Question about previous "age of consent" run-in

[gringoscott]

Looking for a double ban on one topic, and maybe my second IBTL of the day?! That would just make my day that much better.














:D

[Cat_Doc]

Sometimes it's better to ignore certain details. Not to say omission is always appropriate ....... but common sense would dictate.........
REMEMBER THE MOTTO when making decisions >> Reasonable....necessary .... Right thing to do.
Two out of three wins.

I strongly disagree with this assessment.

Omission of fact is tantamount to deception. Deception will result in an automatic DQ. This will follow the applicant to any other law enforcement agencies that will compare notes on applicants.

Someone can take away your car, they can take away your house or your favorite dog, but nobody can take away your integrity.

The holder of integrity has to voluntarily give up this most admirable trait.

It is my advice to any who inquire that total and complete honesty is called for while applying for a law enforcement position. It is my experience that a large portion of those who might have made excellent police officers are DQ'd and permanently haunted by utilizing deception, omission, and/or minimization during the application process.

Something as simple as intentionally leaving a couple of traffic tickets off the background questionnaire will get you booted from our hiring process.

Besides all that, who really wants to sit in a patrol car during shift... with a liar? :confused:

If what was said by Sarg is to be taken at face value, then I consider it dysfunctional advice.

However, I may have misinterpreted his response which he intended for sarcastic humor? Maybe Sarg can clear that up?

[Rad Diver]

I just wanted to say hello, and IBTL :D :eek: