Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login

Site Notices
Posted: 11/1/2009 4:49:35 PM EST
[Last Edit: 11/1/2009 4:50:28 PM EST by roboman]
I find that when I am dealing with members of the public (generally on traffic stops or drunk driving investigation) I often use verbals phases that closely mimic the wording of a law I am referring to.

For example, when I have pulled someone over for running a stop sign I say to them that they "failed to make a complete stop" at the stop sign instead of saying something like "You ran the stop sign".

Another example would be saying that "Your license plate lights are not functioning properly" instead of "your plate lights are out".

I have never had any issues with this until a colleague said that I sound like a robot when I do this and that many people interpret that kind of formality and wording as talking down to someone and trying to condescend them. While that is not my intention at all, I'd like to see what other BOTS think about this.

Thoughts?
Link Posted: 11/1/2009 5:09:26 PM EST
Yeah, that is common...
You are subconsciously regurgitating the law as you know it (the elements thereof LOL)
Plus.. If you say, "You ran the stop sign." People don't always understand the "Complete stop" part.
Next time try this...
YOU: Mam, the reason I stopped you is because you ran the stop sign.
HER: No officer I slowed, almost stopping.
YOU: Mam... If I started hitting you with this big'ol flashlight... would you like me to SLOW DOWN... or STOP?
Link Posted: 11/1/2009 5:43:58 PM EST
[Last Edit: 11/1/2009 5:44:47 PM EST by BiteDog]
I have always tried to speak casually to people even on traffic stops.

When you speak to someone casually (but professionally) it gives you a human element and I find that people relate better to me.

No offense but I'm not a fan of the robot sounding officer on the traffic stop or at any other time.

ETA : Do your verbal habits match your screen name?
Link Posted: 11/1/2009 5:55:28 PM EST
Originally Posted By BiteDog:
I have always tried to speak casually to people even on traffic stops.

When you speak to someone casually (but professionally) it gives you a human element and I find that people relate better to me.

No offense but I'm not a fan of the robot sounding officer on the traffic stop or at any other time.

ETA : Do your verbal habits match your screen name?


Apparently so . Self-fulfilling prophecy?

Link Posted: 11/1/2009 6:17:39 PM EST
It doesn't strike me a s condescending, just accurate and concise. It eliminates or reduces errors in communication.
Link Posted: 11/1/2009 6:28:07 PM EST
Originally Posted By Recon_by_Fire:
It doesn't strike me a s condescending, just accurate and concise. It eliminates or reduces errors in communication.


I do the same thing. I guess I'm pretty robotic on traffic stops too
Link Posted: 11/1/2009 8:51:32 PM EST
Originally Posted By TXGunnersM8:
Originally Posted By Recon_by_Fire:
It doesn't strike me a s condescending, just accurate and concise. It eliminates or reduces errors in communication.


I do the same thing. I guess I'm pretty robotic on traffic stops too


The worst and most robotic thing I think I've ever said was during SFSTs on a suspected drunk driver. On the walk-and-turn they had fallen out of the starting position while I was explaining the test, so I quickly stopped, pointed to their feet and said:

"Resume the instructional position."

The person looked at me like I had a third eyeball in my forehead
Link Posted: 11/1/2009 8:58:42 PM EST
Link Posted: 11/1/2009 9:10:44 PM EST
Meh, put me down in the robot category then, as I adhere to LA CCRP Art. 217/218 when making traffic stops: "Good afternoon/morning/evening sir/ma'am, I'm detective Scotchy McDrinkerbean of the New Orleans Police Department; I stopped you for disregarding the stop sign/red light at (street)/(street,) driving __ in a __ zone, having/not having a/an expired/obscured plate/brake tag, etc. etc. etc.

Short story––-tell folks who you are and why you stopped 'em, and you'll see the react/interact to/with you better.

(Though it so happens that state law requires it here..............it did where I used to work too, I might add––––but I did not know it. So check your own laws to be safe.)
Link Posted: 11/2/2009 9:42:44 AM EST
I don't think it sounds condesceding. Like someone said...cuts to the chase.

I do similar to Scotchy though, "Good morning....I'm so and so with XYZ Dept. May I see your DL, Reg, Ins." Then I usually pause about 5-10 seconds while they are getting their stuff. Then I usually ask them, "Do you know why I stopped you?"

I don't do this to get them to incriminate, I really do it to see if they will be honest and say, "Yeah, I did this or that." If they are honest and have all their DL, reg, ins current 90% of the time it will be a warning.

If they are honest and don't have good ins or reg or DL, I will usually only cite them for just that and write the infraction on the rear to establish PC.


Link Posted: 11/2/2009 2:02:34 PM EST
Originally Posted By roboman:
Originally Posted By TXGunnersM8:
Originally Posted By Recon_by_Fire:
It doesn't strike me a s condescending, just accurate and concise. It eliminates or reduces errors in communication.


I do the same thing. I guess I'm pretty robotic on traffic stops too


The worst and most robotic thing I think I've ever said was during SFSTs on a suspected drunk driver. On the walk-and-turn they had fallen out of the starting position while I was explaining the test, so I quickly stopped, pointed to their feet and said:

"Resume the instructional position."

The person looked at me like I had a third eyeball in my forehead




I never realized you were LEO, roboman
Link Posted: 11/2/2009 3:55:31 PM EST
I think its more professional the "robocop" way.
Link Posted: 11/2/2009 9:58:22 PM EST
Well, I think the "robot" way allows one a better control of their emotions especially when things get insulting, abusive, or hot and heavy.

Of course, those you say it to may not understand it all.

I had a particularly bad Friday the 13th which included getting into fisticuffs with an enlisted, something that had been taught to me as something an officer is NEVER suppose to do (after wards, I realized that the exception was being in military police). The psychiatrist had taken our prisoner aside for review to see fitness for the brig and I was in a separate room with my two patrolmen and the base XO. He made a comment of "I marvel at your control despite that abuse. If it was myself, I don't know if I could have restrained myself from throwing a swing or two."

I responded in a very Spock like tone, "You would find your time as a plebe very useful for this, Sir."............................it may have been correct and accurate, but it was probably presented wrong from an O-2 to an O-5.

What had happened? In the course of events, I had entered into a very controlled state, even to the point of perhaps being able to take hits without flying into a rage, and I hadn't realized how far I was into that state. What was the result? After the prisoner was away and on route to the brig, the XO "ordered me off the alert line". I told him on the phone that I thought I should remain on the base till the transport returned and his reply was, "No. I want you to go home."

Thing can go either way. The pleasant, conversational approach will probably go over well with reasonable people....but on the other hand, it may tell unreasonable people that there is room there to negotiate, to argue.

There are good and bad points to either version.
_____________________________________________________________________
("Now, we can do this the hard way or the,........actually, there's just the hard way."––Buffy to her first Sunnyvale vampires, (w,stte), "BtVs")
Link Posted: 11/3/2009 6:21:40 PM EST
Originally Posted By Snowleopard:
Well, I think the "robot" way allows one a better control of their emotions especially when things get insulting, abusive, or hot and heavy.

Of course, those you say it to may not understand it all.

I had a particularly bad Friday the 13th which included getting into fisticuffs with an enlisted, something that had been taught to me as something an officer is NEVER suppose to do (after wards, I realized that the exception was being in military police). The psychiatrist had taken our prisoner aside for review to see fitness for the brig and I was in a separate room with my two patrolmen and the base XO. He made a comment of "I marvel at your control despite that abuse. If it was myself, I don't know if I could have restrained myself from throwing a swing or two."

I responded in a very Spock like tone, "You would find your time as a plebe very useful for this, Sir."............................it may have been correct and accurate, but it was probably presented wrong from an O-2 to an O-5.

What had happened? In the course of events, I had entered into a very controlled state, even to the point of perhaps being able to take hits without flying into a rage, and I hadn't realized how far I was into that state. What was the result? After the prisoner was away and on route to the brig, the XO "ordered me off the alert line". I told him on the phone that I thought I should remain on the base till the transport returned and his reply was, "No. I want you to go home."

Thing can go either way. The pleasant, conversational approach will probably go over well with reasonable people....but on the other hand, it may tell unreasonable people that there is room there to negotiate, to argue.

There are good and bad points to either version.
_____________________________________________________________________
("Now, we can do this the hard way or the,........actually, there's just the hard way."––Buffy to her first Sunnyvale vampires, (w,stte), "BtVs")


You continually amaze with with how pointless and rambling your replies are. Please stop posting in my threads.
Link Posted: 11/4/2009 4:53:43 AM EST
Originally Posted By roboman:
You continually amaze with with how pointless and rambling your replies are. Please stop posting in my threads.


grow up.

Link Posted: 11/4/2009 5:20:05 AM EST
[Last Edit: 11/4/2009 5:21:29 AM EST by AGW]
Link Posted: 11/4/2009 5:50:15 AM EST
Originally Posted By AGW:
I prefer the robo-guilt approach: "Do you know which choice, or choices, you have made today which now have my undivided attention?"

It's the same whether you're talking to poopy first graders or a deranged 48 y.o. (like yesterday).


Holy shit I love that line. I am definitely going to use that from now on.
Link Posted: 11/4/2009 8:16:17 AM EST
Originally Posted By AGW:
I prefer the robo-guilt approach: "Do you know which choice, or choices, you have made today which now have my undivided attention?"

It's the same whether you're talking to poopy first graders or a deranged 48 y.o. (like yesterday).


My wife teaches first grade and we often come home with almost identical stories as far as the conversations we had at work.

We drew the conclusion several years ago that criminals and small children act exactly the same when they make bad choices.
Link Posted: 11/4/2009 9:31:36 AM EST
Top Top