While I lack the credentials to explain this phenomenon, I promise it nonetheless exists.  Cops are never wrong, as least in their own minds. 

Most of us reach conclusions based upon a weighing of facts, possibly combined with rumors, innuendo and other unfounded suggestion, relative to our vision of probability.  In other words, if the available information conforms to what we think is reasonable, then we believe it and make decisions. 

But our decisions are subject to revision when new information becomes available, particularly information that contradicts our already formed opinions.  We are open to being wrong.  We may fight to prove our position, but in the back of our heads, we come to realize that we may have jumped the gun.  Our reflexive defensiveness ultimately gives way to correction as soon as we can find a viable way to back off a conclusion without losing face. 

Not cops.  Once they make a decision, it’s written in stone.  It cannot be changed.  When logic fails, or stone cold fact gets in the way, they just wave their hand and state aloud that they don’t care.  Nothing, but nothing will change their mind.  Done.  They are right.  You are wrong.  Anyone who agrees with you is wrong. 

While my assertion is, of course, a generalization (which by definition means that there must be exceptions), it’s a darn good one.  Anyone who has tried to talk a cop down off the cliff knows it’s true.  There is an extra bone in their head that allows them to believe whatever they believe without any opening for doubt, even in the face of incontrovertible proof to the contrary. 

It’s wonderful to live in a world of such certainty, never having to rethink or revisit any decision.  Imagine the time savings alone.  Most of us waste a ton of time thinking about things we’ve already formed a belief about, considering other information and arguments that have substantial validity, yet don’t jive with our own thoughts. 

I’m not saying that police rush to conclusions necessarily.  They may very well take their time deciding, but once they’ve decided, that’s it. 

The other day, I had a nice friendly chat with a cop I’ve known for some time.  It was not adversarial at all.  In fact, it was quite pleasant and informative.  Then, he decided that he wanted to let me know that he “knew something.”  He went on to tell me what he knew, that related to something that only I knew.  I’m not telling you exactly what I’m talking about here, because it’s none of your business, but that doesn’t change the point of the story.

After he was done telling me what he “knew”, I told him he was wrong.  While I didn’t know how he came to “know” what he “knew” (he wasn’t giving up his source), I told him that since the information that he “knew” existed only in my head, whatever he thought he knew was baseless and he couldn’t “know” anything unless it came from me.  Since I didn’t give him the information that he “knew”, he didn’t “know” anything.

He told me that he knew what he knew and that there was nothing I could say that would change his mind, because he knew it. 

He was wrong.  His “source” had given him wrong information, and he relied on it to form a wrong decision.  But that was irrelevant.  He was certain and, as he openly stated, there was nothing that I could say that would change his mind.

I asked him if he would rather persist in his belief and be wrong forever, or consider the possibility that he was given bad information and reconsider.  He told me that his decision was firm.  There was no reason to reconsider as he knew.  His belief was unshakeable.

It didn’t really matter to me that he would persist in his wrong belief.  It didn’t change my life, or the lives of any clients.  It was purely academic at this point.  But the absolute persistence in maintaining a wrong belief was what fascinated me about the conversation. 

I use this example for two reasons.  First, because it is one where I knew that he was wrong, since I was the root of any belief.  Second, it was a friendly conversation, so there was no posturing involved for the purpose of playing cop versus defense lawyer. 

It isn’t easy being a cop.  They make decisions that have substantial impact on other people, far more so than almost any other occupation.  If cops were riddled with self-doubt, it would be impossible to do the job.  How can you aim a gun and pull the trigger if you are busy thinking, thinkiing, thinking about whether you should?  Then you would be a dead cop.  And so they form a protective shell around themselves, that won’t let them entertain extrinsic doubt that would just muddy their decisiveness. 

I have come to believe that this extra bone in their head that precludes cops from reconsidering is a Darwinian survival mutation.  Maybe it’s implanted in the academy.  I’m not sure how it gets in there, but it does.  And I’m equally certain that police officers believe, with all their hearts and souls, that no one who isn’t a cop can possibly understand them or why they must be the way they are.  But if you are trying to deal with them, it helps to have some idea of why reason, honesty and logic don’t work.