PDA

View Full Version : zdd


mtsul
07-10-2011, 11:36 PM
zdd

mlatino
07-10-2011, 11:38 PM
For someone that has their Masters degree, your friend isn't too bright.

Falconis
07-10-2011, 11:42 PM
Bad candidate ... NO Donut!

mtsul
07-10-2011, 11:42 PM
For someone that has their Masters degree, your friend isn't too bright.

I agree it was very bad idea an thing to do!

I'll add he was either 15 or 16 when he did this, the shotgun might have been C&R I'll ask him when I talk to him

Falconis
07-10-2011, 11:45 PM
your friends is either going to get DQ'd for lying or he's gonna get DQ'd cause he was stupid. On top of that, he may end up in jail for a crime where the statute hasn't run out yet.

Can I ask why are you even helping him down this road?

mtsul
07-10-2011, 11:53 PM
your friends is either going to get DQ'd for lying or he's gonna get DQ'd cause he was stupid. On top of that, he may end up in jail for a crime where the statute hasn't run out yet.

Can I ask why are you even helping him down this road?

-Well he would not lie about it.
-Have people been arrested because of the polygraph?
-I'm am not I told him to hold off and find out as I thought both things were felonies and I though both would DQ him of not end in jail time but I was asking you guys for some actual facts or educated guess/thoughts on the subject.

Also are you LEO? have you seen heard people getting arrested or anything from telling the truth on the poly?

johnthomas
07-11-2011, 12:09 AM
http://law.findlaw.com/state-laws/criminal-statute-of-limitations/california/

In the poly, they will ask if he ever stole anything. His answer is, when I was a minor.
I myself would never mention that I stole guns and sold them. But then, I never stole guns and sold them.
If this were me, I would consult an attorney before I subject myself to anything like that.

mtsul
07-11-2011, 12:15 AM
http://law.findlaw.com/state-laws/criminal-statute-of-limitations/california/

In the poly, they will ask if he ever stole anything. His answer is, when I was a minor.
I myself would never mention that I stole guns and sold them. But then, I never stole guns and sold them.
If this were me, I would consult an attorney before I subject myself to anything like that.

I think he is ***** out of luck, is there a polygraph for military? I guess he has the option right?

(thanks mods I'll be better:)

biochembruin
07-11-2011, 12:31 AM
Tell him not to waste his time trying to apply. He made his choices in life and must live with the consequences. If he wasn't your friend, would you want someone who committed multiple felonies as an officer, or even in the military for that matter?

Your friend can have a long, successful career in whatever he got his masters in, and hopefully will raise his children to make better choices than he did so they will have all the opportunities they want.

Tacit Blue
07-11-2011, 12:32 AM
-Well he would not lie about it.
-Have people been arrested because of the polygraph?
-I'm am not I told him to hold off and find out as I thought both things were felonies and I though both would DQ him of not end in jail time but I was asking you guys for some actual facts or educated guess/thoughts on the subject.

Also are you LEO? have you seen heard people getting arrested or anything from telling the truth on the poly?

Here is a case right here. This guy was arrested for admitting to sexual molestation.


www.10news.com/news/27919115/detail.html



"SAN DIEGO -- A man who applied for a job as a San Diego police officer was arrested after answers on his application raised red flags.
Read: Arrested SDPD Officer Applicant Defends Self From Jail
On his questionnaire to work for the San Diego Police Department, Robert Williams had to answer questions about crimes he might have committed.

A search warrant affidavit lists question No. 172 from Williams' applicant questionnaire as trouble.
The question, which asked applicants if they have ever had sexual contact with a child, had a yes answer.
Question No. 175, which asked applicants if they have ever viewed, purchased, sold or subscribed to child pornography, also received a yes response.
10News learned there were two more flagged questions and responses.
Police then searched Williams' car and apartment, confiscated computers and hard drives and arrested him.
Williams had lived at an apartment in Chula Vista for about a week. A man who answered the door told 10News, "He was a guest and he's no longer living here. He won't live here anymore."
In April, Williams had moved in with a woman and her son in east San Diego.
"I did a favor and brought him in because he had nowhere to go and he gave me a sob story," said Rory Shipp.
She said one day she turned on her computer and found a strange file after Williams left his hard drive hooked up.
"And when I opened the file, it was a little girl in blue and she was coming out of her clothes, playing with a little thing in her mouth. Oh my God, tears came out of my eyes. It was a home video," she said. "


I don't agree with this to a certain extent, but he shouldn't have been punished for telling the truth. This only makes people more dishonest and weary. However it is what is, the fact remains that he is a sexual predator.

john.t.singh
07-11-2011, 12:33 AM
My roommate did the poly and they asked **** like did you ever steal, do drugs etc. He had a friend that toked and when they asked if he associates with any drug users he had to say yes. Dq him.

Any shady **** and your basically sol

biochembruin
07-11-2011, 12:53 AM
...I don't agree with this to a certain extent, but he shouldn't have been punished for telling the truth. This only makes people more dishonest and weary. However it is what is, the fact remains that he is a sexual predator.

He didn't get in trouble for telling the truth, he got in trouble for committing a crime. You don't get to tell the truth about doing a bad thing and expect it to negate the harm you did in the first place. If that was the case, any confession a criminal makes should qualify them for immunity from prosecution.

Tacit Blue
07-11-2011, 1:03 AM
He didn't get in trouble for telling the truth, he got in trouble for committing a crime. You don't get to tell the truth about doing a bad thing and expect it to negate the harm you did in the first place. If that was the case, any confession a criminal makes should qualify them for immunity from prosecution.

I think i didn't properly convey my message. When i first started applying to agencies and such, i was under the impression if you were honest. That even though you may have committed a crime/ or have skeletons in the closet; that you would be given a chance to explain. Like a gentlemen's agreement of some sort. This proves that isn't the case.(In this instance) However i believe in this situation. SDPD was already under intense media attention, for the scandals with the Officers engaging in misconduct.


This was used as a tactic for a smoke screen;diverting attention away from the incidents that happened, for a short period of time.

biochembruin
07-11-2011, 1:15 AM
I think i didn't properly convey my message. When i first started applying to agencies and such, i was under the impression if you were honest. That even though you may have committed a crime/ or have skeletons in the closet; that you would be given a chance to explain. Like a gentlemen's agreement of some sort. This proves that isn't the case. However i believe in this situation. SDPD was already under intense media attention for the scandals with the Officers engaging in misconduct, and this was used as a tactic for a smoke screen.

Diverting attention away from the incidents that happened, for a short period of time.

I get what you're saying, and there may be some political aspects to it as well in this case. However, there is no explicit or implied immunity from prosecution for confessions of serious crimes in the police application process, nor should there be, in my opinion. If someone is stupid enough to apply for a police job, and admit they ran over and killed a pedestrian 6 years ago and fled the scene, but have since learned from their mistake, they should still be punished for the crime regardless of the fact that they told the truth about it only under the guise of an employment application.

I think police departments will "look the other way," if you will, when the admitted crime is not serious (ie, wobblett) or the statute of limitations has expired. Other than that, I say the department has a duty to investigate crimes. They are still police, after all.

fullrearview
07-11-2011, 1:42 AM
Wow! no help whatsoever to the thread. You should go find a nice cave to trool in! If you want to get your post count up go to the off topic area

And I'm on my phone so it really screws with any and all typing if you must know

Hey man... It's hard to help when you have to read it three or four times to understand it. Punctuation helps.

Your friend may be SOL, even though it was done as a minor... Honestly, I think the meth would hang him up more that the guns as many dept.s have a ZERO tolerance policy on meth and intravenous drugs.

emvampyre
07-11-2011, 1:48 AM
I think police departments will "look the other way," if you will, when the admitted crime is not serious (ie, wobblett) or the statute of limitations has expired. Other than that, I say the department has a duty to investigate crimes. They are still police, after all.

Um, yeah they are still the police...If you broke the law in the past, why would a department choose you over another, well qualified candidate with no criminal history? By hiring an individual with a criminal history, juvenile or otherwise, that department is taking on a possible known liability. Just admiting that one has done the crime, doesn't mean one should be forgiven for it by an agency looking to hire a law enforcement officer.

To the OP: In this day and age of LEO jobs becoming as rare as hen's teeth, your buddy has about a 1 in a gajllion chance of being hired by any California department. The admitted drug use, especially the meth, is going to be a no go. Theft of firearms? That would be a death blow immediately and would probably start an investigation. Regardless if the thefts occured when one was a juvie...

Disclaimer:when I said "you" in my post I was NOT pointing out or saying anything about any of the above posters. It was just a figure of speech. Yes, I'm a LEO with 24 years experience. Also, gajillion is a number in my world. I believe it is the defecit goal of the Dems here in California...

Roddd
07-11-2011, 3:46 AM
The meth use may not be a disqualifier...I've seen people hired with admitted meth and cocaine use, but it's been 10 years and they've had a clean track record since. Although it's rare, it still is possible to be hired. But the theft and sale of firearms, that's setting the department up for a pattern of misconduct...and a possible criminal case. Tell your buddy he seems more apt to be in the BACK of a police car...

Jonathan Doe
07-11-2011, 8:09 AM
Murders and stolen guns do not have a statute of limitation as far as I know. It could be on going investigation, maybe just a cold case now.

capo
07-11-2011, 8:24 AM
A guy like that doesn't need a badge.

SkyStorm82
07-11-2011, 12:50 PM
I don't care if a certain dept is cool with a former tweaker. I won't work with someone like that.
Capo is right. Society doesn't need someone like that with a badge.

JayCo
07-11-2011, 2:47 PM
Here is a case right here. This guy was arrested for admitting to sexual molestation.


www.10news.com/news/27919115/detail.html



Question No. 175, which asked applicants if they have ever viewed, purchased, sold or subscribed to child pornography, also received a yes response.


I took my Poly while I was working in the sexual assault unit at the DA's office. Had to answer yes to this question because I used to see this in evidence all the time. I could tell the LT. who gave me the poly was trying to hold back his reaction....thank god he let me explain right away.

Tacit Blue
07-11-2011, 4:06 PM
The meth use may not be a disqualifier...I've seen people hired with admitted meth and cocaine use, but it's been 10 years and they've had a clean track record since. Although it's rare, it still is possible to be hired. But the theft and sale of firearms, that's setting the department up for a pattern of misconduct...and a possible criminal case. Tell your buddy he seems more apt to be in the BACK of a police car...

Stealing firearms is like stealing someones Women, you just don't do that.....:mad:

BigDogatPlay
07-11-2011, 4:33 PM
The meth use may not be a disqualifier...I've seen people hired with admitted meth and cocaine use, but it's been 10 years and they've had a clean track record since.

And in the current employment environment with tons of laid off officers already in the pipeline and entry level candidate who admits to meth use and felonious activity in their background is going to get DQ very quickly. And depending on when in time those felonies took place, he could indeed be subject to arrest and prosecution if the cards lined up right against him.

I echo the earlier advice to the OP.... counsel your friend to consider a different career.

ETA:

I took my Poly while I was working in the sexual assault unit at the DA's office. Had to answer yes to this question because I used to see this in evidence all the time. I could tell the LT. who gave me the poly was trying to hold back his reaction....thank god he let me explain right away.

I had similar looks late in my career, because I had worked crimes against children earlier in my career. But once the explanation was on the table, it was no longer of consequence.

762.DEFENSE
07-11-2011, 5:44 PM
For someone that has their Masters degree, your friend isn't too bright.

Seriously!

Notorious
07-11-2011, 11:28 PM
Stealing firearms is like stealing someones Women, you just don't do that.....:mad:

Hey now, let's not get crazy!

I can always find another woman... but in CA, replacing some of my guns would be impossible.:rolleyes:

Notorious
07-11-2011, 11:31 PM
I had similar looks late in my career, because I had worked crimes against children earlier in my career. But once the explanation was on the table, it was no longer of consequence.

The protocol for lateral polygraphs always contain the disclaimer, "Other than in the line of duty" so that the various questions can be explained if you had to say yes but it was for work.

I had to answer a few that way and never had a problem.

Tacit Blue
07-12-2011, 12:25 AM
Also don't listen to idiots telling you to put a tack in your shoe. Its a joke, I would laugh my *** off if i was the examiner and your sock started turning red. Instant DQ!

tyrist
07-12-2011, 4:48 PM
It doesn't sound like this is a proper career choice for your friend.

First trying to find out if he should lie or not is a big NO NO

Second he has committed multiple felonies whether detected or not.

He is not the type of person who should be placed in a position of extreme trust. Hopefully he can find something else rewarding and productive to do.

Notorious
07-12-2011, 7:01 PM
Another question on the witch hunt divining rod reading tea leaves method of backgrounds (aka polygraphs), there is always a question about if you have committed an act which would have been a crime if caught.. or something along those lines.

bill_k_lopez
07-12-2011, 7:09 PM
http://law.findlaw.com/state-laws/criminal-statute-of-limitations/california/

In the poly, they will ask if he ever stole anything. His answer is, when I was a minor.
I myself would never mention that I stole guns and sold them. But then, I never stole guns and sold them.
If this were me, I would consult an attorney before I subject myself to anything like that.

If the poly for LE is like the poly for DOD, they have lattitude to ask related/follow up questions.

Are they going to specifically ask you "Have you ever stolen a firearm?" No, unless something leads them down that path.

I'm thinking that your buddy has way too much going on from just a few years ago that this is not going to go well for him.

Is he going to get arrested for what he did? Highly doubt it. Admiting to a crime under a poly (as the only evidence) isn't going to get a DA very far.

MTG Firearms
07-12-2011, 9:36 PM
For someone that has their Masters degree, your friend isn't too bright.

This is what I was thinking

Ron-Solo
07-13-2011, 12:11 AM
This person has no business wearing a badge. A thief and a doper, two strikes and you're out

SVT-40
07-13-2011, 12:58 AM
Maybe he could get a job in the prison system........

How about "trusty".......

Sounds like he meets all the qualifications for that position.

:leaving: :smilielol5:

Notorious
07-13-2011, 1:56 PM
This person has no business wearing a badge. A thief and a doper, two strikes and you're out

In this business, one strike will prevent you from ever being a cop. Heck, no strikes will do it if your BI has out for you for no reason.:mad::(

Maybe he could get a job in the prison system........

How about "trusty".......

Sounds like he meets all the qualifications for that position.

:leaving: :smilielol5:

I wouldn't trust him for "trustee" because those are the ones that go through private files and sell info to other prisoners or sneak contraband in. That's too much trust in this guy.

DavidRSA
07-15-2011, 9:46 AM
Would one be DQ'd for listing on the questionnaire CA-specific gun violations like not transporting a handgun correctly? ie not locked in the trunk with ammo in a separate bag; or carrying a loaded pistol in a handbag?

tyrist
07-15-2011, 11:52 AM
Would one be DQ'd for listing on the questionnaire CA-specific gun violations like not transporting a handgun correctly? ie not locked in the trunk with ammo in a separate bag; or carrying a loaded pistol in a handbag?

Nobody can really answer this since everything depends. Illegal CCW if the firearm is registered to you is not a felony so it's not guaranteed DQ. Depending on the reason it can make you a less desirable candidate but everything really depends.

andytothemax
07-16-2011, 10:19 AM
I have a friend that just got his masters and wants to be a LEO he asked me if he could even get in and for some advice as i have family that are leos but i have no clue and im not going to ask my family as they know him and I don't want to put them in that spot, so there are somethings in his past such as smoking weed once and doing a few rails of meth and the even bigger things are he stole some guns and ammo and acessorys from the uncles safe (if I remember right) and sold them to a friend and he also sold a legaly owend shotgun to the friend with out a transfer (same person)

His question is if he fills out the packet and tells the truth will he get in trouble? is there a chance he will get in trouble? If not then would there be after he takes the polygraph and they see he's telling the truth about it? (like they have evidence that he stole them and sold them?

Any advice would help, because I have no clue what to tell him

Mods: FYI, all of this info is public and is widely discussed in the applicant community on other forums; I believe no OPSEC is involved but if you disagree I apologize.

I took and passed the FBI pre-employment polygraph. I can't speak for the local LEO polygraph but if they follow DODPI procedures, it should be similar.

The polygraph method taught at the DOD Polygraph Institute is called the Probable Lie Comparison technique. There are relevant and comparison questions on the test. Comparison questions are the ones like "have you ever stolen anything" or "have you ever lied to someone in authority." These are questions where people are expected to lie or at least react, and from this the examiner establishes the applicant's baseline reactions. They use automated scoring software as well as electronic charts that are manually reviewed by polygraph specialists.

The first thing the examiner said in my pre-test interview was "The questions on this test cover the period of your life since you turned 18 years old." No conduct as a minor was asked about or considered. The "have you ever..." questions only applied to my life since turning 18. I also had to sign a form saying that I consented to be prosecuted for any crimes admitted during the polygraph. Note this is different from polygraph results; if you ADMIT a crime during the polygraph, you can be prosecuted. If you LIE on the polygraph and DO NOT ADMIT LYING, you cannot be prosecuted because polygraph results are inadmissible. Bottom line, don't lie on the polygraph, but especially don't ADMIT LYING on the polygraph. For example, if you admit lying on the FBI polygraph, you can be prosecuted for making false statements to the U.S. Government, a felony.

Back to the subject, relevant questions are the ones the examining agency is actually concerned about. For example, "have you ever committed a serious crime?" was one of the five relevant questions on my FBI polygraph. The other ones were "have you disclosed all of the information you have concerning your use of illegal drugs?"; "are all of the statements in your written application truthful?"; "have you ever committed an act of espionage?"; and "is your name [name]?" There is a limit on the number of relevant questions on the test. However, the examiner is free to use "breakdown" questioning if you react to any of the relevant questions. You still have to tell the truth on the breakdown questions.

With that said, your friend would probably react to the relevant questions, "have you ever committed a serious crime?" and "have you disclosed all of the information you have concerning your use of illegal drugs?" If he doesn't react (because he followed the instructions about conduct since turning 18 only), he's set. However, if he does react, and he wants to gamble by continuing the examination (you can leave at any time), he would then have to explain that he committed what could be considered a serious crime and experimented with drugs as a minor. The examiner could then ask "was it murder, rape, assault, or any other violent crime?" Your friend could truthfully answer no. If that is how it works out, your friend could conceivably slip through the cracks. People who disclose drug use and crimes to the FBI on the polygraph often continue in the application process, because those factors are not deemed disqualifying if they occurred long enough ago, depending on the nature and extent of the criminal behavior or drug use. The polygraph is used to evaluate both suitability and credibility; suitability is the nature and extent of drug use and crimes, and credibility is whether you lie on the exam itself. If you tell the truth, you pass, but you will be disqualified from employment if the examining agency decides that the conduct admitted is too serious.

Although your friend may be given the admonition about conduct as a minor, he may not depending on the local agency's policy. I am aware of one case in which a fellow FBI applicant was disqualified after he admitted to embezzling $10,000 from an employer, even though he was a minor at the time. I am aware of another case in which an applicant admitted to extensive drug use (coke, meth, etc. during high school) as a minor and was initially continued in the process, but was later disqualified after the full background investigation. I guess their theory is that you don't HAVE to admit to anything from when you were a minor, but if you do, they can consider it.

I've attached the DOD Polygraph Institute briefing booklet. It provides an overview of the general polygraph exam and techniques, as well as explaining the concept of relevant vs. comparison questions. The pre-test questionnaire in the appendix, if it is administered in your friend's case, is important to note. Without judging your friend and his past, I strongly advise your friend to read this document and decide whether he still wants to pursue this career option.