22Luke36
Regular Member
I'm looking to either prove or dispel some things I have heard, that's all.
-
We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
-
If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
-
Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.
Who Wants To Help Out DPD?
- Thread starter OC for ME
- Start date
SD40VE
Regular Member
and this is one of the reasons i left the city. its seriously going downhill. crime hasnt gone down any recently. moved to north macomb where i can forget to close my garage at night and everything is still there in the morning....
budlight
Regular Member
Detroit is a crime ridden cess pool. Their police department is a joke. There are only 3 types of cops that stick around. 1. Those waiting for another agency to pick them up. 2. Those waiting to retire. 3. Those who know that with their backgrounds will only be able to get a job as a night watchmen somewhere. ( That’s if they are lucky as Detoilet hires ex-cons.)
DrTodd
Michigan Moderator
FreeInAZ
Regular Member
Some in higher positions of LE "feel" that officers with high IQ's will: question orders, become bored and quit. In short - a stupid officer is more likey to follow stupid orders. Some LEA's want such members.... DPD in my opinion is just such a agency. 
davidmcbeth
Banned
Only 1K of handgun rds shot and 50 shotgun rds (min. for qual. of course).
Not going to be proficient with that small amount. IMO
But better than NYC training .... a) hand him gun b) recognizes its a gun (up to 5 times to pass) c) rest OJT d) happy shooting !
Evil Creamsicle
Regular Member
The Above Link said:
So wait, wait, wait....
This is essentially saying that if the department decided it didn't want to hire, say, black people [clearly a racial discrimination], that the court would uphold the decision as long as they applied the same standards to everyone, or phrased another way, as long as *every* applicant was vetted based on whether or not they were black, its OK? Put yet another way, discrimination is OK as long as they apply the same segregationist scrutiny to everyone equally?
What. The. F***.
22Luke36
Regular Member
^ It's the same line of thinking makes them able to ban smoking on your private property, (restaurant) yet forcing you to accommodate customers you might prefer not to have in your business, yet at the same time allows them to keep you out because of your right to carry a gun, and the same illogic that fosters the whole car carry/ castle doctrine issue.
It's a mess really.
It's a mess really.
Primus
Regular Member
lol this says cops have an average IQ of 104 which is above average. Bet you guys wouldn't have posted that if you knew that.
For the record, I scored a 98 on my civil service exam, not sure how it equates to "IQ". Also, in my state you need a 100-99ish to get a first pick for SP. I got the letter from the SP breaking down their scores, and even at a 98 I would have to wait for ALOT of dudes to fail out before I got a look.
DrTodd
Michigan Moderator
No, an IQ of 104 is "average"; statements about an anyone's obtained score (the actual score that is received on a test) needs to be thought of in terms of a confidence interval — a band, interval, or range of scores that has a high probability of including the person’s “true” score. Depending on the level of confidence one may want to have about where the “true” score may lie, the confidence band may be small or large. Most typical IQ tests show confidence intervals at 95%. Respectively, these bands may be interpreted as the range within which a person’s “true” score can be found 95% of the time. It is not possible to construct a confidence interval within which a person’s true score is absolutely certain to lie. So, the general statement that a score of 100 is average is true, but that score is the exact center of a range from 90-110. Any score between 90 and 110 would be considered "average", and even those cutoffs are arbitrarily set based upon a variety of factors (Standard Error of Measure, Confidence Interval, Standard Deviation, etc). Although the obtained score is the best estimate of the true score, one can be more confident in stating that the true score lies within a given range of the obtained score. Recommended interpretive information regarding these intervals is generally provided in test manuals.
I don't know how the civil service exam corresponds to one of the available IQ scores; it most likely does to some degree. But, it probably also has a component that is criterion or skills based...and that may be related to skills that have been learned instead of a general intelligence which aids one in learning those skills.
Last edited:
Hevymetal
Regular Member
Yep, let's not forget the ability to carry in gun free/conceal zones and all the other states. Don't forget about the free coffee/donuts/meals. The ability to avoid most traffic tickets and all the other fringe benefits that go along with the job.
Primus
Regular Member
Well said, I appreciate the explanation.
Primus
Regular Member
If these benefits are so great to you, you can also sign up and work with them.
Primus
Regular Member
I agree, altought I must say that welfare there negative along with the benefits. But that's a different discussion for a different day. You point was well made and taken.
22Luke36
Regular Member
When I think of "benefits", I think firstly of health insurance. Now, "benefits" I'm sure, are going the way of "job security".
DrTodd
Michigan Moderator
I know that the you were not quoting me in your post but I do wish to clarify that I have nothing against a police department giving "benefits" to officers as employees. I also have no problem with professional courtesy being extended for minor traffic violations. I also have no issue with an employer who chooses to provide any number of benefits which may seem above and beyond what people would expect an officer to get, especially at the local level. If the citizens of that community feel that these benefits are excessive, those that have violated the public trust in the management of a department can be easily removed.
What I do have a problem with is that both the state and federal government have given blanket benefits that are denied others. The government, both at the state and federal level, justifies this by claiming that officers (and other special populations) may potentially face people with an axe to grind. However, others who are also so situated may face those same types of individuals but there is absolutely no provision made for these situations...even if the need is more acute. If a person has been threatened specifically by a person who has the means to inflict harm, and the threatened person gets a CPL to protect them from this threat, why is their ability to carry concealed at their children's school conferences less acute than a reserve officer who typically works a town's parades during their free time? There isn't even a provision in Michigan law for a general person so threatened to get a judge to waive the PFZs based on a credible need. Why not just leave the decision to carry or not up to the person with the CPL? Why even require a CPL at all?
Primus
Regular Member
I'll the same thing I always say to guys that are not happy with the gun benefits LEOs get, we should be all happy that at least someone is getting the right to do things we want to do. For example, some states allow OC with no permit. Others have no OC or require alot of permits. The guys in the permit/no OC states don't bash or hate the fact that other states get to OC do they? They don't say (insert pro 2a state) shouldn't be able to carry their LRs around because we can't in MA and that's just not fair. Some people (not saying you) spend alot of time on the LEos get magazines, or certain guns, or certain places to carry. It should be focused on making everyone get those privileges not STRIPPING LEOs of the rights. I think there are very specific reason that LEOs get some exemptions, it's just part of the job. Many other employments get many benefits that LEOs don't, whether you in construction, nursing, science, etc. etc. The benefits just happen to be related to guns.
Raggs
Regular Member
But these benefits aren't backed by a law that allows some special treatment under the law. I worked in the past at a pizza place, the boss allowed employees to make a sub for free to eat. This was not legislated he just did it. I don't care that Cops get benefits, but when their benefits allow them to do something legally that would be illegal for your 'normal' citizen there is something wrong.
Evil Creamsicle
Regular Member
Just want to point out... This is what we are saying...
Nobody is saying "you shouldn't be able to because we can't", we are instead saying "Everyone should be able to, because select groups are pointless and discriminatory"
If it was legal for everyone to carry there, it would be legal for LEO to carry there, since everyone includes everyone.