I have a feeling this isn't about the lie detector itself as much as it may be more of an aiding and abetting a crime. That is.. he knew a crime was going to take place because of his training.
Then I have to wonder what the fuck is the govt using lie detectors for. They're worthless at the legal level.
Last edited by Collegeguy; 2013-09-08 at 07:32 PM.
although, in all honesty, i have trouble seeing the line between this, and defense attorneys (or even prosecutors in many cases).
And it supposedly matters because federal agencies ignore that little detail and continue using them.
They just aren't real big on actual science. See bullet lead analysis and the non-reality-based arson forensics they've pushed in the past.
Warning : Above post may contain snark and/or sarcasm. Try reparsing with the /s argument before replying.
With sufficient thrust, pigs fly just fine. However, this is not necessarily a good idea.
Last edited by v2prwsmb45yhuq3wj23vpjk; 2013-09-08 at 10:53 PM.
I don't get why it's so difficult to believe that abetting a criminal this directly can be treated as an offense.
Teaching someone that is done for one reason only.
Being charged for it was absolutely the right thing.
Intentionally aiding a criminal, intentionally aiding them to commit a crime with full knowledge of the consequences of their actions.
Since the Federal government loves lie detectors so much, maybe they can hook all these asshole politicians up to one on the televised debates.
People are missing the point. He got time for teaching people who would possibly hold a clearance how to cheat in order to gain said clearance.
I wouldn't doubt anybody who was ever in contact with the guy who currently works for the govt doesn't lose their clearances and/or jobs.
Lie detector results aren't admissible in court so that's a retarded conviction.