story one more time, and watch them. Look for their tell. After their story, ask some more questions you know they'll lie about. When they lie and exhibit their tell, stop them. Tell them about all your training in lie detection. Even if you've never been to a class, you're a cop...everyone lies to you. You know how to spot it. You've been doing this a long time, and you can see it. Then, tell them "Every time you lie to me, you do X". It will put them way off guard. You may decide to press the suspect for the truth after this, or you may put on a fake fit of anger. For the latter, I rant about them lying to the jury and digging their own grave or something else scary, throw down a witness statement on the table, then tell them "I'm going to take a minute or two to cool off. If you want to keep making your problem worse, go ahead. Or write a statement....I don't care anymore". After I leave the room for ten or fifteen minutes, I generally come back in to a written confession.
I'm not telling you the things I outlined above are a sure fire way to gain a confession. These are things that have worked for me, more often than not, in my career. In addition, there are many other aspects to interviewing not covered here, such as: body positioning, body language, and deceptive cues, to name a few. I feel I should also add this does not constitute legal advice, nor should it be construed as a comprehensive guide. This article was meant to give an insight into how I do things, and nothing more.
If you're interested in more interviewing information, I highly recommend the Principles of Investigative Interviewing course. For legal information in regard to interviews, check out 4th, 5th, and 14th Amendment case law.
Thanks for reading,
Derek
EDIT: Here's a great article, as written from someone on the other side of the interview table. Maybe I interviewed this guy once.
http://web.mit.edu/dryfoo/www/Info/confess.html
The battlefield
The interview room should be set up in a way that maximizes your effectiveness. To obtain the "high ground", the suspect should be in a corner, furthest from the door and facing it. In most interview rooms, there is a small table, move it to the corner the suspect's chair is in, and position it so there is just enough room between the table and the wall for their chair. He/she should be at the "head" of the table. Your chair should be at the center of the table, with only the table's corner between the two of you.
Arm yourself!
The most important thing you can have going into an interview is information. Gather everything you know about the incident: Names of the players, evidence, location, timeline, and any other detail you can think of. Take this information, and make a "fact sheet" out of it. Be sure it's easy for you to read; you'll need it in the interview. You'll also need the criminal history printout of your suspect. Gather any paper relating to the incident together, place the criminal history on top, then just grab a bunch of paper out of the recycle bin and put it underneath. The purpose for this is to allow your suspect to see his history, and think the whole stack is his information. Encourage that kind of thinking. A suspect who thinks you know everything, in my experience, is more likely to talk about what they did to "get the record straight". Once you have your information ammunition, it's time to preplan a few questions. Personally, I never did much of this and just went on the fly, but it's never a bad idea. Put your game face on, and head into the interview room. Don't forget witness statements, a pen, and of course the Miranda waiver. Having the ability to record the interview somehow is a bonus too. Before bringing the suspect in the interview room, put your stack of paper on your chair. When the suspect walks in, the only available chair for them should be the one in the corner. Invite, don't order them, to sit. Anything you can do to show "voluntariness" is a good thing.
Surveillance / Reconnaissance
Now for the fun part! The first order of business in the interview room is to establish a rapport with the suspect. There is no more important task in an interview than this. I'll repeat it...ESTABLISH A RAPPORT with the suspect. I like to start off firming up the suspect's contact information so as to get a little inside information to talk about. I'll ask where they work, and try to carry on three to five minutes about what they do. Get their mind off of the offense and their current setting. Try to ask open ended questions that require them to elaborate a little. Really engage them, and try to probe for their interests. Talk about some kind of connection you have to what they're talking about. This is a little dirty, but appearing to them like a friend is more likely to result in a confession (and that, unlike the hokey-pokey, is what it's all about).
After a few minutes, shift the conversation, and tell them you have a pretty good understanding of the events that brought them to "this unfortunate circumstance". Tell the suspect there are a few details needing to be sorted out, because you want to make sure they aren't charged with something worse than what they actually did. This does a couple things in the suspect's mind. First, it gives the appearance you care about them and their situation, and in a sense, you do. Just not the way they want you to. Secondly, they don't want to be charged with something worse than what they did. These two factors really take a toll on the suspect's mind if presented properly. After that statement, tell them in order to "clear things up for" them, you'll have to ask a "couple questions", and ask something like "Would you be OK with that?" Generally, the answer will be yes. If not, change the topic, and keep the rapport building process going. If they assert their 5th Amendment right to silence, or specifically ask for a lawyer, stop the questioning. You don't want to waste any more of your time. If they say something to the effect of "Do you think I need a lawyer.", be on your toes and say "It's not my call." and keep on going.
For the Miranda waiver, pull out the form from your stack and downplay "reading their rights" by saying something like "Like they do on cops". Once the form is signed, BURY it under your stack of paper and CHANGE THE SUBJECT. Go back to their job or their kids...whatever they were interested in. Do this for another five or ten minutes to remove the idea from their head they can stop answering questions when they want, or to have a lawyer. Again, this is dirty, but it works. More importantly, it is legal.
The attack
After the rapport / waiver portion is complete, it's time to start the interview. Many interviewers will differ when it comes to this part of the interview. This is the way I do it, and the way I have achieved good results. Tell the suspect everything you know about the incident, but let on you know more. I usually do a timeline of what happened, and fill in the blanks with some creative license. After my account, I ask the suspect to "fill in the blanks" or say "what did I miss?". Let them get through their narrative completely, and take notes while they're talking. Afterward, just don't say anything. Let them sit and review the lies in their head, and wonder if you know. At this point, it's OK to look at them, in silence, with the "That was a load of BS" look. They may, get uncomfortable with the silence and start patching the holes in their story. This is a good thing. If you can demonstrate in court the suspect had multiple different stories, your odds of a conviction are considerably better.
Counterattack
Now that you've heard their "story" (which is probably just that; a story), it's time to start pointing out the holes and flaws in it. Don't accuse them of being a liar...people get defensive and clam up. Instead, I prefer to play dumb, and ask them to clarify certain points. Usually, I say something like "I don't get the part where..." or "I don't understand...". When they clarify, and they continue to lie to you, don't worry. It's OK. The more their story changes, the better off you are. While all this is going on, you should be a little more focused on their body language than you are on their speech. Lies are stressful for people to tell, and they "dump stress" in a variety of ways. Some people play with objects, their hair, pick at their skin, tremble, take lots of deep breaths, or bounce their legs. These are just a few examples of things to look for. Maybe I'll cover body language in a different article. When you identify the suspect's particular "tell", make a mental note of it, as you may need it later. When this part is done, I'll recount their telling of the story and ask if I missed anything. Along the way, I'll make a big deal when I get to one of their lies, but still won't accuse them.
Gaining the upper hand
At this stage of the interview, they have told the lies they're going to tell. It's time to get past those. Earlier I mentioned the importance of not accusing the suspect of lying. In this portion, we'll work on turning the lies into the truth. By calling a liar out, it puts them on the defense, and they'll lie until the end. Instead of calling the liar out, give them the opportunity to save face. Everyone makes mistakes, and when we can save face, we'll often admit our mistakes much more readily. This is the premise for the following technique. Admit to one of your mistakes, and minimize theirs in the light of yours. I have a loose script I use, and I'll share a portion here, just to give you an idea of what it's like. "Everyone does so-and-so" at one point in their lives. A few years ago, before I was a cop, I did X. I knew I made a mistake, and what I did was wrong. I told the truth about it, and the police department overlooked it because of my honesty. They know everyone messes up at some point, and the 'big person' can admit their mistakes and learn from them. They hired me, and here I am. Imagine you saw your neighbor hit your car, and then drive off. If he pretended like it never happened or lied about it, you'd be pretty angry with that guy. Now, if he came to you, told the truth, and offered to make it right, you'd respect that guy MORE than before. Heck, you may even offer to buy him a beer! Now, you know this is going to court...and there will be a jury. A jury OF YOUR PEERS. Peers are people JUST LIKE YOU. Remember the neighbor that hit your car, and how you felt about it when he lied? You don't want the jury of people JUST LIKE YOU to have that feeling about you, do you? I sure wouldn't. Wouldn't you rather have them think you acknowledge you made a mistake, admit your fault, and that you'll never do something like that again? That's what I would rather them think about me. I know you get mad when people lie to you, and I bet the jury, those people JUST LIKE YOU would feel the same way. You know I'll be writing a report about this. Now, I'm not going to call you a liar in it, but I will write what I know is the truth. Then, I write what you told me. Obviously, those two things will not be the same. Who do you think the jury is going to call a liar? If you want the jury to help you out, I suggest you don't lie to them. Now that we've talked about this, is there anything you might want to change about what you said happened?" If so, it's time to cajole them into writing a witness statement. Say "I know your story, but I think the jury would appreciate it more in your words, in your writing" and hand them a pen.
The big guns
Generally, the truth will come out after that speech. If not, it's time for another weapon. If the lies still persist, ask them to recount their story one more time, and watch them. Look for their tell. After their story, ask some more questions you know they'll lie about. When they lie and exhibit their tell, stop them. Tell them about all your training in lie detection. Even if you've never been to a class, you're a cop...everyone lies to you. You know how to spot it. You've been doing this a long time, and you can see it. Then, tell them "Every time you lie to me, you do X". It will put them way off guard. You may decide to press the suspect for the truth after this, or you may put on a fake fit of anger. For the latter, I rant about them lying to the jury and digging their own grave or something else scary, throw down a witness statement on the table, then tell them "I'm going to take a minute or two to cool off. If you want to keep making your problem worse, go ahead. Or write a statement....I don't care anymore". After I leave the room for ten or fifteen minutes, I generally come back in to a written confession.
I'm not telling you the things I outlined above are a sure fire way to gain a confession. These are things that have worked for me, more often than not, in my career. In addition, there are many other aspects to interviewing not covered here, such as: body positioning, body language, and deceptive cues, to name a few. I feel I should also add this does not constitute legal advice, nor should it be construed as a comprehensive guide. This article was meant to give an insight into how I do things, and nothing more.
If you're interested in more interviewing information, I highly recommend the Principles of Investigative Interviewing course. For legal information in regard to interviews, check out 4th, 5th, and 14th Amendment case law.
Thanks for reading,
Derek
EDIT: Here's a great article, as written from someone on the other side of the interview table. Maybe I interviewed this guy once.
http://web.mit.edu/dryfoo/www/Info/confess.html
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
