Source?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.
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.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.
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 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.
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.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.