FBI Testing local cops ......

[LieBabyCryBaby]

I disagree, George. They don't know anything of the sort. No more than any of you inexperienced anti-polygraphites know for certain what you so arrogantly claim to know. Calling the polygraph unreliable may be a convenient excuse for these task force men and women, and I would probably use that excuse too, if I were in their position, as part of my argument. But the real issue is that FBI is showing that it doesn't trust its own. There are few betrayals of friendship or the spirit of teamwork more devastating than saying or implying, as is the case here, that you don't trust those who are already serving you well.

Now, about your having served on a task force, that's also different from becoming an FBI agent. If they had wanted to suddenly polygraph you as a task force officer, after you had been serving them well in that position of trust, that would have been wrong too. But when you decided you wanted to be an FBI agent, suddenly you had to comply with all of the processes that entailed, including taking a polygraph. Sure, you had proven your trustworthiness working with the task force. But no one is going to let someone circumvent the requirements for an agent position simply because they didn't have to go through the same hiring process to be part of the task force.

A question for the Sergeant: How in the world did your relevant questions specifically ask about cocaine? I don't know of any agency whose drug question would be isolated to cocaine unless there were some reason to suspect that particular drug and none other.

[Sergeant1107]

I disagree, George. They don't know anything of the sort. No more than any of you inexperiened anti-polygraphites know for certain what you so arrogantly claim to know. Calling the polygraph unreliable may be a convenient excuse for these task force men and women, and I would probably use that excuse too, if I were in their position, as part of my argument. But the real issue is that FBI is showing that it doesn't trust its own. There are few betrayals of friendship or the spirit of teamwork more devastating than saying or implying, as is the case here, that you don't trust those who are already serving you well.

The FBI doesn't trust any local cops they work with.  That's a given.  Local cops know that going in and that's definitely not a surprise that would cause them to be as offended as you make them out to be.

The issue is, as George writes, the complete inaccuracy of the polygraph.  Many cops know that they could pass a polygraph tomorrow and fail one the day after, even if they answer all the questions the same way and never tell a lie.  They also know the stigma that can be attached to a person who fails a polygraph, so they are understandably reluctant to roll those dice when they already have a successful career.

Many local cops view a polygraph requirement for the JTTF as a gamble; if the coin lands face up you get to work with the FBI and put a feather in your cap.  If it lands face down you could lose some or all of what you already have, and for no reason more compelling than the guesstimate of a polygraph examiner who is going to meet with you for a few hours and then hold your future in his or her hands.

I have not spoken with many of my peers who feel that would be a worthwhile gamble.

[LieBabyCryBaby]

Sorry guys. It seems we are stepping on each other's toes while we are all online at the same time. Sergeant, see my previous post that I edited while you were writing your last.

Also, I maintain that these task force people do not know that the polygraph is unreliable any more than you "anti-" people do, even if you were--as some of you claim--false positives. But you are right about one thing, Sergeant: When dealing with a process that is, undeniably, not 100%, perhaps they do have more to lose than to gain by submitting themselves to that risk, however slight.

[bilsul]

These police have nothing to fear. Its 98% accurate. Also, even if a few good cops get run out of the force undesevedly, its acceptable collateral damage. No test is perfect. Its the best we got. I say polygraph them all!

I have taken 8 tests in 5 years with the followling results.
1 fail
2 pass
3 pass
4 pass
5 Inc
6 fail
7 inc
8 pass
Looks like 50-50 to me

[LieBabyCryBaby]

Bilsul,

I hope you realize that Bill was being sarcastic. He doesn't think that everyone should be polygraphed; he thinks that no one should be. And if you have taken that many polygraphs in that short a time, I will agree with Bill's true sentiment: that's wrong. I've never agreed with periodic testing for anyone but child molesters. With those bastards, it is a good deterrent at the very least, a good interrogation tool, and, in my opinion as a polygrapher, a good way to detect additional criminal behavior. But periodic testing of people who have already proven their trustworthiness by working shoulder to shoulder with you is wrong. There are many agencies who have people working for them who never had to take a polygraph because the polygraph wasn't a component of the hiring process when they were hired. Those people aren't now going to be polygraphed. Neither should people who have already taken a polygraph, nor people who already are in positions of trust within their agency.

[bilsul]

Given that narrow margin of acceptibility are 1/2 the guilty innocent or 1/2 the innocent guilty?

[LieBabyCryBaby]

Still waiting on a reply from the Sergeant. Why was your relevent drug question narrowed down to only cocaine?

[Sergeant1107]

Still waiting on a reply from the Sergeant. Why was your relevent drug question narrowed down to only cocaine?

How on earth would I know that?  This was in 1989, perhaps cocaine use was more common then.  Since I had already admitted to smoking marijuana a couple of times perhaps he felt he ought to take a stab at something else.  You would have to ask him.

Given the fact that the idiot conducting the test looked me straight in the eye and told me he knew, beyond any shadow of a doubt, that I was being deceptive about using and selling cocaine, why do you believe anything he said or did should make any sense?

[LieBabyCryBaby]

No need to get all snippity, Sarge. I just never heard of a polygraph examiner running a screening exam with the relevant drug use question narrowed down to include only cocaine without good reason. Especially since you admitted using marijuana a couple of times--the examiner should have wanted the drug question to include any additional marijuana use, so it makes no sense that he would then ask the relevant drug use question, focusing on cocaine, without marijuana included.

[Bill Crider]

But periodic testing of people who have already proven their trustworthiness by working shoulder to shoulder with you is wrong

You mean like what happened to George?
Have you read his personal story?
People like me, who just came off the street to try to join the FBI and got run out is one thing, but George was already doing the work for years in other capacities.

[LieBabyCryBaby]

Bill,

I'm surprised you weren't thorough in your reading and just selectively chose that one sentence to quote. You should have read this one that I wrote to George in this thread:

Now, about your having served on a task force, that's also different from becoming an FBI agent. If they had wanted to suddenly polygraph you as a task force officer, after you had been serving them well in that position of trust, that would have been wrong too. But when you decided you wanted to be an FBI agent, suddenly you had to comply with all of the processes that entailed, including taking a polygraph. Sure, you had proven your trustworthiness working with the task force. But no one is going to let someone circumvent the requirements for an agent position simply because they didn't have to go through the same hiring process to be part of the task force.

[EosJupiter]

LBCB,

Again you make the point, about skirting or changing the requirements. George and most of the other folks, myself included, on this board who have been burned by the polygraph, never once tried to change the process and went in with the attitude to get through it honestly. Only to be told that we were liars, cheats, dishonest or disloyal. Especially by someone who is without any knowlege what so ever of our backgrounds.  And its symantics to say that working in one capacity is different than the other. Just a different agency on the paycheck. Except the FBI and various other agencies contend to be little fifedoms and play only by their own rules, and without accountability to anyone. This is dangerous and wrong in all cases.

Regards ....

[Sergeant1107]

No need to get all snippity, Sarge. I just never heard of a polygraph examiner running a screening exam with the relevant drug use question narrowed down to include only cocaine without good reason. Especially since you admitted using marijuana a couple of times--the examiner should have wanted the drug question to include any additional marijuana use, so it makes no sense that he would then ask the relevant drug use question, focusing on cocaine, without marijuana included.

It is interesting to me that the part of my polygraph exam you feel "makes no sense" is that the examiner would focus on cocaine during drug questioning.

What would jump out at me as making no sense is that I was telling the complete truth throughout the entire process and I was deemed "deceptive" and failed the test.