comment: >
  
  You should never call 911 for police unless the police shooting a random person is a better outcome than not having police there at all. Their mere presence is a threat to your safety even if you're doing nothing wrong.
context: He had a business to promote: a miracle method to determine when 911 callers are actually guilty of the crimes they are reporting. “I know what a guilty father, mother or boyfriend sounds like,” he once said.
  
  that might be the most erroneous batshit dangerous thing i've seen a person say in some time >
  
  He isn't even a linguist. He qualifications are, trust me bro. 
  This "science" is meant to rule suspects out. Not proof of their guilt. >
  
  It isn't even effective for that. This is effectively as reliable as consulting a psychic to solve crimes. >
  
  Shawn Spencer has entered the chat >
  
  Except Shawn was actually a good detective. >
  
  Well yeah, that's the fictional part of the show. >
  
  I’ve heard it both ways. >
  
  
  “Witnesses to a crime scene should be able to report their observations clearly,” Harpster and Adams wrote.
  
  A decade or so ago a guy I know lost his wife to a home invasion gone wrong. She walked in on the burglar and he ended up slitting her throat so deeply that it almost severed the spinal cord.
  The guy i know was out of town when the murder happened. His father in law (her father) found her nearly decapitated body in a huge pool of blood when he came to the house looking for her.
  I defy ANYBODY who found their child like that to be able to report the observations clearly and with the proper grammar when calling 911 to report it. There's no way in hell any sane person would be composed enough to do that. >
  
  Seriously. There's no proper way to call 911, especially if reporting on a traumatic scene. Some people might be borderline hysterical and unable to put together coherent sentences, never mind accurately describe the scene in front of them. Some people might go into shock and sound abnormally calm or detached. You would also need to know an individuals regular speech patterns, education, cultural background, and tons of other information if you were to even begin to judge whether or not they sound "normal" on a 911 call. But this guy literally claims that anyone who says "please," "hi," or "huh?" at any time is showing indicators of guilt. 
  It's one thing for a moron like this to come up with this "system" as a way to grift money from law enforcement agencies and state prosecutors, but the fact that a lot of people with great power in our criminal justice system apparently believe in it is fucking terrifying. >
  
  I was a police dispatcher for 5 years and heard it all.  Calm, panic, shyness, fear, whispers, screams... I've heard it all.  Ask a seasoned dispatcher if "guilt" can be determined by a 911 call and they'll tell you hell no. I was also an LEO for three years and I can't imagine a ridiculous program like this ever passing muster by the higher-ups. Continuing Education Request denied, lol. >
  
  From reading the article, it seems like a big part of this scam was that it continues to be an approved training course for police and prosecutors alike. The Ohio State Supreme Court approved the course as part of it's continuing education programs that prosecutors are required to take, which helped to give the course an air of legitimacy for police departments who want to bring him in. Unsurprisingly, while he claims his training is based on scientific evidence, he goes to great lengths to make sure the data he uses, and the specifics of the course itself, remain a secret. He bans journalists and pretty much anyone who isn't a police officer from taking the course, he refuses to share his data with anyone who requests it, and he wouldn't even teach the course online for fear that it might leak out. Those are obviously huge red flags for anyone who might be concerned that this "science" is a bunch of made up bullshit, but apparently many police officers and prosecutors are still big fans. >
  
  That's quite concerning, and indicative of lazy police work IMO. >
  
  As a defense attorney, my blood boils whenever I see prosecutors bending rules or using junk science. It's garbage, and innocent people pay the price. >
  
  As an occasional defendant I'm happy to see a defense attorney that won't put up with the prosecution doing this. >
  
  I've had occasion to call out prosecutors in court right to the judge, once even my friend and mentor.  It needs to be done, or the system stays broken. >
  
  Glad to hear it, You may not make a lot of friends in the system but you'll keep your soul. >
  
  This shit needs to be actionable.  This is absolutely misfeasance, and you should not be indemnified by your job.  For one thing, the liability to the public is phenomenal, here.  Just voting people out at the next election is not a sufficient remedy. >
  
  
  The widow said the word “blood,” for example, and that’s a guilty indicator. (“Bleeding,” however, is not.) She said “somebody” at different points, which shows a lack of commitment. “Witnesses to a crime scene should be able to report their observations clearly,” Harpster and Adams wrote.
  
  next let's get some "body language expert" youtubers to solve cases. >
  
  how do you know she's a witch?
  she looks like one >
  
  she sounds like one >
  
  It's always the smell.  A witch gives off the scent of sulfur before the devil bone's her with his tail. >
  
  That’s all bullshit. Everybody knows the easiest way to tell if she’s a witch or not is by the broom she’s flying around on. >
  
  Nope, it's the smell.  So don't use matches especially in the bathroom or people will think you're a witch who just got red hot tail boned in the bathroom. >
  
  My takeaway from this article is to definitively never call 911 if someone needs help because I might be too polite and end up charged and convicted of a crime I didn’t commit. >
  
  But don't swear. I recall a case where the 911 operator refused to send help to a teenager whose father was having a heart attack because she was upset and swore. So don't be too polite, but don't be too rude. Best write a few scripts out ahead of time, just in case. >
  
  This is exactly why police should have bachelor's degrees, understand science, and understand how research works. >
  
  Remember neurosurgeon Dr. Ben Carson disregarded the entire science of archeology because it contradicted his biblical worldview. He even thought the pyramids were grain silos. >
  
  He’s made himself immune to cross examination by not testifying.
  But I’m pretty sure he has instead opened himself up to lawsuits from anyone falsely convicted.
  Organizations like the ACLU should consider opening a class action against him. >
  
  
  He’s made himself immune to cross examination by not testifying.
  
  Didn't the Supreme Court rule that evidence against the defendant must be cross-examinable, since it would otherwise break the 6th Amendment's Confrontation Clause? >
  
  Technically, unfortunately, he’s not providing evidence. Instead, he’s providing training that lets the prosecution pretend someone else is an expert witness. That “expert witness” then provides the evidence/testimony. The “expert witness” is then the one subject to cross examination. The “expert witness” points to their training as a sign of expertise. They didn’t fabricate the methodology, so can provide convincing testimony without lying their asses off under oath, the way the inventor of this hokum would have to if he testified. >
  
  Well said. >
  
  This is garbage for the same reason that trying to watch facial cues is garbage.  Everyone handles high stress situations differently.  There are so many factors that go into how we respond that it becomes ridiculously difficult to try and narrow it all down to something usable. >
  
  my friend’s baby got covid and passed and the cops treated her as a suspect until the ME results came in bc she was “too emotional” when she was hysterical at the ER >
  
  Fuck. That's horrible. I'd like to know what they think justifies being hysterical if losing a baby isn't it. >
  
  my thoughts exactly >
  
  This is an excellent article. Worth the read. 
  Basically, when calling 911, cops will listen to the recording and apply a checklist system^TM (developed by a cop with a singular study of 100 calls who also refuses to release the data with results that can’t be replicated) to determine if the person calling is “dirty” or “clean”. 
  What’s on the C.O.P.S.^TM checklist? (a small sample, not a complete list)
  - If you say hi, please, or thank you, you’re dirty. (Politeness is a calm only guilty people have.) 
  - If you interrupt yourself or ask a question such as “huh?” you’re dirty. (If you actually wanted immediate help you wouldn’t delay or dodge.) 
  - If you give extraneous information such as, “it was an accident” OR talk about yourself like “I need help” or “my god my life is over”, then you’re dirty. (the call should be about help not justifying your actions or be “me” focused.) 
  - If you use the word blood, you’re dirty. (Bleeding is what an innocent person would say)
  - If you aren’t “appropriately shocked or upset” (no mention of a standard for what’s appropriate upset and neither medical shock nor autism exist in their reality) 
  And yes, there are already over 24 states implementing this BS and multiple people have done serious time in prison for nothing more than calling 911 for help. >
  
  Which 24 states have implemented this? >
  
  I cannot believe what I just read. This article has ruined my day. >
  
  Horrifying >
  
  That really does sound like some garbage science.
  Might as well solve crimes with homeopathy. >
  
  Absolutely disgusting and an abuse of public trust,  which is just par for the course for US law enforcement. 
  I was a 9-1-1 dispatcher for years. I'll tell you one thing right now: the way the caller talks to you has NOTHING to do with the situation.
  Little kid calling in literally eye to eye with a guy trying to break in? 
  Cool as a cucumber.
  Twenty somethings convicted someone was lurking outside? Hysterical.
  Found your kid unresponsive? Terse. Sobbing. Panicked. Calm. Every type of call you care to imagine with every emotional response you care to name, no matter how outlandish. 
  What pieces of utter garbage. >
  
  “How do you know she’s a witch?” >
  
  she’s dressed like one
  they dressed me up like this
  well we did the nose >
  
  Things like this are what should be very easy slam dunks for bipartisanship criminal justice reform to tackle. >
  
  Far from it. Cops and prosecutors love this kind of thing because it gives them easy ways to manipulate “wins” and they don’t care at all that it has no basis in science or reality. And politicians of every party and at every level of government are so terrified of being portrayed as “soft on crime” and so beholden to those same prosecutors and law enforcement agencies that there’s virtually no political support to reform this stuff. >
  
  Pretty much. They're looking to convict you. They're not looking to prove whether you're innocent or guilty. They don't care if there's the possibility you might be innocent. That isn't their concern. Their concern is to stretch any level of evidence to get that win and lock you up.
  Sadly, the police and DA's office are not your friends. This isn't an episode of Law and Order where they have a moral compass that might make them question the facts. If they think they can get a guilty verdict, even if they sense the evidence might not entirely point to you, they're gonna do it. They'd rather send someone to jail for a crime they didn't commit than face the prospects of a crime going unsolved. 
  The article provides a perfect example of this: a man was arrested for murdering his wife, the prosecution played the 911 call and then put the dispatcher on the stand who basically said the call was staged. The man was found guilty and then later successfully appealed. So, instead of weighing the facts on whether to proceed, the prosecution again prosecuted him and again entered the same junk comments from the dispatcher as testimony but this time was shut down by the judge and the man was finally acquitted. >
  
  So if I say "there's blood everywhere" instead of "bleeding" because I'm in shock that makes me guilty?! Wtf. No one is in their right mind calling 911 after seeing something traumatic. It's terrifying knowing people are going to prison for the words they use during a trauma response. >
  
  Cops are so effing lazy and yet demand so much money and benefits
  hey did you know cops actually don 't prevent crime, have no legal responsibility to protect people, and solve less than half of all murders?
  good times >
  
  It’s wild. I’m a prison guard and I have a legal requirement to protect the inmates. How do cops not have the same duty outside? >
  
  Honest to god that’s sickening. I put my life on the line daily to wrestle shanks out of inmates hands, and those MF don’t even have to respond?  
  I can get immediately fired for not helping a convict, I have a legal obligation. It should be the exact same outside the walls >
  
  If somebody calls for help you must go, charge them with a fine/crime after you find out it’s a lie
  Edit:  Oh this article is way worse then my initial thought; it’s basically the same vein as why do we still use lie detectors >
  
  I’m from Moraine, OH where Harpster is from and now I can add “Home of Audio Phrenology” to our list of honors after “Chinese Glass Sweatshop” >
  
  This seems like a sequel to the Satanic Panic garbage that wrecked a lot of innocent peoples' lives back in the 80s. >
  
  Garbage in, garbage out.  Corporate America and it's defenders are skilled at obfuscation, junk science and plain ol' bigotry. And the courts are complicit.  They let junk bite science and junk arson science in well after both were discredited and innocent people released from prison. >
  
  Of course this wrecking of the justice system also doubles as a grift. I mean, why wouldn't it? This is America. >
  
  Further reinforcing the idea that if you truly need help never call the police. Imagine being distraught over finding a dead loved one and then being arrested because you didn’t say the rights words on the 911 call. >
  
  They're literally using tarot card/palm reading level "logic" to determine if 911 callers are being truthful during the phone call lmao >
  
  A lot of forensic science is bullshit. >
  
  Filter the so called "science" through innumerable training seminars and total bullshit becomes admissible opinion based on the investigating officers' "training and experience."
  This is how BS "gang expert" testimony gets admitted.  This is how BS "fire science" testimony gets admitted. >
  
  911 operator here.  While I've certainly developed a very good bullshit detector, it's never more than a guess until the investigation is complete.
  The way people handle crisis varies dramatically, ranging from hysterical screaming for minor inconveniences to calm emotionless descriptions of tragic events. The idea that something as mundane as an innocuous word choice would be indicative of guilt is mind boggling to me, and a sure sign that anyone making those claims doesn't answer 911 calls for a living. >
  
  
  Witnesses to a crime scene should be able to report their observations clearly,
  
  Chappell had a bit about this: “Hey! 911, how are ya? There’s a group of hooded white men outside, and they look like they mean business!” >
  
  Shades of “Minority Report” >
  
  Just another way the American justice system is designed to fill prisons, NOT protect Americans or enforce the law. They are kidnappers with badges. Meanwhile the woman who inte tonally lied and got Emmett Till lynched is allowed to remain free. >
  
  When I called the cops because I caught 2 dudes breaking into my door with a crowbar, they showed up and treated me like I was the criminal, questioning me like crazy about why I waited an hour to call the cops, why I owned a rifle, etc. Then at trial the defense attorney tried to insinuate that I couldn't possibly tell black people apart from each other (some weird shit using racism to his advantage I guess?), so there was no way I could be sure it was this guy at the door 6 inches from my face, rather than some other black dude (even though I correctly picked them both out of a line up). 
  I knew bullshit like this happened, which is why I waited an hour to call them to begin with, I was deciding with my wife on whether or not to even bother calling the cops and having the massive hassle of having to deal with the justice system. And I made the wrong choice, it was a massive hassle and a waste of time, one of the guys got weekends in jail for a short period of time, the other guy got found not guilty because the crime they tried to convict him with didn't fit/match what he did, because they didn't manage to make it into my house. (Just what  I was told by whoever was prosecuting the case) >
  
  r/TerrifyingAsFuck >
  
  This is the craziest thing I've ever read. It gives me pause about calling 911, now. This is insane. >
  
  Reason #5,736,268 to never talk to the police ever, for any reason. >
  
  Police and prosecutors want convictions, not justice and not the solving of crimes >
  
  Yeah but what did the bumps on they’re heads indicate? >
  
  We already know this is going to end up with black people being ignored and rich white people being overserved, right? >
  
  So don't ever call 911? That's the logical response if police use an emergency caller's voice instead of, say, evidence of a crime, to charge someone with a violent felony. >
  
  Correlation does not equal causation and this guy is a fucking idiot, as is everyone who has fallen for his scheme. He should be arrested himself. >
  
  Some moron who thinks he has superpowers like Wonder Woman and the Lasso of Truth, is training our cops and prosecutors.
  Jesus Christ >
  
  This shouldn't surprise anyone. The US government has been using junk science to lock people up since it's founding. >
  
  So everyone reacts the same way to stress. Any deviation is conciousness of guilt. Got it. >
  
  This is literally the guy saying "I have magic powers. I can tell if people are lying with 100% certainty. No, I can't explain how it works because then people would use the magic powers for evil. No, I won't testify in court myself because I'd have to provide proof. Instead I'll 'teach' the magic powers to 911 dispatchers and prosecutors, then they have infallible magic powers too."
  This is one of the scariest things I've ever heard. Being convicted of murder because you said "Please" on a 911 call, or "blood" instead of "bleeding". It's the 21st century and things like this are still going on on an institutional level, convicting people of crimes, and the legal system is convicting people based on it.
  This is like convicting people of crimes based on astrology, or blood type, or head shape. And the people who've bought into it defend it and double down, because they're convinced an 8 hour course makes them a superhero, and no one wants to give up that kind of power, or admit they were scammed.
  Edit: something was nagging me about this, something familiar, then it hit me. Body language experts. That's what this is. It's the same thing. Charlatans who claim they can tell people's guilt or innocence based on whether they brush their hair back, where they look, how they position their shoulders. Polygraphs also went through this, they were introduced and were eventually built up to be infallible indicators of guilt or innocence, it was an epidemic in the justice system, until finally enough science was done that polygraphs were barred from being entered as reliable evidence in courts. This is the same thing. >
  
  ACAB, plain and simple. They don't want or care about justice, they want control and authority >
  
  Police definitely protect us tho >
  
  Shocking that this is in Arizona... /s