PRE TEST INTERROGATION RESULTS IN ADMISSION, BAD ENOUGH TO NOT GET THE JOB?

[Texans2011]

In my pre test interrogation on polygraph number 2(took one the day before with the same department and failed, as a result had to take another one the next morning) the polygraph examiner(ass hole) kept asking me if there was anything that i have done that if revealed would embarrass the police department, and i told him no several times.. i really couldn't think of anything even after he asked me 10 times. He then proceeded to ask me more direct questions about things that would be considered embarrassing that maybe i hadn't of thought of..well he was right. It turned sexual and asked me if I had ever masturbated..and if so have i ever done it anywhere other then my home. I honestly before this point never thought about it and didn't lie or conceal anything and as soon as i realized i had done what he asked i was completely truthful. Naive me thinking the polygraph could really tell if i was lying told him the truth that I have on a few occasions in my life masturbated in bathroom stall away from home(this was before i read the lie behind the lie detector). The bastard made me write a confession and sign it and immediately canceled the polygraph and sent me home(230 miles away) and told me my background investigator would have to have a meeting with some other high ups to determine what they were going to do. Need i mention i was supposedly 2 weeks away from starting the police academy..any thought if that is REALLY disqualifying?

and P.S. i had taken a polygraph for the first time like 6 months before this one, and my polygraph examiner called my last one and knew every detail of my last one(inconclusive) and used it against me the entire time. That can't be legal.... 

[Bill_Brown]

 Just like people won't admit to their favorite porn fetishes that they view in their own privacy at home.  It is one of those things you don't talk about in person with others, but you will anonymously message cyber strangers about it online

I'm sure all the 3 letter agencies really want to hire you, excellent candidate for National Security Agency.  And yes we do share information between agencies.  Nothing illegal or unethical about sharing, you signed a release of information during your application process.  I do understand you were applying for a LEO job, not a 3 letter agency.  You may want to look at other job opportunities, don't think you will make it as a LEO with the admissions you made on your post. 

[srtaanti]

Sounds like you are F'd!

[figs]

Just like people won't admit to their favorite porn fetishes that they view in their own privacy at home.  It is one of those things you don't talk about in person with others, but you will anonymously message cyber strangers about it online

I'm sure all the 3 letter agencies really want to hire you, excellent candidate for National Security Agency.  And yes we do share information between agencies.  Nothing illegal or unethical about sharing, you signed a release of information during your application process.  I do understand you were applying for a LEO job, not a 3 letter agency.  You may want to look at other job opportunities, don't think you will make it as a LEO with the admissions you made on your post. 

What's your logic, Bill? How would these common behaviors (touching one's genitals in a bathroom stall! looking at p0rn on teh Internetz!!) affect a person's ability to do a job?

Curious bc this lucks like a theme in polygraphy. Lots of sex quizzing in its history. Their must be a good reasons.

[Bill_Brown]

Figs,

It is not my logic.  It is policy in most departments.  Masturbating in public restrooms and viewing porn FETISHES may suggest other patterns of behavior that are not acceptable.  Why take a chance?  That is the logic used in making a DQ decision. 

It may not be "fair" or "justified" in your personal opinion, but it is what it is.  Again, it is not my decision, it is a decision made by individual departments.  I have seen many DQ'd for this same behavior.

[figs]

Figs,

It is not my logic.  It is policy in most departments.  Masturbating in public restrooms and viewing porn FETISHES may suggest other patterns of behavior that are not acceptable.  Why take a chance?  That is the logic used in making a DQ decision. 

It may not be "fair" or "justified" in your personal opinion, but it is what it is.  Again, it is not my decision, it is a decision made by individual departments.  I have seen many DQ'd for this same behavior.

Please dont use quote marks around words I did not use.

You didnt answer my question. What chance exactly would a police dpt take in hiring someone who touched his genitals in the bathroom?

[Bill_Brown]

I do apologize if the quotes offended you.  They were to emphasise the words, my bad.  I cannot answer what chance a dpt would take, it is policy in most departments.  When coupled with the statement of watching porn fetishes and messaging with others, it may suggest a pattern of behavior that would not be acceptable.   

[figs]

I do apologize if the quotes offended you.  They were to emphasise the words, my bad.  I cannot answer what chance a dpt would take, it is policy in most departments.  When coupled with the statement of watching porn fetishes and messaging with others, it may suggest a pattern of behavior that would not be acceptable.   

What pattern of behavior does this info suggest to you, and why is it relevant?

[figs]

I'm pushing you to be clear bc to me these behaiors sound like textbook control question topix. "A person who did X might do Y. So you've never ever [lied to someone you love, driven drunk, looked at freaky xxx, etc] - now HAVE YOU?"

Not that one would suspect a polygrapher might spend his free time posting misinformation about polygraphs on the Internetz.

[Bill_Brown]

figs,

I have never heard of sexual oriented control questions.  I have been in the business for about 30 years.  I can only speculate why law enforcement administrators make the decisions they make. 

I will only answer for myself.  I would suspect that persons who are on the internet viewing sexual deviant materials might act out on those fantasies at some point in time. Coupled with the fact that he has admitted to conversing on line with other persons watching the same type materials.  I suspect this excited  him sexually and he in all probability acted out on his sexual excitation. 

Now that is all speculation and not fact. My speculation may be off target and totally wrong, it is only speculation without facts.  You may wish to check all my prior posts and make a decision regarding my giving misinformation.  I don't do that at all.  And I am a polygraph examiner for the record. 

[figs]

figs,

I have never heard of sexual oriented control questions.

Never talked to a federal polygrapher?

Have you ever had sex with a chicken? http://www.ar15.com/forums/t_1_5/520940_Working_for_FBI.html

[Bill_Brown]

I did laugh after reading that blog, I cannot answer for that federal examiner.  It sounds like the questions were asked in the pre test, not as control questions.  i personally have not asked questions of that nature to a police applicant.  I have asked if they have committed a sexual crime, and beastiality, also known as zoosexuality, fits into sexual crimes. That would not be a control question, it would be a relevant question. 

[Sergeant1107]

I regularly go background checks for my agency and if someone told me they masturbated in a public restroom I really wouldn't care.  I wouldn't see it as any different than having sex in a public restroom.  Actually, the former is probably somewhat safer than the latter.  But neither would be relevant to a police background investigation.

Unless there is some other aspect I couldn't care less.  Without some other aspect (such as voyeurism, pedophilia, etc...)  all that masturbation is indicative of is a functioning sex drive.

[Bill_Brown]

Sergeant1107,

I am sure this is true in some jurisdictions, however in others it is considered a DQ.  I'm sure it does depend on individual department standards of conduct.  And again reading the original post, I understand why he was DQ'd. 

This part of his post was deleted at some time.

Just like people won't admit to their favorite porn fetishes that they view in their own privacy at home.  It is one of those things you don't talk about in person with others, but you will anonymously message cyber strangers about it online

[Charlie Chuckles]

Sergeant1107,

This part of his post was deleted at some time.

Just like people won't admit to their favorite porn fetishes that they view in their own privacy at home.  It is one of those things you don't talk about in person with others, but you will anonymously message cyber strangers about it online

Umm, I think there has been a mistake.  The highlighted message above was never part of this thread. It is something that I wrote in an entirely different thread about the CIA polygraph here:
https://antipolygraph.org/forum/index.php?topic=4831.msg35829#msg35829
It looks like user Bill Brown, who first replied the original post in this thread, made a mistake and quoted my post by accident.