• There has been a recent cluster of spammers accessing BARFer accounts and posting spam. To safeguard your account, please consider changing your password. It would be even better to take the additional step of enabling 2 Factor Authentication (2FA) on your BARF account. Read more here.

Psych Test for Leo's. 5% Pass?

^^^^ thanks to all of you for words of advise.. "never give up, never give up"... :laughing
 
Now being that you mentioned arrest record . Does that totally disqualify you or is it a felony conviction record? Iam aware tha domestic violence and drug sales charges they dont like. Few of my LEO buddies said they look at the time span from your incidents and realize everyone is human. Im hoping this helps me ...hehehe
 
Keep applying. When you start a career in LE, find at least 3 agencies you want to work for. Due to all the wierd things that can happen in a hiring process, having 2 more on the burner is a good thing. Once you are in...you are in. You can transfer in a few years, or you might like where you are at. The big thing is to get your foot in the door.

brash
 
low612 said:
Now being that you mentioned arrest record . Does that totally disqualify you or is it a felony conviction record? Iam aware tha domestic violence and drug sales charges they dont like. Few of my LEO buddies said they look at the time span from your incidents and realize everyone is human. Im hoping this helps me ...hehehe
Click to expand...

Domestic violence and a feloney is a automatic disqualification..

arrest record does not disqualify applicants.. as long it is way back when.. mines was 5 years ago and it seems it is not long enough.. i use to live my life 13 seconds at a time in my honda.
 
i'm aspiring for fire but as far as i know, the background, med, and psych tests are the similar to pd.

in regards to drug use, what would be considered "recent" drug use? also, are certain drugs considered automatic disqualifications?
 
It used to be classified as "hard" and "soft" drug use. Soft was pretty much just marijuana and hash, some mis-used prescriptions and maybe recreational mushrooms. Now they break each drug down individually and 'shrooms are actually considered worse than meth, up with PCP. Intentional or unintentional PCP exposure is almost universally a 100% no-go in CA, as incidental PCP exposure (on duty) is grounds for immediate retirement (due to flashbacks). This is a result of case law form So-Cal in the '80's.

For the most part, each department is different. From what I've heard, Oakland and SF are the most lenient. No pot within 6-12 months and no "hard" drugs (Crack/Crank/Heroin) in the past 2-3 years. Most smaller departments, any "hard" drugs within 10 years and pot withing 3 years would be an instant disqualification. It also depends alot of whether it was youthful experementation (3 or fewer uses) when under 21, vs. long-term addiction and the associated on-going criminal activites and enterprises that often go along with that problem.

Many local departments are using hair analysis now. That can pick up regular use of most any drug within the past 1 to 3 years, depending upon the length of your hair and degree of use.

I've seen applicants come in and when asked how long it has been since they toked last and they reply... "last night!" <boing!>

Also, no doubt there are a lot of cops and firemen on Prozac and othere psycotropic drugs, but I know many departments are scrutinizing psych prescriptions too.

Like I mentioned, time can help in most cases. Not all, but most. And, bigger departments will often cut more slack.
 
Ahh, thanks for the clarification.

What scares me is that I might get an automatic disqualification for some minor experimentation (5 times or so) with "party drugs" that I had in college. While it certainly wasn't anything hard such as crack/heroin, i suppose it is considered harder than weed. In addition, it has not been 10 years since, hell not even 5.

I hear from some professionals in the field to just "leave out" such information when it comes to the BI, but others tell me that getting caught lying is worst than the original bad deed in the first place. I know that getting caught is an automatic disqualification and probable blackball from any departments in the future.

However, I've hard of a guy who now works for SFPD, but in his heyday, was a very proficient E peddler and user. He beat the polygraph and BI and is now on the other side of the law.

So now i'm all confused again and don't know what to think... thanks for the info though, MM4L!
 
I find it strange that they'd consider psychedelics or entheogens "harder" than crack. Especially since I don't know many people who can get addicted to them - they're usually more for contemplative sorts than for partying.

Polygraph is proven bunk though IIRC; I wonder if you can refuse it on those grounds, but I bet not.
 
saizai said:
Polygraph is proven bunk though IIRC; I wonder if you can refuse it on those grounds, but I bet not.
Click to expand...

You can refuse it.. don't apply. Its part of the application process and if you don't do it your are out.
 
creamygoodness said:
Ahh, thanks for the clarification.
However, I've hard of a guy who now works for SFPD, but in his heyday, was a very proficient E peddler and user. He beat the polygraph and BI and is now on the other side of the law.

So now i'm all confused again and don't know what to think... thanks for the info though, MM4L!
Click to expand...

First off is that the type of people you want in law enforcement much less to be working with you?

Second is that once you start lying, you better be very good at it and be able to remember your lies. That's what all the repetitive steps and psych test is. It asks you the same questions about 20 different ways and if you are lying you are going to slip up somewhere. Once you get caught lying and the other departments go talk to the department that dumped you, you will never get hired.

Third you must consider you own integrity. I have said before there are the people in this world that do things and follow the law to keep from being arrested / fined / or face punishment and those that do it because it’s the right thing to do, even when they know they will not get caught. Search the LEO thread, somewhere in there I posted a link to the law enforcement code of ethics.
 
I agree with you that the SFPD guy is probably not the type of person that I would want in law enforcement, however it seems that people like that do occasionally get in unfortunately.

While I am not saying that I would lie when it came time to my BI one day, I do understand the reasons why some might feel compelled to do it. True, murderers, rapists, felons, etc should NEVER have a chance of becoming a LEO or FF, however you have to admit that among the "normal" citizens such as us, nobody is or ever has been an angel.

That said, why should one's poor judgement a few times dictate that he/she is now permanently disqualified from a great career in public service? This person may have worked long and hard to attain all of the certs, licenses, training, and experience necessary, have perfect credit, no criminal history, clean driving record, good work ethic, etc but is now unable to be considered for a career because of something that was done even before he/she may have decided on said career?

I'm not condoning lying, but in my discussions with other aspiring and current public servants, this is one of the main reasons why some folks leave things out during the backgrounds. They have lived their lives perfectly since they decided upon this career; but may be kicked out for something minor that happened many years ago.




JPM said:
First off is that the type of people you want in law enforcement much less to be working with you?

Second is that once you start lying, you better be very good at it and be able to remember your lies. That's what all the repetitive steps and psych test is. It asks you the same questions about 20 different ways and if you are lying you are going to slip up somewhere. Once you get caught lying and the other departments go talk to the department that dumped you, you will never get hired.

Third you must consider you own integrity. I have said before there are the people in this world that do things and follow the law to keep from being arrested / fined / or face punishment and those that do it because it’s the right thing to do, even when they know they will not get caught. Search the LEO thread, somewhere in there I posted a link to the law enforcement code of ethics.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
creamygoodness said:
I...why should one's poor judgement a few times dictate that he/she is now permanently disqualified...
Click to expand...
That reminds me of a joke... the punch line is something like, "Just because I used to have sex with guys in college, doesn't mean I'm gay!"

It is called "consequences" dude. Once you are old enough to know the difference between right and wrong, you start making choices that will impact your future. Some big decisions have very little impact on our future. Some little decisions have a huge impact on our future. We make our choices, we have to live with the consequences, good and bad. The choices you make in Jr. High dictate whether you will have a shot at going to Stanford on City College.

Life is a series of forks in the road. When you find out your took a wrong turn waaaay back when, don't blame the system. You had a friggin' map, it's called, "Do the right thing."

It is like the 13 year old I spoke with once. She was gang raped at a party in the woods. She didn't just make one mistake. She made A LOT of mistakes to get to the place, in the condition she was in. A willing victim. Yes, a victim, but it wouldn’t have happened if she had not made the bad decisions she did.

It does not excuse the perpetrators for their bad acts, but it does give a bit of perspective. Should all of the parents in town be afraid their daughters are at risk of being gang raped? Only if your daughter is eager to do most everything in her power to put herself into what was clearly a bad situation; lie, cheat, steal, lie some more, drink, take drugs, promise sex for drugs, lie some more, drink some more… you get the picture. Fair or not, her bad choices have undoubtedly changed her young life. The incident went unreported until after she attempted suicide. It was detailed in a note to her parents. Easy case to close, the suspects videotaped it.

Back to the question at hand… many of the psychoreactive drugs that you might consider “harmless” will exclude any applicant from service due to medical reports of flashbacks, residual effects and other medical problems or symptoms attributed to various designer drugs, regardless of the dose or length of use.

FWIW, people that say, “I was at a party and I wasn’t sure what I was taking…” are explaining how they played Russian roulette with their grey matter. Stupid shit. Do you want people making life or death decisions… that decided to snort whatever white powder was lined up or down whatever pills were being passed around at a party or a rave? Seriously.
 
Last edited:
MM4L - Agreed with you for the most part. I have a similar attitude towards such casual or outright stupid drug use.

But - not all drugs, including psychedelics, are likely to cause flashbacks (let alone ones that would be impairing). This is I think just a case of the government having a rather circular, idiotic logic about drugs - they're scheduled, so they're bad. This, without having ever been actually proven as deserving their classification. *shrug*

As for choices... it's true to some extent, but need not necessarily be. The question for that guy in HR is not, would John Doe of 8th grade be a good applicant, but would the one standing in front of me now be one? People do change, and mistakes in the past don't automatically mean that they'll be repeated - or even that their psychology these days is such that they'd be prone to repetition. But they're just guessing at the latter.

Like always, given that they can't really find out the psyche of their interviewee, they take a somewhat kludgy approach - see if it'll turn up on any of the standard tests, and if they've done it before. Neither is all that reliable, really. :/
 
Yeah, I guess even an admitted serial rapist could reform. But, I don't see any agency looking to hire them.

Do you think if one of the serial killer kids at Columbine HS served their time and decided to be a cop that they should get hired?

Where do you draw the line? Most departments try to set a high bar and make minor exceptions on a case-by-case basis, based upon the info they collect during the background process. If they can't get enough applicants, they will either need to make more exceptions or lower the bar a bit. Until then, blaming the system for holding people accountable for their bad choices is only a symptom of a bigger problem. A problem with the individual, not the system.
 
MM4L - The thing is, simply going by case history doesn't give you the data you need to answer that. A serial rapist or Columbine kid could reform, and a straightedge serial speeder could not. It's a question of why they did what they did, and why they would (currently) do likewise (or other things you might be concerned about). A psychology.

As I think you (and many others) have mentioned elsewhere, there are basically two approaches to rules: obeying out of fear of punishment, and following them because they're actually internalized. Someone who's never broken a law, but only because they couldn't get away with it, is still a risk.

Someone who has broken them - but has since internalized reasons that would make him not do so - is not.

The problem is, this is a more complex question than just asking someone's history (which per above is not necessarily the right info), and I suspect most BI people are neither qualified to do, nor interested in doing, such an in-depth (psychological) investigation.

(It also fits a lot less easily into a simple form and set of rules...)
 
saizai said:
MM4L - The thing is, simply going by case history doesn't give you the data you need to answer that.
Click to expand...
The best indicator of future behavior is past behavior. As much as departments may be hurting for qualified applicants, they cannot afford to assume the liability of hiring someone they are not 100% sure about. If something happens, they (the agency) will be left holding the bag and having to explain to their citizens how this person was entrusted with a gun and badge and went on to commit whatever crimes.

Yeah, as a result, people get screwed out of a career because of their past mistakes. That is something they will have to live with. I don't see where anyone should have to appologize for it. I know a lot of people that would probably make great cops that will never get the chance, because of stuff in their history. That's life. Most of them make a better living anyhow. I don't do my job for the money. Yeah, I get paid. But the truth is, I could be making a lot more bank in the public sector. I enjoy my job. To me, that is more important.
 
motorman4life said:
The best indicator of future behavior is past behavior.
Click to expand...

Same principle for FICO scoring which determine the rate you pay for credit cards, car loans, and mortgage. Also, insurance companies use it to set rates for drivers/riders. Also used for determing whether you get a job or promotion. All the above examples are true. So, why shouldn't law enforcement not use past behavior to predict future behavior?
 
I'm not saying they shouldn't, just that it's a kludge. A necessary one perhaps if you're processing vast numbers of people (like for lenders etc) and can't be bothered to do the real analysis that would give you a better prediction.

I suppose it's a bit too idealistic to want smaller places (like a single police dept) to do that - but as I said, I guess the BIs are overworked as is, and doing a couple hundred psych analyses takes a fair amount of time and effort. They're willing to just write off people who could be good cops but flag on something like that as part of reducing their workload.

I can understand that. Acceptable loss and all that. Just saying, it still is a kludge that doesn't test the real question (i.e. disposition and internalization), but rather a partial correlate to it (i.e. history).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top