312
this post was submitted on 14 Jul 2025
312 points (100.0% liked)
Ask Lemmy
33359 readers
1076 users here now
A Fediverse community for open-ended, thought provoking questions
Rules: (interactive)
1) Be nice and; have fun
Doxxing, trolling, sealioning, racism, and toxicity are not welcomed in AskLemmy. Remember what your mother said: if you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all. In addition, the site-wide Lemmy.world terms of service also apply here. Please familiarize yourself with them
2) All posts must end with a '?'
This is sort of like Jeopardy. Please phrase all post titles in the form of a proper question ending with ?
3) No spam
Please do not flood the community with nonsense. Actual suspected spammers will be banned on site. No astroturfing.
4) NSFW is okay, within reason
Just remember to tag posts with either a content warning or a [NSFW] tag. Overtly sexual posts are not allowed, please direct them to either [email protected] or [email protected].
NSFW comments should be restricted to posts tagged [NSFW].
5) This is not a support community.
It is not a place for 'how do I?', type questions.
If you have any questions regarding the site itself or would like to report a community, please direct them to Lemmy.world Support or email [email protected]. For other questions check our partnered communities list, or use the search function.
6) No US Politics.
Please don't post about current US Politics. If you need to do this, try [email protected] or [email protected]
Reminder: The terms of service apply here too.
Partnered Communities:
Logo design credit goes to: tubbadu
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Intuition matters — it’s part of how people make sense of things, and I’d expect investigators to use it to focus their attention. But when cops talk about ‘just knowing’ someone was guilty, that’s not a reliable narrative of how the case actually unfolded. It’s more about self-mythologizing — building a story where they zeroed in on the suspect through instinct alone. That kind of framing works well in interviews and promotion boards, but it (ideally) oversimplifies what real investigation looks like.
There are, of course, counter-examples. But those are usually more the subject of documentaries about injustice in the justice system.
Yeah that's why they shouldn't be using it. Maybe I'm more sensitive to it because I can be really socially awkward but I can't help but think about how I'd be fucked if I ever ended up the subject of one of these investigations because I have a lot of the same behaviors they use to justify their suspicion towards someone when I get nervous
Yeah. I'm with you there. We don't display the proper amount of anxiety, either being too detached or overdramatic, and suddenly they are laser focused on us.
"Why did you google how long it takes a person to asphyxiate?"
"I watched a movie where a guy holds his breath and got curious as to whether it was bullshit or not."
"Why is there a sword in your online cart?"
"It was aspirational. Swords are expensive and I don't know if I'll get enjoyment commensurate to the cost."
"You like big words don't you. You think you're pretty smart, eh? You think you're smarter than me?"
"W—well.. I mean... I don't have enough evid—"
Nightstick to the face. "Stop resisting arrest!"
My point was more about unreliable narration than the interaction between gut reactions and neurodivergence. That's a legitimate concern. One hopes that the non-gut-reaction part of the process vindicates us.