|
chitoryu12 posted:I looked at some of the sample questions on the Florida one. It's literally testing on middle school knowledge. It asked how to spell "phenomenal" and how to add fractions. Yeah that's what i thought was funny. Like they're the simplest questions in the world.
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2015 17:28
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 28, 2024 14:59 |
|
|
Rent-A-Cop posted:I'd love to see the data on that. Sure, no problem. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_income_in_the_United_States http://www.bls.gov/oes/current/oes333051.htm
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2015 17:31
|
|
|
It's actually accurate to say that most Police Departments don't want to hire someone who is really really intelligent. This is actually true here: http://abcnews.go.com/US/court-oks-barring-high-iqs-cops/story?id=95836 The National Average for IQ for cops is 104. Police Department's don't want intelligent questioning people to join their ranks, they want people who will follow orders, etc.. Why? Because they don't want intelligent people because intelligent people go " This is loving dumb,corrupt, and I'm leaving for a better job".
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2015 17:38
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:I agree with you, but I think a lot of posters in this thread can't even describe what realistic vision of "good" policing in America would look like, (aside from "fewer dead minorities" and "more like Europe"), what causes the systemic problems we have, or how we should go about fixing them. How about not summarily executing people for minor offences for a start? Highly questionable? Excluding minorities? Riiiight. A person that isn't borderline retarded will generally have better critical thinking skills and will not automatically fall back on shoot the motherfucker up while running his rear end off. I don't even know why you would keep harping about excluding minorities. Do you have some bias where you think minorities are dumber than the average white person? Agrajag fucked around with this message at 17:42 on Apr 13, 2015 |
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2015 17:40
|
|
|
Agrajag posted:How about not summarily executing people for minor offences for a start? Whoa there pancho villa
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2015 17:42
|
|
|
Agrajag posted:How about not summarily executing people for minor offences for a start? I think its fairly well documented that minorities get poo poo treatment in the education system of the united states, which results in lower standardized test scores.
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2015 17:45
|
|
|
Hollismason posted:It's actually accurate to say that most Police Departments don't want to hire someone who is really really intelligent. This is actually true here: So the average IQ for cops is above average and that is the support for your argument that smart people can't be cops?
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2015 17:48
|
|
|
104 is not above average. Pretty sure Above Average starts a 115 to 120?
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2015 17:49
|
|
|
104 is probably within margin of error for testing, showing them to be nothing more than average when it comes to a specific intelligence test.
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2015 17:49
|
|
|
The thought of all those who don't even meet that average but are employed doesn't scare you? Sorry, but it's ridiculous that you would think the selection process is sufficient when you have those who aren't even meeting average intelligence levels being employed as law enforcement. It would be fine if they weren't all armed to the teeth and in an occupation where they are likely to encounter situations outside of one's comfort zone. Such fine examples as confusing a taser for a gun or shooting/choking black men. Agrajag fucked around with this message at 18:02 on Apr 13, 2015 |
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2015 17:53
|
|
|
Get hosed New York Times. Every murderer is a complicated person, I wonder why exactly THIS is the one that needs an article where two thirds is about his child hood and how his family thinks he's a great guy (before offhandedly mentioning that he has a history of using his authority to terrorize black people). The New York Times is the most Serious People news outlet, even more than anything in DC, and I hate them for it.
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2015 17:54
|
|
|
Agrajag posted:The thought of all those who don't even meet that average but are employed doesn't scare you? Sorry, but it's ridiculous that you would think the selection process is sufficient when you have those who aren't even meeting average intelligence levels being employed as law enforcement. Yeah, citing an average of 104 glosses the implication that for every intelligent cop out there, there is a mouth-breather who couldn't crack 80 but still gets issued a lethal weapon and a license to kill.
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2015 18:00
|
|
|
Radbot posted:Sure, no problem. mdemone posted:Yeah, citing an average of 104 glosses the implication that for every intelligent cop out there, there is a mouth-breather who couldn't crack 80 but still gets issued a lethal weapon and a license to kill.
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2015 18:14
|
|
|
Rent-A-Cop posted:Thanks Radbot. No problem. Hopefully everyone has enough data now to show that cops earn twice, on average, what the median American wage is - enough bullshit from DR who wants to show how poor they are.
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2015 18:29
|
|
|
mdemone posted:Yeah, citing an average of 104 glosses the implication that for every intelligent cop out there, there is a mouth-breather who couldn't crack 80 but still gets issued a lethal weapon and a license to kill. The "average" point of a distribution contains no information about the distribution. Hell its even more meaningless without knowing which average it is! Hollismason posted:104 is not above average. Pretty sure Above Average starts a 115 to 120? 100 is defined as median in a normal distribution with a standard deviation of 15. Therefore 2/3 of the population is between 85 and 115. Note that IQ is defined on a test by test basis so just throwing a number out there is really meaningless.
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2015 18:32
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:I agree with you, but I think a lot of posters in this thread can't even describe what realistic vision of "good" policing in America would look like, (aside from "fewer dead minorities" and "more like Europe"), what causes the systemic problems we have, or how we should go about fixing them. Spacman posted:Mate, I'm not From the U.S. So not from your particular police state hell hole and I can describe a realistic vision of "good" policing in America in seven words. Agrajag posted:How about not summarily executing people for minor offences for a start? Agrajag posted:A person that isn't borderline retarded will generally have better critical thinking skills and will not automatically fall back on shoot the motherfucker up while running his rear end off. I don't even know why you would keep harping about excluding minorities. Do you have some bias where you think minorities are dumber than the average white person? Hollismason posted:Yeah that's what i thought was funny. Like they're the simplest questions in the world. Hollismason posted:It's actually accurate to say that most Police Departments don't want to hire someone who is really really intelligent. This is actually true here: the article you posted posted:But New London police interviewed only candidates who scored 20 to 27, on the theory that those who scored too high could get bored with police work and leave soon after undergoing costly training.
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2015 18:39
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:It's almost as if their HR department realizes that police work is difficult, frustrating, and stressful, and that highly qualified officers often decide they can do better and move on. Do you have literally any data or evidence to back up the notion the policework is more stressful or difficult than many other professions with higher death and injury rates? I get that it's totally obvious that it should be like the most stressful job EVER, but data would be nice, especially considering how often people literally pay money to become reserve cops but I don't see a lot of reserve sewer maintenance people around.
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2015 18:42
|
|
|
That's kind of the point, most people who go into Police Work do not in fact go in to Police Work because they have a strong sense of moral obligation to their community. It's a job, it has specific benefits and it matches their personality.
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2015 18:42
|
|
|
Radbot posted:Do you have literally any data or evidence to back up the notion the policework is more stressful or difficult than many other professions with higher death and injury rates? Edit: Basically American policing is balkanized to hell and back and disincentivizes the small players from seeking the best people for the job and instead drives them to seek the best people for the budget. Rent-A-Cop fucked around with this message at 18:59 on Apr 13, 2015 |
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2015 18:55
|
|
|
Rent-A-Cop posted:The problem with training Fixed for corporate America. It's a pretty common problem and not at all limited to the police. My actual question, though, related to how stressful and lovely the job of policing is. There doesn't seem to be any data to back up the notion that policing is the most stressful, awful job one could have, especially when you look at entire communities that become police officers (as in Long Island).
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2015 18:59
|
|
|
I would like more people with strong moral compasses to join the police force, but alas they are routinely made an example of by their fellow officers.
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2015 19:00
|
|
|
It is worth noting that New London doesn't represent all or even maybe most departments. More desirable departments (a factor of pay, location, staffing levels, etc) won't filter out too smart officers because they're not so afraid of them leaving. There are a fair number of people who get iobs with smaller, less desirable departments with the hope they will get hired by a better one.
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2015 19:01
|
|
|
Radbot posted:Do you have literally any data or evidence to back up the notion the policework is more stressful or difficult than many other professions with higher death and injury rates? I get that it's totally obvious that it should be like the most stressful job EVER, but data would be nice, especially considering how often people literally pay money to become reserve cops but I don't see a lot of reserve sewer maintenance people around.
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2015 19:01
|
|
|
Radbot posted:My actual question, though, related to how stressful and lovely the job of policing is. There doesn't seem to be any data to back up the notion that policing is the most stressful, awful job one could have, especially when you look at entire communities that become police officers (as in Long Island).
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2015 19:04
|
|
|
Spacman posted:http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/13/u...v=top-news&_r=0 Haha is that 3 people on that byline? It took 3 people to write that softball piece? The grey lady, everyone. 
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2015 19:28
|
|
|
chitoryu12 posted:Actually punishing officers who violate policies and procedures instead of covering up for them? Harshly punishing officers who fire on unarmed people, especially fleeing ones? Encouraging non-violent conflict resolution and training for it as a priority? quote:Hiring officers from within the community and with a racial and gender makeup similar to the community so they feel a connection to the people they serve (and emphasizing that they serve and protect the civilians)? quote:Requiring stricter training standards for firearms (including actually spending the money on the ammo needed for them to practice instead of forcing the officers to spend hundreds of their own dollars on learning to use their weapon safely) and not issuing them to officers who can't pass the test while forcing them by policy to carry less-lethal weapons at all times so they don't have an excuse to resort to a gun for any mildly risky situation? Eliminating the NYPD's stupid 12-pound trigger pulls that try to make up for barely trained officers' unsafe handling practices while making it nearly impossible for the users to shoot the desired target without spraying bullets all over a crowded urban area? quote:Eliminating civil asset forfeiture and preventing the spoils of criminal asset forfeiture from being used for the department's benefit to eliminate incentives to falsify arrest and seizure for bonus shiny stuff? quote:Making any recorded racist or otherwise bigoted claims grounds for immediate dismissal? (*The military has gotten better about this, and tries to incorporate MOUT and civilian interactions into the scenarios at the NTC, but again, expensive, and at the end of the day there's a reason they don't send Mechanized Infantry to resolve hostage situations.)
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2015 19:39
|
|
|
I don't think hiring smarter people is some sort of cure all for policing issues in America. Wall Street and Silicon Valley are filled with really intelligent people and terrible ethical decisions are still made regularly in those places. This thread keeps discussing that small town and other outlying departments even when larger "real police" like the NYPD, CPD, and LAPD all have their own issues. When the departments that are properly staffed are hosed up, I think the problem is larger than a lack of quality recruits.
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2015 19:43
|
|
|
Fairfax County isn't a small town, it's one of the wealthiest counties in the country and basically a suburb of Washington D.C and it's dealing with the officers who shocked a woman to death in a jail cell. Rampant police abuse is a national issue that no one in power considers a real problem.
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2015 19:49
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:But part of the impunity for police officers has to do with juries favoring law enforcement over minority defendants. The no-bills in the cases of Eric Garner and the SWAT team that burned a toddler is a problem with society that you can't fix by changing policies and procedures. Walter Scott's killer has already been terminated, which is the limit of what can be done as an administrative penalty. Oscar Grant's killer resigned in lieu of being terminated, and again a jury declined to convict him of anything beyond involuntary manslaughter. You're shifting the blame from the system to citizens. The prosecutors are friends with the cops. Not to say jurors are necessarily blameless, but there's more to the system than just cops on the street. Judges, prosecutors, legislators, etc. Firing the guy might be the only thing the cops can do, but as we've seen, actually indicting the guy is something that is happening in this case, but needs to happen more generally. A big part of the reason juries favor law enforcement is because they're told to by people in power.
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2015 19:55
|
|
|
twodot posted:I don't understand why you are putting up a fight on this. Overly qualified people are going to leave their job for a job that is at least perceived to be better regardless of whether it actually is more often than merely qualified people. If you have an abundance of merely qualified people then there is no reason to go after overly qualified people. The point is that this problem is a) not restricted to the police, and b) has been solved by companies facing this exact problem
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2015 19:56
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:But part of the impunity for police officers has to do with juries favoring law enforcement over minority defendants. The no-bills in the cases of Eric Garner and the SWAT team that burned a toddler is a problem with society that you can't fix by changing policies and procedures. Walter Scott's killer has already been terminated, which is the limit of what can be done as an administrative penalty. Oscar Grant's killer resigned in lieu of being terminated, and again a jury declined to convict him of anything beyond involuntary manslaughter. I suspect that a much larger part of the impunity has to do with police misconduct being investigated by other police within a culture of tit-for-tat retribution that enforces the thin blue line, and prosecuted by attorneys who need to maintain good working relations with the defendants and their coworkers to do their own jobs. Also with most-to-all statistics on police violence relying on self-reporting and with racist shitheads screaming STATES' RIGHTS  at any suggestion of stronger federal oversight.
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2015 19:57
|
|
|
Radbot posted:b) has been solved by companies facing this exact problem
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2015 19:59
|
|
|
Rent-A-Cop posted:How exactly would you propose solving the problem? Because I know plenty of companies who solved that problem by not hiring overqualified people. I'm taking issue with the use of "overqualified" here, to refer to police officers needing to be intelligent. Let's start with why you think being intelligent necessarily makes you overqualified to be a cop.
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2015 20:00
|
|
|
Thesaurasaurus posted:racist shitheads screaming STATES' RIGHTS Radbot posted:I'm taking issue with the use of "overqualified" here, to refer to police officers needing to be intelligent. Let's start with why you think being intelligent necessarily makes you overqualified to be a cop. Edit: I can't spell and I'm not sure if that means I'd be good at being a cop or not. Rent-A-Cop fucked around with this message at 20:07 on Apr 13, 2015 |
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2015 20:02
|
|
|
quote:But part of the impunity for police officers has to do with juries favoring law enforcement over minority defendants. The no-bills in the cases of Eric Garner and the SWAT team that burned a toddler is a problem with society that you can't fix by changing policies and procedures. Walter Scott's killer has already been terminated, which is the limit of what can be done as an administrative penalty. Oscar Grant's killer resigned in lieu of being terminated, and again a jury declined to convict him of anything beyond involuntary manslaughter. Many of these cases never even make it into a courtroom. Even just bringing these cases up for a judge and/or jury to make a decision on regularly would be far better than the current situation, where police have almost total freedom to cover up or explain away deaths and use the officer's word as evidence. quote:Doing this without lowering the standards for applicants (to say nothing of raising them) is going to be a big problem. Limiting yourself to only the most qualified minority applicants in a delineated geographic area means competing for an extremely small pool of candidates. Even if they want to be law enforcement officers, why should they apply to the local PD if they're competitive for the FBI, NCIS, and National Park Rangers? What are your required standards? I thought you didn't like the idea of using standardized test scores as a way to find suitable candidates. quote:Better training means more money. Even in the military, the only groups that train to a high level to make disciplined shoot/don't shoot decisions in close contact (versus the more general fire-and-maneuver training the infantry focuses on) are Special Operations units like the Rangers.* That level of training and stress inoculation doesn't come cheap. Most PDs don't have the money to shoot 10,000 rounds per officer per year, or operate their own shoot houses. Putting all that aside, if you want to encourage officers to seek non-violent solutions, spending the majority of the training budget running around with guns is a bit contra-indicated. Also, the heavy triggers on NYPD duty guns were specifically added in order to prevent negligent discharges when officers were handling their weapons under stress, so I guess everything old is new again. A problem of budget priority more than the existence of money; there's a very large economy with the capability of funding officers, but a significant amount of it goes toward military spending beyond what's necessary to maintain the defense of our nation and NATO requirements. quote:I don't believe in zero tolerance policies. Maybe requiring documentation of HR counseling, but I'd still have serious concerns about making someone's personnel file available to be used against them in civil or criminal actions. At the end of the day, administrative remedies are a band-aid. Unless you want to put officers under constant surveillance and tap their personal cell phones (good luck selling that to these highly qualified applicants you're trying to attract) the only real way to reduce racism is when fellow officers start calling them out on it. As someone who has watched the military's flailing attempts to address sexual assault for the better part of a decade, changing a culture from the top down is really hard. Bigotry -- racism against black and Latino suspects in particular -- is a gigantic problem and the source of many further problems in police departments (such as the poor treatment of minority suspects and the greater tendency to use violence against them or interpret black males as larger and more threatening than they actually are). If an officer is proven to have used a racial slur or otherwise referred to a suspect in a way that insults their race, that officer needs to have the power that was granted to them removed. It's not like we're doing high school discipline where a cop who accidentally spills black paint on his hand is fired for starting a blackface costume. But you are right about something: the problems start from the top down. All of the methods for solving the problems are known and kind of obvious, but you need to actually get the guys in charge to enact them. Many of the guys in charge either don't think anything is being done wrong or know it but actively benefit (such as through civil forfeiture and increased income through spurious fines and fees, or the cheap labor provided by the prison system). The changes are staring us right in the face, but they have to be applied to a system that's basically toxic and rotted on all levels while large numbers of civilians think it's a shining paragon and would resist any accusations that make them uncomfortable. quote:You're shifting the blame from the system to citizens. The prosecutors are friends with the cops. Not to say jurors are necessarily blameless, but there's more to the system than just cops on the street. Judges, prosecutors, legislators, etc. Firing the guy might be the only thing the cops can do, but as we've seen, actually indicting the guy is something that is happening in this case, but needs to happen more generally. Darren Wilson's failed indictment is a prime example of this. McCullough had obvious, proven connections to the police and a history of preventing them from seeing consequences for bad behavior and racism against black suspects/victims. He acted less like a prosecutor and more like Wilson's defense attorney, even admitting after the fact to letting a known false witness testify in Wilson's favor without informing the jury that she was lying through her teeth. chitoryu12 fucked around with this message at 20:08 on Apr 13, 2015 |
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2015 20:04
|
|
|
Atrocious Joe posted:when larger "real police" like the NYPD, CPD, and LAPD all have their own issues. A massive, massive understatement.
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2015 20:06
|
|
|
Radbot posted:I'm taking issue with the use of "overqualified" here, to refer to police officers needing to be intelligent. Let's start with why you think being intelligent necessarily makes you overqualified to be a cop. Overqualified to be a "police officer"? No. Qualified to do something better than pull over the occasional drunk driver for poo poo pay? Yes. If thats all your department does then someone that is qualified for a better position for better pay after a short time on the job will jump when able. For example to be hired as an FBI special agent you need 3 years work experience.
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2015 20:07
|
|
|
Yeah calling a secret black ops site where you torture and disappear people without trials an "issue" doesn't really convey the gravity of how bad the American justice system is.
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2015 20:08
|
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:Overqualified to be a "police officer"? No. Qualified to do something better than pull over the occasional drunk driver for poo poo pay? Yes. If thats all your department does then someone that is qualified for a better position for better pay after a short time on the job will jump when able. For example to be hired as an FBI special agent you need 3 years work experience. FBI doesn't count patrol work as experience. You have to work as a detective.
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2015 20:10
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 28, 2024 14:59 |
|
|
Oh true. So you use your experience at one department to get a job at one with detectives.
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2015 20:17
|
|