Post reply

The message has the following error or errors that must be corrected before continuing:
Warning: this topic has not been posted in for at least 120 days.
Unless you're sure you want to reply, please consider starting a new topic.
Attachments: (Clear attachments)
Restrictions: 4 per post (4 remaining), maximum total size 192 KB, maximum individual size 64.00 MB
Uncheck the attachments you no longer want attached
Click or drag files here to attach them.
(Clear attachments)
Other options
Verification:
Please leave this box empty:
Type the letters shown in the picture
Listen to the letters / Request another image

Type the letters shown in the picture:
What is 10 minus 4? (numeral):
Shortcuts: ALT+S post or ALT+P preview

Topic summary

Posted by Can't Say
 - Feb 01, 2004, 05:29 PM
We should be more disturbed by the court's ruling than the bunk polygraph.  It makes me wonder what those judges are doing under their robes!  As Michael Savage says, "The stench from the bench is making me clench!"  It's no wonder the 9th jerkit court of appeals is in San Francisco!  Hopefully, the City will refuse to cooperate with this disgusting ruling!
Posted by suethem
 - Feb 01, 2004, 02:09 AM
I find it hard to believe that there was no question about deviant sexual past practices on this officers polygraph test.  

And I find it hard to believe that this officer suddenly started to enjoy exposing himself on film after becoming a police officer.

The way the polygraph is 'sold' to the community is that it is the ultimate tool for checking someones character. What happened here?

I also wonder how the supervisor found out about the tapes?
Posted by George W. Maschke
 - Jan 31, 2004, 06:06 AM
I have to agree with Ray on this one. I don't think it's fair to lay any blame at the feet of the San Diego Police polygraph unit in connection with this most peculiar case.
Posted by suethem
 - Jan 30, 2004, 09:22 PM
Ray,

Explain Gary Leon Ridgway!

Explain Aldrige Ames!

You can't ? Hmmm....

San Diego PD uses the polygraph to decide who patrols their streets, so its no surprise that they have an officer who likes to take off his uniform and masterbate on film!  

Protect and Service!!

Another great victory for the polygraph Ray!  Pants off to you and San Diego PD!  Oh, excuse me,  I meant hats off- sorry.
Posted by anonymouse
 - Jan 30, 2004, 03:57 PM
Quote from: Ray on Jan 30, 2004, 03:12 PMExplain to me how the polygraph missed this one? There was nothing illegal about this officer's conduct.  

BWAAA HAHAAAA HAAAAHAAAAAAAAAA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

There you have it folks, a polygrapher defending a wanker cop who busts his nut on tape for fun and profit, while in his uniform no less.

you're right ray, I guess it was too much of me to think that a polygrapher would shape one of his interrogation questions along the lines of,

"If chosen to serve, will you use your position as a police officer to make videos of yourself masturbating and then sell them on eBay?"

what a maroon
Posted by Ray
 - Jan 30, 2004, 03:12 PM
Explain to me how the polygraph missed this one? There was nothing illegal about this officer's conduct.  
Posted by anonymouse
 - Jan 30, 2004, 01:03 PM
Congratulations, San Diego Police Polygraph Unit-- you successfully screened another gem for the job of police officer!

"A San Diego policeman who sold videos of himself masturbating after removing a police uniform was wrongly dismissed from the force, a U.S. appeals court ruled on Thursday."

"An officer named in court documents only as John Roe sold the videos on the Internet vendor eBay Inc., where his hobby was discovered by his supervisor.

http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml;jsessionid=XVIMEVKK0131WCRBAE0CFEY?type=oddlyEnoughNews&storyID=4243311