Depends Ryan...just what jurisdiction did you plan on applying to....that could determine a lot of how you plan to approach this situation...let's see if we can plan out an manner to best help you and your situation

lol thanks kona, you're a good man

Torpedo wrote on Dec 21^st, 2003 at 10:47pm:


Torpedo,

Just curious, how do you tell the difference between someone employing countermeasures, and say.....someone that is feeling extreme guilt about the same control question, but is still telling the truth?  How can you tell the difference between someone puckering their asshole, and that same person having a reaction to your voice, and/or stress of the situation?  Come on, you know the answer.......you can't tell for sure.  You're living in a dreamworld if you think you can catch everyone using countermeasures.  The only way you'd know for sure is if they confessed to it.  I'd say your chances of catching a person using countermeasures are about one in two; the same percentage you would have flipping a coin and calling heads everytime.  Please understand, I don't condone lying to an investigator about the relevant questions, but I certainly know first hand why a person would use countermeasures to ensure passing.  See below.

Torpedo wrote on Dec 21^st, 2003 at 10:47pm:


Absolutely nothing.  The only problem is that there are many people here on these boards that have done exactly that, and were found to be deceptive.  Therein lies the problem.......police departments use the polygraph, and believe that it is the holy grail.  There is no telling how many honest people have been DQ'ed simply by the results of the polygraph.  Maybe George has some stats.  As long as supply exceeds demand with regard to police recruit applicants, a high percentage of polygraph DQs will continue to be deemed acceptable by the police departments that utilize this quackery.    

Personally, I believe that the polygraph examiners I dealt with were skilled interrogators, and really didn't need the voodoo science to get to the truth.  It's a nice intimidation tool to extract the truth or a confession, but I think it should be saved for use on criminals, not job applicants.   

Regards,
Kona

Kona, perhaps you will understand, then again, perhaps you won't...it matters not to me, suffice it to say that I am every bit as confident that I will be able to detect most, if not all (if you care to gamble) of any countermeasures that you might throw at me.  My experience and attention to the training that has been provided to me and becoming knowledgeable of what countermeasures people can, and will throw at me enable me to take the position that I have and espouse the confidence that I do. I am alert to the possibility that there is a truthful person who might end up taking my polygraph and I work as hard as I am able to ensure that he is treated fairly and that my examinatin is accurate.  You trumpet the successes of those who have beaten the polygraph...I am sure there are some...but you seem to forget the ones who have NOT beaten the polygraph and have told the examiners....in explicit detail.... what they attempted...where they learned it, how they tried to become expert at it...but it just did not work...you just might be surprised at the number of people who fall into this category.  You might be surprised to know that I too would prefer that polygraph was not needed for jobapplicants, but the sad thing is that it IS necessary.  Perhaps you my friend are living in that same dreamworld if you think that everyone who seeks to wear the badge...or is wearing the badge is not inclined to step over the line.  It is a sad but true fact that the many, many trie and dedicated officers of the law are and will continue to be infiltrated by those who want to use their position for some other reason.  Until a better "mousetrap" comes along, I for one am glad that the polygraph is there....for if for no other reason, it does tend to keep honest people just that honest and causes the others to think twice.  It is an valuable "tool" (as you call it)....and it works.

Torpedo wrote on Dec 22^nd, 2003 at 4:39am:


Great.  Confidence is a good thing to have.  I'm equally confident that I can employ countermeasures, and you won't have a clue....other than a 50% chance of guessing.  The only way you'd ever know for sure is if I admitted to using them.  I'm 1-1 with the total honesty approach (no countermeasures), and 1-0 with countermeasures (truth on relevant questions).   


Torpedo wrote on Dec 22^nd, 2003 at 4:39am:


I don't doubt for a second that you approach your job as a professional, and that you treat people fairly.  Unfortunately, the outcome of your polygraph examination isn't always accurate.  What happened to the time I was totally honest (no countermeasures) and was found deceptive? I'm sure my examiner was every bit as professional and knowledgeable as you, but somehow the truth did not prevail.  What do you have to say to all the false positive examinees out there??

Torpedo wrote on Dec 22^nd, 2003 at 4:39am:


You just made my point for me.....the only reason you know for a fact that they used countermeasures is that they ADMITTED IT.  Otherwise, get out your quarter and flip it......same percentage. 

Torpedo wrote on Dec 22^nd, 2003 at 4:39am:


Torpedo, my dreamworld comment was directed at your claim that countermeasures are so easily detectable, not the fact that some people are inclined to step over the line.   

Torpedo wrote on Dec 22^nd, 2003 at 4:39am:


Agreed.  It is an invaluable tool for interrogation and intimidation.  Whether it works or not is debatable.  When I told the truth and didn't use countermeasures, it didn't work so well.  With countermeasures and the truth, it worked like a champ!  What a great piece of gear!  Polygraphs for all my friends!

Cheers,
Kona

Torpedo wrote on Dec 22^nd, 2003 at 6:08am:


Torpedo,

Yes, I have job offers from two different law enforcement agencies.  I am currently waiting for the next academy class to start.   

So it's going to be a sad day for those citizens that I will be charged to protect and serve?  Why is that?  Because I told the truth on all my relevant questions, and used countermeasures on control questions?  Oh, you're right.....I am a despicable dirtbag.  I'm not worthy to serve on the force with the likes of you.  What an arrogant horse's ass.  You sit there in your ivory tower of purity and cast judgement down on the lowly masses.  I'll just bet you were the perfect candidate when you applied to the force; never lied, never did anything out of line, and absolutely came clean about every minute detail to your BI.  Oh please......save the fantasy for your polygraph buddies (I mean saints) in the lunchroom.   

Answer this, what do you have to say to all the people who told the truth out there, but were DQ'ed because of your infallible machine?  Not much, I imagine.  As long as there is a long line of applicants, then they are acceptable cannonfodder, so to speak.....right?  As long as it wasn't YOU that was denied the job, then there is no problem, right?   

Maybe sometime in the future you will have to undergo a polygraph exam for that big promotion in your department.  Wouldn't it be poetic justice if you were found to be deceptive?  I can just hear you now, "but sir, I swear on a stack of Bibles that I am telling the truth."  "Sorry Detective Torpedo, you're going to have to return to the parking enforcement division.  We're really sorry, but you know as well as I do that the polygraph is unbeatable, and it is obvious that you are hiding something."  Well, one can only wish.......

Cheers, and wishing you the best in your LE career and sainthood.

Kona

Quote:


George,

Amazing! Out here 88 is the name for an asian grocery chain that has a great seafood selection.  I am told it means "good luck" in Chinese. Had no idea about the Nazi connection.

-Marty