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

12883 clicks; posted to Main » on 26 May 2013 at 11:24 AM (2 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

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