The present study investigates the role of argumentative moves and indicators in two American police interrogations with two suspects: George Huguely and Bryan Greenwell. The study aims at identifying argumentative moves and indicators and their functions, and the most and least exploited argumentative indicators utilized by American police and suspects. In association with aims, the study sets out two hypotheses: 1) each stage has a specific set of indicators that are utilized rather than others. For instances, request for clarification and dispute indicators mark the confrontation stage. 2) argumentative indications vary in frequency depending on the functions they fulfill. The most frequent argumentative indicator of the confrontation stage utilized by American police, for example, is request for clarification to elicit information; while the least frequent argumentative indicator is semi-assertive to express an opinion. The most frequent argumentative indicator used by the American suspects is strong assertive to express an opinion; while the least frequent is dispute indicator to deny a standpoint. To achieve the aims and verify these hypotheses the study adopts the model of critical discussion by (van Eemeren, Houtlosser, & Henkemans, 2007). Based on the findings the study concludes not all the argumentative indicators explained in the model are found in police interrogations.