"How many drinks have you had?" and show why it is important for Traffic Duty officers to be trained in Statement Analysis.
Q. "How many drinks have you had?"
A. "Just two, Officer."
I. The Research and The Liar's Number
II. How Many Drinks? Analysis
Specific Example of usefulness of analysis.
First, the "liar's number", then, the Title in Analysis.
When a police officer suspects something wrong with your driving, he or she may ask, "How many drinks did you have?" if the odor of alcohol is present, or if the driving exhibited warrants this question.
Readers will recall the research of Mark McClish, which I, and many others (including readership) have confirmed: the liar's number is three. Mark found this in his own work and of those he has trained, he asked to contribute examples. My own work agrees.
This means that when a person is going to deceive, and must choose a number, they often cling to "3" in their story.
Perhaps it is that 2 sounds too small, but 4 sounds like too much. 3 is just right.
In cases sited here, we have seen there were "3 attackers" and "3 boats coming after us" and so on. It does not mean that 3 attackers did not rob a subject at 3PM on the 3rd floor, but that we simply 'flag it' for possible deception when the number enters the language of the subject.
There is, however, an exception to this.
When one is suspected of drunk driving and the officer asks, "How many drinks did yo have?"
"Just two, Officer" is the most commonly reported reply.
"Just two, Officer" is something very different from,
"Two, Officer."
Let's compare them.
"Two, Officer" gives the number, "two" with the title of the law enforcement official. It is a strong response.
Yet, when the word "just" enters the vocabulary, there is a change:
"Just two, Officer" (and, as we will next see, "Just two!" without the title.
The word "just" is used when comparing two or more things. As a car salesman, I know you have only $10,000 to spend, so I show you a $15,000 car, which brings you emotional discouragement. Then, I roll out the $12,000 car and say,
"This one is just $12,000!" (knowing that it is within range that I can either drop the price to $10,000, or get you so worked up emotionally that you will borrow 2K from a friend or relative. I am glad I am not a used car salesman).
The word "just" is employed because I am comparing my number with a greater figure.
When one answers, "Two, Officer" it is done by the brain signaling the tongue, in less than a microsecond, what words to use. These two words are chosen quickly, but then, when the mind is thinking of a higher number, the brain signals this fact by sending the message to the tongue, so very quickly, to utilize the word "just" in language.
The brain quickly scans its list of vocabulary and produced "just" without debate or pre-thought.
For the officer, this is a signal that:
The subject is thinking of more than 2 drinks.
Remember, the word just is used when comparing something to a "greater" amount. This is reduction.
Now, it may be that the subject is comparing it to 4 drinks, in thought, or it could be, that the subject is comparing it to the 4 drinks he actually had. In any case, the subject is thinking of a number, more than "2" and the officer needs to know why the subject is thinking such.
It could be that, while at the bar, the subject was offered a third drink but wisely turned it down.
Or,
It could be that the subject actually had 6 drinks and when he went to lie, the brain "leaked" out, in less than a micro second, the word "just", which the trained officer heard and acted upon.
More times than not, the word "just" is used because the subject is comparing the number two with the actual number of drinks he had. Yet, the officer must be open to other possibilities.
"Two, Officer" is more credible than "Just two, Officer"
If the title is missing in the discourse (beyond this one sentence), there is another issue at hand.
objection: you are teaching drunk drives to lie?
answer: uhhhhhh
I once had a police officer tell me that my analysis of a 911 call in domestic homicides was "teaching criminals how to get away with it."
Get away with what?
Get away with domestic homicides.
I struggle to imagine someone planning to murder his wife or girlfriend, asking himself, "Hmm, should I research Statement Analysis of 911 calls of domestic homicides in order to fully plan this out? Then, when I call 911, I will get away with it"
Perhaps I miss something. I asked him, "Do you really need me to answer this for you?"
In the scenario of being pulled over, the subject is, odds on, likely to have not read this small blog prior to going out, drinking, and being pulled over. Besides the crazy odds of such a thing happening there is context:
Being pulled over, and, if drinking, nervousness will be even more than the usual nervousness of being pulled over.
He or she is, therefore, likely to speaking freely, that is, in the Free Editing Process. I don't think the driver is going to "stick to the script" answers.
And should this blog entry be so widely read that a person who was drinking, got behind the wheel and was pulled over, be able to remember reading this blog, at the time of the pull over..
Next up: "How Fast Were You Going?" posed.
well, you get my meaning.
No comments:
Post a Comment