Re: Something from real life crime shows.

[Guest guest]

Interesting, sounds familiar too.

I have mentioned before on this forum that I often get followed around shops by

security guards, used to really annoy me. Now I am not so bothered about it. I

don't know exactly why they do such so often, but for some reason or another I

must appear suspicious.

You didn't mention eye contact, lack of eye contact often gets interpretted as

suspicous. Regarding eye contact I have tried to improve mine, but didn't

realize until a few years ago that I even had a problem with such.

I do recall as a child the line " look at me when I am talking to you " . However I

felt I couldn't win/get it right as a child, cause when I did look at people

when they were talking to me I often got the line " why are you looking at me

like that? " also got the line " Are you trying to be smart? " , which really

confused me as I thought 'smart' equated 'intelligent', which is what I thought

one was meant to strive towards - I basically didn't realise what people often

meant when they said " Are you trying to be smart? " was actually 'stop being

cheeky' - their perception of cheeky/rude anyways. Of course if I tried to

defend myself I got the line " Don't answer back " and if I remained quiet, I got

" what have you got to say for yourself? " .

Now as an adult it is still sometimes difficult to know exactly how much

information a person requires. I have learnt that if a person asks " have you got

the time? " , or " do you know where such and such is? " , that they require more

information than just 'yes' or 'no'. However there are still some circumstances

where I don't know if they require a simple/quick answer, or a more indepth one.

I think it is difficult when there is 'implied' meaning or question, such as in

the questions I just mentioned above. One is supposed to automatically know in

those instances that more is required than a simple 'yes' or 'no', which is a

tad unfair IMO. One is not taught these things generally to my knowledge and I

have learnt since I got older that most people pick these 'implied meanings' up

automatically, usually at a fairly young age. The fact I didn't is very

frustrating to me.

It was only fairly recently that I discovered that when someone says " the phone

is ringing " that there is often an implied meaning that they want you to answer

it. When I am at home and my land line phone rings and someone has said " your

phone is ringing " I have often answered " okay " , as an acknowledgment of what

they have just told me, although I often thought it odd they were telling me

such, since I can obviously hear the phone ringing myself. Also unless I am

expecting a call I often let the answering machine pick up the call, that way I

avoid sales/marketting calls.

I am aware that on some occasions I do not give enough information and yet other

times give way too much and ramble on - it is IMO very hard to gauge the right

amount to each and every situation. It is also frustrating when I give

correct/consice information at the begginning of a conversation - what I deem

the other person needs to know and yet they still end up asking me the questions

I have already provided the answers to - certainly gives me the impression a lot

of people really do not listen, or in some cases with certain phone calls cannot

work outside their own format/script that they work from.

As for emotional displays, I have been in countless situations where I have

realised that the person I am talking to is waiting, practically expecting some

sort of re-action from me - I haven't always been aware of such, but sometimes I

have. I have not known what response they have wanted/expected though and I have

come to realise that the one they get from me - which is usually remaining calm

and dealing with whatever it is, isn't the one they expected though. I find this

quite unfair too, as often I feel such is a 'no win' situation, for instance if

I was to get emotional I suspect I would quickly be discounted as 'over

emotional and irrational', yet I remain calm and get labelled 'cold hearted and

uncaring', etc.

As for the last part of your post, that would be annoying too, if one came

across a crime scene where someone is hurt I would have thought the right thing

to do would be to check if the person is okay/alive - obviously first one would

need to quickly assess the situation for many reasons, one being 'is it safe?',

as in is the person/body in a pool of water and are there unsafe electics

nearby, etc.

>

> I watched a couple of real life crime shows today, ones that look at real

> cases and interview the people involved. It struck me again how many common

> traits of Asperger's Syndrome could get one presumed guilty.

>

> A commonly mentioned " sign of guilt " or at least " hiding something " is

> explaining one's answers or giving additional information beyond what was

> asked. A lot of Aspies would do exactly that, add more information and

> explanation to their answers.

>

> Another was when the suspect said they noticed things at a crime scene

> that police considered odd, things like the state of a victim's clothing,

> things that had been moved in a crime scene, etc. Here again a lot of Aspies

> could do such a thing because of sharp observation skills and/or good

> memories of a scene.

>

> Seeming to know more about a crime than what police have figured out is

> also trouble. Taking the two points already mentioned and add with an Aspie

> weighing what they know and thinking the crime through and expressing their

> own hypotheses or theories would be a bad thing.

>

> Lastly, the potential of " incorrect emotional display " could also get one

> in trouble. An Aspie who didn't show emotion or simply didn't process what

> was going on until later (and then reacts " correctly " ) or is simply

> overwhelmed at the scene until they decompress can get them in trouble.

Supposedly

> there is a standard reaction to various situations and acting outside the

> norm makes one a suspect.

>

> So an Aspies who stumbles across a crime scene, check a murder victim for

> a pulse and gets some blood on themselves, calls the police and examines

> the crime scene and thinks about what they've seen and what might have

> happened could end up in a LOT of trouble from the police. Heck, they

wouldn't

> even have to have blood or other evidence on them if they acted " squirrelly "

> enough.

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

Yes, this topic comes up now and then, but I think it is interesting and bears refreshing from time to time. It just always strikes me on these shows how they have their patterns and "behavioral analysis" but how it doesn't account for things like AS.

I'm not sure if security follows me around or not, but I sometimes get the feeling the cameras are watching me. As for why, it probably has something to do with body language, looking around and such. I myself have always had a rather stiff gait which is probably why I found marching at military school formations so easy. I also tend to be aware of my surroundings which means looking around and keeping track of where people are. This is mostly done with peripheral vision but still I look down aisles I'm passing and things like that. However, I have changed over more to using peripheral vision looking out of the corner of my eye to appear a bit more aloof than I really am.

Eye contact is another thing. I got that a lot and still do. To me that has always been more of a dominance kind of thing, like an animalistic power trip. I would get comments about my "steely gaze" or told that I was looking at someone like I wanted to hurt them. That's just the way I was looking at them, intently. Then again, back then I had bad vision but no glasses so it was also a matter of just trying to make out their face clearly in the first place. Perhaps it is also because of difficulty with facial expressions. I can look people in the eye and watch them, but I don't see it as necessary for most conversations, and I find it annoying when someone is driving or we are trying to catch a salient moment on TV and they want to talk or ask a question and they look at me. Why? Don't their ears work independently of their ears?I understand about the information thing. I feel compelled to give some background information to my answers, not all the time but often. Perhaps that part of the "small talk" thing? Anyway, I try to rein that in to avoid giving away too much information.

As for implied meaning, I understand as well. My instinct it to make a snide comment, something that to my mind is obvious but would be taken as insulting. For example: with "the phone is ringing" they might get: "So it is," or "its supposed to when someone calls," or "Good for it," or some variation. I'm usually the one who answers the phone here anyway so rarely does that come up. "Good for it" is a common response to some things though, like being told there is a truck in front of a neighbor's house or the like. What am I supposed to do about it? I'm not really inclined to walk up there and find out what it is because if they are up to no good there's not much I can do about it. Still, I usually go to a window and look at it and maybe take a picture if I think it is really strange just to have some evidence. Emotional displays are an issue. When I was younger, I would often look guilty when I had done nothing, even as the real troublemaker was feigning innocence. Then there was laughing during horror movies now and then or otherwise reacting other than as expected. Yes, the cold-hearted or overly emotional thing was something I too had to deal with.

These days if I saw someone injured, unless I knew them I wouldn't approach. Instead I would call 911 and perhaps stay in the area to keep an eye on things, unless it was dangerous for whatever reason. I'm also the same way with kids. A woman could perhaps get away with talking to a minor or helping a lost child but for a male, the base assumption is that something bad is in the works.

Interesting, sounds familiar too.

[Guest guest]

All the more reason for Aspies not to cause trouble in the first place or

involve themselves in any activity that may turn troublesome.

Administrator

" So an Aspies who stumbles across a crime scene, check a murder victim for a

pulse and gets some blood on themselves, calls the police and examines the crime

scene and thinks about what they've seen and what might have happened could end

up in a LOT of trouble from the police. Heck, they wouldn't even have to have

blood or other evidence on them if they acted " squirrelly " enough. "

[Guest guest]

I make it a point to be as concise as possible so I do not have to repeat

myself. Nevertheless, sometimes people do not understand my meaning. My

counselor had explained it this way: " Not everyone is as smart as you are.

Sometimes you need to dumb down what you tell them so they can understand what

you are saying. "

Administrator

" I am aware that on some occasions I do not give enough information and yet

other times give way too much and ramble on - it is IMO very hard to gauge the

right amount to each and every situation. It is also frustrating when I give

correct/consice information at the begginning of a conversation - what I deem

the other person needs to know and yet they still end up asking me the questions

I have already provided the answers to - certainly gives me the impression a lot

of people really do not listen, or in some cases with certain phone calls cannot

work outside their own format/script that they work from. "

[Guest guest]

When I was younger, a friend said that I over-explained things. This seems to be an ingrained trait which I hav worked to moderate (not so that I don't get blamed for a crime, but because another friend theorised that I may 'lose' people (their mind might wander) if I am explaining at length. Becasue i enjoy theoretical matters and hav read several dozen true crime books, I would hav to be very careful if being interviewd by the police.Also, my 'innapropriate emotional display' might throw suspicion on me. Personally I would find it very repugnant to 'roll play' at being hysterical or horrified in a showy way just to avoid suspicion. My tendency when under stress is often to (in an inner s nse) acknowledge my emotions but tell myself that I can deal with my emotions

later, for now I have something to deal with. NT's are perplexing, if I were an investigator, I would prefer to interview calm cool and rational Aspie types that upset NT's.(and would trust the report of those who were calm over that of some one who was upset)rl'My cat Rusty is a servant of the Living God....'adapted from a poem by Smart To: FAMSecretSociety

Sent: Friday, January 13, 2012 4:01:59 PM Subject: Something from real life crime shows.

I watched a couple of real life crime shows today, ones that look at real cases and interview the people involved. It struck me again how many common traits of Asperger's Syndrome could get one presumed guilty.

A commonly mentioned "sign of guilt" or at least "hiding something" is explaining one's answers or giving additional information beyond what was asked. A lot of Aspies would do exactly that, add more information and explanation to their answers.

Another was when the suspect said they noticed things at a crime scene that police considered odd, things like the state of a victim's clothing, things that had been moved in a crime scene, etc. Here again a lot of Aspies could do such a thing because of sharp observation skills and/or good memories of a scene.

Seeming to know more about a crime than what police have figured out is also trouble. Taking the two points already mentioned and add with an Aspie weighing what they know and thinking the crime through and expressing their own hypotheses or theories would be a bad thing.

Lastly, the potential of "incorrect emotional display" could also get one in trouble. An Aspie who didn't show emotion or simply didn't process what was going on until later (and then reacts "correctly") or is simply overwhelmed at the scene until they decompress can get them in trouble. Supposedly there is a standard reaction to various situations and acting outside the norm makes one a suspect.

So an Aspies who stumbles across a crime scene, check a murder victim for a pulse and gets some blood on themselves, calls the police and examines the crime scene and thinks about what they've seen and what might have happened could end up in a LOT of trouble from the police. Heck, they wouldn't even have to have blood or other evidence on them if they acted "squirrelly" enough.

[Guest guest]

That problem with specialized knowledge is coming up again. I've been studying how dictatorships are formed and I'm seeing a lot of troubling things today. However, most people have no clue.

For example: there have been a number of articles cropping up lately attacking the US Constitution. They say it is old and outdated, out of touch with the times and doesn't secure certain "rights." So many people are so blind that they don't see how these written promises of free stuff and state granted "rights" are nothing bit bids for power by those willing to plunder that is left of their country's economies to hold on to power a little longer. That's all that's happening: people being tricked into giving up their real freedoms for goodies.

As for not having certain specialized knowledge, that's happened, too. For some reason people seem to assume that all men know car engines. Hardly. I've not been in any real danger from that, but I've had people look at me funny for not knowing about them. Same with sports.

Really interesting concepts!