Why do cops speak like this?

[Lizard]

@TreacherousCretin

Thank you for this. Am I correct in thinking that “alleged suspect” is therefore a stupid mistake when the subject is definitely a suspect?

That’s another murky one. The police rarely come out and name suspects outright, but if they do it’s perfectly fine to repeat it. At that point, it’s not “alleged” any more. (A general rule is that it is ALWAYS safe to repeat officials statements by the police.) But the truth is calling someone an “alleged” anything if they’ve never been arrested, questioned or aren’t on trial is risky. That’s not to say it isn’t done, however, because these are conventions of the profession that have no real force of law. Publications all have a different level of risk they’re willing to tolerate. Better to just say things like"the police have questioned the dead woman’s husband"–a factual statement–and let readers draw their own conclusions.

[JRDelirious]

@furryman

Re: Alleged. I wonder why they even bother. Someone I know was arrested and the arrest was publicised. Now everyone who doesn’t know him is posting online convinced that he’s criminal scum.
Yeah I know it’s to avoid litigation, but still…

Because…

@Lizard

Better to just say things like"the police have questioned the dead woman’s husband"–a factual statement–and let readers draw their own conclusions.

…then the readers who draw their own *wrong *conclusions, can’t say it was the press and the public officials that told them he’s criminal scum. It lays the responsibility for the outrage mob on the outrage mob.

And BTW a criminal defense lawyer friend points out that, conversely, this style helps him detect a weak case, if the report/testimony seem too perfectly scripted as to form but has deficiencies in substantive details that the witness can’t elaborate upon on questioning.

[Loach]

@Noel_Prosequi

There seems somewhere to be a list of archaic words that police use by default, but no-one else does. Police always “alight” from vehicles. Indeed, they are always “vehicles”. They “proceed” to places. They “consume” food and “beverages”. People in custody “flee”. Police “operate” vehicles. They “utilise” things, even more than the general abuse of this word in the general community.
There is another aspect of police speak that, for mine, is weirder than the uber-formality being discussed above. It is the use of a species of perfect tense that is completely odd, and I don’t know why police do it. A fake example is this:" The suspect has gone into the liquor store where he has robbed the shopkeeper and customers. He has then fled the store and has hijacked the car of a passer-by, before he has been captured." Exaggerated, but you recognise the style. What’s wrong with the plain ol’ past tense? He went into the store, where he robbed the clerk, and fled, etc?

Maybe it is intended to add a sense of racy immediacy to the narrative. Maybe the use of the perfect tense structure is thought to be more elevated in tone compared to the much more sensible use of past tense. But it is now so pervasive that it has infected police-beat reporting as well.

It is one of the things I have to beat out of law students who seem to think they are supposed to talk or write like that.

ISTM this is not just a habit from where I come from (Australia). I have seen it in the UK and US as well.

There is some aspects of “I saw the old guy doing it so I will.” There are some bad habits that have been worked out of police writing over the year. In decades past reports used to be written in some form of third person. “This officer” or “The below signed officer” has been replaced with “I.”

Stilted and formal often prevents confusion. Pronouns are avoided. It’s better to begin 10 sentences in a row with “The suspect” than use pronouns that can lead to confusion as to who you are talking about. Or fake defense attorney confusion.

This is the first time I have ever typed the word “alight” in my life. I drive or walk I don’t proceed. “Flee” has a very specific meaning.

[Loach]

@JRDelirious

And BTW a criminal defense lawyer friend points out that, conversely, this style helps him detect a weak case, if the report/testimony seem too perfectly scripted as to form but has deficiencies in substantive details that the witness can’t elaborate upon on questioning.

If there is going to be a formal interview like would happen with a major case my reports are purposely lacking substantive details. There will always be differences between my paraphrasing of what someone told me and their own words in an interview. Any descepancies will be attacked by a defense attorney so I don’t give him any.

[fedman]

@Emergency911

It’s been a while since the academy, but when I went, yes, they did teach how to write a report. I may be over simplifying it, but it comes down to the fact that any report than an officer writes can end up in court. Lawyers pour over these reports and tear them apart. They look for anything they can use to put doubt in the jury’s mind. So they drum it into you to be thorough and precise, remove any doubt about what you are writing about. So saying “van” may seem like the thing to do, but there is a lawyer out there that will question you on what kind of van. By saying “prisoner transport vehicle” it removes any doubt about what they were in and that they weren’t strapped to the floor of a cargo van, etc.
As dumb as it sounds, this is the way it works sometimes.

what did the lawyers “pour” over reports? or did you mean ;pore"?