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 150
    More: Ironic, polygraphs, Defense Intelligence Agency, scientific skepticism, Mcclatchy  
•       •       •

12862 clicks; posted to Main » on 26 May 2013 at 11:24 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
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
 
Displayed 50 of 150 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report