Court OKs Barring High IQs for Cops

reply to post by trollz


Ipso facto

This leaves me fairly speechless... :/

How about including some thoughts on the matter?

Whats your view of their motive behind this, implications, etc?

Usually threads require more than just a snippet from a story.

reply to post by benrl


I think his signature is the comment. Anyway, hopefully this will go higher in the court system and be reversed, because it sure looks like discrimination from where I'm contemplating life.

reply to post by benrl


I think it shows that they are seeking very specific candidates to achieve very specific goals.

Why wouldnt you want an intelligent person doing such a job? It boggles my mind in an "idealistic" view, but when I look at other factors... I think it starts to make sense.

People are concerned about the military being given orders to fire upon citizens, and while I dont think this concern is easily dismissed, I think a greater concern is our law enforcement becoming so militarized. And on top of it, they essentially state they only want the "dumb" ones?

Looks to me like the steps of a plan that is intended to achieve a goal. And, that goal is most likely not in favor of the people. Since, you know, having smart people enforce laws would be more beneficial to society.

So, who benefits from decisions like these? And where is this road taking us?

Not surprising unfortunately. Knowing this, however, sufficiently intelligent people should be able to approximate a "target" IQ during testing, no?

This may explain the complete idiocy of certain police actions.

reply to post by trollz

Cops have low IQs?

How strange...

Aleister
reply to post by benrl

 

I think his signature is the comment. Anyway, hopefully this will go higher in the court system and be reversed, because it sure looks like discrimination from where I'm contemplating life.

Which would lead me to be more interested in his commentary on the matter than others.

As someone with an above average IQ this story means law enforcement is out for me (something I would never consider anyway) I feel this has darker implications.

It means that those who are suppose to protect the public interest may not be the best they could be, and that's at best.

At worst? Its an intentional move for something for more sinister yet to come, you want Jack booted thugs to be the unthinking kind.

reply to post by benrl


Motive? I would hazard a guess that police departments are looking for cops who will blindly follow orders. Who is more likely to challenge an unethical order from their supervisors, a person with high intelligence or one who was selected for having a lower IQ? I figure they want an obedient force.

reply to post by benrl


I think all that you've said is implied in the posting of the story.

Mountainmeg
Not surprising unfortunately. Knowing this, however, sufficiently intelligent people should be able to approximate a "target" IQ during testing, no?

This may explain the complete idiocy of certain police actions.

Every job I have ever worked made the employees we hired take a "personality test", What I always said was either they are that honest, or they are smart enough to pass. Either way we wanted them.


I would hope our measure for those we give guns to would be higher than retail.

benrl
How about including some thoughts on the matter?

Whats your view of their motive behind this, implications, etc?

Usually threads require more than just a snippet from a story.

I have some thoughts. I wonder how the police union feels about that. Being called a bunch of meatheads, that is.
Chime in LEO's. I sure wouldn't be happy with that.

reply to post by benrl


The best test story I heard is when Timothy Leary was arrested for something (he'd taken the blame for someone else in the car) and convicted. Upon deciding where in the prison system to put him they gave him a test to see how obedient to authority he would be. He had written the test himself. He took it, got the results he wanted them to have, and escaped.

reply to post by benrl


I think when you couple the intelligence factor along with many modern aspects (military gear, an attitude of everyone being a criminal, being above the law you uphold, etc) all set a very dangerous precedent.

If someone higher up wanted to utilize this to their advantage in truly gaining direct power, it seems to be an ironically smart move to only employ certain "types."

Serdgiam
reply to post by benrl

 

I think when you couple the intelligence factor along with many modern aspects (military gear, an attitude of everyone being a criminal, being above the law you uphold, etc) all set a very dangerous precedent.

If someone higher up wanted to utilize this to their advantage in truly gaining direct power, it seems to be an ironically smart move to only employ certain "types."

Yes. But don't forget. These " types" are us. They come from us. They are our brothers, cousins, neighbors, sons and daughters. Just like our military. I believe that in a real SHTF or Marshall Law scenario they will stand with us.

But the U.S. District Court found that New London had “shown a rational basis for the policy.” In a ruling dated Aug. 23, the 2nd Circuit agreed. The court said the policy might be unwise but was a rational way to reduce job turnover.

Is the last paragraph so although they can show a rationale the court said it might be unwise.

MISSION STATEMENT: We, the members of the New London Police Department, are committed to providing the highest quality of police services. By empowering our personnel to work in partnership with the community toward a goal of improving the quality of life within the city of New London through preserving peace, reducing fear and providing for an overall safe environment, the department protects the rights and dignity of all citizens with professionalism and compassion.

bolding is mine.

Good thing too, they dont want riff raff on the force. No place for Smart asses on a police force, asses is all it needs.

So, the REAL reason they would reject someone with a pulse AND a brain? It's not the police part tht they city doesn't want this guy involved with. It's the UNION stuff they don't want him around. They don't want people in Unions that can actually think. And you don't need smart cops. They have an "app" for that !

reply to post by VinMan


I dont have that confidence at all.

While I understand that the negative aspects inevitably get more publicity, the evidence abounds on how abusive LEO's can be as well as the "consequences."

When an organization can hold itself above the laws it upholds, it becomes an issue. When you add in the numerous other factors, along with actions and evidence of those actions, it starts to paint a picture. It will never apply to every LEO, because that is simply how it works with humans and categorizations.

Every organized group has goals, however, and those goals may or may not line up with the goals of the individuals that carry out the actions that work towards the organization's goal.

I really think that we are at a point that we need to begin questioning exactly what the goal is for law enforcement as a whole. Who is actually guiding these things, and what are they working towards?