Subject: I think I need a lawyer.
In so many detective story's one hears the accused turn to the detective, stop the interview and ask for a lawyer to be present on the basis that any further comments he or she might make must have the surety of the legal mind to consider any implications of what is being said.
In the confrontation between the detective and the person he holds as suspect of committing a crime it is crucial that the accused gets their story right and that in the telling no alternative assumptions are made as to what is said and meant.
In any discussion words are used which have meanings, meanings which can be construed by the listener to mean something else other than what is perceived said by the person telling the story. As words flow, often in response to other words said, the format of what you are trying to say is changed by the impression you have of the sentence you have just heard. Some conversations are not much more than a confirmatory yes or no to what the other person says, in fact depending on who you are talking to many of us do not take much trouble to evolve an answer because the answer you wish to give may be one which will cause some upset. In such cases it's better to skate around the issue and confirm what the other person wants to hear.
Much is also dependent on the person you are talking to, whether they are close to you or a stranger. If the person is close there is an assumption that they will want to hear what your opinion is since it is assumed you want them to hear it.
The flow of conversation can take many twists and turns. It may end up in areas of special interest, it may lead one into dangerous ideological waters but you assume your relationship will weather any storm which might blow up.
The importance of being able to say what you feel, especially if you feel it's important to talk about anything, even the things which you know the other person has diametrically opposed views, is a true test of friendship. Most conversation is not of a personal nature, it might consist of throw away comments which are themselves based on half formed thoughts about subject matter on which you have a previous opinion and which colours your response. In fact your response is often half cocked since the person you are talking to has other thoughts which them-self form the basis of their assumption of the subject matter under discussion.
In the detectives case the assumption is that the detective wishes to trip you up and say something which will implicate you in a crime. The counter argument to needing a lawyer is that if you are innocent you have nothing to fear, what ever you say since you are innocent.
Sadly there are many innocent people spending time behind bars because something they said at that first interview was twisted by a barrister in court to mean something else. The meaning and the way that the words you use are often inadequate to fully describe what you meant, or that words are slipped into the conversation which you can't remember saying and which turn the meaning into something you never intended and it's for this reason you need a professional wordsmith.
In the heat of argument you are even more prone to have accusations leveled at you for saying things which you know you never intended and therefore you are sure you never said. Are the words unintentionally manufactured by the listener, perhaps to substantiate their own contrary opinion and oh so difficult to repudiate at a later stage.
Much of what we say does not have, or need the caveat of total accuracy. Friendship is at hand to interpret the meaning since friendship assumes that no ill will is in the mind of the friend speaking to you and therefore any misspeak has no ill intent. Friendship constantly reinterprets the friendship.
We drift into discourse as a means of relaxation and human communication, not a lecture or a diatribe and most of it inconsequential. From passing the time of day to your views on Brexit, the conversation lacks the importance of a court room drama and whilst the import of what you say, on one level seeks to confirm or disagree with someone else either way, the the intention is that of a friend and a friend is not, and I re-emphasise is not someone who you should only wish to seek reaffirmation but a true friend is someone who generally is prepared for a rebuttal, since confirmation of ones own prejudices is pointless and sterile.
At the end of the day it's down to personality. If you are seen as an argumentative contrarian then your words will be taken as being argumentative purely for arguments sake and in this world of avoidance, where people seek harmony at any cost, then the argument, disagreement, misconstrue is avoided at all costs.
In so many detective story's one hears the accused turn to the detective, stop the interview and ask for a lawyer to be present on the basis that any further comments he or she might make must have the surety of the legal mind to consider any implications of what is being said.
In the confrontation between the detective and the person he holds as suspect of committing a crime it is crucial that the accused gets their story right and that in the telling no alternative assumptions are made as to what is said and meant.
In any discussion words are used which have meanings, meanings which can be construed by the listener to mean something else other than what is perceived said by the person telling the story. As words flow, often in response to other words said, the format of what you are trying to say is changed by the impression you have of the sentence you have just heard. Some conversations are not much more than a confirmatory yes or no to what the other person says, in fact depending on who you are talking to many of us do not take much trouble to evolve an answer because the answer you wish to give may be one which will cause some upset. In such cases it's better to skate around the issue and confirm what the other person wants to hear.
Much is also dependent on the person you are talking to, whether they are close to you or a stranger. If the person is close there is an assumption that they will want to hear what your opinion is since it is assumed you want them to hear it.
The flow of conversation can take many twists and turns. It may end up in areas of special interest, it may lead one into dangerous ideological waters but you assume your relationship will weather any storm which might blow up.
The importance of being able to say what you feel, especially if you feel it's important to talk about anything, even the things which you know the other person has diametrically opposed views, is a true test of friendship. Most conversation is not of a personal nature, it might consist of throw away comments which are themselves based on half formed thoughts about subject matter on which you have a previous opinion and which colours your response. In fact your response is often half cocked since the person you are talking to has other thoughts which them-self form the basis of their assumption of the subject matter under discussion.
In the detectives case the assumption is that the detective wishes to trip you up and say something which will implicate you in a crime. The counter argument to needing a lawyer is that if you are innocent you have nothing to fear, what ever you say since you are innocent.
Sadly there are many innocent people spending time behind bars because something they said at that first interview was twisted by a barrister in court to mean something else. The meaning and the way that the words you use are often inadequate to fully describe what you meant, or that words are slipped into the conversation which you can't remember saying and which turn the meaning into something you never intended and it's for this reason you need a professional wordsmith.
In the heat of argument you are even more prone to have accusations leveled at you for saying things which you know you never intended and therefore you are sure you never said. Are the words unintentionally manufactured by the listener, perhaps to substantiate their own contrary opinion and oh so difficult to repudiate at a later stage.
Much of what we say does not have, or need the caveat of total accuracy. Friendship is at hand to interpret the meaning since friendship assumes that no ill will is in the mind of the friend speaking to you and therefore any misspeak has no ill intent. Friendship constantly reinterprets the friendship.
We drift into discourse as a means of relaxation and human communication, not a lecture or a diatribe and most of it inconsequential. From passing the time of day to your views on Brexit, the conversation lacks the importance of a court room drama and whilst the import of what you say, on one level seeks to confirm or disagree with someone else either way, the the intention is that of a friend and a friend is not, and I re-emphasise is not someone who you should only wish to seek reaffirmation but a true friend is someone who generally is prepared for a rebuttal, since confirmation of ones own prejudices is pointless and sterile.
At the end of the day it's down to personality. If you are seen as an argumentative contrarian then your words will be taken as being argumentative purely for arguments sake and in this world of avoidance, where people seek harmony at any cost, then the argument, disagreement, misconstrue is avoided at all costs.
No comments:
Post a Comment