Glitch the FBI is reveiwing a number of cases where their
cases under review included several where the person has already been executed, and others still on death row. (not claiming all were innocent, but certainly it’s not beyond belief that some are)
Also recommend you check out the information with the Innocence Project
I’m thinking that maybe I should be covering my eyelids with a mid-toned shadow, blending up slightly above the socket. I should be taking the shadow right up to the inner corner of the lid but not beyond the outer corner of the eye. I could go into a charcoal liner.
wring, I am not making any claims about expert testimony … heck in a long since dead thread in GD I made some comments on the sad state of forensic labs. Again, let me be perfectly clear and precise, it is quite a leap from a mistaken interpretation of a facial experession by a police officer to an innocent person rotting in prison.
It may be a short jump though from a mistaken interpretation of a facial expression by a police officer to the decision by that police officer to use his weapon on the owner of the face. It may also be a short jump from phoney personality assessment (by anyone in power) to the altering of social welfare records (or any information held in a database) in keeping with that assessment. By the way, am I right in thinking that graphology has been discredited?I’m not quite sure about that. Has it gone the same way as phrenology or not?
Oh yes, I forgot police officers are just thugs with guns and itchy trigger fingers. Good grief. The notion that a police officer would mistakenly interpret a non-verbal communication and use that to justify using their weapon on the person is ludicrous.
As for adjusting records, well, hell now we’re talking about creating/planting evidence. Why don’t we just assume that the officer will misinterpret the facial expression and plant a half-kilo of cocaine in their car? If you start with the assumption that police officers are out to get people at the slightest provocation then sure I can understand some misgivings about being trained to understand non-verbal communication, but hell if that is your starting assumption then there is a bigger problem then non-verbal communication interpreting skills at hand.
Again, does is never ever happen not in a million years, no, but the occurance rate is undoubtedly exceptionally low. I deal with at least a hundred (easily) occurance of people exhibiting suspicious behaviour a year haven’t drawn a gun on them yet, haven’t even thought about drawing a gun on them, even when that suspicious behaviour was somewhat menacing towards me. The vast majority of police officers I am sure are the same.
As for graphology, what does interpreting handwriting have to do with this?
I’m sorry. I’m from a place very different to the U.S. and most of the time I’m only too aware of that. My life experiences over the last years have turned me into a cynic and a half - that’s all. When things go inexplicably wrong people always look for answers. What about this: I went to see President Clinton give a speech when he came here in 1999. The security was spectacular and most people were fascinated more by that I’m sure than the President himself. They’d never seen lookout gunmen on rooftops, or been frisked by the CIA like everyone was at the door of the stadium. It was really impressive. A circus. The crowd was forced to wait for hours though and herded up like animals. I was embarrassed to find I was unintentionally dressed in the uniform of the U.S. intelligence service - a long black woollen coat. Anyway, the thing is, as I was standing watching the dignitaries drive away I noticed a CIA/Intelligence/Security person was staring malevolently at me. Me - a harmless bystander innocent woman. He really was quite rude and I know it must have been my imagination but it seemed like he did have an itchy trigger finger. It was like he wanted to come over and hit me at least. He was lke a little dog straining on a leash. Why? I didn’t do anything but wear the same coat. What can a person do
to warrant this kind of response? Wrong body/face language? Wrong foundation shade?
I was embarrassed to find I was unintentionally dressed in the uniform of the U.S. intelligence service - a long black woollen coat. Anyway, the thing is, as I was standing watching the dignitaries drive away I noticed a CIA/Intelligence/Security person was staring malevolently at me. Me - a harmless bystander innocent woman. He really was quite rude and I know it must have been my imagination but it seemed like he did have an itchy trigger finger. It was like he wanted to come over and hit me at least. He was like a little dog straining on a leash. Why? I didn’t do anything but wear the same coat. What can a person do to warrant this kind of response? Wrong body/face language? Wrong foundation shade?
[/quote]
(Bolding added by me)
First, and please don’t take this a flame but simply food for thought, don’t you find it ironic that you are critizing him for misinterpreting your attire and earlier you were critizing another officer’s misinterpretation of a facial expression (unless these are the same incident, I am not quite sure) when you yourself state your reactions to his non-verbal communications…
“I noticed (him) staring malevolently at me.”
These are your interpretations of his look. Was he really staring malevolently or was their something on your mind clouding your judgement (see #3 below)?
Second, this scenario is not your standard run of the mill encounter with a police officer. These guys are not standard officers, they are really more like bodyguards and they have to adopt a different mindset for that. Namely, you don’t make any assumptions. So, try to picture this thing from his perspective. A person arrive coincidentally (or not) in the secret service outfit. Is it a coincidence? Are they trying to pretend they are secret service? For what purpose if so? As a game to to feel important, or to maybe so that other agents will not pay them any heed? These are the questions he has to ask himself as part of the job. If he assumes you’re are just “a harmless bystander innocent woman” are you are an assassin then the president dies.
Third, your very first sentence reveals something very important. “I was embarressed…”. Isn’t possible that when you realized that you had accidentally dressed up as a secret service agent, that perhaps you were displaying some self-concious behaviour? Maybe you looked around, perhaps a bit to fervently or suspiciously? There is nothing wrong with that, it is a totally natural reaction and it is why a well-trained officer will not overreact to a non-verbal communication, there can be many root causes for it. Is it possible, in relation to the stare from #1, that internally when you noticed an agent looking at you, you figured it must be because of the clothes and that he must be pissed off?
Now, maybe he did act rudely. I don’t know since I wasn’t there, and if so he acted poorly and there is no excuse for that.
It’s very interesting, what you are saying. I can relate to your “clouded judgement” explanation. It’s so essential to be aware of how much our brains process our thoughts in accordance with our preconceptions and how our memories and imaginations are allied. If I was ever called on to be an eyewitness I would be aware of all that, for sure.
I must admit, though, maybe I didn’t give a very good impression when I quibbled with one of the guards at the door. I had a book and a camera in a handbag and they weren’t pleased about it. The ticket instructions said: "please REFRAIN from bringing [anything at all] into the arena but I hadn’t read them. I protested that the word refrain meant to “try and avoid” rather than prohibit completely. Like, “Please try and avoid bringing the 357 Smith and Wesson, but if you must, go ahead, why not?” The Merriam Webster definition of REFRAIN is “to keep oneself from doing, feeling, or indulging in something and especially from following a passing impulse” See? So, although I was just playing around I don’t think it was the time or place.
I must say two last things: Firstly, I was shocked at how young the lookout gunmen were. They looked to be around 17 -20. Is it true that human reflexes start to deteriorate so early that only people that age possess full capabilities for accurate shooting? Secondly, President Clinton gave a speech on the environment that seemed to be written by the Friends of the Earth. It was extremely environmentally conscious and was all about we must all work together to stop global warming and plug up holes in the ozone layer. It was like being at a concert with Sting and Bob Geldolf. How different it now all is. Whether the Republicans have changed things or if it was really any different then, I don’t know. Thank you for talking to me.