Police Interrogation

Posted by: ExCon

Police Interrogation - 07/05/07 12:53 AM

Should you have the need to defend yourself, dealing with the police afterward can be more important to your well being that the initial assault which you defended yourself from.

This article courtesy of how stuff works is to show the ploys used by the police to convict you. But with knowledge of the interrogator's games comes a massive psychological advantage to help you through your time in police custody.

Common Interrogation Techniques

Modern interrogation is a study in human nature. Most of us are more likely to talk to people who appear to be like us. Once we start talking, it's hard for us to stop. Once we start telling the truth, it's harder to start lying. When a police officer tells us our fingerprints were found on the inside doorknob of a home that was robbed two days ago, we get nervous, even if we wore gloves the whole time we were inside.
With a few exceptions, the police are allowed to lie to a suspect to get him to confess. The belief is that an innocent person would never confess to a crime she didn't commit, even if she were confronted with false physical evidence of her involvement. Unfortunately, that's not always the case (more on false confessions in the next section), but it's a big part of the reason why the police are allowed to employ deceptive tactics in interrogation.

The psychological manipulation begins before the interrogator even opens his mouth. The physical layout of an interrogation room is designed to maximize a suspect's discomfort and sense of powerlessness from the moment he steps inside. The classic interrogation manual "Criminal Interrogation and Confessions" recommends a small, soundproof room with only three chairs (two for detectives, one for the suspect) and a desk, with nothing on the walls. This creates a sense of exposure, unfamiliarity and isolation, heightening the suspect's "get me out of here" sensation throughout the interrogation.



The manual also suggests that the suspect should be seated in an uncomfortable chair, out of reach of any controls like light switches or thermostats, furthering his discomfort and setting up a feeling of dependence. A one-way mirror is an ideal addition to the room, because it increases the suspect's anxiety and allows other detectives to watch the process and help the interrogator figure out which techniques are working and which aren't.

Before the nine steps of the Reid interrogation begin, there's an initial interview to determine guilt or innocence. During this time, the interrogator attempts to develop a rapport with the suspect, using casual conversation to create a non-threatening atmosphere. People tend to like and trust people who are like them, so the detective may claim to share some of the suspect's interests or beliefs. If the suspect starts talking to the interrogator about harmless things, it becomes harder to stop talking (or start lying) later when the discussion turns to the crime



During this initial conversation, the detective observes the suspect's reactions -- both verbal and non-verbal -- to establish a baseline reaction before the real stress begins. The detective will use this baseline later as a comparison point.

One method of creating a baseline involves asking questions that cause the suspect to access different parts of his brain. The detective asks non-threatening questions that require memory (simple recall) and questions that require thinking (creativity). When the suspect is remembering something, his eyes will often move to the right. This is just an outward manifestation of his brain activating the memory center. When he's thinking about something, his eyes might move upward or to the left, reflecting activation of the cognitive center. The detective makes a mental note of the suspect's eye activity.

The next step is to turn the questioning to the task at hand. The detective will ask basic questions about the crime and compare the suspect's reactions to the baseline to determine if the suspect is being truthful or deceptive. If the interrogator asks the suspect where he was the night of the crime and he answers truthfully, he'll be remembering, so his eyes may move to the right; if he's making up an alibi, he's thinking, so his eyes might move to the left. If the interrogator determines that the suspect's reactions indicate deception, and all other evidence points to guilt, the interrogation of a guilty suspect begins.

The Reid technique is the basis of the widely used "Criminal Interrogation and Confessions" manual we already mentioned. It lays out nine steps or issues guiding interrogation. Many of these steps overlap, and there is no such thing as a "typical" interrogation; but the Reid technique provides a blueprint of how a successful interrogation might unfold.


Confrontation
The detective presents the facts of the case and informs the suspect of the evidence against him. This evidence might be real, or it might be made up. The detective typically states in a confident manner that the suspect is involved in the crime. The suspect's stress level starts increasing, and the interrogator may move around the room and invade the suspect's personal space to increase the discomfort.



If the suspect starts fidgeting, licking his lips and or grooming himself (running his hand through his hair, for instance), the detective takes these as indicators of deception and knows he's on the right track.

Theme development
The interrogator creates a story about why the suspect committed the crime. Theme development is about looking through the eyes of the suspect to figure out why he did it, why he'd like to think he did it and what type of excuse might make him admit he did it. Does the suspect use any particular mode of reasoning more often than others? For example, does he seem willing to blame the victim? The detective lays out a theme, a story, that the suspect can latch on to in order to either excuse or justify his part in the crime, and the detective then observes the suspect to see if he likes the theme. Is he paying closer attention than before? Nodding his head? If so, the detective will continue to develop that theme; if not, he'll pick a new theme and start over. Theme development is in the background throughout the interrogation. When developing themes, the interrogator speaks in a soft, soothing voice to appear non-threatening and to lull the suspect into a false sense of security.

Stopping denials
Letting the suspect deny his guilt will increase his confidence, so the detective tries to interrupt all denials, sometimes telling the suspect it'll be his turn to talk in a moment, but right now, he needs to listen. From the start of the interrogation, the detective watches for denials and stops the suspect before he can voice them. In addition to keeping the suspect's confidence low, stopping denials also helps quiet the suspect so he doesn't have a chance to ask for a lawyer. If there are no denials during theme development, the detective takes this as a positive indicator of guilt. If initial attempts at denial slow down or stop during theme development, the interrogator knows he has found a good theme and that the suspect is getting closer to confessing.

Overcoming objections
Once the interrogator has fully developed a theme that the suspect can relate to, the suspect may offer logic-based objections as opposed to simple denials, like "I could never rape somebody -- my sister was raped and I saw how much pain it caused. I would never do that to someone." The detective handles these differently than he does denials, because these objections can give him information to turn around and use against the suspect. The interrogator might say something like, "See, that's good, you're telling me you would never plan this, that it was out of your control. You care about women like your sister -- it was just a one-time mistake, not a recurring thing." If the detective does his job right, an objection ends up looking more like an admission of guilt.

Getting the suspect's attention
At this point, the suspect should be frustrated and unsure of himself. He may be looking for someone to help him escape the situation. The interrogator tries to capitalize on that insecurity by pretending to be the suspect's ally. He'll try to appear even more sincere in his continued theme development, and he may get physically closer to the suspect to make it harder for the suspect to detach from the situation. The interrogator may offer physical gestures of camaraderie and concern, such as touching the suspect's shoulder or patting his back.



The suspect loses resolve
If the suspect's body language indicates surrender -- his head in his hands, his elbows on his knees, his shoulders hunched -- the interrogator seizes the opportunity to start leading the suspect into confession. He'll start transitioning from theme development to motive alternatives (see the next step) that force the suspect to choose a reason why he committed the crime. At this stage, the interrogator makes every effort to establish eye contact with the suspect to increase the suspect's stress level and desire to escape. If, at this point, the suspect cries, the detective takes this as a positive indicator of guilt.

Alternatives
The interrogator offers two contrasting motives for some aspect of the crime, sometimes beginning with a minor aspect so it's less threatening to the suspect. One alternative is socially acceptable ("It was a crime of passion"), and the other is morally repugnant ("You killed her for the money"). The detective builds up the contrast between the two alternatives until the suspect gives an indicator of choosing one, like a nod of the head or increased signs of surrender. Then, the detective speeds things up.

Bringing the suspect into the conversation
Once the suspect chooses an alternative, the confession has begun. The interrogator encourages the suspect to talk about the crime and arranges for at least two people to witness the confession. One may be the second detective in room, and another may be brought in for the purpose of forcing the suspect to confess to a new detective -- having to confess to a new person increases the suspect's stress level and his desire to just sign a statement and get out of there. Bringing a new person into the room also forces the suspect to reassert his socially acceptable reason for the crime, reinforcing the idea that the confession is a done deal.



The confession
The final stage of an interrogation is all about getting the confession admitted at trial. The interrogator will have the suspect write out his confession or state it on videotape. The suspect is usually willing to do anything at this point to escape the interrogation. The suspect confirms that his confession is voluntary, not coerced, and signs the statement in front of witnesses.
It should be noted here that if, at any point during the interrogation, the suspect does somehow manage to ask for a lawyer or invoke his right to silence, the interrogation has to stop immediately. That's why it's so important to interrupt the suspect's attempts to speak in the initial stages -- if he invokes his rights, the interrogation is over.

The steps we've laid out here represent some of the psychological techniques that detectives use to get confessions from suspects. But a real interrogation doesn't always follow the textbook. Next, let's take a look at an actual police interrogation that ended with an admissible confession.

When You've Got Company
The Just Cause Law Collective warns that if you're arrested with friends, you've got to keep a cool head. Decide beforehand that no one's going to say a word until everyone has a lawyer, and remind yourself that police will try to play on the natural paranoia that arises when people are separated. The Collective offers a further warning regarding a group arrest: When you have your strategy discussion, don't do it in the back seat of a police car. If the officers stuffed you all into one car and walked away, they're recording you.
Posted by: Cord

Re: Police Interrogation - 07/05/07 04:47 AM

Of course the other option, if you have truly defended yourself from attack, is to refuse to be interviewed without legal representation present (which is your right), and then, when the interview does happen, speak clearly and truthfully, detailing exactly what you experienced. Whilst doing this, your attacker will also be being interviewed, and to make themselves appear innocent, they will have to lie. the police have a lot of experience with liars, and from the two conflicting stories that transpire, along with CCTV footage/witness statements, a picture of the events will transpire, and appropriate action be taken from there.
The police are not 'out to get you' as an individual, they want to arrest the guilty party- its not personal.
I have had to give incident details to police on numerous occassions, even had 2 complaints made against me for my conduct ejecting people from work. in every case, I was honest (easy to do, i had done nothing wrong), and no further action was taken. at no point did I get the 'good cop-bad cop' routine, no one said 'next time mate, next time ' as I left the station. It was not personal. It was routine- filling in forms, giving statement, checking against witness reports, being let home with no charges.

if you need 'tactics' to deal with the police, maybe ask yourself 'am i innocent of the crime, or just trying to avoid punishment?'
Posted by: harlan

Re: Police Interrogation - 07/05/07 09:17 AM

Cord, can I ask a question? Putting aside the 'bad apples', do you think that the police in every country, and every state are trained to respond and interrogate in a uniform and professional manner?
Posted by: Neko456

Re: Police Interrogation - 07/05/07 10:31 AM

Thats some good advice ask for your Lawyer. Answer all the personal Id questions so it looks like you are playing alone. Look out for the games they play "Good cop, bad cop" or the "Angry cop I know you did it, confuse play".

Really if they arrest you for defending yourself you are in pretty deep do do, somewhere you went too far. There were witnesses or camera. Or your story don't jive unless it was someone they know this is a lot of paper work unless the guy dies. A Hospital stay usually if theres no open gashes or signs of repeated beaten its tough just luck for the thug.

If it does happen every statement should start with, "I feared for my life, he threaten and laid hands on me in a threaten manner. I had no other choice to defend myself". Usually unless he dead thats enough reason that they won't take you downtown, espeicailly with witness saying, "He/She told the guy please I don't want to fight".

If you downtown Cord makes some good points, but if you arrested you made some big mistakes. Don't play tough guy as the cops interview you or act beligerant.

I guess that is info you need to know once arrested.
Posted by: Cord

Re: Police Interrogation - 07/05/07 02:57 PM

Quote:

Cord, can I ask a question? Putting aside the 'bad apples', do you think that the police in every country, and every state are trained to respond and interrogate in a uniform and professional manner?




Aside from individual 'bad apples' (that exist in every walk of life), I think that, whilst the structure and laws of each country change, the motivation of those who wish to uphold the law remains largely benevolent. I dont think that there are swarms of guys carrying a badge looking to victimise the innocent- there are enough criminals to keep them busy without the added hassle of framing the law abiding.
there are miscarriages of justice, some caused by 'bad apples' some just through honest error; and there are police forces with worse records in this respect than others (Thai, mexican other less developed countries are notorious for corruption), so if looking from that perspective/experience then sure its something to consider, but then to be honest; if you are arrested in a country that is not signed up to the bill of human rights, has no restrictions or regulations on prisoner welfare and fair treatment, then you are screwed, and even if you 'beat' the interrogator, they will just fit you up and jail you anyway. Money is the best policy in such situations quite frankly.

my point is, that if you are a law abiding person, who through circumstances beyond your control finds yourself under scrutiny by the police, just be honest and cooperative, why shouldnt this be the natural thing to do, unless you are in fact, hiding something?
Posted by: harlan

Re: Police Interrogation - 07/05/07 03:30 PM

Too many public displays of abuses have many people here, in the USA, wondering if we have been naive. Distrust and uncertainty, intrusions of private space on various levels...even an honest person doesn't want to fall afoul of 'the law'.

Quote:

my point is, that if you are a law abiding person, who through circumstances beyond your control finds yourself under scrutiny by the police, just be honest and cooperative, why shouldnt this be the natural thing to do, unless you are in fact, hiding something?


Posted by: Cord

Re: Police Interrogation - 07/05/07 06:24 PM

Quote:

Too many public displays of abuses have many people here, in the USA, wondering if we have been naive. Distrust and uncertainty, intrusions of private space on various levels...even an honest person doesn't want to fall afoul of 'the law'.

Quote:

my point is, that if you are a law abiding person, who through circumstances beyond your control finds yourself under scrutiny by the police, just be honest and cooperative, why shouldnt this be the natural thing to do, unless you are in fact, hiding something?







There is an argument that in this day and age, the concept of 'personal privacy' is, quite frankly, not compatible with the times we live in. only this week in the UK we have found to our cost that those who pose the greatest threat to the public come from within the very society that they hate. I would gladly suffer a more invasive society in order to have such people caught more efficiently, providing that any such legislation come with an inbuilt 'safety catch' that allowed for it to be downscaled in line with the threats we face. Freedom is an illusion, we are subject to control in almost every aspect of life, but then, the controls in place are agreed by those we have judged worthy to represent the wishes of the electoral majority. 'The man' is merely the reflection of 'the many'. Travelling on a plane is an invasive process- you are prohibited from carrying certain things seen as mundane in normal life, your property, your person, and your motives are held up for close scrutiny. You must provide identification. Airports are orwellian- no question. Do you think it prudent to drop these measures in the name of 'freedom'? Do you think that those who enforce such safety measures do so to keep you safe, or merely to impose their personal will on you?
Behind every badge is a person. That person is part of society. They have kids, a car with a rusty exhaust, they watch football, enjoy a bud with friends, and cant wait to see the simpsons movie.
Now is not the time to start painting more people in broad bruch strokes of stereotype. All black people are not 'gangsta's', all arabs are not terrorists, and all law enforcement are not corrupt, nor representative of some fascist threat to our lives. These are the people who risk their lives every day to keep you safe.
Posted by: harlan

Re: Police Interrogation - 07/05/07 08:40 PM

Well, that is your opinion. Mine is different, possibly due to the historic differences in our cultures. This is one of those knotty questions over on this side of the pond...how much are we willing to give up in the way of individual privacy and personal rights for the 'good' of the larger society. No one argues it when put that way. But when the 'good' includes the ability to enter one's home without a warrant or proof ('what WMD's?'), where is the line drawn?

Quote:

There is an argument that in this day and age, the concept of 'personal privacy' is, quite frankly, not compatible with the times we live in.




One example of justice: this winter illegal immigrants were rounded up by immigration and held, and then deported. Only...no one was home to pick up their children from schools, or daycares, or go home to feed them. One retarded man, legally here but who didn't have the ability to commicate, is now wandering lost in Mexico. His mother is there trying to find him.
Posted by: Ed_Morris

Re: Police Interrogation - 07/05/07 08:53 PM

I realize the drift in conversation, and appologize to the posters in furthering it...

Cord, I hear what you are saying, but the tricky part the US is trying to deal with, is when 'danger' and 'threat level' is perceptively and subconsciously escalated in a calculated manner to further the agendas of those in a position of promoting that perception.

Is the trimming of individual freedoms actually used to protect the public? or are the trimmings used to protect the companies and people in power under the guise of protecting the public?

for instance, how many abuses of wire-tapping have there been by the rich,powerful and corporate VS how many wire-tappings have stopped a terrorist attack?

hard to say - I certainly don't know. ...but my money is on the rich, powerful and corporate using wire-tapping as a tool of their trade VS them seeing it as an illegal/immoral activity.


To try and bring it back on-topic...think of the most effective methods the military has for interrogating prisoners of war. Now imagine if those methods were legally available to your local Police department, even if you were only pulled over for a broken taillight.

Thats the problem...how far do you go? do you treat the public like enemies of war until it's proven otherwise?

Vietnam war - The soldiers didn't know WHO the enemy was...so, just go into a village and interrogate everyone as if ALL were operatives for the VC. Maybe it made sense in that environment, but is it reasonable for civilian police to do the same?
To assume for instance a bunch of teenagers sitting around a table, drinking and talking crap about their government while the police are listening in, and they arrest them as 'enemies of the state' ? given 'enemy combatant' status, sent to Cuba for 'questioning' without lawyer or trial for 6 months while they are treated outside the protection of the Geneva convention? All for the reason of an ambitious law enforcement department looking to 'twart' terrorist activity so they can get awarded more funding from the Federal government....sortof like a 'No Terrorist Left Behind' act.

Is THAT the kind of 'giving up some freedoms' you are referring to?
Posted by: McSensei

Re: Police Interrogation - 07/05/07 10:07 PM



Bravo Ed, I totally agree with you.
Then again, I'm quite a libertarian myself, so my view on Government is probably more in line with conservative American thinking.
Posted by: Midnightcrawler

Re: Police Interrogation - 07/06/07 04:08 AM

No-one seems to have considered the 'other' function of police work. Namely, to enforce and ensure the 'status quo' between differing sectors of society remains intact. As is evidenced in the UK when 'the rich get richer and the poor get poorer.

They (the police) are also a tax gathering organisation with 'the motorist' being their 'cash cow'. Why else would there be as many 'safety cameras' as they are now called on sections of road where there has never been an accident?
Posted by: harlan

Re: Police Interrogation - 07/06/07 08:18 AM

For some of us, 'police interrogation' means a heck of lot more than if you get to call your lawyer. The police at one time were citizens of our own communities...but it isn't Mayberry anymore. I remember 1973, and even though only 12 years old some concepts became very clear.

Why should innocent people fear or keep watch on the police? Because the people who put on the uniform with good intent to serve and swear to uphold the law, must answer to superiors that sometimes don't.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H0fxe7sxbuY
Posted by: MattJ

Re: Police Interrogation - 07/06/07 10:13 AM

Quote:

No-one seems to have considered the 'other' function of police work. Namely, to enforce and ensure the 'status quo' between differing sectors of society remains intact. As is evidenced in the UK when 'the rich get richer and the poor get poorer.

They (the police) are also a tax gathering organisation with 'the motorist' being their 'cash cow'. Why else would there be as many 'safety cameras' as they are now called on sections of road where there has never been an accident?




I agree that alot of traffic enforcement has NOTHING to do with public safety. Unmarked cruisers? Cops hiding while running radar? Complete BS. If they were really interested in traffic safety, they wouldn't be hidden at all. Who speeds when cops are in plain sight?

That said, the police are only enforcing the laws that have been made by others. If the public would stop being pu$$ies, we wouldn't allow stupid laws or court rulings. The people get the government they deserve.
Posted by: ButterflyPalm

Re: Police Interrogation - 07/06/07 10:28 AM

The scales of civil liberties and law enforcement can never ever be perfectly balanced.

Over here the British colonial government left behind a piece of legislation called the Internal Security Act ("ISA"), which should be over half a century old by now. It basically allows 'indefinite preventive detention' meant to fight the communist insurgency immediately after WWII. It succeeded as we are the only country (together with Singapore, then a part of us) which totally defeated a communist uprising funded and orchestrated by the communist Chinese government from the 1940s to the 1960s. We could have been another South Vietnam, a proxy battle field much like what Iraq is now experiencing.

Now the present British government probably wish they have the ISA.

Right, wrong, good, bad? it all depends on where you are or will be sitting.

The recent narrow escape is due more to sheer British luck than anything else.
Posted by: globetrotter

Re: Police Interrogation - 07/06/07 10:32 AM

in israel thousands of terror attacks have been stopped by things like wire taps and interegations. not nice, but it saves huge numbers of lives.

America, and most of the west, isn't in the same position, yet, but don't think that there aren't people watching and waiting to bring terror here in largeer numbers.
Posted by: ButterflyPalm

Re: Police Interrogation - 07/06/07 11:17 AM

Quote:

If they were really interested in traffic safety, they wouldn't be hidden at all. Who speeds when cops are in plain sight?




Ah, a small piece of human behavioural science here.

The idea is to keep you (the wannabe speedster) guessing; is there a traffic cop about or not? so you would rather err on the side of safety and not speed.

It is just not feasible to put that many cop man-power on the highways and byways of America just to deter speeding. In any case if the general perception is that there are cops about only if you can see them and no cops if you don't, then everyone will speed when no cops are seen.
Posted by: Midnightcrawler

Re: Police Interrogation - 07/06/07 12:58 PM

You can always 'level the playing field' and buy a 'Snooper, Road Angel' or other radar, laser and GPS 'hot spot' detection device.
Posted by: ButterflyPalm

Re: Police Interrogation - 07/07/07 12:04 AM

"snooper"? The cops will just come out with an "anti-snooper" and you need to get an "anti-anti-snooper"

Speed (unless you are into sparring or a motor-mouth stand-up comic) seldom gets you anywhere fast; sometimes you don't even arrive.

The thing to do is time-management; even in sparring, timing is everything.
Posted by: drgndrew

Re: Police Interrogation - 07/07/07 12:21 AM

whether on the black top or the dance floor

SPEED KILLS
Posted by: Midnightcrawler

Re: Police Interrogation - 07/08/07 07:11 AM

Quote:

whether on the black top or the dance floor

SPEED KILLS




Drew,

Hmm, "speed kills" is a statement that all Police forces and governments would have us swallow whole without question. The fact is 'speed doesn't kill on its own'.

There has always to be another factor involved. Those other factors are manifold and too many to fully itemise here. Some of the more common ones however are. Inattention to external surrounding conditions or a preoccupation with what is going on inside the car, having the 'in car entertainment' playing far too loudly is another as it isolates the driver from the outside world, 'particularly prevalent amongst young and inexperienced drivers'. The guy or girl in front who is driving too slowly, thus causing frustration and by so doing causes the following driver to overtake at an inappropriate place is another.

Others might be, inattention to the prevailing road conditions, poor visibility, inclement weather, poor mechanical maintenance of the vehicle, etc, etc, the list goes on, but, in each of those instances speed is only one of a number of other factors involved.

The above observations are offered with respect to those who's opinions my differ from my own, but those observations are based on fact and not on feelings.

MC.
Posted by: drgndrew

Re: Police Interrogation - 07/08/07 08:57 AM


G'day MC
Please don't take this as me having a go on you, it's late at night here and as usual I will probably come across harsh. But you know me, I do not intend it to come across as such I'm just arguing my point not arguing with you ( or any one else)


Speeding accounts for around 50 fatalities on Queensland roads each year.

so you can see speed does in deed kill on the black top

it is true that the other factors you mentioned contribute towards road fatalities and I don't suggest that speed is the only cause or even that it is the main cause. but are fatality with these other factors usually occur because the speed traveling was not suitable to the conditions, or situation. Slow Drivers.... being frustrated is not an excuse to break the law.

please watch the clip below:

http://www.transport.qld.gov.au/resources/file/eb6d2f00d77fddb/stopping_distances_tvc.mpg

and watch this clip which is a re-enactment of an actual accident. imagine you are the driver

http://www.transport.qld.gov.au/resources/file/eb633405fd42f0f/Wmv_rs_pram_1_small.wmv

and then this one
http://www.transport.qld.gov.au/resources/file/eb633905fd609b9/Wmv_rs_pram_2_small.wmv

we often hear "the police and the authorities are just making money out of speeding offenses."

They do make revenue out of it. that revenue is then injected back into the system to help pay for road safety and to subsidise police activities.

Maybe we should ask the loved ones of the 50 odd Queenslanders who died in the last 12 months as a direct consequence of a driver traveling over the speed limit whether speeding is just a revenue earner for the powers. I wonder if they will share the same view,

Statistics show that accidents have decreased in areas that have posted speed cameras, And that the no one cause of fatal accidents was traveling faster then appropriate for the conditions or the experience of the driver.

now my post was a pun
"whether on the black top or the dance floor

SPEED KILLS "

meaning whether it's speeding in a car or taking speed, the drug, on the dance floor, both are dangerous and stupid ( and potentially fatal). I was hoping a message hidden in little humour/riddle might deliver a message that I believe can save lives.

Back to the black top kind of speed

The fact, it is the law, people can say all they wish to justify traveling a few k's over the posted speed limited, but in the end they are breaking the law, and potentially putting another persons life at risk along with their own. That doesn't sound very much like self defence now does it.
_____________
you don't need to read below here if you don't wish to I'm just providing some supporting facts

some more "Facts" for you, just to drive the point home ( under the speed limit of course )

-study from road safety experts at the Monash University Accident Research Centre (MUARC) in 2003, has confirmed that increased enforcement of speed limits has contributed to a massive drop in the road toll

· In areas where there were increased levels of speed camera enforcement, the risk of death from casualty
crashes was reduced by 41 per cent in the following month.

These findings were supported by a new international study from the University of Toronto, which found that drivers convicted of a traffic offence were 35 per cent less likely to have a fatal crash in the month following the conviction compared to drivers who did not get fined.

-Excessive speed is involved in at least one-third of fatal accidents according to a NSW Road Traffic Authority report

-Speeding is a major factor in serious and fatal traffic crashes. Speeding is not just driving faster than the posted speed limit. It is also driving too fast for the prevailing weather, light, traffic and road conditions without full regard for the vehicle condition and driver skills and experience.
WA Police Service, Road Safety Section Speeding brochure (2002).

-Figures show that in 2001, speed was a factor in 35% of fatal crashes, 22% of police-attended hospitalisation crashes, 13% of police-attended crashes where victims required medical attention, and 22% of police-attended property-damage-only crashes occurring on WA roads.
Legge, M., Gavin, A.L., Cercarelli, L.R. (2004) Reported Road Crashes in WA 2001. Road Safety Council of Western Australia.

-During 2001, speed was a factor in 57% of motorcyclist fatalities and 41% of driver fatalities.
Legge, M., Gavin, A.L., Cercarelli, L.R. (2004) Reported Road Crashes in WA 2001. Road Safety Council of Western Australia.

-Males continue to be over-represented in speed-related fatalities in Western Australia. In 2001, 83% of speed-related fatalities were male, with many (42%) in the 17-24 year old age group.
Legge, M., Gavin, A.L., Cercarelli, L.R. (2004) Reported Road Crashes in WA 2001. Road Safety Council of Western Australia.

-In 2001, females represented 17% of speed-related crash fatalities in Western Australia. The highest risk age groups were 30-39 years (42%), 40-49 years (17%), 12-16 years (17%) and 70+ years (17%).
Legge, M., Gavin, A.L., Cercarelli, L.R. (2004) Reported Road Crashes in WA 2001. Road Safety Council of Western Australia.

-In 2001, more speed-related fatal crashes occurred in rural Western Australia than in the metropolitan area (57% rural versus 43% metropolitan).
Legge, M., Gavin, A.L., Cercarelli, L.R. (2004) Reported Road Crashes in WA 2001. Road Safety Council of Western Australia.

-In 2001, 70% of all police-attended speed-related hospitalisation crashes in Western Australia occurred in 60 km/h and 70 km/h speed zones. Thirty five percent of all speed-related fatal crashes occurred in 60 km/h and 70 km/h speed zones.
Legge, M., Gavin, A.L., Cercarelli, L.R. (2004) Reported Road Crashes in WA

-2001. Road Safety Council of Western Australia.
The risk of being involved in a crash resulting in injury in a 60 km/h speed zone is doubled with every 5 km/h increase in driving speed above the limit. This means travelling at 65 km/h in a 60 km/h speed zone doubles the chance of having a crash resulting in injury, travelling at 70 km/h increases the chance of crashing by four times.
Kloeden, C.N., McLean, A.J., & Ponte, G. (1997). Travelling Speed and Risk of Crash Involvement; University of Adelaide, South Australia.

-The effect of speeding is similar to that of drink-driving. For example, driving five km/h over the speed limit in a 60km/h zone increases the chance of crashing to a level equivalent to driving with a blood alcohol content (BAC) of 0.05gm%. Driving 10km/h over the limit in a 60km/h zone is equivalent to driving with a BAC of 0.10gm%.
Kloeden, C.N., McLean, A.J., & Ponte, G. (1997). Travelling Speed and Risk of Crash Involvement; University of Adelaide, South Australia.

-It is anticipated that (based on results in other Australian states following the introduction of 50km/h speed limit) a reduction in casualty crashes on local roads of between 12 and 22% could be expected in WA.
Arriving Safely: Road Safety Strategy for Western Australia 2003 – 2007 (2003). Road Safety Council of Western Australia.

-A full state-wide evaluation of the Western Australian 50 km/h initiative is planned. Preliminary results from speed surveys show a small but consistent reduction in speeds across the majority of the urban road network.
Arriving Safely: Road Safety Strategy for Western Australia 2003 – 2007 (2003). Road Safety Council of Western Australia.

-Research exploring the potential economic costs and benefits to changes to speed limits on rural roads has found no economic justification for increasing speed limits on Western Australian roads. For all scenarios and all vehicle types increases in speed limits would result in increases in road trauma thereby countering any travel time saving benefits.
Cameron, M. Potential benefits and costs of speed changes on rural roads (2003). Australian Transport Safety Bureau.

end of argument
Posted by: drgndrew

Re: Police Interrogation - 07/08/07 09:41 AM

PS sorry for the Thread HIjack

and may I add good post excon, the various aspects of aftermath are rarely adequately covered in a SD syllabus, other then an honourable mention occasionally.

It is imperative that you know your rights under the law in the area you find yourself in.
Posted by: shadowkahn

Re: Police Interrogation - 07/08/07 10:21 AM

Quote:


Speeding accounts for around 50 fatalities on Queensland roads each year.





Speeding might be *blamed* for 50 fatalities each year. However, just as video games are *blamed* falsely for causing school shootings, speed itself does not kill. If SPEED killed, then race car drivers would die as soon as they exceeded the local speed limits. Speed does not kill. Crashes kill.

If you look at the statistics, in an average year there are fewer traffic fatalities per vehicle mile on the speed-limitless sections of the Autobahn than there are on US interstates. Drivers on the Autobahn routinely travel faster than 100mph (160kph), far faster than on the US interstates, and yet they die at a lower rate. How can this be, if speed kills? The answer's pretty simple. Germany does a much better job of training and testing its drivers. You have to know how to control the car if you want a license in Germany. Meanwhile the US is happy if you can just parallel park.

And when you think about it further, speed limits are silly anyway. We're saying a semi and a ferrari are both incredibly dangerous at 66mph, but quite safe at 65mph. It's not hard to figure out that the ferrari can be driven at a much higher speed than the semi and still have better turning and stopping ability than the semi.

Clearly, speed does not kill. Crappy driver training and licensing kills. So rather than have a bunch of cops out there writing BS tickets, maybe we should have them looking for actual dangerous drivers or better yet, have them working on solving real crimes.
Posted by: drgndrew

Re: Police Interrogation - 07/08/07 09:35 PM

Quote:

Speeding might be *blamed* for 50 fatalities each year. However, just as video games are *blamed* falsely for causing school shootings, speed itself does not kill. If SPEED killed, then race car drivers would die as soon as they exceeded the local speed limits. Speed does not kill. Crashes kill.




I have provided supporting evidence that there is a significant relationship between speeding and road fatalities ( a fraction of what is available). the 50 deaths per year have been directly contributed to speeding, we have considerable more deaths that may have speed as a factor but the contributing factor is deemed as more influential to the outcome ( for eg drink driving, driver fatigue ).

to pretend that speed is simply "blamed" as a form of scape goat is being simply naive.
"Speed doesn't kill crashes do",
what a load of crap thats like saying the bullet didn't kill it was the shredding of the vital organs that kills, pushing someone of a clive doesn't kill it's the impact at the bottom that kills.

The evidence is clear as is the physics, the faster you go the longer it takes to stop - result - there is greater chance of hitting an object or person ( maybe someone's child) you have much less time to react -see the vids I posted

The faster you travel the greater the impact of a collision- result - you will cause more damage to the object or person ( maybe your child)

simple physics provide scientific evidence of the effect of speeding thanks to me newton.

There are, of course, other factors that contribute to crashes. i am not denying that drink driving for eg in Australia we also have a high prevalence of death caused by driver fatigue. see unlike europe or the US we often have to travel 100's of km's between towns we are a very spacious country.

Quote:

If you look at the statistics, in an average year there are fewer traffic fatalities per vehicle mile on the speed-limitless sections of the Autobahn than there are on US interstates. Drivers on the Autobahn routinely travel faster than 100mph (160kph), far faster than on the US interstates, and yet they die at a lower rate.




I was waiting for someone to bring this up, yes There are more fatalities at lower speed zones: for eg there are more fatalities in 60 -70 Km/h limited zones then on our 110 km/h freeways.
"How can this be, if speed kills?" you ask
well for one thing there are 1 000's of more people within these zones, there will be 1000's of more cars on the road in 60 km/h zones, makes sense seeing these are the urban and suburban areas. if there are significant higher no of people then it applies that there will be a higher number of fatalities ( that applies to any fatality a town of 100000 people will have more heart attacks then a town of 3000.)

Of the fatalities that occur in these lower speed zones many ( at least 30%) involved vehicles traveling above the posted speed limit. ie they were speeding.

so other then the considerable difference between the number of people in these zones what other factors come into play.

you mention the difference between the no of deaths on the autobahn compared to the US highways. well for one thing you mentioned "the unlimited sections of the autobahn" I imaging that the section of the road is designed for speed, i imagine that section is very well maintained. why isn't all the autobahn limitless speed.

The US highway system is a hell of a lot greater in length then the autobahns it would be impossible to maintain the entire highway system to the same level as the limitless section of the autobahn. that might be why they have placed a speed limit on them, to indicate the max speed appropriate for the road.

Finally when traveling at greater speed a driver will be more vigilant and cautious, infact they will probably drive "safer" then at lower speeds. this is because there is a danger with traveling at these kind of speeds and when ever there is a danger present the human ( and any other animal) will be more vigilant and aware then normal.

so yes I agree crappie drivers, crappie conditions, crappie cars, and a boot full of other things contribute to road deaths. however SO DOES SPEED to say that speed doesn't kill is irresponsible and naive.

Speed limits are generally determined to keep motorists safe for the conditions of the road or environment. yes I will admit that at times it appears that some areas seem to be limited to "trap drivers" but in general you will find that these places have a history of MVA's.

I could go on and on but I won't.

If speed doesn't kill then would you agree that all speed limits should be removed and people allowed to travel at any speed that desire, Outside of schools, in suburban streets etc around your house and around your childs playground.

And could you provide some actual evidence as to your autobahn and US highway comparison. please.

if you travel at more then the speed limit you are breaking the law and according to the previous Pope (John Paul) you are also sinning.
Posted by: MattJ

Re: Police Interrogation - 07/08/07 09:57 PM

Guys, I have split this thread from Midnightcrawler's post so we can keep this thread on topic re: interrogation. Please direct all the traffic responses to the new thread here:

http://www.fightingarts.com/ubbthreads/s...6a#Post15950151
Posted by: drgndrew

Re: Police Interrogation - 07/09/07 01:05 AM

good call MattJ,
i've posted my final post on the subject there.
Posted by: karate_popo

Re: Police Interrogation - 10/07/07 09:21 PM

ok this is the law, i have my BS in criminal justice.. if it was self-defense, then you will not go to jail, but i am always taught by my sensie, who has the same degree, that only use as much force as is threatened, for instance if someone comes at you with a knife or a gun, that is deadly physical force and you can return it.. but if someone grabs you in a bar and you punch him in the throat and he dies, then it is not justified.. or if someone attacks you and you keep beating them when they are down and not a threat, still not justified... hope this helps..
Posted by: jpoor

Re: Police Interrogation - 10/08/07 09:59 AM

Quote:

ok this is the law, i have my BS in criminal justice.. if it was self-defense, then you will not go to jail . . .




Unless, of course, the powers that be don't believe you.
Posted by: karate_popo

Re: Police Interrogation - 10/08/07 10:09 AM

well it always depends on the situation, maybe cuz of my position in society they would be more willing to believe me, then someone who has been arrested before for the same thing.. idk, this is just how i was trained, being that my sensie is retired Law enforcement