You've seen it before. Two people are in an altercation, severe verbage flying around in increasing volumes. Insults are popping up like popcorn. Then suddenly, one of them has had enough and decks the other across the chin with a well-placed fist. Later, after the fight is broken up, the punchee points to the puncher and shouts, "He assaulted me!"
Oh, schnaaap. Oh, no he di'n't!
...No really, he didn't.
But Guy Number 1 (the puncher) hit Guy Number 2 (the punchee), right? Smack on the jaw. There's a bruise, see? How can you say he wasn't assaulted?
The colloquial definition of assault is very different from the legal definition. The legal definition of assault is "a threat of bodily harm coupled with an apparent, present ability to cause the harm (http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/assault)." For example, I could tell you very calmly that I was going to throw a chair at you while we are both standing in the middle of a gas station with no chairs in sight, and it would not be considered assault. But change the location to my backyard with a set of nice metal deck chairs present, my tone to angry, and my action to picking up and brandishing one of said deck chairs, and you have assault. But that's if I don't actually hit you. Once I hit you, the crime turns into battery.
That's why, whenever a person in the interrogation room whines that, "The guy punched me! I want him charged with assault!" I always shake my head, groan, and tell the guy, "You're Doing it Wrong!"
Post "It" Note: Yes, I understand that the accusation "He battered me!" doesn't quite hold the same ring as "He assaulted me!" But I'd rather err on the side of correct definitions than on the side of auditory pleasantness.
Friday, June 25, 2010
"And you, rookie! Dust for prints!"
Every time I see a fake crime scene on television, no matter what stage of the investigation the police or detectives in question are at, there's always somebody dusting for prints. The body is still lying distorted on the floor, crime scene techs are taking photos, and in the background the guy with the little fingerprint kit is hard at work with his little fluffy brush.
What's wrong with that? Fingerprints are important, right? Shouldn't they be collected as soon as possible?
No, and here's why. Have you ever used baby powder? That stuff gets all over. You could just tap the bottle to send a poof of the stuff up into the air, which you'll certainly find later, covering the table in a thin layer of sweet-smelling white. Same with fingerprint dust. It's messy. just take the lid off the jar and you've already set the stage for a film of black (or white, or fluorescent pink, depending on the surface you're testing) to cover the area in about 10 minutes' time. Certainly not the best idea, contaminating the crime scene you're trying to investigate. That's why fingerprint collecting is the very last step of investigation at the scene, only done once every other scrap of evidence is collected, cataloged, photographed half a dozen times, and taken to the lab.
So next time a detective on TV shouts at the techs to dust for prints, you can shout at the TV, "You're Doing it Wrong!"
What's wrong with that? Fingerprints are important, right? Shouldn't they be collected as soon as possible?
No, and here's why. Have you ever used baby powder? That stuff gets all over. You could just tap the bottle to send a poof of the stuff up into the air, which you'll certainly find later, covering the table in a thin layer of sweet-smelling white. Same with fingerprint dust. It's messy. just take the lid off the jar and you've already set the stage for a film of black (or white, or fluorescent pink, depending on the surface you're testing) to cover the area in about 10 minutes' time. Certainly not the best idea, contaminating the crime scene you're trying to investigate. That's why fingerprint collecting is the very last step of investigation at the scene, only done once every other scrap of evidence is collected, cataloged, photographed half a dozen times, and taken to the lab.
So next time a detective on TV shouts at the techs to dust for prints, you can shout at the TV, "You're Doing it Wrong!"
Who are you, and why do you think you can do it right?
I'll admit it, I like detective shows. Being in college means I can't watch them as often as I'd like-- in fact, when school is in my TV diet consists of the Weather Channel for 5 minutes in the morning and the rare DVD or trip to Hulu.com. But as enjoyable as detective and 'police procedural' shows are, they often take liberties with facts and common sense. How do I know this? I've been through the equivalent of Police Academy.
Well, not quite, actually better than Police Academy. I was a Police Explorer in Pinellas County, Florida's post (http://www.post900.com/sheriff_message.html) for a little over two years, following the track that allowed me, in less than a year, to learn more about proper police procedure than the average police officer in our county would ever know. We received in-depth, hands-on training in every aspect of law enforcement, from simple patrol operations and situations like issuing speeding tickets and interviewing witnesses, to the more complex roles such as K-9 handler, crime scene investigation, and yes, even SWAT tactics*, as well as courtroom procedure and knowledge of laws and statutes, to name a very few.
As a result, I get irked when I see blatant officer safety issues and nonsense policies being portrayed on TV as fact. No, K-9 handlers don't take their dogs out of the car at every stop. No, you do not reach in the window of the car you've stopped to get the driver's paperwork. No, you'd never pick up evidence at a crime scene without gloves on, no matter how important or shocking (or personally relevant) that piece of evidence might be. The purpose of this blog is to point and (laugh? sneer?) groan at the stupidity of fictional TV cops. Because it's totally possible to get a toxicology report back within the hour... right?
* As a note, this blog will NOT IN ANY WAY give out any sort of tactical information, period, unless it's strictly common sense (like, 'look up' or 'listen before you go around a corner').
Well, not quite, actually better than Police Academy. I was a Police Explorer in Pinellas County, Florida's post (http://www.post900.com/sheriff_message.html) for a little over two years, following the track that allowed me, in less than a year, to learn more about proper police procedure than the average police officer in our county would ever know. We received in-depth, hands-on training in every aspect of law enforcement, from simple patrol operations and situations like issuing speeding tickets and interviewing witnesses, to the more complex roles such as K-9 handler, crime scene investigation, and yes, even SWAT tactics*, as well as courtroom procedure and knowledge of laws and statutes, to name a very few.
As a result, I get irked when I see blatant officer safety issues and nonsense policies being portrayed on TV as fact. No, K-9 handlers don't take their dogs out of the car at every stop. No, you do not reach in the window of the car you've stopped to get the driver's paperwork. No, you'd never pick up evidence at a crime scene without gloves on, no matter how important or shocking (or personally relevant) that piece of evidence might be. The purpose of this blog is to point and (laugh? sneer?) groan at the stupidity of fictional TV cops. Because it's totally possible to get a toxicology report back within the hour... right?
* As a note, this blog will NOT IN ANY WAY give out any sort of tactical information, period, unless it's strictly common sense (like, 'look up' or 'listen before you go around a corner').
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)