American Riots, Michael Brown....is it justified ?

[Namutree]

 

Frankly after years of studies and a course in comparative politics I see political labels such as "democracy" "autocracy" etc. as ideological products. In my eyes there is little difference between Kim Jong Un's North Korea, Obama's USA or Spain or Sweden therefore I can't relate to Valsuelm's nostalgic stories of liberty and freedom in any way.

Then you're an idiot.

[Meshugger]

 

 

Two weeks ago we had a new "Public Security Law" passed that makes recording cops an offence with fines up to 30.000€, and insulting a cop now carries a penalty of 600€. Contempt of cop is finally in the letter of the law. There is no judicial review for any of that, and the word of a cop is evidence enough.

 

Illegal to record the police? Where was this abhorred law passed?

 

 

Spain. At the vanguard of unemployment, social inequality, and retrograde, stupid-ass lawmaking. Yes, this is the EU (if only barely).

 

(for a less inflammatory perspective than Alex Jones')

 

 

Errr, maybe i am wrong here, but i think that goes against several EU-laws (freedom of expression, freedom of the press, etc, etc). But it has to be tried first, so we will know in 4-5 years after someone makes the effort 

 

Atleast Mr. Generalissimo doesn't spin in his grave at the moment. More like he is in a firm deep sleep, totally relaxed in knowing that his country is still building his dream.

[Hurlshort]

It's weird that some of you are all up in arms about police violence but then you want them to all be muscleheads.  

[Gromnir]

 

 

unfortunately, large, urban police departments has a particular problem hiring enough cops with such high educational standards.

 

Er, call me naïve, but wouldn't this be solved by having cops earn more than a pittance? Encourage smart, hard-working, committed and motivated youths to pursue a career in law enforcement, instead of recruiting just about anyone that can pass a drug test. Societies have the police forces they pay for, like everything else.

 

 

Actually I read in an article that recruits scoring higher than a certain number in IQ tests in the US were undesirable for cops. Whether this was limited to a particular state I can't recall.

 

 

The policy became solidified as a concrete federal ruling almost a decade and a half ago with little fanfare from the mainstream media. Back in 1999, a Federal judge dismissed a lawsuit by a police applicant who was barred from the New London, Connecticut police force. The reason for the disqualification was literally because he had scored “too high” on an intelligence test. The department made it clear, they didn’t want the bottom of the barrel in terms of intelligence, but they didn’t want anyone “too smart” either.

The ruling made public in September of the same year, with the ruling  judge Peter C. Dorsey of the United States District Court in New Haven confirming that it was in fact the case that the plaintiff, Robert Jordan, 48, who has a bachelor’s degree in literature, was denied an opportunity to even interview for a job with the New London Police Department, solely because of his high test scores.

 

Judge Dorsey, however, ruled that Mr. Jordan that there was no protection offered to intelligent people from discriminatory hiring practices by individual police departments. Why? Because, Dorsey explained, it was proven that police departments held all to this same standard and thus rejected all applicants who scored high.

 

It does make sense. Thicker people tend to follow orders to the letter and are less likely to question them. 

 

am not certain where you got the article 'bout the case, but the reason for rejecting robert jordan with his high test scores were actual quite reasonable... although there weren't a good amount of data to support the reasoning. police department didn't need to support with data 'cause smarty folks ain't a suspect class. anywho, is not that the police department wanted stoopid cops, but rather that the turnover rate for those applicants with more education and higher test scores were low. train your cops and have them leave the department shortly after being hired is a bad hiring practice. is actual evidence o' the larger problem we is talking 'bout: educated and qualified folks don't wanna be cops.

 

 

"Yeah, I checked and wages for cops are higher than the national average, and high in relative terms considering that there is no higher education requirement... but that's kind of the point. An increase in job requirements must entail an increase in wages."

 

cops is already being paid disproportionate compared to other jobs with similar educational requirements. where do you expect the money to pay for cops if  $57, 420 ain't enough for LA county as it is? currently you need a ged or high school diploma to be a cop in LA. if you raise education requirement, how much more is you gonna need pay?

 

and yeah, there is a problem getting enough cops, but if we had an effective program that were getting more young black women through college and employed in good jobs, am betting many o' the issues in this thread would disappear, but you is facing a much bigger problem than cops if you wanna tackle that one.

 

HA! Good Fun!

[Valsuelm]

 

 

cops actual get paid okie dokie... better than teachers. teachers need even more education than cops and can't get benefits o' near guaranteed overtime that cops get. 

 

 

http://www.joinlapd.com/salary.html

 

obvious the starting pay is gonna be different depending on the department, but cop pay is actual pretty darn good considering most don't require college education.

 

but again, keep in mind that one o' the most common complaints we heard during the mike brown incident were that while ferguson demographics has a ~67%  black population (am not certain of that number,) the police department employed ~6% black officers. folks will take offense at Gromnir's suggestion, but am thinking it is obvious that raising the educational requirements will make it even more difficult to increase the number o' black officers... and for legal reasons you ain't gonna be able to pay new black officers more than white.

 

HA! Good Fun!

 

Yeah, I checked and wages for cops are higher than the national average, and high in relative terms considering that there is no higher education requirement... but that's kind of the point. An increase in job requirements must entail an increase in wages.

 

http://www.bls.gov/oes/current/oes_nat.htm#00-0000

 

That doesn't solve the demand for more black cops in black neighborhoods though. Are there programs to help police officers get through college? Like in the military?

 

 

 

Jesus Christ, where do you come up with these theories. The Spanish monarchy is more decorative than anything in their current political system.

 

I really don't want to hijack this thread, but he's right. Formally the monarchy is powerless, but in reality the royal family is still very influential and their word carries a lot of weight, especially with business circles. A member of the family has been accused of money laundering and fiscal fraud in one of the many high-profile cases of corruption we have going on, and the whole process is a disgrace. The prosecutor acting as a defense attorney, pressure being applied on the judge by higher judiciary organs, etc. Consider that the previous king was appointed by Franco before his death and as such a lot of the social and political elite have seen a sort of continuity of power, that is evidenced by the fact that the party currently in power is the heir of Franco's single party, after some facelifting.

 

We really are a much more backward country than it would seem (if that's even possible).

 

 

But surely you'd agree that the primary power holders are generally the major capitalists in the country and if the crown is among them its because of its economic power more than anything else. And the US ambassador of course.

 

Anyway, I've never heard of a parliamentary "democracy" that hasn't been steeped in corruption to the utmost degree. And completely divorced from the "people". And one in which elections matter or change anything substantial.

 

Frankly after years of studies and a course in comparative politics I see political labels such as "democracy" "autocracy" etc. as ideological products. In my eyes there is little difference between Kim Jong Un's North Korea, Obama's USA or Spain or Sweden therefore I can't relate to Valsuelm's nostalgic stories of liberty and freedom in any way.

 

Looking at USA's history, built on exterminating the natives, slave labor, aggressive expansion and wars of conquest I wonder where the the libery and freedom are... and for whom.

 

People tend to think their country is the worst merely because all the **** is in their faces for the better part of their lives and the "grass must be greener" somewhere else. But as I've lived abroad, it has been my experience that the grass isn't greener and that things are pretty much the same everywhere.

 

 

I almost replied in depth to this. But then Namu pretty much summed it up as the bolded and underlined could only be stated by someone lacking in cognitive ability or a very ignorant person.

 

There are very large differences between all four nations you mention, politically and in other ways. If you only see 'little difference', arguing with you is akin to arguing what color something is with a blind person. Your 'years of studies' haven't yielded you much.

 

You are right on one thing though. Parliamentary 'democracy' is usually a sham, more often than not (depending on the nation of course) set up by power brokers to give the serfs the illusion they have a say. It's no coincidence that this is generally the preferred form of government in most of the nations out there where their nobility/royalty/occupiers etc supposedly granted their subjects power and freedom out of the goodness of their hearts at some unspecified mythical time in the past. Of all the governments out there that advertise themselves to be for freedom and liberty it is the worst designed to accomplish government by and for the people, and best designed to be prone to corruption and manipulation from behind the scenes.

Edited December 23, 2014 by Valsuelm

[213374U]

cops is already being paid disproportionate compared to other jobs with similar educational requirements. where do you expect the money to pay for cops if  $57, 420 ain't enough for LA county as it is? currently you need a ged or high school diploma to be a cop in LA. if you raise education requirement, how much more is you gonna need pay?

 

and yeah, there is a problem getting enough cops, but if we had an effective program that were getting more young black women through college and employed in good jobs, am betting many o' the issues in this thread would disappear, but you is facing a much bigger problem than cops if you wanna tackle that one.

 

HA! Good Fun!

 

I don't think I'm getting through to you here. Cops earn good money, for someone without higher education. However, someone with a college degree will be an underearner if they get into a career in law enforcement*, so why would they?

 

You said it would be a good idea to have only college grads carry a gun and a badge, and I agree. In order to have that, you must first raise the entry requirements, and then raise the pay grades (not just entry level) to make it worth a college grad's while. You think this is unfeasible?

 

*According to the gov't, a law enforcement worker's mean annual wage is $54,990. Barring early education-oriented degrees which, as you noted, pay badly, someone with say, a secondary math and science teacher degree who actually works as a teacher will earn more ($58,170), while still being far below the average of college grad earnings.

 

As an aside, gotta love Americans' obsession with statistics. You can find a ton of data regarding just about anything.

Edited December 23, 2014 by 213374U

[Gromnir]

from your own link, a "Police Officer" has a mean of $58,720. 

 

"33-3050 Police Officers broad 639,440 0.5% 4.823 $26.99 $28.23 $58,720 0.7%"

 

another link to make easier to see without any, uh, shenanigans

 

http://money.usnews.com/careers/best-jobs/patrol-officer/salary

 

cops, who has only a ged requirement in most locales, is already getting more money than teachers, and teachers need More education than a simple college degree.  you is also ignoring that the "mean" is a number that gets adjusted 'cause o' the ridiculous amount o' turnover we see for police. we can't keep police officers working as police officers, so their mean is skewed towards folks who has not been police a particular long time.

 

and yeah, raising the education requirements is prohibitive for the reasons we already noted.... and based on the links you provide. am not sure where the disconnect is? a college graduate, depending on the degree, can make far more money during his lifetime than the average high school grad

 

http://www.hamiltonproject.org/files/downloads_and_links/MajorDecisions-Figure_2a.pdf

 

cops is already being paid far above what folks with similar education would expect to earn.  yeah, any problem can be fixed if you throw enough money at it, but where is you gonna get the money?  we is already overpaying cops based on education and folks is not choosing to become cops. also, there is a genuine desire to hire more minorities. this will be even more difficult if you raise the educational requirements for the job. 

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/19/black-male-hs-graduation-_n_1896490.html

 

http://americaswire.org/drupal7/?q=content/black-males-missing-college-campuses

 

the problem is a far bigger hurdle than you suggest, and it is exacerbated by the fact that police departments is state and local organizations.  we gave you a link to the LA county police department. ferguson missouri, which were in the news recently, has a total population o' ~21,000. each municipality, county and state organization gots their own standards... and their own budget.  

 

in the US we have already tried #'s suggestion-- we have thrown money at the problem, money we can't afford to spend. we already give cops more money than what many jobs requiring college degrees require and we can't get enough qualified cops. raise educational requirements NECESSARILY shrinks the pool o' prospective candidates.

 

oh, and as drowsy's case suggests, police departments has observed that their more educated applicants... quit. 

 

HA! Good Fun!

Edited December 23, 2014 by Gromnir

[213374U]

cops, who has only a ged requirement in most locales, is already getting more money than teachers, and teachers need More education than a simple college degree.  you is also ignoring that the "mean" is a number that gets adjusted 'cause o' the ridiculous amount o' turnover we see for police. we can't keep police officers working as police officers, so their mean is skewed towards folks who has not been police a particular long time.

 

"Cops get paid more than teachers, so cops get paid more than all college graduates" is a ridiculous fallacy because you refuse to acknowledge that teachers are an anomaly and not representative of what a college grad can expect to make. I can do that too: "chemical engineers almost double an average cop's salary so there is no way in hell you'll get college grads to apply for a job in law enforcement". Bleh.

 

Also, do you have any figures for cop turnover rates? Because what I could find varies from 5 to 20%, comparable to teacher turnover. In addition, I've read that turnover is also in part due to performance reasons, that is, they just aren't good enough. A higher education requirement may or may not result in better performance, though I'm inclined to believe it would.

 

 

and yeah, raising the education requirements is prohibitive for the reasons we already noted.... and based on the links you provide. am not sure where the disconnect is? a college graduate, depending on the degree, can make far more money during his lifetime than the average high school grad

Prohibitive, really? I could bring up defense or intelligence budget figures, but you'd just say that those are fed spending items and the fed can't do anything about local and state budgets or some other bureaucratic cop-out. The point still stands that there is more than enough money around to do it should there be a political will... same for programs aimed at getting minorities through college. For some reason your spending priorities are all ****ed up though.

 

The issue is indeed complex, and as this (chapter 2 in particular) shows, police staffing problems aren't fixable magically in a single stroke, though I'm not sure where I suggested that. I was just commenting on an idea of yours... which amusingly enough you deemed unfeasible, to manufacture a disagreement as soon as I agreed. Good Fun indeed!

Edited December 23, 2014 by 213374U

[Gromnir]

"Cops get paid more than teachers, so cops get paid more than all college graduates"

 

where did we say that? nowhere? so why put in quotes? even so, you didn't read the links, did you? "A patrol officer’s average take-home pay of $57,770 is comparable to our other Best Social Services Jobs."

 

oh, and we agree that teacher turnover is high. 20% is not good. is one reason why teacher median is low. a 10 year teacher makes far more than a starting teacher, nevertheless, the median numbers shown ain't what we would expect. you is proving our point. teachers is an oft used example o' underpaid and high turnover, and yet there is less problem getting educated teacher than there is getting cops.

 

and you are so missing the point. YES, chemical engineers make far more money. that is precisely the freaking point. there is no way you can pay cops that kinda money... the money doesn't exist to pay cops that much. and if you give a guy with a chemical engineering degree the choice between being, say, a chemical freaking engineer and a cop, which occupation would the typical recent college grad choose? make the pay the same for chemical engineers and cops (HA!) and which job would the guy with the degree in chemical engineering choose?  

 

"Prohibitive, really? I could bring up defense or intelligence budget figures, but you'd just say that those are fed spending items and the fed can't do anything about local and state budgets or some other bureaucratic cop-out. "

 

show them. cop departments has already pointed out they need help to afford body cams, and you want to significantly raise cop salary?  good luck.

 

wacky stuff. you see numbers o' the increase in cop pay, and that is for guys with a ged, but you don't think that needing to raise pay proportional so that we got universal college grad cops would be expensive? and you  Particularly given the numbers we keep showing for the current grad rates o' blacks... which is also a priority.

 

HA! Good Fun!

[Gromnir]

ps  let's do a quick review so we can see what happened in this thread.

 

"Er, call me naïve, but wouldn't this be solved by having cops earn more than a pittance? Encourage smart, hard-working, committed and motivated youths to pursue a career in law enforcement, instead of recruiting just about anyone that can pass a drug test. Societies have the police forces they pay for, like everything else."

 

so, yeah, we call you naive. even after you see that our cops, guys who typical need only a ged, is getting paid similar to many college grads, you still don't seem to wanna back away from your misconception.  

 

ask for dramatic more education will shrink the pool o' current applicants and will necessarily require more pay to expand such a diminished pool to fill hiring needs... and where the heck will the money come from? 

 

HA! Good Fun!

[Valsuelm]

Requiring the average policeman to have a college degrees would generally be a waste of resources, and see very little to no improvement in the behavior of the police. Just as there is generally very little to no improvement amongst employee group X for job X that requires a college degree. In fact, it could be argued that requiring a college degree and other certifications is actually detrimental to the quality of the potential employee pool. Certainly this is true of some professions out there (though I wouldn't generally count police among them).

 

The university system in the U.S. has by and large been watered down in terms of quality. Just in my few decades on this planet this is discernible, let alone if you look to the earlier part of the 20th century and the 19th. Anon, as that's a much larger subject.

 

A couple things to keep in mind 213374U.

 

- While it varies from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, in general police compensation is really good in the U.S.. In fact better than average in many ways than a great number of other sectors of employment, including those with college degrees. ie: Where I live, police get to retire with full benefits (and those benefits are really good) after 20 years (something pretty much unheard of with any other job, and something that is frankly BS imo as a taxpayer).

 

- Generally cops with a 4 year college degree are not under-earners at all. They tend to be detectives, work on some kind of special task force, work for the State Police (NY and other states generally require a college degree for their State Police), work for the FBI, work for another government policing agency, etc.

 

- Pretty much anything and everything done by or associated with the Rand Corporation is slanted evil in some manner and is often pure BS. The last link you posted above is Rand. I started reading it and got as far as 'decreasing resources' in the Preface before alarms bells blasted in my head. Then I scrolled up to see that it was Rand. Why did alarm bells go off in my head? Because while there might be a few police departments out there that have fewer resources than they had in the past (and that's not necessarily a bad thing) the vast majority of departments have money rained upon them from the State and Federal government levels. Oh, and the Rand Corporation is instrumental in that happening as it's one of the entities out there pushing for the militarization of the police. No doubt as it also happens to have direct, deep, and intimate ties with those who build military hardware. Rand also happens to be pro pretty much every war the U.S. has been in and puts out propaganda to encourage more military spending and more war.

- Statistics. More often than not they don't tell the whole story. Most certainly this is true of the ones you linked. A college degree definitely does not necessarily equate to more pay these days.

You're smart, think about it. If everyone has a college degree, where does the money come from to magically pay them all more? Nowhere. If we take employee pool X doing a certain job, and replace them all with people with college degrees, where does the money to pay them more come from? Nowhere. And that's one of the reasons that the value of a college degree has tanked in the last two decades, and also one of the reasons that student debt in the U.S. has reached insane levels.

 

While certainly some degrees will see you likely get more pay than others, it's not really the degree that gets you that higher pay, it's the job. A degree just may open the door to get that job.

If we want to attract 'better people' to become police officers then the nature of the job needs to change, not the payscale.

 

If we want to curb some of the police brutality and corruption out there, there are a few things we can do. But for the most part they're all moot unless the police that actually brutalize citizens and are corrupt are held accountable. More often than not, they are not, and that problem trumps all others.

 

Edited December 24, 2014 by Valsuelm

[Wrath of Dagon]

 

I wonder if several high officials in a church were members of the KKK if you would defend that church as "not everybody in the church is a member of the KKK".

 

I haven't defended this particular mosque in any way, I know little about it and don't live anywhere near Brooklyn.

 

 

Would you condemn all churches because one has members of the KKK?  You seem pretty quick to do that with Islam.

 

Show me one place where I condemned all mosques or all Islam. In fact I've done the opposite several times. Go back and read the posts you made about me in the other thread, may be you'll figure it out.

[213374U]

ps  let's do a quick review so we can see what happened in this thread.

 

"Er, call me naïve, but wouldn't this be solved by having cops earn more than a pittance? Encourage smart, hard-working, committed and motivated youths to pursue a career in law enforcement, instead of recruiting just about anyone that can pass a drug test. Societies have the police forces they pay for, like everything else."

 

so, yeah, we call you naive. even after you see that our cops, guys who typical need only a ged, is getting paid similar to many college grads, you still don't seem to wanna back away from your misconception.  

 

ask for dramatic more education will shrink the pool o' current applicants and will necessarily require more pay to expand such a diminished pool to fill hiring needs... and where the heck will the money come from? 

 

HA! Good Fun!

 

Point taken.

[Wrath of Dagon]

Btw, our old friend CAIR again : http://www.foxnews.com/us/2014/11/18/muslim-groups-seek-to-co-opt-ferguson-protests-says-watchdog-group/

 

“They’re interested in building coalitions with other organizations in order to effect a legislative change to weaken anti-terrorism laws and weaken the ability of law enforcement to engage in counter terrorism.”

[Hurlshort]

 

 

I wonder if several high officials in a church were members of the KKK if you would defend that church as "not everybody in the church is a member of the KKK".

I haven't defended this particular mosque in any way, I know little about it and don't live anywhere near Brooklyn.

 

 

Would you condemn all churches because one has members of the KKK? You seem pretty quick to do that with Islam.

Show me one place where I condemned all mosques or all Islam. In fact I've done the opposite several times. Go back and read the posts you made about me in the other thread, may be you'll figure it out.

Nah.

[Gromnir]

"According to a 2006 report by USA Today, “In an analysis of disciplinary cases against Florida cops from 1997 to 2002, the International Association of Chiefs of Police found that officers with only high school educations were the subjects of 75% of all disciplinary actions. Officers with four-year degrees accounted for 11% of such actions.” "

 

is only one study. college degrees for cops make a significant difference.

 

 "Pretty much anything and everything done by or associated with the Rand Corporation is slanted evil in some manner and is often pure BS."

 

this guys is so amusing. am beginning to think he is an oby dopple. all those nobel prize (literally dozens) winners who has contributed to RAND studies over the past few decades is demons in disguise.

 

HA! Good Fun!

Edited December 24, 2014 by Gromnir

[Hassat Hunter]

While I don't really want to discuss this, just need to comment this...

 

Gromnir, did that study also mention how the relation high school/four-year is... since if that's lopsided (like 90%-10%) it could infact be just because there are far less four-year degree cops out there, and with that calculated in might potentially even be higher.

Without that statistic, knowing 75-11 is really just a meaningless number...

[/math]

[Gromnir]

While I don't really want to discuss this, just need to comment this...

 

Gromnir, did that study also mention how the relation high school/four-year is... since if that's lopsided (like 90%-10%) it could infact be just because there are far less four-year degree cops out there, and with that calculated in might potentially even be higher.

Without that statistic, knowing 75-11 is really just a meaningless number...

[/math]

usa today is not the only such study... do a check for yourself. differing numbers were taken into account. 

 

is also noteworthy that in at least a couple such studies we saw, such articles and papers is prefaced with the % of the budget police departments spend on personnel. number we saw most often is ~85%.  

 

sidenote: we will recheck, but am recalling that there were some oddity regarding cops with masters degrees. such cops were represented by a very small sample size and the typical cop, even the typical college grad cop, don't get a masters til he has been on the force for some considerable number o' years.  discipline actions and sick days and other such stuff were extreme similar between cops with masters and long-time vets w/o a degree.

 

HA! Good Fun!

 

ps am recalling that usa today didn't actual do the study that were quoted, but rather some kinda police chief's periodical.

Edited December 24, 2014 by Gromnir

[213374U]

And another one.

 

From reports it looks like this one was an armed robbery gone wrong, doesn't look like it matters to people on the streets, though.

 

 

 

 

 

While I don't really want to discuss this, just need to comment this...

 

Gromnir, did that study also mention how the relation high school/four-year is... since if that's lopsided (like 90%-10%) it could infact be just because there are far less four-year degree cops out there, and with that calculated in might potentially even be higher.

Without that statistic, knowing 75-11 is really just a meaningless number...

[/math]

 

Unless Gromnir produces the actual study so we can see if it really supports his theory, we'll have to make do with summaries. (1) (2)

 

While that seems to support his idea, it's not as clear cut, apparently. Stuff like age, experience and even the kind of degree are all factors. (3)

 

"But possessing a four-year degree at the Saint Paul Police Department does not necessarily correlate with positive work habits."

[Gromnir]

laziness should not be encouraged. in the links #s has in his recent post we can see many sources indicated. do a search. educate self. clearly you don't necessarily believe Gromnir conclusions, even if some such stuff is self evident (e.g. requiring more education would require more pay.) otherwise we get the nonsense such as above where in spite o' general findings, we get somebody post a single quote rather than reading whole articles or actual studies.

 

HA! Good Fun!

[213374U]

Yes, I don't necessarily believe Gromnir's conclusions simply because Gromnir believes them to be self evident, or w/e. I'm sure you understand.

 

I posted a quote because... it's exactly the same you have done yourself in previous posts. Only I have actually afforded you the courtesy of providing a link.

 

And I did read the links I posted, thank you very much. Is there any particular point you want to discuss or are you just having some Good Fun?

Edited December 24, 2014 by 213374U

[Gromnir]

"Unless Gromnir produces the actual study so we can see if it really supports his theory, we'll have to make do with summaries. (1) (2)"

 

we don't expect you to believe us, but you don't need us to provide the info. in one link you can see the following sources mentioned.

 

1 Minnesota Peace Officer Standards and Training, A Study of the Minnesota Professional Peace Officer Education System (1991).

2 National Advisory Commission on Criminal Justice Standards and Goals, Police (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1973).

3 Brookings Institution, Upgrading the American Police, by C. B. Saunders Jr. (Washington, D.C.: 1970).

4 D. L. Carter and A. D. Sapp, "College Education and Policing: Coming of Age," FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin (January 1992): 8-14.

5 D. J. Bell, "The Police Role and Higher Education," Journal of Police Science and Administration, vol. 7, no. 4 (1979 ): 467-475. 

6 H. R. Bowen, Investment in Learning: The Individual and Social Value of American Higher Education (San Francisco: Jossey Bass, 1977).

 

hey, as is christams eve, just one example to get you started:

 

 

http://www.academia.edu/2907549/The_Effect_of_Higher_Education_on_Police_Behavior

 

 

with just that list you may find literal dozens of links and articles that also utilized the same sources to either refute or support the notion that educated cops is less likely to be subjected to discipline... which will reveal even more such articles and studies. 

 

lazy.

 

you state, "While that seems to support his idea," but then you lift one quote outta context as if such is effective refuting?

 

HA!

 

you not need Gromnir. do yourself.  hell, look how long it took for us to get you to admit that cops get paid more than a pittance?  it don't appear that you actual wanna discuss merits, so why don't we switch roles?

 

HA! Good Fun!

Edited December 24, 2014 by Gromnir

[Malcador]

http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/video/2014/dec/24/cctv-footage-antonio-martin-gun-police-missouri-video

 

Should be pretty open and shut, heh, right, should. 

 

Also rather odd, the St Louis County Police Chief is a Colonel, didn't know cops in the US used Army ranks that high.

Edited December 24, 2014 by Malcador

[Gromnir]

http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/video/2014/dec/24/cctv-footage-antonio-martin-gun-police-missouri-video

 

Should be pretty open and shut, heh, right, should. 

 

Also rather odd, the St Louis County Police Chief is a Colonel, didn't know cops in the US used Army ranks that high.

don't expect uniformity. each municipality does things a bit different. that being said, we has only heard colonel for some state police, so a county colonel is new to us.

 

oh, and then there is kentucky colonels... 

 

http://kycolonels.org/

 

 

HA! Good Fun!

[213374U]

"Unless Gromnir produces the actual study so we can see if it really supports his theory, we'll have to make do with summaries. (1) (2)"

 

we don't expect you to believe us, but you don't need us to provide the info. in one link you can see the following sources mentioned.

 

1 Minnesota Peace Officer Standards and Training, A Study of the Minnesota Professional Peace Officer Education System (1991).

2 National Advisory Commission on Criminal Justice Standards and Goals, Police (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1973).

3 Brookings Institution, Upgrading the American Police, by C. B. Saunders Jr. (Washington, D.C.: 1970).

4 D. L. Carter and A. D. Sapp, "College Education and Policing: Coming of Age," FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin (January 1992): 8-14.

5 D. J. Bell, "The Police Role and Higher Education," Journal of Police Science and Administration, vol. 7, no. 4 (1979 ): 467-475. 

6 H. R. Bowen, Investment in Learning: The Individual and Social Value of American Higher Education (San Francisco: Jossey Bass, 1977).

 

hey, as is christams eve, just one example to get you started:

 

 

http://www.academia.edu/2907549/The_Effect_of_Higher_Education_on_Police_Behavior

 

 

with just that list you may find literal dozens of links and articles that also utilized the same sources to either refute or support the notion that educated cops is less likely to be subjected to discipline... which will reveal even more such articles and studies. 

 

lazy.

 

you state, "While that seems to support his idea," but then you lift one quote outta context as if such is effective refuting?

 

HA!

 

you not need Gromnir. do yourself.  hell, look how long it took for us to get you to admit that cops get paid more than a pittance?  it don't appear that you actual wanna discuss merits, so why don't we switch roles?

 

HA! Good Fun!

 

Did... did you really copy the citation list from the link I posted? And you talk about "lazy" in the same post?

 

Do you realize that some of those articles either require research or uni credentials to access or are simply not available online, while others are cited but are simply not relevant or do not concern this issue but are cited merely for context reasons such as (1) or (6)? Of course you do, but you are more concerned with looking rigorous and certain than actually discussing merits. Not too subtle.

 

Where the hell are you getting the idea that I was using that quote to refute anything? I literally said "it's not as clear cut", meaning the issue is not as black/white as you make it out to be, a pov backed by research. Specifically, research you linked.

 

And yes, I certainly do expect you to provide "info" to back your theories. This is called the burden of proof, I'm sure you've heard of it? Gromnir's word doesn't carry probative value, sorry!

 

Now, for the meat of the post. Thanks for the link, it was very interesting. You should read it yourself. If you did, you'd discover that it doesn't deal with cop disciplining at all — it studies only the incidence of arrests, violence and searches in police-suspect encounters and what relation there is (if any) between that and officer education. Here, let me take a few quotes "out of context":

 

"Officer education level yielded no influence over the probability of an arrest taking place in an encounter. This was true not only when suspects- and encounter-level characteristics were held constant but also when individual officer characteristics were considered alone."

 

"When compared to arrest and search behavior, there have been substantially more studies that have examined the role of education on the use of force. Much of this work, especially more recent research in this area (Aamodt, 2004; McElvain & Kposowa, 2008; Terrill & Mastrofski, 2002), has found that college-educated officers use force less often than their less educated counterparts. Our analysis indicates similar findings. More specifically, officers with some college exposure or a 4-year degree are significantly less likely to use force relative to non-college-educated officers."

 

"According to these researchers, one advantage to hiring college-educated, as opposed to non-college-educated, officers is that higher education “[permits] the individual to learn more about the history of the country, the democratic process and appreciation for constitutional rights, values and the democratic form of government” (Carter et al., 1988, p. 16). This particular hypothesis may be reduced to posit that higher education positively influences an officer’s appreciation of and commitment to democratic values." - How interesting, this, while not being part of the conclusions of this study itself, is actually consistent with the findings of the study I linked before which showed that BA holders compared very favorably vs BSc holders.

 

"The findings of the present analysis alone do not warrant a reversal of the statement of the National Academics Panel on Police Policy and Performance (Skogan & Frydl, 2004) when it found that there was insufficient evidence to recommend a college education requirement for employment as a police officer. This is not particularly good news for proponents of higher education (although it does not represent bad news either). There is simply not enough quality evidence to determine whether higher education has a desirable effect on police performance." - Ouch!

 

Now, what merits do you want to discuss?

Edited December 25, 2014 by 213374U