Posted on 01/24/2011 7:23:55 PM PST by Iam1ru1-2
I haven’t flown since 2002 when I used up my flight miles. It was getting bad then. Now its so weird, I feel like I am in some alternate universe.
Cancelled some vacations we had planned since 2002 and we both agree that drive or no go.
I agree, its that 95% giving the 5% a bad name.
>>”Just like our police forces, the Government hires unqualified low IQ types who would not be able to hold a job anywhere else, overpays them, and gives them the power over others.”
>
>That is a blanket statement about police officers that simply isn’t true. Good grief.
I had an acquaintance telling me about a brother or cousin {I forget which} who was denied entry into the police-force for being too intelligent; the reasoning being that “he wouldn’t have job satisfaction” despite ‘Policeman’ being the job he’d wanted from childhood.
Furthermore, I’ve had the police show up on my property for a multiple-step hearsay regarding a firearm “incident” [I was cleaning it].
“Just like our police forces, the Government hires unqualified low IQ types who would not be able to hold a job anywhere else, overpays them, and gives them the power over others.”
That is a blanket statement about police officers that simply isn’t true. Good grief.
In point of fact, the police departments give tests and weed out those above a certain IQ.
The very intelligent are likely to exercise judgment - such officers are not what a department wants. Especially, a department which is invested in the statist “Ubermenschen” attitude all too prevalent today.
“The right of the people to be secure… against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated”
Without supporting or protesting any particular TSA procedure, the legal gray area in that clause in the Constitution depends, and has always depended, on the legal arguments over one word - “unreasonable” - and weighed within those arguments is always the context of the circumstances of the particular “searches and seizures”.
As off-topic as it is, I will point out that cleaning a firearm where you can been seen by people outside your house is both an invitation for someone to steal it, and an invitation for unwanted police attention.
Just because it is legal, doesn't mean it is a good idea.
Above what IQ? Where did you get this information?
"The very intelligent are likely to exercise judgment - such officers are not what a department wants."
Don't know where your line of "very intelligent" might be. I'm not talking about officers being genius. Police work is a constant flow of making judgments. You never know what you're going to roll up on or be faced with. Then you get into investigations and you have to be able to think.
Have I known dumbass police officers? Yes. But I've also been acquainted with a number of extremely capable individuals. Perhaps it all depends on where one lives.
Thank you ... I was beginning to think I was in an alternate police universe here.
I live in an open carry state; in fact here’s what the State Constitution says on the matter of arms:
Art II, Sec. 6. [Right to bear arms.]
No law shall abridge the right of the citizen
to keep and bear arms for security and
defense, for lawful hunting and recreational
use and for other lawful purposes, but nothing
herein shall be held to permit the carrying
of concealed weapons. No municipality
or county shall regulate, in any way, an incident
of the right to keep and bear arms.
But it was ALSO violation of the 4th Amendment: no warrant.
The *ONLY* reason that I didn’t file charges was because I was away and my landlady, who did interact with them, had far more right than I (and arguably it could be said acquiesced-to/invited their presence) — When I got there the situation was virtually defused, mostly because a police Sergeant I knew had time to get there [and calm the officers] before I arrived.
The point is that MANY police do not ever consider the law in their performance of duties: they merely follow orders.
Both, probably...............
Since you asked for a reference regarding my posting that police departments don’t hire the intelligent, here is a court affirming police department decision to not hire because of high IQ.
METRO NEWS BRIEFS: CONNECTICUT; Judge Rules That Police Can Bar High I.Q. Scores
A Federal judge has dismissed a lawsuit by a man who was barred from the New London police force because he scored too high on an intelligence test.
In a ruling made public on Tuesday, Judge Peter C. Dorsey of the United States District Court in New Haven agreed that the plaintiff, Robert Jordan, was denied an opportunity to interview for a police job because of his high test scores. But he said that that did not mean Mr. Jordan was a victim of discrimination.
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 scored too high was rejected.
Mr. Jordan, 48, who has a bachelor’s degree in literature and is an officer with the State Department of Corrections, said he was considering an appeal. ‘’I was eliminated on the basis of my intellectual makeup,’’ he said. ‘’It’s the same as discrimination on the basis of gender or religion or race.’’
PS I merely googled IQ and police hiring and that came up on the first page of the search results.
Our police departments have become infested with wannabe Ubermenschen, supported by commie unions, commie presstitutes, ad nauseam
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.