- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
1
Posted on 7/7/16 at 1:53 pm to TeddyPadillac
quote:
The point of that scenario is to show them how quick and easy it is for someone to kill them
Well yeah, but you have to be careful about the message you're sending IMO. An officer can be killed or shot at in the blink of an eye, but it is also exceedingly rare. LEO should be diligent, of course, but you should also accept the stark reality that there are situations you cannot avoid, such as the first scenario. If you treat each encounter with the public as if you're trying to prevent something like the first scenario you're going to do more harm than good.
Posted on 7/7/16 at 1:54 pm to slackster
quote:
Should he have been shot with a handgun though? Serious question.
What do you do if they are bigger than you and can manhandle you? I am 6'4 280 and stronger than I look and I look strong. 5 of my friends tried to throw me in a pool and I choked one out and the others stopped immediately and these weren't small guys. One on one, if I don't want to comply I would have to be shot to be taken down by 99% of police officers. Now if I am on the ground and one officer is trying to wrestle me into cuffs, he better do something because odds aren't in his favor.
I am of the opinion to just comply and deal with it after. If you let them cuff you and then speak to them after you are secured then they are more prone to listen. It sucks but it puts the cop at ease not having to worry about having to deal with you if you decide something else. A taser isn't effective enough to stop a lot of people, I have been hit by a cop's handheld taser (without the barbs and cartridge) and all it did was burn my skin and piss me off (he hit me with it when he was drunk and fricking around). i could have easily closed a 10 to 15' gap and fricked his world up after being hit with it.
The problem is this when it comes to how cops deal with a situation:
They have a very small window in which to make a decision that will then be torn apart for months and examined in every single way possible for any flaw in it. Give them one thing to use and be done with it. If you don't want them to take people then take away their tasers. If you don't want someone shot, take away their guns. Eliminate options for them to use and don't bitch when they use the other options.
you can watch a video and say that the cop should use a taser but what if the person falls and cracks their face open?
You can watch another video and say the cop should restrain using man power and then they grab them and the guy dies while saying he can't breathe. What should the cop do at that point? Let him go? What if he then pulls a knife or gun and kills 1 or 2 people?
Posted on 7/7/16 at 2:06 pm to Warfarer
quote:
They have a very small window in which to make a decision that will then be torn apart for months and examined in every single way possible for any flaw in it. Give them one thing to use and be done with it. If you don't want them to take people then take away their tasers. If you don't want someone shot, take away their guns. Eliminate options for them to use and don't bitch when they use the other options.
you can watch a video and say that the cop should use a taser but what if the person falls and cracks their face open?
You can watch another video and say the cop should restrain using man power and then they grab them and the guy dies while saying he can't breathe. What should the cop do at that point? Let him go? What if he then pulls a knife or gun and kills 1 or 2 people?
You're right about the tactics and weaponry used, at least IMO. At this point there should be some sort of national standard and protocol for dealing with different levels of threats and situations. The standards should be approached from a cost-benefit analysis - taking into account the risk to the officer, the suspect, and the public at large.
I also think the scrutiny is fair when a life is taken. Their decisions should go under a microscope at that point because yours and mine certainly would as civilians. If you make a decision that had other alternatives and it turns out your decision backfired, you should answer for it in some way, shape, or form. You want to go for a take down, fail to do so effectively, and have to shoot the suspect as a result, you should bear some responsibility.
I'd be a happy man if cops didn't subconsciously think that they can take on unnecessary risk and aggression because they'll be bailed out by their weapon if they fear for their life.
Posted on 7/7/16 at 2:08 pm to Brazos
It's a good reason why police departments should not discriminate against intelligent people. And it's fricking legal!
There's been several similar cases over the last couple decades. It's completely absurd to disqualify someone for being smart.
quote:
A man whose bid to become a police officer was rejected after he scored too high on an intelligence test has lost an appeal in his federal lawsuit against the city.
The 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New York upheld a lower court’s decision that the city did not discriminate against Robert Jordan because the same standards were applied to everyone who took the test.
“This kind of puts an official face on discrimination in America against people of a certain class,” Jordan said today from his Waterford home. “I maintain you have no more control over your basic intelligence than your eye color or your gender or anything else.”
He said he does not plan to take any further legal action.
Jordan, a 49-year-old college graduate, took the exam in 1996 and scored 33 points, the equivalent of an IQ of 125. 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.
Most Cops Just Above Normal The average score nationally for police officers is 21 to 22, the equivalent of an IQ of 104, or just a little above average.
Jordan alleged his rejection from the police force was discrimination. He sued the city, saying his civil rights were violated because he was denied equal protection under the law.
But the U.S. District Court found that New London had “shown a rational basis for the policy.” In a ruling dated Aug. 23, the 2nd Circuit agreed. The court said the policy might be unwise but was a rational way to reduce job turnover.
Jordan has worked as a prison guard since he took the test.
There's been several similar cases over the last couple decades. It's completely absurd to disqualify someone for being smart.
Posted on 7/7/16 at 2:12 pm to CCTider
quote:
There's been several similar cases over the last couple decades. It's completely absurd to disqualify someone for being smart.
that's actually interesting. How much does it cost to fully train a police officer to go from interview to on the street?
quote:
Jordan, a 49-year-old college graduate, took the exam in 1996 and scored 33 points, the equivalent of an IQ of 125. 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.
Most Cops Just Above Normal The average score nationally for police officers is 21 to 22, the equivalent of an IQ of 104, or just a little above average.
Jordan alleged his rejection from the police force was discrimination. He sued the city, saying his civil rights were violated because he was denied equal protection under the law.
But the U.S. District Court found that New London had “shown a rational basis for the policy.” In a ruling dated Aug. 23, the 2nd Circuit agreed. The court said the policy might be unwise but was a rational way to reduce job turnover.
I understand their reasoning behind it if the past has shown this to be a truth in most cases. I am sure they didn't decide to not interview the higher scores out of the gate but after a lot of turnover that ultimately cost the department a lot of money.
Posted on 7/7/16 at 4:18 pm to Warfarer
But, if they're intelligent, it seems like increased responsibility would be a good way to retain them. I know I'd like my detectives to be intelligent people. And I know I've never seen a study that proved intelligent people ate more likely to switch careers more frequently. It just seems like speculation to me.
Page 2 of 2
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News