Police use of force

I think they should abolish the upper IQ limit for starters. I'm tired of having to deal with inflated ego's that can't be reasoned with.

There's an upper IQ limit for the police? No one with an IQ over, what?, 140 need apply?

What if someone with a high IQ was clever enough to test with a lower IQ?

But I'm guessing you mean something else than "upper IQ" limit. Maybe "lower IQ limit"?




To a first approximation, I think this is true. Though undoubtedly the law lags behind current morality. If it wasn't true, we'd have a whole bunch of laws we considered immoral. And that would be just very strange.

No, there is an actual upper limit which is like 100-110-120 depending on the department. If you score over your application is rejected.

Don't read to much in to what some podunk police department does/did. The only case I ever heard of this was that one New London PD case. I've applied to a few law enforcement agencies, and none of the ones I applied to had a "over overqualified" standard.

Hell, I scored a 106% (96+10 vets) for CBP, and I know a guy who scored a 99% for Chicago PD test. Just because one department does it, doesn't make it the norm.

You've not only made it smaller (whatever it is), you've made it invisible.

Better?
use of force model: http://directives.chicagopolice.org...ics/Use of Force Model - 2012-Portrait_v4.jpg
 
Don't read to much in to what some podunk police department does/did. The only case I ever heard of this was that one New London PD case. I've applied to a few law enforcement agencies, and none of the ones I applied to had a "over overqualified" standard.

Hell, I scored a 106% (96+10 vets) for CBP, and I know a guy who scored a 99% for Chicago PD test. Just because one department does it, doesn't make it the norm.

http://nationalreport.net/missouri-...tically-reduces-iq-requirements-new-officers/

It's the same case in parts of Europe. You'll have these hillbillies and dropouts behaving like overweight trained monkeys and wrecking stuff and you can't do squat about it. I'm not saying all policemen are like that, but the vast majority of my encounters has been with one of those types. I know, I know anecdotal stuff, but everyone tells me the same stories.
 
My hillybillies are usually pretty nice. Sure, they'll still write you tickets for speeding and the idiots with the dogs are idiots with dogs, but they're more likely to help with your locked keys or your flat tire than anything else if you aren't driving like a jerk. So, anecdotes and all, but not everybody.
 
http://nationalreport.net/missouri-...tically-reduces-iq-requirements-new-officers/

It's the same case in parts of Europe. You'll have these hillbillies and dropouts behaving like overweight trained monkeys and wrecking stuff and you can't do squat about it. I'm not saying all policemen are like that, but the vast majority of my encounters has been with one of those types. I know, I know anecdotal stuff, but everyone tells me the same stories.

... LMFAO! And screen saved. You know that's a fake news site, right.
http://nationalreport.net/disclaimer/
National Report is a news and political satire web publication, which may or may not use real names, often in semi-real or mostly fictitious ways. All news articles contained within National Report are fiction, and presumably fake news. Any resemblance to the truth is purely coincidental. Advice given is NOT to be construed as professional. If you are in need of professional help, please consult a professional. National Report is not intended for children under the age of 18.

Don't worry, many very intelligent people have been tricked by these fake news sites. But it's funny every time.
 
Ha you got me. :lol: I've thought that the Onion was the only satire site worth following.

I was fool at first too until I got to the part where they were talking about having a avg of a 60 IQ.
 
I was fool at first too until I got to the part where they were talking about having a avg of a 60 IQ.

That struck me as odd, but I figured it was like some sort of a typo of the modified test like in the New London case where it scored out of 30 points.
 
So you think taxes are moral. How about a tax so large it creates a black market?

Context, please. I think a discussion of taxes being moral or immoral a much deeper subject than just that. For this discussion how about we simply agree they are a reality?

As to the tax being 'so large' that it creates a black market. Of course you realize a black market would probably exist regardless of the difference in tax rates between neighboring states; but that the different rates simply make for a more obvious niche.

The real question would be is a large tax on cigarettes moral? If the people of the state are of the mind to try and reduce cigarette smoking to as much of an extent possible (for the obvious reasons) then one could argue that such a sin tax is indeed moral (where I live in Washington State said sin tax is even higher on cigarettes and alcohol, even though it is considered a very liberal state).

Why would you consider the tax itself immoral? Because of how much it is? What if the neighboring state had a similar sized sin tax? Still immoral? Or does it become moral by virtue of being similar in value to its neighbors?

I guess my opinion is that such a tax is neither really moral or immoral - it just is. And since its overall objective appears to be in reducing smoking in the citizenry (something generally considered a moral cause by the vast majority) and it presumably achieves that end (as it has here where I live) then most would probably argue it being a moral law.

Question, if reducing smoking is moral, then couldn't it be the state with the low tax on cigarettes having the immoral tax? :mischief:

Black markets are created by laws that violate our freedom - this country and its main religion were founded by lawbreakers.

By definition black markets are created by far more than that.

He died because politicians imposed such a heavy tax on New Yorkers poor people got into selling "illegal" cigarettes and those politicians told cops to arrest them. Thats the problem, more laws, more taxes - the triumph of the political class over morality and common sense.

No, he simply died because he resisted arrest and was in bad health.

And it wasn't the politicians that told the cops to arrest them - its the local shop owners that called the cops, not the politicians.

Never thought MobBoss was pro-union. All workers should be able to do so to their CEOs.

I'm not pro-union, I'm pro freedom of speech. Blasio threw his own people under the bus, so there should be little surprise at their reaction to him.
 
There's at least two cops who didn't outlast the mayor.

Plus one in Flagstaff, and one got shot today in LA but survived. It seems that the public the cops declared war on has taken a mind to start shooting back.
 
I'm not pro-union, I'm pro freedom of speech. Blasio threw his own people under the bus, so there should be little surprise at their reaction to him.

Okay, call it what you want, but workers should be able to do the same to their CEOs in any organisation, yes?
 
Okay, call it what you want, but workers should be able to do the same to their CEOs in any organisation, yes?

Sure. And get promptly fired, just like these cops should.
 
Workers aren't as invested as these cops?
 
Workers aren't as invested as these cops?

Investors as in shareholders...as in stock companies. If the Mayor fired all the police he would have a nightmare on his hands.

Besides, workers turn their backs on management all the time and walk out. What do you think the UAW is? Or how about the fast food workers?
 
Regarding Mobboss and prohibitionist-minded laws: you shouldn't be too surprised a 'liberal' state has tremendously high sin taxes, 'liberals' aren't any less invested in being moralizing busybodies than are their counterparts. In fact, most major prohibition efforts seem to gain the most ground when the part of the society that fancies itself liberal decides to take a page out of the book of the religious and decide that they know The Way for you, me, and Bob than you, me, and Bob do. The only real difference is they tart it up a bit more, like they do now with smoking and like they did with a, perhaps the, signature movement of women's empowerment phase in the early American 20th century.
 
I don't look at taxes on cigarettes as a "morality" tax, rather as a financial bar that makes it more difficult for people to poison themselves. Considering that everyone else pays for medical treatment for the poor & unhealthy, and poor people are more likely to be smokers, it's in the non-smoker's interest to have a cigarette tax, to save money on health insurance payments and taxes for Medicare/Medicaid. This uses the fact that poor people are poor against them by making it more financially difficult for them to get cigarettes, in hopes that they will smoke less and be more healthy. It's not a moral imperative because "smoking is bad" or "healthiness is good." It's a financial interest to lower healthcare costs.
 
Investors as in shareholders...as in stock companies. If the Mayor fired all the police he would have a nightmare on his hands.

Yes, but are these cops shareholders?

Labtec600 said:
Besides, workers turn their backs on management all the time and walk out. What do you think the UAW is? Or how about the fast food workers?

Of course. I just didn't know that MobBoss was in favour of such things.
 
If soldiers resent their commanding officer, can they turn their backs on him?
 
Back
Top Bottom