View Full Version : SWAT Selection
SWAT Selection tomorrow.
Events as follows:
AM Events
1. Run 3 miles (shorts/Tshirt)
2. 3 consecutive 300 yard sprints
3. Bench Press (3 attempts) for 1 rep max
4. Sit ups (1 min)
5. Push ups (1 min)
6. Pull ups (no time)
7. Clean and Press(10 min total) 135 lbs (3 efforts) cumulative amount lifted
8. Obstacle course (level IV armor/no headgear) last event in O course is a
simunition shot at 7 yds. Head shot takes off 20 seconds, center mass
takes off 10 secs.
* events 3-7 can be done in any order
Afternoon Portion
1. Standard Pistol Qual course (sucks really...shooting for score) Some
sequences are timed some not.
2. Stress Pistol course [unknown event(s)]
Evening Portion
1. Backround/work record review
2. Polygraph? :eek:
3. Oral Board (basic shoot no shoot stuff) heavy emphasis 4th Amendment
knowledge/understanding as well as use of force..
Looks like 20 guys are trying out for 2 slots. Events are weighted for gender and age one female on list. I suggested (as a joke) a 12 mile ruck to the SWAT commander (no mil exp) and he looked at me as if I had three heads. Major Martin's book has had me ready for SFAS so the physical stuff SHOULD be relatively easy (read: no injuries). It'll be a great day as there are some real quality guys trying out. Eval will be Physical: 30%, Shooting 30%, Oral Interview 40%.
When events are weighted for age and gender there are no standards.
If a position required the individual be able to drag a wounded partner out of the line of fire and a test could be move a 160 pound sandman 30' in a given time all people trying out would have to pass reguardless of sex or age.
To say a female and 60 year old man only have to move 100 pounds makes them the weak link. Just picked that number out of thin air folks.
In the early 80s my wife tried out for a security position out at the airport. She had to move a 135 pound sandman a given distance and then over a four foot fence. All the females failed and a man got the position. That was the requirement.
When events are weighted for age and gender there are no standards.
Concur 100%. When the military guys trying out were told of the weighting system we all smelled a quota coming. The good news is that she can't shoot worth a s@#$ and should not be a factor. One event in the O course will be a 185lb dummy drag about 40-50 yds and a 6 foot wall to get over that will be another equalizer. Please dont read that I would not want a female as an operator on the team. I (everyone) just wants a fully qualified person who can carry his/her own weight.
The Reaper
05-10-2007, 08:43
FiveO, interesting course. I assume that you posted it soliciting feedback.
Having been involved with our selection course, I would offer the following.
You have a lot of speed, endurance, and physical strength events. Gym rats and runners will do well. A couple of issues there. Most of your events have nothing to do with the tasks that your members will have to perform. Better to have buddy lifts and drags or stair runs than three milers or bench presses. Look for similar stressful events that apply to the job. Maybe a short run in full gear and pro mask, followed by the requirement to render a report via radio and a shooting event. For example, a buddy of mine went to try out with a department and one of the events was a to fire a full mag from their issued S&W for score with each hand, double action only, at the end of the obstacle course. Turns out that most females, and quite a few males who do not dry fire regularly could not complete this event. This achieved their purpose, and was indisputably a job related requirement.
Also, you have to remember that while the physical selection is the easiest to conduct and evaluate, and it will show you who is already in shape, but it is also the easiest to fix. You can make a person faster and stronger up to a point, but you cannot make them smarter, taller, or more ethical. You may find out who keeps themself in shape, but at the same time, you could get most candidates into decent physical condition with some group PT every week.
What you may want to do is to gradually grind the candidate down through physical exertion, lack of rest and recovery, etc. while simultaneously increasing stress. At the critical moment, there will be an evaluation of the individual's ability to make good decisions, manage stress, and function effectively either alone or as a member of a team. The student may not even need to know that they are being evaluated at that moment. Everyone can put out on a flat range with perfect lighting, well-rested, fed, etc. You are looking for the person who can take a beating, and make the right decisions under adverse conditions, every time.
I would recommend that you not tell the students the distance to be run or the events they will be subjected to. This increases the stress and is a better evaluator of what level of effort the student will put out and for how long. If you give me a standard and a watch, I can pace myself or save up for later events. If the standard for the three mile run is 24:00, and I know that, maybe I could have done it in 18:00, but I will not show you that level of effort on a GO/NO GO event if I know it. You would be amazed at how many may not complete the test if they do not know what the events and standards are. "Do the best that you can". You need to have the standards, but the student need not know what they are, nor should you tell them when it is over. "We felt that you lacked endurance on the long run" is a perfectly acceptable level of feedback at the end of selection rather than "Your time of 25:03 on the three-mile run was too slow." An announcement reading "Prospective members are to report in X uniform with Y gear well-rested, physically fit, and available for for a series of stressful tests on Z date and time" should be all the candidates need to know.
You are probably already doing it, but I would recommend an extensive battery of psychological tests, not only to look for intelligence, education, reasoning, etc., but also to determine the personality of the individual and whether they will fit in as a member of your team, if they tend to stress, etc. The psych may be asked to evaluate ethics of the individuals as well, or you may put ethical dilemmas into your scenarios. I would recommend a one on one interview for each candidate with a psychologist for a broad based session. You do not need a drunk, wifebeater, Rambo, racist, thumper, or a nutjob getting on your tac team. Make sure that the psych understands your duty requirements and what you are looking for.
I would look for a good test of reasoning and creativity, something like the old military Leadership Reaction Course. You need people who can follow instructions, but who can also improvise if required to do so. If they can do it after being physically exhausted, that person probably has the qualities you are looking for. All problems may not require linear or ballistic solutions.
I also noticed that there were no swimming events. Swimming should be a requirement for any organization that may have to function in an area with water, and I guarantee you that a trip from the top of the high dive to the bottom of the pool with full armor and gear will quickly show you what the person is made of, whether they may be prone to panic, how they react to stress, heights, water, etc. Swimming is also another event that wears people down. Five minutes of treading water followed by a 50 meter swim in duty gear (minus plates) is a good physical stress event.
Peer reports are critical. You may want to have the students evaluate one another immediately after the selection events end. I would also consider requiring peer reports from the candidates' regular duty partners, squad members, first line supervisors, etc. You find out a lot of information from peers that you may not catch.
I did not see any team events listed. If the candidates are usually going to be required to function as members of a team, then it would be very helpful to give them difficult tasks to perform as team members after the rest of the physical stressors are over and take a look at how well they work with others and function as team members. Rotating them through leadership positions for some spotlight exposure is revealing as well.
Try not to break people while evaluating them. Everyone needs to be temporarily exhausted, sore, tired, blistered, etc. No one needs to be drawing workman's comp after this or be disabled permanently. Risk management and safety have to be considerations. Safety divers in the water and EMS on hand, for example.
No age or gender norming for members. If everyone is going to do the same job, they need to be able to perform to the same standard, and be selected under the same criteria. Along that line, people who are going to be evaluating others should be required to complete the selection course themselves periodically. It keeps them aware of the events and shows the candidates that this is not just another hazing event, but is taken seriously. The course needs to be constantly evaluated for effectiveness, and modified as required.
A board of SWAT leadership, team members, and the psych should review all packets at the end, interview each officer, and notify them of the results. Everyone who tries out needs to know how they performed, whether they are selected or not, what their strengths and weaknesses were, and whether they should try out again or not. No sense in having a person that you are never going to select coming back every tryout, unless departmental policy requires it. Some selection courses may have no selected candidates, others may have more than you need. Take the very best, new members that you can train to standard and that you would not mind serving with in a bad situation.
In summary, there are a lot of ways to get what you are looking for, which I believe is a physically fit, smart, tactically proficient, motivated, calm, rational, stable individual who can make good decisions under stress and function well as a member of your team. You are looking for a package, not just a PT stud.
Hope this helps.
TR
Regarding the "norming" of scores....
We recently underwent a selection process for our full time team. 60 or 70 guys put in, hoping to be one of the 10-12 that made it onto the eligibility list from which the team pulls members (as openings arise).
The events were completed, scores tallied, and the list was made. The list goes up the bureau chain for approval, and a commander says that the list "doesn't adequately reflect the diversity of the community and the department."
So the list is extended (doubled in size), so that more diverse applicants (who didn't make the cut) could be included.
As if that weren't insulting enough to those who did make the cut, one of the first openings on the teams was given to an individual who did not make the original list. That decision came from the top down.
Goggles Pizano
05-10-2007, 17:55
The events were completed, scores tallied, and the list was made. The list goes up the bureau chain for approval, and a commander says that the list "doesn't adequately reflect the diversity of the community and the department."
So the list is extended (doubled in size), so that more diverse applicants (who didn't make the cut) could be included.
As if that weren't insulting enough to those who did make the cut, one of the first openings on the teams was given to an individual who did not make the original list. That decision came from the top down.
Why am I not surprised?
What is the rational behind a polygraph for a SWAT tryout? Is a polygraph necessary for any other "special teams" assignment? Furthermore, if the examiner has some issue with a section of the poly does it then lead to further investigation and possible administrative action? I assume it would.
We, as LEOs, should be expected to maintain the highest level of integrity whether we are patrolman, SROs, motors, or SWAT. It seems odd to me that a poly is used to judge an LEOs fitness for SWAT duty. I would think that any integrity issues would be addressed prior to recommendation to a special services unit.
Smokin Joe
05-10-2007, 23:13
What is the rational behind a polygraph for a SWAT tryout? Is a polygraph necessary for any other "special teams" assignment? Furthermore, if the examiner has some issue with a section of the poly does it then lead to further investigation and possible administrative action? I assume it would.
We, as LEOs, should be expected to maintain the highest level of integrity whether we are patrolman, SROs, motors, or SWAT. It seems odd to me that a poly is used to judge an LEOs fitness for SWAT duty. I would think that any integrity issues would be addressed prior to recommendation to a special services unit.
I have the same question. A lot seasoned officers (officers who have been on for more than 5 years) can have trouble passing a polygraph. Additionally passing a polygraph really only proves 1 of 2 things. You either spilled your guts on the pre-polygraph questionnaire or you are sociopath.
How many QP's on here have had to take a polygraph as part of their selection either to a classified unit or for Special Forces qualification? (That's rhetorical) From what little I know, none. These guys know super top secret stuff that may NEVER become public knowledge and we trust them with out polygraphs! What is shocking to me is that with technology, modern interview and interrogation skills, and with competent investigators doing the investigations we still need to utilize polygraphs for even initial Police selection.
It seams like a waist of time and money to me.
And trust me I have seen an honest man fail a polygraph and a LIAR pass a polygraph!
CoLawman
05-11-2007, 08:49
I have the same question. A lot seasoned officers (officers who have been on for more than 5 years) can have trouble passing a polygraph. Additionally passing a polygraph really only proves 1 of 2 things. You either spilled your guts on the pre-polygraph questionnaire or you are sociopath.
How many QP's on here have had to take a polygraph as part of their selection either to a classified unit or for Special Forces qualification? (That's rhetorical) From what little I know, none. These guys know super top secret stuff that may NEVER become public knowledge and we trust them with out polygraphs! What is shocking to me is that with technology, modern interview and interrogation skills, and with competent investigators doing the investigations we still need to utilize polygraphs for even initial Police selection.
It seams like a waist of time and money to me.
And trust me I have seen an honest man fail a polygraph and a LIAR pass a polygraph!
I noticed that psychological testing was not listed as part of the process, and then even more surprised when I saw polygraph???!!! I'm with Hetzer on this one.
Smokin': Why would seasoned officers have difficulty taking a polygraph?
Re: Passing a poly only proves 1 of 2 things: The guy spilled his guts during the pretest interview or he is a sociopath. This assertion shows a lack of understanding of polygraphs. The passing of a polygraph means that the test subject was truthful to the "relevant" questions, nothing more, nothing less.
You know people who lied and passed and people who told the truth and failed. Presumably you are relying on the test subjects statements to form a basis for your negative opinion of polygraphs.
The use of a polygraph in pre-employment screening is a valuable and necessary tool in assisting in the background investigation of applicants. Currently the polygraph is used extensively in Federal classified assignments such as CIA and DOD.
Been doing polygraphs since 1987. This includes hundreds of pre-employment, criminal specific, and veracity verification tests.
Now back to yoru regular scheduled programming.
If you are a polygrapher, you aren't going to like me. LOL
I hate them, and I think that they are pretty much uselss. I applied to 4 agencies when I first got into LE.... took a polygraph for all 4. I passed 2, "showed deception" on 2, but gave the same answers for all four tests.:rolleyes: So 2 guys thought I was lying, 2 thought I was telling the truth, and I gave the same answers to all four dudes. Wow.
The test does not detect "lies" or "deception." It detects physiological responses often associated with telling lies or being deceptive. Big difference there. People have physiological responses for any number of reasons (deception being one of them), but to say that a machine can detect deception is, IMHO, ludicrous.
One of my old Sgts. was accused of telling an Officer to dispose of evidence and tamper with a crime scene (the Officer got caught after the fact, and pulled the old "A Sgt. told me to" excuse). The officer claimed that he had contacted the Sgt by phone, and that the Sgt was down at HQ at the time of the call.
The Sgt. was given the polygraph, and was informed that he was being deceptive.... the dept gave him suspension days. The Officer who accused him ALSO failed the polygraph, and was terminated. A third Sgt., who stated that he was working that night and knew for a fact that the accused Sgt. was off, passed the polygraph.
The accused Sgt. appealed his suspension days, and an investigation revealed that:
1. The Sgt wasn't even working that night, and was never at HQ (security cameras are a wonderful thing).
2. Phone records showed that the Officer never even attempted to call the Sgt.
3. That the poygraph is a POS.
Well, the last part is my opinion, but there you go.:D
The Reaper
05-11-2007, 11:54
A CID officer who was a friend of mine told me to never take a poly.
He said that three outcomes are possible, and two of them are not good (being deceptive or not telling the truth), whether you really are telling the truth or not.
I agree that it is an old technology and its highly dependent on the skill of the operator and the guilt/stress/lack of skill of the person being examined.
At the same time, I have seen people sweated on the machine and subsequently admitted to wrongdoing after the test.
It is still required for certain clearances and jobs.
TR
incommin
05-11-2007, 12:51
A polygraph relies on two things. A piece of equipment and an operator. Of the two, the operator is the most important for it is not just what the machine records, but in the questions, the way they are asked, and the interpretation of the results.
I know two people who do polygraphs. One was a next door neighbor of 12 years (retired Army CID with 30 years service and now does them for LE and the second one is a civilian working for DOD...... it is not a science, it is a skill. Therefor I would not take one if my freedom or job depended on the results.
Jim
Smokin Joe
05-11-2007, 15:29
Smokin': Why would seasoned officers have difficulty taking a polygraph?
Re: Passing a poly only proves 1 of 2 things: The guy spilled his guts during the pretest interview or he is a sociopath. This assertion shows a lack of understanding of polygraphs. The passing of a polygraph means that the test subject was truthful to the "relevant" questions, nothing more, nothing less.
You know people who lied and passed and people who told the truth and failed. Presumably you are relying on the test subjects statements to form a basis for your negative opinion of polygraphs.
From what I have been told (from a former FBI profiler who now does our poly's and has been doing poly's for 30+ years). When canidates are going through the initial screening process they justify (to themselves) or forget some less the acceptable ethical decisions they made in their life. However, seasoned officer's will sometimes more accurately recall some less than acceptable ethical decisions they made prior to their employement but since they have been a cop for a while have seen the error of their former ways.
Not saying that they are dirty or bad cops....(the more blunt answer) is some cops become more ethical and harder on themselves and who they used to be after they have been a cop for a while.... the grey line is now more defined for them.
As for the knowledge of false passes and false failures. A friend of mind is very religious and hasn't touch an illegal drug in his entire life (I'm not even sure if he has ever even had a beer). He took a polygraph for a local agency and the polygrapher (who has been doing poly's for 30+ years) detected decepetion. He re-took the test 2 weeks later and passed it. After the first poly I asked what happened he said he was freaking out the entire time.
Another former officer transfered from another agency. When he got off of FTO he was caught stealing a suspects wallet at booking (security camera's). Internal and Criminal investigations were done and his pre-employment poly was brought up with people saying "I don't get it, he passed his poly". Come to find out he had several complaints from his old agency about money missing after he had made arrestes but all of the old complaints were inconclusive.
I think they serve a purpose but I for one don't like them.
Smokin Joe
05-11-2007, 15:30
So Five-O,
How did the test go?
Of the two, the operator is the most important for it is not just what the machine records, but in the questions, the way they are asked, and the interpretation of the results.
Sounds an awful lot like one guy's (the polygrapher's) opinion to me. LOL
I wasn't really against poly's until I had to take a couple (pre employment). I was amazed at how inaccurate they were.
When I was getting ready to take my third one (had already passed one and failed another), I told the polygrapher that I had no confidence in the process or the machine itself. He decided to do a "demonstration" to give me confidence in his abilities.
He told me to think of a number between one and ten. He then told me that he was going to ask if the number was above five, and then if it was under five. He wanted me to answer "yes" to both questions. He would then ask if it was above/below five again, and he wanted me to answer "no" to both questions. He would then tell me if the number was above or below five.
So we go through all of that, and he tells me that the number was above five........ it wasn't. I told him he was wrong, and he thought that I was being a prick. So he has me write my number in the palm of my hand, and we go through the whole thing again...... he gets it wrong again.
After that, he looks at me and says, "Well, let's just get started then, shall we?"
Like I asid, I was all for them until I had a professional polygrapher sit there and tell me that I was lying about stealing, immoral sex acts, dope, and taking the Lindbergh baby....... I thought it was a joke.
From what I have seen since then (polygraph results routinely being proven incorrect by investigations), as well as my "pass two, fail two" experience, I give them about as much weight as a shaman equipped with chicken bones, a virgin's blood, and spit....
CoLawman
05-12-2007, 09:17
Congress addressed this issue by passing strong legislation in the 90's. The penalty is $10,000 for the examiner and $10,000 for the employer. See the link below: If you do not find this posted at your place of work your employer is in violation. I believe in less government, but in this instance it was needed to protect people from the incompetence and abuses you gentleman have listed.
http://www.rpi.edu/dept/hr/govpubs/Polygraph.pdf
The problem is that this law exempted certain employers and examiners which includes Law Enforcement and certain government jobs. The law has been very effective in the private sector but abuses continue in government.
The polygraph examination requires a zone comparison to be valid. Meaning a relevant question must be compared to a control question (A Known Lie). A test must address a single issue.
Pre employment tests violate both of these rules. There are no control questions for comparison and certainly more than one issue is addressed.
1. Have you ever stolen money from a previous employer?
2. Have you ever engaged in an illegal sexual act?
3. Did you place false information on your employment application?
Three separate issues and obviously no control questions.
Pre employment examinations are merely a tool to assist the background investigator.
There is absolutely no way to determine a person's truthfulness based on a pre employment examination. Until the problem is extended to all employees to include cops, the abuses and incompetence will continue.
The written report associated with all pre employment examinations in our department has this caveat;
The results of this examination are being furnished to assist the background investigator in determining the applicants suitability for employment. No statement of fact is asserted and no factual basis should be assumed from these results.
We have prevented people from being employed, due to their confessions, not as a result of the examination. All of our polygraphs are video and audio taped and archived for 10 years.
Smokin Joe
05-12-2007, 11:34
Colawman,
Interesting, thanks for the info.
I'm going to need to watch the next time we polygraph a suspect.
What chaps my arse is the fact that our dept requires (as a condition of employment) us to sign a "contract" stating that we will submit to a polygraph at any time as directed by the Chief of Police. If we refuse to comply, bye bye job.
So, as in the previous case with the Sgt. and Officer, anytime there is an internal investigation or accusation by a citizen, the Chief can (and sometimes does) put us on the box. The dept actually uses the results of the poly as the basis (sometimes the sole basis) for discipline and/or termination.
That, gentlemen, is a bunch of crap.
CoLawman
05-12-2007, 12:26
Colawman,
Interesting, thanks for the info.
I'm going to need to watch the next time we polygraph a suspect.
My previous post only addressed "pre-employment" not criminal specific examinations.
IMO it is too bad the Polygraph Employee Protection Act is not extended to everyone. Why is it that there was a need to safeguard an employee in the private sector. Do the facts change when the examination is given to a government employee? Perhaps AL or RL might have an opinion on how this law could be applied in a job action taken against a "governmental" employee or candidate. Seems to me, if the polygraph was found to be overwhelmingly flawed to enact such legislation, then logically it is overwhelmingly flawed in the government sector.
aricbcool
05-12-2007, 22:39
The polygraph examination requires a zone comparison to be valid. Meaning a relevant question must be compared to a control question (A Known Lie). A test must address a single issue.
CoLawman,
Regarding control questions, how do you know they are lying? If this gets too much into tricks of the trade, don't worry about it, but it would seem difficult to make someone lie in a test designed to tell whether or not they are lying...
Regards,
Aric
CoLawman,
Regarding control questions, how do you know they are lying? If this gets too much into tricks of the trade, don't worry about it, but it would seem difficult to make someone lie in a test designed to tell whether or not they are lying...
Regards,
Aric
Aric,
Disclaimer: The polygraph stuff is second hand knowledge. I don't claim to be an expert on or for that matter have any experience with polygraphs.
I believe that a "Control Question" in a polygraph involves the interviewer forcing you to lie a bunch of times and using the readings they got from the forced lies as a baseline reading for when you're being "deceptive". Supposedly, they'll get certain readings for lies, average them out, and viola, deception. Those are compared with the average of the "true" readings.
In Army interrogations, repeat questions dealing with pertinent information are asked. Basically the same question, asked in a different way, to arrive at the same answer. The key here, is that the questions are spaced apart, and disguised from the prisoner/detainee.
Simplified example with non-pertinent info: How old are you? 20. When were you born? 1980.
In that example, he would be lying. Now, forcing someone to lie on a polygraph... I don't know how scientific that would be, and I basically have the same question as Aric on this one. How would you REALLY know he's lying?
That said, in Army interrogations, Control Questions refer to a question asked in which the interrogator already knows the correct answer. Interrogator takes the prisoner's answer and compares it to what's known to be true from another source.
groundup
05-12-2007, 23:56
I think all of that politically correct crap is BS. Glad I am in combat arms because of it. I can't stand affirmative action. It is legalized and forced racism and sexism. A man or woman should get the position based on their qualities and character. Not on their looks or quotas. I can't believe the people that support it either.
Question to those having been polygraphed: did the person administering the test have you face them or not? Was there someone else there with you watching your body language?
I think that while administering those tests, they should be examining as much as possible. Body language, pulse, blood pressure, eye movement, perspiration, and brain activity. Then and only then can you get a 1/2 decent picture as to the truth.
I've always wanted to see how I do at lying on a polygraph. Not for anything dishonest, but because it would be interesting. I asked a couple of people and they all said no, so I guess I won't get that opportunity any time soon.
PS: Five-O, how did you do? How was the process?
CoLawman
05-13-2007, 00:38
CoLawman,
Regarding control questions, how do you know they are lying? If this gets too much into tricks of the trade, don't worry about it, but it would seem difficult to make someone lie in a test designed to tell whether or not they are lying...
Regards,
Aric
Answered via PM.
CoLawman
05-13-2007, 00:40
Aric,
Disclaimer: The polygraph stuff is second hand knowledge. I don't claim to be an expert on or for that matter have any experience with polygraphs.
I believe that a "Control Question" in a polygraph involves the interviewer forcing you to lie a bunch of times and using the readings they got from the forced lies as a baseline reading for when you're being "deceptive". Supposedly, they'll get certain readings for lies, average them out, and viola, deception. Those are compared with the average of the "true" readings.
In Army interrogations, repeat questions dealing with pertinent information are asked. Basically the same question, asked in a different way, to arrive at the same answer. The key here, is that the questions are spaced apart, and disguised from the prisoner/detainee.
Simplified example with non-pertinent info: How old are you? 20. When were you born? 1980.
In that example, he would be lying. Now, forcing someone to lie on a polygraph... I don't know how scientific that would be, and I basically have the same question as Aric on this one. How would you REALLY know he's lying?
That said, in Army interrogations, Control Questions refer to a question asked in which the interrogator already knows the correct answer. Interrogator takes the prisoner's answer and compares it to what's known to be true from another source.
Ah........................no! Moobob ask Aric to forward my reply to you. I sent it before reading your post.
Aric, I'd appreciate if you do forward the response.
What I posted was my perception of a polygraph. I suspect that the reality is closer to what I described about the interrogation side of the house. Either way, I'm interested.
Edit: All of the interrogation stuff I talked about is open source, easily obtainable information. The new FM came out after the McCain torture legislation, so everything is under the public microscope these days.
Roguish Lawyer
05-13-2007, 01:19
IMO it is too bad the Polygraph Employee Protection Act is not extended to everyone. Why is it that there was a need to safeguard an employee in the private sector. Do the facts change when the examination is given to a government employee? Perhaps AL or RL might have an opinion on how this law could be applied in a job action taken against a "governmental" employee or candidate.
I am not familiar with this statute, but there are constitutional problems with the federal government attempting to regulate state governments.
Polygraph results are not admissible in court because the tests have been adjudicated to be deeply flawed.
So Five-O,
How did the test go?
I have never had a problem with a polygraph and have passed everyone I have taken. I would take one everyday before/after work if my commanders wanted me to and sleep just fine. Having said the above the polygraph was not administered as advertised and nothing was mentioned by the higher ups as to why...and no questions were asked. Twenty applicants were in selection and the Team needed 2 guys. I worked hard in preparation and finished #1 on the list with a 92.2% out of a possible 100%. I scored 28/30 in PT, 29/30 in Shooting, 35.2/40 in Oral board. #2 guy scored 83.2%. Anyone in need of verification can PM me...realize this is the internet :rolleyes: I finished first in two areas...the Shoot and the Oral Interview. The physical was no joke. We have a guy who (3 or 4 years ago) was the starting running back and kick returner for Grambling U...his PT was/is world class :eek: Overall the was day great and more challenging than I thought and sleep came easy that night.
TR....thanks for your input on selection. (with your permission) look for a PM from me in a few days.
CoLawman
05-13-2007, 08:39
Nice work Five-O!
Smokin Joe
05-13-2007, 11:32
Congrats!
Congrats Five-o. Now the fun stuff...
groundup
05-13-2007, 14:19
Five-O: what is the point break down for the events? Congrats :lifter
aricbcool
05-13-2007, 15:19
Answered via PM.
PM received. Will reply...
Thanks,
Aric
PS: Forwarded to Moobob as well.
How does one judge an oral board other with points? Buzzwords?
The Reaper
05-13-2007, 18:29
How does one judge an oral board other with points? Buzzwords?
I would guess just like Olympic skating or gymnastics.
Each member judges the candidate against a scale, scores are totaled and averages calculated.
TR
Oral boards generally cover policy questions.... points are awarded for correct answers, with each question being worth "X" number of points.
So, for example, a question may be "name the four instances in which you may discharge your weapon in the line of duty." The answer, of course, would be:
1. To protect yourself or others from death or serious bodily injury
2. At the range (dept training)
3. To destroy an animal (pop a pit bull)
4. Eliminating light sources during tactical operations (shooting out a flood light mounted on a house, etc.)
If the candidate gets three out of four, he gets three out of four points..... and so on. During my tac interview, I was asked about tac policy and procedures, weaponry, coverage positions, use of force policy, search warrants, blah, blah, blah....
You have a number of questions like that (fairly objective scoring), and then each interviewer is given 10 points to grade your demeanor, physical appearance, etc..... those scores are averaged out, and a point value is assigned.
Add it all together, and you have an interview score.
I would guess just like Olympic skating or gymnastics.
Each member judges the candidate against a scale, scores are totaled and averages calculated.
TR
Oral board is the event that makes or breaks you. It is also the portion where performance is more subjective and more difficult to quantify. Maximum score on the interview is 40 points but I am not privy as to how those points are earned. Subjects were wide ranging but focused on 4th Amend issues, TennvGarner, the Glick test , use of deadly force policy etc. Many questions were situational shoot/no shoot type stuff. You can basically determine if you are doing well in the interview by the lack of follow up questions. If the board likes your answers and your thought process(keeping in mind there is no right answer) they will tend not to snipe at you as much. To you guys that have a SWAT interview in your future it is usually the right answer when you say shoot the bad guy ;) .
Getting on the team was the easy part.....learning the job and earning the respect of the team is the hard part and a never ending journey.
Thanks for the clarification, guys.
CoLawman
05-14-2007, 00:25
Polygraph results are not admissible in court because the tests have been adjudicated to be deeply flawed.[/QUOTE]
The actual reason is prior to 1993 polygraphs were not admissable as they did not meet the Frye test of "general acceptance" as reliable in the relevant scientific community.
Perhaps individual courts have not allowed polygraph examinations because they "are deeply flawed." But the US Supreme Court in Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals Inc. rescinded the Frye standard of general acceptance test and adopted the Federal Rules of Evidence as the standard which most states now use.
Rule 702 governing expert testimony allows the judge the ability to admit polygraph examinations.
It is true that courts continue to rely on Frye to prevent the use of Polygraph examinations, but since the 1993 case the polygraph has been admitted in court.
Interestingly a substantial number of our polygraphs are at the request of the defense.
The Reaper
05-14-2007, 07:33
In my admittedly minor experience, the defense conducts a poly at their own expense and obtains a piece of evidence from an operator of their own choice. If the test comes back favorably, they seek to have it admitted as evidence. If it comes out deceptive, they never mention that they took it.
Just my .02 on the few cases I have seen.
TR
CoLawman
05-14-2007, 07:45
In my admittedly minor experience, the defense conducts a poly at their own expense and obtains a piece of evidence from an operator of their own choice. If the test comes back favorably, they seek to have it admitted as evidence. If it comes out deceptive, they never mention that they took it.
Just my .02 on the few cases I have seen.
TR
You are absolutely correct. It is a can't lose situation for a defendant, unless the polygraph is given by a police agency. If a police agency gives the poly, the defense agrees to waive protection against self incrimination. This allows for the admissability of a confession. The defendant agrees that he is waiving his rights against his attorney's advice, which prevents the claim of ineffectual counsel.
Why would a defendant agree to all of this? For the same reason suspects waive their rights and willingly subject themselves to interrogations.
frostfire
05-14-2007, 23:06
Aric,
Disclaimer: The polygraph stuff is second hand knowledge. I don't claim to be an expert on or for that matter have any experience with polygraphs.
I believe that a "Control Question" in a polygraph involves the interviewer forcing you to lie a bunch of times and using the readings they got from the forced lies as a baseline reading for when you're being "deceptive". Supposedly, they'll get certain readings for lies, average them out, and viola, deception. Those are compared with the average of the "true" readings.
In Army interrogations, repeat questions dealing with pertinent information are asked. Basically the same question, asked in a different way, to arrive at the same answer. The key here, is that the questions are spaced apart, and disguised from the prisoner/detainee.
Simplified example with non-pertinent info: How old are you? 20. When were you born? 1980.
In that example, he would be lying. Now, forcing someone to lie on a polygraph... I don't know how scientific that would be, and I basically have the same question as Aric on this one. How would you REALLY know he's lying?
That said, in Army interrogations, Control Questions refer to a question asked in which the interrogator already knows the correct answer. Interrogator takes the prisoner's answer and compares it to what's known to be true from another source.
Interesting, this is a good cross-reference to a veteran who advised never lie because it's hard/impossible to keep a non-rehearsed-made-up story consistent on all account. Also, after 24 - 72 hours you'd expect your need-to-now based info is no longer sensitive.
Now, as a disclaimer I'm no expert here and I didn't even stay at Holiday Inn.
To establish a control of a lying response, wouldn't it go something like this:
Polygrapher (to a male subject): Now, I want you to think through the following question and answer yes. Are you a woman?
Male subject: Yes
Polygraph machine: *scribble...scribble.....tracing a physiological response to what supposedly a lie*
Conduct a few more controls, repeat at random, and average the results as the baseline for a lying response.
As I wrote this, I realized in the subject head he could have convinced himself he should say yes because he was told so and not because he was not woman and told a lie. Hence, giving a truth and not a lie physiological response. I guess it's not scientific afterall. I believe there's one presentation on History Channel where one could fool the machine by ignoring the actual question and asking his own question in his head to a desirable yes or no. By doing this, he would always be "truthful" and "not deceitful" assuming his responses are consistent.
brianksain
05-15-2007, 20:02
TR,
Excellent initial post and right on the money.
I'll take a cool head, quick thinker and decent shot every time ... over a PT stud that has to stop and think and who may or may not shoots lights out if he has all day to do so ... bk
The Reaper
05-15-2007, 20:21
Interesting, this is a good cross-reference to a veteran who advised never lie because it's hard/impossible to keep a non-rehearsed-made-up story consistent on all account. Also, after 24 - 72 hours you'd expect your need-to-now based info is no longer sensitive.
Bullshit. That theoretically applies to tactical intel from a junior enlisted grunt.
Every QP on this board, including the retired ones, know things that are still classified. The good ones keep those secrets even after retirement.
You go in harm's way, you need a cover story, and a back-up story after that, and another one beyond that. I think that most of the QPs here could come up with a sufficiently plausible story and keep it straight for many months, especially after attanding SERE. The enemy is going to beat and torture you regardless of what you tell them. No point in giving them anything till they grind you down to your breaking point.
Not hijacking the thread, but here is an example of a man who led the life and kept his mouth shut.
http://www.newsobserver.com/105/story/573710.html
Someone should send copies to Haney and Greer.:rolleyes:
TR