Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Kansas.com)   It turns out that the polygraph machine might have been the one that was lying   (kansas.com ) divider line
    More: Ironic, polygraphs, Defense Intelligence Agency, scientific skepticism, Mcclatchy  
•       •       •

12894 clicks; posted to Main » on 26 May 2013 at 11:24 AM (3 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



150 Comments   (+0 »)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread
 
2013-05-26 06:28:29 AM  
I didn't think Polygraphs could still be used in court?
 
2013-05-26 07:08:21 AM  

hardinparamedic: I didn't think Polygraphs could still be used in court?


That was my understanding as well. I think they're implying police used them to eliminate suspects during an investigation.
 
2013-05-26 08:31:38 AM  

hardinparamedic: I didn't think Polygraphs could still be used in court?


Cops step up to the plate and tell lies instead.
 
2013-05-26 09:19:47 AM  
I went in for a polygraph many years ago - was going work my way through college as a deputy sheriff in the local jail.  Polygrapher said I had problems with the question around selling cocaine.  Never been near the stuff before or since.

//CSB
 
2013-05-26 09:27:46 AM  
I'm sure they are every bit as accurate as drug dogs.
 
2013-05-26 09:36:22 AM  
Not admissible in court, but as I found, they can use it in questioning/interrogation, and the results are the difference between being a suspect and being released.

I found a pair of tickets to a football game in the mens room at the hotel I worked in, and used them.  It turns out they were part of a cache of stuff stolen from a local store.  I was a dumb college kid and agreed to come in for questioning, and they asked (coerced) me to take a polygraph to "clear my name".

20 minutes later, I was told the squiggly lines told them that my denials of breaking, entering and safecracking were "a classic pattern of deception."   Looking back, it may have been a bluff to see how I reacted, to elicit a confession, but you never see find me hooked up to a polygraph ever again.
 
2013-05-26 09:46:11 AM  

Earguy: Looking back, it may have been a bluff to see how I reacted, to elicit a confession


That is exactly what polygraphs are for. They are  not meaningful evidence of deception, but people  believe that the device can detect their lies- it's sort of like a placebo effect. Someone who  is lying, and who is told that the machine has detected their lies is more likely to surrender.
 
2013-05-26 09:50:24 AM  

t3knomanser: Earguy: Looking back, it may have been a bluff to see how I reacted, to elicit a confession

That is exactly what polygraphs are for. They are  not meaningful evidence of deception, but people  believe that the device can detect their lies- it's sort of like a placebo effect. Someone who  is lying, and who is told that the machine has detected their lies is more likely to surrender.


If I'm ever in a police interrogation I'm just going to stay silent and wait for a lawyer. I get so easily frazzled by those types of situations that I'd be confessing to the Lindbergh baby kidnapping within an hour.
 
2013-05-26 09:54:26 AM  

miss diminutive: t3knomanser: Earguy: Looking back, it may have been a bluff to see how I reacted, to elicit a confession

That is exactly what polygraphs are for. They are  not meaningful evidence of deception, but people  believe that the device can detect their lies- it's sort of like a placebo effect. Someone who  is lying, and who is told that the machine has detected their lies is more likely to surrender.

If I'm ever in a police interrogation I'm just going to stay silent and wait for a lawyer. I get so easily frazzled by those types of situations that I'd be confessing to the Lindbergh baby kidnapping within an hour.


It's what I should have done, but I was a kid who couldn't afford a lawyer and I didn't want to tell my dad.
 
2013-05-26 09:57:23 AM  

miss diminutive: If I'm ever in a police interrogation I'm just going to stay silent and wait for a lawyer.


That is the only action you can take that won't make things worse for you.
 
2013-05-26 10:06:17 AM  

t3knomanser: miss diminutive: If I'm ever in a police interrogation I'm just going to stay silent and wait for a lawyer.

That is the only action you can take that won't make things worse for you.


Never trust a police officer.  I'll say it again, louder, because it bears repeating:

NEVER TRUST A POLICE OFFICER.



Their job is to clear the case, not to solve it.  They are, in majority, power-abusing, ego-maniacal assholes with the world's most stressful job, and government pays them to wear all that black leather.  On top of that, the law does not allow them to clear your name.  Ever.  Anything you say to a cop - if it can possibly be construed or even twisted to incriminate you, that's "evidence".  If it clears you, That's "hearsay" and not admissible in court.

It sucks, but that's how it works.

NEVER - EVER - TRUST A POLICE OFFICER.

 
2013-05-26 10:18:24 AM  

Benevolent Misanthrope: t3knomanser: miss diminutive: If I'm ever in a police interrogation I'm just going to stay silent and wait for a lawyer.

That is the only action you can take that won't make things worse for you.

Never trust a police officer.  I'll say it again, louder, because it bears repeating:

NEVER TRUST A POLICE OFFICER.

Their job is to clear the case, not to solve it.  They are, in majority, power-abusing, ego-maniacal assholes with the world's most stressful job, and government pays them to wear all that black leather.  On top of that, the law does not allow them to clear your name.  Ever.  Anything you say to a cop - if it can possibly be construed or even twisted to incriminate you, that's "evidence".  If it clears you, That's "hearsay" and not admissible in court.

It sucks, but that's how it works.

NEVER - EVER - TRUST A POLICE OFFICER.


My ex-wife worked as a victim/witness counselor in a prosecutor's office. She gave me the exact same advice. No matter if you're innocent with an iron-clad alibi, never, ever talk to the police without a lawyer. It's one of the few pieces of advice she gave me that I actually will take if I'm ever in that situation.
 
2013-05-26 10:22:16 AM  

Benevolent Misanthrope: Their job is to clear the case, not to solve it.


This is the most important element of that. Police want to clear the case, the DA wants to close the case, and they all have the goal of putting someone in jail  as quickly as possible so they can move on to the gigantic backlog facing them.

Even if you have the ultimate Good Guy Greg of cops handling your case,  he still wants to put you in jail. He wouldn't have detained you if he didn't think he could get you into jail. Your only defense is to lawyer up. Lawyering up is not an admission of guilt. Lawyering up isn't going "to make this harder for everyone". Lawyering up makes sure the process proceeds smoothly, and it keeps your cornhole in its original factory condition.
 
2013-05-26 10:31:03 AM  
Benevolent Misanthrope:

NEVER - EVER - TRUST A POLICE OFFICER.

Another story, less about polygraphs and more about getting a lawyer.

My cousin bought some work boots at a locally-owned store, and they fell apart after only a few days' use.   He went to return them, and the owner would not accept the return.  It got a little heated, and my cousin ended up leaving angry.

A week later, the owner was shot dead in a robbery.   Two witnesses described the assailant as tall, thin, and hispanic.  Cops also asked if anyone might have a grudge or motive for murder; they recalled my angry cousin.

Short, stocky white cousin.  Still, it was easy to get his contact info off the credit card, and his ass was in the interrogation room.  Alone without a lawyer, and they're putting together a murder charge against him.  They were out to close the case, to put someone in jail.
 
2013-05-26 10:39:14 AM  
The polygraph is, and always has been a complete fraud.  It is s tool for eliciting confessions from those people that actually believe it is a "lie detector", when it isn't anything of the sort.
 
2013-05-26 10:47:12 AM  
I just submitted to one of those as part of my job. It seemed to be very dependent on you being a willing and cooperative subject. If your not those things I'm not sure how it could be anywhere close to accurate.
 
2013-05-26 10:56:11 AM  

Benevolent Misanthrope: t3knomanser: miss diminutive: If I'm ever in a police interrogation I'm just going to stay silent and wait for a lawyer.

That is the only action you can take that won't make things worse for you.

Never trust a police officer.  I'll say it again, louder, because it bears repeating:

NEVER TRUST A POLICE OFFICER.

Their job is to clear the case, not to solve it.  They are, in majority, power-abusing, ego-maniacal assholes with the world's most stressful job, and government pays them to wear all that black leather.  On top of that, the law does not allow them to clear your name.  Ever.  Anything you say to a cop - if it can possibly be construed or even twisted to incriminate you, that's "evidence".  If it clears you, That's "hearsay" and not admissible in court.

It sucks, but that's how it works.

NEVER - EVER - TRUST A POLICE OFFICER.


If you're arrested, you do two things.

Don't fight and resist. Don't give them a reason to kick your ass, even if you KNOW you're in the right. And don't give them any ammunition to use against you for BS.

Number two is don't say a farking word. If you're mirandized, tell them you're exercising your right to STFU. Period. Ask for your lawyer. Do not believe any promises a cop makes to you regarding charges, or dropping them. Remember, until you ask for a lawyer, they can BS you for up to 24 hours.

Also, here's a handy protip if you get pulled over or are stopped at a DUI Checkpoint: No, officer, I've had nothing but water to drink all day.
 
2013-05-26 10:59:15 AM  
And for the record, I can be  generally supportive of Law Enforcement without being entirely farking nieve.

I'd trust my life in the hands of the deputies I work with.
I'd lawyer up immediately and not say a damn word if it came down to dealing with the local city police.
 
2013-05-26 11:03:31 AM  

miss diminutive:
If I'm ever in a police interrogation I'm just going to stay silent and wait for a lawyer. I get so easily frazzled by those types of situations that I'd be confessing to the Lindbergh baby kidnapping within an hour.


This lawyer agrees. Talking to the police can not help you. There is NO WAY it can help you. His explanation as to why should be standard viewing requirement for all citizens of the United States.
 
2013-05-26 11:22:49 AM  

Benevolent Misanthrope: t3knomanser: miss diminutive: If I'm ever in a police interrogation I'm just going to stay silent and wait for a lawyer.

That is the only action you can take that won't make things worse for you.

Never trust a police officer.  I'll say it again, louder, because it bears repeating:

NEVER TRUST A POLICE OFFICER.

Their job is to clear the case, not to solve it.  They are, in majority, power-abusing, ego-maniacal assholes with the world's most stressful job, and government pays them to wear all that black leather.  On top of that, the law does not allow them to clear your name.  Ever.  Anything you say to a cop - if it can possibly be construed or even twisted to incriminate you, that's "evidence".  If it clears you, That's "hearsay" and not admissible in court.

It sucks, but that's how it works.

NEVER - EVER - TRUST A POLICE OFFICER.


This has been posted here before, Don't Talk to the Police.
 
2013-05-26 11:31:11 AM  
If this is the same one that Maury uses, I am going to ask for a re-do.
 
2013-05-26 11:32:02 AM  

hardinparamedic: I didn't think Polygraphs could still be used in court?


miss diminutive: hardinparamedic: I didn't think Polygraphs could still be used in court?

That was my understanding as well. I think they're implying police used them to eliminate suspects during an investigation.


My friend's brother was a sex offender and was required to take them as a condition of his probation/parole/whatever.

He failed one and committed suicide shortly afterwards, but I don't know if they were related.
 
2013-05-26 11:33:29 AM  

tenpoundsofcheese: If this is the same one that Maury uses, I am going to ask for a re-do.


If you were a guest on "Maury"; the polygraph isn't the only thing you probably need a do-over on.
 
2013-05-26 11:33:34 AM  

miss diminutive: t3knomanser: Earguy: Looking back, it may have been a bluff to see how I reacted, to elicit a confession

That is exactly what polygraphs are for. They are  not meaningful evidence of deception, but people  believe that the device can detect their lies- it's sort of like a placebo effect. Someone who  is lying, and who is told that the machine has detected their lies is more likely to surrender.

If I'm ever in a police interrogation I'm just going to stay silent and wait for a lawyer. I get so easily frazzled by those types of situations that I'd be confessing to the Lindbergh baby kidnapping within an hour.


I get so outraged when Im accused of something I didnt do that Id probably fail because the needle would be going off the chart because Im ready to choke someone for thinking I could do whatever I was accused of.
 
2013-05-26 11:37:37 AM  

Earguy: Benevolent Misanthrope:

NEVER - EVER - TRUST A POLICE OFFICER.

Another story, less about polygraphs and more about getting a lawyer.

My cousin bought some work boots at a locally-owned store, and they fell apart after only a few days' use.   He went to return them, and the owner would not accept the return.  It got a little heated, and my cousin ended up leaving angry.

A week later, the owner was shot dead in a robbery.   Two witnesses described the assailant as tall, thin, and hispanic.  Cops also asked if anyone might have a grudge or motive for murder; they recalled my angry cousin.

Short, stocky white cousin.  Still, it was easy to get his contact info off the credit card, and his ass was in the interrogation room.  Alone without a lawyer, and they're putting together a murder charge against him.  They were out to close the case, to put someone in jail.


Don't leave us hanging - what happened to your cousin?
 
2013-05-26 11:38:08 AM  
ANY result from a polygraph is inaccurate.

It's primary benefit to law enforcement is psychological in that they can dupe ignorant suspects into believing the results are accurate and can "reveal" lies, or simply intimidate them into a confession.

Other than that, lie detectiors are well-documented as merely bullshiat machines.
 
2013-05-26 11:39:50 AM  

hardinparamedic: I didn't think Polygraphs could still be used in court?


They can't, but they can be used by the cops in the course of an investigation.

TFA isn't really suggesting some legal change so much as that the use of the machines in investigations probably hurts more than it helps.  Apparently TFA is talking about an actual glitch, but there's also the issue that a stress meter doesn't really tell you much when used under conditions where basically anyone will be having stress spikes.

Not that there's a big difference to be made, since the cops already use profilers, who start out about as good at profiling as an average person guessing blindly and actually get worse with experience as their confidence builds.

Benevolent Misanthrope: NEVER - EVER - TRUST A POLICE OFFICER.


That's a bit harsh.

Trusting the cops is fine.  If you're a lost child, they'll get you back to your parents.  If you're getting mugged or robbed, they'll put up the lights and scare your assailant off, if you have a criminal complaint they'll file it for you, etc.  They're not necessarily bad at their jobs and they're no worse people on average than any other blue-collar worker you'll meet.

What you should never do is disclose any personal information to a police officer beyond your name, contact information, and current location to any police officer.  Any problem that the cops cannot solve with that much information about you is not a problem for the police.  Don't tell them where you've been, what you've been doing, or anything about anyone you've encountered.
 
2013-05-26 11:41:36 AM  
The polygraph has never been 'accurate' at anything but its intended function: measuring changes in electrical activity, blood pressure, respiration, etc.

This box has NEVER been able to 'tell when you are lying'. EVER. And they are fairly easily fooled.

Sadly, not too many folks actually know this. Although it mystifies me, personally, how they can't. FFS, they made a Mythbusters episode out of it.
 
2013-05-26 11:43:36 AM  
Best polygraph ever.
NSFW language.
 
2013-05-26 11:45:21 AM  

xaks: The polygraph has never been 'accurate' at anything but its intended function: measuring changes in electrical activity, blood pressure, respiration, etc.


Hey, now.

I got polygraphed the other day and now my aura is almost entirely free of body Thetans.  You should get polygraphed regularly or you'll have the disembodied souls of the million-year-old atomic volcano victims of the alien warlord Xenu cluttering up your natural clam-descended powers, and then you might not even be able to squash bugs with your mind at fifty paces!  How lame would that be?
 
2013-05-26 11:46:14 AM  
Overlooked here, but that story comes from the McClatchy papers' Washington bureau, one of the last bastions of cutting edge journalism. It was the McClatchy staff that was asking the tough questions of Bush and Rummy in the months leading up to the Iraq war -- like where is the real evidence of WMDs -- and sadly the nation wasn't paying attention.
 
2013-05-26 11:46:18 AM  
LAUGHTER OL anyone who does the use of the polygraph for any of the reasons is the quack. If you are the person who uses this at the workplace you deserve the shooting.
 
2013-05-26 11:47:53 AM  
I once applied for and almost took a job in the defense industry that had a clearance so high that they couldn't even tell me what it was, and the work was described as "database programming" and that's all they would say. They told me that I would sit around and do nothing for 6 months or so waiting for my clearance to go through. Once on the job, I could be pulled aside for no reason and given a polygraph where they could ask any question at all, like whether I sucked dick, etc. If I failed the polygraph I would be immediately terminated and escorted out of the building. I ended up taking a lower paying job that I had to move halfway across the country for instead.
 
2013-05-26 11:50:05 AM  
There is no such thing as a lie detector.
What there is, is this thing called a polygraph, or hocus pocus for a better word.
A polygraph is a device used to fool, intimidate, terrorize and generally fark with the unsuspecting, hopefully to the point of utter confusion and collapse.
Voila! A "confession".
 
2013-05-26 11:50:35 AM  

Babwa Wawa: I went in for a polygraph many years ago - was going work my way through college as a deputy sheriff in the local jail.  Polygrapher said I had problems with the question around selling cocaine.  Never been near the stuff before or since.

//CSB


When I was in college, I had to take one as a requirement for a job at a 7-11. When I checked back, I was told that I'd lied about everything, including my name and address. The manager knew it couldn't be accurate, but told me he couldn't hire me anyway. Policy, he said.
 
2013-05-26 11:52:39 AM  
Almost as soon as the polygraph came into use there were proven means to force false readings.  The only times I have heard of any hard evidence that came from the polygraph was exposing a suspect's underlying heart condition.

Hell, if they want to hook me up to one, it'll be with my lawyer present as they ask questions, and I'm going to show it's dead wrong by confessing to being the real Jack the Ripper, Zodiac Killer, or any maniac that ran rampant before I was born and letting the device show "no deception detected".  I think they'll have a very hard time making charges stick if I couldn't possibly have been alive during the time of the murder.
 
2013-05-26 11:53:18 AM  

ManRay: Best polygraph ever.
NSFW language.


That is f*cking great.
 
2013-05-26 11:54:09 AM  

show me: I once applied for and almost took a job in the defense industry that had a clearance so high that they couldn't even tell me what it was, and the work was described as "database programming" and that's all they would say. They told me that I would sit around and do nothing for 6 months or so waiting for my clearance to go through. Once on the job, I could be pulled aside for no reason and given a polygraph where they could ask any question at all, like whether I sucked dick, etc. If I failed the polygraph I would be immediately terminated and escorted out of the building. I ended up taking a lower paying job that I had to move halfway across the country for instead.


Yeah Im not sure Id want a jorb where id have to take poly graph.
 
2013-05-26 11:55:23 AM  
We fixed the glitch.

So it'll just work itself out naturally.
 
2013-05-26 12:00:43 PM  

Molavian: ManRay: Best polygraph ever.
NSFW language.

That is f*cking great.


The creator of The Wire swears that scene was based on something that actually happened.
 
Esn
2013-05-26 12:01:01 PM  

basemetal: Benevolent Misanthrope: t3knomanser: miss diminutive: If I'm ever in a police interrogation I'm just going to stay silent and wait for a lawyer.

That is the only action you can take that won't make things worse for you.

Never trust a police officer.  I'll say it again, louder, because it bears repeating:

NEVER TRUST A POLICE OFFICER.

Their job is to clear the case, not to solve it.  They are, in majority, power-abusing, ego-maniacal assholes with the world's most stressful job, and government pays them to wear all that black leather.  On top of that, the law does not allow them to clear your name.  Ever.  Anything you say to a cop - if it can possibly be construed or even twisted to incriminate you, that's "evidence".  If it clears you, That's "hearsay" and not admissible in court.

It sucks, but that's how it works.

NEVER - EVER - TRUST A POLICE OFFICER.

This has been posted here before, Don't Talk to the Police.


I just want to post to recommend that video. It's a great video, required viewing.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6wXkI4t7nuc
 
2013-05-26 12:04:15 PM  
What do you expect from the guy who created Wonder Woman?

4.bp.blogspot.com

www.saturdayeveningpost.com

It was all just his clever ploy to tie more females up, this time in the guise of Science.
 
2013-05-26 12:05:15 PM  
The very first line in that "article" shows me the reporter has no idea what they are talking about. Big surprise, I know.
 
2013-05-26 12:12:29 PM  
i6.photobucket.com
 
2013-05-26 12:12:49 PM  
Ah yes, the polygraph.  Rivaled only in accuracy by the scientific method of throwing women in the river to see if they're witches.
 
2013-05-26 12:14:44 PM  
Why there was ever any doubt as to the thoroughness of the polygraph as pseudoscience I'll never understand.  To me, it's not about police abuse of power so much as it is an industry protecting its own bottom line, kind of like the homeopathic "medicine" industry. If the polygraph had any basis in reality those kind of flaws FTA would have been exposed widely and openly discussed, not dismissed with "uh, no comment, national security".  The polygraph is junk, plain and simple.

I love the circular reasoning, too:
"Tommy Thompson, spokesman for the Phoenix Police Department, said his polygraphers had "over 60 years of experience collectively" and added that "no disparities have ever been noticed." Others said they thought supervisors would catch any error before it had a significant impact on a test."

Right.  As if they even have the minimum facilities to identify a discrepancy.
 
2013-05-26 12:15:11 PM  

ManRay: Molavian: ManRay: Best polygraph ever.
NSFW language.

That is f*cking great.

The creator of The Wire swears that scene was based on something that actually happened.


Yeah, David Simon first mentioned the story in his book "Homicide: A Year On The Killing Streets", which, if you liked either the "Homicide" TV seies or "The Wire", you have absolutely no excuse to have not read.
 
2013-05-26 12:15:30 PM  

pueblonative: Ah yes, the polygraph.  Rivaled only in accuracy by the scientific method of throwing women in the river to see if they're witches.


Well throwing them in the river is unnecessary, We can use my larger scales.
 
2013-05-26 12:18:02 PM  

Jim_Callahan: Benevolent Misanthrope: NEVER - EVER - TRUST A POLICE OFFICER.

That's a bit harsh.

Trusting the cops is fine.  If you're a lost child, they'll get you back to your parents.  If you're getting mugged or robbed, they'll put up the lights and scare your assailant off, if you have a criminal complaint they'll file it for you, etc.  They're not necessarily bad at their jobs and they're no worse people on average than any other blue-collar worker you'll meet.

What you should never do is disclose any personal information to a police officer beyond your name, contact information, and current location to any police officer.  Any problem that the cops cannot solve with that much information about you is not a problem for the police.  Don't tell them where you've been, what you've been doing, or anything about anyone you've encountered.


Well, the thing is... I'm not a child.  If I'm getting mugged or robbed, the crime will be over long before they get there, and if I've been drinking or I look otherwise suspicious to their little one-track brain, I may be arrested myself.  If I have a criminal complaint, they'll give me the form for me to fill out and then file it where it will never see the light of day again.  If I'm in an abusive relationship, and I call them to help me out of a domestic violence situation, and they don't approve of my being gay, they will advise me to get another girlfriend, not help me. (This happened to me.  Twice.  In different cities.)  And speaking of which, as an openly gay person, I've been far more likely to be rousted by cops than helped by them generally, until very recently.  When their departments grudgingly put a few people on paid leave for doing it and told the others some panty-waist DA told them they can't any more.  (Now, I have the added bonus of knowing that, if the cops decide to abuse me for being gay, they'll also plant drugs or otherwise trump something real up to justify it.)

Cops routinely beat citizens, destroy evidence, plant evidence, botch cases, and even shoot victims instead of criminals - and then cover it up.  They may be no worse at their jobs than any blue-collar worker - but your average blue collar worker's mistakes, by and large, do not ruin anyone else's life and do not leave them in the hospital from a gunshot wound or a beating.  Your average blue collar worker is also not in a job that, by definition, is supposed to ensure public safety.

Again:

NEVER - EVER - TRUST A POLICE OFFICER

 
2013-05-26 12:18:10 PM  

hardinparamedic: Also, here's a handy protip tip to add lying to a police officer to the indictment if you get pulled over or are stopped at a DUI Checkpoint: No, officer, I've had nothing but water to drink all day.


FTfY, assuming that the person did have something to drink.  The fifth amendment is the best way to go.
 
2013-05-26 12:28:44 PM  

Benevolent Misanthrope: Jim_Callahan: Benevolent Misanthrope: NEVER - EVER - TRUST A POLICE OFFICER.

That's a bit harsh.

Trusting the cops is fine.  If you're a lost child, they'll get you back to your parents.  If you're getting mugged or robbed, they'll put up the lights and scare your assailant off, if you have a criminal complaint they'll file it for you, etc.  They're not necessarily bad at their jobs and they're no worse people on average than any other blue-collar worker you'll meet.

What you should never do is disclose any personal information to a police officer beyond your name, contact information, and current location to any police officer.  Any problem that the cops cannot solve with that much information about you is not a problem for the police.  Don't tell them where you've been, what you've been doing, or anything about anyone you've encountered.

Well, the thing is... I'm not a child.  If I'm getting mugged or robbed, the crime will be over long before they get there, and if I've been drinking or I look otherwise suspicious to their little one-track brain, I may be arrested myself.  If I have a criminal complaint, they'll give me the form for me to fill out and then file it where it will never see the light of day again.  If I'm in an abusive relationship, and I call them to help me out of a domestic violence situation, and they don't approve of my being gay, they will advise me to get another girlfriend, not help me. (This happened to me.  Twice.  In different cities.)  And speaking of which, as an openly gay person, I've been far more likely to be rousted by cops than helped by them generally, until very recently.  When their departments grudgingly put a few people on paid leave for doing it and told the others some panty-waist DA told them they can't any more.  (Now, I have the added bonus of knowing that, if the cops decide to abuse me for being gay, they'll also plant drugs or otherwise trump something real up to justify it.)

Cops routinely beat citizens, destroy evidence, plant evidence, botch cases, and even shoot victims instead of criminals - and then cover it up.  They may be no worse at their jobs than any blue-collar worker - but your average blue collar worker's mistakes, by and large, do not ruin anyone else's life and do not leave them in the hospital from a gunshot wound or a beating.  Your average blue collar worker is also not in a job that, by definition, is supposed to ensure public safety.

Again:

NEVER - EVER - TRUST A POLICE OFFICER


you people all talk like this, but I tell you what, there's a biiiig difference between a town with enough cops and not enough cops and you always seem to live in the former, not the latter. like it or lump it, police are an important part of a civil polity and y'all should be a bit more grateful.
 
2013-05-26 12:31:36 PM  

willfullyobscure: you people all talk like this, but I tell you what, there's a biiiig difference between a town with enough cops and not enough cops and you always seem to live in the former, not the latter. like it or lump it, police are an important part of a civil polity and y'all should be a bit more grateful.


What does quantity have to do with a cop using his badge as an excuse to go minority bash?  I don't care if it's New York or Timfarktu, any town with that cop has one cop too many.
 
2013-05-26 12:31:44 PM  

pueblonative: hardinparamedic: Also, here's a handy protip tip to add lying to a police officer to the indictment if you get pulled over or are stopped at a DUI Checkpoint: No, officer, I've had nothing but water to drink all day.

FTfY, assuming that the person did have something to drink.  The fifth amendment is the best way to go.


Let me stop you right there. Lying to the police is not illegal, unless you are under oath and perjuring yourself.

The Fifth Amendment basically guarantees them probable cause for search and seizure at a DUI checkpoint.

The whole reason they ask if you have had anything to drink that night is that if you answer affirmatively  you have just given them constitutional probable cause to conduct a search according to the SCOTUS decision on DUI checkpoints.
 
2013-05-26 12:33:30 PM  

willfullyobscure: you people all talk like this, but I tell you what, there's a biiiig difference between a town with enough cops and not enough cops and you always seem to live in the former, not the latter. like it or lump it, police are an important part of a civil polity and y'all should be a bit more grateful.


I'm one of the most pro-LE FARKers on this website, take a LOT of abuse for explaining why certain things are done the way they are, and even I'll tell you that if you are arrested for a crime you did not commit, or even if you did, the first thing you do is lawyer up.

You WILL get railroaded by an overzealous prosecutor in most areas. ANd in urban areas, cops are under pressure to close criminal cases.
 
2013-05-26 12:35:24 PM  

willfullyobscure: you people all talk like this, but I tell you what, there's a biiiig difference between a town with enough cops and not enough cops and you always seem to live in the former, not the latter. like it or lump it, police are an important part of a civil polity and y'all should be a bit more grateful.


I would have said 2/10, but you've already gotten bites.  So, good show.  I guess.
 
2013-05-26 12:35:35 PM  
I am Jack's complete lack of cdn.sheknows.com
 
2013-05-26 12:36:47 PM  
If 'lie detectors' were reliable they would replace the entire justice system.

Future generations are going to look back on them like we do Scientologists e-meters.
 
2013-05-26 12:37:19 PM  

hardinparamedic: pueblonative: hardinparamedic: Also, here's a handy protip tip to add lying to a police officer to the indictment if you get pulled over or are stopped at a DUI Checkpoint: No, officer, I've had nothing but water to drink all day.

FTfY, assuming that the person did have something to drink.  The fifth amendment is the best way to go.

Let me stop you right there. Lying to the police is not illegal, unless you are under oath and perjuring yourself.

The Fifth Amendment basically guarantees them probable cause for search and seizure at a DUI checkpoint.

The whole reason they ask if you have had anything to drink that night is that if you answer affirmatively  you have just given them constitutional probable cause to conduct a search according to the SCOTUS decision on DUI checkpoints.


Somebody needs to info the state legislatures of this country, cause I'm not seeing any requirement of an oath.
 
2013-05-26 12:37:25 PM  

Saberus Terras: Almost as soon as the polygraph came into use there were proven means to force false readings.  The only times I have heard of any hard evidence that came from the polygraph was exposing a suspect's underlying heart condition.

Hell, if they want to hook me up to one, it'll be with my lawyer present as they ask questions, and I'm going to show it's dead wrong by confessing to being the real Jack the Ripper, Zodiac Killer, or any maniac that ran rampant before I was born and letting the device show "no deception detected".


I call B.S.
www.plesiosauria.com
We already know what the real Jack the Ripper looked like.
 
2013-05-26 12:38:17 PM  

iheartscotch: tenpoundsofcheese: If this is the same one that Maury uses, I am going to ask for a re-do.

If you were a guest on "Maury"; the polygraph isn't the only thing you probably need a do-over on.


But the rest of us salute you for making our boring lives seem so much better!
 
2013-05-26 12:38:48 PM  

pueblonative: Ah yes, the polygraph.  Rivaled only in accuracy by the scientific method of throwing women in the river to see if they're witches.


bshistorian.files.wordpress.com
Thankfully we have more scientific instruments now.
 
2013-05-26 12:39:07 PM  

pueblonative: Somebody needs to info the state legislatures of this country, cause I'm not seeing any requirement of an oath.


That's filing a false report, or knowingly giving false information in the course of a criminal investigation with the intent to mislead investigators or abet the escape of a fugitive.

It does not apply to "Did you have anything to drink"

If you ever notice, the cops sound like they're reading from a script when they do a DUI checkpoint questionare for a reason, and it's not because they're too dumb to think of original questions to ask.
 
2013-05-26 12:40:00 PM  

ciberido: Saberus Terras: Almost as soon as the polygraph came into use there were proven means to force false readings.  The only times I have heard of any hard evidence that came from the polygraph was exposing a suspect's underlying heart condition.

Hell, if they want to hook me up to one, it'll be with my lawyer present as they ask questions, and I'm going to show it's dead wrong by confessing to being the real Jack the Ripper, Zodiac Killer, or any maniac that ran rampant before I was born and letting the device show "no deception detected".

I call B.S.

We already know what the real Jack the Ripper looked like.


Well I was the 2nd gunman on the grassy knoll.
 
2013-05-26 12:41:33 PM  

ciberido: pueblonative: Ah yes, the polygraph.  Rivaled only in accuracy by the scientific method of throwing women in the river to see if they're witches.


Thankfully we have more scientific instruments now.


Ah yes my larger scales.
 
2013-05-26 12:42:15 PM  

J. Frank Parnell: If 'lie detectors' were reliable they would replace the entire justice system.

Future generations are going to look back on them like we do Scientologists e-meters.


I once read a novel called "The Truth Machine" about the future after a real lie-detector (one that actually worked accurately 100% of the time) was invented.  It wasn't a great novel per se, but it was interesting to see the author speculate just how far-reaching the effects would be.
 
2013-05-26 12:44:17 PM  

Benevolent Misanthrope: Cops routinely beat citizens, destroy evidence, plant evidence, botch cases, and even shoot victims instead of criminals - and then cover it up.


Oh, you're in Montreal too?
 
2013-05-26 12:45:02 PM  

pueblonative: hardinparamedic: Also, here's a handy protip tip to add lying to a police officer to the indictment if you get pulled over or are stopped at a DUI Checkpoint: No, officer, I've had nothing but water to drink all day.

FTfY, assuming that the person did have something to drink.  The fifth amendment is the best way to go.


I think that lying to a policeman is not explicitly a crime, but can be considered obstruction of justice if your lie really interferes with them going after something.

Google says many jurisdictions have an "exculpatory no" doctrine, which says you can always deny guilt without penalty. So in the above example, you could say "No I haven't been drinking".
 
2013-05-26 12:46:35 PM  

hardinparamedic: pueblonative: Somebody needs to info the state legislatures of this country, cause I'm not seeing any requirement of an oath.

That's filing a false report, or knowingly giving false information in the course of a criminal investigation with the intent to mislead investigators or abet the escape of a fugitive.

It does not apply to "Did you have anything to drink"

If you ever notice, the cops sound like they're reading from a script when they do a DUI checkpoint questionare for a reason, and it's not because they're too dumb to think of original questions to ask.



To step back a bit, suppose I drank one beer at a restaurant and then was driving home.  Police officer stops me and says, "Have you had anything to drink?"

Now, possible answers include.
1. No
2.  Only water.
3. Yes, I had one beer.
4. I refuse to answer that question.
5. [say nothing at all]

What's my best answer and why?  Am I not getting myself into more trouble by refusing to answer the question than by saying "one beer"?  And is there any difference between keeping my lips firmly shut and saying "I refuse to answer"?
 
2013-05-26 12:46:40 PM  

hardinparamedic: pueblonative: Somebody needs to info the state legislatures of this country, cause I'm not seeing any requirement of an oath.

That's filing a false report, or knowingly giving false information in the course of a criminal investigation with the intent to mislead investigators or abet the escape of a fugitive.

It does not apply to "Did you have anything to drink"

If you ever notice, the cops sound like they're reading from a script when they do a DUI checkpoint questionare for a reason, and it's not because they're too dumb to think of original questions to ask.


Giving False Information to the police:


To prove the offense of Giving False Information Concerning the Commission of a Crime ("Lying to Police"), the prosecution must establish the following five elements beyond a reasonable doubt:


1. The accused knowingly gave information about the alleged commission of a crime;

2. The accused knew the information was false;

3. The accused gave the false information to a person;


4. The person to whom the information was given was a law enforcement officer;

5. The accused knew that the person was a law enforcement officer.



Under Florida law, Giving False Information to Police, or "Lying to Police," is a first degree misdemeanor, with penalties of up to 365 days in jail. However, if the false information concerns the commission of a capital felony, the offense may be classified as a third degree felony, with penalties that may include up to 5 years in prison.



Now, I'm just a bit slow this morning, but the words written report and oath appear nowhere in those elements.  I guess you could slide by claiming in your drunken stupor you had accidentally wandered onto the set of a crime drama, though.
 
2013-05-26 12:50:31 PM  
I took a polygraph once, when applying for a job with local government. At the end of the test, I was told we would have to schedule a follow-up because there were "indicators" that I was a junkie, a dealer, and a sexual deviant. The morning of the follow-up, I received a call and was told the test was cancelled.

As it turns out, the guy they hired scored lower than I did on the intelligence test, but his dad had worked for that office. So the polygraph is also useful when circumnavigating hiring standards for purposes relating to nepotism.
 
2013-05-26 12:51:18 PM  

jake_lex: ManRay: Molavian: ManRay: Best polygraph ever.
NSFW language.

That is f*cking great.

The creator of The Wire swears that scene was based on something that actually happened.

Yeah, David Simon first mentioned the story in his book "Homicide: A Year On The Killing Streets", which, if you liked either the "Homicide" TV seies or "The Wire", you have absolutely no excuse to have not read.


Yeah, that legend has been around since at least the 1960s.
 
2013-05-26 12:52:29 PM  

ciberido: What's my best answer and why?  Am I not getting myself into more trouble by refusing to answer the question than by saying "one beer"?  And is there any difference between keeping my lips firmly shut and saying "I refuse to answer"?


1 and 2 will give the cop no probable cause to conduct a DUI Sobriety check or brethalyzer.

3)  and 4) will give him probable cause right off the bat.

5) Will probable get him pissed off, which if you're going for the IRL troll angle I salute your brevity. :)

pueblonative: hardinparamedic: pueblonative: Somebody needs to info the state legislatures of this country, cause I'm not seeing any requirement of an oath.

Now, I'm just a bit slow this morning, but the words written report and oath appear nowhere in those elements.  I guess you could slide by claiming in your drunken stupor you had accidentally wandered onto the set of a crime drama, though.


I didn't mention anything about a "written report". I said giving or filing a false report.

In addition, there is NO crime being committed or known about at the time you answer no. In reality, unless you smell like a brewery, or you have an open visible container in the vehicle, the typical follow up will be where are you coming from, where are you headed, and do you have your ID.

The five conditions which your own link states must be demonstrably met are not by the attempt to gain probable cause. No crime is being alleged at that time. In reality, having a beer and driving is not a crime. Having a BAC >0.08 is.
 
2013-05-26 12:53:50 PM  

Quantum Apostrophe: Benevolent Misanthrope: Cops routinely beat citizens, destroy evidence, plant evidence, botch cases, and even shoot victims instead of criminals - and then cover it up.

Oh, you're in Montreal too?


Fort McMurray, which is, actually, much nicer.  But I moved from Tacoma, and man oh man.  Seattle.  Lordy.
 
2013-05-26 12:54:36 PM  
pueblonative
Now, I'm just a bit slow this morning, but the words written report and oath appear nowhere in those elements.


But the words "Concerning the Commission of a Crime" and several times "the accused".
 
2013-05-26 12:54:36 PM  

Benevolent Misanthrope: Quantum Apostrophe: Benevolent Misanthrope: Cops routinely beat citizens, destroy evidence, plant evidence, botch cases, and even shoot victims instead of criminals - and then cover it up.

Oh, you're in Montreal too?

Fort McMurray, which is, actually, much nicer.  But I moved from Tacoma, and man oh man.  Seattle.  Lordy.


Seattle is getting LAPD level bad. At least they stopped going after pot smokers.
 
2013-05-26 12:54:40 PM  
I wonder if the police department I applied for and failed the polygraph for uses the same machine, because I know for a fact I didn't lie.
 
2013-05-26 12:56:19 PM  

noitsnot: pueblonative: hardinparamedic: Also, here's a handy protip tip to add lying to a police officer to the indictment if you get pulled over or are stopped at a DUI Checkpoint: No, officer, I've had nothing but water to drink all day.

FTfY, assuming that the person did have something to drink.  The fifth amendment is the best way to go.

I think that lying to a policeman is not explicitly a crime, but can be considered obstruction of justice if your lie really interferes with them going after something.

Google says many jurisdictions have an "exculpatory no" doctrine, which says you can always deny guilt without penalty. So in the above example, you could say "No I haven't been drinking".


Drinking is not a crime.  So you can say, "no I'm not drunk driving" to the officer, or even "I'm not drunk."  What you can't do, and what I'm objecting to, is tell the officer that you've been only sipping Perrier that day when you've been pounding bloody marys.   And suppose you are found to have a  BAC above the legal limit?  Now you're a liar and drunk.  That's why the wisest course is to not say a goddamned thing.

Of course, that assumes that you're in possession of enough of your facilities in the first place to reasonably and rationally understand the situation.
 
2013-05-26 12:58:58 PM  

pueblonative: Drinking is not a crime.  So you can say, "no I'm not drunk driving" to the officer, or even "I'm not drunk."  What you can't do, and what I'm objecting to, is tell the officer that you've been only sipping Perrier that day when you've been pounding bloody marys.   And suppose you are found to have a  BAC above the legal limit?  Now you're a liar and drunk.  That's why the wisest course is to not say a goddamned thing.


Can you link a case in Florida that has had this applied to a DUI stop and arrest?
 
2013-05-26 01:07:04 PM  

RedPhoenix122: I wonder if the police department I applied for and failed the polygraph for uses the same machine, because I know for a fact I didn't lie.


See my post above. They probably wanted someone dumber and less fit.
 
2013-05-26 01:11:25 PM  
Never trust the cops, except with guns. They are totally the only people we can trust with guns.

/Because i feel completely safe being outgunned by the same cops that are going to fark me over if it means an easy win on their case.
//The cops are NOT your friends.
 
2013-05-26 01:12:39 PM  

autopsybeverage: See my post above. They probably wanted someone dumber and less fit.


Intelligent people tend to make terrible cops. It's a tedious, repetitive job. It's just not a good fit for intelligent people.
 
2013-05-26 01:14:51 PM  
I took a polygraph as part of obtaining a security clearance.  I had problems with questions asking if I had ever stolen or shared state secrets with agents of other governments, but had zero problems with the questions regarding theft.

At the time of the test I had never left the country, never been privy to any state secrets, and never met any agents of other governments, so I had no idea why I was failing those questions.

Now if I had failed the questions around theft, there are some things in my past that would have justified it. But of course I breezed through those questions.

I walked out of that test with less respect for polygraphs then when I entered.
 
2013-05-26 01:18:28 PM  

t3knomanser: Intelligent people tend to make terrible cops. It's a tedious, repetitive job. It's just not a good fit for intelligent people.


That's what they claim they don't want people with high IQs for, but intelligent people happily work much more repetitive and tedious jobs. Almost gravitating to certain ones. It makes more sense that intelligent people would question orders and be less predictable.

/Thinking for yourself is a no-no.
//Give yourself to the hive mind.
 
2013-05-26 01:19:40 PM  

The Voice of Doom: pueblonative
Now, I'm just a bit slow this morning, but the words written report and oath appear nowhere in those elements.

But the words "Concerning the Commission of a Crime" and several times "the accused".


Last I checked, Drunk Driving was a crime, and the phrase "the accused" seems to indicate the person who did the lying.


hardinparamedic: pueblonative: Drinking is not a crime.  So you can say, "no I'm not drunk driving" to the officer, or even "I'm not drunk."  What you can't do, and what I'm objecting to, is tell the officer that you've been only sipping Perrier that day when you've been pounding bloody marys.   And suppose you are found to have a  BAC above the legal limit?  Now you're a liar and drunk.  That's why the wisest course is to not say a goddamned thing.

Can you link a case in Florida that has had this applied to a DUI stop and arrest?


I'll check it out, but for the moment let's take your point and assume that until the officer tells you to put your hand on a bible and swear you can lie your goddamned head off.  Exactly what good does that do?  Absent you being a very gifted liar, you're not going to jedi mind trick the cop.  If he wants to arrest you he's going to arrest you; everything you do after that is just building his case. Even if you don't get hit with a filing a false report charge, lying about it only gives the prosecutors mens rea wrapped up in a bright bow.

Now suppose you take the fifth (not the one you had over dinner) and refuse to answer any questions beyond your name and address.   You might say that draws suspicion as well.  True, but that's suspicion that will never be allowed in a court of law, while your lie (if lie it is) will be.
 
2013-05-26 01:20:30 PM  

pueblonative: noitsnot: pueblonative: hardinparamedic: Also, here's a handy protip tip to add lying to a police officer to the indictment if you get pulled over or are stopped at a DUI Checkpoint: No, officer, I've had nothing but water to drink all day.

FTfY, assuming that the person did have something to drink.  The fifth amendment is the best way to go.

I think that lying to a policeman is not explicitly a crime, but can be considered obstruction of justice if your lie really interferes with them going after something.

Google says many jurisdictions have an "exculpatory no" doctrine, which says you can always deny guilt without penalty. So in the above example, you could say "No I haven't been drinking".

Drinking is not a crime.  So you can say, "no I'm not drunk driving" to the officer, or even "I'm not drunk."  What you can't do, and what I'm objecting to, is tell the officer that you've been only sipping Perrier that day when you've been pounding bloody marys.   And suppose you are found to have a  BAC above the legal limit?  Now you're a liar and drunk.  That's why the wisest course is to not say a goddamned thing.

Of course, that assumes that you're in possession of enough of your facilities in the first place to reasonably and rationally understand the situation.


At any DUI stop, or any other interaction with the police  never never never admit you have been drinking (assuming that's the issue) even if you have a beer in your hand, and even if you just face planted.  never.
The cop is asking the question to get probable cause to either make you do field sobriety tests or just simply arrest you and take you to the station for a breathalizer.

You are not having a friendly conversation.

If they ask you "do you know why I pulled you over?"  the answer is "no officer I don't" because in fact you don't.  Answers like "because I was doing 150 in a 20?" or "because of the dead hooker in my trunk?" are not helpful.

If they ask you "do you know how fast you were going" the answer is always "I believe I was doing the speed limit"

Do not ever admit anything to a cop.  They are attempting the establish probable cause and get you to admit crimes and violations so that prosecuting you is that much easier.

Absolutely positively NEVER admit to drinking.  "No officer, I have not been drinking."  You admit to one beer 12 hours ago, and you are on your way to a DUI.
 
2013-05-26 01:22:30 PM  

pueblonative: The Voice of Doom: pueblonative
Now, I'm just a bit slow this morning, but the words written report and oath appear nowhere in those elements.

But the words "Concerning the Commission of a Crime" and several times "the accused".

Last I checked, Drunk Driving was a crime, and the phrase "the accused" seems to indicate the person who did the lying.


hardinparamedic: pueblonative: Drinking is not a crime.  So you can say, "no I'm not drunk driving" to the officer, or even "I'm not drunk."  What you can't do, and what I'm objecting to, is tell the officer that you've been only sipping Perrier that day when you've been pounding bloody marys.   And suppose you are found to have a  BAC above the legal limit?  Now you're a liar and drunk.  That's why the wisest course is to not say a goddamned thing.

Can you link a case in Florida that has had this applied to a DUI stop and arrest?

I'll check it out, but for the moment let's take your point and assume that until the officer tells you to put your hand on a bible and swear you can lie your goddamned head off.  Exactly what good does that do?  Absent you being a very gifted liar, you're not going to jedi mind trick the cop.  If he wants to arrest you he's going to arrest you; everything you do after that is just building his case. Even if you don't get hit with a filing a false report charge, lying about it only gives the prosecutors mens rea wrapped up in a bright bow.

Now suppose you take the fifth (not the one you had over dinner) and refuse to answer any questions beyond your name and address.   You might say that draws suspicion as well.  True, but that's suspicion that will never be allowed in a court of law, while your lie (if lie it is) will be.


This is simply incorrect, and absolutely awful advice.  They are looking for probable cause, and if you admit to a single drink, they have it.
 
2013-05-26 01:23:10 PM  
"I have nothing to say about that."

"Am I free to go or am I being detained?"

Repeat as necessary.
 
2013-05-26 01:23:58 PM  
Benevolent Misanthrope:Well, the thing is... I'm not a child.

So you should maybe make some sort of effort to be reasonable in your evaluations and expectations of various professionals, including those in public service, rather than knee-jerking randomly with antisocial blanket statements that only guarantee that the system won't work in the ways you're biatching about?

For instance:

If I'm getting mugged or robbed, the crime will be over long before they get there, and if I've been drinking or I look otherwise suspicious to their little one-track brain, I may be arrested myself.  If I have a criminal complaint, they'll give me the form for me to fill out and then file it where it will never see the light of day again.

Kind of not giving the force enough credit there, looking at the actual numbers immediate response ends a good portion of reported crimes and reports of things like theft and assault frequently lead to arrests.  Not always, obviously, but you have to understand that burden of proof is on the cops and sometimes they're just not going to have enough.

Anecdotes are not data, and even your anecdotes sort of support the opposite of your point here... when called in to your domestics, the cops apparently did stop the immediate fight.

If I'm in an abusive relationship, and I call them to help me out of a domestic violence situation, and they don't approve of my being gay, they will advise me to get another girlfriend, not help me. (This happened to me.  Twice.  In different cities.)

That is actually all that the cops legally  can do for most domestic disputes: break up the immediate fight, advise the participants to break up permanently, then leave.  This isn't something special about being gay, you're very rarely going to get an attitude of glowing approval of your lifestyle if a straight relationship results in the cops getting called in, either.  That's sort of a giant red flag on your lifestyle in itself.

Did you actually pursue charges against your partner, or get/request a restraining order?  If not, the police did literally everything they could for you.  In fact, giving you the advice was them going out on something of a limb for you, legally.  That can be construed as legal advice and garner a cop significant censure, so he was actually kind of putting his job at risk to try to help you.  And it was, well, pretty good advice, too.
 
2013-05-26 01:24:39 PM  
FTFA: The technical glitch produced errors in the computerized measurements of sweat in one of the most popular polygraphs, the LX4000.

So if you want someone to fail a polygraph, just turn up the thermostat? Sounds legit.
 
2013-05-26 01:31:44 PM  

UNAUTHORIZED FINGER: FTFA: The technical glitch produced errors in the computerized measurements of sweat in one of the most popular polygraphs, the LX4000.

So if you want someone to fail a polygraph, just turn up the thermostat? Sounds legit.


Alternately, if you want to pass just put a thumbtack in your shoe to cause pain when answering things they know to be true, so any stress caused by lying later will be indistinguishable. But you didn't hear that from me...
 
2013-05-26 01:33:03 PM  

J. Frank Parnell: UNAUTHORIZED FINGER: FTFA: The technical glitch produced errors in the computerized measurements of sweat in one of the most popular polygraphs, the LX4000.

So if you want someone to fail a polygraph, just turn up the thermostat? Sounds legit.

Alternately, if you want to pass just put a thumbtack in your shoe to cause pain when answering things they know to be true, so any stress caused by lying later will be indistinguishable. But you didn't hear that from me...


Or take a prozac or other medication that causes you to feel no stress.
 
2013-05-26 01:36:03 PM  

UNAUTHORIZED FINGER: FTFA: The technical glitch produced errors in the computerized measurements of sweat in one of the most popular polygraphs, the LX4000.

So if you want someone to fail a polygraph, just turn up the thermostat? Sounds legit.


It's a common tactic with cops to turn up the heat anyway. Also, to put you into a chair that's been altered so that you're constantly sliding forward and can't get comfortable. Anything you can think of to make the subject uncomfortable and feel out of sorts. These kinds of stress-inducing tactics are used to try and get the subject to talk in order to make it stop.

Generally, be prepared to listen to them screaming at you and trying to draw you out. Be prepared to shiat yourself and/or piss yourself. Don't let them have any ammo that makes you vulnerable "oh, you have to go to the bathroom? Well, just tell us one thing and you can."

Having narcolepsy helps, too.
 
2013-05-26 01:39:01 PM  

Jim_Callahan: Benevolent Misanthrope:Well, the thing is... I'm not a child.

So you should maybe make some sort of effort to be reasonable in your evaluations and expectations of various professionals, including those in public service, rather than knee-jerking randomly with antisocial blanket statements that only guarantee that the system won't work in the ways you're biatching about?

For instance:

If I'm getting mugged or robbed, the crime will be over long before they get there, and if I've been drinking or I look otherwise suspicious to their little one-track brain, I may be arrested myself.  If I have a criminal complaint, they'll give me the form for me to fill out and then file it where it will never see the light of day again.

Kind of not giving the force enough credit there, looking at the actual numbers immediate response ends a good portion of reported crimes and reports of things like theft and assault frequently lead to arrests.  Not always, obviously, but you have to understand that burden of proof is on the cops and sometimes they're just not going to have enough.

Anecdotes are not data, and even your anecdotes sort of support the opposite of your point here... when called in to your domestics, the cops apparently did stop the immediate fight.

If I'm in an abusive relationship, and I call them to help me out of a domestic violence situation, and they don't approve of my being gay, they will advise me to get another girlfriend, not help me. (This happened to me.  Twice.  In different cities.)

That is actually all that the cops legally  can do for most domestic disputes: break up the immediate fight, advise the participants to break up permanently, then leave.  This isn't something special about being gay, you're very rarely going to get an attitude of glowing approval of your lifestyle if a straight relationship results in the cops getting called in, either.  That's sort of a giant red flag on your lifestyle in itself.

Did you actually pursue charges against ...


OK, having read a few things you're writing today in various threads (mostly about gay folks, maybe you think on that),... you're a gay-baiter.  So, I'll bow out, I try not to feed the trolls.
 
2013-05-26 01:39:33 PM  

ciberido: To step back a bit, suppose I drank one beer at a restaurant and then was driving home. Police officer stops me and says, "Have you had anything to drink?"

Now, possible answers include.
1. No
2. Only water.
3. Yes, I had one beer.
4. I refuse to answer that question.
5. [say nothing at all]


 
I guess the first question is, "why did the cop stop you in the first place?"  Unless this is strictly a random DUI checkpoint, the officer had suspicion that did not involve you talking to him.  Now, let's set up the scenario that you did have a beer right before you left the restaurant.  You're not impaired, but the officer is suspicious of that last turn you made and decides to pull you over..

1 & 2.  A lie, and can be used against you in court when they pull out the BAC results.  May not be enough for probable cause, but if the officer gets close enough to you to hear you they're probably close enough to smell you at the time.
3.  Truth, but still can be used against you (not all areas of the country have drunk driving as a statutory crime) in a court of law.
4 & 5.  May increase suspicion, but cannot be used against you in a court of law.
 
2013-05-26 01:43:09 PM  

Bravo Two: Or take a prozac or other medication that causes you to feel no stress.


Psychopaths don't even need medication to lie without stress, which is probably the biggest flaw with these devices. Don't work at all on the most dangerous and devious of criminals, and can even serve to falsely prove them innocent.
 
2013-05-26 01:43:45 PM  

Benevolent Misanthrope: t3knomanser: miss diminutive: If I'm ever in a police interrogation I'm just going to stay silent and wait for a lawyer.

That is the only action you can take that won't make things worse for you.

Never trust a police officer.  I'll say it again, louder, because it bears repeating:

NEVER TRUST A POLICE OFFICER.

Their job is to clear the case, not to solve it.  They are, in majority, power-abusing, ego-maniacal assholes with the world's most stressful job, and government pays them to wear all that black leather.  On top of that, the law does not allow them to clear your name.  Ever.  Anything you say to a cop - if it can possibly be construed or even twisted to incriminate you, that's "evidence".  If it clears you, That's "hearsay" and not admissible in court.

It sucks, but that's how it works.

NEVER - EVER - TRUST A POLICE OFFICER.


Bears repeating and  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6wXkI4t7nuc">http://www.youtube.com/wa tch?v=6wXkI4t7nuc
 
2013-05-26 01:44:30 PM  

Benevolent Misanthrope: OK, having read a few things you're writing today in various threads (mostly about gay folks, maybe you think on that),... you're a gay-baiter. So, I'll bow out, I try not to feed the trolls.


Nice ad hominem. I haven't visited other threads today, but his comment wasn't at all baiting or trollish.

/Perhaps it's you?
 
2013-05-26 01:46:16 PM  
DoctorOfLove:
This is simply incorrect, and absolutely awful advice.  They are looking for probable cause, and if you admit to a single drink, they have it.

I don't know who you're responding to, so I'm going to have to clarify and state what my advice is: don't say a thing.  If you're telling the truth they'll use it against you, and if you're lying, they'll just get the results of the test and use that and the earlier lie against you as well  ("he said that he wasn't drinking but his BAC is .15.  Since when .has he been living downstream of the Jim Bean factory?")
 
2013-05-26 01:46:28 PM  

Jim_Callahan: xaks: The polygraph has never been 'accurate' at anything but its intended function: measuring changes in electrical activity, blood pressure, respiration, etc.

Hey, now.

I got polygraphed the other day and now my aura is almost entirely free of body Thetans.  You should get polygraphed regularly or you'll have the disembodied souls of the million-year-old atomic volcano victims of the alien warlord Xenu cluttering up your natural clam-descended powers, and then you might not even be able to squash bugs with your mind at fifty paces!  How lame would that be?


You was duped, man, and real bad. The was the E-Meter. Now you are stuck with Thetans forever and ever.

Unless you pay their bill. Forever and ever.
 
2013-05-26 01:49:29 PM  

ManRay: Molavian: ManRay: Best polygraph ever.
NSFW language.

That is f*cking great.

The creator of The Wire swears that scene was based on something that actually happened.


Nope.

http://www.snopes.com/legal/colander.asp
 
2013-05-26 01:50:31 PM  

hardinparamedic: And for the record, I can be  generally supportive of Law Enforcement without being entirely farking nieve.

I'd trust my life in the hands of the deputies I work with.
I'd lawyer up immediately and not say a damn word if it came down to dealing with the local city police.


Both of these.

I'm as pro- cop as you can be around here; but the culture corrupts, and the system is dangerously broken. Never ever ever say a word to a cop after providing your name and drivers license number, until your lawyer shows up.

And if your lawyer/union rep tells you to submit to a polygraph, get a new lawyer.
 
2013-05-26 01:54:07 PM  

pueblonative: ciberido: To step back a bit, suppose I drank one beer at a restaurant and then was driving home. Police officer stops me and says, "Have you had anything to drink?"

Now, possible answers include.
1. No
2. Only water.
3. Yes, I had one beer.
4. I refuse to answer that question.
5. [say nothing at all]

 
I guess the first question is, "why did the cop stop you in the first place?"  Unless this is strictly a random DUI checkpoint, the officer had suspicion that did not involve you talking to him.  Now, let's set up the scenario that you did have a beer right before you left the restaurant.  You're not impaired, but the officer is suspicious of that last turn you made and decides to pull you over..

1 & 2.  A lie, and can be used against you in court when they pull out the BAC results.  May not be enough for probable cause, but if the officer gets close enough to you to hear you they're probably close enough to smell you at the time.
3.  Truth, but still can be used against you (not all areas of the country have drunk driving as a statutory crime) in a court of law.
4 & 5.  May increase suspicion, but cannot be used against you in a court of law.


This is nuts.  Essentially every guilty verdict, under your theory, would have two components, one: the substantive crime (dui, murder whatever) and two: denying guilt (and insisting on a trial), and therefore lying about guilt.  This is nuts.  The accused gets to deny guilt.  period.

What you are tying to avoid in traffic stops is providing  probable cause.  Thus, lie.   I was not drinking, I was not speeding, the hooker was in the trunk when I rented the car, whatever.  Lie lie lie.

When the cop pulls you over and asks you if you have been drinking, even if you have to spit the appletini out on his shoes to speak, say "absolutely not".
 
2013-05-26 01:57:27 PM  
pueblonative
if you're lying, they'll just get the results of the test and use that and the earlier lie against you as well ("he said that he wasn't drinking but his BAC is .15. Since when .has he been living downstream of the Jim Bean factory?")

"They asked about drinking, not about eating two pounds of cognac truffles."
 
2013-05-26 02:00:37 PM  

Carousel Beast: Benevolent Misanthrope: OK, having read a few things you're writing today in various threads (mostly about gay folks, maybe you think on that),... you're a gay-baiter. So, I'll bow out, I try not to feed the trolls.

Nice ad hominem. I haven't visited other threads today, but his comment wasn't at all baiting or trollish.

/Perhaps it's you?


Oops - forgot which alt you're signed in as, didja?
 
2013-05-26 02:03:12 PM  
Again boys and girls, repeat after me:

1.  No, officer, I don't know why you pulled me over.
2.  I believe I was doing the speed limit.
3.  I have not been drinking.

Then shut up and act respectfully, while being silent.

Also, when you get pulled over,  put your hands on the top of the steering wheel.  Do not fiddle around for your license, insurance whatever.  This way the officer can see that you aren't going to shoot them, and it lowers the cop's blood pressure.  Many (most) cops have been trained to carefully watch the driver in stops (so the cop doesn't get shot) and they will appreciate the gesture.  Hands on top of the wheel.
 
2013-05-26 02:03:25 PM  
 

DoctorOfLove: What you are tying to avoid in traffic stops is providing probable cause. Thus, lie. I was not drinking, I was not speeding, the hooker was in the trunk when I rented the car, whatever. Lie lie lie.



Sure, because the only evidence that can be used in a court is the evidence out of the accused's own mouth.  I guess all those lawyers had it wrong when they advised their clients to not say a thing.  They should have been telling them all along to lie their asses off.  The saying is, "nobody talks, everybody walks," not "everybody lies, nobody fries".
 
2013-05-26 02:04:21 PM  

J. Frank Parnell: /Thinking for yourself is a no-no.
//Give yourself to the hive mind.


The Many sings to us.
 
2013-05-26 02:06:28 PM  

DoctorOfLove: Again boys and girls, repeat after me:

1. No, officer, I don't know why you pulled me over.
2. I believe I was doing the speed limit.
3. I have not been drinking.


1.  Right on.
2.  True.
3.  Change that to "I'm not drunk" and you got it.  "I have not been drinking" is a factual statement that can be proven or disproven, and if it's disproven you're in even more trouble.
 
2013-05-26 02:15:37 PM  

pueblonative: DoctorOfLove: Again boys and girls, repeat after me:

1. No, officer, I don't know why you pulled me over.
2. I believe I was doing the speed limit.
3. I have not been drinking.

1.  Right on.
2.  True.
3.  Change that to "I'm not drunk" and you got it.  "I have not been drinking" is a factual statement that can be proven or disproven, and if it's disproven you're in even more trouble.


3.  Again, incredibly, and dangerously wrong.  I assume you don't have a dui practice.  Say "officer, I absolutely have not been drinking".  Drunk drivers get convicted of drunk driving, not making false statements.  People lie to cops all the time (in fact, nearly all the time).  The cops know this.  The cop's questions are an IQ test, just to see how stupid (and drunk) you are.

I
 
2013-05-26 02:18:09 PM  

miss diminutive: t3knomanser: Earguy: Looking back, it may have been a bluff to see how I reacted, to elicit a confession

That is exactly what polygraphs are for. They are  not meaningful evidence of deception, but people  believe that the device can detect their lies- it's sort of like a placebo effect. Someone who  is lying, and who is told that the machine has detected their lies is more likely to surrender.

If I'm ever in a police interrogation I'm just going to stay silent and wait for a lawyer. I get so easily frazzled by those types of situations that I'd be confessing to the Lindbergh baby kidnapping within an hour.


DING DING DING!!!

As someone, who has actually broken the law on occasion, I will state; do this.

Even if you have not done anything wrong, don't talk to the ARCO's in any way shape or form. They are not your friends.

Oh, here's my PSA, don't do the crime, if you can't do the time. That's what keeps me on the skinny side.
 
2013-05-26 02:19:12 PM  

pueblonative: Ah yes, the polygraph.  Rivaled only in accuracy by the scientific method of throwing women in the river to see if they're witches.


What is your scientific explanation for a woman being made of wood?
 
2013-05-26 02:25:21 PM  

DoctorOfLove: pueblonative: DoctorOfLove: Again boys and girls, repeat after me:

1. No, officer, I don't know why you pulled me over.
2. I believe I was doing the speed limit.
3. I have not been drinking.

1.  Right on.
2.  True.
3.  Change that to "I'm not drunk" and you got it.  "I have not been drinking" is a factual statement that can be proven or disproven, and if it's disproven you're in even more trouble.

3.  Again, incredibly, and dangerously wrong.  I assume you don't have a dui practice.  Say "officer, I absolutely have not been drinking".  Drunk drivers get convicted of drunk driving, not making false statements.  People lie to cops all the time (in fact, nearly all the time).  The cops know this.  The cop's questions are an IQ test, just to see how stupid (and drunk) you are.


Okay, go ahead and say "I have not been drinking".  I'm sure that's going to really work in your favor when they manage to put the bartender that served you on the stand to testify you'd been at happy hour with an open tab.  You seem to have some weird notion that the jury will go, "well, he did have a BAC of twice the legal limit and was videotaped doing keg stands, but the guy did tell the officer he had not been drinking so I guess he didn't have probable cause."  Lies can be used against you in court; invoking the fifth cannot.
 
2013-05-26 02:29:13 PM  
But..but..but..it seems scientific!  The subject is sweating and with increased heart rate after a question is asked; she's GUILTY!!  That's all there is to it!
 
2013-05-26 02:37:16 PM  
Polygraph results aren't generally admissible in court proceedings anyway.
 
2013-05-26 02:41:52 PM  

BolshyGreatYarblocks: But..but..but..it seems scientific!  The subject is sweating and with increased heart rate after a question is asked; she's GUILTY!!  That's all there is to it!


Of course.  What other explanation is there?  Surely nobody would be nervous strapped at the chest with velcro and hooked up to a machine answering questions with a bunch of cops around you.  Whenever I want to get relaxed, I stroll on down for a tour of the interrogation room at my local PD.
 
2013-05-26 02:48:54 PM  

pueblonative: Of course, that assumes that you're in possession of enough of your facilities in the first place to reasonably and rationally understand the situation.


Most farkers, even sober, have an irrational rebellious streak towards cops so that's not happening.

Healthy respect/fear will result in compliance.  Taking an attitude or lying or other similar things will only cause trouble.

Have a problem with them? There are much more effective means to submit complaints.  If you don't use those legitimate means the blame is on you.  Same as government.  They don't simply exist, the populace is supposed to police them to a point, to hold them responsible for their action.  Many of societies such problems are equal parts bad cop and lazy citizen.

Remain silent without being rebellious and 99.9% of people won't ever have an issue with cops or false charges, unless that cop happens to be very dirty.

There is only one type of innocent people that have problems with cops on any regular basis, spoiled or self-entitled assholes, and even in that charges can be found, ie resisting arrest, harrassing an officer, etc.

It's unfortunate, but that's how our system works.  Cops should be listened to in general, but not so much spoken to, and always held up to their code of conduct.
 
2013-05-26 02:50:02 PM  

hardinparamedic: ciberido: What's my best answer and why?  Am I not getting myself into more trouble by refusing to answer the question than by saying "one beer"?  And is there any difference between keeping my lips firmly shut and saying "I refuse to answer"?

1 and 2 will give the cop no probable cause to conduct a DUI Sobriety check or brethalyzer.

3)  and 4) will give him probable cause right off the bat.

5) Will probable get him pissed off, which if you're going for the IRL troll angle I salute your brevity. :)

pueblonative: hardinparamedic: pueblonative: Somebody needs to info the state legislatures of this country, cause I'm not seeing any requirement of an oath.

Now, I'm just a bit slow this morning, but the words written report and oath appear nowhere in those elements.  I guess you could slide by claiming in your drunken stupor you had accidentally wandered onto the set of a crime drama, though.

I didn't mention anything about a "written report". I said giving or filing a false report.

In addition, there is NO crime being committed or known about at the time you answer no. In reality, unless you smell like a brewery, or you have an open visible container in the vehicle, the typical follow up will be where are you coming from, where are you headed, and do you have your ID.

The five conditions which your own link states must be demonstrably met are not by the attempt to gain probable cause. No crime is being alleged at that time. In reality, having a beer and driving is not a crime. Having a BAC >0.08 is.


Isn't that BAC the threshold for presumed guilt of DUI even in the absence of other evidence? Can't you still be charged with DUI if you drive erratically or fail field sobriety tests even below the limit?
 
2013-05-26 02:54:59 PM  
wallywam1:

Isn't that BAC the threshold for presumed guilt of DUI even in the absence of other evidence? Can't you still be charged with DUI if you drive erratically or fail field sobriety tests even below the limit?

I think it comes down to proving guilt, to use failed sobriety tests and erratic driving you have to provide video or other testimony that they were in fact drunk and not a victim of a stroke or wasp attack or something.  A hard number tends to leave no room for interpretation for a juror or judge.
 
2013-05-26 03:02:01 PM  

Saberus Terras: wallywam1:

Isn't that BAC the threshold for presumed guilt of DUI even in the absence of other evidence? Can't you still be charged with DUI if you drive erratically or fail field sobriety tests even below the limit?

I think it comes down to proving guilt, to use failed sobriety tests and erratic driving you have to provide video or other testimony that they were in fact drunk and not a victim of a stroke or wasp attack or something.  A hard number tends to leave no room for interpretation for a juror or judge.


Seems legit.

/Not being sarcastic.
 
2013-05-26 03:02:48 PM  

wallywam1: hardinparamedic: ciberido: What's my best answer and why?  Am I not getting myself into more trouble by refusing to answer the question than by saying "one beer"?  And is there any difference between keeping my lips firmly shut and saying "I refuse to answer"?

1 and 2 will give the cop no probable cause to conduct a DUI Sobriety check or brethalyzer.

3)  and 4) will give him probable cause right off the bat.

5) Will probable get him pissed off, which if you're going for the IRL troll angle I salute your brevity. :)

pueblonative: hardinparamedic: pueblonative: Somebody needs to info the state legislatures of this country, cause I'm not seeing any requirement of an oath.

Now, I'm just a bit slow this morning, but the words written report and oath appear nowhere in those elements.  I guess you could slide by claiming in your drunken stupor you had accidentally wandered onto the set of a crime drama, though.

I didn't mention anything about a "written report". I said giving or filing a false report.

In addition, there is NO crime being committed or known about at the time you answer no. In reality, unless you smell like a brewery, or you have an open visible container in the vehicle, the typical follow up will be where are you coming from, where are you headed, and do you have your ID.

The five conditions which your own link states must be demonstrably met are not by the attempt to gain probable cause. No crime is being alleged at that time. In reality, having a beer and driving is not a crime. Having a BAC >0.08 is.

Isn't that BAC the threshold for presumed guilt of DUI even in the absence of other evidence? Can't you still be charged with DUI if you drive erratically or fail field sobriety tests even below the limit?


yep.   The BAC is the presumed limit for drunk driving.  If you get found with that you're hosed.  But even if you aren't, cops can still prove that you were driving erratically or failed a sobriety field test if you have any alcohol in your system.
 
2013-05-26 03:05:40 PM  
Police departments and federal agencies across the country are using a type of polygraph despite evidence of a technical problem that could label truthful people as liars or the guilty as innocent, McClatchy has found.

Or because of.
 
2013-05-26 03:06:29 PM  

gito: Earguy: Benevolent Misanthrope:

NEVER - EVER - TRUST A POLICE OFFICER.

Another story, less about polygraphs and more about getting a lawyer.

My cousin bought some work boots at a locally-owned store, and they fell apart after only a few days' use.   He went to return them, and the owner would not accept the return.  It got a little heated, and my cousin ended up leaving angry.

A week later, the owner was shot dead in a robbery.   Two witnesses described the assailant as tall, thin, and hispanic.  Cops also asked if anyone might have a grudge or motive for murder; they recalled my angry cousin.

Short, stocky white cousin.  Still, it was easy to get his contact info off the credit card, and his ass was in the interrogation room.  Alone without a lawyer, and they're putting together a murder charge against him.  They were out to close the case, to put someone in jail.

Don't leave us hanging - what happened to your cousin?


Oh.  He eventually got a lawyer and lack of evidence/alibi cleared him.  But it was a harrowing time that could have been avoided,
 
2013-05-26 03:27:47 PM  

pueblonative: You seem to have some weird notion that the jury will go, "well, he did have a BAC of twice the legal limit and was videotaped doing keg stands, but the guy did tell the officer he had not been drinking so I guess he didn't have probable cause."  Lies can be used against you in court; invoking the fifth cannot.


Yeah, the judge is the person who decides what probable cause is, not the jury.  If probably cause is lacking the jury doesn't get to hear about any of the things you mentioned other than "I told the officer I had not been drinking" when/if you testify.
 
2013-05-26 03:44:18 PM  

Earguy: gito: Earguy: Benevolent Misanthrope:

NEVER - EVER - TRUST A POLICE OFFICER.

Another story, less about polygraphs and more about getting a lawyer.

My cousin bought some work boots at a locally-owned store, and they fell apart after only a few days' use.   He went to return them, and the owner would not accept the return.  It got a little heated, and my cousin ended up leaving angry.

A week later, the owner was shot dead in a robbery.   Two witnesses described the assailant as tall, thin, and hispanic.  Cops also asked if anyone might have a grudge or motive for murder; they recalled my angry cousin.

Short, stocky white cousin.  Still, it was easy to get his contact info off the credit card, and his ass was in the interrogation room.  Alone without a lawyer, and they're putting together a murder charge against him.  They were out to close the case, to put someone in jail.

Don't leave us hanging - what happened to your cousin?

Oh.  He eventually got a lawyer and lack of evidence/alibi cleared him.  But it was a harrowing time that could have been avoided,


Oh that is great news! Thanks for the update :)
 
2013-05-26 03:47:08 PM  
Polygraphs detect nervousness and anxiety. I could short one out with one of my better panic attacks.
 
2013-05-26 04:14:18 PM  
img2.etsystatic.com
So this may indeed have been about as accurate as the real thing?
 
2013-05-26 04:44:09 PM  
Like drug dogs, a polygraph will say whatever the tech wants it to say.
 
2013-05-26 04:44:44 PM  
And that's not a bug, it's a feature.
 
2013-05-26 05:13:38 PM  

LordZorch: The polygraph is, and always has been a complete fraud.  It is s tool for eliciting confessions from those people that actually believe it is a "lie detector", when it isn't anything of the sort.


This.

/This.
//Also, this.
 
2013-05-26 05:22:17 PM  

fugeeface: LordZorch: The polygraph is, and always has been a complete fraud.  It is s tool for eliciting confessions from those people that actually believe it is a "lie detector", when it isn't anything of the sort.

This.

/This.
//Also, this.


That too.
 
2013-05-26 05:43:22 PM  

Gyrfalcon: hardinparamedic: And for the record, I can be  generally supportive of Law Enforcement without being entirely farking nieve.

I'd trust my life in the hands of the deputies I work with.
I'd lawyer up immediately and not say a damn word if it came down to dealing with the local city police.

Both of these.

I'm as pro- cop as you can be around here; but the culture corrupts, and the system is dangerously broken. Never ever ever say a word to a cop after providing your name and drivers license number, until your lawyer shows up.

And if your lawyer/union rep tells you to submit to a polygraph, get a new lawyer.


Very true.
And I know it's been posted in this thread but it can't be posted enough.
DO NOT TALK TO POLICE
 
2013-05-26 05:56:35 PM  
 
2013-05-26 06:17:42 PM  

ciberido: J. Frank Parnell: If 'lie detectors' were reliable they would replace the entire justice system.

Future generations are going to look back on them like we do Scientologists e-meters.

I once read a novel called "The Truth Machine" about the future after a real lie-detector (one that actually worked accurately 100% of the time) was invented.  It wasn't a great novel per se, but it was interesting to see the author speculate just how far-reaching the effects would be.


I recall that book. I also recall it being an enjoyable read, if overly optimistic.
 
2013-05-26 07:38:09 PM  

miss diminutive: hardinparamedic: I didn't think Polygraphs could still be used in court?

That was my understanding as well. I think they're implying police used them to eliminate suspects during an investigation.


Ain't you the optimist.

" intelligence and law enforcement agencies see polygraph as useful in obtaining confessions to wrongdoing that wouldn't otherwise be uncovered."

Read more here: http://www.kansas.com/2013/05/25/2819167/glitch-in-widely-used-polygr a ph.html#storylink=cp
 
2013-05-26 09:08:59 PM  
I am a former PI, criminal investigator and single mother of three boys. After my eperiences in the criminal justice field, I began routinely grabbing my boys, pushing them against the wall and shouting questions at them. They were only allowed to answer calmly in one sentence "I want a lawyer" to every question. They were allowed and encouraged to shiat themselves if possible cause none of my co-workers would stay in a room with that smell for long. They are now in thier 40's and have, each one, had instances to use that advice. They performed beautifully, just like Mami taught them. Of course, the first lesson is never ever do anything illegal, second lesson is not to associate with people who do things illegal and the third lesson is "I want a lawyer".

If you have kids and don't condition them for cop encounters, you are releasing fish into a shark pool.  Even other cops don't trust cops.
 
2013-05-26 09:11:04 PM  

Earguy: miss diminutive: t3knomanser: Earguy: Looking back, it may have been a bluff to see how I reacted, to elicit a confession

That is exactly what polygraphs are for. They are  not meaningful evidence of deception, but people  believe that the device can detect their lies- it's sort of like a placebo effect. Someone who  is lying, and who is told that the machine has detected their lies is more likely to surrender.

If I'm ever in a police interrogation I'm just going to stay silent and wait for a lawyer. I get so easily frazzled by those types of situations that I'd be confessing to the Lindbergh baby kidnapping within an hour.

It's what I should have done, but I was a kid who couldn't afford a lawyer and I didn't want to tell my dad.



Plus, you were in on the Lindbergh job and bailed out right before the little brat was whisked off in a small plane by that Anne Frank witch to be held in a work camp on a deserted island and watched over by Helen Keller.
 
2013-05-26 09:12:45 PM  

SurfaceTension: Benevolent Misanthrope: t3knomanser: miss diminutive: If I'm ever in a police interrogation I'm just going to stay silent and wait for a lawyer.

That is the only action you can take that won't make things worse for you.

Never trust a police officer.  I'll say it again, louder, because it bears repeating:

NEVER TRUST A POLICE OFFICER.

Their job is to clear the case, not to solve it.  They are, in majority, power-abusing, ego-maniacal assholes with the world's most stressful job, and government pays them to wear all that black leather.  On top of that, the law does not allow them to clear your name.  Ever.  Anything you say to a cop - if it can possibly be construed or even twisted to incriminate you, that's "evidence".  If it clears you, That's "hearsay" and not admissible in court.

It sucks, but that's how it works.

NEVER - EVER - TRUST A POLICE OFFICER.

My ex-wife worked as a victim/witness counselor in a prosecutor's office. She gave me the exact same advice. No matter if you're innocent with an iron-clad alibi, never, ever talk to the police without a lawyer. It's one of the few pieces of advice she gave me that I actually will take if I'm ever in that situation.



So far, I find it easier just to not-get-caught. But you're lack of millage may very.
 
2013-05-26 09:32:54 PM  

serialsuicidebomber: So far, I find it easier just to not-get-caught. But you're lack of millage may very.


Very true, once you're brought into the system well you're fubar.
 
2013-05-26 10:40:39 PM  
The only reason the police ever question you about anything (unless you are a witness, maybe even then) is because they "know" you are guilty.  If you were innocent they wouldn't waste their time on you, so the only thing they want out of you is your confession.  While they may presume that getting a lawyer is "proof" of your guilt, remember that they already "knew" you were guilty in the first place.

Shut your pie hole, get a lawyer.
 
2013-05-26 10:57:38 PM  

LordZorch: The only reason the police ever question you about anything (unless you are a witness, maybe even then) is because they "know" you are guilty.  If you were innocent they wouldn't waste their time on you, so the only thing they want out of you is your confession.  While they may presume that getting a lawyer is "proof" of your guilt, remember that they already "knew" you were guilty in the first place.

Shut your pie hole, get a lawyer.


Very true, yea using this a lot today.
Do not talk to police
 
2013-05-27 01:03:48 AM  

omeganuepsilon: pueblonative: Of course, that assumes that you're in possession of enough of your facilities in the first place to reasonably and rationally understand the situation.

Most farkers, even sober, have an irrational rebellious streak towards cops so that's not happening.

Healthy respect/fear will result in compliance.  Taking an attitude or lying or other similar things will only cause trouble.

Have a problem with them? There are much more effective means to submit complaints.  If you don't use those legitimate means the blame is on you.  Same as government.  They don't simply exist, the populace is supposed to police them to a point, to hold them responsible for their action.  Many of societies such problems are equal parts bad cop and lazy citizen.

Remain silent without being rebellious and 99.9% of people won't ever have an issue with cops or false charges, unless that cop happens to be very dirty.

There is only one type of innocent people that have problems with cops on any regular basis, spoiled or self-entitled assholes, and even in that charges can be found, ie resisting arrest, harrassing an officer, etc.

It's unfortunate, but that's how our system works.  Cops should be listened to in general, but not so much spoken to, and always held up to their code of conduct.


Have you ever been diagnosed with Stockholm Syndrome?

Because help is out there for you. Ask a mental health professional today!
 
2013-05-27 11:10:14 AM  

snocone: There is no such thing as a lie detector.
What there is, is this thing called a polygraph, or hocus pocus for a better word.
A polygraph is a device used to fool, intimidate, terrorize and generally fark with the unsuspecting, hopefully to the point of utter confusion and collapse.
Voila! A "confession".


I've been polygraphed.  I can't say that "terror" was one of the emotions I felt during the process.

Seriously, anyone who is intimidated by polygraphy has no clue what the procedure is about.
 
2013-05-27 12:11:22 PM  

Lawyers With Nukes: Have you ever been diagnosed with Stockholm Syndrome?

Because help is out there for you. Ask a mental health professional today!


Late and sad troll is late and sad.

Or just incredibly naive to the point of idiocy.

I'll try to break it down for you.

In the system we  have, it's best not to get into an altercation with a cop, because that can be viewed as illegal in and of itself.  Instead, use the system of government as it is designed.  File complaints, lawsuits, write letters to representatives/senate/governor etc.

Same way if you're getting mugged at gunpoint by a more typical criminal, you don't resist, you comply(unless you really are about to die, then you have nothing to lose).  THEN you go to the cops.

Altercations with the wrongdoer almost never end well.  Same in in any place of business.  If you argue with the fry-slinger you get nothing but a shouting match and look childish when the manager does show up.  You seek out the management calmly, present your grievance with a party that has some ability to assert control over or fire an unruly/unfit employee.

Use the system, that's the entire reason it's in place.  Those who don't and insist on creating more trouble are no better than spoiled and lazy children who prize only their current emotion over anything that could actually be productive.
 
2013-05-27 12:16:19 PM  

Mouser: snocone: There is no such thing as a lie detector.
What there is, is this thing called a polygraph, or hocus pocus for a better word.
A polygraph is a device used to fool, intimidate, terrorize and generally fark with the unsuspecting, hopefully to the point of utter confusion and collapse.
Voila! A "confession".

I've been polygraphed.  I can't say that "terror" was one of the emotions I felt during the process.

Seriously, anyone who is intimidated by polygraphy has no clue what the procedure is about.


How about Tarot Cards?
What are they about?

If you spend a few months studying the farce, as some of us medical pros have, you would not be so clueless.
Your single experience had what goal of the "test".
 
2013-05-27 12:18:25 PM  

omeganuepsilon: Lawyers With Nukes: Have you ever been diagnosed with Stockholm Syndrome?

Because help is out there for you. Ask a mental health professional today!

Late and sad troll is late and sad.

Or just incredibly naive to the point of idiocy.

I'll try to break it down for you.

In the system we  have, it's best not to get into an altercation with a cop, because that can be viewed as illegal in and of itself.  Instead, use the system of government as it is designed.  File complaints, lawsuits, write letters to representatives/senate/governor etc.

Same way if you're getting mugged at gunpoint by a more typical criminal, you don't resist, you comply(unless you really are about to die, then you have nothing to lose).  THEN you go to the cops.

Altercations with the wrongdoer almost never end well.  Same in in any place of business.  If you argue with the fry-slinger you get nothing but a shouting match and look childish when the manager does show up.  You seek out the management calmly, present your grievance with a party that has some ability to assert control over or fire an unruly/unfit employee.

Use the system, that's the entire reason it's in place.  Those who don't and insist on creating more trouble are no better than spoiled and lazy children who prize only their current emotion over anything that could actually be productive.


Perfect plan to eventually destroy the system.
If only that were our goal and not Truth, Justice and The American Way.
 
2013-05-27 01:36:56 PM  

omeganuepsilon: Lawyers With Nukes: Have you ever been diagnosed with Stockholm Syndrome?

Because help is out there for you. Ask a mental health professional today!

Late and sad troll is late and sad.

Or just incredibly naive to the point of idiocy.

I'll try to break it down for you.

In the system we  have, it's best not to get into an altercation with a cop, because that can be viewed as illegal in and of itself.  Instead, use the system of government as it is designed.  File complaints, lawsuits, write letters to representatives/senate/governor etc.

Same way if you're getting mugged at gunpoint by a more typical criminal, you don't resist, you comply(unless you really are about to die, then you have nothing to lose).  THEN you go to the cops.

Altercations with the wrongdoer almost never end well.  Same in in any place of business.  If you argue with the fry-slinger you get nothing but a shouting match and look childish when the manager does show up.  You seek out the management calmly, present your grievance with a party that has some ability to assert control over or fire an unruly/unfit employee.

Use the system, that's the entire reason it's in place.  Those who don't and insist on creating more trouble are no better than spoiled and lazy children who prize only their current emotion over anything that could actually be productive.


upload.wikimedia.org

Is this one of your spoiled and lazy children?
 
2013-05-27 01:52:46 PM  

Lawyers With Nukes: [upload.wikimedia.org image 789x556]

Is this one of your spoiled and lazy children?


I think the more important question is why that gentleman in the background is peeing in the street
 
2013-05-27 02:19:49 PM  

Mouser: Seriously, anyone who is intimidated by polygraphy has no clue what the procedure is about.


I've been polygraphed 19 times (and the 20th time the exam administrator refused to polygraph me after the pre-exam interview).  Fill me in on what you think the procedure is about.
 
2013-05-27 08:14:30 PM  

mrmopar5287: Fill me in on what you think the procedure is about.


Fixing the cable?
 
2013-05-27 11:13:21 PM  

ManRay: Best polygraph ever.
NSFW language.


I respectfully disagree.
Link
 
Displayed 150 of 150 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report