Robert Jordan, the Man Who Connecticut Police Said Was ‘Too Smart to Be a Cop’
melmagazine.com
melmagazine.com
Was he a good cop? Depends on what you mean by that. He was non-violent, and conscientious, and principled, and enforced the law with unusual accuracy and precision — but whether his superiors were satisfied with his performance, I can't say. I'm inclined to imagine that they found his resistance to what he saw as bad, stupid, or unethical policies inconvenient, and his enforcement of what they saw as trivial violations tiresome. I'm inclined to doubt that his superiors appreciated his intellect.
Are we really sure that it's unreasonable to reject an applicant because he is too smart, if it creates a dissatisfied officer and dissatisfied superiors?
The idea that "Was he a good cop?" can be answered without asking the community being policed is just a dumbfounding notion, and really puts some urgency behind the question of who is the police serving.
This sounds similar to the psychological tests given to candidates in various jobs under the pretext of measuring compatibility with job requirements - but the real reason is to find out if the candidate would be obedient, not join unions, not think independently etc.
You misspelled positive.
I'm not sure I agree with that, but I think it's not irrational.
My first thought was traffic things like prohibited turns. UK is seeing more automated enforcement around this and the purpose is to improve traffic flow, or to increase fine revenue if you're more cynical.
Most countries are happy to let you cross a road at any convenient place provided at that particular moment it doesn’t cause vehicles to slow down (ie there’s a safe gap in traffic). In the US, and often in a oddly ‘ethno-sensitive’ way, that’s an offence.
Wearing all black at night and sprinting in front of cars on fast, busy roads is not something people should be doing, yet I see it constantly.
If he did a better job, then you should fix the managers to appreciate the good work that he did, or give him responsibility on designing those rules of the job that he had insight on. Kicking out good candidates just doesn't seem like the way to move anything forward.
Not every educated person is a good manager.
Education typically teaches different skills than management.
Yes.
You summarized in a short number of lines why I left the United States, and why I think it's unsalvageable. "This man was smart and ethical, and thus was a bad police officer, because this was inconvenient to his superiors, and that all makes sense to me."
What's particularly morally empty about your argument is that the rights and needs of the citizens are completely ignored - not even mentioned. In this world, the only people who need satisfying are his "superiors".
They compensate based on educational level, and pay tuition for classes.
Many police have multiple graduate degrees, because why not?
Lots of them get law degrees and masters in social work. Or both.
Citation needed for this very bold claim.
The guy told me nobody had ever got a perfect score before, but they wouldn't hire me. For the same reason listed in the article - I wouldn't stick around long before finding something better. The guy was nice about it, and said I could find something better than this position. At the time I felt a bit cheated, but thinking back I guess that's correct. I was off programming computers about 3 years later.
That said, this was beer delivery, not tax funded policing. I think we'd all be better served by having smarter police.
A good beer example of how to get past that filter was the father of a childhood friend. He worked for a beer distributor all through college (back when drinking age was 18), and was wildly popular among friends for always knowing where the biggest parties were going to be every weekend. They knew he was going to be around for 3-4 years at least, so they could plan ahead (and probably count on him recommending someone for the job when he graduated).
Edit: I forgot to mention that two years of military service also exempts prospective cops from needing half of a college degree.
[1]: https://www1.nyc.gov/site/nypd/careers/police-officers/po-hi...
[2]: https://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/new-york-elections...
It _sounds_ like a particularly absurd example, but I do not have an in-depth understanding of the court case, the evidence, the department policies, and the law that lead to this verdict. These days I withhold judgement.
> but more subtle versions of this policy show up in many large police departments. For example, the NYPD requires half of a college degree at a rock-bottom GPA[1], and has been agitating for the current mayor (himself an ex-cop) to drop even that requirement[2].
I don't see the similarity. That looks like a minimum, not a "maximum" requirement.
I also don't see why a college degree should be required of a police officer at all. They should be able to get training on the job. A college degree (or part of one) requirement inflates degrees and excludes people with disadvantaged backgrounds who are likely to have grown up in and connections with communities most impacted by crime, and it probably doesn't select for important qualities, in my opinion. Although that's another story and I don't really have evidence for that belief.
Personally I think the people that actually enforce the law should be some of the most educated on the topic and the justice system, much of which is far too in depth to learn while also being a full time police offer.
The most obvious solution is for police to have degrees in criminal justice or law (as in some non-US countries).
EDIT: reworded for clarity
No. Do you feel the same way about plumbers?
> Personally I think the people that actually enforce the law should be some of the most educated on the topic and the justice system, much of which is far too in depth to learn while also being a full time police offer.
I disagree. I think they should be well versed in peoples' rights, and the common types of crimes they encounter as part of their job (which is a tiny slice of the justice system -- contract law or securities fraud is not something a beat cop is going to encounter).
The law part of it is actually the least important (or easiest) part of the job in my opinion, if you're talking what people usually think of as a "cop". Having empathy, good personal and communication skills, learning how to project authority and confidence, also de-escalation techniques, learning about mental illness and how to deal with sufferers, first aid skills, etc etc. (and that's before we even get to physically restraining people and defending themselves) -- are all more important than a rigorous knowledge of the legal system.
You're making my point for me, of course police need all of the skills you have listed (except maybe 'how to project authority', whatever that means). All of these skills should be taught to them by other police, while they are learning the job.
They also must know the extent to which they are allowed to use their authority, the situations in which they can use lethal force, the appropriate evidentiary and legal processes for taking a case to court. If they learn this on the job then they are risking making process mistakes, or falsely enforcing the law, or breaching rules of evidence, all on real members of the public. They should be educated in all of these things and the limitations of their power BEFORE they have access to that power.
Education in Justice is not going be focused on contract law, and I reject the assertion that a beat cop doesn't need to know anything about securities fraud. You don't jump in at detective, most police are going to start working the streets and then move to different roles.
Honestly I don’t think police need to be well versed in bankruptcy law, contract law, arbitration law, corporate law, tax law, or all the other types of law lawyers learn.
I'd agree if it completing classes before stepping out on the street with a badge, not learning while doing actual policing
The training and discipline of the Met in the UK the JNI of Japan or the German Police all are both less prone to misbehavior and more effective. Frankly, we could learn a lot from elsewhere: https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2020/06/am... (we won't, but we could)
...and I'm a yank saying this, not a particular fan of the Met/Scotland Yard given they don't handle my neighborhood, which is known for its exceptionally bumbling poltroons for police.
[1]: https://news.wttw.com/2022/03/10/police-drop-college-credit-...
Translation: "Your average police officer has absolutely no knowledge of the law."
How can you possibly learn what the law says on the job?
Generally, if a student in a four year program drops out at two years, they get nothing.
But they could enroll in a two year program, and if their credits transfer graduate in a year.
Few colleges (including two year) will offer a degree with less than a year of study, even with transfer credits.
I'd suggest that this is because prison guard turnover is high so it won't cost them any more than usual when he gets 'bored' and leaves.
What part of a "jury of your peers" do these prosecutors not understand?
but to the actual topic, "jury of your peers" is a legal term and not a logical term. It just means the people should live near you [1]. and not that if the town is say 99% black that the jury has any black members.
See also, does a "loaded gun" need to have any bullets in it (NO!) [2] [3].
[1]: https://www.nolo.com/dictionary/jury-of-one's-peers-term.htm... [2]: https://www.gjllp.com/news/new-york-s-definition-of-loaded-f... [3]: https://www.nysenate.gov/legislation/laws/PEN/265.00
Being salaried means you draw a full week's salary if you do any work that week, but if you do no work for a week, you're not entitled to pay based on "salaried" status.
The gist of what I remember about it is that sometimes a "smart" juror can end up trying to outhink the lawyers, rather than just evaluating the evidence presented and whether or not it meets the "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard.
(I'm not at all joking.)
You can EXPLAIN things like you just said, but if you just explain over and over "that's the way it is" to people who are trapped in interactions with you, they tend to act out, it's why Pennsylvania has been having so many issues lately.
We have been too welcoming to antisocial people.
Smart enough to write tickets and oppress the populace, but not so smart that they will investigate their political masters.
For instance software engineer and software QA are done best by entirely different kinds of people. One wants to get to a solution, skating around issues as they go by to get to a first successful implementation. The other wants to notice every issue that is encountered and carefully investigate it and record it.
Maybe it's good to have a few outliers in every job to keep the others honest.
When I finally got a hold of them, they strongly implied that my abnormally high score on the aptitude test, combined with poor GPA suggested I had cheated on the test.
Edit: it's left to us to understand why "uniform application" prevents discrimination. The court apparently didn't consider that a discriminatory test, uniformly applied, is still fundamentally discriminatory.
[1]: https://abcnews.go.com/US/court-oks-barring-high-iqs-cops/st...
The US legal system considers that all the time. Minimum IQ requirements run into legal problems because they have a disproportionately negative impact on blacks. But a low maximum requirement would have a disproportionately positive impact on blacks, so no problems there.
https://youtu.be/ROmdZxS7lqE (first minute or so)