Police Intimidate Me

[quote]PRCalDude wrote:
Aleksandr wrote:
PRCalDude wrote:
Education level and IQ are no indication of ability to act morally. There are countless examples in history of very smart individuals acting very immorally. Usually, they’re able to do much more harm because of their IQ.

IQ is the single best predictor of performance.

Higher IQ = Better cop

In a technical field, certainly. Police work isn’t necessarily technical, but it is plenty social. IQ is descriptive, not normative, and may or may not indicate good job performance, but work ethic and moral compass matter much more in a field like police work. It doesn’t take IQ to know right from wrong, unless you’re going to start arguing that lower IQ people are less moral than higher IQ people. [/quote]

Really? We’re having this argument?

Before we continue, I’d like to hear what you’re basing your position on.

[quote]lixy wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
lixy wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
Police are more accountable for their actions in the US than in most other countries.

Sure. Compared to Mexico or Egypt, American cops are pretty accountable alright.

We know the Muslim population in France burned thousands of cars claiming the police are too heavy handed.

The executioners of Rodney King were “heavy handed”. The electrocution of Bouna and Zyed was accidental.

Executioners of Rodney King? Did I mess something? He drunk drove the wrong way down a one way street at high speeds and attacked the cops. They beat the crap out of him and then gave him millions of dollars. When was he executed?

I view it as lynching. So yes, they were executioners![/quote]

That is idiotic. The man is still alive, was paid millions and a couple of the officers were convicted in the case.

I am not sure how this fits the claim that police are not accountable.

[quote]lixy wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
lixy wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
Police are more accountable for their actions in the US than in most other countries.

Sure. Compared to Mexico or Egypt, American cops are pretty accountable alright.

We know the Muslim population in France burned thousands of cars claiming the police are too heavy handed.

The executioners of Rodney King were “heavy handed”. The electrocution of Bouna and Zyed was accidental.

Executioners of Rodney King? Did I mess something? He drunk drove the wrong way down a one way street at high speeds and attacked the cops. They beat the crap out of him and then gave him millions of dollars. When was he executed?

I view it as lynching. So yes, they were executioners![/quote]

He “played with fire and got burned.”

[quote]Sloth wrote:
lixy wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
lixy wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
Police are more accountable for their actions in the US than in most other countries.

Sure. Compared to Mexico or Egypt, American cops are pretty accountable alright.

We know the Muslim population in France burned thousands of cars claiming the police are too heavy handed.

The executioners of Rodney King were “heavy handed”. The electrocution of Bouna and Zyed was accidental.

Executioners of Rodney King? Did I mess something? He drunk drove the wrong way down a one way street at high speeds and attacked the cops. They beat the crap out of him and then gave him millions of dollars. When was he executed?

I view it as lynching. So yes, they were executioners!

He “played with fire and got burned.”[/quote]

Not quite. On the books, it doesn’t say that the police can “beat the crap out of” somebody who commits a crime. All they could do is neutralize the suspect and bring him to justice.

And I hope you don’t want to argue that he “got burned” because he is a black man in America.

[quote]lixy wrote:
Sloth wrote:
lixy wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
lixy wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
Police are more accountable for their actions in the US than in most other countries.

Sure. Compared to Mexico or Egypt, American cops are pretty accountable alright.

We know the Muslim population in France burned thousands of cars claiming the police are too heavy handed.

The executioners of Rodney King were “heavy handed”. The electrocution of Bouna and Zyed was accidental.

Executioners of Rodney King? Did I mess something? He drunk drove the wrong way down a one way street at high speeds and attacked the cops. They beat the crap out of him and then gave him millions of dollars. When was he executed?

I view it as lynching. So yes, they were executioners!

He “played with fire and got burned.”

Not quite. On the books, it doesn’t say that the police can “beat the crap out of” somebody who commits a crime. All they could do is neutralize the suspect and bring him to justice.

And I hope you don’t want to argue that he “got burned” because he is a black man in America.[/quote]

Actually, I borrowed that line from you. From the thread about the 16 yr. old “slut” who actually was lynched in Iran.

Edit: Basically, I find it odd you’d have much to say about King taking a beating after getting awfully defensive about Iranian represenatives of the law hanging a 16 yr. “slut” (who happened to have been raped, by law officials in the past) because, as you said, she played with fire and got burned. You made sure to point out that it was all an administrative error (the Iranian official story).

[quote]Sloth wrote:
lixy wrote:
Sloth wrote:
lixy wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
lixy wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
Police are more accountable for their actions in the US than in most other countries.

Sure. Compared to Mexico or Egypt, American cops are pretty accountable alright.

We know the Muslim population in France burned thousands of cars claiming the police are too heavy handed.

The executioners of Rodney King were “heavy handed”. The electrocution of Bouna and Zyed was accidental.

Executioners of Rodney King? Did I mess something? He drunk drove the wrong way down a one way street at high speeds and attacked the cops. They beat the crap out of him and then gave him millions of dollars. When was he executed?

I view it as lynching. So yes, they were executioners!

He “played with fire and got burned.”

Not quite. On the books, it doesn’t say that the police can “beat the crap out of” somebody who commits a crime. All they could do is neutralize the suspect and bring him to justice.

And I hope you don’t want to argue that he “got burned” because he is a black man in America.

Actually, I borrowed that line from you. From the thread about the 16 yr. old “slut” who actually was lynched in Iran.

Edit: Basically, I find it odd you’d have much to say about King taking a beating after getting awfully defensive about Iranian represenatives of the law hanging a 16 yr. “slut” (who happened to have been raped, by law officials in the past) because, as you said, she played with fire and got burned. You made sure to point out that it was all an administrative error (the Iranian official story).[/quote]

I herd she got stoned to death for fucking some dude from a rival group.

Not sure if this will nip it in the bud at all, but I wasn’t exactly talking about Rodney King. That was clearly an extraordinaty situation that you just don’t see day to day.

Just some more random thoughts on the subject:

I think I might add that I suppose some of the police’s attitude probably goes with the people they deal with, as a previous poster said.

My grandma is most likely harassed very little by police, whereas me and my friends all fall into the category of people most able to cause a disturbance.

I think it’s a strange problem because we want cops to be able to have the authority to handle situations, but not able to lord it over our heads.

[quote]Aleksandr wrote:
PRCalDude wrote:
Aleksandr wrote:
PRCalDude wrote:
Education level and IQ are no indication of ability to act morally. There are countless examples in history of very smart individuals acting very immorally. Usually, they’re able to do much more harm because of their IQ.

IQ is the single best predictor of performance.

Higher IQ = Better cop

In a technical field, certainly. Police work isn’t necessarily technical, but it is plenty social. IQ is descriptive, not normative, and may or may not indicate good job performance, but work ethic and moral compass matter much more in a field like police work. It doesn’t take IQ to know right from wrong, unless you’re going to start arguing that lower IQ people are less moral than higher IQ people.

Really? We’re having this argument?

Before we continue, I’d like to hear what you’re basing your position on.[/quote]

Do you want to have a religious discussion? Your argument is “correlation means causation.”

[quote]PRCalDude wrote:
Aleksandr wrote:
PRCalDude wrote:
Aleksandr wrote:
PRCalDude wrote:
Education level and IQ are no indication of ability to act morally. There are countless examples in history of very smart individuals acting very immorally. Usually, they’re able to do much more harm because of their IQ.

IQ is the single best predictor of performance.

Higher IQ = Better cop

In a technical field, certainly. Police work isn’t necessarily technical, but it is plenty social. IQ is descriptive, not normative, and may or may not indicate good job performance, but work ethic and moral compass matter much more in a field like police work. It doesn’t take IQ to know right from wrong, unless you’re going to start arguing that lower IQ people are less moral than higher IQ people.

Really? We’re having this argument?

Before we continue, I’d like to hear what you’re basing your position on.

Do you want to have a religious discussion? Your argument is “correlation means causation.”
[/quote]

UGH

No, my argument is well established criterion-related validity. Specifically, predictive validity, which, because of it’s longitudinal nature, makes reverse causation a non-issue.

You, on the other hand, don’t have an argument.

[quote]Aleksandr wrote:
PRCalDude wrote:
Aleksandr wrote:
PRCalDude wrote:
Aleksandr wrote:
PRCalDude wrote:
Education level and IQ are no indication of ability to act morally. There are countless examples in history of very smart individuals acting very immorally. Usually, they’re able to do much more harm because of their IQ.

IQ is the single best predictor of performance.

Higher IQ = Better cop

In a technical field, certainly. Police work isn’t necessarily technical, but it is plenty social. IQ is descriptive, not normative, and may or may not indicate good job performance, but work ethic and moral compass matter much more in a field like police work. It doesn’t take IQ to know right from wrong, unless you’re going to start arguing that lower IQ people are less moral than higher IQ people.

Really? We’re having this argument?

Before we continue, I’d like to hear what you’re basing your position on.

Do you want to have a religious discussion? Your argument is “correlation means causation.”

UGH

No, my argument is well established criterion-related validity. Specifically, predictive validity, which, because of it’s longitudinal nature, makes reverse causation a non-issue.

You, on the other hand, don’t have an argument.[/quote]

Two minor points, before I jump out of this argument:

Cognitive ability is the single best indicator of initial job performance. The implication is that intelligent people will perform better right out of the box, but even morons will get it right eventually.

Cognitive ability tests also haven’t been used as a screen for employment for a long time in the U.S. because of EEOC restrictions.

Now, carry on.

[quote]tGunslinger wrote:
Two minor points, before I jump out of this argument:

Cognitive ability is the single best indicator of initial job performance. The implication is that intelligent people will perform better right out of the box, but even morons will get it right eventually.

Cognitive ability tests also haven’t been used as a screen for employment for a long time in the U.S. because of EEOC restrictions.

Now, carry on.[/quote]

Where are you getting this?

CI is generally not used as a screen, because it is unreasonable to set a minimum CI for adequate job performance, and doing so causes adverse impact. However, it is often used with linear regression methods. EEOC does not prohibit the use of CI, but requires attempts to be made in reducing adverse impact.

CI does not just predict initial performance, as it also predicts the maximum performance an individual is capable of.

[quote]Aleksandr wrote:
PRCalDude wrote:
Aleksandr wrote:
PRCalDude wrote:
Aleksandr wrote:
PRCalDude wrote:
Education level and IQ are no indication of ability to act morally. There are countless examples in history of very smart individuals acting very immorally. Usually, they’re able to do much more harm because of their IQ.

IQ is the single best predictor of performance.

Higher IQ = Better cop

In a technical field, certainly. Police work isn’t necessarily technical, but it is plenty social. IQ is descriptive, not normative, and may or may not indicate good job performance, but work ethic and moral compass matter much more in a field like police work. It doesn’t take IQ to know right from wrong, unless you’re going to start arguing that lower IQ people are less moral than higher IQ people.

Really? We’re having this argument?

Before we continue, I’d like to hear what you’re basing your position on.

Do you want to have a religious discussion? Your argument is “correlation means causation.”

UGH

No, my argument is well established criterion-related validity. Specifically, predictive validity, which, because of it’s longitudinal nature, makes reverse causation a non-issue.

You, on the other hand, don’t have an argument.[/quote]

What are the criterion being used here? If you’re saying IQ is a predictor of job performance, I wholeheartedly agree. If you’re saying IQ is a predictor of moral behavior, I need to see the criteria against which the IQ-morality curve is correlated.

[quote]PRCalDude wrote:
What are the criterion being used here? If you’re saying IQ is a predictor of job performance, I wholeheartedly agree. If you’re saying IQ is a predictor of moral behavior, I need to see the criteria against which the IQ-morality curve is correlated.

[/quote]

Yes, job performance.

Incidentally, beating the crap out of a suspect is probably considered poor job performance.

[quote]Aleksandr wrote:
PRCalDude wrote:
What are the criterion being used here? If you’re saying IQ is a predictor of job performance, I wholeheartedly agree. If you’re saying IQ is a predictor of moral behavior, I need to see the criteria against which the IQ-morality curve is correlated.

Yes, job performance.

Incidentally, beating the crap out of a suspect is probably considered poor job performance.[/quote]

g-loaded IQ tests measure verbal and mathematical aptitude. Where does “beating the crap out of a suspect” fit into such measurement?

[quote]PRCalDude wrote:
Aleksandr wrote:
PRCalDude wrote:
What are the criterion being used here? If you’re saying IQ is a predictor of job performance, I wholeheartedly agree. If you’re saying IQ is a predictor of moral behavior, I need to see the criteria against which the IQ-morality curve is correlated.

Yes, job performance.

Incidentally, beating the crap out of a suspect is probably considered poor job performance.

g-loaded IQ tests measure verbal and mathematical aptitude. Where does “beating the crap out of a suspect” fit into such measurement? [/quote]

Yes, that sounds like a lovely way to spend an evening. I’m going to sit around discussing possible mediating mechanisms with someone who does not appear to have any appreciable background in psychometrics, statistics, selection, or performance appraisals.

[quote]Aleksandr wrote:
PRCalDude wrote:
Aleksandr wrote:
PRCalDude wrote:
What are the criterion being used here? If you’re saying IQ is a predictor of job performance, I wholeheartedly agree. If you’re saying IQ is a predictor of moral behavior, I need to see the criteria against which the IQ-morality curve is correlated.

Yes, job performance.

Incidentally, beating the crap out of a suspect is probably considered poor job performance.

g-loaded IQ tests measure verbal and mathematical aptitude. Where does “beating the crap out of a suspect” fit into such measurement?

Yes, that sounds like a lovely way to spend an evening. I’m going to sit around discussing possible mediating mechanisms with someone who does not appear to have any appreciable background in psychometrics, statistics, selection, or performance appraisals.[/quote]

Actually, I’ve had quite a few classes in statistics. They were an undergraduate requirement. They also happen to be a job requirement. So rather than being an arrogant snob, you could try condescending to my level of intelligence and explaining yourself.

While we’re on the subject of g, and since you seem to be into psychometrics, don’t psychometricians believe in a racial difference in IQ as well, or that idea too outrageous for you? If so, then by extension of your logic, people of lower-IQ correlated ethnicities are more immoral. I’d rather not believe that, and I’m sure you wouldn’t either. So be careful how far you take psychometrics.

Yea, cops are your friend. Protect and serve. Only I have never had a cop protect me, or serve me. I have never received a single benefit from police.

I have been harassed and pulled over so many times I cannot count them all. Some of the more ludicrous things I have been pulled over were my bumper being too high (in a 1971 Ford Mustang on my way to class at the community college), I look like someone wanted in a crime, we pull everyone over…even old ladies and we ask if we can search their car.

In fact, every single time I have asked an officer, or officials at the police station for help, they have refused. When I was taking Administration of justice in College I needed to interview a detective, only they refused an interview and I had to get my professor to step in for assistance. Yea, serve indeed.

Ever hear of the Stanford prison experiment? It was stopped for a reason

The police shouldn’t intimidate you. They are men doing a job - a hard job that doesn’t pay very well and is often thankless. It is well-known that cops “dish”, but it is rarely remarked upon how much they “take”.

Police operate in a system that is built to err on the side of criminal defendant, and yet they often face superhuman expectations of serving and protecting.

Plenty of jerks go into the police so they can get off on abusing their authority - but the vast majority are hard-working public servants who care about the job they do.

And, making an honest assessment of the police requires cutting through the noise of juvenile anti-authoritarian sentiment - as people vested with power, especially the monopoly of violence, there will always be a fashionable outrage at the “pigs”.

Jesus there is a lot of stupid things being posted here.

Every once and a while this topic comes up in various forms and I stop lurking and try to explain a few things(usually to my frustration, but whatever).

I am a cop of some years experience. I also am in a unique position to comment on this stuff as part of my duties are to train other cops so they don’t get killed(or kill the wrong person).

First let me address the idea of feeling intimidated by the police. If you feel intimidated because the cop was physically impressive, carried himself with military bearing and clearly gave the impression that he would kill you if you tried to kill him, this is a good thing. This is how cops go home at the end of the shift. If you feel intimidated by his mere presence, this may be a sign of some ego problem on your part. Personally, I feel our weakness as a culture and the way we socialize men now has lead to a lot of the problems people get in to when dealing with the police. The old school was that the police were in charge and you respected them for this. When you grew up in the depression or stormed the beaches of Normandy, listening to what a cop told you to do for a few minutes was not that tough.

That does not mean he has the right to be impolite to you(provided you don’t set an ungentlemanly tone up front). My rule has always been that an officer should start off with a very high level of respect toward whoever you are contacting. I teach other cops this. Just like the suspect determines how much force I will use on him, so it goes with the give-and-take of respect.

Police should be disciplined, honorable warriors. I know some of you are chuckling because that is the exact opposite of a lot of what you see. Sadly, I have to agree. Police hiring has always been a mess and in most places, training is not much better. The vast majority of police, in my experience, do not take their job seriously enough. If they did, they couldn’t possibly be out of shape, uneducated about their profession and generally unable to handle conflict at all levels. If any of you have ever had the pleasure to know truly dangerous, yet still honorable men, you know that they have a humbleness and respectfulness about them that is striking. That in itself would eliminate many of our perception problems.

I feel safe assuming that most of you guys posting your concerns here are good people(if you are not, I couldn’t give a fuck about your opinion). It is hard for me to explain this to you unless you live in our world, but we see a lot of ugliness. More than any person ever possibly could in their life(or many lifetimes for that matter) under most circumstances. You might want to try and disagree, but I know I am right because I have lived on both sides of the fence. That much negativity effects a person, subconsciously at least. If a cop is a professional, they should battle constantly to not let such forces overwhelm them but it is a difficult road to walk. Trust me.

I have spoken with Mikeyali at some length about the role of police in our society and I come from the same uncompromising libertarian school of thought that he does. I believe wholeheartedly that the police are overused in our society. It is a reflection of a larger reliance on government than has ever existed in our country’s history. I can’t even begin to tell you the things we get called for. 80% of it should be handled by the individual citizen or by cooperation among neighbors. Instead, they throw all of their individualism out and expect the government via the police to solve their issue.

The most severe issue is a largely corrupt and ever-increasing governmental monster using the police to enforce the massive number of bullshit laws that are expanded on every day. I doubt any of you would have a problem with us if we fought gang members and other murderous thugs, caught thieves and prosecuted rapists. These basic laws must be enforced so that a society can thrive. However, we are all too often are used to close municipal budget gaps with traffic tickets or enforce a million other repressive regulations on individual freedom at the behest of idiots who don’t even begin to understand what America should be about.

As an aside, I for one don’t distrust the American populace and could never seek to disarm lawful people. Quite the opposite. More decent armed people make my job easier.
Sometimes gun owners are surprised by how supportive I am of their rights and it builds a tremendous trust between us. Try and tell that to many of our legislators.

As a final word, let me say that don’t construe any of this to be an apology for or
a damnation of my profession. I can’t imagine myself doing anything else, and done right, I believe it is God’s work as much as anything on the planet. The benefit of the doubt should still go to the police if they are acting in good faith, such as the NYPD cops who were just rightfully acquitted.

I am fairly certain that our society is destroying itself at all levels. If you want to skyrocket it to oblivion, neuter the police a little faster than 40 or 50 years of the anti-society gangsters have already managed.

I can’t think of much more to add.

I think the cops made a mistake when they went from Peace Officer to a Para military group.