Not Hearing the Law to Drop It

Bcwitt said:
It depends what you do in your day. I often have to climb & crawl in very dirty environments. As much as i would like more firepower, a j frame is about the most I can manage @ work. Ive carried other guns, but makes my job much more difficult.
Click to expand...

I can't criticize your conclusions. When I have to, I do the same.

For example, in NPEs, or when dress standards are really formal, or when I'm doing heavy work away from home, I have been known to just drop a J-frame in my pocket. But I seldom go to NPEs or have to dress to the nines these days.

When I leave those situations and am just out in public, I am glad to switch back to my normal high-capacity autoloader, carried IWB, concealed with more casual clothing. This is what I carry 95% of the time.

And when I carry while I'm working around my property, or hiking, I'll often OC a bigger revolver in an OWB holster. It's more comfortable than IWB, and sweat and dirt affects a revolver less.

My point is that switching guns and carry methods as we change dress and activities is an idea to consider, with the bias that we "upgun" the tool as much as possible.

Most importantly, we need to train with each gun and carry method we choose to use.
 
Last edited:
This speaks to the mindset of cops and who the departments want for their force. It's possible he was in a frame of mind to consider the responding officers his allies, thought the situation under his control and also wasn't hearing properly. Departments usually want slightly below average I.Q. individuals, so with egos high, both cops and off duty cop won't budge in these types of scenarios. Especially a cop though, he's gotta lose the tunnel vision and look around.
 
WTBguns10kOK said:
Departments usually want slightly below average I.Q. individuals,
Click to expand...
I find that statement to be particularly insulting, as well as incredibly inaccurate.

To echo @Kleanbore, where on Earth did you come up with that (crap)?

Trust me on this when I tell you that stupid officers get the administrators jammed up, and they don't want this.
 
I did a bit of recruiting for several years in the early nineties.... At the time I was in charge of personnel and training for my 100 sworn Department... Can't tell you how offensive post #52 is, period. We looked everywhere for new officers (as well as laterals - already sworn officers with experience - wherever we could find them...). After we had a full statement of personal history in hand they were put through a rigorous screening process, including a psych eval before coming up with the candidates we wanted to look more closely at. Our final screening was a formal Q & A in front of a board comprised almost entirely of serving officers to weed out those who were not able to express themselves well - or who had other things in their background that were questionable...

We also looked extra hard for minority candidates and gave preference to anyone who with language skills (we needed officers that spoke - Spanish, Creole, Portuguese, French, Russian - as well as any other languages - particularly oriental languages). As you can guess we lived and worked in a multi-cultural environment down here in south Florida... At that time we didn't require two years of college (but most of our candidates could easily pass that standard...) - all these years later I wouldn't be surprised if a four year degree was almost mandatory for new candidates. Lateral hires went through the same process entirely - but the key to hiring former officers was the info we were able to obtain from the places they had worked before, and that was a difficult process.... Most agencies were advised by their in-house counsel to not be very forthcoming about folks who'd worked for them (understatement...).

I'm sure that there are quite a few small agencies, not near any big cities, where "brother-in-law hires" are common - but they're in the vast minority these days, in my opinion... My outfit was the first nationally accredited police agency down here in the Miami area so we followed a pretty high standard. As I write this I'm hoping that what I've just described is still the standard - but I retired out in 1995 and haven't kept up with it...

Addendum.... a few minutes after I posted this I thought back to my own hiring process, same agency, but a completely different deal in the fall of 1973... I was working at the time as a mate on charterboats (and really enjoying it...) when someone I knew told me that a civil service exam for police officer was coming up at a nearby city - and that along with the exam would be a swimming test... I took the exam, passed the swimming test (this is south Florida when you might end up in the water if not careful...) then completely forgot about it. I was a Vietnam vet but all that did was strongly encourage me to avoid any kind of government service.... Six months later I came home from work one day and my live-in told me I'd gotten a phone call from someone claiming to be a chief of police... Returning the call I was talking to that same individual... He simply asked me if I still wanted the job - then told me I was hired when I said yes... There was no other screening process... In the first few years I learned that my agency had a history of hiring folks who'd been fired from reputable agencies... It wasn't until about five years later that we began to turn that around and bring our Department into the modern era... We did still have that civil service exam though as a preliminary qualifier...

Nationwide the attrition rate from all sources for police agencies in my time was about 10%. That meant we needed ten new hires each year to keep up our strength... .In fact any "hiring freeze" is actually a reduction in force depending on how long it's in place... so recruiting and hiring was an on-going process always..
 
Last edited:
I don't know about anyone else, but whenever I was in the beginning of a stressful situation - like being ambushed with small arms fire - my heartbeat would be so loud in my ears that it was difficult to hear anything else.

That NEVER happened to me in training or in "simple" situations like IEDs, so it really surprised me the first time. I would expect to experience it again as a civilian in an SD incident. I hope that the responding LEOs would hesitate just enough that I could hear and understand their commmands
 
I can't get into the cop hiring thing much, I'll be accused of "off-topic". The point is, since they want to exclude individuals who test too well from getting on to the force, over time its excluding smarter people with better judgment. Where we would want to see cops who recognize that something is different when someone is milling around with a female companion, holding a gun, instead we get a female officer (women can't handle stress as well, get emotional quicker) who is immediately yelling out of her mind, starts firing and somehow her partner walks into her line of fire. Clown show all around, but this one falls on the female officer who fired first. Would have expected this one to be fatal regardless of most handgun wounds being non fatal, shot placement must not have been good. But that helped the off duty cop.
 
WTBguns10kOK said:
The point is, since they want to exclude individuals who test too well from getting on to the force, over time its excluding smarter people with better judgment.
Click to expand...
Again, where on Earth did you get that idea? You made a similar unsupported assertion which was perceived as extremely insulting by some of our members. Yoy were asked for your basis, and you have not responded.

If you want to continue participating on this board, we expect you to substantiate such controversial accusations.
 
WTBguns10kOK said:
How is it possible to lack the initiative to do a 10 second search?

https://search.brave.com/search?q=polICE+ACADEMY+discriminate+against+higher+iq+test&source=desktop

Being insulted by facts, reported on over a course of decades is not a good look. Not wanting smart people for the force is not a good look. Can we stay on topic or do we need sources for the sentences I just wrote? Thanks
Click to expand...
You do realize that those standards you cite are all from agencies trying to meet affirmative action quotas? We could have a long conversation about how many professions in both the public and private sectors have been "dumbed down" by affirmative action, but this isn't the place for that.

Now, defend your statement that the officer involved was of below average IQ. You can't because you don't have that information. So you are making a generalization based on a personal bias and justifying it by citing news articles about reverse discrimination lawsuits and applying across the board. There are plenty of departments where one must score at or near the top of the group being tested in order to get on the eligibility list. You comment here on a lot of things you know nothing about. You just made an inference that myself and other members here who served in law enforcement or are still serving are of below average IQ. You shouldn't be surprised when you are called on it.

So my friend, tell me how you know that your wild claim in post #52 has any possibility of being true. What is your personal experience in a situation like this? Are you combat veteran? Have you ever been in law enforcement? Ever pointed a gun at someone you might have to shoot to save your life? What are you basing this opinion on?
 
WTBguns10kOK said:
How is it possible to lack the initiative to do a 10 second search?

https://search.brave.com/search?q=polICE+ACADEMY+discriminate+against+higher+iq+test&source=desktop

Being insulted by facts, reported on over a course of decades is not a good look. Not wanting smart people for the force is not a good look. Can we stay on topic or do we need sources for the sentences I just wrote? Thanks
Click to expand...
Rather an insulting (and clearly intentional) question to open the post. Basically, one case (Jordan), repeatedly reported on, over "a course of decades." And truly taken out of reasonable context.

There are so many factors that go into hiring people for law enforcement jobs that it's always going to be quite possible for disqualified applicants to claim discrimination. Typically, the lawsuits and discrimination complaints are based on age, gender, ethnicity, religion (and more recently, tattoos, piercings, dyed hair). Prior drug is huge. Things that come up on the background questionnaire (typically 25 to 30 pages or so) and background investigation. Lying on applications and background questionnaires. Polygraph results (in states that allow pre-employment polygraph or CVSA). Physical fitness level. How one does on oral boards.

But being "too smart" is not a disqualifying factor. I sat on many, many hiring panels and oral boards over the years, worked closely with our human resource folks, had to be trained on what my employer's requirements were, specific traits we looked for in new officer hires.

Anyone who believes they weren't hired for a job in LE because they tested "too high" isn't facing reality. More likely that person would have given off strong indications on test results and interviews that they were not suitable due to not being the type of person that would function as part of a team, be willing to do everything the job requires (i.e., using physical and deadly force) or follow orders and comply with all agency policies, regulations and state/federal laws.

Frankly, the notion is preposterous.

(Just noted that Jeff clearly types faster than me. Good points on affirmative action.)
 
WTBguns10kOK said:
This speaks to the mindset of cops and who the departments want for their force. It's possible he was in a frame of mind to consider the responding officers his allies, thought the situation under his control and also wasn't hearing properly. Departments usually want slightly below average I.Q. individuals, so with egos high, both cops and off duty cop won't budge in these types of scenarios. Especially a cop though, he's gotta lose the tunnel vision and look around.
Click to expand...

As an LEO I find this to be true at least in part. Many agencies want "yes men/women" and not independent thinkers who will question the old "Well that's the way we've always done it," line. They want good workers bees who are smart but not too smart.

Incidents like these also speak to a lack of training which is epidemic in law enforcement.

Officers in departments where training is high and egos are low are truly blessed.
 
WTBguns10kOK said:
How is it possible to lack the initiative to do a 10 second search?

https://search.brave.com/search?q=polICE+ACADEMY+discriminate+against+higher+iq+test&source=desktop

Being insulted by facts, reported on over a course of decades is not a good look. Not wanting smart people for the force is not a good look. Can we stay on topic or do we need sources for the sentences I just wrote? Thanks
Click to expand...

You might consider that there are approx 18,000 state/local LE agencies at present in the US. While the majority of them (less than 65%, last time I heard) employ 10 or fewer sworn, full-time employees, there are still a LOT of agencies who employ more sworn staff. Making broad sweeping statements about the 'IQ' and intelligence of the men and women serving as LE in our country, based upon isolated instances where hiring practices may have been questionable, isn't exactly holding forth a balanced perspective. ;)

I remember in the late 80's, after I'd been working for several years, I learned of some study comparing tested IQ's of various jobs. Interestingly enough, that study indicated that the 'average' IQ of law enforcement and attorneys were equivalent. (The way IQ's were measured, the average for both careers was 115 at that time.) Maybe so. That was when it was more common than not for LE applicants to only be required to have a HS diploma (or GED), while attorneys had to attend their undergrad college, and then graduate 3 years of Law School (and pass the state Bar, but that's another issue).

Nobody in their right mind wants to hire low/lower intelligence men and women to work in LE. If not for the ability to be better able to be required to use good judgment and make difficult decisions under the worst of conditions, then at least to be able to write cogent reports, and be able to make clear and easily understood statements when testifying. You really can't be a working cop nowadays if you can't write well enough for it to be easily understood by the average person.

Also, LE needs to hire people capable of being promoted up the ranks.(Writing this, I chuckle to myself thinking back to reading some occasional memos that came down, and wondering how that person managed to write reports that weren't kicked back whenever it was that they'd actually worked something other than a desk. :eek::neener: Hey, everyone gets their fair share of those at one time or another. :p)

Bottom line? I would disagree with a blanket opinion that LE agencies - as a whole - are looking for candidates with lesser IQ's and intelligence. :cool:
 
Last edited:
lemaymiami said:
Many years ago on a deserted street around two or three in the morning I was approached by a young man while I was standing outside my patrol car in uniform. He crossed a wide street right at me wearing a hoodie that concealed his face with his hands in the hoody’s pockets. I did my customary greeting in a loud manner and got no visible response. I went into defensive mode and loudly challenged him - again with just a greeting while turning just enough that my weak side was toward him while my hand was on
my sidearm out of view, still in the holster…. Still no response or any acknowledgment from someone I considered a threat. At that point I shouted “show me your hands” as I drew down on him ready to shoot if needed… still no response… I readied myself to engage him as he approached Tueller distance, seven meters, from me when when he finally looked up, stopped instantly and raised his hands…

Imagine how I felt when I found out he was totally deaf and no threat to anyone at all.. We spent about twenty minutes, communicating back and forth in writing on a page of my patrol notebook as I tied to explain that his behavior had spooked me to the point that I was certain a deadly assault was coming. I don’t know if he accepted my apology and explanation but it was an incident I never forgot…. How close we came to a tragedy. By the way that street was so well lit that I didn’t have my flashlight in hand and a light might have caught his attention when no sound would work…
Click to expand...

LE in my neck of the woods have officers who know sign language for just this kind of stuff. Glad your encounter turned out ok!
 
In my case ASLAN wouldn't have helped since the young man wasn't looking my way at all as he approached - he was looking at his shoes... Until almost on top of me. On more than one occasion I've found that a pad of paper and a pencil can do a lot of talking back and forth. Would I have liked to learn sign - yes, but it wasn't on my radar - all those years ago..

By the way, whenever I did an initial interview with any prospective police candidate - my very first question (and one that got each guy or gal thinking...). "What languages can you bring us?" since we needed every language under the sun... Anyone with a solid second or even third language went to the head of the line for consideration when I had anything to do with it.... Similarly if I had two candidates - one with a college degree - but no real work experience - or a service veteran with not much more than a bit of college -the vet would always get the first look.... Out on the street, where it counts, your real world experiences are worth a lot in my book....
 
In an effort to learn something useful to my surviving a defensive shooting situation I come away from this thread thinking that whether it's due to training issues, poor communication, adrenaline rushes, or just someone having a bad day I should not have a firearm in hand and possibly not even be in the immediate area when first responders arrive to a shots fired call.
 
Many years ago (20+), there was a talk show host on KMOX radio in St. Louis that was talking about police officer's IQs. The host was discussing a court case in (IIRC) NYS where a man had sued because he was turned down for an academy recruit. He had been denied eligibility because he was "too intelligent" and they didn't want to go to the expense of training him only to lose him when he became "disillusioned" with the job in a couple of years.
 
JTHunter said:
Many years ago (20+), there was a talk show host on KMOX radio in St. Louis that was talking about police officer's IQs. The host was discussing a court case in (IIRC) NYS where a man had sued because he was turned down for an academy recruit. He had been denied eligibility because he was "too intelligent" and they didn't want to go to the expense of training him only to lose him when he became "disillusioned" with the job in a couple of years.
Click to expand...
Connecticut. It's above in the thread.
 
shafter said:
As an LEO I find this to be true at least in part. Many agencies want "yes men/women" and not independent thinkers who will question the old "Well that's the way we've always done it," line. They want good workers bees who are smart but not too smart.

Incidents like these also speak to a lack of training which is epidemic in law enforcement.

Officers in departments where training is high and egos are low are truly blessed.
Click to expand...

Thanks for your honesty, dishonest people simply don't want this information to be publicly acknowledged.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

J
  • Locked
Single Moms, please buy a lead slinger
2
Replies
38
Views
3K
jeepmor
J
T
  • Locked
Pick your roomates well
Replies
11
Views
2K
Mike Irwin
M
A
  • Locked
Authorities: Police shoot off-duty deputy, wouldn't drop gun
Replies
9
Views
1K
Larry Ashcraft
Larry Ashcraft
C
  • Locked
technology goes both ways
Replies
0
Views
417
Checkman
C
T
  • Locked
First Six Month's LODD Rate Highest in 30 Years
Replies
4
Views
531
hso
hso
Back
Top