Ray,
You have raised some issues that I believe have some validity to them. Not to pat myself on the back, but I think I have as well. You may be good at what you do, you may enjoy it and think it's the right thing...in the end, that's important, to believe in what you do.
As far as my friends being cleared, that in no way validates or vindicates poly-screening. Obviously one of the examiners was wrong...if it were truly a "science" as some pro-poly people would have us believe, this should not have happened.
As for example I gave, are you saying someone who drinks and drives regularly wouldn't be DQ'ed? I don't know about your agency's standards, but mine wouldn't hire that person.
As far as how many rapes, homicides, yada yada yada you've solved...assuming it's true, it's misleading. I work the street and do some instructing on the side. When the street officers make contacts, cultivate CI's, respond to calls, etc., most of what we get is reported and forwarded to the detective bureau. We generally don't try "solve" the more complex cases...we PATROL and do street level investigations, make arrests, etc.. You may well have solved all those cases...point is it isn't my job. Of course I'm not dismissing the importance of solving cases, I'm just saying is isn't that much a part of what I do as a street officer.
As far as the "macho" thing goes you guys keep talking about...this makes me laugh. I understand about all the macho stuff, and trust me, I've talked far people into cuffs than I've forced into cuffs, although I prefer talking, neither works 100% of the time...so please, save the words of wisdom.
One last thing, your "calculations", like many other assumptions you've made...are a little off. My agency has 9 fulltime examiners, formerly 10 (he retired on disability). I was interrogated by 2 others, 1 being for the first dept I worked for, which had 2 fulltime and 2 part-time examiner / investigators. Hang on a sec while I get my calculator...OK, back now
![Wink Wink](https://antipolygraph.org/yabbfiles/Templates/Forum/default/wink.gif)
...That's fifteen examiners that I have had personal contact with, plus a few others I've met here and there. Add to this the pics of Mr Ogilvie and friends on another website, I'd say that jumps the number up to around 25. Of those, I've seen 2 that would classify as physically fit. I'd say that provides SOME grounds for the comment I made.
I've enjoyed the debate with you Ray, at least (unlike some of your counterparts) you try to remain professional for the most part and don't seem to resort to name-calling, slander, etc. Take care and good luck to you.
Best,
PK