Woman With Pot of Boiling Water Shot Dead by Police

[phylodog]

Of course it should. This guy was ineligible to reenlist in the Army because of his conduct but under the system you support he received preference over someone with no military service. That’s insanity.

Source?

Again I’m not arguing for lowered standards no matter how many times you repeat it. But again, you need to take a step back and take stock of things. You might not like the 23 year old with the degree, but your guy is the one who smoked an unarmed woman. Your guy is the one with multiple incidences of harassment and excessive force. The facts of this case are a literal example of what I’ve been arguing.

How many officers with no military but a degree doing stupid **** do I need to provide to offset this one example? You disregard my experience as one data point yet this particular guy justifies excluding prior military from service. Oh wait, this guy and a bunch of liberal academics.

I don’t care about people, I care about data. Whether a cop is a vet is an objective fact. Whether they have been involved in a shooting or have a complaint filed against them is an objective fact.

Which is precisely why you have zero business attempting to influence or weigh in on law enforcement. Law enforcement is 100% about people. **** data, that's for people sitting behind desks, not the ones willing to do the work.

I will again invite you to point to any study that disputes the claims made here. If you can’t then at least be honest about it. If you’re even unwilling to to do that then that suggest to me that you might be one of those who are part of the problem.

Your claims are based on biased "data" collected and barfed up by extremely biased academics who know nothing about police work, professional armchair quarterbacks. Yeah, I'm part of the problem alright, just ask any leftist.

 

[STAGE 2]

Source?

Umm… Uncle Sam. Service members who receive a general discharge are not eligible for reenlistment. Despite this, they still receive hiring preference for law enforcement as well as federal jobs.

So the military says “you sucked so bad we don’t want you back” but police departments turn around and say “go ahead and go to the front of the line.” Again insanity.

How many officers with no military but a degree doing stupid **** do I need to provide to offset this one example? You disregard my experience as one data point yet this particular guy justifies excluding prior military from service. Oh wait, this guy and a bunch of liberal academics.

Which is precisely why you have zero business attempting to influence or weigh in on law enforcement. Law enforcement is 100% about people. **** data, that's for people sitting behind desks, not the ones willing to do the work.

Your claims are based on biased "data" collected and barfed up by extremely biased academics who know nothing about police work, professional armchair quarterbacks. Yeah, I'm part of the problem alright, just ask any leftist.

If your response is “eff data” then you are part of the problem. Your reading comprehension is also part of the problem because I have never suggested that police have to have college degrees. That’s your own insecurity projecting.

As a result its clear that we aren’t going to reach a consensus so I’m going to let this one die. I just hope you approach your day job with more critical thought than you did this discussion.

 

[phylodog]

Umm… Uncle Sam. Service members who receive a general discharge are not eligible for reenlistment. Despite this, they still receive hiring preference for law enforcement as well as federal jobs.

So the military says “you sucked so bad we don’t want you back” but police departments turn around and say “go ahead and go to the front of the line.” Again insanity.

Which police departments do this?

If your response is “eff data” then you are part of the problem. Your reading comprehension is also part of the problem because I have never suggested that police have to have college degrees. That’s your own insecurity projecting.

You’re advocating for disqualifying prior military from law enforcement. If no degree is required and prior military aren’t qualified, who gets the jobs? Am I to believe your precious studies aren’t advocating for college educated police officers?

As a result it’s clear that we aren’t going to reach a consensus so I’m going to let this one die. I just hope you approach your day job with more critical thought than you did this discussion.

Lol, ok hero. Enjoy your studies.

 

[d.kaufman]

Umm… Uncle Sam. Service members who receive a general discharge are not eligible for reenlistment. Despite this, they still receive hiring preference for law enforcement as well as federal jobs.

So the military says “you sucked so bad we don’t want you back” but police departments turn around and say “go ahead and go to the front of the line.” Again insanity.



If your response is “eff data” then you are part of the problem. Your reading comprehension is also part of the problem because I have never suggested that police have to have college degrees. That’s your own insecurity projecting.

As a result its clear that we aren’t going to reach a consensus so I’m going to let this one die. I just hope you approach your day job with more critical thought than you did this discussion.

I have yet to see you post any links to "data" that show former military as Leo are more prone to **** ups than a non military civilian becoming Leo.

Please feel free to show your work (links) on this. I dont have time to dig into it myself

 

[fullmetaljesus]

Dang, I thought pot was mostly decriminalized.

 

[Cameramonkey]

Might be a good time to step back and take a breath folks.

 

[STAGE 2]

I have yet to see you post any links to "data" that show former military as Leo are more prone to **** ups than a non military civilian becoming Leo.

Please feel free to show your work (links) on this. I dont have time to dig into it myself

Does military veteran status and deployment history impact officer involved shootings? A case-control study - PubMed

Military veteran status, regardless of deployment history, is associated with increased odds of shootings among LEOs. Future studies should identify mechanisms that explain this relationship, and whether officers who experienced firsthand combat exposure experience greater odds of shooting...

pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Police with prior military service are 3 times more likely to discharge their weapon than those without.

Pew research reached a similar result in their own study.

A closer look at police officers who have fired their weapon on duty

Of the 27% of all officers who say they have ever fired their service weapon while on the job, are some more likely than others to have done so?

www.pewresearch.org

When you combine this with the higher rate of excessive force complaints among veterans vs non veterans this is something that we should be looking at.
And with that I’m done.

 

[KellyinAvon]

Might be a good time to step back and take a breath folks.

^^^THIS!!!^^^

 

[phylodog]

When you combine this with the higher rate of excessive force complaints among veterans vs non veterans this is something that we should be looking at.
And with that I’m done.

Again, law enforcement is the business of people. The variables are endless and given the current political climate in this country I don’t think it’s a stretch to say that legit complaints vs garbage complaints are a bit out of whack.

It’s clear you’re going to believe what you want to believe. I’m a weird guy and when I want information on something, I don’t go to people who have done nothing but study how others do it to get information. I’ve always found the most knowledgeable to be those with the most experience but you do you.

 

[Gabriel]

Dang, I thought pot was mostly decriminalized.

The issue is reaching a boiling point.

 

[phylodog]

The issue is reaching a boiling point.

Badump TSSSSSS!!!!

 

[fullmetaljesus]

The issue is reaching a boiling point.

I love you for this.

 

[BigRed]

Might be a good time to step back and take a breath folks.

Stepping back.
Don't shoot!

 

[Brad69]

Me as a LEO,
Sir can I have your license ?

“ I don’t need a license I am traveling “

ME : pew pew pew pew pew pew pew pew pew pew pew pew !

radio call : yeah we gotta self inflicted gunshot victim here.

I am like a rabid dog and need to be contained ! Hoooooowl !

 

[Denny347]

My department likes to graduate classes of 50-70. The latest class will graduate 8....that's right...8. So all these academic discussions on who is better qualified is all worthless when NO ONE wants the job anyway. So departments are elated when ANYONE wants the job. Until we are back to 1000 applicants for 70 positions, we will hire any non-felons who apply.

 

[foszoe]

My department likes to graduate classes of 50-70. The latest class will graduate 8....that's right...8. So all these academic discussions on who is better qualified is all worthless when NO ONE wants the job anyway. So departments are elated when ANYONE wants the job. Until we are back to 1000 applicants for 70 positions, we will hire any non-felons who apply.

I am over 50 and currently walk with a cane. Where do I sign up?



The current politics of the job will hopefully swing back to where you get the 1000 applications.

To me as an outsider, I am ,in general, used to watching pendulum swings where gravity eventually balances things out. By that I mean I believe there is a balance between police corruption and activism that should self correct over time but right now it feels like someone grabbed the pendulum and is holding on to it.

All I know is I watched that video of how calm you handled that guy trying to push buttons on you and a couple of other officers.

At least I can just walked away from that stupidity. You actually have to handle it and your demeanor was much more appropriate than anything I could probably muster.

 

[AndreusMaximus]

...yet this particular guy justifies excluding prior military from service.

I don't see him saying that. He's said he doesn't want them given preference, but he hasn't ever stated he wants them excluded.

Anyways, as someone who has neither experience, nor knowledge/research on the subject, I find the discussion interesting. It seems to me that something that is perhaps missing from the discussion is the question of whether or not there is a sort of double-edged sword when evaluating someone's aptitude for being a good police officer?

What I mean is that you want an officer who will not be excessively aggressive or use inappropriate levels of force, but at the same time you want an officer who won't wimp out or be afraid to do the job. Look at what happened in Uvalde, for instance. It's all well an good to complain about former military having a statistically higher chance of using excessive force, but I wonder what the statistics on former military vs. non-military would look like if you could measure the percentage of cops who stand around indecisively while an active shooter kills people? My point is, if you are trying to hire someone who won't use excessive force, but also trying to higher someone who will take initiative and get the job done and protect people in scary situations, I feel like those factors are, in a way, sometimes opposed to each other. Ideally you'd want a candidate who can fit both, but trying to measure them seems like it would have to be a balancing act.

Again, I don't really have any experience or knowledge, I just sort of instinctively feel like there may actually be something to the claim that former military would have a higher percentage chance of being overly aggressive, but on the flip side I would expect them to also be a lot more effective and reliable in deadly situations. I don't know: is there anything to this idea, or am I just off-base?

Of course, at this point in our country, this is all extremely hypothetical, because as @Denny347 pointed out, most police departments don't exactly have a massive pool of applicants to pick and choose from.

 

[phylodog]

Anyways, as someone who has neither experience, nor knowledge/research on the subject, I find the discussion interesting. It seems to me that something that is perhaps missing from the discussion is the question of whether or not there is a sort of double-edged sword when evaluating someone's aptitude for being a good police officer?

What I mean is that you want an officer who will not be excessively aggressive or use inappropriate levels of force, but at the same time you want an officer who won't wimp out or be afraid to do the j
ormer military vs. non-military would look like if you could measure the percentage of cops who stand around indecisively while an active shooter kills people? My point is, if you are trying to hire someone who won't use excessive force, but also trying to higher someone who will take initiative and get the job done and protect people in scary situations, I feel like those factors are, in a way, sometimes opposed to each other. Ideally you'd want a candidate who can fit both, but trying to measure them seems like it would have to be a balancing act.

There is no perfect police officer. There is no human on the planet who can interact with other humans on one of the worst days of their lives, repeatedly every day for years and not **** some people off and not make a mistake. It is impossible yet this is the expectation from society. Completely unreasonable.

Then you begin to consider things like an ability to handle stress, hand-eye coordination, physical strength/endurance, social skills, emotional maturity, honesty, integrity, etc. and you take a look at your pool of candidates who want the job. One group, the former military has already had those boxes checked off to at least some degree if they managed to serve successfully. Certainly doesn't guarantee they're be a good cop, or better than someone with no prior military but they have been established to possess many of the necessary attributes of a police officer.

Then you have the other group. A complete and total unknown. College grads obviously preferred over non grads but we're to the point now that a master's degree is going to earn you maybe a couple thousand a year more than the high school graduate you hired on with. This group, while it will absolutely contain some amazing people born to be cops, will contain signifcant numbers of people who struggle with one or more of the attributes I listed. We have recruits show up who absolutely will not make eye contact with another person unless forced to. How in the hell can you do police work when you show up to a call and stare at people's feet? This is not hyperbole.

Now, as a police administrator with fixed budgets, manpower issues and extremely limited resources, who looks like a more suitable candidate? Do I want to hire someone I am going to have to teach skills to that every adult with full mental capacity naturally possessed before digital screens existed?

I'm not claiming former military should be given priority but they damned sure aren't crippling the profession. It does not matter the hiring process, background investigation, difficulty of training or anything else, you are going to have rogue cops who do stupid/horrible things. The job changes 95% of the people who undertake it. I refused to believe that before it changed me and I grew up in a LE family.

 

[nonobaddog]

What I mean is that you want an officer who will not be excessively aggressive or use inappropriate levels of force, but at the same time you want an officer who won't wimp out or be afraid to do the job.

I think you may have a point here.

Those papers listed (which were not peer reviewed as claimed once) tend to look at firing the sidearm in the line of duty as a bad thing. That is a faulty assumption. You have to examine each incident. It might very well be that some incidents needed the sidearm to be fired but the officer failed to do so. This makes not firing the sidearm the bad thing. In such an incident the conclusion would be the opposite of what the paper said. The prior-service candidate would be preferred over the non-service candidate and it would make sense to give preference at hiring.
So by not examining the facts in each incident the authors have rendered any conclusion invalid.

 

[AndreusMaximus]

I think you may have a point here.

Those papers listed (which were not peer reviewed as claimed once) tend to look at firing the sidearm in the line of duty as a bad thing. That is a faulty assumption. You have to examine each incident. It might very well be that some incidents needed the sidearm to be fired but the officer failed to do so. This makes not firing the sidearm the bad thing. In such an incident the conclusion would be the opposite of what the paper said. The prior-service candidate would be preferred over the non-service candidate and it would make sense to give preference at hiring.
So by not examining the facts in each incident the authors have rendered any conclusion invalid.

Exactly.