US Police Force. from didyouknowblog.com/.. You would never be rejected based on being 'too smart'. It's more you might be rejected because you know you're smart and your pretentious and might not follow  didyouknowblog us police Murica
x
Click to expand

Comments(105):

[ 105 comments ]
What do you think? Give us your opinion. Anonymous comments allowed.
User avatar #5 - Ariath Uchiha (10/25/2013) [-]
Citation please?
#27 - gayboard (10/26/2013) [-]
Based on what sources?
Based on what sources?
#75 to #27 - ragingheterosexual (10/26/2013) [-]
www.tigerdroppings.com/rant/p/41638029/Cops-arent-allowed-to-have-High-IQsauto-rejection-if-you-score-too-high.aspx

this is old and idk how often this would happen but it says the training is costly and someone might get bored of the job and quit
#7 - theXsjados ONLINE (10/25/2013) [-]
You would never be rejected based on being 'too smart'. It's more you might be rejected because you know you're smart and your pretentious and might not follow orders.
User avatar #30 to #7 - hates (10/26/2013) [-]
I believe they reject anyone with an IQ of 110 or higher
User avatar #37 to #7 - rhetoricalfunny ONLINE (10/26/2013) [-]
Orders like firing on elders, women and children.

Yea, god forbid people disobey orders
#107 to #37 - theXsjados ONLINE (10/26/2013) [-]
The only time, I can think of, where an officer is ordered to shoot someone is during a crisis situation where a barricaded individual is holding hostages and the command unit commands a sniper to take down the subject. For that to pass there is literally hours of attempted negotiations and there has to be a very clear and present threat of the subject taking lives.
For the most part, an officer opening fire is a split second reaction to a perceived threat that is sufficient enough to cause great bodily injury or death to themselves or an immediate other at that very moment.
Soldiers are a different story entirely. They are dealing with an armed force in situations where they have little command structure and might be entirely separated from their superiors. Civilian casualties are avoided at all costs, but war is war. There have been several instances where two squads attack one another because they were unaware of the friendlies presence.
User avatar #88 to #37 - quadrilateral (10/26/2013) [-]
You do realize people aren't ever given orders like that, right?
Cops aren't ordered to shoot civilians, and generally only shoot if they feel their life is in danger.
Though, to me, it sounds more like you're talking about soldiers. And I'm not a soldier, so I can't say for sure, but I imagine the fact that they're in a desert day in and day out, their lives at stake, with people shooting at them, knowing every move they make will be judged, is the reason why a very small amount of soldiers do things like that.
User avatar #64 to #37 - swagloon (10/26/2013) [-]
Cops aren't given orders to shoot civilians. And if you're talking about that one 13 year old kid that was gun down; that wasn't an order either. That cop honestly thought that was a real gun and the kid didn't put the gun down instead he turn it to the cop.
#9 to #7 - pornoranger (10/25/2013) [-]
sounds more like "you might be smarter than your supervisor and if so, you are probably aware of that" tbh
#10 to #9 - theXsjados ONLINE (10/25/2013) [-]
Well no, it more like in the heat of the moment the last thing you need is a rookie questioning an experienced supervisor who is following carefully crafted and proven protocol.
This is a correlation is not causation kind of thing. Just because a high number of highly intelligent number of people are getting rejected doesn't mean it's their intelligence that is the reason behind the rejection. It's more likely that the kind of people who are that intelligent are the same kinds of people who question everything, which is partly why they are so smart, but in a crisis situation the last thing you need an officer questioning his orders when lives depend on them.
#11 to #10 - pornoranger (10/25/2013) [-]
well i agree. at least in part.
i have heard of airline pilot aspirants beeing rejected for that reason.

you really do want doctors and attourneys like this though.
#12 to #11 - theXsjados ONLINE (10/25/2013) [-]
Yep. That's not to say that being objective and being able to think critically is not wanted in the police, it's about when they decide to voice their opinions.
#13 to #12 - pornoranger (10/25/2013) [-]
and this is where i cannot agree with you. hierachical structures do only allow such behaviour for a few select people. police, military, you name it -> hierarchy is everything,
#15 to #13 - theXsjados ONLINE (10/25/2013) [-]
What?
#16 to #15 - pornoranger (10/25/2013) [-]
to organisations like the military, or the police hierarchy is everything.
#17 to #16 - theXsjados ONLINE (10/25/2013) [-]
Yeah but you can still express your opinion. Wether someone decides to listen to you is a whole other thing.
#18 - spartanprodigy (10/26/2013) [-]
Whoa, hold on there partner. I am a sheriff for the San Bernardino sheriffs department, and the only reason i got in was because I had a masters in Criminology and a Grade point average of 3.9. I actually get paid more because of this, and I had to fight for this spot with about 50 other applicants. One of my old professors attained a PhD in criminal science, and still had to start from the bottom of the police force. He did go on to be the chief though. But the point is, intelligence is a requirement, without out it the competition will destroy you.
#24 to #18 - brizzle (10/26/2013) [-]
John? Is that you?
#25 to #24 - spartanprodigy (10/26/2013) [-]
Look here you little **** , I swear i will find you, and I will report you to the police, because a county sheriff cant be bothered to do that.
User avatar #42 to #25 - jacklane (10/26/2013) [-]
With this statement, I doubt you even took a writing class or a communications class.

You do not post like a statesmen. You post like a 12 year old.
User avatar #89 to #42 - quadrilateral (10/26/2013) [-]
Yeah, there's this thing called a joke. It's a relatively new invention mainly used to cause humor. I don't think you get it yet.
User avatar #104 to #89 - jacklane (10/26/2013) [-]
Read comment 18 and then tell me he was joking.
User avatar #105 to #104 - quadrilateral (10/26/2013) [-]
You do know people can make a serious statement, then later joke, right?
User avatar #26 to #25 - brizzle (10/26/2013) [-]
but i thought you were the police...
#29 to #26 - spartanprodigy (10/26/2013) [-]
Common Misconception, Sheriffs are responsible for courthouse's and jails. Police are responsible for streets and city work.
User avatar #33 to #29 - brizzle (10/26/2013) [-]
to an extent, but in most jurisdictions that i've worked in or with, the sheriff's department polices the surrounding areas of the general municipality. they make traffic stops, respond to emergencies, and serve warrants. the sheriff's department is a policing agency.
#39 to #18 - anon (10/26/2013) [-]
I think you mean you're a deputy. And I doubt you're even that. You probably just work in the department.

And secondly, having a degree doesn't equate to being intelligent. There are a ******** of people out there with degrees who are dumbasses.

I'm not even a high school graduate and I frequently call people who have degrees out on their ******** , and pick them apart. Like now, for example.

Anyway, OP's content stands. Degrees aren't a measure of intelligence, and in fact, the curriculum these days is dumbed down quite a bit from the old days. People are indeed rejected from being employed by police departments, and courts have upheld that it is ok to do so.
#22 - miwauturu (10/26/2013) [-]
[Citation Needed]
User avatar #67 - froggerhasxbox (10/26/2013) [-]
[citation needed]
#60 - notsoscotia (10/26/2013) [-]
Copypasted. You can find many similar stories through Google.   
"Jordan, a 49-year-old college graduate, took the exam in 1996 and scored 33 points, the equivalent of an IQ of 125. But 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."   
"Jordan alleged his rejection from the police force was discrimination. He sued the city, saying his civil rights were violated because he was denied equal protection under the law.   
But the U.S. District Court found that New London had “shown a rational basis for the policy.” In a ruling dated Aug. 23, the 2nd Circuit agreed. The court said the policy might be unwise but was a rational way to reduce job turnover.   
Jordan has worked as a prison guard since he took the test."
Copypasted. You can find many similar stories through Google.
"Jordan, a 49-year-old college graduate, took the exam in 1996 and scored 33 points, the equivalent of an IQ of 125. But 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."
"Jordan alleged his rejection from the police force was discrimination. He sued the city, saying his civil rights were violated because he was denied equal protection under the law.
But the U.S. District Court found that New London had “shown a rational basis for the policy.” In a ruling dated Aug. 23, the 2nd Circuit agreed. The court said the policy might be unwise but was a rational way to reduce job turnover.
Jordan has worked as a prison guard since he took the test."
User avatar #65 to #60 - swagloon (10/26/2013) [-]
those "many similar stories through Google" are all the same story.
#69 to #65 - notsoscotia (10/26/2013) [-]
The first few links are the same one, some worded differently, first 2 were one version and a quote of that version. Here's a shorter one from somewhere else.
"Via Nick Gillespie, here's a story of a guy who got rejected as a candidate to be a cop in New London, Connecticut on the grounds that his score on an IQ test was too high.
Since Gillespie writes for Reason, and since Reason is a libertarian magazine, and since the New London Police Department is a public sector entity, Gillespie seems to treat this outcome as obviously absurd and the failure of the victim's discrimination lawsuit as sad. The department's stated reason, however, seems reasonably clear and sensible—namely that they think people with such high scores will get bored with the job quickly and leave after obtaining expensive training.T
My guess is, if this story were about a private firm that had been successfully sued, we would be reading Reason articles about out-of-control lawsuits and the wisdom of private-sector managers.
Be that as it may, the whole idea of using intelligence tests in employment—perhaps instead of looking at what college someone went into as a proxy for intelligence testing—is an interesting one, but it continues to be fraught with legal worries."
Thumb for you anyway just because I respect that you bothered to read the thing.
#70 to #69 - anon (10/26/2013) [-]
New London, Connecticut? So the same police from the Jordan story then.
User avatar #71 to #70 - notsoscotia (10/26/2013) [-]
Seems that way, in which case-true or not-claiming "in the US" is fairly dramatically over-generalising.
Chances are most other countries have their fair share of stupid **** like this too.
#59 - swagloon (10/26/2013) [-]
One case about one guy being rejected from the police force from a small town does not equal enough backbone to state that the whole USA,  50 individual states with their own laws and regulations , rejects smart people from becoming cops.
One case about one guy being rejected from the police force from a small town does not equal enough backbone to state that the whole USA, 50 individual states with their own laws and regulations , rejects smart people from becoming cops.
User avatar #61 to #59 - yorker (10/26/2013) [-]
beat me to it.

Seriously this ****** just retarded. This isn't a fact, it's a thing that happened to like, one guy. People are ******* dumb.
#54 - pennydragon (10/26/2013) [-]
Here's the actual situation in which it happened:
reason.com/blog/2013/05/01/court-oks-barring-smart-people-from-beco

The reason given for barring people who were too intelligent is honestly pretty stupid. They believed that "those who scored too high could get bored with police work and leave soon after undergoing costly training".

It doesn't make sense since being in law enforcement could be quite exciting for some people, regardless of their high intelligence.
User avatar #8 - bobthedilder (10/25/2013) [-]
That happened in one town in **** All, USA.
#63 - anon (10/26/2013) [-]
The US 'police force' is the FBI; not some sort of state police.
#40 - facebooksux (10/26/2013) [-]
Maybe. Or you get denied for being to much of a free thinker. I can see how thinking for oneself could get in the way of taking orders. Just Saiyan.
User avatar #52 to #40 - riverofchex (10/26/2013) [-]
Now THAT'S entirely possible.
User avatar #19 - marohawk (10/26/2013) [-]
I cant join the force because I smoke too much weed.
#53 - achselschweiss (10/26/2013) [-]
Yeah, this seems like one of those things that gets filtered through the internet and ends up being so far from the truth that it hurts my eyes.

I imagine this started out with a story about some guy not following orders in the academy and then being told "don't you smart mouth me, boy!". The story is then retold several times in emails and in forum posts until it winds up on some "totally real facts"-site as "smart people aren't allowed to be cops".
User avatar #66 to #53 - whiteblob (10/26/2013) [-]
It doesn't sound too full of ******** , cause people that are really smart tend to be a bit wacky so maybe that's why they do it.
User avatar #46 - EpicWin (10/26/2013) [-]
"US police force" Da **** is that? I love how it makes it sounds like the US govt has some authority in this or that Its happens all over the US.
User avatar #49 to #46 - inoland (10/26/2013) [-]
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_law_enforcement_in_the_United_States

or he could mean United State's police force as in the police forces in the us
User avatar #50 to #49 - EpicWin (10/26/2013) [-]
He was referring to the latter which is why i had a problem with how it was said. Its not like the US goverment has any control over who gets denied a job. With the exception of race or religion i guess
#43 - orgasmpirate (10/26/2013) [-]
In that case, I guess I would qualify. . .
In that case, I guess I would qualify. . .
#6 - DangerToManifold (10/25/2013) [-]
congrats, you are stupid, here, have a gun and you are now legally allowed to shoot people.
User avatar #23 to #6 - eating (10/26/2013) [-]
best job ever
#2 - jakatackka (10/25/2013) [-]
Sadly, this is true...
#32 - include (10/26/2013) [-]
That's like getting rejected from a job because you're too over qualified.
That's like getting rejected from a job because you're too over qualified.
User avatar #41 to #32 - guiguito (10/26/2013) [-]
that's not being over qualified, last time i checked it wans't a requirement to be very smart, since you take orders from superiors, and all you gotta do is sit on your ass all the time, and ocasionaly do eat donnuts, and there are those house disputes, but you just go as backup and sit on your ass and drink coffee.
User avatar #62 to #41 - yorker (10/26/2013) [-]
No you don't.

You act on your own, or with your partner. You're never taking "Orders". You'll be told to do a thing here and there, work that checkpoint, keep an eye on that guy, etc...

Since you don't know what you're talking about, though, you shouldn't talk about it.
User avatar #76 to #62 - guiguito (10/26/2013) [-]
it's mostly paper work
and that gif shows what it's expected of you, instead of being smart.
you should take it easy on the cop movies
User avatar #98 to #76 - yorker (10/26/2013) [-]
My ******* dad is a cop I think I know more about them than you do you ******* twat.
User avatar #99 to #98 - guiguito (10/26/2013) [-]
i am a cop myself, we are not the stereotype fatass nor badasses that goes shooting people, we real chill, but some are angry.
User avatar #100 to #99 - yorker (10/26/2013) [-]
Doubt.

And I know cops are a lot different than depicted. You're just trying to validate your argument by claiming you're a cop. And if anything you're the one that was perpetuating police stereotypes so why the **** are you telling me this?
User avatar #101 to #100 - guiguito (10/26/2013) [-]
i am just saying being smart don't quite help you, just sit on your ass and leave your uniform at the station or home while not in service and you'll be fine, being too smart is because free thinkers do some weird **** , not saying it's wrong, but the bosses want stuff done their way, no questions asked is better for them.
and i guess i don't care much about this argument, so yeah i am not a cop anymore.
User avatar #102 to #101 - yorker (10/26/2013) [-]
Lying in an attempt to validate your point only shows that you're horrible at debating.

Seriously that's the bitchiest thing you can do. You really don't know **** about this topic so I suggest that you go more in-depth in your research the next time you decide to argue against somebody who actually knows what they're talking about.
User avatar #103 to #102 - guiguito (10/26/2013) [-]
i said not anymore, saying thing that you think about me without deep research is the bitchiest thing you can do, and prove you are horrible at debating, you know, depending on which region you are from, things are different, and i said i am not a cop ANYMORE.
i still see a ******** of cops, some gives me rides since i do not own a car, you can say what you want about your daddy, but it won't change facts, or how i see and express them.
if we were on a debate, which i think you were taking this seriously typical neckbeard behaviour you lost it for all it's worth, not much for me at least.
and ye i made research on other countries and states police forces and their daily routines, and it pretty much backs me up, so you can tell your daddy he can stuck his superman cape up his ass and ******* himself using it as a condom.
User avatar #36 to #32 - thefasrdog (10/26/2013) [-]
Actually happens quite a bit...
#3 - anon (10/25/2013) [-]
I got rejected for military duty (despite practically volunteering) with the following reason, and I am quoting verbatim (albeit translated to English):

"We do not want anyone questioning orders."
User avatar #35 to #3 - xdeathspawnx (10/26/2013) [-]
that's because they don't want smartass kids not listening to their commanding officers and then getting their entire squad killed.
User avatar #4 to #3 - sinery (10/25/2013) [-]
That's the idea of soldiers.
User avatar #34 to #4 - adu ONLINE (10/26/2013) [-]
But is that such a good thing?
The Jews of Poland and Nazi Germany were at the mercy of men who didn't question their orders...
#38 to #34 - telamatoes (10/26/2013) [-]
They were good soldiers. Awful people, but good soldiers.
#72 to #38 - dragonthief (10/26/2013) [-]
Not awful people. Look into social psychology at some point, or read about the milgrim experiment. Most people, even 'good' people, would do the same/similar things in that situation.
User avatar #55 to #38 - adu ONLINE (10/26/2013) [-]
Is it more valuable to be a good soldier or a good person?
User avatar #57 to #55 - IamSofaKingdom (10/26/2013) [-]
If you enlist to be a soldier, then you should be a good soldier. If being a good person is more important for you then don't be a soldier.
User avatar #58 to #57 - adu ONLINE (10/26/2013) [-]
I suppose I'm not cut out to be a solider then, but I guess I already knew that.
User avatar #106 to #34 - sinery (10/26/2013) [-]
Depends on who gives the orders.
[ 105 comments ]
Leave a comment
 Friends (0)