Methods of psychological impact of police officers.

[DronVR]

Methods of psychological impact of police officers.

An important indicator of the degree of professionalism of operational employees of law enforcement agencies and other special services is their ability (or inability) to encourage cooperation of all individuals and citizens with whom they have to deal in the process of performing their duties. For this very reason, each operational employee, in addition to simply clarifying various facts of interest to him, every time along the way, seeks to subject all the persons interviewed by him in any way to the above subject.

In general, tasks of this kind are solved by them by using two main methods of stimulus:

1. The provision of emotionally colored effects on the developed individuals in order to arouse unreasonable fears or (on the contrary) attacks of anger and provoke spontaneous inappropriate reactions in response

2. Reporting to developed individuals plausible, but highly distorted facts (obtained by mixing certain portions of truth and lies) in order to mislead them (or someone) that really exists and make them think of the short-sightedness or fallacy of their use behaviors

If we talk about the common practice of using the above methods by operational employees of law enforcement agencies, then in this matter it is necessary to indicate the following points.

The first option for providing incentive effects is used by operatives mainly in relation to naive, fearful and indecisive persons or those who, in the process of communication, begin to manifest similar qualities in themselves.

Thus, by questioning such kind of persons as witnesses, the operatives seek to direct their testimony in a desirable direction - by actually expressing to them suggestions (in the form of certain hints and tips) to describe certain moments of the events that have occurred in the most convenient and suitable way for themselves. For example, to induce them to make a statement of something very exaggerated or presumptive under the guise of a completely reliable and not causing any doubt, or vice versa to persuade them to leave without due attention certain moments justifying the actions of the alleged criminals, because of their allegedly insignificance and insignificance. The main emphasis in such situations is on explaining the fact that the more significant and convincing the charges against alleged criminals (regardless of the actually established degree of their guilt), the greater the likelihood that they will go to jail for a long time. And the longer they will be in places not so remote, the less they will have the opportunity to interfere with the normal course of life of all honest people. In cases of expressions by witnesses of refusals to declare something not quite true, the investigators, on the contrary, accept to reproach them with the short-sightedness of their behavior and the actual indulgence of the representatives of the criminal world.

In situations of appealing to the operative employees of the victims about something rather insignificant and difficult to prove, the former are usually taken to demonstrate their frank reluctance to proceed with the institution of the aforementioned criminal cases. The investigators often accompany the demonstration of such reluctance with the intensified questioning of the victims about the persons and facts that interest them in connection with any other cases under investigation. The calculation here turns out to be quite simple. Victims, desperately wanting to return the lost as soon as possible or punish their offenders, in situations of this kind are much more inclined to share with the investigators any facts that they become aware of about third parties - in the hope that as a response step for such a manifestation of openness will come down to taking up the consideration of their affairs. In situations where the victims begin to show reluctance to talk on topics that are not relevant to their cases, or simply do not have anything that could interest the operatives, the latter are accepted to express repeated refusals to them and to give way to the applicants only when it becomes clear and clear that they will not calm down and turn with their affairs to higher officials or to supervisory authorities.

In situations where victims are contacted by operatives regarding incidents in which very influential people and agents find themselves involved, the former, in order to provide the latter with their cover, are often taken ostensibly to advise the latter not to twitch and not try to arrange legal proceedings because that the persons covered by them allegedly have enormous connections and are quite capable of turning things around so that the victims themselves find themselves in the position of the accused. In a similar way to intimidate the victims, the investigators, in addition to their refusal from something previously conceived, seek to turn the first into their agents of influence on other representatives of society, who would privately tell everyone they met and cross-talk about the events that had occurred and thus inspire them to think in advance that in situations of confrontation with someone influential and authoritative, it is most reasonable for them to concede regardless of who is actually to blame for everything that happened. In fact, such statements on the part of operatives and agents developed by them are strong exaggerations (or show-offs). The overwhelming majority of influential and authoritative people are actually not so omnipotent as they are usually described for the purposes of self-promotion - especially when it comes to proceedings on any serious enough reasons. On the other hand, any attempt to circumvent laws, even for very influential people, costs them a lot of money, effort and time, and in many cases is accompanied by the appearance around their names of completely unnecessary hype. For this very reason, in the vast majority of cases it turns out to be much easier, more convenient and simpler, instead of organizing the elimination or slander of some of the victims who continue to stand on their own, to try to absolve themselves of the guilt by providing them with compensation amounts and settling everything for the good.

In turn, the second option of providing incentive effects (through the expression of half-half-truth) is used by operational workers mainly in relation to persons with a certain life experience and who find the ability to somehow stand up for themselves. In other words, in cases where operas become clear and clear that they will not be able to achieve something conceived by applying more primitive and emotionally colored influences, they resort to exerting more sophisticated pressures that are based on the hypothesized moment that the faces they develop , despite the fact that they have a certain life experience, they cannot know all the subtleties and features of existing laws. Each time interpreting certain laws in a very free and most suitable way for themselves, the operatives play on a very approximate and uncertain knowledge of their language from the overwhelming majority of citizens and in this way often achieve desirable and satisfying results.

So, for example, in situations of interviewing witnesses, when they come to the conclusion that they are missing out on something, the investigators are often taken to threaten them with the possibility of criminalizing them for giving knowingly false testimonies. The truth in this case is that the Criminal Code does contain such an article, but it provides liability for knowingly false testimony, and not for facts of inaccurate presentation or forgetfulness (and all that can be interpreted in this way) by the witnesses. And if so, then in the situation under consideration, such witnesses are in no way threatened by the onset of criminal liability, and such a threat itself is essentially nothing more than an empty bluff.

In addition to the two main methods of providing incentive effects, the main points of which were described above by operative officers of the police and other special services, the third one is quite widely used, which is an expression of frank and in no case undisguised threats and rendering gross physical effects in relation to suspected persons. For this very reason, it makes sense to figure out when to and when you should not be afraid of such influences.

Providing gross physical influences on the part of representatives of special services and the police turns out to be most often used in relation to persons suspected of committing serious crimes (such as murders, terrorist acts, espionage, attempted assassination of government officials and law enforcement officials) in situations when one or another of them is taken lock yourself and get confused in your testimony. The similar behavior of the operative workers in such cases is explained by the fact that, due to the gravity of the crimes committed, they are given an unspoken order to ensure their disclosure, at any cost and in the shortest possible time, which involves providing the operatives with powerful cover in case information about the lump-sum use of illegal methods of inquiry in any way will open or go beyond the walls of their departments.

In real practice, this or that method of providing stimulating effects is usually used by operational workers not by themselves, but in close interweaving with each other. By sorting out various options, the operatives at each given moment of their use give preference to those that provide the desired response or contribute to its approximation, and vice versa, immediately switch to attempts to use something else in situations of finding the inefficiency already tried. In turn, touching upon the use of various options for various stimulating influences, it should be specially noted that in specific law enforcement agencies and special services, based on their inherent specifics, preference is given to some of them, while others are used to a much lesser extent.

If we take up the conditions of Russian reality and its special services and law enforcement agencies, such as the police, the Federal Security Service and military counterintelligence (which, although it is an integral part of the FSB, it differs significantly from the latter in the nature of the predominantly used methods of conducting operational work), then The following picture will appear.

So the operative officers of the internal affairs bodies very often find themselves inclined to capture the entire fragmentary of what was accidentally seen or heard, which may have at least some relation to the matters of interest to them and the expression of such fragments in the face of suspects and witnesses with the appearance that they, in principle, everything is already known about the facts of interest to them, with the exception of some minor details. Persons treated by police operatives often fall for tricks of this kind, believing that in situations where the opera already already knows almost everything, it makes no sense to trick or latch, but it is most reasonable to confess to something that has actually lost its significance (and in fact, giving operatives the opportunity to quickly achieve everything that they want practically from scratch) in the hope of providing at least some indulgences on their part.

As for the FSB operatives, their preferences are usually expressed in the form of unexpected statements to suspected persons about any inconsistencies or improper execution, allegedly revealed as a result of a detailed study of the documents provided to them (which in fact contain grounds for obtaining such conclusions). The meaning of such statements is to determine whether the suspect is confident in himself and is able to give intelligible explanations to everything, or, on the contrary, is excessively exciting and nervous due to any internal fears he has experienced. In situations of suspicion or verifiability of manifestations of confusion and excessive excitement, FSB operatives come to the conclusion that more thorough checks must be carried out against them, and those who in response do not show embarrassment or nervousness and clearly indicate to the operatives that their comments are unfair, the latter usually immediately released with a slightly apologetic look (like a little mistaken - who does not happen).

Speaking about military counterintelligence operatives, it should be pointed out that they usually provide incentives by conducting versatile conversations with verified persons or, in other words, pumping over a wide variety of topics that can have both direct and very indirect relation to what - something that they previously declared about themselves (such as the type of activity, the nature of their finding of executed assignments, meeting with certain persons and institutions, places and time of their previous stay). In cases of detection of lies or improbability by verified persons in any insignificant trifles, military counterintelligence officers are guided by the following logic - the deceiver in the small is quite capable of deceiving in something much larger and they are accepted to check him in a more thorough manner. In cases where there is no evidence of deceit and insincerity in the behavior and responses of suspected persons, military counterintelligence agents usually quickly release those without more thorough checks in the form of sending documentary requests to various institutions and authorities and interviewing people familiar with them.

Operative police officers and other Russian special services have no choice but to more intensively use all sorts of tricks and tricks aimed at ensuring the actual coercion of certain citizens of interest to enter into cooperation with them. Regular clashes with this kind of facts cannot lead any self-respecting person and citizen to anything else but to arouse their feelings of internal protest. This feeling is quite understandable and obvious, but in order to protect themselves from illegal and unreasonable encroachments on the part of representatives, this alone is clearly not enough. In order to be able to provide effective protection against attacks of this kind and to influence the course of events in a certain way, it is necessary to learn how to act not spontaneously, but in a conscious or (in other words) qualified way.

In turn, in order to learn to act in a conscious manner, first of all, it is necessary to become able to throw away all unnecessary emotions aside in the most difficult life moments and be guided exclusively by their own minds in them. First of all, this is expressed in the need to develop the habit of not experiencing (or at least not showing) fear of representatives of any law enforcement agencies and not believing a single word of them, not supported by obvious evidence of their innocence. On the other hand, it is necessary to develop the ability not to succumb to provocations - not to try to exert physical resistance, to prevent unreasonable spontaneous steps and to avoid the use of clearly insulting words in response to manifestations of rudeness or frank mockery, deliberately used by operational workers in order to remove processed persons from states of psychological balance and pushing them towards the implementation of unreasonable (and frankly stupid) actions.

In order to learn not to feel fear and awe of representatives of law enforcement experiments and the ability to fool them a little, the author of this material suggests everyone who wants to do one not very difficult psychological experience. Anyone who, under the conditions of Russian reality, even once had to while away his time at the station while waiting for the train, witnesses endlessly repeating patterns of passage through the waiting rooms of police patrols and solitary police officers who carry out selective checks of documents from waiting citizens. So, you can easily avoid such checks if you bother to give yourself a proper look (like shaving, giving yourself a neat and well-groomed look, getting decent clothes, and not having bulky luggage and causing paraphernalia in front of your stay at the train stations and other similar places). his guise). Upon entering the waiting room, sit on a sofa or bench closer to the entrance. Sit down not just like that, but freely leaning back and stretching your legs in front of you (not crossing or crossing at all in the ankle joints), carry the bag or bag you have next to yourself casually (but in no case keep it on your lap ) Spread your elbows slightly to the sides, and with their hands rest on a sofa or bench (or the edges of your hips, give your face a dismissive, unflappable expression, and turn your head with manifestation of obvious laziness, at the sight of the policemen, as if reluctantly, turn your head in their direction but with such a look, as if you do not see them point blank.

If everything is done in strict accordance with the above, then you can be firmly convinced that not a single policeman will approach you, although the documents of the vast majority of all the others will be checked in turn (and possibly repeatedly). The answer to this psychological trick is quite simple. Its essence lies in the fact that representatives of law enforcement agencies usually behave in a similar (very self-confident) way. Therefore, if you look and behave in exactly the same way, the patrol police, according to the stereotypes developed by them, will, voluntarily or involuntarily, begin to perceive you as a representative of their (or his sister) agency and will not cause you any anxiety or inconvenience.

By learning to keep calm and calm, or in other words, restrain your emotions, if necessary, you will provide yourself with a tangible advantage in case of unwanted meetings with representatives of any law enforcement agencies. It will consist in the fact that after taking several trial steps to implement emotionally charged pressures against you and convincing you of your immunity to this score, the investigators will be forced to significantly narrow the field of the dirty game and thereby reduce their chance of success.

In addition to informative methods of forcing operatives to express respect for themselves, regularly interrogated by them also resort to using purely external or expressive, which in essence, although they are secondary, nevertheless, subject to their competent use in combination with the first able to provide significant acceleration in achieving the desired results. The essence of such expressive ways is the ability to inspire the operative or investigator with the whole appearance and manifested reactions that you are a completely confident person who in all situations that are responsible for himself does not allow slipping into manifestations of emotionality and argues clear logical categories. In practice, all this is expressed in the need for a number of the following points.

1) When you see an approaching investigator (or investigator) approaching or enter his office, in no case should you show your vanity and excitement, and vice versa, you must be demonstrative calm and express confidence in yourself.

2) When sitting in front of a representative of law enforcement agencies on a chair or chair, you should not sit on its very edge and stretch your back along the string. In such situations, you need to sit on the entire surface of the chair without stooping and leaning on its back with your whole back. Sitting down, you should not bend your legs beneath you, squeeze them in your knees or vice versa to spread them widely or casually toss one over the other (such poses will indicate to the operative that you are afraid of something, but for some reason try to hide such a fear and it means that you are guilty of something, or vice versa - by nature you are very aggressive and you can be easily provoked to any rash actions and actions, or you behave too carried away or obviously pretended and you can easily be put in principle to the place, by skillfully introducing into any obviously losing and deadlock situation). In such cases, the legs are most reasonable to stretch in front of you parallel to each other or (if you are truly confident) to cross them in the ankle joints, but in no case higher.

3) Hands should not be dragging anything, squeezing and folding them together, and vice versa - widely swing them in different directions. It is best to put each of them individually on the thigh (respectively of the right or left) legs and hold them in this form. At the same time, it is absolutely not forbidden (and even desirable) when appropriate situations arise to periodically raise to the top or turn to the side those parts of the hands that are located above the elbow and carelessly gesticulate with fingers and hands, but in no case move those parts of the hands that are located above the elbow joint.

4) When entering into the process of communication with an operative, do not try to fawn on him, make attempts to find a common language on the basis of something outsider or behave in an extremely indignant or frankly insolent way (give the impression of someone “knowing” or “cool”) - he will immediately bite you and find a way to quickly put in place. On the contrary, do not enter into a speech first, never interrupt the operative’s words without having time to listen to them to the end (thereby showing him your equanimity and thoughtfulness), strive to precede any of your answers with pauses with the simultaneous manifestation of irony in your face and eyes, express yourself judiciously and Emphasized in polite language. In response to any mistakes and shortcomings made by him, do not miss the chance to express something ironic in your face or words, accompanied by an element of ambiguity or understatement.

The operatives, after all, are also human beings and therefore are quite capable of falling for small tricks and tricks. At the sight of their own mistakes, alternating ironic pauses on your part, expressed in response to ridicule and elements of understatement, they are made to be nervous and perceive such moments of your behavior in a very painful way - as obvious hints of the fact of their limited mental abilities. Asking their subsequent questions and seeing in response the manifestations of ironically filled pauses, the investigators are often taken to perceive them as dumb reproaches - like: Yes, you are completely stupid and again "do not catch up" in questions of something elementary and very simple - and in order to justify yourself in it’s up to you to express the first suggestive answers that come to their mind, which usually describe the moments of everything that interests them, may not be entirely reliable, but very satisfying and appropriate for you. In order to end further proceedings in such cases on the matter raised by the operative, in response to expressions for you, such answers will be quite sufficient in an indefinitely ambiguous form to express some semblance of your consent with the words just said so that, in any an opportunity to leave a path to retreat.

5) In cases where you started expressing to you something unpleasantly petty or blatant with its absurdity or seeming too formidable or good-naturedly humorous - which comes from the side of the investigator or investigator - you should not give in to emotions and do not express anything with gestures and facial expressions of your face except initially expressed calmness and firm self-confidence. (Most likely, such manifestations on the part of the investigators will constitute an element of an initial check to determine whether you really are so confident in yourself and indifferent to everything outsider, or just trying to make a similar impression on them).

Due to the fact that this kind of logic is usually based on something very superficial and based on examples of external similarities (for example, in the professional jargon of representatives of the internal affairs bodies, there are even corresponding terms on this subject - “everything converges” or vice versa “does not converge "), then it leads to the appearance in the heads of field investigators and investigators of a number of interrelated storylines. Those that can be called true only with a very big stretch are usually recognized as practically unsuitable and are quickly swept aside. The logic of the reasoning of those of them, which turns out to be most similar to the truth, is accepted as the main (or working) hypotheses - it is worked out and verified in the most thorough and thorough way for all the key points that are available.

Source @odeepweb

 

[Частный детектив Донецк]

Interesting post! Thanks!