I also wanted to add a few things that I thought were perculiar.  First, he origanally told me that I failed the drug usage questions but then after I denied it, he added that I failed a question regarding criminal history like he forgot that I failed it or something.  Also, he told me to keep up with any appointments that I had with my background investigator.  I don't understand why he would tell me that if I really did fail and would be automatically DQ'd because of the failure.  It seems to me that there is the possibility that either I passed, or it was inconclusive and he was trying to get a last second confession out of me.  I don't know...maybe my observations are right, maybe I'm just grasping at a false hope.  Well any responses or thoughts on this would be great!

Well I just found out from somebody inside LVMPD that they seemingly tell every applicant that they have failed in order to try and obtain a last minute admission out of them.  Is this a common practice?  Also, my post interview was only like 2min. long.  Is that possibly a good sign that maybe he just wanted to get his standard procedure overwith since I really passed.  Again, I don't see how I failed because I've never even done drugs and don't understand how that cursed machine could even misread me.  Anyways, opinions and comments would be nice.

nopolycop wrote on Jan 13^th, 2008 at 4:37pm:


Doesn't that statement negate your claim that polygraph error rates somehow damage the repoirte between officer and administrators? Sounds like the relationship between upper management and the troops goes South as soon as the first roll call. Strange how if a cop wants to tap your telephone to get information, he gets permission (judge) and does so, but if a cop wants to run a stim test to demonstrate how the polygraph can identify a "secondary orienting response"aka Guilty Knowledge Test---the very kind of test that even Drew Richardson said was a credible and highly accurate test type, than that examiner is somehow behaving "unethically."  I always ran blind stim tests---whereas the examinee wrote on a piece of withheld paper their secret number, and I would ascertain the number with the polygraph instrument while also getting a "feel" for what kinds of levels of responses and rates to expect---and also the level of cooperation/resistance to the process, then have them show me their written choice after. Works every time. In fact, the blind stim works so consistantly that when that stim comes out skewed in any way, then that examinee is under great suspicion of countermeasures before the test even begins. No tricks, none of the stuff that TLBTLD says happens in tests regarding intent, but only behavior (they are mutually exclusive). So, Sarge's oft given advice on "day dreaming" during a test just goes to show that even wise people can come up with moronic ideas. Again, more innacuracies from the naysayers who seem to know far less than they pretend. Classic "fill in the blanks with BS" when you are trying to write an authoritative screed on something for which the author has no direct experience nor training in. Academics use the euphemistic word "padding" to describe such. Failing a polygraph and reading some tomes for a writing project makes not an expert, it makes someone a fictional novelist.

Cops do what they have to under legal circumstances (in 99.9% of cases) in order to gain information and possibly take an action. They are under no obligation to be sweet and cuddly when it comes to getting that information. The US Supreme Court has ruled that time and time again cops can legally be sneaky.

Quote:


Best advice yet. Bravo nopolycop! No matter what an employer tells you to do, if it is against the law, you will will be liabel, not the employer. 

EJohnson wrote on Jan 14^th, 2008 at 5:04am:


I don’t recall ever giving anyone advice to “day dream” or use any other kind of countermeasures.  Perhaps the next time you wish to cite me as the source of oft-given moronic advice you could first determine if I have ever given any such advice.

As George mentioned, I have stated that I don’t see an ethical problem with a police applicant who answers all questions truthfully and without withholding any information, and then thinks about whatever he or she wishes to think about afterward.  I don’t recall ever suggesting that anyone do that, but I have certainly posted that I don’t see how such behavior could be considered unethical or dishonest.

Boy this sure got off topic...

Quote:


Oops, I thought your were painting broader strokes about law enforcement beaurocracy---sorry.
As someone with a degree of knowledge in the field of Human Resources, I must contend that agencies use trickery to reveal emotional and native intelligences all the time. All the time. They use psychology tests, they ask trick questions like this one asked of me once many years ago;

"So Eric, if you came home to discover that you had a large pink and yellow elephant in your  backyard, what would you do?"

I answered, "I would call animal control and the press, as I have read elephants kill hundreds of people per year, and this one is unique enough to garner media attention during the capture."

The interviewer appeared disappointed with my answer with a wince and promptly told me "No Eric, the correct answer was that you would build a giant privacy fence around the animal in order to charge money for visitors to see it."

Greedy bastards. That wasn't the last time trickery was used to exploit a weakness or even a mere nebulous mood I may have been in during a tough interview.

I believe that one could make a strong case for the whole of workforce hiring as being filled with subjectivity, projection, and injustice (don't get me started about women and minorities being discriminated against.)---without the help of an admittedly odd but revealing test called the polygraph.

Sergeant1107 wrote on Jan 15^th, 2008 at 7:53am:


Aw, c'mon now Sarge, don't be modest. I know of no other poster who manages to use the word "ethical" in every post, as if under contract to do so. "Decorated Lawman, experienced, respected, activist, and moral authority on dialogue(see signature)." And yet you blush. Shucks.

What Barry C is to polygraph Place, you are to antipolygraph.