BAD COPS, ROMANTIC COMPLICATIONS, AND INTERVIEW RAPPORT - 060

Right-click and select "Save As" to download this podcast episode to your device.

TRANSCRIPT:

This week on the Writer's Detective Bureau, bad cops, romantic complication and interview rapport. I'm Adam Richardson and this is the Writer's Detective Bureau.

Welcome to episode number 60 of the Writer's Detective Bureau, the podcast dedicated to helping authors and screenwriters write professional quality crime related fiction. This week I'm answering your questions on how to write about bad cops, romantic complications between a detective and a victim, and a quick hack for building rapport during an interview. But before we get into that, as always, I need to thank Gold Shield patrons, Debra Dunbar from debradunbar.com, C.C Jameson from ccjameson.com, Larry Keeton, Vicki Tharp of vickitharp.com, Dharma Kelleher of dharmakelleher.com, Chrysann, Jimmy Cowe of Crimibox and Larry Darter for their support.

I'd also like to thank all of my coffee club patrons for their support every month, especially Amanda Feyerbend for upping her monthly pledge. Your support keeps the lights on in the Bureau. You can find links to all of the writers supporting this episode in the show notes at writersdetective.com/60, and to learn about setting up your own Patreon account for your author business, visit writersdetective.com/patreon.

This week's first question comes from Mark William Smith of markwmsmith.com, who writes, "Can you talk about bad cops? What happens when a cop goes bad? How do his fellow officers react and how protective is the thin blue line? My current work in progress has one good detective and one very bad detective who's helping the much worse human trafficking antagonist. After your last podcast, episode 59, I'm considering a revision, but I'd like more ideas on how to handle a character like this."

Well, Mark, most "bad cops" didn't start out that way. It's a slippery slope that starts with very small acts of misconduct. Things that may not seem that bad, like accepting that free cup of coffee from the gas station clerk. It's a shift in mindset that starts making way for the gray area to become a little more acceptable or even they feel entitled to it. So does accepting a free cup of coffee mean that you're a bad cop? Of course not. But where is the line between acceptable and not? If a cup of coffee is okay, how about a whole meal? If a whole meal is acceptable too, then how about a $100 gift card? How about free car from the local car dealership?

Obviously that's a steep example of a slippery slope, but seriously, where's the cutoff between okay and not okay. A dollar? $2? Five? 10? 20? 50? Or is 4.99 okay but $5 is too much? I know I'm splitting hairs here, but that's exactly the point. It's either acceptable or it isn't. When it comes to the behavior. Store owners have the right to charge or not charge their customers whatever they want, but it's up to us as cops to maintain our moral code. I was taught in the police academy to provide a commensurate tip anytime we received an unsolicited discount, and we were not supposed to solicit discounts. So if the burger joint has a company wide policy of charging us 50% of our meal, I give them a tip that covers more than the full price of the meal I just received. It isn't about what someone else is offering me. It's about me remaining ethical at all times and not cutting corners.

I realize though, Mark, that you aren't really referring to receiving discounts on food, but that's usually where the "This is okay to do" mentality begins to fester. You may have a field training officer that believes cops are entitled to those discounts because we're being thanked for our service and "the department doesn't pay us what they should" and all sorts of other excuses that are really just psychological justifications for doing something they know is wrong. If your FTO is saying it's okay, that trainee officer working with the FTO is going to chalk this up to another one of those things that's different on the street than what's learned in the academy.

The street is different than the academy. There is definitely truth to that, but there's danger lurking in that concept too. The academy is where you learn how you should act. The street is where you start to see how the system actually works. The only way to improve how the street work is handled is by changing what is taught in training. That's how you change any kind of systemic culture. Never teach the new hire the old bad habits. This is how law enforcement has changed so significantly over the last 30 years. It used to be that if a cop chased you, you're going to get your ass kicked. I was never taught that. That was well before my time and I've been doing this job for well over 20 years. To put that in perspective, the Rodney King beating that defined an entire era of policing happened while I was still in high school.

But that kind of policing, which we still see examples of, happened because bad cops justify those actions to themselves and even to their superiors when they're called on it. So how did these bad cops live with themselves or try to justify their actions? Well, it's the same way juvenile delinquents justify their unethical acts, which was studied in Techniques of Neutralization published in 1957 by sociologists Gresham Sykes and David Matza. Sykes and Matza found that juvenile delinquents will justify their actions in one of five ways. Denial of responsibility, denial of injury, denial of victim, condemning their condemners and appealing to higher loyalties. In studying abuses of authority by police, we see the exact same justifications. Now I know that was a lot of vocabulary thrown at you really quickly, so we'll go through what they mean real quick.

Denial of responsibility. "This isn't my fault. He's the one that decided to do X, Y, or Z", and this is what happens. Play stupid games, win stupid prizes. With denial of responsibility, it's the claim that what happened is the inevitable result of outside forces or influences. It's a way the cops are able to justify their abuse of authority after the fact by blaming the victim or others for what happened.

Denial of injury. This one doesn't have to mean physical injury. It's that their abusive authority didn't injure anyone in the grander scheme of things. Planting evidence on a known drug dealer that didn't have drugs on him when he was actually stopped. Stealing something from the suspect they just arrested. Committing perjury, which means lying under oath in order to secure a conviction. What's it hurting? Some shit bird that should be in prison? That is denial of injury.

Denial of victim, which seems similar to denial of injury, but rather than denying that the action caused injury, this is the denial of that person being a victim of something, that this person has it coming, this person is less worthy than the cop or the normal citizenry, that this person isn't a victim because he doesn't deserve to be considered one. Or he deserves a heavier hand when being dealt with than others.

Condemning the condemners is often the reaction to being called out for unethical behavior. This officer, to quote Sykes and Matza, "shifts the focus of attention from his own deviant acts to the motives and behaviors of those who disapprove of his violation. His condemners, he may claim, are hypocrites, deviants in disguise or impelled by personal spite." The condemnation may also be pointed toward a system they believe is being soft on crime or anti-police and using that as an excuse or justification for their unethical behavior. "You're going to judge me for throwing a little punch when these shit birds are out there killing cops? Whose side are you on?" Remember, Sykes and Matza were originally studying juvenile delinquents in their study. Now, if you've had teenagers living in your house, some of these justification types might sound familiar. Cops justifying bad behavior are just like teens doing the same thing.

Lastly, we have appealing to higher loyalties. The belief that Mark asked about when he said how protective is the thin blue line. That choice between doing what is morally right and what a bad cop might construe as the greater good. Are you going to abide by a code of secrecy? Are you my brother? Are you going to stand up and say, "I saw my partner brutalize the suspect" or are you going to lie or are you going to say you didn't see anything? Don't cops deserve more protection than the shit birds you deal with on the street? So with appealing to higher loyalties, it's not about denying the action so much as it is appealing to a greater good or convincing a superior that they're all on the same side. The reason why I mentioned these justifications for unethical behavior is that it helps explain the why for your bad cop character.

These bad cops are not inherently evil people. There are people doing evil things in the belief, or at least the psychological justification, that it's what is necessary for fighting the good fight. Most of these bad cops started out as good cops and somewhere along the way they started down that slippery slope. Now with that understanding, how this plays out within the department depends on quite a few things. Number one, how big is the department? It's been my personal observation that widespread corruption happens in very large agencies and when I say very large, I mean agencies that are so big that the chief of police or the sheriff does not know every cop under them by name. When you have a management and supervisory span of control that has so many layers that an employee may never meet all of their boss's bosses, then you have an incubator for corruption because your department is at risk of losing that personal accountability that comes with personally knowing the people that work for you.

Number two, is the department culture one that tolerates lying? The agency I work for and the agencies that surround me have a zero tolerance for lying. I mean zero tolerance. I can shoot and kill the wrong person and if I'm honest about it, I will still probably be able to keep my job. But if I so much as lie on my timecard claiming my vacation day as a sick day, I will be fired. Now I know this to be a fact because I have a friend that was fired for exactly that. He asked for a vacation day for a quick trip to Vegas, but was denied due to a staffing shortage. So what did he do? He went to Vegas anyway and called in sick. Now, if he'd have been honest in the internal affairs investigation, fessing up to what he did, he'd still be a cop. Probably get a few days on the beach as punishment, which is what we call having your timecard docked for a day without pay.

Instead, he stuck with his story, said he really was sick. Well, your word is what every investigation and prosecution hangs on. When you testify, you swear to tell the truth. If you lie during an official investigation, you are no longer officially trustworthy. In fact, the prosecutor maintains a list of cops that have questionable veracity, and it's called a Brady List. It's a list where the prosecution is required to inform defense attorneys of any knowledge that the investigating officer has a truthfulness issue. Normally, a DA's office will simply not file the case in court if the cop is a liar, and that makes you worthless in this career. So modern day policing means liars get fired. That's the way it should have always been, and it's certainly the reality for where I work.

But if the culture of the department that you're writing about hasn't evolved from the Serpico era of policing, then yeah, there could still be some tester lying going on, but in this day and age of body-worn cameras, Facebook live, YouTube and Instagram lies do not stay hidden like they used to. So how the cops react will have to do with the department's culture. What cops have learned as far as what is expected of them. A department of 100 or 1000 cops is going to have far fewer problems with bad cops than one with five or 10 times that number. Now, am I saying that all big agencies have corruption or abusive authority issues? No, not at all. I'm just saying it's much more fertile breeding ground for that kind of unethical conduct.

I hope this helps and remember denial of responsibility, denial of injury, denial of victim, condemnation of condemners and appealing to higher loyalties, those are the whys of your bad cop character and will certainly help you create believable dialogue for those assholes. Did I mention I hate bad cops? Any bully really, even more than I hate olives. Thanks for the question Mark and again you can find Mark's work at markwmsmith.com

Isabelle Peterson of isabellepeterson.com writes, "Hi, Adam. I'm a new listener thanks to Joanna Penn. I've been devouring your podcasts. My question is about officers or detectives and relationships. Past and present. I write contemporary romance. In my current work and progress, a romantic suspense, the first detective on the scene happens to be the heroine's high school sweetheart first love. He should recuse himself, correct? But he stays on vowing to protect his first love and possibly reunite. Would my hero actually have to recuse himself from a case involving a former high school romance and if he has to step back, what happens to him if he stays on the case and is found out? Thanks in advance and keep your awesome content coming."

Well, thank you so much for your question and your very kind words, Isabelle, and welcome to the podcast. Should he recuse himself? Probably, especially if it becomes an issue with the investigation, but could he probably keep that under wraps for the duration of the investigation, especially if he confides in her that she can't say anything? Is that the ethical thing to do? No. Is that the kind of internal conflict that drives a story and makes us love the characters even more? You bet it is. If he stays on the case and his previous relationship is brought to light, he'd probably just be removed from the case. I'd only see it becoming something disciplinary if it affects the investigation or if he lies about it, which we just talked about this, didn't we?

Ethically speaking, omitting the truth is just as wrong as not being overtly truthful, but would the bosses really punish him for not volunteering that info. Well, that's for you to decide. Ooh. One more way he could get himself disciplined, if he gets involved with her before the case is completely finished. Can you imagine what a defense attorney would say during a jury trial if she finds out the victim and the investigator are accusing her client of a crime and are in a relationship together? "Is this some sort of conspiracy against my client? Who knows why they'd frame an innocent man?" Just asking those questions is how the seed of reasonable doubt is planted. The defense doesn't need to prove anything. They just need a reason to ask the question and the seed of reasonable doubt has been planted. But whether Ms. Capulet and Detective Montague are able to wait that long is the entire point of a romantic suspense story, isn't it? Thank you so much for your question, Isabelle. I hope this helps.

This week's third question also comes from Isabelle who wrote in again to say, "Thanks for your super amazing podcast. Do police always interview witnesses, possible witnesses and suspects in pairs?" Well, you are too kind, Isabelle. Thank you so much for those kind words. The short answer to your question is no, not always. We often interview people alone. The reason we do anything in pairs is usually for officer safety purposes. I will certainly bring a partner if I'm going to interview a suspect anywhere other than the interview room in my detective bureau. But if I am in that interview room, there's a pretty good chance that I will be doing that interview alone and my partner will be monitoring the interview via video from the next room and like everything that goes on in that interview room, this is strategic.

It is far easier to put a suspect at ease if it's only me in the room. It's far easier for me to build rapport with someone if it's just the two of us. There's less distraction, less feeling of judgment, less feeling of intimidation or it may be that the suspect feels confident in bullshitting me by myself that he actually talks, probably all lies, but he talks and that may not happen if there's a second detective in the room. So for interviewing victims, especially if they are a different gender, then I am definitely going to have someone else present just for transparency and liability sake. If she's a victim or survivor of any kind of abuse or violence, then I am absolutely going to have a partner there and preferably a female partner because in this case that will likely make her feel much more comfortable than being alone with a man again.

Detective work is all about people. It's reading people, talking to people, getting people to open up. Sometimes we hack human nature to speed up that process and it's harder to do that with two cops in the room. Now if you've been paying attention, you might wonder what I mean about hacking human nature. My personal favorite is the concept of mirroring. We do this all the time without realizing it. The next time you're out in a restaurant or a bar, any real large group where people are talking to one another, start watching the body language of people that are really engaged in conversation. Pay particular attention to when you see two people mirroring each other's body language.

Those two are both leaning against the wall and they both have their arms crossed as they talk and these two both have one hand up near their face, maybe even resting their heads on their chins as they lean into share a secret or whisper gossip. Then those two guys that just finished eating have leaned back in their chairs and oddly enough, have their hands atop their heads in that relaxed, I am almost too full posture. When we are engaged, like clicking and in tune with the other person, we have an unconscious tendency to mirror the other person's body posture. Now here's the really cool thing. Watch for one of the two to switch up their posture. They moved their hands to a new orientation. They sit up or cross a leg. Now wait to see how long it takes for the other person to switch to the new posture and mirror that one.

When you're really engaged in that conversation, you almost can't not change it up too. It feels weird, right? So how do I as a detective in an interview room use this to my advantage? Well, I will intentionally at some point mirror my interviewee's body language. If they change their posture, within about 30 seconds, I will intentionally mirror them again. It's the subconscious way we tell each other that we are effectively communicating and I am sending that signal whether he wants to receive it or not. As we talk and I try to build rapport, I will switch up my body posture and if the person I'm interviewing follows suit and begins to mirror me, that's a pretty good barometer that we are getting somewhere with the rapport building. That's when I know I can start asking some of the tougher questions.

Is this foolproof? No, and it certainly won't work if you keep mirroring the person like it's a game of Simon says. Simon says, cross your legs. Simon says, clasp your hands. Simon says, slouch in your chair. Just move over a little bit. No, you're out. Simon says, go out and watch how people communicate this week. That is your homework this week, but remember, use your new power only for good. And thank you so much for your questions, Isabelle. You can find Isabelle's work at isabellepeterson.com.

Thank you so much for listening this week. Keep those questions coming. You can send me your crime fiction questions by going to writersdetective.com/podcast. Thanks again for listening. Have a great week and write well.