What is the difference between the circumstances in which the police interviewed a man in a hospital room and asked him to "be a man"?

This single mention of God by the officers and the exhortation to "be a man" is distinguishable from the circumstances in People v. Esqueda (1993) 17 Cal.App.4th 1450, 1484, relied on by appellant, in which the appellate court found that the totality of the circumstances showed that the defendant's statements were involuntary, "the product of outrageous police behavior." The problematic circumstances included eight hours of questioning and a defendant who had been drinking and was "hysterical" when the interviewing began; who was lied to in a multitude of ways about the condition of the victim and the evidence against him; and whose manhood, religion, and Hispanic heritage was appealed to and questioned. (Id. at p. 1485.) Although the officers initially said they wanted the truth, they later told the defendant that "his only way out was to say it was an accident. They implied by so saying he would not have to go to prison and would be out with his children." (Id. at pp. 1485-1486.) In addition, the defendant had indicated several times that "he did not want to talk further. At one point he turned away from his tormentors, who told him to turn around and said they were going to keep at the interrogation" and that " '[i]f we have to be here two straight days, we'll be here.' " (Id. at p. 1486.)