Comments on: Discrimination

By: straightarrow

straightarrow — Sat, 14 Jun 2008 02:54:55 +0000

This is a surprise how?

By: GunGeezer

GunGeezer — Fri, 13 Jun 2008 23:48:08 +0000

Old news.

After he got out of the service, a High School buddy of mine was rejected due to too high test score. No smart cops allowed. Pacific Northwest, mid to early 80’s.

By: Kristopher

Kristopher — Fri, 13 Jun 2008 22:29:43 +0000

ParatrooperJJ: We want smart cops …

The politicians want cops that won’t question orders. Smart cops don’t meet that criterion.

By: BobG

BobG — Fri, 13 Jun 2008 16:28:32 +0000

If it happened in 1999, it explains a lot about the current bunch of cops…

By: deadcenter

deadcenter — Fri, 13 Jun 2008 15:47:13 +0000

too smart to be a cop, not smart enough to miss the requisite number of questions on the test to be a cop….a condundrum.

By: SayUncle

SayUncle — Fri, 13 Jun 2008 15:28:34 +0000

joe, honestly, i forget. it was in an opened firefox tab. forgot where i saw it.

By: Joe Huffman

Joe Huffman — Fri, 13 Jun 2008 15:24:35 +0000

I wonder how this got resurrected. My son sent me an IM about it yesterday or the day before when he read it on an Microsoft internal “gamer” email list. He hadn’t noticed it was from ‘99 either.

By: Standard Mischief

Standard Mischief — Fri, 13 Jun 2008 14:54:32 +0000

Nice to see this classic from 1999 still has legs.

In the lawsuit, the defendant (the city’s police department) takes the position that cops are stupid. The court agreed and the defense prevailed. I suppose the city had a few crack lawyers on there side, plus a colluding judiciary branch.

By: BWM

BWM — Fri, 13 Jun 2008 13:43:08 +0000

lol looks like I’ve been posting on forums too much – I’ll use the buttons next time.

By: BWM

BWM — Fri, 13 Jun 2008 13:38:47 +0000

[quote]
Judge Dorsey ruled that Mr. Jordan was not denied equal protection because the city of New London applied the same standard to everyone: anyone who – [b]was black/was gay/was a woman/wasn’t Christian[b] was rejected.
[/quote]

Is that not more or less [b]the[/b] definition of discrimination?

Also, I believe the rationale behind not hiring super-smart people is that they will quickly become bored with mundane nature of typical police work and are much more likely to quit.

By: Nomen Nescio

Nomen Nescio — Fri, 13 Jun 2008 13:31:58 +0000

the judge is a maroon. the real reason to dismiss the suit would be that high IQ is not a protected category (or whatever the actual legal term is).

sure, the guy was “discriminated” against, but only here in the real world. by law he has no suit, because “we’re not hiring you because we’re all a bunch of cretins and would feel intimidated by a new hire that could think” is not something barred by anti-discrimination laws. what this dude should do is thank his lucky stars he didn’t end up working with such a buncha numbnuts and move on.

By: ParatrooperJJ

ParatrooperJJ — Fri, 13 Jun 2008 13:25:07 +0000

That’s stupid. You want smart cops.

By: Weer'd Beard

Weer'd Beard — Fri, 13 Jun 2008 12:49:01 +0000

How the fuck do they justify being “too smart”? I mean I can see if its somebody like a Savant that has an IQ of 280, but forgets to load his gun on duty, or leaves the cruiser in drive durring a traffic stop….or even if they’re like some of the Engeneers I know, REALLY bright, but ZERO people skills or conflict resolution.

But just biased on smarts alone? I have full respect for our Men and Women in blue, and I’m glad we have them…but this just INVITES “Dumb Piggie” jokes….