IF It Ever Happens To You...

horselipshorselips Senior MemberPosts: 3,624 Senior Member
-(Ammoland.com)- If you’ve ever been involved in a traffic accident with another driver, you know that responding police have one primary task: to assign blame. One way or another, either you or the other driver is going to get nailed for the accident. Shooting investigations are similar. Once police show up, their task is to find someone who is most likely to be guilty of a crime and gather evidence to prove it. This is fine as long as the police investigate someone who has done something wrong. But when you have justifiably used a firearm to defend yourself, and the police suspect you of wrongdoing, you’re in for a terrible experience.


One thing police are trained to use against you is the “Reid Technique.” This is a multi-part method to gather facts, including a 9-step interrogation designed to pressure you into saying things that can be used against you in a court of law.

The investigating officer first performs a “factual analysis” to eliminate improbable suspects and determine who is most likely to be guilty of a crime.

Next comes the “behavior analysis interview” which includes a question and answer session. In addition to simple questions, the officer also asks questions intended to provoke reactions that can be interpreted as truth or deception.

Finally, there’s the “interrogation.” This is referred to as an “accusatory process” because the investigator tells you there is no doubt about your guilt and tries to make you believe he or she understands why you did what you’re accused of doing. It’s not so much a series of questions as it is a monolog by the investigator.

Here’s how this process is summarized on Wikipedia:


The actual 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 they are 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.

The first admission of guilt is usually obtained by asking the alternative question “Did you plan this out or did it just happen on the spur of the moment?” This technique uses language that contains the unspoken, implicit assumption of guilt. A famous version of this trick is, “Ma’am, have you stopped embezzling money from the bank yet?” The person under interrogation must catch the hidden assumption and contest it to avoid the trap. Otherwise, once the subject confesses to the proposed scenario, then active persuasion stops and the interrogator attempts to develop from the subject corroborating information that can be used to shore up the credibility of the confession. Critics regard this strategy as hazardous, arguing that it is subject to confirmation bias (likely to reinforce inaccurate beliefs or assumptions) and may lead to prematurely narrowing an investigation.

Nine steps of interrogation

The Reid technique’s nine steps of interrogation are:

Step 1 – Direct Confrontation. Lead the suspect to understand that the evidence has led the police to the individual as a suspect. Offer the person an early opportunity to explain why the offense took place.

Step 2 – Try to shift the blame away from the suspect to some other person or set of circumstances that prompted the suspect to commit the crime. That is, develop themes containing reasons that will justify or excuse the crime. Themes may be developed or changed to find one to which the accused is most responsive.

Step 3 – Try to discourage the suspect from denying his guilt. Reid training video: “If you’ve let him talk and say the words ‘I didn’t do it’[...]the more difficult it is to get a confession.”

Step 4 – At this point, the accused will often give a reason why he or she did not or could not commit the crime. Try to use this to move towards the confession.

Step 5 – Reinforce sincerity to ensure that the suspect is receptive.

Step 6 – The suspect will become quieter and listen. Move the theme discussion towards offering alternatives. If the suspect cries at this point, infer guilt.

Step 7 – Pose the “alternative question,” giving two choices for what happened; one more socially acceptable than the other. The suspect is expected to choose the easier option but whichever alternative the suspect chooses, guilt is admitted. There is always a third option which is to maintain that they did not commit the crime.

Step 8 – Lead the suspect to repeat the admission of guilt in front of witnesses and develop corroborating information to establish the validity of the confession.

Step 9 – Document the suspect’s admission or confession and have him or her prepare a recorded statement (audio, video or written).

As you can see, this is less about finding truth than it is about using psychological manipulation to get a confession. This may look obvious as you read this in the relative calm of your home or workplace, and you may assume that you could never be fooled which such a technique. However, remember that after a shooting, you will be in a state of shock. You will experience a swirl of intense emotions and physical effects that will prevent you from thinking clearly.

Police use the Reid Technique because they know how vulnerable you are and will take full advantage of this to assign blame and “get their man.”

Again, this is what the police are supposed to do. Their motives are good. However, in self defense shootings, innocent people often fall victim to aggressive investigative techniques like this. Even if you don’t give a confession, you could be manipulated into saying enough to give a prosecutor evidence to convict you.

Knowing what the police are doing can help you avoid this trap. But, as always, our advice remains the same. Don’t try to outsmart the police, just shut up.


Assert your 5th Amendment Right of remaining silent and talk to legal counsel before talking to the police.

About Second Call Defense
We believe deeply in the Second Amendment and the natural right of every citizen to self defense and the defense of loved ones. However, even though most states now allow you to own, use, and carry firearms for personal protection, you continue to face dramatic and potentially devastating consequences for doing what you have a legal right to do.

When you are forced to defend yourself with a firearm, your first call should be to 911. Your second call should be to Second Call Defense. www.secondcalldefense.org


Read more: http://www.ammoland.com/2013/10/gun-owners-beware-of-the-reid-interrogation-technique/#ixzz2gZY8pWzP

Replies

  • HAWKENHAWKEN Senior Member Posts: 1,685 Senior Member
    Either you watch too much television or you are a defense attorney. I worked as a LEO for 36 years, including 10 investigating burglaries and a year in homocide. A scenario, such as you described, Would only occure if we had indisputible articulible proof that a crime had occured and that your client was guilty, of that crime...........Robin
    I don't often talk to people that voted for Obama, but when I do I order large fries!
    Life member of the American Legion, the VFW, the NRA and the Masonic Lodge, retired LEO
  • NNNN Senior Member Posts: 23,895 Senior Member
    1) "I am the victim, he attacked me"

    2) "I will sign a complaint"

    3) "Those people saw what happened"

    4) "That is potential evidence"

    5) "Officer, you know how serious this is. You will have my full cooperation in 24 hours after I speak with my attorney"

    6) Now stop talking.
    A Veteran is someone that served in the Military, it does not matter where they served.
  • bobbyrlf3bobbyrlf3 Senior Member Posts: 2,465 Senior Member
    horselips wrote: »
    Here’s how this process is summarized on Wikipedia:

    Automatic scrutiny.
    Knowledge is essential to living freely and fully; understanding gives knowledge purpose and strength; wisdom is combining the two and applying them appropriately in words and actions.
  • samzheresamzhere Banned Posts: 10,923 Senior Member
    I'm guessing that a lot of these presumptions about the motive of police comes from rustbelt large city dyed-in-the wool liberal orgs, like NYC cops.

    I've never had the slightest sort of inquisition from Texas cops for any personal incident, ever. I was of course careful to be a minimalist in my exegesis but I still gave all the facts clearly and without embellishment. My comments were very much as NN recommends. Just the facts, ma'am.

    I do agree that shooting off your mouth afterward can get you in trouble especially if you don't have "clean hands" in the first place (you were involved in a name-shouting incident with the dead guy, shoving occurred on both sides, etc.)

    Police in Texas are simply NOT interested in skewering a "good shoot" self defense citizen. Maybe up east, but not here, and I'd generally say not likely in the south or southwest (red state territory).

    Good points, however, regardless. Although I don't think I'm gonna go to the internet to find a lawyer to represent me.

    Which is a suggestion I'd make to anyone, gun owner or not or whatever: have the phone number for a civil and a criminal attorney whom you've met, maybe socially, whom you think would be a help.

    Outside of a dog, a book is a man’s best friend. Inside of a dog, it’s too dark to read. - Groucho Marx
  • samzheresamzhere Banned Posts: 10,923 Senior Member
    I'd also like too add this... police aren't at their jobs of investigation to affix blame or find a guilty party. Their job is to find out what happened. If what happened is justifiable, fine. If not, then they may press their interrogation.

    Also, (and I appreciate your posting this, horse), but it's a quote from a website that's got a dog in the hunt, looking to provide legal help.

    What are YOUR own personal experiences in this matter? Mine are the total opposite of what's implied in this article, obviously slanted for a reason.

    Outside of a dog, a book is a man’s best friend. Inside of a dog, it’s too dark to read. - Groucho Marx
  • horselipshorselips Senior Member Posts: 3,624 Senior Member
    samzhere wrote: »
    I'd also like too add this... police aren't at their jobs of investigation to affix blame or find a guilty party. Their job is to find out what happened. If what happened is justifiable, fine. If not, then they may press their interrogation.

    Also, (and I appreciate your posting this, horse), but it's a quote from a website that's got a dog in the hunt, looking to provide legal help.

    What are YOUR own personal experiences in this matter? Mine are the total opposite of what's implied in this article, obviously slanted for a reason.

    I have no personal experiences, thank God. I've never had to shoot anybody. And, unlike the folks here who advise "call your attorney" before being grilled by the cops, I don't even have an attorney. Back when I was in business, I knew a couple of them, as well as a few CPAs, bankers and insurance brokers.

    If I "had an attorney" nowadays, my top priority would be to ascertain why, fix it, and fire him. Unless you're in business, or continuously exposed to an inordinate level of liability, why would anyone "have" an attorney they could just call when something happens? What are you people doing that such an arrangement is necessary, or even exists?
  • samzheresamzhere Banned Posts: 10,923 Senior Member
    "Having an attorney" is like having car insurance or having a good personal physician, is all.

    They're an unfortunate but necessary aspect of life these days. Were I to somehow end up in jail, why I don't know, but say I did, I'd make one call and be bailed out and represented. I'd pay him later.

    I also don't call my physician or my cardiologist but their numbers are on my phone and an emergency contact list I always carry. If I'm ever taken to the ER for cardiac seizure they'll have the cardio number to get the accurate picture of my prior problems.

    It's just like having car insurance, horse, where you hope you never have to use it but you've got that little card in your wallet if you do. A get out of jail free card, really.

    Outside of a dog, a book is a man’s best friend. Inside of a dog, it’s too dark to read. - Groucho Marx
  • TeachTeach Senior Member Posts: 18,257 Senior Member
    horselips wrote: »
    why would anyone "have" an attorney they could just call when something happens? What are you people doing that such an arrangement is necessary, or even exists?

    Anyone with more than two brain cells to rub together needs to have at least one general-purpose lawyer on call. Ours handles our real estate transactions, wills, medical power of attorney, living will, and a bunch of other mundane tasks that we choose not to deal with involving the legal system. No, he would not be my first choice to represent me in a shooting situation, but calling him would be my first act, with one instruction- - - -"Get in touch with my brother, NOW!" (He's the criminal attorney with 30+ years' experience).
    Jerry
    Hide and wail in terror, Eloi- - - -We Morlocks are on the hunt!
    ASK-HOLE Someone who asks for advice and always does something opposite
  • samzheresamzhere Banned Posts: 10,923 Senior Member
    Teach wrote: »
    Anyone with more than two brain cells to rub together needs to have at least one general-purpose lawyer on call. etc.
    Jerry

    That's all I was implying, I see you agree. It's just a good idea to have an attorney to fall back upon, someone to call if it hits the fan. If only to bail you out. Although I don't know what Teach has been doing to get him sent to the graybar hotel, huh? (kidding)

    Outside of a dog, a book is a man’s best friend. Inside of a dog, it’s too dark to read. - Groucho Marx
  • TeachTeach Senior Member Posts: 18,257 Senior Member
    samzhere wrote: »
    I don't know what Teach has been doing to get him sent to the graybar hotel, huh? (kidding)

    Nothing recently, but that could change in a heartbeat- - - - -particularly since I choose to carry the means to survive a dangerous situation. Those who choose not to defend themselves probably need to have a coroner and/or a clergyman on call, not a lawyer!
    Jerry
    Hide and wail in terror, Eloi- - - -We Morlocks are on the hunt!
    ASK-HOLE Someone who asks for advice and always does something opposite
Sign In or Register to comment.
Magazine Cover

GET THE MAGAZINE Subscribe & Save

Temporary Price Reduction

SUBSCRIBE NOW

Give a Gift   |   Subscriber Services

PREVIEW THIS MONTH'S ISSUE

GET THE NEWSLETTER Join the List and Never Miss a Thing.

Get the top Guns & Ammo stories delivered right to your inbox every week.