CSI: Crime Scene Investigation
Word Count: 526
How do you handle confrontations?
I handle confrontations in a completely normal and appropriate manner, losing my temper at any given time of the day and night is not an option unlike some certain people such as Grissom. Unlike him, I would not, ever, lose my temper over even the most simplistic or complex thing. Instead I would handle it the way I have been educated to, I would carry out any necessary preparations and when that is done I would handle the actual by processing it with many qualities which my “co-worker” lacks at certain times. The situation however defiant or hostile towards myself or the person I might be protecting would be dealt with in a diplomatic, careful and intelligent manner especially in area of how I would act towards my accuser. Some people like to entertain the idea that I am dumb as a post after the even in which Grissom opened up and solved a case which I had already closed and certified as solved. It is not my fault that the witness had surmounting evidence against him yet despite that chose to protect himself instead of bringing justice to the whole situation. It was a very sad mess that case, he had evidence stacked against him and I had put the man in jail and then I have to deal with this confrontation with Grissom where the man tells me that he is reopening the case on the basis that the suspect eventually has decides to “fess” up to his crime. Fortunately in both cases, the question of my intelligence as a CSI when it is more than obvious I could and often do triumph over most of the simple minded people that try to accuse me and in that confrontation between myself and Grissom, which mind, ended in him smashing a coffee pot from my hand I have handled myself appropriately. In both cases I made the only right decision which was to handle them by not losing my temper and thinking the evidence through thoroughly before delivering my final decision and thoughts on the matter which was and always is the most correct one.
If I am dealing with a confrontational case, for example a rogue family member who comes in to seek justice of their own in the case of a loved one’s death then I am the one who has to confront them right back. Even if that does mean being defiant and hostile, I can not change the evidence on a whim of someone who thinks that they are correct when I have several years of education to prove them wrong and that I am in fact right on whatever matter we may be debating. If not that type of situation those two things, hostility and defiance are both qualities that a confrontation holds and both that in my profession have to be used no matter what type of confrontation it may be, it has to be handled with them. Also it has to be taken care of with other appropriate actions such as politeness, diplomacy towards the accuser and generally handling the situation as it needs to be handled, sensibly.