The Social Disease Behind The Symptoms by Venom

  Sometimes I don't like to talk much I just like to listen to other people. It can be the best reality show you'll ever see. I listen to them talk about politics and religion. I watch how they interact with each other. I watch how guys treat their girlfriends and how their girlfriends talk about them when they aren't there. I see alot of people looking for answers to things but they don't ask the right questions. Some just don't even care. We have alot of problems in our society today but with all the smoke and mirrors some don't even  know what they are looking at. We seem to be in the generation where nobody wants to work for anything anymore and nothing has value. The things that do have value aren't really worth anything and these things actually worth something people don't want because they aren't easy to get. This is why people will walk down the street past a good martial arts school and go to a crappy one because they are guaranteed a black belt in 3 years just for showing up. The other they'd have to work for so they don't want it. The problems we deal with in martial arts are a microcosm for the disease spreading through the society we live in. People may think some of my articles are unrelated to each other but in fact it's all relative. No one wants to look at the core of the problems we face because they are afraid. They are afraid they may have to take responsibility for something or that something may be asked of them. They talk about the symptoms and ignore the diseases simply because it's easier. Let's look at a few topics that tend to get bounced around.
   Gun control is a very common topic we can use to illustrate the point. Some think if they get rid of guns then the problems caused by them will go away. This is fighting a symptom not the disease. Gun control laws are a pointless waste of time and tax payer money. Sure alot of other people say that but why is it such a waste of time? Well there's the usual arguments about how criminals don't buy guns at the store they get them on the black market. That may be true but that isn't really it I mean some do and some don't. It has more to do with the saying guns don't kill people. People kill people. You see a gun is nothing more than a tool. It's like a drill laying on a table. It just sits there it does nothing. You put it in the hand of someone on a mission then something could end up with a whole in it. It's not a political problem though it gets politicized. The criminal problem is the fallout after it's over. You see if you look deeply enough at the problem you'll see it's a social issue. More often than not it comes down to someone felt a lack of respect. You can't make a law for that. A guy gets in a fight at a party and gets his ass kicked. People are talking about him. He feels embarrassed and humiliated and goes and gets a gun to show them. If they don't respect him they can fear him. A kid joins a street gang because daddy ain't around and momma has to work. He joins a gang for a sense of family. They commit crimes to get money to get respect. They fight other gangs for respect. Some guy is cheating on a girl she gets a gun and shoots him and his mistress because she feels disrespected and someone has got to pay. Sure this isn't every situation but it's alot of situations and of course there are other issues at hand. Now there could be a billion articles written on the past few sentences and when bad people do bad things the bad things follow them and there is no excuse for bad behavior but the point is the lack of a gun won't change anything. This is a perfect example of dealing with a symptom not the problem. Let's say you outlaw guns. Then they'll use knives. Take away the knives and they'll use sticks, rocks, molotov cocktails, bare hands, or anything other thing they can get their hands on. Guns are not the problem. That's just something people say to make themselves feel better because the real problem will probably never get resolved. Everyone grew up learning the Golden Rule..Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. Everyone knows it but no one abides by it because everyone is out for themselves. If everyone truly respected everyone then violence would decline. Think that will ever happen? Of course not. See why it's easier to blame guns? Attacking the symptom ignoring the disease.
    Another way of looking at it would be more parrying vs intercepts. Now I could stand back and parry all day and hold my distance trying to counter punch. The problem is if I  parry a punch the guy just punches again. The punch isn't the problem it's the guy punching. The punches are the symptom the attacker is the disease. If I can wedge my body in there and jam him up I can go to the source. If he's unconscious he isn't punching. Now before you flip out yes that is a very simplistic way of looking at it and there's alot of gray area. I'm not one of these big macho cro-magnon guys that think you can just do that all the time. I'm only trying to illustrate another way people never seem to go for the core of the problem instead wasting time on symptoms and never getting the results they need.
   People just don't seem to want to take responsibility anymore for anything. Not to be provocative but look at all the school shootings we've had in recent years. In the 1950's you didn't have school shootings here. It comes full circle a kid is getting bullied at school(the disrespect thing again). The school does nothing about it and he shoots it up. Of course when you look at the parents on the news they had no idea he was having problems in school. He's a good kid. It all must be Marylin Manson or Snooki's fault. God forbid the parents would take any responsibility or any role in the child's life. When I was a kid my parents always knew where I was and always knew what I was doing. These days kids are left alone for hours alone doing God knows what because the parents sure don't know. Now we all have innate sense of right and wrong and of course there is no excuse for shooting up a school obviously this is trying but I just give my two cents on the why. That's why alot of states have adopted a zero tolerance policy for violence in schools, because apparently they feel they have to do the job parents aren't doing at home anymore. A guy gets arrested for smoking weed and blames the cop for harshing his good time(it happens). A guy blows his money on crap because his priorities are screwed up then blames everyone but himself when he gets evicted for not paying the rent. Perez Hilton calls Will.I.Am a homo and then wants to sue because he got punched in the face even though he deserved it. 30 people watch a woman get stabbed to death in New York and think it's a shame she's gone yet none of them would lift a finger to help. Someone living in a shack is pissed at society for holding them down even though they refuse to get a job and blow the money they got on drugs and alcohol. The list could go on and on all night but hopefully you get point.
   The problem isn't guns,Snooki, the man, society, or any of that stuff. We are the problem. The problem is us. Somewhere along the line we lost focus. We got greedy and stopped caring about each other. We got so arrogant thinking of how much we've evolved yet we haven't really evolved much at all. People care more about status than each other just like the middle ages. The toys are different but the outcome is the same. Somewhere we forgot what mattered. We forgot to keep trying to make the world better. We got lazy and thought someone else could do it for us like the president, or the congress, the police, the governor, the church, or some other person. But they can't and they won't. We can make the world a little better but it has to start with us. It has to start with you and your friend in the mirror and no one else. Instead of facing the truth and looking at the problems we took the easy route. When it didn't fix things we didn't take responsibility and blamed others which started a vicious circle. A band aid won't work anymore. Until you understand the problem you can't find the solution. Until we take responsibility for our own lives and learn to dig deeper to treat this social disease instead of the symptoms we will get worse. Until we can admit to ourselves we are the problem then we can never be the solution.

The Death of Common Sense

  Normally I like to keep things tactical and sometimes deal with the important inner qualities. Yesterday though I ran across an article of a different type that I felt was important and should be seen. It was posted by my friend Mark Lee from Ireland. As always when we post the work of others we always try to give credit where it is due. Mark had told me this article originated in The London Times. Frankly Neither one of us know who wrote it so if anyone knows please let me know so I can accredit them. Without further adieu here is the article.



Today we mourn the passing of a beloved old friend, Common Sense, who has been with us for many years. No one knows for sure how old he was, since his birth records were long ago lost in bureaucratic red tape. He will be remembered as having cultivated such valuable lessons as: Knowing when to come in out of the rain; Why the early bird gets the worm;Life isn't always fair; and maybe it was my fault.

Common Sense lived by simple, sound financial policies (don't spend more than you can earn) and reliable strategies (adults, not children,are in charge).
His health began to deteriorate rapidly when well-intentioned but overbearing regulations were set in place. Reports of a 6-year-old boy charged with sexual harassment for kissing a classmate; teens suspended from school for using mouthwash after lunch; and a teacher fired for reprimanding an unruly student, only worsened his condition.

Common Sense lost ground when parents attacked teachers for doing the job that they themselves had failed to do in disciplining their unruly children.
It declined even further when schools were required to get parental consent to administer sun lotion or an Aspirin to a student; but could not inform parents when a student became pregnant and wanted to have an abortion.

Common Sense lost the will to live when criminals received better treatment than their victims.

Common Sense took a beating when you couldn't defend yourself from a burglar in your own home and the burglar could sue you for assault.

Common Sense finally gave up the will to live, after a woman failed to realize that a steaming cup of coffee was hot. She spilled a little in her lap, and was promptly awarded a huge settlement.

Common Sense was preceded in death, by his parents, TRUTH and TRUST, by his wife, DISCRETION, by his daughter, RESPONSIBILITY, and by his son, REASON.

He is survived by his 4 stepbrothers;
I Know My Rights
I Want It Now
Someone Else Is To Blame
I'm A Victim

Not many attended his funeral because so few realized he was gone.

— with Bob Noonan.

1942 Ranger Combat School

In the  interest of preserving history I thought it would be nice to post some declassified footage of the old Army Ranger training in Hawaii in 1942. There may even be some fun drills in it that you could do in your class on an outing or something for unity building. I especially like the techniques shown with the commando rope you don't really see that stuff anymore. Enjoy!

Old School Combatives

As we've done in the past with Judo and Catchwrestling we at Stonewall Tactical feel that it's important to preserve and share some of those old footage that help make us all what we are today. I know by today's standards some of this may look funny or have perceived flaws just as everything else does but I still think it should be seen. It will either remind us how far we've come or show us where we may need to return to. Either way I think historical footage has value even if it's only for entertainment.

  As you can see we've come a long way in some areas such as disarms from then but in others we may need to give a second look. I know some of those techniques were known back then but fell into disuse over time so some of them are actually popping back up in modern combatives as the latest thing. If nothing else it's interesting. Thanks

Tactical Concepts For Entries by Daniel S. Danaher

  In today’s violent society we are losing officers at an alarming rate.  Within the past few years we have seen officers killed while responding to , entering, or searching a structure: places like Pittsburgh, Detroit , Oakland and San Diego to name a few.   These incidents varied from domestic disturbances, suspicious persons, barricaded gunmen, to warrant service.   These are the types of standard calls that officers answer every day and yet we continue to lose officers.   There is no way we can eliminate casualties in such a dangerous and un-predictable occupation, but with the use of better tactics and teamwork we can minimize how many casualties we take.

        The problem:  Most officers perform as individual entities.  They handle calls for service, affect traffic stops, initiate arrests, perform custodial searches, transport prisoners, settle disputes, investigate crimes, conduct interviews/interrogations and resolve a host of other problems on a daily basis.  They condition themselves to get the job done, whatever that job may be, including the dangerous job of clearing structures.   With some exceptions, officers can handle most of these duties by themselves and do so successfully, however, clearing a structure, effectively and safely requires teamwork.

  Because entering a building and searching for other humans is inherently dangerous, it should not be performed alone; it normally requires a minimum of two officers. However, if both officers are to enter a room, they will invariably give up ground that they have already secured because they have lost sight of the remainder of the structure.  This is not only ineffective, it is unsafe.  For if both officers are searching, who is providing security?

 Once officers have cleared a room they then have to re-orientate themselves and determine where they will proceed next.  This may be repeated throughout the clearing process, which waste valuable time and allows the potentially lethal foe an opportunity to gain the advantage by formulating plans, locating escape routes, reloading, or potentially taking hostages.  By applying a few techniques and principles, we can move officers through an area in a coordinated, systematic fashion, with minimal communication and greater efficiency.  

  The technique is called “Line-Backing” and can be used to clear any type of structure with as little as three to four officers.  Line-Backing is a method of moving a group of officers through exposed areas by covering angles of attack.  Officers form a line (stack) with a lead officer (number one) followed by at least one other officer.  Attached to number one is the shield officer.  The shield officer is responsible for covering the angles to the opposite side of the entry point, or areas that leave the search element exposed to unsecured threat areas.  The shield officer also maintains the integrity of the formation by controlling the speed and movement of the number one officer.  Additionally, once officers begin to search areas, the shield will maintain security and determine the teams next move.  Line-Backing starts as soon as the officers enter the structure from the initial breach point.  The technique works from the perspective of the OODA Cycle (Observe, Orientate, Decide, Act).  The technique requires officers to move dynamically when necessary (moving through danger zones) and stealthily (slow & deliberate) when the opportunity presents itself.

The Breach (Clearing with four officers)

  Ideally, officers position themselves to either side of the entry point.  This is done so officers can attempt to clear as much of the initial area as possible from their position of cover/concealment at the door.  Officers closest to the entry point assume a low profile known as “tuck & duck” (front officer kneeling or low-profile), this technique is used whenever officers are stacking on corners and doorways.  The next closest officers straddle the front officers from over the top.  This affords multiple sets of eyes and muzzles for added coverage.   Once officers have breached the door, they begin to observe the initial area to be cleared.  If officers encounter anyone, they have three options of engagement; verbally, physically, or by fire.  Suspects who are observed should be called out to the officers and taken into custody by using cover/contact principles of engagement.  Once the officers have oriented themselves to the lay-out and hazards of the initial entry, the side which holds the greatest threat will be entered first.  This determination is made because it is the largest part of the room, or it contains the greatest number of secondary threats.  The officer who is visually orientated to that side of the room enters first.  This is followed up by officers entering from alternating sides until all are occupying the initial entry area. 

The Entry

  Once the team has entered the initial area, they do not want to continue to advance or “run the walls”.  Each step an officer takes creates another angle within the area which may not be covered by supporting officers.   Officers should move only as far as necessary to allow the rest of the members to vacate the “fatal funnel” and make entry into the room, this is generally not more than a few feet.  At this point we have established two sets of officers on either side of our entry point.  One set will be designated as the cover/search team and the other set a position of dominance.  Which set becomes the cover/search team and which becomes the position of dominance will be dictated by the side which contains the most immediate threat.

Room Clearing

  Once the determination has been made, the cover/search team will begin to clear their area while the position of dominance will hold, covering down on the room, or secondary threats.  The cover/search team is exactly what its name implies, one officer searches while the other officer covers, or protects.  This is accomplished by the searching officer systematically clearing their side of the room along the perimeter.   While this is being done, the cover officer acts as a shield by attaching him/herself to the searching officer in order to protect them from any angle within the room as they proceed.  The cover officer (shield) should not become concerned with the area being searched; each officer’s safety is dependent on the other, which results in a mutually supportive technique.  The cover/search team will continue in this fashion until they clear the entire area, or come to a choke point where they are unable to proceed.  If this occurs, each team will change responsibilities, whereby the cover/search team holds in place and becomes the position of dominance and the position of dominance team now becomes the cover/search team.   Once the entire area has been cleared, the initial foothold has been secured. 

Footholds

  Once the initial foothold has been established, officers move systematically and fluidly through the structure establishing “footholds” along the way.  Each time a new area is secured it becomes another foothold.  These footholds are then used as a base of operations and may be occupied for as little as a few seconds in order to clear the area and determine the next move, or an un-determinate amount of time for; planning, re-consolidation, re-loading, triage, a base for negotiations or any other measure necessary to complete the mission. Whichever the case, footholds are transitional areas used while continuing to clear the structure.

  * Note: If this is being accomplished with three officers, one officer (shield) will hold the hallway while the other two officers make entry into the room.  The officers entering the room will initially position themselves to either side of the door just inside the room.  After a brief orientation, a decision must be made as to which side is to be cleared first (danger-close) at which point both officers will join together and form a cover/search team.  These two officers will remain together until the entire room has been cleared. 

  While officers are searching the room, the officer who is holding the hall (shield) is doing so from a “tuck & duck” position.  This is done for several reasons: (1) So they present a smaller target, (2) That when the other officers check back-up to the doorway they are able to position themselves over the top of the door officer (shield); providing better coverage of the hallway and allowing the second officer to orientate to where they are moving next, (3) As a visual cue:  When the door officer (shield) stands up, it tells the other officers in the room that the team is moving to the next entry point.  In other words, the train is pulling out and everybody better be on-board, if not, this must be immediately communicated, before the train pulls out. 

  The shield, along with providing protection to the entry element as they move from point to point, determines where the team will move next and who will be the shield and who will be the number one going into the next room/area.   By making these assessments, while the other members are completing the search of the room, the team is able to maintain a degree of fluidity while clearing the structure.  When a team of officers becomes comfortable with these tactics, the only words that need to be communicated is: “Where are we going and what do you need.”  A possible response from the “shield” would be: “Clear right, cover left.”  “I’m the Shield, I need a One.”  The first (closest) officer would then reply, “I’m the One, stack on me.”  This would indicate to the other members that the team would be clearing a door/area to the right and that the “shield” would be providing cover to the left.  Everyone in the stack would know where they were going and what their responsibilities were based on their position in the stack and no further instruction would be necessary. However, during initial training, officers are encouraged to assist one another in making determinations of direction of movement and assignments until the techniques become familiar.

  This is the basis of “Line-Backing”.  There are other tactics and principles that must also be covered in order for officers to be successful during a building search, some of which we have briefly discussed, such as; danger close, fill from rear, contact/cover and others we have yet to discuss.  If officers can master these skills, prepare themselves mentally and be properly equipped, we have done arguably all that we can to deal with circumstances which are beyond our control and which place us at a disadvantage in our most dangerous encounter.

  At the end of the day we are all police officers, who professed an oath to protect and serve, whenever and wherever that may be and by so doing we must commit ourselves as officers, trainers and administrators to be prepared to the greatest extent possible.

Daniel S. Danaher,
Executive Board Member, Tactical Encounters Inc.

Dan Danaher  dan.d@tacticalencounters.com

Dan is a Sergeant with 22 years of law enforcement experience.  He is currently assigned as the Training Coordinator for his agency.

He is a former Marine Non-Commissioned Officer, where he served as a Rifleman, Scout/Sniper and Marksmanship Instructor.  Dan also served in the Persian Gulf, on the USS Okinawa and Mobile Sea Base Hercules in Operations Earnest Will and Prime Chance, during the Iran/Iraq War.

Prior assignments/duties include: Patrol, Special Operations Unit, Motor Officer, Range-Master and Narcotics & Surveillance Bureau.  Dan was also the former Senior Team Leader for the Western Wayne Special Operations Team with over 18 years of SWAT experience as both a Sniper and Entry Team Leader.  Dan has been a member of his Department’s Color/Honor-Guard for 20 years.

Dan holds a Bachelor of Science Degree in Criminal Justice from Madonna University.

He holds instructor certifications in the following areas:  Firearms, Patrol Rifle, Rapid Deployment, Defensive Tactics, Ground Fighting, Spontaneous Knife Defense, Taser®, Personal Chemical Agents, Strategies & Tactics on Patrol Stops, SWAT Tactics, Low-Light Tactics, Confrontational Simulation/Reality Based Training and Live-Fire Shoot-House.

Australian Cops Face Steep Spike in Spitting Incidents by Christopher Knaus

CANBERRA, Australia — Police face steep spike in spitting incidents Health fears for officers By Christopher Knaus Police Reporter Officers patrolling Civic late at night are regularly being spat on, in a growing trend that's raising health fears among the force.
Police were spat on 33 times during 2010-11 and 22 times the previous year. The vast majority of spitting incidents occur in the city, generally late at night.
Officers who are spat on in the mouth, eyes or any lacerations are forced to undergo blood checks for saliva-borne diseases. ACT Policing's north district superintendent Mick Calatzis said the practice was becoming worryingly frequent.
"It's a really common occurrence and we're quite concerned about it," Superintendent Calatzis said.
"We find it a privilege to be police officers in Canberra, and fundamentally we're extremely tolerant, we negotiate with individuals," he said.
"But we don't expect, and I don't think anyone in the community would tolerate, being spat on.
"We don't know what they're trying to achieve."
Those who spit on a police officer in the ACT can be charged under the offence of harming a Commonwealth official. But the adequacy of that offence came under the scrutiny of the ACT Opposition recently, which voiced concerns that it did not properly protect police.
They introduced legislation earlier this month to substantially increase penalties for acts of violence against police. That legislation is still up for consultation.
Opposition Leader Zed Seselja described spitting assaults on officers as "disgraceful."
Mr Seselja said current legislation allowed a degree of impunity for criminals who assaulted police.
"I think it's indicative of a certain disdain in a small part of our community for the police," Mr Seselja said.
"I think we need to send a clear message to that part of our community that it's just unacceptable."
Superintendent Calatzis said the health implications of spitting assaults and the subsequent blood testing caused considerable distress for officers and their families.
"Fundamentally, most people out at night time enjoy the night, which they should and they do, fundamentally, the right thing," Superintendent Calatzis said.
"Sadly, it's only a very small percentage that come to our attention."We also will not hesitate to put a charge in for them assaulting police.
"What we would prefer, is for people not to find this acceptable."
Mr Seselja said the current legislation was weak as it required prosecutors to prove the suspect knew they were assaulting a Commonwealth official.
He said absence of a specific legislative basis for police in the ACT also made it difficult to successfully prosecute police assaults.
Attorney-General Simon Corbell moved to consolidate police powers into a single Police Powers Act this week.
Although mainly administrative in nature, the changes could seek to remove the defence of resisting unlawful arrest.
That defence is commonly used by offenders who assault police.

The 5th Amendment and You

I just posted this as part of a another article as it was submitted by Kathy Sato. However since it wasn't the complete subject off that article I feared it may make the information harder to find for people that wanted to check it out there for I have included the very same video presentation from Regent Law School as it's on article for those that would like to see it

For my police friends don't get mad at me I'm just the messenger...lol

Behavior Symptom Analysis During Roadside Interviews by John Reid & Associates

Many serious crimes have been solved as a result of a traffic stop or chance encounter with a police officer:* A vehicle is stopped for running a red light and it is determined that the occupants just held up a liquor store or burglarized a warehouse; a driver is pulled over because of an equipment violation and, through questioning, the officer learns that the other occupant in the vehicle is wanted on a felony warrant.** The media use these stories to show how stupid criminals are.* What the stories really illustrate, however, is the importance of conducting effective roadside interviews.

The officer conducting a roadside interview is in a unique position to develop incriminating information.* Because the initial stop is for a forfeiture offense, Miranda warnings are not required.* Most of these stops are the result of probable cause so the suspect already knows that he or she has been caught doing something wrong and this awareness makes it easier to acknowledge other transgressions.* Finally, these suspects are caught off guard without the opportunity to create a credible alibi or dispose of incriminating evidence that may be in the vehicle.

While it might be tempting to grill every motorist pulled over for speeding to find out if he has sexually molested any children or has a dead body in the trunk of his car, there are moral and legal restrictions placed on expanding the scope of roadside questions beyond the initial traffic violation.* For example, some states have ruled that, without reasonable suspicion, it is illegal to ask a person pulled over for a traffic violation permission to search the trunk of his car.

In many of these cases, officers cite "gut feelings" or "instincts" as causing them to expand the scope of their questions beyond the initial traffic stop.* These officers have stopped hundreds of motorists and know what a normal person's behavioral response is under that circumstance. When a subject exhibits abnormal behavior, the officer may expand their questioning.* While John E. Reid and Associates expertise is limited to behavior symptoms that occur in a controlled environment during a structured interview, some of those basic principles certainly carry over to a roadside interview.

It must be remembered that people stopped for traffic violations are, for the most part, guilty of the offense for which they were stopped (speeding, equipment violation, failure to obey a sign, etc.) and will certainly exhibit symptoms of anxiety as a result of being caught.* In this sense, people stopped for a traffic violation are "guilty" of the violation.* However, they may exhibit behavior symptoms of guilt or deception because of involvement in some unrelated criminal activity or because they lied to the police officer's questions, e.g., "Where are you coming from? Whose car is this?"

 For the purpose of this article, the terms "guilt" and "deception" are used to describe subjects who are involved in something other than the traffic violation for which they were stopped.* The following are general guidelines that may be useful to establish reasonable suspicion.* In other words, these are indications that it may be appropriate to expand the scope of questioning beyond the initial purpose for the stop 

#1* Nervousness does not equal deception

Especially during the initial contact with a police officer, most subjects will experience nervousness (hand tremor, eye blinking, dry mouth).* As a recent incident illustrated, a subject may appear agitated and anxious because of a medical emergency.* However, extreme nervousness, or fearfulness that increases during the course of questioning may be an indication of guilt to something beyond the initial traffic violation. Symptoms of extreme anxiety include excessive physical movement (pacing, crossing, uncrossing arms, constant hand movements) and mental blocks (inability to recall simple information like an address or an inappropriate response to a simple question).

#2 Truthful suspects offer reasonable cooperation and are helpful during questioning.

 Subjects with nothing to hide pull to the side of the road when the officer activates lights and siren; when at home, they answer the door when the officer knocks on it and respond to questions without objection.* Conversely, it is a classic symptom of guilt for a suspect to run from the police in response to an effort to stop his vehicle or question the suspect at his home.*

During questioning, guilty suspects may engage in behaviors that are the equivalent of alluding the officer.* The suspect may be guarded, answering most questions with only a one or two word response.* A key deceptive behavior symptom associated with guarded responses is that the suspect does not take time to think about the officer's question.* Often, these suspects respond to the officer's questions too quickly or even before the officer finishes asking the question.

The deceptive suspect may evade a direct response to the officer's questions or become challenging as illustrated by the following dialogue 

Q "Where are you going this evening?"

A: "Nowhere."

Q: "Where are you coming from?"

A: "What do you mean?"

Q: "Who is in the front seat with you?"

A: "Thatis none of your business."

Q: "What is his name?"

A: "What difference does it make?"

 At this point it would be reasonable to pursue an effort to establish the identity of the passenger and the subject's whereabouts that evening.

 #3 Deceptive suspects are often uncomfortable communicating with their hands.

 Communicating with one's hands (illustrating) occurs when a person is confident and sincere in his statements.* Illustrators reinforce the credibility behind the spoken word.* The lack of illustrators can be a significant behavior symptom of possible deception.* The classic description of a guilty subject going through a border stop is that the subject's hands are cemented to the steering wheel at the 11 and 2 o'clock positions and his eyes stare straight ahead at the road.* Similarly, when questioning a child who has done something wrong, the child will hide his hands by putting them in his pockets.

Truthful subjects use appropriate hand gestures and will actively communicate with their hands.* These gestures are not aggressive or threatening, but rather are an extension of communicating thoughts and information to the officer.** Deceptive subjects often go through a "freeze" response and shut down nonverbally.* As a result, their hands do not become involved when answering questions.

 *#4* Be cautious when considering poor eye contact as an indication of guilt or deception

 There are many non-deceptive causes for an innocent person to exhibit poor eye contact, especially when being questioned by a person in authority.* These include culture, a shy personality, effects of medications and neurological disorders.* During relatively short encounters, such as a roadside interview, poor eye contact should not be considered a behavior symptom of deception unless the officer has specifically established that the suspect is capable of exhibiting normal eye contact.

 The standard procedure to establish a person's normal level of eye contact is to ask a series of nonthreatening background questions.* The principle is simple; if a suspect cannot maintain mutual gaze when answering nonthreatening questions, the suspect's poor eye contact when answering questions about the crime should not be considered as an indication of deception.

 The difficulty with roadside stops is finding nonthreatening questions to establish baseline behaviors.* For example, the following initial questions are fairly standard when a police officer pulls over a car on a traffic stop:

 "Do you know why I have pulled you over?"

"May I see your driver's license?"

"Is the information on your license correct?"

"Is this your vehicle?"

"Where are you headed this afternoon?" 

For 99% of motorists, these questions should be nonthreatening, but if the suspect happens to be driving a stolen car, driving with a revoked license or has just robbed a bank, the questions are clearly threatening and the suspect may exhibit poor eye contact when answering these "nonthreatening" questions.

 With so many potential variables affecting a subject's eye contact during a roadside interview, the officer should be cautious in using this criteria to identify guilt.* Certainly, poor eye contact alone should not be used as the sole criteria to expand the scope of questioning during a traffic stop.

 #5 Inconsistent or irrational explanations often indicates deception

There are many factors that influence nonverbal behavior but a person's words have a single meaning, with the only typical variables being memory or intelligence.* If a driver tells you that the car he is driving belongs to his father, the fact that a check on the car's ownership comes back to someone else is an inconsistency that certainly requires further questioning.

If a car is pulled over and smells of marijuana the officer should certainly ask the driver about the smell.* If the driver anxiously explains that his car was parked near a field where leaves were being burned and that the leaves caused the smell, this is an irrational explanation.** Based on this analysis, it would certainly be appropriate for the officer to ask the driver, "Have you or anyone else smoked marijuana in this car this evening?"

 In conclusion, most roadside interviews are routine and straightforward.* A car is stopped, a few questions are asked, a citation is issued and the subject is on his way.* However, on occasion, the subject of a roadside interview is involved in a more serious crime or has information that is important to other on-going investigations.* This web tip offers five guidelines to determine when routine questions should be expanded to cover possible involvement in other criminal activity or guilty knowledge.



NOTE: In the interest of growth and progression some people like the Reid Method of interviewing while others have big problems with it. The goal of these articles in this section is to bring about dialogue for or against. Anyone who has an issue with this method of interviewing let us know why you don't like it and we will post it here and give people a chance to see both sides and draw their own conclusions. This article was not written by us. - Paul Green

I want to give a special thanks to Kathy L. Sato for sending us the below videos. You may run across a savy suspect that just flat out won't be interviewed and won't answer questions. Be advised the law is on their side so remember you are the face of your department in this situation make sure your eyes are dotted and your tee's are crossed do not do something that is going to expose the department to litigation.

Thanks again to Kathy Sato for this eye opening submission