Confessions of a Homicide Detective...

[Cruentus]

Facinating article:

http://www.fadeinmag.com/scorsese/confess.htm

This is so friggin facinating that I don't know what to talk about. There's about a million and one things. Any thoughts?

:asian:

 

[Tgace]

Interesting stuff...In the long run though its just one detectives opinion on crime, guns, profiling etc. You'll find as many different opinions amongst cops on some of these topics as youll find on oh say capitalism here.

 

[Cruentus]

Interesting stuff...In the long run though its just one detectives opinion on crime, guns, profiling etc. You'll find as many different opinions amongst cops on some of these topics as youll find on oh say capitalism here.

For sure. I just find his story facinating, and there are a lot of interesting points of discussion there.

 

[Tgace]

The thing I have to say is most crime scene invesitgations are nothing like CSI. I have never seen alternate light sources being used at a crime scene, luminol being sprayed here and there, or lasers picking up prints.

 

[Rich Parsons]

The thing I have to say is most crime scene invesitgations are nothing like CSI. I have never seen alternate light sources being used at a crime scene, luminol being sprayed here and there, or lasers picking up prints.

** Wink Wink Nudge Nudge

Well that is why it is CSI (* Las Vegas *)

And CSI Miami, they have the big bucks there


If it is on TV it has to be real. Right?

:rofl: I could not resist :asian:

 

[Tgace]

People get so enamored with the technology that they have no respect for good old "police work". Talking to witnesses and suspects, tracking relationships between people and comparing timelines, stories and how the physical evidence relates to it all. This guys definitely "been there done that", do they say who he is or where he works? Didnt see it.

 

[Flatlander]

He spoke of somethings that I don't believe should be published. I don't think its necessary for the general public to have access to a veteran homicide detective's opinion of the best way to get away with murder. That was an irresponsible elaboration on his part, given that he knew it would be on the record. I'm curious as to why he doesn't believe in the validity of psychological profiling. There's definitely evidence to support its value. John Douglas caught a few with that technique.

But he's obviously been there.

What's got your eye here Paul?

 

[shesulsa]

It was fascinating - and you're right - there are so many topics we could go on off of this article - I just don't know where to begin.

How about the insanity plea? (let's just jump right in, shall we?) Some say that anyone would have to be insane to kill...I disagree. That said, if a person takes the life of another in a non-combat (war) or self-defense situation, isn't that person mentally unbalanced? And when does "mentally unbalanced" become "insane"? And do you all believe there is truly a difference between the two when it comes to murder?

 

[OULobo]

My fiance' has her B.S. in Forensic Chemistry, from one of the only universities in the country that offers a Bachelors in it (usually it's a Masters specialization). We religiously watch CSI and she is constantly complaining about how much the concept is right, but the techniques and technology are not as flashy, fast or easy as they make it look. She especially mentions that the analyzation techniques take weeks not hours and only major cities actually have forensics departments and full time evidence technicians.

 

[RandomPhantom700]

It was fascinating - and you're right - there are so many topics we could go on off of this article - I just don't know where to begin.

How about the insanity plea? (let's just jump right in, shall we?) Some say that anyone would have to be insane to kill...I disagree. That said, if a person takes the life of another in a non-combat (war) or self-defense situation, isn't that person mentally unbalanced? And when does "mentally unbalanced" become "insane"? And do you all believe there is truly a difference between the two when it comes to murder?

As the investigator in the article said, the legal measure of insanity has to do with proving a subjective mind-set. It's the same reason we discriminate between first, second, third degree murder and manslauter (somehow there's a difference between third-degree and manslauter, I can't remember what it is though). These are separated according to intent: 1st degree means the murder was planned out and the murderer knew exactly what they were doing. Second degree is fit-of-passion, i.e. it wasn't planned out, but a result of irrational emotions. Then there's third-degree and manslauter, where the killing is a result of unintentional neglect.

Similarly, the insanity defense is based on proving that the defendent couldn't recognize what they were doing as a bad thing to do. They had at the time, or permanently have, no moral concept. I agree that you can be quite sane to kill someone: you know what you're doing, you know it's wrong, you plan it out, etc.

I agree with this system on the basis of discriminating according to intent with murder cases. Honestly, I don't understand why the "fit-of-passion" murder is considered less blameworthy than the first-degree. Even if you kill a guy right then and there in response to finding him ****ing your wife, you still had full intent to do it.

I really have no idea about the war question, but as far as self-defense goes, I think that if you're forced to use violence to defend yourself (i.e. can't run away, can't talk your way out of it, etc.) then there's no problem with it, so long as there was no other way than killing the person to eliminate the danger. I don't really understand why this would involve mental imbalance though.

 

[rmcrobertson]

Sounds about right and reasonable to me.