[Spooky23]

It’s a subjective interrogation with a prop. You tingled his spidey sense.

And was he wrong?

You pumped gas without paying. Did you acknowledge it as a criminal act or as good fortune or not at all? Look at it from the interrogators perspective.

[learc83]

The OP said the card reader didn't charge. The implication is that they swiped their card and pumped gas thinking they paid.

How is that a criminal act?

[kevmo314]

I think OP's point is that he didn't even remember the event, and the NSA was using the polygraph as a prop to try and get him to fess up to something he believed was trivial, so it was erased from his memory.

[wamsachel]

Yes; the background investigation produced a police report which I hadn't mentioned in my application. At the time of the gas station incident, I didn't know that I had just created a paper trail that would damn my background check.

On one hand I understand how a discrepancy in the background check would raise concern, but on the other hand I feel that the police report easily shows no wrong doing on my part, and that this "blemish" could have been cleared up at the 1st polygraph interview, rather than stringing me along for 3.

[bilbo0s]

All of that would likely be true of a regular employer. Probably even would be good enough for the military.

But the people you were dealing with, as a rule, don't believe in happenstance, or coincidence. And they absolutely live by attention to detail. I don't know much about your situation, but based on what you've shared, you tripped a lot of alarms.

[Aeolun]

Only if the agents do not read the folder.

Forgetting to pay at the pump once in your life can hardly be called criminal behavior.

[wamsachel]

/shrugs

Well then congrats to the NSA; they successfully weeded out a spazzy dork

[compelledToken]

To be honest, the most amazing part of your story is everything that happened at the gas station. Not so much that you were caught on camera pumping the gas, but that they went after you for it, and that it wasn't pursued in a civil context. Not even a mailing you a bill, or sending a collections agency after you.

Okay, sure, there was no reason not to go inside and pay cash, and ask what's up with the pump, and maybe tell them to put a sign up, when it's all of maybe $20, maybe $40 at stake for a single tank. But I really want to know the background story from the perspective of the gas station. Like, how bad was the hit on that malfunction for them?

I really have to wonder, like was it a Mom & Pop station, or was it some huge multinational chain? And how long did the incident last? Did they lose an entire underground tank's worth of gas in less than a week, or even one day, with no transactions posted? I see "out of order" signs all the time. How did station employees not notice, and disable the pump in time? How many people got scooped up in the drag net?

They must have lost at least six figures worth of gas, and if it wasn't an independent station, I can only imagine that multiple station attendants lost their job for not disabling the pump. For a gas station to open a criminal investigation, to the tune of police reviewing possibly more than 24 hours of footage, running plates for every car that skipped out on a pump's error message, and making phone calls to track down individuals to dispense a warning under penalty of criminal charges, it must have been a real mess, and a total fiasco for the station owner.

Considering the insurance required for handling hazardous materials in a motor vehicle context, where a sleepy trucker could send an entire 18 wheeler plowing into the pumps, destroying an entire station, or a rusty leaking tank having the same effect, it's surprising that they wanted heads to roll over a malfunctioning credit terminal.

[wamsachel]

>And how long did the incident last?

Not long, I left the gas station and received a call from the police within an hour or two, and I kind of remember them telling me it was only happening that morning.

I only remember that it was a Sinclair station

[Natsu]

That's the thing, they want to know if you would bring up things even if you didn't think they knew about them. They want people who would do that, due to believing the polygraph works.

So they questioned them about this thing they knew about and he didn't reveal it, so they thought he was lying even though he honestly didn't remember it.

It doesn't work out well for people who know how polygraphs work in general or for people who do not reveal things they know about (intentionally or otherwise).