Oklahoma RB facing rape charges

[AU64 10,122]

38 minutes ago, CleCoTiger said:

They are used as interrogation tools because rubes that submit to them don't know that they aren't reliable. Authorities use them to say "You are lying! The machine says so. Now tell the truth."

Anyone that thinks that polygraphs are anything other than junk science should do some Googling.  While Googling, be sure and also Google on Aldrich Ames.  Other terms would be "fool polygraph", or "beat" or "pass" polygraph. Also "polygraph junk science."

Polygraphs don't work. Never have. New technology (functional MRI scans of the brain, etc.) may change that and allow us to one day tell reliably if someone is lying, but polygraphs as currently implemented and used? Nope. Not ever.

(There are no silly semantics in my comments on this subject.)

Spoken like a defense lawyer....

The examples cited like Ames.    Well for one thing, guys like Aldrich Ames are professional spies and liars.....taught how to beat the box which some sociopaths can do I understand.   But Ames is a poor comparison.....nothing like this situation with a scared college student charged with a serious crime.     The more likely situation with a guy like the Okie RB is for him to be scared and give a false positive rather than beat it with lies. 

Meanwhile, somebody must believe something because numerous Federal agencies put their employees on the box regularly and those are not rubes who are fooled into believing they can get caught.   As suggested, I did some googling and found this...   https://federalnewsradio.com/federal-drive/2012/12/what-federal-applicants-should-know-about-polygraph-tests/ which you must have missed.    

Not saying the guy is innocent but he put himself on the line with a test....which he did not have to do. 

Meanwhile unless you automatically declare the guy "guilty" there is never time to fully explore a case before a game is to be played and no way for the player or his team to go back and replay the game.   I don't know the answer but unless we abandon the "innocent until proved guilt" concept, who ever is in the positon to make a decision has to use his or her best judgment and whatever information is available at the time. 

[tigeraddikt 1,590]

1 hour ago, aujeff11 said:

Apparently she didn’t like the pressure he kept putting on her. And he didn’t just smack her.

I wasn't there and there's no sound, so no context. Big athletic dude decked a girl that initiated the physical altercation. Can't dispute that. She started a push-and-pound that she lost. Dude was wrong to deck her, but she was wrong to shove and smack him as well. They should have both been held accountable.

[aujeff11 6,243]

18 minutes ago, tigeraddikt said:

She started a push-and-pound that she lost. Dude was wrong to deck her, but she was wrong to shove and smack him as well.

I believe this as well. She was just as guilty. Women throwing around knucks, stilettos, and dinnerware is a no go for me. And I’ve experienced all three. 

[CleCoTiger 1,957]

3 hours ago, AU64 said:

Spoken like a defense lawyer....

The examples cited like Ames.    Well for one thing, guys like Aldrich Ames are professional spies and liars.....taught how to beat the box which some sociopaths can do I understand.   But Ames is a poor comparison.....nothing like this situation with a scared college student charged with a serious crime.     The more likely situation with a guy like the Okie RB is for him to be scared and give a false positive rather than beat it with lies. 

Meanwhile, somebody must believe something because numerous Federal agencies put their employees on the box regularly and those are not rubes who are fooled into believing they can get caught.   As suggested, I did some googling and found this...   https://federalnewsradio.com/federal-drive/2012/12/what-federal-applicants-should-know-about-polygraph-tests/ which you must have missed.    

Not saying the guy is innocent but he put himself on the line with a test....which he did not have to do. 

Meanwhile unless you automatically declare the guy "guilty" there is never time to fully explore a case before a game is to be played and no way for the player or his team to go back and replay the game.   I don't know the answer but unless we abandon the "innocent until proved guilt" concept, who ever is in the positon to make a decision has to use his or her best judgment and whatever information is available at the time. 

Nope, not a defense attorney. Just someone who knows that there is no science behind polygraphs.  BTW, from the link you supplied:

Quote

...it's accepted within the industry that the biggest benefit of a polygraph exam is reading the bodily reactions. An examiner could say to the applicant, "‘Oh you showed a reaction here,'” he explained. “‘You must have some discomfort with this or you must be holding back something.’ And it’s incredible the things that people will then say and admit to.

The results of polygraph examinations are often not admissible in the courts because "they haven’t proven that they are reliable but government uses them to screen applicants," he said.

So if a federal applicant tends to be nervous in nature, the advice is calm down.

"Very nervous people will react to things that are really perfectly innocent but they are uncomfortable with them and therefore there’s a problem" on the charts, said Bransford. But a solid polygraph examiner is supposed to be able to draw distinctions.

You're using that article to support polygraphs? LOL's!  That article backs up exactly what I said when they talk about "reading" body reactions: "‘Oh you showed a reaction here,'” he explained. “‘You must have some discomfort with this or you must be holding back something.’ And it’s incredible the things that people will then say and admit to..."

Like I said. Polygraphs are a tool of interrogation. They are not "lie" detectors. Mas well be using an E-Meter from L. Ron Hubbard's Scientology cult. (Scientologists believe their E-Meter can detect "withholds", AKA lies.)

The truth is that polygraphs don't work. Never have. They are subjective and a tool of interrogation that can be useful to get rubes who don't know any better to incriminate themselves. (They also get people who are innocent to incriminate themselves.)

[tiger88 934]

7 hours ago, CleCoTiger said:

They are used as interrogation tools because rubes that submit to them don't know that they aren't reliable. Authorities use them to say "You are lying! The machine says so. Now tell the truth."

Anyone that thinks that polygraphs are anything other than junk science should do some Googling.  While Googling, be sure and also Google on Aldrich Ames.  Other terms would be "fool polygraph", or "beat" or "pass" polygraph. Also "polygraph junk science."

Polygraphs don't work. Never have. New technology (functional MRI scans of the brain, etc.) may change that and allow us to one day tell reliably if someone is lying, but polygraphs as currently implemented and used? Nope. Not ever.

(There are no silly semantics in my comments on this subject.)

There are mostly silly semantics in your argument. You rail on about how lie detectors are a complete sham, only taken by ignorant rubes when that is not true at all. 

I suppose the entirety of law enforcement that uses them just uses them to railroad people into convictions??? Amirite? Or, do they use them to decide who to focus on more and who to ignore more?  So many years after they were ruled inadmissible in court, you think they would have figured out how useless they are. They must all be complete idiots, every single one of them. 

 Yes, they can be beaten, but it would take quite a sociopath to murder or bludgeon someone, or commit some other horrible crime and the sit down and lie about it while tied to a machine they know measures their physical reactions to certain questions, and keep an even keel. That's not your average criminal. 

Are you by chance a lawyer? 

[PowerOfDixieland 3,225]

DA Greg Mashburn announces that no charges will be pursued against Rodney Anderson. 

The moral to that story is don't go there to start with.  Regret assymetry is a real thing?