5th March 2004, 9:46 PM
Well, if you answered fully truthfully, there is a much greater chance you might not have had any problems. I know, you think I'm naive for believing "virtue is always rewarded" or something like that. I know that often times not only are people found guilty of things they didn't do, but often it's because the cop just wants to go home (I will say this, cops don't have quotas, what a ridiculous myth concocted by those who want excuses). However, this case seemed like one where the cop wasn't trying to determine if you had alchohol, so much as how honest you were. They do that you know. It's really very easy to detect lies if you know how and the other person does NOT know how, and no not by the scientifically faulty lie detector machiens, but rather by little microemotions people make when they lie, like a split second "fear" face, or a slit second "surprise" face, or a false emotion that almost looks happy, but the eyebrows are raised like surprise so it's a dead givaway. Also, it could have just been logic. This cop likely smelled it already and if you said no, he'd know you were lying, and assume the worst. Your best option was really to be honest and say "yes, my friends had some". Sure, he could have STILL eventually decided you were drinking, but it's either a CHANCE he could believe you are an honest kid (it DOES happen) or a PROMISE he WON'T believe a word you say and assume the worst. Logically, the choice is clear. Honesty really was the best policy.
"On two occasions, I have been asked [by members of Parliament], 'Pray, Mr. Babbage, if you put into the machine wrong figures, will the right answers come out?' I am not able to rightly apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question." ~ Charles Babbage (1791-1871)