I was a girl from Brooklyn, so I heard about crime, but what
did I know about police line-ups? At fourteen years old, I entered the local precinct
to find out. Not by choice, of course, but because I was the ideal witness to
identify two suspected muggers. I was one of their victims.
An officer briefed me on the procedure, describing how I would
see the suspect, along with several fillers that resembled the suspect in
height, build, and complexion. Standing behind a one-way mirror, I was to study
them all and identify the assaulter. I had a microphone for the option of calling
one of them by number and requesting that they turn to profile for better view.
I would then sign a document that would be admissible in court. How daunting.
Noting my apprehension, a nearby officer whispered some words
of advice.
“Give yourself time to positively identify the suspect. If
your attacker was wearing a cap and an oversized t-shirt at the time of the
crime, you are likely to assume that the first person you see wearing a cap and
an oversized t-shirt is him. You can say ‘number two looks familiar, but leave
yourself an opening to say, ‘in reality, I am sure it is number four.’”
With that, I was led to a narrow hallway to look through the
one -way -mirror and begin. I needed a stool to see properly and I couldn’t comprehend
how they managed to find characters willing to participate in this law
enforcement method.
My eyes landed on the
second subject, and I immediately thought he was the one. I even thought I
could detect guilt and fear in his eyes. However, I refrained from giving a
verdict and I said with a tremor in my voice, “number two looks familiar.”
I paused and looked again. Like a camera coming into focus, I
started seeing features and details that I hadn’t noticed previously. I narrowed
it down to two people, and I asked Number Four to turn his head to the right
and then to the left. I became certain it was him.
I was confident that my initial response was wrong. This time
there was confidence in my declaration, “Number four was the perpetrator of the
crime.”
**
I wonder how my life would look if I applied this advice to
all of my affairs. Imagine I paused for one second after an initial response, to
double-check that my decision wasn’t based on associations or previous history.
To give myself an opening to choose better.
Say I was facing a task I always avoided. My initial response
to such a task would be escape. “Good night world! I’m going to sleep!” or “I
can’t handle this!” I have the liberty to question my initial response. Pause.
I am definitely capable of breaking down this chore and accomplishing it in
part.
I could be a person that gets triggered by certain people. I can’t
stand it when “x” interrupts me, “y” forgets about me, or “z” comes late again.
My initial response may be to fall back on old patterns of yelling, resentment,
or going off on a tirade against them. I may even voice my initial response. But
that shouldn’t force me to stubbornly cling to it. Pause. I have the option of
backing out.
I may have a habit of sending impulsive emails or shopping
compulsively. How convenient that I have an opportunity to save a draft or hold
a cart until I can think things through clearly. Pause. In a literal sense.
Can you see
this assisting you in the sometimes challenging commandment of judging your
fellow favorably? Or in agreeing to do a difficult favor? Sure, your initial response may be one of
anger or disgust. Or of absolute refusal. But allow yourself the window to get
some clarity and change your mind.
Your initial
response may be your gut instinct and a correct one at that. Or not. Think before
you give the final verdict.


