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:
How many sides does a stop sign have? (numeral):
Shortcuts: ALT+S post or ALT+P preview

Topic summary

Posted by notguilty1
 - Sep 17, 2008, 06:51 PM
Quote from: ekb261 on Sep 17, 2008, 10:47 AMtongue-in-cheek, ng1, but it was good advice


Tongue -in-cheek taken pail.
Just wanted to set the record straight for Sancho  ;)
Posted by T.M. Cullen
 - Sep 17, 2008, 05:20 PM
QuotePail, Sorry to burst your bubble but Sancho's posts had nothing to do with my post.
I have never condoned anyone to lie regardless of Polygraph's obvious inability to detect anything in the arena of deception.
I think ed knows what he needs to do. Hopefully he will do it.

Funny the way they spin things.

"If you are against the polgraph, you must be against telling the truth."

ASSUMPTION:  Polygraph detects true deception (pun intended).  Actually, the polygraph IS "true deception".  

It reminds me of the false argument that "if you are against illegals immigration, you must be against immigration".

ASSUMPTION:  Illegal ALIENS are just bona fide immigrants.  Actually, the term "illegal immigrant" is a contradiction in terms.  There is no such thing as "illegal immigration".  Immigration is a LEGAL process.  If you don't abide by that process, you then by definition NOT "immigrant".  Of course, if large breasted swedish women were coming in illegally, I wouldn't be so logical!

Here's another.  "That girl won't have sex with me.  She must be a LESBIAN!"

Bye

TC

P.S.   "To BE is to do."  (Descartes)
        "To DO is to be." (Plato)
         "Do be, do be, do!"  (Sinatra)
Posted by pailryder
 - Sep 17, 2008, 10:47 AM
tongue-in-cheek, ng1, but it was good advice
Posted by notguilty1
 - Sep 17, 2008, 10:36 AM
Quote from: ekb261 on Sep 17, 2008, 08:12 AMExcellent advice from fair chance and ng1.  Maybe Sancho's postings are having an effect.


Pail, Sorry to burst your bubble but Sancho's posts had nothing to do with my post.
I have never condoned anyone to lie regardless of Polygraph's obvious inability to detect anything in the arena of deception.
I think ed knows what he needs to do. Hopefully he will do it.
Posted by pailryder
 - Sep 17, 2008, 08:12 AM
Excellent advice from fair chance and ng1.  Maybe Sancho's postings are having an effect.
Posted by notguilty1
 - Sep 16, 2008, 11:09 PM
hey ed
I have to agree with fair chance. No one here as far as I know and certainly not me will encourage you to purposely lie on your application.
I am NO fan of polygraph and I am well aware of it's shortcomings however, you stand a 50/50 chance of failing even if your honest. Since the machine does pick up nervous reactions of the body, even if the fail has little to do with lying the way you sound the WILL make you break in the post. If that happens you are screwed for good.
As fair chance said wait out the time required so that at least if you fail you can answer all questions honestly without concern for machine or interrogation.
Good luck and do the right thing! ;)
Posted by Fair Chance
 - Sep 16, 2008, 09:50 PM
Dear Ed,

The rules are the rules.  Despite everyone's opinion on the use of the polygraph in the application process, no one here is going to tell you to falsify your application.  The are enough LE types on the street right now that justify bending rules beyond comprehension.  You certainly do not want to start your career with a compromise.  Twenty-four months is a blink of an eye in your career and life.

Keep working out your life and body and in two years you will be good to go.

Regards.
Posted by ed
 - Sep 16, 2008, 08:19 PM
Hello all,

I have been reading through the site and have also read the book. I am taking a pre-employment polygraph within the next month or so for a local agency. I have passed the written tests and submitted my background history form/packet.

My problem is that at the end of the written tests they asked me a series of questions called a "behavorial questionnaire" which included questions on things such as drug use, alcohol use, theft, etc. I was honest about my driving record and the fact that I have been to jail once for a hefty speeding ticket. But when it came to the drug, alcohol, and theft questions I was nervous about waht to put so I just put "No" for everything. I have not had a drug habit but I have tried marijuana and its been 36 months which is the required time to wait before applying. But I have also tried a hard drug one time and only one time and it was only a little over 36 months ago and this agency's policy requires you to wait at least 60 months. About the theft, I had an issue when I was a minor about stealing one time and it was resolved and not put on my record because of how minor it was. I guess my main question is...

Should I just withdraw myself from the process and wait the required time?

Or should I continue on and hope I am able to pass the polygraph?

Keep in mind if I fail, I don't believe I am eligible to reapply. Any help is appreciated and I have been stressing about this a lot lately.

Thank you in advance for any advice and help!