Chris
fortruthandfreedom
peacefrog
Police Reject Candidate for Being Too Intelligent
This is not the first time I’ve seen a story like this, it is apparently typical hiring policy for police in many areas. Let’s face it, they want a dumbed-down police force that’s just smart enough to follow orders. We just can’t have our police thinking too much or questioning procedure!
This story says that the average I.Q. for a cop is 104, if that is accurate it means there are thousands of police with I.Q.’s in the 80-100 range. Is it any surprise then that incidents of police brutality and abuses upon citizens (as well as the Constitution) are now so frequent?
From Ananova:
A US man has been rejected in his bid to become a police officer for scoring too high on an intelligence test.
Robert Jordan, a 49-year-old college graduate, took an exam to join the New London police, in Connecticut, in 1996 and scored 33 points, the equivalent of an IQ of 125.
But New London police interviewed only candidates who scored 20 to 27, on the theory that those who scored too high could get bored with police work and leave soon after undergoing costly training.
Mr Jordan launched a federal lawsuit against the city, but lost.
The 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New York upheld a lower court’s decision that the city did not discriminate against Mr Jordan because the same standards were applied to everyone who took the test.
He said: “This kind of puts an official face on discrimination in America against people of a certain class. I maintain you have no more control over your basic intelligence than your eye color or your gender or anything else.”
He said he does not plan to take any further legal action and has worked as a prison guard since he took the test.
The average score nationally for police officers is 21 to 22, the equivalent of an IQ of 104, or just a little above average.
Filed under: constitution, liberties | Tagged: constitution, cop, cops, hiring, I.Q., intelligence, liberties, liberty, police, police brutality, war on drugs
Well DUH!
The standards for police officers have just been reduced to those for soldiers, with the same results.
If an official wishes to commit assault or battery, we need to show them there will be an appropriate response. If they draw on us, we should draw on them.
We here at Daily Liberty Research support freedom of speech and therefore never censor relevant comments. Just to be clear, however, as to our stance on this issue: We advocate the peaceful resolution of problems and disputes through appropriate channels whenever possible. We do not condone violence against anyone as the solution to problems except as a last resort — and even then only when it is required for self-defense in a life and death situation.
Disclaimers aside, I do agree with everything you said Bill except for your last sentence. Non-violence is always the best answer — aside from those rare situations that fall into the criteria outlined in my preceding paragraph (which, giving you the benefit of the doubt, was probably the kind of situation you were alluding to in your post. If that is the case then ignore my criticism.)
Maybe I’m naive, but I believe there are enough good people left to make a fight within the bounds of the system still worth the effort. This way, as peaceful, liberty-loving citizens we ensure that we stay on the moral high ground — even when those in uniform and government do not.
If we know our rights and can document the violations of them (if/when they occur) there are appropriate, legal, non-violent methods of recourse that can be taken after the fact when cooler heads will prevail and justice can be served.