RISING STAR ! The ultimate source to ace your NYPD Sergeant, Lieutenant, and Captain Exam Visit www.RisingStarPromotion.com to subscribe to our mailing list and get info on the next Sgt, Lt. or Captain Exam!
Has someone successfully submitted a protest to DCAS in the past that can help us with the best format to use to protest these questions? Like all the study schools said, i don't want to go in there like a raving luinitic, however, rather have some well thought out protests. Off the top of my head, this is what I would like to protest:
16-21 visit in the station house. A 21 year old is not between 16-21 as the PG stipulates
That arrest report supplement/PINS question was just plain wrong
Tattoo question/hair clip
PCI sign off questions from in basket (no ziplock for MJ, No PCI for counterfit, gun order was wrong, IMEI missing for cellphone)
Possibily the aided in nursing home question, but I have to see the question and answers again to see what they did
Would love to get the strip serach thrown out, but I think, as tough as the question was, IMO, they didn;t really leave us much protest room
Off the top of my head, I can't think of anything else right now. I am sure when i go in there and review the test, i will be able to see. But if someone posts a sample protest, I will work on writing up a protest for the above questions, and post them so all can see, and or add to it, etc.
Good luck everyone.
-- Edited by arimaas on Monday 7th of November 2011 05:00:57 PM
These judgement questions were give me's. if u cant assume u got all 33 correct then u need some serious help. a 1oth grader with limited education could get all right. if u get one wrong you should be demoted!!!!!!!!!!!
These judgement questions were give me's. if u cant assume u got all 33 correct then u need some serious help. a 1oth grader with limited education could get all right. if u get one wrong you should be demoted!!!!!!!!!!!
Can anyone shed some light on why we can stand together against the city and get a fair contract?
These judgement questions were give me's. if u cant assume u got all 33 correct then u need some serious help. a 1oth grader with limited education could get all right. if u get one wrong you should be demoted!!!!!!!!!!!
You have to see what the answers are. Some of those judgements answers were in violation of Patrol guide procedures.
These judgement questions were give me's. if u cant assume u got all 33 correct then u need some serious help. a 1oth grader with limited education could get all right. if u get one wrong you should be demoted!!!!!!!!!!!
Scott tell me your just making a joke. As you can see we are all here to be constructive. Those kind of comments are not welcome. Go write on ExamX Newbie.
All kidding aside, I had asked myself about between 16 and 21 year olds while reading the PG. I wondered if between 16 and 21 included 16 and 21 and I blew it off and said what are the chances that they ask that. I think it does include them but it is not clear.
Whenever you use ages or days or years, it has to have some leeway. For juveniles it is clear, the child must be under 16. JO's have rules for 13, 14, 15 year olds, all clear. But they got to "between 16-21 years old"!!! It was not made clear in the book. It also says notifications must be made for prisoners "under 19". They go to the most vague age question in the book and go with age 21? What nonsense!
I say a 21 gets the parental visit, but what do I know?
So based on how some posters are interpreting that procedure, only 17,18,19,20 y/o's get the parental visit? That makes no sense since 16 is the threshold for being charged as an adult for any crime. The again the "under 19" for parental notifications of prisoners or the child fall report was another oddball one, but I don't think any of those were on the exam...
Im so wondering the answer to that e day question. Anybody remember that number to that question I denied the day someone said that book said give them the day
My protest on the Missing Person question has its basis in the exact wording of Patrol Guide Procedure 207-23-Missing Persons. I feel the exam writers made a mistake by asking a question that has no clear definition within the procedure. The question on the Lieutenant Exam asked if a roommate could report someone missing (another roommate). While I do not argue that the definition of who qualifies as a missing person is clearly defined with PG 207-23, the definition of who can report is NOT. I think the exam writers opened themselves up to a protest on the grounds of the question being ambiguous and having no solid backing from the Patrol Guide.
PG 207-23 Note after step #1
A complainant could be, in addition to a member of the family, a legal or temporary guardian, a representative of the Board of Education, or a hospital administrator.
The above section of PG 207-23 does not use the words MUST, ONLY, CAN ONLY BE, ONLY PERMITTED TO BE, etc. The phrase "could be" is what appears in the Patrol Guide, therefore a roommate may be considered as an appropriate complainant based on the totality of the circumstances. The phrase "could be" does not mandate who is eligible to be a complainant in the matter of a missing person investigation. The question on the Lt Exam did not present any circumstances besides the roommate seeking to report his roommate missing. There is not enough information to disregard the roommate as a potential complainant in this matter, because there may be no other person available to in fact report a bonafide missing person case, which deserves appropriate police attention and response. If the correct choice, as per DCAS, is to deny to roommate from acting as the complainant, then I feel there is strong ground to protest the make up of this question. Whether or not the missing person was of sound mind or emotionally disturbed, or whether they haven't been accounted for in a few hours or multiple days/weeks/months was not provided in the question scenario.
(DCAS threw many ambiguous questions at us, and it's their fault they couldn't issue a test that was edited and constructed appropriately. Not our fault. Need support on this Missing question at the live protest and written session as well. If anyone can help me with the exact question number, I would appreciate it. Anyone need support on a question they would like to protest, just drop me a message and I promise that I will draft a solid argument for all of us needing the help.)
16-21 to 21 encompasses 16, 17,18,19, 20, and 21! How are going to argue against such simple question is mindboggling
Well, once I turn 21, I am no longer between those ages. 21 and one day, is not 21. Between 16-21, would however, include 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 and 364 days old. In fact, being someone that has a math and science background, if they wanted to include everything, they would have used the words "between 16-21 inclusive". However, they didn't. Therefore, in my opinion, the patrol guide is ambiguous. In fact, my lines of thinking is, why would a 21 year old get a visit from his parents? He can drink now, I figured he is a real adult now. No reason for a visit. If you ask me, it is not inclusive. The most correct answer to me is not let the person visit. As an aside, I do know that if the kid was 20 and receiving a DAT he could get a visit (the wrong answer was that said don't let parents visit due to the child is 21 and getting a DAT). The DAT has nothing to do with the visit. But let me ask you something, why did the test writers have to open them selves up to that? If they wanted to test DAT vs. summons (no visit for a summons yes for a DAT), they couldn't have done that with someone with an age that didn't open themselves up for a dispute?
Please don't bother with the sarcastic answers. We should be sticking together for this, not at everyone's throat.
-- Edited by arimaas on Tuesday 8th of November 2011 06:02:16 PM
I don't agree that it doesn't include 16 & 21 but I do agree with why would they use that age because it is obviously up for debate, they could of tested your knowledge of the procedure with using 20 year old, but that would make too much sense.
-- Edited by E D on Tuesday 8th of November 2011 05:59:06 PM
I would focus less on the age of prisoner with this protest (16-21) and try to support that permission from the Det Sqd Commander, Arresting Officer, .... was not obtained. The question made no reference to that very important fact. The mentioning of the DAT process allows the fact that prisoner was being processed at the Pct of Arrest to be inferred. However, the age (21), the amount of time detained (4 hrs), is not enough to determine whether or not a parent/legal guardian may be permitted to visit. PG 210-01 #10 demands that certain criteria is met prior to allowing the visit to take place in the muster room. DCAS again tried to play with criteria and published a very debatable question.
210-01 step #10(a-e)
10. Permit parents or legal guardian to visit a prisoner between the ages of
sixteen (16) and twenty-one (21), for not longer than fifteen (15) minutes,
in the muster room, provided:
a. Detective squad commander, arresting officer or, if visit is at other
than precinct of arrest, desk officer, precinct of arrest is consulted
b. Visit is in presence of desk officer/borough court section supervisor
c. Prisoner has been detained more than four (4) hours
d. Prisoner is not eligible for a summons
e. Visit does not interfere with police business
-- Edited by cornhole on Tuesday 8th of November 2011 06:53:39 PM
I don't remember if it said whether or not the visit was in the precinct of arrest. You were the DO in the fact pattern and they definitely did say the prisoner was 21 y/o, was held in the SH for over 4 hours (they gave times in the fact pattern to calculate it), and was being processed for a DAT.
You were the DO and I don't recall a mention of where this prisoner got collared, I say allow the visit. But the debate in a 21 y/o counting towards "between 16-21 years old" is worthy of a protest...
Food for thought: I agree that this exam was a little off the wall and non-traditional. But here is a good point. Questions read as 'choose the most or least correct answer'; not thecorrect or incorrect answer. The MOST/LEAST correct answer shows that out of 4 possibilities, although not 100% accurate, may be how the exam writers wanted the test to be written. Example: If the information in choice A is 50% accurate, B is 30%, C is 90% and D is 0%, then choice C is what they wanted. Not 100% RIGHT or 100% WRONG.
Our protests must be questions and/or answers that are totally off base to actually get the question thrown out or double answers; unless we can convince the Protest Board otherwise. Good Luck to all of us in the protest session....
- Stay thirsty my friends......
-- Edited by wileone on Friday 11th of November 2011 01:24:48 PM
-- Edited by wileone on Friday 11th of November 2011 01:27:51 PM
-- Edited by wileone on Friday 11th of November 2011 01:37:27 PM
-- Edited by wileone on Friday 11th of November 2011 01:38:53 PM
__________________
Although I do like pv$$y, I don't like the smell of a qwiff.
My protest on the Missing Person question has its basis in the exact wording of Patrol Guide Procedure 207-23-Missing Persons. I feel the exam writers made a mistake by asking a question that has no clear definition within the procedure. The question on the Lieutenant Exam asked if a roommate could report someone missing (another roommate). While I do not argue that the definition of who qualifies as a missing person is clearly defined with PG 207-23, the definition of who can report is NOT. I think the exam writers opened themselves up to a protest on the grounds of the question being ambiguous and having no solid backing from the Patrol Guide.
PG 207-23 Note after step #1
A complainant could be, in addition to a member of the family, a legal or temporary guardian, a representative of the Board of Education, or a hospital administrator.
The above section of PG 207-23 does not use the words MUST, ONLY, CAN ONLY BE, ONLY PERMITTED TO BE, etc. The phrase "could be" is what appears in the Patrol Guide, therefore a roommate may be considered as an appropriate complainant based on the totality of the circumstances. The phrase "could be" does not mandate who is eligible to be a complainant in the matter of a missing person investigation. The question on the Lt Exam did not present any circumstances besides the roommate seeking to report his roommate missing. There is not enough information to disregard the roommate as a potential complainant in this matter, because there may be no other person available to in fact report a bonafide missing person case, which deserves appropriate police attention and response. If the correct choice, as per DCAS, is to deny to roommate from acting as the complainant, then I feel there is strong ground to protest the make up of this question. Whether or not the missing person was of sound mind or emotionally disturbed, or whether they haven't been accounted for in a few hours or multiple days/weeks/months was not provided in the question scenario.
(DCAS threw many ambiguous questions at us, and it's their fault they couldn't issue a test that was edited and constructed appropriately. Not our fault. Need support on this Missing question at the live protest and written session as well. If anyone can help me with the exact question number, I would appreciate it. Anyone need support on a question they would like to protest, just drop me a message and I promise that I will draft a solid argument for all of us needing the help.)
Submit it to risingstar also. They are willing to review protests
SUBMIT your protests to risingstar and they will REVIEW IT !!!!!
They made it sound like they are only helping to protest the judgment questions. I asked a question about protests another thread with no answer from RS.
SUBMIT your protests to risingstar and they will REVIEW IT !!!!!
They made it sound like they are only helping to protest the judgment questions. I asked a question about protests another thread with no answer from RS.
email them. I did and got a quick response. You also have to be an RS student.
