Some people are apparently too smart to become cops.
METRO NEWS BRIEFS: CONNECTICUT; Judge Rules That Police Can Bar High I.Q. Scores
Published: September 09, 1999
NEW HAVEN — A Federal judge has dismissed a lawsuit by a man who was barred from the New London police force because he scored too high on an intelligence test.
In a ruling made public on Tuesday, Judge Peter C. Dorsey of the United States District Court in New Haven agreed that the plaintiff, Robert Jordan, was denied an opportunity to interview for a police job because of his high test scores. But he said that that did not mean Mr. Jordan was a victim of discrimination.
Judge Dorsey ruled that Mr. Jordan was not denied equal protection because the city of New London applied the same standard to everyone: anyone who scored too high was rejected.
Mr. Jordan, 48, who has a bachelor's degree in literature and is an officer with the State Department of Corrections, said he was considering an appeal. ''I was eliminated on the basis of my intellectual makeup,'' he said. ''It's the same as discrimination on the basis of gender or religion or race.''
[quote author=OhCrapItsTheCops link=topic=4846.msg50970#msg50970 date=1299980101]
The low test scores are to widen the candidate pool. If they have a residency requirement, and all they have are people with a HS diploma but an 8th grade reading level, they must pick form that pool of candidates. On the other side of the coin, math and reading skills don't dictate common sense, street smarts, or how well you can function doing the grunt work. Some of the best cops are the ones that were involved with the wrong side of the law in their 'former' lives.
[/quote]
"best cops" = oxymoron. ;D
[quote author=free libertarian link=topic=4846.msg50985#msg50985 date=1300028374]Judge Dorsey ruled that Mr. Jordan was not denied equal protection because the city of New London applied the same standard to everyone: anyone who scored too high was rejected.[/quote]
Wonder if he'd apply that same "logic," if they were using a "skin darkness" standard, that they applied equally to everyone. That's not racism, right?
It's a fact, though, that police departments do not want anyone with high intelligence or critical thinking skills.
Joe
[quote author=OhCrapItsTheCops link=topic=4846.msg50931#msg50931 date=1299898581]
I forgot to add, WHO exactly will oversee this 'security force?'
[/quote]
There was this quote and another that "Cops" mentioned about "Blackwater" I wanted to talk about.
The first thing is that "Blackwater" is not a private 'security force'. A private security force would not have limited liability protections as most 'corporations' do. It can not be said that "Blackwater" was even a 'security force' either since the money that they were paid with was with stolen money, that being taxes that have to be paid. If those who paid "Blackwater" didn't like the service they provide they can't withdraw their monetary support of the business. If "Blackwater" screwed up and harmed people, the employee's wouldn't pay for their behavior. The executives of the company wouldn't face charges for the harm their employee's enacted.
A "private security force" would have several market restrictions placed upon it. Firstly, it requires money given to it voluntarily, such as it is with every other private service provider(think cable or telephone service, not the best since they are heavily regulated and not totally open to free market forces). Secondly, they have to maintain their customers, that means they have to keep their service agreements, failing to do so will make their customers leave for another provider. Third, every employee represents the company, and as such when they make a mistake they or the company will have to pay for those mistakes.
Every example where an employee does something bad, the employee will be the one who pays for the mistake. The company will pay for the mistake in the short term, but ultimately the employee will have to pay back the company for any damages that the company incurred because of their actions. No company will employ anyone who performs or behaves badly, it would be too cost prohibitive to do so.
As for 'who oversees this security force', the best ones to do so, their customers. Without money the company is gone. If it can't keep paying customers, like so many business today, it will go out of business.
What power would you give this security force? Who would train them? What standards would be minimums? And what oversight would you have?
You are failing to see the point, which is there would be no protection FROM the security force once they were in place. The security force will eventually turn into a PRIVATE army, with no one to oversee it except their 'boss.' You would have no court system or government to save you from or guarantee your liberty if you went ahead with this plan.
And what power would be granted this security force? Obviously the constitution would not be in effect because who needs a piece of paper to guarantee your god-given rights, right? And this security company would have its own set of morals and values and provide security accordingly. What happens if those morals are in conflict with yours, but this PRIVATE force takes over the area anyway? At least with us now, that piece of paper guarantees certain rights and protections against the police, and if there is an injustice done to you, there is recourse within the system itself. Not so with a private company, assuming they are the only authoritarian power.
A private security force would just be a gang or private army, with rules and standards that changed from street to street. Is that REALLY what you want?
[quote author=OhCrapItsTheCops link=topic=4846.msg50999#msg50999 date=1300118960]What power would you give this security force?[/quote]
I wouldn't "give" them any. They would have the same power anyone else has: to use defensive force.
[quote author=OhCrapItsTheCops link=topic=4846.msg50999#msg50999 date=1300118960]Who would train them? What standards would be minimums?[/quote]
Whomever they hired, and whatever they set.
[quote author=OhCrapItsTheCops link=topic=4846.msg50999#msg50999 date=1300118960]And what oversight would you have?[/quote]
If I don't like them, I can hire their competitors.
[quote author=OhCrapItsTheCops link=topic=4846.msg50999#msg50999 date=1300118960]You are failing to see the point, which is there would be no protection FROM the security force once they were in place. The security force will eventually turn into a PRIVATE army, with no one to oversee it except their 'boss.'[/quote]
Or, you know, the other security forces.
[quote author=OhCrapItsTheCops link=topic=4846.msg50999#msg50999 date=1300118960]You would have no court system or government to save you from or guarantee your liberty if you went ahead with this plan.[/quote]
That's the current situation. You're applying a double-standard.
[quote author=OhCrapItsTheCops link=topic=4846.msg50999#msg50999 date=1300118960]Obviously the constitution would not be in effect because who needs a piece of paper to guarantee your god-given rights, right?[/quote]
As opposed to now, when the Constitution is protecting me so well? How many folks have you arrested for having guns? You've steadfastly refused to answer that one.
[quote author=OhCrapItsTheCops link=topic=4846.msg50999#msg50999 date=1300118960]And this security company would have its own set of morals and values and provide security accordingly. What happens if those morals are in conflict with yours, but this PRIVATE force takes over the area anyway?[/quote]
All the other security companies would take them down. No so, with cops, who cover for each other's violations of basic human rights.
[quote author=OhCrapItsTheCops link=topic=4846.msg50999#msg50999 date=1300118960]At least with us now, that piece of paper guarantees certain rights and protections against the police, and if there is an injustice done to you, there is recourse within the system itself.[/quote]
Yeah, right. When's the last time a dirty cop got nailed, instead of protected? Even in the rare instances where someone can get a court to award damages, it's paid for by the taxpayers, and the cops who the court determines to have violated someone's human rights, don't even lose their jobs, let alone have to pay up.
[quote author=OhCrapItsTheCops link=topic=4846.msg50999#msg50999 date=1300118960]A private security force would just be a gang or private army, with rules and standards that changed from street to street. Is that REALLY what you want?[/quote]
So, in your worst-case scenario, the private security force is what, 10% as bad as you guys are, currently? I think we can deal.
Joe
I think Joe did a good job addressing the issues at hand however I want to add my two cents.
[quote author=OhCrapItsTheCops link=topic=4846.msg50999#msg50999 date=1300118960]
What power would you give this security force? Who would train them? What standards would be minimums? And what oversight would you have?
[/quote]
Where does a baker learn to bake? Where does a iron fitter learn to iron. Training most likely would either be done by the employer or by a trade school with standards that the private security companies desire.
As standards go, the security companies would either create their own standards or come together and hash out standards based on experience or even based on customer expectations.
Again, oversight would be by the customer. If the company does something the customer doesn't like, then he chooses from another available company. If there isn't another company, he is free to start one himself, which will either cause the other companies to fall in line or risk losing customers to the newcomer.
[quote]
You are failing to see the point, which is there would be no protection FROM the security force once they were in place.
[/quote]
In a country where there are more guns then people, do you really think it would be difficult for the customers to fight off a security company gone mad? Sure the company could kill everyone that opposes it, but it doesn't make good business sense to kill your customers because they can no longer pay you.
[quote]The security force will eventually turn into a PRIVATE army, with no one to oversee it except their 'boss.'[/quote]
Again, he who pays for the service is the 'boss' not the company. A company can not exist without money. Are you willing to risk your life to do what your boss asks you if you are most likely to be killed for the action you are performing for very little money?
[quote]You would have no court system or government to save you from or guarantee your liberty if you went ahead with this plan.[/quote]
In reality, the only guarantee for my liberty is what I myself provide for. Police don't protect my liberty, in fact they are the ones that routinely violate my freedoms.
[quote]And what power would be granted this security force?[/quote]
Less powers then the police currently have, that is for sure. For example, I would be able to decide not to continue to pay them if I didn't like their service or didn't desire their service in the first place.
[quote]Obviously the constitution would not be in effect because who needs a piece of paper to guarantee your god-given rights, right?[/quote]
To paraphrase Lysander Spooner, the Constitution has either been powerless to stop the tyranny we currently have or has helped it.
[quote] And this security company would have its own set of morals and values and provide security accordingly. What happens if those morals are in conflict with yours, but this PRIVATE force takes over the area anyway?[/quote]
You assume things exist in a vacuum. A company would have the same morals and values its customers have or it will not have customers. No one would voluntarily support an organisation that violates its members beliefs. Do you support the Church of Satan? No, because it isn't in line with your beliefs. Being a security company doesn't automagically take away standard economic factors.
A private force can't take over an area without the money of the people. They may act as you currently do, as a band of rogues and thieves but take away the public perception of your legitimacy, and the next time you raise your gun against someone, it may well be your last. In a private company, no one would accept your use of violence as a first response to the situation.
[quote]At least with us now, that piece of paper guarantees certain rights and protections against the police, and if there is an injustice done to you, there is recourse within the system itself.[/quote]
Again, a false reality. There is nothing substantially different between what you do and what a mob enforcer does in actions. You have better public relations because your employer gets to feed the minds of the people with lies about its true nature.
[quote]Not so with a private company, assuming they are the only authoritarian power.[/quote]
False reality again. A real monopoly can not exist within a free market. No one company can service every single person they want to be serviced.
[quote]
A private security force would just be a gang or private army, with rules and standards that changed from street to street. Is that REALLY what you want?
[/quote]
That's what I currently have. Men who claim to represent me change the rules every day. Men in dresses put me in a cage if I don't comply with their band of related thugs. One enforcer will put me in a cage if I don't show him respect he thinks he has earned. Another enforcer will take my property from me if I don't comply with his bosses opinions of how I could act. Another enforcer will shoot me if I attempt to defend myself against his attack.
edited: runaway quote
Not to mention… how many employees would be willing to die to try and make their employers the "rulers." Because it's a fact that a large percentage of them would die, if they tried such a thing.
Fanatics will do things like that, in the name of Statism, just like any other religious fanatics.
"We'll pay you an ounce of silver an hour to go wave a gun in the face of heavily-armed people, so we can increase our profit margins" ain't exactly going to stir up fanaticism…
Joe
[quote author=MaineShark link=topic=4846.msg51001#msg51001 date=1300121213]
When's the last time a dirty cop got nailed, instead of protected?
[/quote]
Like this?
http://www.theagitator.com/2011/03/14/no-protection-for-police-whistle-blowers-ctd/
Yup. Or the psycho state trooper here in NH who crippled a motorcyclist while making an illegal U-turn in her cruiser, and then tried to prevent the accident report from being released by abusing a privacy law that limits access to civilian accident reports. Odd, that none of the other cops caller her on that, eh? Not only did they not arrest her for dangerous driving, or even tell her to stop trying to have they 91-A (NH's Freedom Of Information Act) request blocked, but they actually helped her in her attempt to block it.
Almost like the overwhelming majority of cops are completely corrupt, or something…
Joe
[quote author=OhCrapItsTheCops link=topic=4846.msg50999#msg50999 date=1300118960]
What power would you give this security force? Who would train them? What standards would be minimums? And what oversight would you have?
You are failing to see the point, which is there would be no protection FROM the security force once they were in place. The security force will eventually turn into a PRIVATE army, with no one to oversee it except their 'boss.' You would have no court system or government to save you from or guarantee your liberty if you went ahead with this plan.
And what power would be granted this security force? Obviously the constitution would not be in effect because who needs a piece of paper to guarantee your god-given rights, right? And this security company would have its own set of morals and values and provide security accordingly. What happens if those morals are in conflict with yours, but this PRIVATE force takes over the area anyway? At least with us now, that piece of paper guarantees certain rights and protections against the police, and if there is an injustice done to you, there is recourse within the system itself. Not so with a private company, assuming they are the only authoritarian power.
A private security force would just be a gang or private army, with rules and standards that changed from street to street. Is that REALLY what you want?
[/quote]
Amazing. You just described the status quo perfectly.
[quote author=mackler link=topic=4846.msg51021#msg51021 date=1300157478]
[quote author=OhCrapItsTheCops link=topic=4846.msg50999#msg50999 date=1300118960]
What power would you give this security force? Who would train them? What standards would be minimums? And what oversight would you have?
You are failing to see the point, which is there would be no protection FROM the security force once they were in place. The security force will eventually turn into a PRIVATE army, with no one to oversee it except their 'boss.' You would have no court system or government to save you from or guarantee your liberty if you went ahead with this plan.
And what power would be granted this security force? Obviously the constitution would not be in effect because who needs a piece of paper to guarantee your god-given rights, right? And this security company would have its own set of morals and values and provide security accordingly. What happens if those morals are in conflict with yours, but this PRIVATE force takes over the area anyway? At least with us now, that piece of paper guarantees certain rights and protections against the police, and if there is an injustice done to you, there is recourse within the system itself. Not so with a private company, assuming they are the only authoritarian power.
A private security force would just be a gang or private army, with rules and standards that changed from street to street. Is that REALLY what you want?
[/quote]
Amazing. You just described the status quo perfectly.
[/quote]
Yeah, I thought it was ironic that the point was made for me, but I couldn't help myself to rub it in.
Gang ? I'll third that motion. Yeah funny that those in the government gangs and cults have created different definitions for themselves in an attempt to legitimize their aggressive behavior huh? Now can we puhleeze talk about weed? :roll:
[quote author=free libertarian link=topic=4846.msg51057#msg51057 date=1300228577]
Now can we puhleeze talk about weed? :roll:
[/quote]
Didn't we resolve that already? It's got blood on it. Every time you take a hit, Al Qaeda kills a puppy.
[quote author=mackler link=topic=4846.msg51067#msg51067 date=1300322131][quote author=free libertarian link=topic=4846.msg51057#msg51057 date=1300228577]Now can we puhleeze talk about weed? :roll:[/quote]Didn't we resolve that already? It's got blood on it. Every time you take a hit, Al Qaeda kills a puppy.[/quote]
If you smoke bloody weed, does that make you a cannibal?
Joe
[quote author=OhCrapItsTheCops link=topic=4846.msg50789#msg50789 date=1299633272]
@Paul- we know that the idea of marijuana laws are bullshit. I've already admitted as such. The official justification is the idea of blood on the plants. Now some of this IS true to a great extent, and some is hyped. But this debate should not be about weed. Seems like a lot of the justification for the FSP IS the ability to smoke weed. It defeats the purpose of what could be a reasonable idea, and focuses too much on one small aspect of your social life.
[/quote]
Many people are incarcerated and families torn apart by police who enforce bad laws. My point was less about the specific law, but more about why police should show discretion in their duties. The marijuana laws are such a clear black and white issue. If someone doesn't think so even after learning its history, I recommend learning about Law Enforcement Against Prohibition (LEAP).
[quote author=OhCrapItsTheCops link=topic=4846.msg50789#msg50789 date=1299633272]
Speed limits…Ever hear the term 'speed kills?' It's entirely true. It is reasonable to expect people to drive at 25 mph on a highway? No. But there needs to be a modicum of safety involved. They chose the limit as 55 based upon the then available technology, roads, and fuel consumption. The technology back then was 'stone age' compared to now. There were some seatbelts, but no airbags, ABS, or crumple technology that exists now. And the tires were good for burnouts, but that's about it. So before you base the 55mph limit solely on gas consumption, research it a little more. It will seem that the speed limit was reasonable.
[/quote]
Again, the point is that the one-shoe fits all mentality of government is terrible, especially when executed on a national level. Personally, I'm against the idea of a federal government. It is too large, tries to represent too many people from too many different socioeconomic cultures. And on top of that, it is highly resistant to change and adapting. Why should people from the other 49 states be telling the people in South Dakota what speeds they should drive on their roads? And why did the police in South Dakota continue to enforce those laws when they were archaic and overbearing?
All I'm asking for is some discretion from the police.
Wow this thread is epic. It's pretty disturbing once you realize that the few bad apples spoiled the bunch long ago and now were left with a barrel full of rotten, stinking garbage.
Doubt I'm telling anyone anything they don't know, but police protection in this country is a joke. They literally are under no obligation to protect you. And with widespread corruption, lack of competition, and general incompetence displayed by police officers, it's a wonder more people aren't becoming aware of this.
Also, I don't know anyone who wants to be pulled over and ticketed for driving at a speed which is comfortable to them. These laws were clearly not written by the people for the people. These laws, in which no majority approves, flies in the face of all that B.S. we were taught as children in school.
[quote author=PaulOtt link=topic=4846.msg51084#msg51084 date=1300470943]
Many people are incarcerated and families torn apart by police who enforce bad laws. My point was less about the specific law, but more about why police should show discretion in their duties. The marijuana laws are such a clear black and white issue. If someone doesn't think so even after learning its history, I recommend learning about Law Enforcement Against Prohibition (LEAP).
Again, the point is that the one-shoe fits all mentality of government is terrible, especially when executed on a national level. Personally, I'm against the idea of a federal government. It is too large, tries to represent too many people from too many different socioeconomic cultures. And on top of that, it is highly resistant to change and adapting. Why should people from the other 49 states be telling the people in South Dakota what speeds they should drive on their roads? And why did the police in South Dakota continue to enforce those laws when they were archaic and overbearing?
All I'm asking for is some discretion from the police.
[/quote]
Again, I can't argue with you. You make very valid and reasonable points.
And you get discretion from us all the time when enforcing some of the arbitrary laws like speed limits. You will be hard pressed to find a cop that is going to write a ticket for 1mph over the limit, and the majority of us that do radar give a generous leeway. I don't know if I gave the example here, but there is a street in my town that was a 25. The AVERAGE speed on this road was 40. It was actually reasonable given the location. I usually didn't stop people until they were going 48+. That's 23 mph OVER the limit before I'd even look at you. So the moral of the story is that you ARE a recipient of discretion.
[quote author=OhCrapItsTheCops link=topic=4846.msg51089#msg51089 date=1300483010]
So the moral of the story is that you ARE a recipient of discretion.
[/quote]
Oh don't I know it. We need to extend this discretion that is sometimes used on traffic tickets and motor vehicle laws and puppet shows to more areas of law enforcement, such as marijuana, hemp, social security taxes, TSA, Patriot Act provisions, etc.
[quote author=OhCrapItsTheCops link=topic=4846.msg51089#msg51089 date=1300483010]
And you get discretion from us all the time when enforcing some of the arbitrary laws like speed limits. You will be hard pressed to find a cop that is going to write a ticket for 1mph over the limit, and the majority of us that do radar give a generous leeway. I don't know if I gave the example here, but there is a street in my town that was a 25. The AVERAGE speed on this road was 40. It was actually reasonable given the location. I usually didn't stop people until they were going 48+. That's 23 mph OVER the limit before I'd even look at you. So the moral of the story is that you ARE a recipient of discretion.
[/quote]
The danger of laws is not how they are enforced, but how they might be enforced if strictly followed.
The engineering model establishes the speed limit as the next 5mph increment below the 85th percentile of traffic speed as actually surveyed on the section of roadway in question. If the average speed on this road was 40, then the engineering model speed limit would most likely be 40 or 45 mph.
When you cited people going 48mph, did you cite them for +23? Or +8? Or +3? That's where your proper discretion kicks in: not just whether to cite, but what you cite them for. If you did the "legal" thing, and cited them for +23, the result would most likely be huge insurance surcharges, a huge fine, and an uninsured driver with a suspended license. How many stops did you make for +10, which was below the average speed? What was your ratio of citations to warnings at your personal discretion level of +23?
I find the speed limits in NH to be absurdly low, but I have to say NJ pretty much tops them all. Even in rural central NJ, I felt like I was constantly riding the brake there, just to keep at least -15 below a reasonable and prudent speed.
If your agency announced a zero tolerance policy for speeding, and OIA was out there in undercover vehicles making sure all speeders were stopped, would you start citing drivers for going 26, when previously you let them slide until they hit 48?
Time to start separating "right and wrong" from "legal and illegal". They are not synonymous.