- Welcome to AntiPolygraph.org Message Board.
A forum for free and open discussion of polygraph-related topics
Posted by The Man in Black
- Oct 20, 2002, 01:05 PMFair Chance:
I truly believe that you are one of the "good guys" and I applaud you for your dedication and service to our nation.
I only hope that you are in a position that allows you to mentor young recruits. Lawenforcement needs individual's such as yourself to mold the officers of the next generation.
Once again, thank you for your service.
Sincerely,
The Man in Black
I truly believe that you are one of the "good guys" and I applaud you for your dedication and service to our nation.
I only hope that you are in a position that allows you to mentor young recruits. Lawenforcement needs individual's such as yourself to mold the officers of the next generation.
Once again, thank you for your service.
Sincerely,
The Man in Black
Posted by Fair Chance
- Oct 19, 2002, 10:41 PMDear Man-in-Black,
I have read very closely your last response to this web.
I am a law officer. I do not cover for any discrepencies or wrongdoings. I am human. I try my best.
I feel that you have been wronged. This is a bad situation.
I have also risked my life to defend the Constitution of the United States from all enemies both foreign and domestic for eight years in the Armed Services of the United States Military.
I have risked my life daily to protect the citizens in my community for the last ten years without fanfare as a Federal Law Officer.
There are corporate executives who have never done either of the above and they have robbed many of millions.
Serve the Constitution of the United States in the best capacity that you can. Vote and write your Congressmen. They have the real power to change what I do every day.
I do not ask forgiveness, just some understanding and compassion for I am doing the best that I can.
I have read very closely your last response to this web.
I am a law officer. I do not cover for any discrepencies or wrongdoings. I am human. I try my best.
I feel that you have been wronged. This is a bad situation.
I have also risked my life to defend the Constitution of the United States from all enemies both foreign and domestic for eight years in the Armed Services of the United States Military.
I have risked my life daily to protect the citizens in my community for the last ten years without fanfare as a Federal Law Officer.
There are corporate executives who have never done either of the above and they have robbed many of millions.
Serve the Constitution of the United States in the best capacity that you can. Vote and write your Congressmen. They have the real power to change what I do every day.
I do not ask forgiveness, just some understanding and compassion for I am doing the best that I can.
Posted by The Man in Black
- Oct 19, 2002, 07:46 AMI apolgize if my original posting came across too extreme or anti-lawenforcement. However, I feel stongly that I am not to blame for such sentiment.
The bottom line is that the police are responsible for the negative perception that the public has towards lawenforcement! "Codes of silence," and general misconduct such as: planting evidence, unwarranted assualts and civil rights violations are allowed because of the fraternity that exist in police agencies.
When, if ever, those who enter the lawenforcement field have the courage to defy the "code of silence" and report misconduct by fellow officers, then perhaps public opinion and individual perception of peace officers will gain a much needed lift! Until this happens, remember the old statement that "a chain is only as strong as its' weekest link!"
Despite the fact that most police officers may be honest men and women who provide a service to the public, it is both the week link in the police force, and the silent, honest, majority in the field (those who fail to report misconduct and as a result contribute to the "code of silence") who are to blame and the reason that the chain is broken!
As to how this relates to a polygraph exam, if I were an innocent person falsely accused of a crime and asked to take a lie detector (LOL), I would not grant my examiner absolute trust and, I would assume that the examiner is not my advocate due to corruption that exist in lawenforcement (even if the corruptions only applies to a minority who are employed in the field).
Why? Because police miconduct does exist and it exist not only as a result of a few corrupt lawenforecement officials. It exist, also because of the silent, honest majority who fails to report such misconduct!
Well, That all! I have got to go! It is time to take my psychotropic meds (LOL)!
P.S. World Series prediction: Anaheim Angels over the San Francisco Giants in 7 games! It will go 7!
The bottom line is that the police are responsible for the negative perception that the public has towards lawenforcement! "Codes of silence," and general misconduct such as: planting evidence, unwarranted assualts and civil rights violations are allowed because of the fraternity that exist in police agencies.
When, if ever, those who enter the lawenforcement field have the courage to defy the "code of silence" and report misconduct by fellow officers, then perhaps public opinion and individual perception of peace officers will gain a much needed lift! Until this happens, remember the old statement that "a chain is only as strong as its' weekest link!"
Despite the fact that most police officers may be honest men and women who provide a service to the public, it is both the week link in the police force, and the silent, honest, majority in the field (those who fail to report misconduct and as a result contribute to the "code of silence") who are to blame and the reason that the chain is broken!
As to how this relates to a polygraph exam, if I were an innocent person falsely accused of a crime and asked to take a lie detector (LOL), I would not grant my examiner absolute trust and, I would assume that the examiner is not my advocate due to corruption that exist in lawenforcement (even if the corruptions only applies to a minority who are employed in the field).
Why? Because police miconduct does exist and it exist not only as a result of a few corrupt lawenforecement officials. It exist, also because of the silent, honest majority who fails to report such misconduct!
Well, That all! I have got to go! It is time to take my psychotropic meds (LOL)!
P.S. World Series prediction: Anaheim Angels over the San Francisco Giants in 7 games! It will go 7!
Posted by Guest
- Oct 18, 2002, 09:36 AMWell put. Good luck with your endeavors.
Posted by Fair Chance
- Oct 17, 2002, 10:37 PMGuest
Dear Guest: I have learned to be a little "humble" and "passive" because I have seen the "John Wayne" syndrome in the military and federal law enforcement. In their zeal to "prove" how tough they are, they or more likely, people around them, get hurt or killed. A streetwise offender can instantly tell when an officer is really serious, and most of the time, it does not require a big voice or big body. The ability to step back from a tense situation can save lives.
There are always people who are on the extremes. I can only do my job the best that I can. What people think of me will be what they think of me. You are in law enforcement for your own reasons and no one else will ever quite understand why. No matter what anyone says, you probably always will. You got it or you don't. If I let every negative comment ever said to me get to me, I would have been putting a gun to my head years ago.
I only argue things that I feel I can change. I am argueing to change the polygraph proceedure so my children do not have to go through what I did. That is why I am on this site.
Posted by Guest
- Oct 17, 2002, 09:49 PMA very deep, and extremely liberal point of view. Good for you. Passivity in one's view point is admirable when amongst the wolves of law enforcement. Please do not take my sarcasm too seriously, I'm only kidding you. 
I also respect the point of views of others and feel free to disagree with those who I cannot see eye to eye with. However, I have a certain amount of pride and cannot stand by and watch someone spew tripe about the ill in society that is law enforcement. I am law enforcement as well you see. I take no issue with this site, just outlandish claims by persons whose own agenda has tainted any real discussion.
Guest
I also respect the point of views of others and feel free to disagree with those who I cannot see eye to eye with. However, I have a certain amount of pride and cannot stand by and watch someone spew tripe about the ill in society that is law enforcement. I am law enforcement as well you see. I take no issue with this site, just outlandish claims by persons whose own agenda has tainted any real discussion.
Guest
Posted by Fair Chance
- Oct 17, 2002, 07:43 PMQuote from: Guest on Oct 17, 2002, 12:09 AM
"Trust me, if you cooperate with the police, I guarantee that your statements will be distorted or alterered to your disadvantage in the official police report.The myth that you can have absolute trust in lawenforcement officials has landed many innocent, naive, individuals in prison." - The Man in Black -
This sounds less about polygraph and more like simple bashing. As a law enforcement officer do you agree with that statement? If you do, why are you in law enforcement? If not, how do you respond to that kind of statement?
Dear Guest,
As a law officer and a citizen, I believe everyone has the right to their opinion.
This site is special because everyone is allowed their opinion and it is uncensored.
While I do not agree with this quote, I respect the right of anyone to voice it.
I was recruited into law enforcement because of my ability to communicate, understand, and deal with people. In my job, I meet mostly negative aspects of life's problems. I do my best to be morally just, ethical, and fair. I do not shy away from hard decisions and I take responsibility for my life. I have fought in the Armed Services for what I think are two of America's greatest freedoms: The right to worship (or not worship) any religion without interference from the government and freedom of speech. The moment I censor any point of view which differs from my own, I start to turn away from the freedom that I seek to protect.
Posted by Skeptic
- Oct 17, 2002, 02:16 PMQuote from: Guest on Oct 17, 2002, 09:49 AM
"You'll note that Fair Chance referred to "most" of the discussions on this site. Providing a single quote that is more wide-ranging hardly refutes this."
Does the same apply to you?
Guest,
You're being obtuse. I'm not attempting to generalize from one quote to the entire nature of the discussion. You are.
Skeptic
Posted by Guest
- Oct 17, 2002, 09:49 AM"You'll note that Fair Chance referred to "most" of the discussions on this site. Providing a single quote that is more wide-ranging hardly refutes this."
Does the same apply to you?
"Additionally, you implied that assisting people with "cheating" on polygraph tests is "complicity" with criminal behavior. Perhaps -- but the same argument could be made against insisting on providing suspects with lawyers. Makes nailing criminals more difficult, but absolutely essential to protection of the innocent."
A true crusader! Good luck with your fight or plight.
Does the same apply to you?
"Additionally, you implied that assisting people with "cheating" on polygraph tests is "complicity" with criminal behavior. Perhaps -- but the same argument could be made against insisting on providing suspects with lawyers. Makes nailing criminals more difficult, but absolutely essential to protection of the innocent."
A true crusader! Good luck with your fight or plight.
Posted by George W. Maschke
- Oct 17, 2002, 05:43 AMStohrm,
Based strictly on the limited details you've provided here, and however unpleasant your experience may have been, I don't see that your or your husbands rights have been violated in any way that would give you recourse to legal action against the polygrapher or the police detective. Nonetheless, this is a matter that you may wish to take up with a lawyer. The Martindale Lawyer Locator might be useful for finding a lawyer in your area with relevant experience.
Based strictly on the limited details you've provided here, and however unpleasant your experience may have been, I don't see that your or your husbands rights have been violated in any way that would give you recourse to legal action against the polygrapher or the police detective. Nonetheless, this is a matter that you may wish to take up with a lawyer. The Martindale Lawyer Locator might be useful for finding a lawyer in your area with relevant experience.
Posted by Storhm Remillard
- Oct 17, 2002, 04:46 AMMy Husband took his today and was told he was inconclusive. I begged him not to take it after i had read the lie behind the lie dector. But he felt he had to. I told him he walked in there and they decided he wasn't going to pass. Just a little update. If anyone can help me take legal messures against the polygrapher and police detective i would appreciate it. I just need somebody to point me in the right direction. I feel that some of what they did violated our rights.
Thanks, Storhm
Thanks, Storhm
Posted by Skeptic
- Oct 17, 2002, 01:59 AMQuote from: Guest on Oct 17, 2002, 12:09 AM
"Trust me, if you cooperate with the police, I guarantee that your statements will be distorted or alterered to your disadvantage in the official police report.The myth that you can have absolute trust in lawenforcement officials has landed many innocent, naive, individuals in prison." - The Man in Black -
This sounds less about polygraph and more like simple bashing.
You'll note that Fair Chance referred to "most" of the discussions on this site. Providing a single quote that is more wide-ranging hardly refutes this.
Additionally, you implied that assisting people with "cheating" on polygraph tests is "complicity" with criminal behavior. Perhaps -- but the same argument could be made against insisting on providing suspects with lawyers. Makes nailing criminals more difficult, but absolutely essential to protection of the innocent.
Skeptic
Posted by Guest
- Oct 17, 2002, 12:09 AM"Trust me, if you cooperate with the police, I guarantee that your statements will be distorted or alterered to your disadvantage in the official police report.The myth that you can have absolute trust in lawenforcement officials has landed many innocent, naive, individuals in prison." - The Man in Black -
This sounds less about polygraph and more like simple bashing. As a law enforcement officer do you agree with that statement? If you do, why are you in law enforcement? If not, how do you respond to that kind of statement?
This sounds less about polygraph and more like simple bashing. As a law enforcement officer do you agree with that statement? If you do, why are you in law enforcement? If not, how do you respond to that kind of statement?
Posted by Skeptic
- Oct 16, 2002, 10:57 PMQuote from: Fair_Chance on Oct 16, 2002, 10:33 PM
You do not hear disputes over DNA testing, urine analysis, ballistics, or other test used in police forensics at this site.
That's because those tools have known error rates/limitations (they've been scientifically validated and are reliable), for the most part experts in them don't make outlandish, unsuportable claims, the tools are reasonably accurate at doing what they purport to do, and the public hasn't been utterly hoodwinked by those with financial incentives to do so into believing the tests are the final word.
Skeptic
Posted by Fair Chance
- Oct 16, 2002, 10:33 PMDear Anonymous,
I am a law officer. Most of the law officer "bashing" you notice has been related to the use of "polygraph" as a "scientific forensic tool." The evidence from the NAS states that even the more "accurate" specific incident testing proceedure is well above chance but well below perfection (even this statement has many disclaimers about the test subject pool). Even the best advocate of the use of polygraphy admits that the "tool" is only as good as the person giving the test. How many years of "apprenticeship" do polygraph operators have to go through? The problem of uniformity of test proceedures, resolution of admission conflicts (absent of video or audio recordings), and examiner bias completely skew the "objectiveness" of the test. This tool has severe limitations.
You do not hear disputes over DNA testing, urine analysis, ballistics, or other test used in police forensics at this site.
I only know that in my case, my integrity was tried, convicted, and executed without any other evidence or testimoney other then the interpretation of blood pressure, breathing, sweat activity, and pulse. This would have been totally unacceptable in a court of law. If someone were to take these measurements during my marriage cerimony, my "I do" would certainly indicate deception, but yet I am married for many years. It would not have been a good predictor of future sucess or failure. In the backrooms of Amercia's leading security and law enforcement agencies, guilt based only on polygraph results is common practice and occuring everyday to America's citizens who's only crime is to want to go to work for America. This was outlawed in the civilian sector years ago. The NAS reports says it is ineffective in stopping spies and those trained experts who can circumvent the polygraph screening process. What good "absolute security need" is it providing? Is this the "American" way of justice that I put my life on the line for everyday, I certainly hope not.
I am a law officer. Most of the law officer "bashing" you notice has been related to the use of "polygraph" as a "scientific forensic tool." The evidence from the NAS states that even the more "accurate" specific incident testing proceedure is well above chance but well below perfection (even this statement has many disclaimers about the test subject pool). Even the best advocate of the use of polygraphy admits that the "tool" is only as good as the person giving the test. How many years of "apprenticeship" do polygraph operators have to go through? The problem of uniformity of test proceedures, resolution of admission conflicts (absent of video or audio recordings), and examiner bias completely skew the "objectiveness" of the test. This tool has severe limitations.
You do not hear disputes over DNA testing, urine analysis, ballistics, or other test used in police forensics at this site.
I only know that in my case, my integrity was tried, convicted, and executed without any other evidence or testimoney other then the interpretation of blood pressure, breathing, sweat activity, and pulse. This would have been totally unacceptable in a court of law. If someone were to take these measurements during my marriage cerimony, my "I do" would certainly indicate deception, but yet I am married for many years. It would not have been a good predictor of future sucess or failure. In the backrooms of Amercia's leading security and law enforcement agencies, guilt based only on polygraph results is common practice and occuring everyday to America's citizens who's only crime is to want to go to work for America. This was outlawed in the civilian sector years ago. The NAS reports says it is ineffective in stopping spies and those trained experts who can circumvent the polygraph screening process. What good "absolute security need" is it providing? Is this the "American" way of justice that I put my life on the line for everyday, I certainly hope not.