SWAT Selection

Five-O · 05-10-2007, 05:00

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?

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%.

**Pete** · 05-10-2007, 05:54

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.

Five-O · 05-10-2007, 06:06

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pete

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

mdb23 · 05-10-2007, 08:47

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

Quote:

Originally Posted by mdb23

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?

hetzer · 05-10-2007, 21:59

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

Quote:

Originally Posted by hetzer

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

Quote:

Originally Posted by Smokin Joe

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.

mdb23 · 05-11-2007, 11:47

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.

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.

**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

Quote:

Originally Posted by CoLawman

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?

mdb23 · 05-11-2007, 16:37

Quote:

Originally Posted by incommin

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....