Pay scale of LEOs - does it effect performance

palerider116 · May 31, 2013

Performance is a relative term. Policing is often wholly given to the religion of statistics. An officer with high arrests and tickets is lauded for his high productivity while the officer who gives more warnings and finds other avenues outside of tossing someone into the criminal justice system is disdained as a low performer. A meaningful solution does not always been arrest and prosecution.

But there is this obsession with numbers...

There is the constant threat of performance evaluations and subsequent probation for low numbers. The old quota myth is alive and well in what is called a performance standard. Having been on the ropes for that and having had to retain an attorney to fight the proceedings, it is an ugly fight. Eventually I prevailed, but at great personal expense.

Performance has to be assessed in relation to the culture of the agency. Be nosy. Be active. Citizens should never let any government agency do anything without strict scrutiny.

IQ tests don't fix stupidity, poor training, or evil/illegal intentions.

davidmcbeth · May 31, 2013

Grapeshot said:
The mean intelligence quotient is placed at 100 = approximately 25% of the population.
It is neither a low score, nor a high score.
http://www.ie.iqtester.eu/articles-about-iq/levels-of-iq-values.html

Some US police departments have set a maximum IQ score for new officers (for example: 125, in New London, CT), under the argument that those with overly-high IQs will become bored and exhibit high turnover in the job. This policy has been challenged as discriminatory, but upheld by at least one US District court
http://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=95836

If "arming high school graduates with an IQ of 100 is just not a good idea" how would you apply that to our military or perhaps closer to home - would you have a standard IQ test before an otherwise legal person were allowed to carry a handgun for personal defense?

For the army, navy and marines ... IQ of 25

IQ of person to carry: 1 - its a right !

Firearms Iinstuctor · May 31, 2013

NagChampa said:
All firefighters and cops should be volunteers.

Of there weren't so many laws against everything especially drugs we wouldn't need so many cops. I would even think we wouldn't need professional police

I agree we have passed way to many laws regulating all kinds of actions and objects that shouldn't be. We have placed a whole lot of responsibility on the police and fire department's that could be handled other wise.

The so called war on drugs is one of the worse policing decision we have made. Takes away a huge amount of time and resources.

Volunteers can do a good job with many things I worked with a lot of them but they have other lives then what they volunteer for.

But do want a volunteer investigating the rape and murder of your wife, child would they have the time to the hours or days the investigation may take.

In a perfect world one wouldn't need police but we not live in a perfect world. If people would respect others and do what is right by others we wouldn't need police or all the other laws we have.

But we have enough people out there who just don't give a dam about others or about the damage they cause to others.

OC for ME · May 31, 2013

A driver for Jimmy John's faces more hazards on the road than a cop.

Most cops sit parked, jacking their jaws on their cell phone. They then drive to the next parking spot to jack their jaws some more.

99% boredom and 1% shear terror.

"Fighting crime" is a very infrequent requirement for the vast majority of LEAs I suspect.

Cops should get a bonus, a big bonus, for dealing with yahoo idiots. I reference the TV show 'COPS', most of those shows depict yahoo idiots that cops must deal with AND keep a straight face. If I were a cop I would be rolling on the ground laughing. Once I got over my self induced abdominal hernia, and then checking to make sure i upload my video to Youtube, I would then do my job and resolve the situation as best I could without resorting to hauling one or more citizens off to the clink.

There is money to be made from Youtube and my Yahoo Idiots Interwebs TV Channel. This income would be a nice supplement to the crappy compensation I receive by being a beat cop.

Firearms Iinstuctor · May 31, 2013

Maverick9 said:
I'm a teetotaler, don't drink or smoke or anything, but I know stupid when I see it. I think we need to replace highway cops with just wardens who write tickets and cops should all be disarmed (as in Britain). Arming high school graduates with an IQ of 100 is just not a good idea, imo.[/QUOTE

Your right I guess every body with a IQ of 100 or less should be disarmed. Constitutional rights should be allowed only to the best and smartest people.

All cops in Britain are not disarmed more and more are being armed all the time. Being unarmed work out well for the first officers on the scene of the latest beheading they had to wait 20 minutes for the armed police to arrive to take care of the murders.

Would you be willing to go out and enforce traffic laws un armed. Knowing every motorist you stop is going to be a fine up standing person who well take their citation with out bad word or taking a dislike to you.

Or that driver is drunk high on drugs and decides that you are a a$$ hole for stopping them and is going to beat the snot out of you or worse just because you dare stop them.

Or you just might get really unlucky and stop the guy who just murdered his girl friend or robbed the local bank.

No normally most traffic stops and just plain upstanding citizens who just had a lapse of attention. But in 25 of 30 years of just handing out citation making 10s of thousands of stops it takes only one person who doesn't give a dam to ruin your life.

eye95 · May 31, 2013

davidmcbeth said:
For the army, navy and marines ... IQ of 25

IQ of person to carry: 1 - its a right !

The bolded part is NOT true. There is no number assigned to it, but if a person is adjudicated as mentally defective due to low intelligence, they do indeed lose their right to carry.

The first sentence? I'd have to research it, but I'd bet money that it is not true. Most IQ scales have a mean of 100 and a standard deviation of 15 (some use 20). Even using 20, an IQ of 25 is over three (almost four) standard deviations below the mean. Using 15, puts that IQ at five standard deviations below the mean. Charts don't even deal with five standard deviations below the mean because the IQ is so low as to be, for all practical purposes, immeasurably low. A person at this level would be considered so intellectually impaired as the number would be meaningless. Those treating such people would be more concerned with questions like, "Can this person use a toilet, or do they need diapers?" than they would be with the numbers.

Again assuming the higher standard deviation, 25 is 3.75 standard deviations below the mean. Fewer than one in one thousand people would have an IQ this low. Again, at that level, the number no longer matters. The question would be how much care this person needs to be given by others.

I guess I said all that to say this: I call Bravo Sierra on your whole post. However, this is what I have come to expect from you.

Citizen · May 31, 2013

Firearms Iinstuctor said:
SNIP What's a trained professional with collage, thousands of hours of training, years of experience worth.

Nothing if he's enforcing bad laws, maintaining the Blue Wall of Silence by looking the other way, and sucking at the public teet paid for by tax victims. By the time he catches one violent criminal, he's already erased the good he accomplished thereby with all the rest of the negative stuff. In fact, the ratio is actually a net negative.

And, don't nobody give me the "must enforce all laws--good or bad; just doing his job" argument. It didn't work at Nuremburg; it doesn't work here, either.

OC for ME · May 31, 2013

Firearms Iinstuctor said:
<snip> No normally most traffic stops and just plain upstanding citizens who just had a lapse of attention. But in 25 of 30 years of just handing out citation making 10s of thousands of stops it takes only one person who doesn't give a dam to ruin your life.

Not nitpicking, just pointing out that many a cop has had a bad day and had a gun. Well, actually, cops continue to have bad days inspite of having a gun.

Firearms Iinstuctor · May 31, 2013

OC for ME said:
Not nitpicking, just pointing out that many a cop has had a bad day and had a gun. Well, actually, cops continue to have bad days inspite of having a gun.

Just like an armed citizen how many have been save by being armed. Somes time its just hard to prove a negative.

Firearms Iinstuctor · May 31, 2013

Citizen said:
Nothing if he's enforcing bad laws, maintaining the Blue Wall of Silence by looking the other way, and sucking at the public teet paid for by tax victims. By the time he catches one violent criminal, he's already erased the good he accomplished thereby with all the rest of the negative stuff. In fact, the ratio is actually a net negative.

And, don't nobody give me the "must enforce all laws--good or bad; just doing his job" argument. It didn't work at Nuremburg; it doesn't work here, either.

What laws should be enforced and what ones should not be. What's a bad law? some are obvious some are not I believe that laws that violate ones constitutional rights fall high on the list.

You are the police, judge and jury on this one.

Who should pay to enforce the laws still on the books.

Grapeshot · May 31, 2013

eye95 said:
The bolded part is NOT true. There is no number assigned to it, but if a person is adjudicated as mentally defective due to low intelligence, they do indeed lose their right to carry.

The first sentence? I'd have to research it, but I'd bet money that it is not true. Most IQ scales have a mean of 100 and a standard deviation of 15 (some use 20). Even using 20, an IQ of 25 is over three (almost four) standard deviations below the mean. Using 15, puts that IQ at five standard deviations below the mean. Charts don't even deal with five standard deviations below the mean because the IQ is so low as to be, for all practical purposes, immeasurably low. A person at this level would be considered so intellectually impaired as the number would be meaningless. Those treating such people would be more concerned with questions like, "Can this person use a toilet, or do they need diapers?" than they would be with the numbers.

Again assuming the higher standard deviation, 25 is 3.75 standard deviations below the mean. Fewer than one in one thousand people would have an IQ this low. Again, at that level, the number no longer matters. The question would be how much care this person needs to be given by others.

I guess I said all that to say this: I call Bravo Sierra on your whole post. However, this is what I have come to expect from you.

In David's defense - he jokes a lot, uses sarcasm when other means would likely be better understood. To the uninitiated, I think that he unfortunately appears disingenuous.

*************************************************

I remember reading somewhere that they military has an IQ threshold of 85 for recruits - they tried to lower it to 80 and found that many were just not trainable at that level to successfully educate/train/indoctrinate them - they stayed with the 85 platform.

Edit to add - found this reference:
"The US military has minimum enlistment standards at about the IQ 85 level. There have been two experiments with lowering this to 80 but in both cases these men could not master soldiering well enough to justify their costs."
http://en.metapedia.org/wiki/Intelligence_quotient

eye95 · May 31, 2013

I am not "uninitiated." I have been around a long time. This guy posts CRAP, lies, BS, legal advice he'd never take himself, bluster, and all manner of other useless (at best) and dangerous (at worst) pap.

What he posted in this case is pure unadulterated Bravo Sierra, and I called him on it. This is not the first and certainly won't be the last time I call him on his crap. I have called him on every one of the above behaviors and plan on continuing to do so. Assigning any credibility to his posts is dangerous, so I will continue to point out why his posts are not credible, post-by-post, case-by-case, in specific.

The general conclusions will be inescapable.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

<o>

Citizen · May 31, 2013

Firearms Iinstuctor said:
What laws should be enforced and what ones should not be. What's a bad law? some are obvious some are not I believe that laws that violate ones constitutional rights fall high on the list.

You are the police, judge and jury on this one.

Who should pay to enforce the laws still on the books.

Malum pro se laws should be disregarded whenever possible by police. At the most a polite warning to help the fella not run afoul of Nuremburg cops.

The second bolded comment cuts both ways. The cop can be his own police, judge, and jury just as much as I can.

Police can also return to be peace officers instead of law-enforcement officers.

And, they can start disregarding or finding creative ways to circumvent bad policies like that one city PD that had a policy of always arresting one spouse if there was domestic dispute call. Or, asking for consent to search vehicles without probable cause. Or, tricking young adults into revealing the MJ so they could be cited, ala NYPD in recent years. Or, ...etc.

Lots and lots and lots of room for improvement.

Citizen · May 31, 2013

eye95 said:
I am not "uninitiated." I have been around a long time. This guy posts CRAP, lies, BS, legal advice he'd never take himself, bluster, and all manner of other useless (at best) and dangerous (at worst) pap.

What he posted in this case is pure unadulterated Bravo Sierra, and I called him on it. This is not the first and certainly won't be the last time I call him on his crap. I have called him on every one of the above behaviors and plan on continuing to do so. Assigning any credibility to his posts is dangerous, so I will continue to point out why his posts are not credible, post-by-post, case-by-case, in specific.

The general conclusions will be inescapable.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

<o>

+1

While some of his posts are clearly dark or off-beat humor, the stuff Eye mentions above has been brought to McBeth's attention so many times that it is entirely reasonable to assume he continues doing so because he wants to get others in trouble or have a skewed view. Its gone on so long that its absurd to think its not deliberate.

Just like Henrietta, it took a while to spot what he was really doing he was so subtle, but eventually the conclusion became inescapeable.

Firearms Iinstuctor · May 31, 2013

There's a fine line in keeping the peace and enforcing the law.

There's a large crowd causing problems on main street you show up and ask kindly for those causing trouble to leave and go home as a good peace officer should do.

Several tell you to F--k yourself and break a few windows causing more of a disturbance you arrest them as a good Law enforcement officer should.

Or should he just as a peace officer asked them kindly to stop and go home again.

I worked under both system of arrest for domestic violence. I don't believe mandatory arrest is the best in any situation or with the zero tolerance policy for many things. There is to many gray areas in life.

Good common sense would go's a long ways but we seem to have gotten away from that. As the government demands more power , control, as people become less self reliant and want the government to solve then problems for them.

OC for ME · May 31, 2013

Firearms Iinstuctor said:
Just like an armed citizen how many have been save by being armed. Somes time its just hard to prove a negative.

Good point.

If cops only armed themselves when they knew they needed to be armed (note Sheriff Andy Taylor) I'll wager that a great many "violent" criminals would not be so violent knowing that a cop was unarmed. A constantly and heavily armed LE likely provokes violence from criminals who would otherwise not be so violent. I'll wager that the pay of unarmed cops would rise as a direct result of fewer lawsuit payouts for armed cops using their gun.....less mony for settlements = more money for cops.

BUT!!! How would female cops defend themselves? I guess girl cops get to carry guns and boy cops do not. So, armed girl cops get lower pay than unarmed boy cops.....gotta save the greenbacks to pay settlements.

BB62 · May 31, 2013

Pay may Affect performance, but I doubt that it Effects it.

Grapeshot · May 31, 2013

BB62 said:
Pay may Affect performance, but I doubt that it Effects it.

Arggggh - right you are. Guilty as charged.

Maverick9 · May 31, 2013

To me there's a struggle going on between respect and power.

Ask a politician which he'd rather have.

Ask a LEO which he'd rather have.

Ask a LAC which he'd rather have.

I think the Politician would almost always say 'Respect' but he'd have his fingers crossed. He is enchanted by power. He is empowered by respect of his constituents.

I think some LEOs would say respect and they'd be truthful. But once you have power, it's hard to give up.

I think most LAC would say power. Why? Primarily because they see their power of self determination, of self-protection, being eroded daily. But what they really want is respect.

Interesting, huh?

Maverick9 · May 31, 2013

Nightmare said:
Respect is good. Fear works.

Oderint dum metuant, eh?

Pay scale of LEOs - does it effect performance

Regular Member

Banned

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Well-known member

Founder's Club Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Legendary Warrior

Well-known member

Founder's Club Member

Founder's Club Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Accomplished Advocate

Legendary Warrior

Regular Member

Regular Member