- Welcome to AntiPolygraph.org Message Board.
A forum for free and open discussion of polygraph-related topics
Posted by Johnn
- Mar 09, 2006, 12:53 AMQuote from: moLO on Feb 10, 2006, 06:52 AM
This reminds me of something someone once told me-sometimes they ask you on the application what ethnic group you identify with the most. That basically opens the doors for subjectiveness. I could say that I "identify" most with hispanics because I grew up in an ethnic neighborhood or something. I don't know how true this is, but I'm willing to say it could work. I don't even think the way you look would have anything to do with it, after all, there are people who have a white mom and black dad and look white, but feel black. I'm not advocating lying or anything, but since our supreme court likes to use language such as "diversity" in order to defend blatantly unconstitutional practices, I'd go ahead with it if you really want a job with the LAPD.
That's a very good idea! Just make sure the polygraph doesn't identify you as asian while you put down hispanic all the while being white! :-/
Posted by DippityShurff
- Feb 16, 2006, 08:55 PM[
Unfortunately, the job is NOTHING like it is on TV and many people find themselves in the wrong line of work once they realize how much paperwork, red tape, inefficiency, long hours and other crap that is prevalent in this line of work.
Dimas Dimas Dimas,
Please, say it ain't so. after 32 years, you are busting my bubble. Be safe my friend
Unfortunately, the job is NOTHING like it is on TV and many people find themselves in the wrong line of work once they realize how much paperwork, red tape, inefficiency, long hours and other crap that is prevalent in this line of work.
Dimas Dimas Dimas,
Please, say it ain't so. after 32 years, you are busting my bubble. Be safe my friend
Posted by dimas
- Feb 14, 2006, 06:49 PMI definitely agree with you that the standards have seemed to drop for many if not all departments in the United States. I think this is due to many factors, but mostly due to a drop in the availability of people seeking careers in Law Enforcement.
Unfortunately, the job is NOTHING like it is on TV and many people find themselves in the wrong line of work once they realize how much paperwork, red tape, inefficiency, long hours and other crap that is prevalent in this line of work.
Every department I have worked for has dropeed the hiring standards they once had, both PT and eventually qualification standards. While most of the departments I worked for had the exact same PT qualifications for both men and women, I only worked for one in which the difference was greatly to the advantage of women. It has been a few years but I recall it being something to the effect that a male had to run a 1 1/2 mile in 12 minutes or less, while the female applicant could do it in 15:30. The male applicant had to do 42 sit ups in a minute and the female 32 and it was 40 strict form push ups for the male while the female had to do 25 on her knees. Last I checked this was corrected to 15 1/2 minutes or less on the mile and a half for both men and women, 30 situps and 25 push ups. the only difference being women could still do the push up on their knees.
So in essence they are now hiring more unfit men, but the standards are equal. Is this fair, yes, but definitely not better.
Utlimately, demand is dictating the standards that are being put in place. This is unfortunate as law enforcement requires top notch individuals to effectively do the job.
Unfortunately, the job is NOTHING like it is on TV and many people find themselves in the wrong line of work once they realize how much paperwork, red tape, inefficiency, long hours and other crap that is prevalent in this line of work.
Every department I have worked for has dropeed the hiring standards they once had, both PT and eventually qualification standards. While most of the departments I worked for had the exact same PT qualifications for both men and women, I only worked for one in which the difference was greatly to the advantage of women. It has been a few years but I recall it being something to the effect that a male had to run a 1 1/2 mile in 12 minutes or less, while the female applicant could do it in 15:30. The male applicant had to do 42 sit ups in a minute and the female 32 and it was 40 strict form push ups for the male while the female had to do 25 on her knees. Last I checked this was corrected to 15 1/2 minutes or less on the mile and a half for both men and women, 30 situps and 25 push ups. the only difference being women could still do the push up on their knees.
So in essence they are now hiring more unfit men, but the standards are equal. Is this fair, yes, but definitely not better.
Utlimately, demand is dictating the standards that are being put in place. This is unfortunate as law enforcement requires top notch individuals to effectively do the job.
Posted by DippityShurff
- Feb 11, 2006, 05:23 PMQuote from: WalkerTR on Aug 06, 2005, 12:47 AM
As to your first question, is it that difficult to see how ethnic diversity can be useful? In a city like los angeles, how can all white cops effectively police?
As to your second question, you sound like you are saying that minorities and women are lesser in quality to white males. Please tell me that is not what you are saying, that would be the most ignorant statement in this thread! They all have to pass the tests, regardless of race or sex, or they don't continue on in the process. At the point where they are selected their race or gender may become an issue, but not because they are better or worse qualified.
As to you last question, I guess the best person for the job now includes gender and race. I don't think that it is the case that they would hire inadequate people who are minorities or women. They still have to meet prescribed reuirements.
If I may interject here. What is undisputable is the "watering down" of standards that used to be the coin of the realm for hiring. From first hand experience, when we were disqualifying a higher percentage of minority candidates at the first stages of employment, we were directly ordered to change the standards. While not arguing whether or not these standards may have been inherently biased against minorities, I can assure you that watering down did occur. While we used to accept only qualified candidates, we were ordered to seek out "qualifiable" candidates, who may ultimately qualify after some fine-tuning.
This of course is the experience from one rather large Agency. It was not limited to us however.
Regards.
Posted by moLO
- Feb 10, 2006, 06:52 AMQuote from: Jeffery on Aug 14, 2005, 02:19 AM
Criminals punch softer, run slower and aim worse when runing from/being pursued by female officers. This has been statistically proven.
If I had a cop chasing me, I'd hope it was a women who scraped by on 'modified" standards.
You pretty much said it. The streets don't know any difference between male and female.
As for the physical standards, most PDs I've been looking at have, in my opinion, fairly easy requirements for both genders. It kind of reminds me of my lifeguarding days when the requirement was to swim 500 yards in less than 12 minutes. It applied to both females and males because a drowning victim doesn't know the difference. (I personally thought that was pathetic; I swam a 7:30 when I was 11 after two months of training)
This reminds me of something someone once told me-sometimes they ask you on the application what ethnic group you identify with the most. That basically opens the doors for subjectiveness. I could say that I "identify" most with hispanics because I grew up in an ethnic neighborhood or something. I don't know how true this is, but I'm willing to say it could work. I don't even think the way you look would have anything to do with it, after all, there are people who have a white mom and black dad and look white, but feel black. I'm not advocating lying or anything, but since our supreme court likes to use language such as "diversity" in order to defend blatantly unconstitutional practices, I'd go ahead with it if you really want a job with the LAPD.
Posted by DippityShurff
- Aug 16, 2005, 03:31 PMPhysical agility tests have been "gender normed". For example, the male applicant must complete a one mile run in 10 minutes or less. The female must do the same run in 12 minutes or less. Pushups are "optional" for the female and mandatory for the male. The climb and drop is partnered for the female and performed singly by the male. The "man-carry" has been eliminated. You may read into this whatever you wish but your statement regarding your preference for being chased has some real validity.
Posted by dimas
- Aug 14, 2005, 09:28 AMQuote from: Brandon Hall on Aug 13, 2005, 10:16 PMI have met idiots everywhere I have been. The majority of those idiots are white, but that would be a reflection on the current ethnic majority in our country.
I am going to step away from this thread as it is one which is a bit sticky. I do not want to appear as some racist biggoted jerk, as I am not such. The last thing I will say is that my personal belief is that the most qualified human (or canine) is deserving of and should receive open law enforcement positions.
Yes, I definitely agree that idiots are all around us and idiocy knows no racial or ethnic boundary. I appreciate your attempt at clarification in this issue and yes I agree that the best human or canine (thanks for the laugh) should ALWAYS be the one to get the job.
Ethnicity aside, I can definitely see a valid point on your argument regarding the disparity for physical qualification between males and females in some departments. Yes, this is bull****, as both male and female law enforcement officers are expected to do the same exact job. Unfortunately, it seems that for some departments men MUST be faster and stronger to be just as qualified. Ultimately, this problem lies directly with the department instituting such ridiculous disparity in the physical test.
Men and women both earn the same exact pay and should both be capable of doing the same exact job. Society, however, somehow does not see eye to eye with this fact. I am sure all of us can remember the occasion where that scumbag shot a female deputy and at a judge and escaped while in court. Time and time again I heard the media criticize the Shift Lt. for not having assigned a male officer to that courtroom due to the subject's previous history of violence. This is a societal flaw and ultimately what keeps females from getting their due and the respect some of them deserve for doing an excellent job in law enforcement.
Men do not receive extra pay for dealing with violent criminals, for all intents and purposes that may as well have been a male deputy who got shot that day. But the media and society would have expected the man to be able to handle the situation better. Maybe he may have been able to subdue the suspect or not have been overpowered, but then again maybe not(men get their asses kicked by other men all the time). Either way just because men are "physically stronger" doesn't mean they should be put in danger more often than females who have chosen the same line of work and earn the same exact pay.
Posted by Jeffery
- Aug 14, 2005, 02:19 AMQuote from: Brandon Hall on Aug 13, 2005, 10:16 PMA male must do such a number of pushups and situps as well as run 1.5 miles in under 13 minutes. Female applicants are required to do fewer pushups and situps (they also have the option of modified pushups) and have over 15 minutes to complete the 1.5 mile run.
Criminals punch softer, run slower and aim worse when runing from/being pursued by female officers. This has been statistically proven.
If I had a cop chasing me, I'd hope it was a women who scraped by on 'modified" standards.
Posted by polyscam
- Aug 13, 2005, 10:16 PMDimas,
It certainly would appear that my statements have been misunderstood. As you are well aware the majority of applicants for Police Officer positions are white males. For whatever reason, it would seem that females and persons of differing ethnicity do not have as large of an interest in becoming POs. In an attempt to reflect the diversity found in every American community our government developed and implimented Affirmative Action. Thus the need to hire females and persons with ethnicity other than, the broad inclusion of, white has been mandated. Since few of the applicants seeking these positions are other than white males standards have been lowered from previous standards to make the hiring process more inclusive so those few applicants will not be lost. Realize that many white male applicants have been disqualified just the same for mirrored reasons. It is not a racist biggoted feeling on my part. Many agencies previously had height and weight requirements that have been abandoned in an attempt to find qualified people. I know a man who applied for NYPD following WWII. He was disqualified on the simple basis that he wears corrective lenses. That requirement has also been abandoned. I personally do not care that some of the current testing procedures are less grueling than in the past (it makes the testing easier for me).
Those persons who score highest in testing are who should receive the positions. I couldn't care less what race they are or what equipment they are born with.
An example of differing standards: Phoenix PD has different standards for males and females as well as age. A male must do such a number of pushups and situps as well as run 1.5 miles in under 13 minutes. Female applicants are required to do fewer pushups and situps (they also have the option of modified pushups) and have over 15 minutes to complete the 1.5 mile run. To me this makes little sense, not becuase I think females are inferior, but because they will attend the same academy. Academy standards do not consider gender. Everyone must perform to the same standard. Everyone must be able to perform certain physical exercises at the same level in order to become certified.
On a side note: I grew up in a town with a population which was majority hispanic. That majority also was reflected in the local police agencies. I found no difficulty or nervousness because officers were not white. They took the same oath as did the white officers.
I have met idiots everywhere I have been. The majority of those idiots are white, but that would be a reflection on the current ethnic majority in our country.
I am going to step away from this thread as it is one which is a bit sticky. I do not want to appear as some racist biggoted jerk, as I am not such. The last thing I will say is that my personal belief is that the most qualified human (or canine) is deserving of and should receive open law enforcement positions.
It certainly would appear that my statements have been misunderstood. As you are well aware the majority of applicants for Police Officer positions are white males. For whatever reason, it would seem that females and persons of differing ethnicity do not have as large of an interest in becoming POs. In an attempt to reflect the diversity found in every American community our government developed and implimented Affirmative Action. Thus the need to hire females and persons with ethnicity other than, the broad inclusion of, white has been mandated. Since few of the applicants seeking these positions are other than white males standards have been lowered from previous standards to make the hiring process more inclusive so those few applicants will not be lost. Realize that many white male applicants have been disqualified just the same for mirrored reasons. It is not a racist biggoted feeling on my part. Many agencies previously had height and weight requirements that have been abandoned in an attempt to find qualified people. I know a man who applied for NYPD following WWII. He was disqualified on the simple basis that he wears corrective lenses. That requirement has also been abandoned. I personally do not care that some of the current testing procedures are less grueling than in the past (it makes the testing easier for me).
Those persons who score highest in testing are who should receive the positions. I couldn't care less what race they are or what equipment they are born with.
An example of differing standards: Phoenix PD has different standards for males and females as well as age. A male must do such a number of pushups and situps as well as run 1.5 miles in under 13 minutes. Female applicants are required to do fewer pushups and situps (they also have the option of modified pushups) and have over 15 minutes to complete the 1.5 mile run. To me this makes little sense, not becuase I think females are inferior, but because they will attend the same academy. Academy standards do not consider gender. Everyone must perform to the same standard. Everyone must be able to perform certain physical exercises at the same level in order to become certified.
On a side note: I grew up in a town with a population which was majority hispanic. That majority also was reflected in the local police agencies. I found no difficulty or nervousness because officers were not white. They took the same oath as did the white officers.
I have met idiots everywhere I have been. The majority of those idiots are white, but that would be a reflection on the current ethnic majority in our country.
I am going to step away from this thread as it is one which is a bit sticky. I do not want to appear as some racist biggoted jerk, as I am not such. The last thing I will say is that my personal belief is that the most qualified human (or canine) is deserving of and should receive open law enforcement positions.
Posted by dimas
- Aug 13, 2005, 08:57 PMQuote from: Brandon Hall on Aug 06, 2005, 02:36 AM
Fact: the testing and selection process standards in many areas have been lowered in order to meet prescribed quotas of minorities and females. I'm not saying that minorities and females are inferior but this is a fact.
Brandon,
I have read various of your posts and you seem a very bright and articulate person, however, could you please elaborate and substantiate such a stupid, thoughtless and generalized statement as the one above?
While I can completely agree that the best man/woman should be the one to get the job and understand the argument that posters on this thread have made. I simply cannot understand that someone would be ignorant enough to believe that one race(ethnicity) is superior to another with a specific inference that the white race is superior to minorities and women.
There are variables to each and every person of each and every race. I have worked with competent and incompetent officers of varying ethnicities. I cannot say that I have found one to be better than the other, as you cannot simply paint brush the issue. I work with individuals who happen to be of a particular ethnic background, not the other way around.
Why is there a push for diversity in LE and the increased hiring of both minorities and females? Well that simply has to do with the dept. reflecting and matching the society is polices. I will go on a limb and assume that everyone who has posted thus far on this thread is a caucasian male. How would you all feel if the large majority of police in your neighborhood were black or hispanic. I am assuming you would feel uncomfortable. Hopefully, not because you are racist, but more so because it is merely human nature to feel more comfortable with familiarity to oneself. Hence in order to be able to work with the people, you must have a dept. that matches or attempts to match the population that it patrols.
While this is in and of itself dumb, it is a necessity at this time for LE. This is especially due to the fact that in the past many people have had bad encounters with officers of a different ethinic background.
Posted by polyscam
- Aug 10, 2005, 03:50 PMWalkerTR,
Not necessarily well received, but perhaps misunderstood. The type of mentality used for affirmative action hiring practices is similar to that of good 'ole boy network hiring practices - not what you know, who you know. I don't agree with this doctrine either. One who is more capable should be hired regardless of who one knows or one's ethnicity, gender, etc.
Not necessarily well received, but perhaps misunderstood. The type of mentality used for affirmative action hiring practices is similar to that of good 'ole boy network hiring practices - not what you know, who you know. I don't agree with this doctrine either. One who is more capable should be hired regardless of who one knows or one's ethnicity, gender, etc.
Posted by WalkerTR
- Aug 10, 2005, 03:26 PMObviously the message I am trying to convey is not being well received. Don't be afraid about saying things that could be interpreted as racist. Be proud of who you are and what you stand for. I do, and that is all that I am really trying to say.
Posted by mike_C.
- Aug 06, 2005, 05:29 AMFact: the testing and selection process standards in many areas have been lowered in order to meet prescribed quotas of minorities and females. I'm not saying that minorities and females are inferior but this is a fact.
As stated in my prior post, I have more information about "bending the rules" for women and minorities recruited to the LAPD than I even care to elaborate on.
Posted by mike_C.
- Aug 06, 2005, 05:03 AMThank you Brandon Hall. I was about to respond to TR Walker's post about me, until I scrolled down and saw that you pointed out the obvious.
Mr. Walker, Although I make no apologies for my statements and stand by my remarks, I have better things to do with my time than continously try and convince you I make underlying racial slurs or inappropriate remarks which are geared toward minorities.
In case you haven't figured it out yet, the polygraph machine doesn't discriminate either!
mike_C.
Mr. Walker, Although I make no apologies for my statements and stand by my remarks, I have better things to do with my time than continously try and convince you I make underlying racial slurs or inappropriate remarks which are geared toward minorities.
In case you haven't figured it out yet, the polygraph machine doesn't discriminate either!
mike_C.
Posted by polyscam
- Aug 06, 2005, 02:36 AMWalkertr,
Turn down your sensitivity knob for a moment. I suppose you may find some of the things I say to be offensive. It has become quite a regular event in the U.S.A. for people of different minorities, sexual orientations and females to proudly exclaim who and what they are. The only place where this prideful exclamation becomes racist or biggoted is in the event a white heterosexual male exclaims his pride in who and what he is...ridiculous.
you wrote:
How effective is an ineffective officer regardless of race?
you wrote:
Fact: the testing and selection process standards in many areas have been lowered in order to meet prescribed quotas of minorities and females. I'm not saying that minorities and females are inferior but this is a fact.
you wrote:
Unfortunately this is your interpretation. Anything can be twisted into what one wants it to be.
I certainly do not want someone in an office of law enforcement to obtain that office simply due to race or gender when there is someone more qualified, but a quota must be met. I don't care if it's a little green martian, if it is more qualified, it gets the job. Get over your political correctness bullshit.
Turn down your sensitivity knob for a moment. I suppose you may find some of the things I say to be offensive. It has become quite a regular event in the U.S.A. for people of different minorities, sexual orientations and females to proudly exclaim who and what they are. The only place where this prideful exclamation becomes racist or biggoted is in the event a white heterosexual male exclaims his pride in who and what he is...ridiculous.
you wrote:
QuoteAs to your first question, is it that difficult to see how ethnic diversity can be useful? In a city like los angeles, how can all white cops effectively police?
How effective is an ineffective officer regardless of race?
you wrote:
QuoteAs to your second question, you sound like you are saying that minorities and women are lesser in quality to white males. Please tell me that is not what you are saying, that would be the most ignorant statement in this thread! They all have to pass the tests, regardless of race or sex, or they don't continue on in the process. At the point where they are selected their race or gender may become an issue, but not because they are better or worse qualified.
As to you last question, I guess the best person for the job now includes gender and race. I don't think that it is the case that they would hire inadequate people who are minorities or women. They still have to meet prescribed reuirements.
Fact: the testing and selection process standards in many areas have been lowered in order to meet prescribed quotas of minorities and females. I'm not saying that minorities and females are inferior but this is a fact.
you wrote:
QuoteWhat you are saying IS racist, even if you don't think it is. You shouldn't cower behind such an impotent statment. You should be proud about your opinion and stance, even if it is a racist one.
Unfortunately this is your interpretation. Anything can be twisted into what one wants it to be.
I certainly do not want someone in an office of law enforcement to obtain that office simply due to race or gender when there is someone more qualified, but a quota must be met. I don't care if it's a little green martian, if it is more qualified, it gets the job. Get over your political correctness bullshit.