Hacker News Reader

Comment by joshgachnang | Hacker News Reader

This assumes the police are always upstanding and never have ulterior motives. Which has proven not to be true. [0] and tons of others

[0] https://www.kcra.com/article/new-bedford-police-officer-on-l...

View on HN

This assumes that the benefit of allowing police to effectively do their job outweighs instances of abuse of that power.

I don't get this argument. Police aren't perfect therefore police shouldn't be granted the ability to do their job?

Nobody's taking away their ability to do their job. What we're trying to do is make sure that the police don't abuse their power, that their use of power is accountable, and that they can be held liable for it when they do abuse it.

Police have to get warrants for searches as well, and nobody seems to be saying that that stops them from being able to do their job.

You're saying two separate things.

We should make sure police don't abuse their power. That's what auditing and strict access controls are for. If someone abuses it, they are held accountable.

But that doesn't mean you need a warrant for everything. It's much like police have guns and can use them at their discretion, but every time an officer draws a weapon of fires is brought under scrutiny. It works exactly the same way. Imagine if police had to go to a judge before they were able to draw their weapons!

But Flock cameras aren't a gun, and they should be held to the same standard as any other information-gathering - it should require a warrant.

Police already can't do their job because we select for sub-90 IQ cops.

Giving idiot cops abusable tools is PURE AND UTTER STUPIDITY. If you think otherwise, I can't wait for those same idiots to kick in your door despite you having done nothing wrong due to some false accusation by a clanker and show you the error of your mistaken train of thought.

If by that you mean we formally select for police with lower intelligence, that's not true; it's an Internet urban myth. If you meant something along the lines of the job's conditions and circumstances intrinsically selects for people with lower intelligence, I mean, I disagree, but you could have the debate.

"that's not true; it's an Internet urban myth."

Jordan vs City of New London, year 2000, US 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals - try again.

Yes, this has come up several times on HN before. In a single municipality, with a population of 27,000, more than 25 years ago, one person was declined for a job on the basis of being overqualified. Meanwhile, virtually every major police department in the country administers a form of cognitive testing to all new recruits, and many require post-secondary schooling.

Single municipality? No. Learn what the Wonderlic score is and how it was used in the 80s and 90s. Police departments used to have an IQ cap of 110 (about 27 on the Wonderlic score scale) and would not hire applicants with higher Wonderlic scores.

Try again - you're arguing with someone that's been in court over this.

I'm familiar with Wonderlic and would be very happy for sources on this, because the only sources I've ever seen have been that dumb New London case.

Just want to say that I went looking for cases other than New London and found nothing. You've got something interesting to share here, share it!

What sources are you using? The og reporter did provide a source but you have not.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com