uw23ted wrote on Feb 17^th, 2007 at 12:47am:


I think you are reading too much into it. The Scott Peterson remark was in all likelihood part of the polygrapher's well-rehearsed and oft-repeated pretest spiel and not directed at you personally. It may even have been an attempt at levity, as presumably very few LAPD applicants have killed a spouse.

The black supervisor can only be Ervin Youngblood. He administered my polygraph examination with the LAPD more than a decade ago. I found him to be boorish and obnoxious, but I didn't get the perception that his crude behavior stemmed from racial bias.

I don't think your filing a complaint would change anything at LAPD, though it might well result in retaliation against you. Some three years ago, when the polygraph unit supervisor, Roy Ortiz, was credibly accused of deliberately changing polygraph results, the LAPD reportedly covered it up and retaliated against the whistleblower.

uw23ted wrote on Feb 17^th, 2007 at 1:07am:


I hear you.  I was in  polygraph not too long ago.  There was some contridiction in there.

Well work your butt off, move up the ranks then make a change ;o)

I kind of think I should just withdraw from the process and file the complaint anyway.  I am sick and tick of double standards and just because I may have gotten the job and therefore let it go, it doesn't stop the next qualified applicant from being discriminated against.

I totally see your point Fender, but like I said, the double standards need to stop somewhere.

uw23ted

I think your "shoe on the foot" statement is totally correct.

I would wait for the final results and if it turns out that you didn't  pass, you should file a discrimination complaint the next day. Don't wait until the case is cold.

If you passed, I would just let it go, pick your battles, don't start with a bad rep.

Situation:  I took the polygraph with the LAPD about 3 weeks ago. I was told that I passed, but my answers had to be reviewed by a supervisor.  The examiner and her supervisor acted totally unprofessionally and inappropriately, but before I pursue this, I would like to know if my complaint has any grounds.

Background:  I am a 31 year old college graduate, Marine Corps/Combat Vet, and I am a WHITE MALE.

During the background the examiner said to me "It is my job to determine you are not involved with any negative behavior that might tarnish the repuation of the LAPD." I nodded yes, and she continued, "You know, we want to make sure you are not doing any SCOTT PETERSON type of behavior."   

This comment seemed a little strange to me at the time, but the more I think of it, her reference to Scott Peterson really stands out.  In fact, I would go as far as to say she was biased as this was clearly discrimination.  I would like to know why she said this.  Of all the criminals she could have referenced, why did she pick an average, clean cut, middle class white guy? Was it because I appeared to be that too so she picked someone she thought I could relate to?

If the shoe was on the other foot and a white examiner said to a black examinee, "we want to make sure you are not doing any Nat Turner/Black Panther type behavior, that examiner would have been at the least reprimanded.

So, my question is, am I reading too much into it, or was she out of line?  After she made those remarks, her supervisor, a black male, came in after my first round of questions and was trying to intimidate me physically and mentally.  I thought nothing of it at the time, I figured it was standard operating procedure for them, but the more I read and think about, the more I think I need to call those two on their actions.