In November of 2014 Sgt. Shawn R. Glans was put on unpaid leave following the incident in which he is alleged to have slapped the driver. He was a police officer for 27 years. In a time where law enforcement is being unfairly portrayed as racist and lawless, such an incident, particularly when it goes viral, makes it difficult for the well trained professionals in law enforcement to maintain their well earned reputations.
This officer became disrespectful and threatening and eventually we can hear the slapping of the young driver.
The important question to ask, for public safety, is if this is who he is, or was this a deviation from his personality; that is, someone who is acting under extraordinary fear or threat, for example. Since he will carry a lethal weapon, it is important to know his mindset.
Statement Analysis gets to the truth.
Simply asking us about the chance to take something back lets people know what we think of our mistakes. We all have done things we regret, and if given the chance, would act differently.
He was asked if he could do it all over again, would he? He did not know he was being video taped when we hear the slapping sound.
This is the Expected in Statement Analysis.
I expect him to say, "I am sorry. If I could do it all over again, I would not have done it" along with, perhaps, a contextual portrait such as "there was a .22 in the back seat" or "I was stressed..." or something that tells us:
1. I would not do this again
2. The circumstances were extraordinary; it is not my habit.
Statement Analysis deals with the unexpected. By putting up the "Expected", we set ourselves up for a "confrontation" with that which we did not expect to hear.
The following statement is an example of the Free Editing Process. He speaks his words freely, without pause. This is where we teach investigators: let the subject's own words guide you: DO NOT interpret.
"I was concerned. It was a public safety issue," the sergeant said. "If I had to do it all over again, I'd probably do the same thing. If I knew the camera was there, no, because it does look bad."
1. "I was concerned" begins with a pronoun, which is strong, but then, instead of saying what he was concerned with, he uses additional wording, making it important to him:
2. "It was a public safety issue." This is a passive statement. He does not say "I was concerned because this was a safety issue" but shows a disjointedness between the two sentences. The "law of economy" indicates that the shortest route is best.
3. It was a "public" safety issue; is not to say that he was afraid or that it was a safety issue for him (more expected) or the other drivers in the car. That he specifics what the safety issue is, while disconnecting it from himself should cause readers to question if he is telling the truth.
He may want us to interpret that he acted (slap) for the safety of the public, but it is not what he has said.
4. "I'd probably do the same thing" is not expected. "Probably" is not strong. What has caused this to enter his speech? It may be:
5. The presence of the video camera: "If I knew the camera was there, no" tells us that he would not do it again, only if he knew a camera was on him, but he is not finished yet:
6. "because" seeks to show why he did something. This is sensitive, as it shows us a need to explain.
He feels a need to explain: "because" of his reason:
"it looks bad" instead of "it was bad" or "it was wrong" or "it was not appropriate" or any signal of remorse.
I sometimes ask parents if they would feel any increase in risk if they thought this person was pulling over their own son or daughter in a traffic stop.
In this case, it appears that police administration understood that the subject does not have remorse over his actions and his words reveal not only that he did not consider it inappropriate or an over-reaction, but that he only regrets being caught by the camera.
His attitude can, unjustly and unfairly, portray law enforcement en masse in an unfavorable light. He was arrested when the video was published.
His attorney's statement is interesting as well:
Glans' attorney, Matthew Chauvin of Clifton Park, said he didn't know if Glans was informed of the criminal charges against him before he resigned. Note the immediate change of pronoun in the statement.
"The video is difficult to place in the context of the person we know," Chauvin said. "I hope the 20-plus years he's put into the community doesn't go unnoticed," he said adding, "There are two sides to every story."
Note he is a "person" in which the pronoun "we" is used, denoting weakness as it is followed with his attorney's stronger use of pronouns, with "I hope" regarding the career. This is to indicate that the attorney does not feel strong enough to vouch for the character of the officer, but feels appropriate to have hope for the "20 plus years" of the officer's career.
No comments:
Post a Comment