Author Topic: new police hiring recommendations . . . . . for your consideration . . . (Read 6499 times)

Chief45 · « **on:** October 21, 2016, 12:45:44 pm »

The newest Department of Justice report has been released, with their recommendations for recruiting, hiring and retaining law enforcement officers.
https://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/interagency/upload/police-diversity.pdf

I will high light a few of their recommendations.

that written tests, physical agility or fitness test and similar devices should not be part of the screening process.

That screening for education, such as the ability to read, write and comprehend, hampers the ability of agencies to hire individuals from underrepresented communities.

That criminal background checks, those that acknowledge using illegal drugs, and credit checks, are other devices that result in excluding many potential officers . . .

Many law enforcement agencies also require candidates to be U.S. Citizens. Agencies are missing out on lots of qualified applicants because of that citizenship requirement.

Quote

In some states, the POST or similar entity establishes some basic qualification and suitability requirements, including citizenship status, age threshold, educational requirement and valid drivers license, as well as explicit disqualifers, which may include felony convictions, certain misdemeanors, illegal drug use and poor credit history.

so, , , , , , , , , , , , , comments ?

WeTheArmed.com

ksuguy · « **Reply #1 on:** October 21, 2016, 12:53:18 pm »

So they want stupid, fat, illiterate criminals without US citizenship?

Chief45 · « **Reply #2 on:** October 21, 2016, 12:55:02 pm »

oh, and in a separate report, on a California agency, they want the officers to respond to individuals armed with a knife, to use a . . . . . baton. . . .

This leads to a recommendation in the report that could be troubling. Apparently, the DOJ believes officers should use batons to deal with suspects confronting officers with knives:

Recommendation 7.1: The SFPD must develop a policy on the use of the 36-inch baton for the use of interacting with individuals with edged weapons.
Recommendation 7.2: The SFPD must develop training on the use of the 36-inch baton for the use of interacting with individuals with edged weapons.

MTK20 · « **Reply #3 on:** October 21, 2016, 01:29:20 pm »

Quote from: Chief45 on October 21, 2016, 12:55:02 pm

oh, and in a separate report, on a California agency, they want the officers to respond to individuals armed with a knife, to use a . . . . . baton. . . .

This leads to a recommendation in the report that could be troubling. Apparently, the DOJ believes officers should use batons to deal with suspects confronting officers with knives:

Recommendation 7.1: The SFPD must develop a policy on the use of the 36-inch baton for the use of interacting with individuals with edged weapons.
Recommendation 7.2: The SFPD must develop training on the use of the 36-inch baton for the use of interacting with individuals with edged weapons.

It looks worse than that, then. "edged weapons". Does that mean if a man has a one of those nice long wood axes, that the poor officer is stuck with a short, metal stick then?

If weapons were reversed and you had this:

Would you feel emboldened at stopping a bad guy with a baton?

I have no training with melee weapons at all (edged or blunt), but I think a baton against that would not be confidence inspiring.

The rest of that? just....

.

I could understand opening a clause for non-violent offenders who did a crime and served their time to join the force. After all, that is the whole point of paying your dues to society. I personally know a couple of people who were fluff ups as kids and are decent human beings as adults. What they did as rebellious teens has haunted them in the form of a felony and that does seem a bit harsh of a sentence. Yes you are a dumb ass if you deal drugs, but after you get out from serving your time, I don't think that dealing marijuana should keep you from voting. If dead people are allowed a vote, then so can drug dealers

.

Ken Brock · « **Reply #4 on:** October 21, 2016, 01:34:38 pm »

So we should lower standards and that's going to make things better? Oh boy

And using a baton against a blade? Methinks whomever wrote that s___e has never been in a fight

booksmart · « **Reply #5 on:** October 21, 2016, 01:57:07 pm »

Yeah, I'm gonna haveta agree with y'all there... While I can understand the impetus and desire to have the community being policed represented *by* the police, you still want smart people with good ethics behind the badge. I would perhaps advocate instead for aptitude tests, to find smart people that are undereducated, and nurture them.

RetroGrouch · « **Reply #6 on:** October 21, 2016, 01:57:43 pm »

A 36" baton? That's three feet long. I have this image of them walking around with it in their belts like a sword knocking things over. Where would they put it in a vehicle?

MTK20 · « **Reply #7 on:** October 21, 2016, 02:04:10 pm »

Quote from: RetroGrouch on October 21, 2016, 01:57:43 pm

A 36" baton? That's three feet long. I have this image of them walking around with it in their belts like a sword knocking things over. Where would they put it in a vehicle?

Bureaucratic ruling has opted that it hang in the rack and replace the 870. The group think was that it was a worthy trade

.

sarge712 · « **Reply #8 on:** October 21, 2016, 02:08:41 pm »

Great. It's already like panning for gold to find even middle of the road recruits. As much as I love my profession, I don't know why anyone would join LE now other than amazing commitment or sadomasochism.

cpaspr · « **Reply #9 on:** October 21, 2016, 03:40:33 pm »

Quote from: sarge712 on October 21, 2016, 02:08:41 pm

Great. It's already like panning for gold to find even middle of the road recruits. As much as I love my profession, I don't know why anyone would join LE now other than amazing commitment or sadomasochism.

Or they fit the new requirements but not the old ones, and see some potential opportunities for personal enrichment being presented.

sarge712 · « **Reply #10 on:** October 21, 2016, 06:21:05 pm »

Quote from: cpaspr on October 21, 2016, 03:40:33 pm

Or they fit the new requirements but not the old ones, and see some potential opportunities for personal enrichment being presented.

That worries me too. By "personal enrichment" I read you to say "lining pockets." We have weeded out a few of those who would no doubt have been selling drugs out of the trunk of their car within the year. One was a police commissioner's son and that took every trick in the book to keep him out of the ranks. That little darling was a drug dealing thug who acted as enforcer/collection agent for one of the bigger fish in the supply chain. He had no convictions thanks to a liberal District Attorney who thought there were no bad boys, just bad decisions. We were finally able to convince the state LE training and standards commission that he was "a person of moral turpitude" due to the over two dozen charges for assault and narcotics trafficking over a three year period (yet no convictions) and he was denied entry into the academy.

MTK20 · « **Reply #11 on:** October 21, 2016, 06:24:14 pm »

Quote from: sarge712 on October 21, 2016, 06:21:05 pm

That worries me too. By "personal enrichment" I read you to say "lining pockets." We have weeded out a few of those who would no doubt have been selling drugs out of the trunk of their car within the year. One was a police commissioner's son and that took every trick in the book to keep him out of the ranks. That little darling was a drug dealing thug who acted as enforcer/collection agent for one of the bigger fish in the supply chain. He had no convictions thanks to a liberal District Attorney who thought there were no bad boys, just bad decisions. We were finally able to convince the state LE training and standards commission that he was "a person of moral turpitude" due to the over two dozen charges for assault and narcotics trafficking over a three year period (yet no convictions) and he was denied entry into the academy.

Damn!

I really need to sit down and chat with a cop sometime. I bet y'all have some good stories

.

coyotesfan97 · « **Reply #12 on:** October 21, 2016, 07:03:05 pm »

How quickly they forget the lessons learned from Miami Dade in the 80s and the LAPD Rampart scandal. You not only lower the standards you do away with them completely.

Maybe they'll recommend going back to buying beats and taking as much graft as you can. Then putting the honest guys in the s___tiest assignments you can.

Penguin · « **Reply #13 on:** October 21, 2016, 07:05:53 pm »

My take on it is lowering standards is really a mistake. My work has done that and it sure shows in the "quality" of many of the new guys we get. I use the term quality loosely. It used to be rare to get a dud with the new guys sadly that isn't the case any more. My job isn't police work either.

I can only imagine what that will result with on a police department. My take has always been as an armed citizen comes great responsibility. I don't do many of the things I used to do, I guess you could say I grew up. I don't want to be the one giving gun owners a bad name.

As far as cops go I think they should be one step above that. Talk about responsibility. They need to be setting the good example and need to be held to a high standard. I would want nothing less. I don't want or think we should just open the flood gate to anyone and everyone. This invites disaster especially when lives are on the line. Just what is the goal of lowering the standards anyways?

Personally I feel like the politicians should be held to a standard even higher than that but I digress.

I think by lowering the standards we are flirting with disaster, they were set for a reason. Toss them out and people will have to learn why there were standards all over again. This is not the time to repeat that lesson not with all the problems the police are all ready having in the public eye in many circles. If you think problems are bad now wait until you put people in the job who can't handle it. Or worse we put people in the job who are the crooked goons these people already think the cops are. These new measures that are meant to pacify their anger will probably have the exact opposite effect in the long run.

As far as the tactical recommendations for use against an egded weapon go they sound like folly to me. Life is fluid, while I think the police should be held to a high standard I think in return you need to trust them to make the right choice most of the time. I am not a fan of putting their lives at increased risk to assuage the anger of a bunch of no good hooligans. Especially not to save the life of someone who is probably a turd.

Sorry to vent but lowering the standards at my work has had such an adverse effect I don't want to see the same happen to our police.

wyatt · « **Reply #14 on:** October 21, 2016, 09:30:18 pm »

When I got hired on to a major metropolitan police department in the 1980's, we went through extensive testing. If you passed the civil service test, you got a 50ish page book to fill out. They wanted to know everywhere you ever lived, every school you went to, every job you ever had. We went through several physical agility tests, psychological tests, intelligence tests, polygraph tests, drug tests, credit checks, several interviews and a background check that took a year and a half. The PD sent investigators to talk to my family, friends, neighbors, former employers, former school teachers, former girlfriends, ect, ect. They sent an investigator to talk to my grandma 1,500 miles from here. And that was just to get into the Police Academy. Several people still washed out and others didn't make it through field training.

coelacanth · « **Reply #15 on:** October 22, 2016, 12:53:20 am »

I got . . . nuthin' . . .

First Shirt · « **Reply #16 on:** October 24, 2016, 08:49:53 am »

So, how do I get BACK through the Looking Glass? 'Cause this Wonderland crap is really starting to scare me!

aikorob · « **Reply #17 on:** November 24, 2016, 04:34:27 am »

on a related note:
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/11/22/denver-sheriffs-department-fined-10k-for-hiring-only-us-citizens.html

coyotesfan97 · « **Reply #18 on:** November 24, 2016, 04:41:48 am »

The thing that frosts me the most is it's a requirement to be a US citizen to be a Federal agent.

Fenderbassist · « **Reply #19 on:** November 24, 2016, 12:01:32 pm »

Coming from a family with LEOs, understanding that I can sleep well at night because of living under quite good ROL and excellent Police/Fire/First Aid services, I appreciate the value of having properly trained and qualified Professionals on the job.

I am a big fan of Artie Lange (but not his old lifestyle), and he describes things that drive the point home for me about having the right people in the right place.

NSFW (Not Safe For Work) audio

Fenderbassist · « **Reply #20 on:** November 24, 2016, 12:07:35 pm »

It makes me think that I wouldn't want the requirements for Fire / First Aid / Paramedic positions to drop either.

MTK20 · « **Reply #21 on:** November 24, 2016, 12:19:26 pm »

Quote from: Fenderbassist on November 24, 2016, 12:01:32 pm

Coming from a family with LEOs, understanding that I can sleep well at night because of living under quite good ROL and excellent Police/Fire/First Aid services, I appreciate the value of having properly trained and qualified Professionals on the job.

I am a big fan of Artie Lange (but not his old lifestyle), and he describes things that drive the point home for me about having the right people in the right place.

NSFW (Not Safe For Work) audio

I didn't know they could make a cop that crooked. That was a lot to cram into 7 minutes. Wow.

I'm hoping that story was merely for the sake of comedy and not real.

Fenderbassist · « **Reply #22 on:** November 24, 2016, 12:31:25 pm »

Quote from: MTK20 on November 24, 2016, 12:19:26 pm

I didn't know they could make a cop that crooked. That was a lot to cram into 7 minutes. Wow.

I'm hoping that story was merely for the sake of comedy and not real.

The story was real and related for the sake of comedy on the Howard Stern Show, given that Artie was a co-host for about a decade. Here's Artie recently discussing that show now, with another show.