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:
Type the last letter of the word, "America.":
Shortcuts: ALT+S post or ALT+P preview

Topic summary

Posted by sackett
 - May 17, 2008, 01:28 AM
Quote from: matsukawa8 on May 16, 2008, 11:55 PM
Quote from: matsukawa8 on May 16, 2008, 05:21 PM
Quote from: matsukawa8 on May 12, 2008, 05:22 PMIn my opinion, it is the willingness to commit illegal acts for personal gain/pleasure (marijauna use) that is the issue.  Alcohol is legal, pot is not.

"n.p.c."

I'm astounded.  I actually agree with you.  But, I would also add that it is the willingness of the applicant to ignore illegal or improper (i.e. reportable) behavior that is being called into question, as well.

Sackett

You are coming around...  :D

Naw!
Posted by nopolycop
 - May 16, 2008, 11:55 PM
Quote from: matsukawa8 on May 16, 2008, 05:21 PM
Quote from: matsukawa8 on May 12, 2008, 05:22 PMIn my opinion, it is the willingness to commit illegal acts for personal gain/pleasure (marijauna use) that is the issue.  Alcohol is legal, pot is not.

"n.p.c."

I'm astounded.  I actually agree with you.  But, I would also add that it is the willingness of the applicant to ignore illegal or improper (i.e. reportable) behavior that is being called into question, as well.

Sackett

You are coming around...  :D
Posted by sackett
 - May 16, 2008, 05:21 PM
Quote from: matsukawa8 on May 12, 2008, 05:22 PMIn my opinion, it is the willingness to commit illegal acts for personal gain/pleasure (marijauna use) that is the issue.  Alcohol is legal, pot is not.

"n.p.c."

I'm astounded.  I actually agree with you.  But, I would also add that it is the willingness of the applicant to ignore illegal or improper (i.e. reportable) behavior that is being called into question, as well.

Sackett
Posted by nopolycop
 - May 12, 2008, 05:22 PM
In my opinion, it is the willingness to commit illegal acts for personal gain/pleasure (marijauna use) that is the issue.  Alcohol is legal, pot is not.
Posted by sackett
 - May 12, 2008, 05:05 PM
matsukawa8,

yours is the exact rationalization I have been talking about in the past.  It doesn't matter that you think marijuana is no big deal.  Or that you feel alcohol is a bigger vice.  

It matters ONLY that the dept or agency you're applying for, does.

Thanks for helping me make my previous points.



Sackett
Posted by matsukawa8
 - May 12, 2008, 12:16 PM
I think alcohol use is a more threatening vice than marijuana, but regardless, for these type jobs, I would say that if you smoke dope a couple times a year it is not a big deal. I'd just like to see more progressive or "enlightened" thinking than I perceive in the hiring process. An individual who has smoked MJ infrequently in his life should not be disqualified. I'd like to see all of Congress and the President and his cabinet/advisors be polygraphed about their "drug" use if it's such a threat, danger, or immoral behavior/serious character flaw.
Posted by Sergeant1107
 - May 11, 2008, 02:08 AM
Quote from: Want2BPO on May 10, 2008, 11:25 AMIt's ridiculous that smoking marijuana even matters--unless you do it in excess. But that's what we get in our overly conservative and narrow-minded nation.
What qualifies as excess?

If you smoked pot twice in your life I agree it shouldn't matter on a law enforcement application.  A lot of present and former pot smokers disagree.

I have heard from people applying for a police job who dismissively stated that they used marijuana 2 or 3 times a week all through college.  They didn't believe that was significant.  Of course, when you add that up it translates to 400 to 600 separate instances of illegal drug use.  Every law enforcement agency with which I am familiar would consider that significant, and that candidate's application would be round-filed.
Posted by matsukawa8
 - May 10, 2008, 11:25 AM
It's ridiculous that smoking marijuana even matters--unless you do it in excess. But that's what we get in our overly conservative and narrow-minded nation.
Posted by sackett
 - May 05, 2008, 01:16 PM
Quote from: Want2BPO on May 04, 2008, 03:01 PMThat is why I said "7" times.  I honestly believe that is close to the correct number.  Why it showed deceptive, I don't honestly know.  If I had said "10" times, I would have been thinking when the question was asked, if I had over-estimated.  So I don't see how that would have helped either.  I guess I just don't understand how a polygrapher should expect me to know the exact number when it happened a long time ago?  That would be no different than asking a vegetarian how many times did they eat meat before deciding to become a vegetarian.

"close to the correct number" leaves doubt within your answer and probably caused the problem.  Let me try it this way.  If God was with us and I were to ask you, how many times did you smoke marijuana?  Now, you can estimate but if your answer is under the actual number of times, you will die.  But, if your answer is right, though it could be over by a small amount, then you are fine.  Would you have said 7 times in your answer, or perhaps more?

Sackett

P.S.  "Cullen wrote that you stuck to your guns, Good for you."  My thought was, did you get the job, or did you really "show them" by sticking to your guns and not getting the job?  If the latter, "good for you" is not the laudatory comment I would be making to you.
Posted by T.M. Cullen
 - May 04, 2008, 04:21 PM
 
QuoteWhy it showed deceptive, I don't honestly know.

What proof is there that a "reaction" on a polygraph machine unequivocally indicates "deception".  Polygraphers, ironically, are lying when they say it does.  Polygraphers on this board have admitted that the machine doesn't necessarily indicate deception.  Yet examiners make undocumented claims all the time (even on national TV).  So what does that tell you?  

If you were being sincerely honest, yet were accused of being "deceptive", a more LOGICAL conclusion would be that the problem is WITH THE POLYGRAPH, and not you.

You're playing right into their game by being so pensive about the test.

You estimated 7 times, and stuck to your guns despite repeatedly being asked the same question (which is typical of them).  GOOD FOR YOU!
Posted by Want2BPO
 - May 04, 2008, 03:01 PM
That is why I said "7" times.  I honestly believe that is close to the correct number.  Why it showed deceptive, I don't honestly know.  If I had said "10" times, I would have been thinking when the question was asked, if I had over-estimated.  So I don't see how that would have helped either.  I guess I just don't understand how a polygrapher should expect me to know the exact number when it happened a long time ago?  That would be no different than asking a vegetarian how many times did they eat meat before deciding to become a vegetarian.
Posted by sackett
 - May 04, 2008, 02:53 PM
Quote from: Want2BPO on May 04, 2008, 02:45 PMI've been thinking about my situation, and have another question.  As Sackett suggested I should have admitted to a higher number at the pre-interview.  I can see the reasoning behind this, but wouldn't that also be deceptive as well?  If I said that I had done it an extremely high amount, when the question was asked I would also be thinking that I was lying about that amount.  So I don't see how anything but the correct number would have shown being truthful, which the best I could do was give an estimate because of the time period.

I never suggested you purposefully over-estimate to a ridiculous number.  I said estimate your use, then go beyond that to a number you know it can not be.  Meaning, a number which while higher than probable is a number you know it can not be but close (just over) to the actual number of times.  This relieves the anxiety of the answer and removes the threat associated with the answer.  

If you guess a thousand times and know it was about 3, you're right, it would be a lie.  But then again, why would anyone do that?

I hope this clears it up.

Sackett
Posted by Want2BPO
 - May 04, 2008, 02:45 PM
I've been thinking about my situation, and have another question.  As Sackett suggested I should have admitted to a higher number at the pre-interview.  I can see the reasoning behind this, but wouldn't that also be deceptive as well?  If I said that I had done it an extremely high amount, when the question was asked I would also be thinking that I was lying about that amount.  So I don't see how anything but the correct number would have shown being truthful, which the best I could do was give an estimate because of the time period.
Posted by sackett
 - May 04, 2008, 02:36 PM
Quote from: Want2BPO on May 04, 2008, 01:31 PMSackett

I hate to burst your bubbly, but you do not annoy me. You are a good source of intertainment. I can lead you to the dipstick trough any time I want to. Evidence your response to this post which I may not be able to read because of my absence in the lower 48.

I get a kick out the way you can ramble so much and say so little. I have wandered many times if you're not actually Ted Kennedy in disguised as a polygrapher. Or maybe even nonmbre. All three of you think asphalt is rectum trouble.

Even your machine might indicate truthfulness when I say I have really enjoyed our gigs at each other. Just shows that I can take it as well as dish it out and I'm glad there's no anamoosety between us. Hell, I agreed with once, which should have tweeked your ego.

If we don't meet again, I wish you well.

twoblock,

I must say it has never been my intention to "annoy" anyone.  Enlighten, educate, contradict or clarify maybe, but never annoy.

As for writing much and (reportedly) saying little, I submit, the quality of any post is only as good as the comprehension and understanding ability of the reader.  

Sorry, I am not Ted K.  and I am certainly not nombre.  I post under my true name and give my statements as an accurate testimony of by beliefs.

As for my ego, I assure you it is large enough. As I did note your agreement the other day, I went back to re-read, since I thought I mistyped something... ;D

Have a good one and enjoy the great white north...

Sackett
Posted by Twoblock
 - May 04, 2008, 01:31 PM
Sackett

I hate to burst your bubbly, but you do not annoy me. You are a good source of intertainment. I can lead you to the dipstick trough any time I want to. Evidence your response to this post which I may not be able to read because of my absence in the lower 48.

I get a kick out the way you can ramble so much and say so little. I have wandered many times if you're not actually Ted Kennedy in disguised as a polygrapher. Or maybe even nonmbre. All three of you think asphalt is rectum trouble.

Even your machine might indicate truthfulness when I say I have really enjoyed our gigs at each other. Just shows that I can take it as well as dish it out and I'm glad there's no anamoosety between us. Hell, I agreed with once, which should have tweeked your ego.

If we don't meet again, I wish you well.