It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

The Reid Technique: How well do you think you can handle a police interrogation?

page: 2
12
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 22 2014 @ 10:00 PM
link   
a reply to: FlySolo

I've watched enough Dateline to know if I'm ever brought in for questioning, my only words will be "I want a lawyer."




posted on Nov, 22 2014 @ 10:05 PM
link   

originally posted by: FlySolo
a reply to: hounddoghowlie

I think asking for a lawyer is one of the things not to do.


If you did it, you'll need a lawyer anyway.

If you didn't do it, you need a lawyer even more, because they're going to arrest you anyway. Don't help them dig a hole you cant get out of.



posted on Nov, 22 2014 @ 10:33 PM
link   
a reply to: Domo1




I don't know if they can legally keep you, but if not I would be walking out after 3 hours, sooner if they tried to badger me. Charge me or listen.


I think 3 hours is the average threshold most people are willing to endure. Myself included. By that time they would really need to get to the point or I would be saying the same thing. Charge me or let me go.




No food, water or rest for an extended period of time will make you nuts, especially with the added stress of being in a new situation


That would be my first indicator they're not interested in playing fair. Especially if I were only a witness with nothing to do with the crime. My guard would be up at that point. Then there's that flimsy evidence of the cars leaving the scene as proof his buddy was the shooter. He must not have been thinking straight from starvation to not scrutinize the cops better.

As for techniques, I think they work better on people who are actually guilty, body language gives it up pretty quick but it's a crap shoot sometimes.



posted on Nov, 22 2014 @ 10:34 PM
link   
a reply to: PrinceRupertsDog

Asking for a lawyer wouldn't be my first request if I was innocent. I would need to be formally charged first.



posted on Nov, 22 2014 @ 10:55 PM
link   
a reply to: FlySolo




As for techniques, I think they work better on people who are actually guilty, body language gives it up pretty quick but it's a crap shoot sometimes.


I would have believed the one guy after about an hour. His body language and attitude would suggest he was telling the truth. Semper may disagree, but people who get more pissed off and not agitated are most likely truthful.

You'll note the marked difference in body language throughout what we've seen in that video. After 8 hours with no food, no breaks, no water anyone is going to become closed off and hostile. At that point your readings of the person and what they say are questionable. I wouldn't call it torture, but it's getting close to getting bad results because the person just wants an out.

There are a few kinds of pissed off in this situation. This guy exhibited pissed off because he's telling the truth and was being challenged. If you see someone press back the harder you go at them, they very well may be telling the truth. Someone telling the truth is going to get angrier and angrier, because they know they're right. A good interviewer recognizes that anger doesn't mean guilt, and often means someone is being truthful. I've watched a ton of interviews and it's usually pretty obvious if you know what to look for when someone is lying and pissed or telling the truth and pissed. One seems fake, the other is real. Being able to tell the difference goes into a whole different thing that this thread isn't about. There are certain responses that are pretty much completely involuntary that a trained investigator will look for.



posted on Nov, 22 2014 @ 11:08 PM
link   
a reply to: Domo1

Now here's cool body language of a guilty murderer. Disgraced Canadian Armed Forces Colonel Russel Williams. Props should be given to the cop for getting a confession out of him while always maintaining composure the whole time, the friendly approach. Williams puts up a good psychological fight, recognizing the interviewers leading questions, relaxes his arms at times when answering as he lies through his teeth until the questions get harder. But it's the forensic evidence matching his tire treads that gets him in the end. Can't squirm out of that one.

edit on 22-11-2014 by FlySolo because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 23 2014 @ 12:35 AM
link   
a reply to: FlySolo


The interrogation is in the form of a monologue presented by the investigator rather than a question and answer format. The demeanor of the investigator during the course of an interrogation is ideally understanding, patient, and non-demeaning. His or her goal is to make the suspect progressively more and more comfortable with acknowledging the presumed truth about what he or she is alleged to have done. This is accomplished by the investigators' first imagining and then offering the subject various psychological constructs as justification for their behavior.



posted on Nov, 23 2014 @ 07:13 AM
link   
THIS is why I have spent so much time and effort, drilling the idea in to my kids heads : "Do. Not. Trust. Police." I have told them, time after time, if you are arrested, keep your mouth shut and say only 2 sentences. "I want to see my parents' "I want a lawyer". I've warned them they will be coerced, threatened, intimidated and cops will twist any thing they say to try to catch them in a lie. I despise what police have come to stand for: "Convict someone. Anyone. Just do it fast so we can look good"
T&C prevent me from saying what I really feel about these "people".



posted on Nov, 23 2014 @ 07:26 AM
link   
a reply to: semperfortis

Are you law enforcement? If so, why would cops use this, knowing it is nothing but intimidation and could bring false results? If people are so far off, why not educate us, Deny Ignorance is supposed to be the name of the game around here.



posted on Nov, 23 2014 @ 07:48 AM
link   
a reply to: DAVID64

The following is my opinion as a member participating in this discussion.

Yes and it is NOT intimidation...

What you have heard, read or surmised is quite simply wrong..

No other way to say it..

As an ATS Staff Member, I will not moderate in threads such as this where I have participated as a member.



posted on Nov, 23 2014 @ 07:54 AM
link   
I've been subject to this type of interrogation before. As long as you remain true to your standards, ethics and morals (and have lots of patience) and stick to the truth, you'll leave the Cops even more frustrated at the end of the day. I refuse to be intimidated, even by those who think they have power over me and my life.

The Reid Technique can be used as a useful tool, but like anything, it can also be used to nefarious purposes. I went to school for my CJ degree and during the course of it, realized I could never be a LEO. I know I couldn't put words in others mouths, and also know that I couldn't deal with aggressive people in public without escalating as well. I know me. I know I wouldn't have fit in the Police force, I know I wouldn't put up much of the crap that LEOs face daily so it's a win-win for everybody.

Y'all can thank me now.



posted on Nov, 23 2014 @ 08:01 AM
link   

originally posted by: PrinceRupertsDog
a reply to: FlySolo

I've watched enough Dateline to know if I'm ever brought in for questioning, my only words will be "I want a lawyer."


Im with you. Almost had to defend myself recently from attempted robbery. I have though a few times about how I would have handled questioning. My first though would have been a short to the point account of the event. My last thought is if so motivated even answering a few questions or making a simple statement could be used to spin you. If ever in that situation Im pleading the 5th and asking for attorney.



posted on Nov, 23 2014 @ 08:25 AM
link   
a reply to: semperfortis

Semper, on this issue I have to disagree. It is a form of intimidation. More subtle, but intimidation nonetheless. It does have it's reason to exist and can be quite effective, but in this particular case, it was used in a effort to gain a wrongful conviction.

This case may be only one out of hundred successful convictions that shows how this technique can be used wrong, but it is that one time that sticks in people minds.

Is keeping a record of successful convictions so important that innocent people go to jail?



posted on Nov, 23 2014 @ 09:11 AM
link   
a reply to: FlySolo

Am both Reid and Wicklander certified. There's a lot of misrepresentation about both methods by people who, largely, have only read what other people think about it.

Both methods are like any other tool in life: properly applied, they work well and do exactly what they're designed to do. Improperly applied, the results can be disastrous. But people shouldn't confuse an improper application for anything other than that.



posted on Nov, 23 2014 @ 09:12 AM
link   

originally posted by: TDawgRex
a reply to: semperfortis

This case may be only one out of hundred successful convictions that shows how this technique can be used wrong, but it is that one time that sticks in people minds.



That's the crux of the issue. It was used incorrectly.



posted on Nov, 23 2014 @ 09:40 AM
link   

originally posted by: FlySolo
a reply to: redhorse

Would you be able to outlast the interrogation?


I've done it.

When my I.D. was stolen and I reported it to the police they kept me at the station for nearly 12 hours interrogating me because they thought I was the thief.

They harassed and threatened me every time I went in or called in to report yet one more bad check this B**** had written, and when I reported what I had tracked down. This went on for over a month until I got a lawyer who (no joke no kidding) walked us into the police station and threw a wall-eyed, very public fit about how they were treating me. After that I talked to a nice detective who actually figured out what the hell was going on and found that girl in two weeks.

It's different I suppose when you are the victim rather than and the accused or a witness, but even then, I couldn't say for sure that I could stick to my guns in a given situation with the crap that they pull. It is confusing, and it doesn't take much to incriminate yourself.
edit on 23-11-2014 by redhorse because: clarity

edit on 23-11-2014 by redhorse because: my not me



posted on Nov, 23 2014 @ 10:29 AM
link   
reid tech


By the time Mr. Reid established a private polygraph practice in 1947, he had made several significant contributions to the polygraph technique, which culminated in a clinical procedure of diagnosing truth and deception without reliance on interrogation.


i hear the polygraph has come a long way; Ribacoff

if polygraph negates need for interrogation, and takes less time...why bully/badger someone? it's unethical to take overtime funds conducting yourselves this way.



posted on Nov, 23 2014 @ 10:33 AM
link   
I have gone to the basic and advance courses of Reid, for my work.

All I can say is most of it depends on the inter fortitude of the suspect.

But, I can honestly say I have become a much better worker at what I do since I took the courses.



posted on Nov, 23 2014 @ 10:39 AM
link   
a reply to: loveguy

Because a polygraph isn't admissable in court as an indicator of guilt or innocence for the most part. At best, some states will allow them to be used in correlation with interviews and statements. They're not a magical, infallible black box of truth.



posted on Nov, 23 2014 @ 10:47 AM
link   

originally posted by: anon72
I have gone to the basic and advance courses of Reid, for my work.

All I can say is most of it depends on the inter fortitude of the suspect.

But, I can honestly say I have become a much better worker at what I do since I took the courses.



heck, in my younger days i could shake a cops hand just in passing on the street.
now, its intimidating for me to extend a handshake for fear I may fit some 'profile'.



new topics

top topics



 
12
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join