Hacker News Reader

Comment by mjfl | Hacker News Reader

then do it. Will you and other citizens get in uniform?

The Supreme Court agreed that police departments can go out of their way to only hire stupid people, and refuse to hire people who are smart enough to do the job well.

https://abcnews.go.com/US/court-oks-barring-high-iqs-cops/st...

This isn't just limited to intelligence. Police departments will not hire people who will do the job properly, and they'll force out the people who maintain high ethics. That's why people say there's a systemic issue with policing in this country.

That is plain wrong. From your article the rationale for the police department was the following:

> 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.

This is visibly not about "refusing to hire people who are smart enough to do the job well", but

> a rational way to reduce job turnover

Furthermore, since they interviewed only people who score higher than 20, where 21 is said to be equivalent to an IQ of 104, then those aren't stupid people.

Finally, I will say that the conspiracy theory that police departments are pro-crime and try do their best to do their job the wrong way seems out of touch with reality.

A great many police are not anti-crime when it comes to one of their own. For instance, police engage in domestic violence at a higher rate than the general population and are rarely arrested for it. Police violence, and we are talking about excessive violence, is well documented and so is the fact that they rarely go to jail for it. We are talking about police committing crimes and not violence committed lawfully while doing their job.

Qualified Immunity needs to go.

In case you aren’t aware, people can only hold a couple of jobs and one time and it’s ok for them to critique policies and actions of people in jobs they don’t have or ever intend to have. I can criticize a politician’s performance even though I don’t ever intend to become one. There is nothing illogical or hypocritical about this.

in a democracy, if you point the finger at something and come to a bad conclusion, and then demand a ridiculous, unworkable solution, it is my duty as a fellow citizen to inform you and other voters that you are extremely wrong! That's what I'm trying to do. There's actually no super policeman hiding out there that can do what you say, and guarantee that across a population of over 300 million people there will never be violent interactions between the police and the citizenry. It is insane to suggest that.

Clearly you are incapable of a reasoned, nuanced discussion on this topic. You should try reading what has been written dispassionately. No is suggesting that there should never be a violent interaction between police and suspects. Clearly the discussion at had deals with police doing things like torturing suspects (read about Chicago police and death penalty cases there), and beating apprehended and subdued suspects.

You are taking what is written and applying an interpretation that clearly is not intended or made. You act as if those wanting reform seek out the most extreme, nonsensical standards. You are unreasonable in your responses. I hope for you that you may one day learn and understand logic and nuance.

No one sugested any policies at all. Maybe my fellow citizen could attend some reading comprehension classes before criticizing other citizens?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com