- Welcome to AntiPolygraph.org Message Board.
A forum for free and open discussion of polygraph-related topics
Posted by Matty
- Jul 14, 2005, 02:07 AMNonombre,
Side step the question all you want, but it's obvious you cannot answer the question... But then as long as I have been around here I have never heard one of you witch doctors explain the fairness of your sorry line of work....can you say Karma?
Side step the question all you want, but it's obvious you cannot answer the question... But then as long as I have been around here I have never heard one of you witch doctors explain the fairness of your sorry line of work....can you say Karma?
Posted by Jeffery
- Jul 14, 2005, 01:19 AMQuote from: nonombre on Jul 14, 2005, 01:17 AMAnd we all know that the pressed-shirts making policy in Washington are HIGHLY intelligent people with real world experience, don't we?
And why are more and more federal, state, and local agencies coming on line and adding polygraph testing to their hiring process (or greatly increasing their use?)
We can play this game all day
Jeesh. Using the Federal Government as an example of competence is like using Iran as a model of a democracy.
On this logic, nonombre, since the FBI doesn't tape polygraphs (why don't they, BTW?) why do other agencies?
Posted by nonombre
- Jul 14, 2005, 01:17 AMQuote from: Matty on Jul 14, 2005, 01:11 AMGet a life and answer the question..
So I guess that Polygraphy is legitemate again because PD's in other towns in New York still use Poligraphy?
Answer the question: Why did the largest City in America and the 4th largest drop Polygraphs? Hmmmmmmm?
And why are more and more federal, state, and local agencies coming on line and adding polygraph testing to their hiring process (or greatly increasing their use?)
We can play this game all day
Posted by Matty
- Jul 14, 2005, 01:11 AMGet a life and answer the question..
So I guess that Polygraphy is legitemate again because PD's in other towns in New York still use Poligraphy?
Answer the question: Why did the largest City in America and the 4th largest drop Polygraphs? Hmmmmmmm?
So I guess that Polygraphy is legitemate again because PD's in other towns in New York still use Poligraphy?
Answer the question: Why did the largest City in America and the 4th largest drop Polygraphs? Hmmmmmmm?
Posted by nonombre
- Jul 14, 2005, 12:31 AMQuote from: Matty on Jul 13, 2005, 08:50 PMAnd why do most of the other police departments in the state of New York require the applicant to undergo a polygraph examination?
If Polygraphy is so damned good in screening applicants seeking to get into the law enforcement profession...Why doesn't the NYPD require a polygraph?
hmmmmmm?
Posted by Matty
- Jul 13, 2005, 08:50 PMYou are absolutely correct Sergeant, and those who practice this voo doo crapola seem to feel this is perfectly legitemate.
If Polygraphy is so damned good in screening applicants seeking to get into the law enforcement profession, why then did the Philadelphia PD drop the polygraph as a pre-employment screening device? Why doesn't the NYPD require a polygraph?
If Polygraphy is so damned good in screening applicants seeking to get into the law enforcement profession, why then did the Philadelphia PD drop the polygraph as a pre-employment screening device? Why doesn't the NYPD require a polygraph?
Posted by Sergeant1107
- Jul 13, 2005, 06:23 PMOne of the things that bother me and other cops I've spoken with regarding the polygraph is the lack of due process. As police officers we are used to having to prove something, rather than having the luxury of making a guess.
I am quite comfortable with the thought of conducting an interview with a suspect and getting an overall feeling based on my years of experience that the suspect is lying, but winding up the interview without the suspect confessing or making any damaging admissions. After such an interview I would continue to investigate that person, using my "gut instinct" that he was being deceptive as justification. I could not, however, go ahead and arrest him at that point based on nothing other than my "gut instinct." Not only would it be unlawfully lacking in probable cause, it would be unfair because there was no due process.
However, change that setting to a police applicant sitting in a polygrapher's exam room, and suddenly there is no due process. At the end of the exam, the polygrapher will make a decision based on his years of experience that the suspect was either deceptive or truthful. It is not a scientifically valid opinion based on hard evidence – it is a judgment call based on feelings and opinions. Another polygraph examiner could look at the same charts and come up with a different conclusion. In one study the same chart was given to the same polygrapher a few months later and it produced a different opinion. Yet when that opinion is given to the police agency it is presented and accepted as fact, not as the scientific wild-ass guess it is. The buck effectively stops at the polygrapher, for all practical purposes. There is no investigation afterward to prove or disprove any claims of theft, drug usage, or drug dealing. The process is over with a single person's opinion, which is inherently unfair.
I am quite comfortable with the thought of conducting an interview with a suspect and getting an overall feeling based on my years of experience that the suspect is lying, but winding up the interview without the suspect confessing or making any damaging admissions. After such an interview I would continue to investigate that person, using my "gut instinct" that he was being deceptive as justification. I could not, however, go ahead and arrest him at that point based on nothing other than my "gut instinct." Not only would it be unlawfully lacking in probable cause, it would be unfair because there was no due process.
However, change that setting to a police applicant sitting in a polygrapher's exam room, and suddenly there is no due process. At the end of the exam, the polygrapher will make a decision based on his years of experience that the suspect was either deceptive or truthful. It is not a scientifically valid opinion based on hard evidence – it is a judgment call based on feelings and opinions. Another polygraph examiner could look at the same charts and come up with a different conclusion. In one study the same chart was given to the same polygrapher a few months later and it produced a different opinion. Yet when that opinion is given to the police agency it is presented and accepted as fact, not as the scientific wild-ass guess it is. The buck effectively stops at the polygrapher, for all practical purposes. There is no investigation afterward to prove or disprove any claims of theft, drug usage, or drug dealing. The process is over with a single person's opinion, which is inherently unfair.
Posted by polyscam
- Jul 13, 2005, 02:31 PMImportscout wrote:
Actually polygraph examinations supposedly provide just such an opportunity to explain reactions charted. This is known as the post-test phase. This opportunity is, however, not afforded all examinees.
An interview as has been mentioned depends largely on the interviewer. First impressions are made very quickly. No matter what the applicant says or does, if the first impression of the interviewer is negative the outcome will be as well. The psych portion is soft as well. In most agencies (ones that I have researched) there are subjective and objective application phases. Objective phases would include areas in which true hard data can be measured: physical fitness, written apptitude, medical evaluation and controlled substance screening. Subjective phases would include: polygraph, psychological evaluation and oral board/interview. Polygraph is more in-tune with these phases. I've nothing to back this up, but my hunch is that the psychological tests have not been do damning to as many as polygraph tests have. However that is not to say that the psych hasn't incorrectly DQ'd applicants.
QuoteA statement was made previously comparing the 'art' of polygraphy to other 'soft' sciences like psychology. It might seem a valid question to ask why not all the fuss about the psychological review when that is based on a psychologist's opinion and not scientific fact?
The problem with the poly is that it does not fall into the realm of verifiable 'soft science' like psychology does. However, a poly test is scored as if it is a verifiable, scientific test. If your blood pressure, pneumo reactions, etc show higher than a relevant question vs. a control, the polygrapher makes a blanket statement that you 'lied' and therefore 'fails' you from the 'test??' It seems to me, as the poly cannot prove that you lied or not, that the polygraph tests one's skills at passing the polygraph and not much else - similar to how a student prepares for the SAT's knowing that the SAT's have little to do with 'student aplitude.'
This kind of 'testing' cannot be included in the same category with pre-test interviews or psyhological interviews, which are meant to be 'pseudo-scientific' and scored by judgement rather than hard-edged scientific accuracy. No interviewer would begrudge you the opportunity to explain yourself before passing/failing you, unlike polygraphers, who seem to take delight in indimidating, cooercing, and 'failing' their subjects with zero hard evidence to back it up.
Actually polygraph examinations supposedly provide just such an opportunity to explain reactions charted. This is known as the post-test phase. This opportunity is, however, not afforded all examinees.
An interview as has been mentioned depends largely on the interviewer. First impressions are made very quickly. No matter what the applicant says or does, if the first impression of the interviewer is negative the outcome will be as well. The psych portion is soft as well. In most agencies (ones that I have researched) there are subjective and objective application phases. Objective phases would include areas in which true hard data can be measured: physical fitness, written apptitude, medical evaluation and controlled substance screening. Subjective phases would include: polygraph, psychological evaluation and oral board/interview. Polygraph is more in-tune with these phases. I've nothing to back this up, but my hunch is that the psychological tests have not been do damning to as many as polygraph tests have. However that is not to say that the psych hasn't incorrectly DQ'd applicants.
Posted by importscout
- Jul 13, 2005, 03:35 AMA statement was made previously comparing the 'art' of polygraphy to other 'soft' sciences like psychology. It might seem a valid question to ask why not all the fuss about the psychological review when that is based on a psychologist's opinion and not scientific fact?
The problem with the poly is that it does not fall into the realm of verifiable 'soft science' like psychology does. However, a poly test is scored as if it is a verifiable, scientific test. If your blood pressure, pneumo reactions, etc show higher than a relevant question vs. a control, the polygrapher makes a blanket statement that you 'lied' and therefore 'fails' you from the 'test??' It seems to me, as the poly cannot prove that you lied or not, that the polygraph tests one's skills at passing the polygraph and not much else - similar to how a student prepares for the SAT's knowing that the SAT's have little to do with 'student aplitude.'
This kind of 'testing' cannot be included in the same category with pre-test interviews or psyhological interviews, which are meant to be 'pseudo-scientific' and scored by judgement rather than hard-edged scientific accuracy. No interviewer would begrudge you the opportunity to explain yourself before passing/failing you, unlike polygraphers, who seem to take delight in indimidating, cooercing, and 'failing' their subjects with zero hard evidence to back it up.
The problem with the poly is that it does not fall into the realm of verifiable 'soft science' like psychology does. However, a poly test is scored as if it is a verifiable, scientific test. If your blood pressure, pneumo reactions, etc show higher than a relevant question vs. a control, the polygrapher makes a blanket statement that you 'lied' and therefore 'fails' you from the 'test??' It seems to me, as the poly cannot prove that you lied or not, that the polygraph tests one's skills at passing the polygraph and not much else - similar to how a student prepares for the SAT's knowing that the SAT's have little to do with 'student aplitude.'
This kind of 'testing' cannot be included in the same category with pre-test interviews or psyhological interviews, which are meant to be 'pseudo-scientific' and scored by judgement rather than hard-edged scientific accuracy. No interviewer would begrudge you the opportunity to explain yourself before passing/failing you, unlike polygraphers, who seem to take delight in indimidating, cooercing, and 'failing' their subjects with zero hard evidence to back it up.
Posted by Sergeant1107
- Jul 12, 2005, 01:28 PMDimas,
Sadly, I would have to agree with about the continued prevalence of polygraphs in law enforcement. As long as the majority of the people believe that polygraphs are a useful tool in the detection of deception they will likely remain with us.
The polygraph examiners hold the high ground in the court of public opinion. Movies and television shows portray the polygraph as an accurate method of detecting lies, and those forms of media are exactly where most people get their information from. There is a stigma associated with a refusal to take a polygraph, so an informed person who chooses not to roll the dice on an "exam" is often viewed as someone with some sort of dirty secret to hide. That is one of the major problems for anyone proposing to eliminate the use of polygraphs on prospective law enforcement officers. Many people would look at a proposal like that and ask themselves what the applicant has to hide, because why else would they be reluctant to take a polygraph? Web sites like this one are the first step in changing such public perception.
If we can ever get to the point where the majority of the public sees the polygraph as a pseudoscience akin to phrenology and palmistry the issue of pre-employment screening would be quickly resolved. Lawmakers and police administrators won't be willing to look foolish by promoting pre-employment screening and employee testing once it is clear that the public views polygraphy as a parlor trick and not as a "lie detector."
Sadly, I would have to agree with about the continued prevalence of polygraphs in law enforcement. As long as the majority of the people believe that polygraphs are a useful tool in the detection of deception they will likely remain with us.
The polygraph examiners hold the high ground in the court of public opinion. Movies and television shows portray the polygraph as an accurate method of detecting lies, and those forms of media are exactly where most people get their information from. There is a stigma associated with a refusal to take a polygraph, so an informed person who chooses not to roll the dice on an "exam" is often viewed as someone with some sort of dirty secret to hide. That is one of the major problems for anyone proposing to eliminate the use of polygraphs on prospective law enforcement officers. Many people would look at a proposal like that and ask themselves what the applicant has to hide, because why else would they be reluctant to take a polygraph? Web sites like this one are the first step in changing such public perception.
If we can ever get to the point where the majority of the public sees the polygraph as a pseudoscience akin to phrenology and palmistry the issue of pre-employment screening would be quickly resolved. Lawmakers and police administrators won't be willing to look foolish by promoting pre-employment screening and employee testing once it is clear that the public views polygraphy as a parlor trick and not as a "lie detector."
Posted by dimas
- Jul 09, 2005, 04:35 PMQuote from: tasercop on Jul 08, 2005, 06:11 PM Information is circulating that there is a push by law enforcement in at least two other states that currently do not allow pre-employment polygraph screening, to amend the law to allow it. It will probably happen.
Unfortunately, it seems that he has a very good point here. In my years in LE I have seen a LARGE increase on the use of the polygraph both as a pre-employment screening tool and as an IA tool. In my area alone all the major police departments have now gone to using the polygraph.
The fact of the matter is that it comes down to liability for them at this time. Corruption in LE can seriously hurt a department both from the public perception and from the lawsuits resulting from it. As a supervisor my previous department I got so fed up with 'corruption" within the department that I actually didn't put up much of a fight when they brought in the polygraph. Fortunately, the polygraph was not used as a sole disqualifier or as the sole piece of evidence for making decisions. But I cannot say the same for the other departments in the area.
One thing I can say for sure is that the powers that be that implemented the use of the polygraph in our department really didn't know anything about the polygraph and neither did the IA investigators. While I did fight for our department to send one of our own to polygraph school, it was ultimately decided to contract an independent investigator to do them for us. Pretty scary to put your future in the hands of someone who relies on testing you for a profit. (especially when he gets to charge a larger fee for every retest)
Posted by polyscam
- Jul 09, 2005, 04:03 PMA six year polygraphy course?
Your polygraph training is what was meant by the "easy way out" comment. Likely the education you are currently gathering has little to do with your decision to become an examiner. As I mentioned I understand the need to provide for one's family and one's self. Your decision to become a polygraph examiner was probably based largely on this need and your want to stay in the investigative realm. If I'm am wrong by all means correct me.
Tasercop wrote:
Again correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought examer's were supposed to administer 2 a day max. If I rememberd where I read that I would quote.
Tasercop wrote:
Would the reader be correct in concluding that there is a distinction between police and private examiner here? This sounds as if the polygraph result depends on who foots the bill.
I don't suspect many polygraph examiners approached becoming an examiner to screw people, but rather the opposite. But the fact remains that many people, myself included, have been screwed by polygraph examiners intentionally or otherwise. It is like the drunk guy that kills a family of four on the roadway. His intention was not to kill anyone, but to get home and pass out. His intention makes him no less culpable for the result.
Anyway, best wishes to you in your pursuits of study.
Your polygraph training is what was meant by the "easy way out" comment. Likely the education you are currently gathering has little to do with your decision to become an examiner. As I mentioned I understand the need to provide for one's family and one's self. Your decision to become a polygraph examiner was probably based largely on this need and your want to stay in the investigative realm. If I'm am wrong by all means correct me.
Tasercop wrote:
Quote3 exams a day, 5 days per week.
Again correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought examer's were supposed to administer 2 a day max. If I rememberd where I read that I would quote.
Tasercop wrote:
QuoteAnd believe it or not, exonerating the innocent is what police examiners do most. 75% of examinees (this is not official, but what most examiners I talk to report) pass a criminal police polygraph. If you listen to most on this board, you would think we are just out to screw people, but it couldn't be farther from the truth. Private examiners report just the opposite. 75% of criminal examinations are DI. Why? Because defense attorneys tell their suspected guilty clients to take it from a private examiner. If they fail, it is privileged information. If we are the ones out to screw the innocent, why are ours 75% NDI? Makes no sense.
Would the reader be correct in concluding that there is a distinction between police and private examiner here? This sounds as if the polygraph result depends on who foots the bill.
I don't suspect many polygraph examiners approached becoming an examiner to screw people, but rather the opposite. But the fact remains that many people, myself included, have been screwed by polygraph examiners intentionally or otherwise. It is like the drunk guy that kills a family of four on the roadway. His intention was not to kill anyone, but to get home and pass out. His intention makes him no less culpable for the result.
Anyway, best wishes to you in your pursuits of study.
Posted by tasercop
- Jul 09, 2005, 03:39 PMThis board has been fun, but a full time job and graduate studies are taking its toll and I'm afraid I won't have much time from now on to come out and play with everyone. 
So, I will try to answer as much as I can in what is probably my last post for a while.
Drew, you know as well as I do that there is no way for a guilty person, or deceptive person, whatever you want to call them, to diminish responses to relevant questions. In a screening R/I examination there are no comparison questions, so there is nothing to be manipulated. Know all you want about the polygraph, you can't change your sympathetic responses to questions to which you are lying. Since you can't change your deceptive responses, the only hope in a probably lie comparison question test is to manipulate the comparison questions. Countermeasures are very detectable, so this is not really a problem.
If what you are saying is true, one would expect a change in the past 10 years in an increase in examinees passing the examination. It hasn't happened. I pulled the stats from my agency and in 1994, 92.2% of applicants making it to the polygraph, passed their examinations (not all were hired of course, due to other factors, such as admissions and other negatives in their background). That is, 92.2% were found NDI (as it was called back then). In 2004, 95.1% were found to have No Significant Responses. I think you will agree that a 2.9% increase is statistically insignificant, especially when you consider the next set of stats.
What has changed is the percentage of inconclusives. In 1994, 4.6% of examinees were inconclusive. In 2004 it was .25%. This is due to the practice of not automatically disqualifying applicants due to an inconclusive or SR screening examination without collaborative information. We now do follow-up examinations in these cases.
What else do these stats show? Most applicants pass the polygraph and that the current trend with researching the polygraph has little or no affect on the results.
I could give you additional stats on countermeasures detected in 1994 compared to 2004, but you wouldn't believe them anyway, so I'm not going to waste my time. Its the old saying, "Don't try to argue with a conspiracy theorist, it only proves you're part of the conspiracy" LOL.
As far as the information about the FBI abuses, I can't post specifics here as it would violate applicant confidentiality, but I certainly believe it. Two applicants have reported the same experience, from different examiners, at different periods of time in the same year. The two did not know each other. Yes, I filed a complaint and hope it will be investigated, not only by the feds, but also the APA (I don't hold out much hope with the APA).
Brandon,
The easy way out! I wish. 6 years of college so far. 3 exams a day, 5 days per week. I do it because I know it works. I have convicted the guilty, exonerated the innocent and kept the undesirable away from the badge. And believe it or not, exonerating the innocent is what police examiners do most. 75% of examinees (this is not official, but what most examiners I talk to report) pass a criminal police polygraph. If you listen to most on this board, you would think we are just out to screw people, but it couldn't be farther from the truth. Private examiners report just the opposite. 75% of criminal examinations are DI. Why? Because defense attorneys tell their suspected guilty clients to take it from a private examiner. If they fail, it is privileged information. If we are the ones out to screw the innocent, why are ours 75% NDI? Makes no sense.
I don't know for sure if I had not been hurt if I would have become a polygrapher. It was something I was always interested in, but I had so many other duties and responsibilities that I loved, that I probably wouldn't have put in for it.
Jeffery,
I have taken 4 polygraph exams in my life (not including the practice ones during polygraph school) and passed all. I just told the truth. No, I have never used countermeasures. Never needed to and know that doing so and getting caught would be the end of a career.
Well its been fun, but I have work to do. Maybe I will see some of you in my chair one of these days.
So, I will try to answer as much as I can in what is probably my last post for a while. Drew, you know as well as I do that there is no way for a guilty person, or deceptive person, whatever you want to call them, to diminish responses to relevant questions. In a screening R/I examination there are no comparison questions, so there is nothing to be manipulated. Know all you want about the polygraph, you can't change your sympathetic responses to questions to which you are lying. Since you can't change your deceptive responses, the only hope in a probably lie comparison question test is to manipulate the comparison questions. Countermeasures are very detectable, so this is not really a problem.
If what you are saying is true, one would expect a change in the past 10 years in an increase in examinees passing the examination. It hasn't happened. I pulled the stats from my agency and in 1994, 92.2% of applicants making it to the polygraph, passed their examinations (not all were hired of course, due to other factors, such as admissions and other negatives in their background). That is, 92.2% were found NDI (as it was called back then). In 2004, 95.1% were found to have No Significant Responses. I think you will agree that a 2.9% increase is statistically insignificant, especially when you consider the next set of stats.
What has changed is the percentage of inconclusives. In 1994, 4.6% of examinees were inconclusive. In 2004 it was .25%. This is due to the practice of not automatically disqualifying applicants due to an inconclusive or SR screening examination without collaborative information. We now do follow-up examinations in these cases.
What else do these stats show? Most applicants pass the polygraph and that the current trend with researching the polygraph has little or no affect on the results.
I could give you additional stats on countermeasures detected in 1994 compared to 2004, but you wouldn't believe them anyway, so I'm not going to waste my time. Its the old saying, "Don't try to argue with a conspiracy theorist, it only proves you're part of the conspiracy" LOL.
As far as the information about the FBI abuses, I can't post specifics here as it would violate applicant confidentiality, but I certainly believe it. Two applicants have reported the same experience, from different examiners, at different periods of time in the same year. The two did not know each other. Yes, I filed a complaint and hope it will be investigated, not only by the feds, but also the APA (I don't hold out much hope with the APA).
Brandon,
The easy way out! I wish. 6 years of college so far. 3 exams a day, 5 days per week. I do it because I know it works. I have convicted the guilty, exonerated the innocent and kept the undesirable away from the badge. And believe it or not, exonerating the innocent is what police examiners do most. 75% of examinees (this is not official, but what most examiners I talk to report) pass a criminal police polygraph. If you listen to most on this board, you would think we are just out to screw people, but it couldn't be farther from the truth. Private examiners report just the opposite. 75% of criminal examinations are DI. Why? Because defense attorneys tell their suspected guilty clients to take it from a private examiner. If they fail, it is privileged information. If we are the ones out to screw the innocent, why are ours 75% NDI? Makes no sense.
I don't know for sure if I had not been hurt if I would have become a polygrapher. It was something I was always interested in, but I had so many other duties and responsibilities that I loved, that I probably wouldn't have put in for it.
Jeffery,
I have taken 4 polygraph exams in my life (not including the practice ones during polygraph school) and passed all. I just told the truth. No, I have never used countermeasures. Never needed to and know that doing so and getting caught would be the end of a career.
Well its been fun, but I have work to do. Maybe I will see some of you in my chair one of these days.
Posted by Drew Richardson
- Jul 09, 2005, 02:16 PMSergeant1107,
Perhaps you have not seen and would find interesting the following quote that appears on the left hand column of the home page of this site:
I will be away for a few days, but you and the others keep up the good job of keeping the louts as honest as can be...lol...cheers
Perhaps you have not seen and would find interesting the following quote that appears on the left hand column of the home page of this site:
Quote
"Polygraph is more art than science, and unless an admission is obtained, the final determination is frequently what we refer to as a scientific wild-ass guess (SWAG)"
retired
CIA polygrapher
John F. Sullivan
I will be away for a few days, but you and the others keep up the good job of keeping the louts as honest as can be...lol...cheers
Posted by Sergeant1107
- Jul 09, 2005, 01:33 PMQuote from: tasercop on Jul 08, 2005, 06:11 PMMost of what you are saying could also adversely affect other medical tests. Moving, pressing a toe, squeezing the sphincter are also likely to affect most diagnostic imaging scans, making the results unusable, but not invalidating the instrument as an accurate medical device. If you have ever had an MRI or a CAT scan (I have), you have to remain perfectly still. You have a bad argument here
Tasercop,
Certainly, if you are getting an MRI you need to hold still. But that's a rather disappointingly glib way of dismissing my point. No valid test I am aware of is dependent upon what the examinee is thinking during the test. If my doctor cautioned me prior to an MRI that I not only had to hold still, but I had better not do long division in my head or the test would have to be repeated, I would seriously doubt the validity of the MRI.
Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, but if I was being given a polygraph and after each answer I stared at a spot on the wall and began reciting poetry (either out loud or in my head) you would stop the test and tell me not to do that, because you need to have me thinking about the answer I just gave in order to produce any sort of a response. What the examinee is thinking about is an important part of the polygraph exam, and it is in no way under the control of the examiner. The best the examiner can do (short of an admission from the examinee) is make a SWAG as to whether the examinee is following directions. If the conclusions of the "test" are based on such a Scientific Wild Ass Guess it clearly calls into doubt the validity of the entire procedure.
Additionally, as Jeffery also stated, you have my respect as an officer who was injured in the line.