- Welcome to AntiPolygraph.org Message Board.
A forum for free and open discussion of polygraph-related topics
Posted by nunyun
- Apr 09, 2005, 04:08 PMI can't be that old it was the movie "stripes" back in the early eighties.
Posted by polyscam
- Apr 09, 2005, 05:51 AMNunyun,
I am thinking of having t-shirts made with the "relax francis" quote. What will you charge for the copyright?
I am thinking of having t-shirts made with the "relax francis" quote. What will you charge for the copyright?
Posted by nunyun
- Apr 09, 2005, 12:23 AMThat was the whole point Brandon, was to make light of the situation (ref. Francis).
The problem with message posting boards is that you cannot always see th facial expessions of the person posting.
That goes for myself also since I took your post the wrong way and I apologize. No harm no foul.
I read some of your previous post and I know your situation from you have wrote.
I hope you are successful in your endeavor for a career in law enforcement.
Have a good weekend.........
The problem with message posting boards is that you cannot always see th facial expessions of the person posting.
That goes for myself also since I took your post the wrong way and I apologize. No harm no foul.
I read some of your previous post and I know your situation from you have wrote.
I hope you are successful in your endeavor for a career in law enforcement.
Have a good weekend.........
Posted by polyscam
- Apr 08, 2005, 07:38 AMNunyun,
There was no attack within my last post. Sorry, you perceived it that way. As you state, we are offering differing opinions, nothing more.
I did not advise Wannabecop to sue the deparment. I simply stated that the agency you have mentioned is possibly setting itself up for a lawsuit based on discriminatory practice and for disqualifying an applicant for the actions of others, which is out of the applicant's control.
Agreed. That is great advice for everyone, including you and me.
Why do you feel the need to attempt to insult me with name-calling? I have not insulted you. I offered my opinion on the subject with courtesy. It's too difficult to feel insulted when I am still laughing. "Relax Francis" is classic.
QuoteYou may continue with your attack
There was no attack within my last post. Sorry, you perceived it that way. As you state, we are offering differing opinions, nothing more.
Quoteno federal or civil litigation has been brought and this practice has been going on for years, but hey fight the system get your name known as a person that sues PD's and maybe you might get hired (not).
I did not advise Wannabecop to sue the deparment. I simply stated that the agency you have mentioned is possibly setting itself up for a lawsuit based on discriminatory practice and for disqualifying an applicant for the actions of others, which is out of the applicant's control.
QuoteSometimes we don't like what somebody else has to say but it does not hurt to let your guard down open your mind and listen to someone else
Agreed. That is great advice for everyone, including you and me.
QuoteRelax Francis, I was not trying to piss in your cherrios just offering a a different opinion that was on the other side of the line from yours.
Why do you feel the need to attempt to insult me with name-calling? I have not insulted you. I offered my opinion on the subject with courtesy. It's too difficult to feel insulted when I am still laughing. "Relax Francis" is classic.
Posted by nunyun
- Apr 07, 2005, 10:40 PMThat is the whole point, is that he will probably have to wait a while longer.
Many agencies in the area won't hire younger applicants and they are washed out in the psych and no federal or civil litigation has been brought and this practice has been going on for years, but hey fight the system get your name known as a person that sues PD's and maybe you might get hired (not). Policy for many agencies in California state that you cannot hang out with felons and they tell you straight out to drop the friends you have that smoke dope as your judgement may be altered by them.
You are correct we don't know what people do behind closed doors but my posting was made to the information provided by the poster.
Relax Francis, I was not trying to piss in your cherrios just offering a a different opinion that was on the other side of the line from yours.
Sometimes we don't like what somebody else has to say but it does not hurt to let your guard down open your mind and listen to someone else.
You may continue with your attack
Many agencies in the area won't hire younger applicants and they are washed out in the psych and no federal or civil litigation has been brought and this practice has been going on for years, but hey fight the system get your name known as a person that sues PD's and maybe you might get hired (not). Policy for many agencies in California state that you cannot hang out with felons and they tell you straight out to drop the friends you have that smoke dope as your judgement may be altered by them.
You are correct we don't know what people do behind closed doors but my posting was made to the information provided by the poster.
Relax Francis, I was not trying to piss in your cherrios just offering a a different opinion that was on the other side of the line from yours.
Sometimes we don't like what somebody else has to say but it does not hurt to let your guard down open your mind and listen to someone else.
You may continue with your attack
Posted by polyscam
- Apr 07, 2005, 03:52 AMNunyun,
Sorry, but I think you are way too bleak.
You are correct. No I cannot speak for all agencies, only the ones of which I have knowledge.
This is not a reflection of his character by any means. Do you have the ability to control the behaviors of your friends? Doubtful at best. Sure, you can reply that you would not allow yourself to have friends whose behaviors are questionable. But you do not know what goes on when you are not present? Again, doubtful at best. A background and hiring are based on the actions and behaviors of the applicant. If your agency hires based on the associates of the candidate, it deserves to be served with litigation. Litigation which it would definately lose.
Underage and immaturity go hand in hand. He admits DUI while in high school. That is the reason there are juvenile laws versus adult laws (immaturity). In most parts of the country graduates are 18 maximum. It has been two years since he has committed this act. Also, most departments (maybe not this one) require that applicants be 21 prior to completion of the academy. That would make 3 years since the act. No acts committed in this time show growth in maturity and a respect for the law. He may not make it at this time but it is not a lifetime ban.
Quite possibly your department is in violation of federal labor laws based on discriminatory practices related to age.
No sugar coating is necessary. However, your bleak outlook is not helpful. Children make mistakes. That is a fact. They should not be punished for a lifetime for youthful indiscretions. If he has to wait a while longer though, that is understandable.
Sorry, but I think you are way too bleak.
QuoteYou cannot speak for all agencies.
You are correct. No I cannot speak for all agencies, only the ones of which I have knowledge.
QuoteHis having friends that smoke dope is a direct reflection on his charracter and the friends he hangs out with.
This is not a reflection of his character by any means. Do you have the ability to control the behaviors of your friends? Doubtful at best. Sure, you can reply that you would not allow yourself to have friends whose behaviors are questionable. But you do not know what goes on when you are not present? Again, doubtful at best. A background and hiring are based on the actions and behaviors of the applicant. If your agency hires based on the associates of the candidate, it deserves to be served with litigation. Litigation which it would definately lose.
QuoteItem 2. the fact that he has admitted to DWI 12 times and he is only 20 years old is a big problem. Not only has he comitted multiple misdemeanors, which if caught all those times would have been a felony for being habitual. He was only 20 which means he was underage. This shows a lack of maturity.
Underage and immaturity go hand in hand. He admits DUI while in high school. That is the reason there are juvenile laws versus adult laws (immaturity). In most parts of the country graduates are 18 maximum. It has been two years since he has committed this act. Also, most departments (maybe not this one) require that applicants be 21 prior to completion of the academy. That would make 3 years since the act. No acts committed in this time show growth in maturity and a respect for the law. He may not make it at this time but it is not a lifetime ban.
QuoteAgain this is why many large departments including mine hire those of an average age of 28 since it takes a while to grow up.
Quite possibly your department is in violation of federal labor laws based on discriminatory practices related to age.
Quotesorry I could not sugar coat it for you wannabe but you may have to wait a while
No sugar coating is necessary. However, your bleak outlook is not helpful. Children make mistakes. That is a fact. They should not be punished for a lifetime for youthful indiscretions. If he has to wait a while longer though, that is understandable.
Posted by alice
- Apr 07, 2005, 02:38 AMgood
i have leases the last five years , references that have known me forty years and have been in touch with the entire time,
fired twice from two jobs...performance i guess..they say..even though the one job passed my proficiency batches..maybe that was a personality issue for him..but that happens...
how far back do they go..they wanted to know where i was living in elementary school
i have leases the last five years , references that have known me forty years and have been in touch with the entire time,
fired twice from two jobs...performance i guess..they say..even though the one job passed my proficiency batches..maybe that was a personality issue for him..but that happens...
how far back do they go..they wanted to know where i was living in elementary school
Posted by nunyun
- Apr 07, 2005, 02:29 AMshort of felony convictions I would not sweat anything more than five years ago within reason......
Posted by alice
- Apr 07, 2005, 02:08 AMi certainly hope the BG won't get the best of me.....I had a little baggie of pot 31 years ago that a friend asked me to bring him...adjudication was withheld..sat in judge
s chambers for a day..then he let me go...
had a incident dismissed 14 years ago..petty theft incident..
no dui, credit okay...no traffic citations ever
so shouldnt that go well?
s chambers for a day..then he let me go...
had a incident dismissed 14 years ago..petty theft incident..
no dui, credit okay...no traffic citations ever
so shouldnt that go well?
Posted by nunyun
- Apr 06, 2005, 11:08 PMYou cannot speak for all agencies. His having friends that smoke dope is a direct reflection on his charracter and the friends he hangs out with. For my agency it would most certainly count against him.
Item 2. the fact that he has admitted to DWI 12 times and he is only 20 years old is a big problem. Not only has he comitted multiple misdemeanors, which if caught all those times would have been a felony for being habitual. He was only 20 which means he was underage. This shows a lack of maturity.
Again this is why many large departments including mine hire those of an average age of 28 since it takes a while to grow up.
From what he has written his outlook is bleak.
sorry I could not sugar coat it for you wannabe but you may have to wait a while
Item 2. the fact that he has admitted to DWI 12 times and he is only 20 years old is a big problem. Not only has he comitted multiple misdemeanors, which if caught all those times would have been a felony for being habitual. He was only 20 which means he was underage. This shows a lack of maturity.
Again this is why many large departments including mine hire those of an average age of 28 since it takes a while to grow up.
From what he has written his outlook is bleak.
sorry I could not sugar coat it for you wannabe but you may have to wait a while
Posted by polyscam
- Apr 06, 2005, 05:13 PMWannabecop,
Your friends' behaviors should have no bearing on your eligibility, only your behavior. Many current officers have friends and/or relatives that use marijuana. If you are told differently, you are being lied to. Your concern is whether you have smoked marijuana in the last two years. Many angencies require that you have not "experimented" with marijuana for at least three years prior to being eligible for hire.
Your driving under the influence is most likely the bigger factor. However, there are many officers that have been convicted of DUI and retained their certifications. It should not be too much of a factor unless you have been convicted of DUI. If so you have a problem.
The department you have applied with should have written qualifications available to you. Review the minimum qualifications to ensure that you are within the acceptable parameters.
Your bgi is probably just yanking your chain and maybe looking for you to admit more. Unfortunately you will have to wait for your letter. Good luck.
Your friends' behaviors should have no bearing on your eligibility, only your behavior. Many current officers have friends and/or relatives that use marijuana. If you are told differently, you are being lied to. Your concern is whether you have smoked marijuana in the last two years. Many angencies require that you have not "experimented" with marijuana for at least three years prior to being eligible for hire.
Your driving under the influence is most likely the bigger factor. However, there are many officers that have been convicted of DUI and retained their certifications. It should not be too much of a factor unless you have been convicted of DUI. If so you have a problem.
The department you have applied with should have written qualifications available to you. Review the minimum qualifications to ensure that you are within the acceptable parameters.
Your bgi is probably just yanking your chain and maybe looking for you to admit more. Unfortunately you will have to wait for your letter. Good luck.
Posted by yatittle
- Apr 06, 2005, 07:25 AMUnfortunately, I think it is a safe assumption that it being only 'about 2 years' since your last smoking or drinking incident, your background will keep you from law enforcement.
The status quo seems to be at least 3 years from a previous bad incident, assuming that you have NOT attended any drug rehab or alcohol rehab program.
Had you joined some sort of rehab program, that may have mitigated the circumstances and made the odds better for you, but I can not guarrentee this.
Try again in about 2 or 3 more years.
Good luck,
Randy
The status quo seems to be at least 3 years from a previous bad incident, assuming that you have NOT attended any drug rehab or alcohol rehab program.
Had you joined some sort of rehab program, that may have mitigated the circumstances and made the odds better for you, but I can not guarrentee this.
Try again in about 2 or 3 more years.
Good luck,
Randy
Posted by Wannabecop
- Apr 06, 2005, 04:18 AMWel i just completed my background interview and it didnt go so great.. i admitted that i drove drunk 13 times when i was in high school.. currently i'm 20 and not only that i said i had friends that smoke pot! Well in all honesty i dont drink or smoke anymore.. its been about 2 years since i drank or smoke and i let them kno that but when the background interview ended he took me outside and he said The only two things that looked bad were that fact i have friends that smoke pot and how i drove under the influence 12 times. He also said that he doesn't kno what the outcome might be and that a letter will come and notify me. Now is he just tryin to be nice and reject in a nice way.. or does he really not kno?? Do you think drivin under the influence 12 times and having friends that smoke pot will DQ when it's been over 2 years?
PLZ somebody HELP ME!!!
- Confusious
PLZ somebody HELP ME!!! - Confusious