You can enhance your privacy when browsing and posting to this forum by using the free and open source Tor Browser and posting as a guest (using a fake e-mail address such as nobody@nowhere.com) or registering with a free, anonymous ProtonMail e-mail account. Registered users can exchange private messages with other registered users and receive notifications.
Although the issue of past felony convictions is a relevant consideration for an employing law agency, because this issue is best handled via different means, I suspect this was not used as a relevant question. The question about disgracing the badge was most certainly a CONTROL question. This is a vague subjective categorization and not a well defined prohibited behavior of concern, e.g., drug usage, application falsification, areas from which come your obvious relevant questions.
Posted by: BoogieChillin Posted on: Feb 13th, 2003 at 8:27pm
I was already a police officer before applying to this department. As far as the felony question goes, I don't know, they did the background check. In the pre-poly, he went on and on about, taking bribes, falsifying documents, evidence tampering, etc. So, I took the "disgracing the badge" to be relevant.
Posted by: Bat Cave Guest Posted on: Feb 13th, 2003 at 7:09pm
Is it just me, or do others see the same situation as me. This list of questions confuses me. If one were to assume (the poster doesn't say so) that he/she is applying for a job as a police officer, most of the relevant questions make sense (okay anti polygraph folks...groan here). What doesn;t make sense, if this is an applicant, why would you be asking a question about "disgracing the badge".....an applicant doesn't have it yet...and the other questions do not seem pertinent for an existing officer (have you ever been convicted of a felony - this should/would already be known). My BS detector is going off here....and I think even the anti-polygraph folks would agree.
Posted by: BoogieChillin Posted on: Feb 13th, 2003 at 9:06am