Email from Lt. Wilson

[joshmmm]

imported post

I think another more useful statistic would be the following:

Take all applicants, then deduct the following: (say 1000 people turn in apps across the state this year)

• Anybody who gives up before trying 10 different agencies (really, who doesn't apply to 10+ different companies for any decent, salaried job)
• Anybody who applies at one point, but 6 months later has given up trying to become a cop. (if they weren't serious, it was probably more of a, let's see what happens type of application anyway.)
• Anybody who was ineligible to be hired because of drugs, felony, driving record, etc.(why count an inelligible applicant, that is just a waste of their time to try)

Then, add back the number who:

• Were successfully hired, even if it was under 6 months and took them less than 10 tries.

This will yield, of the 1000 original applicants, a far smaller number of people who are actually trying to get the job. Then, we will find that the number hired compared with the number who are actively, honestly, truthfully, purposefully, trying to become a cop.

It is important that you look at the numbers statewide. If we look at King County, there are a large number of departments, plus state and federal departments as well. Assume that somebody who wants to be a copy applies to ALL of them (that is what I would do if I was trying to get a job that takes 6 months before you even find out if you are going to be hired). To say that you have 200 applicants for 5 spots is NOT even close to accurate. You have 200 applicants, for 5 spots, per agency, times x number of agencies. If you have 200 eligible people applying, and 100 of them are hired within a year at any department, how selective is it?

I am not trying to be a dick, or to say that anyone can become a cop, far from it. But I don't think the requirements to become an officer are very different from most jobs that earn a police officer's salary or higher.

 

[thebastidge]

imported post

Josh,

I'm not sure that would yield much of a better statistic. Though you do bring up some valid points. Finding worthwhile stats can be very difficult.

I do generally agree with you about:

"I don't think the requirements to become an officer are very different from most jobs that earn a police officer's salary or higher."

 

[joshmmm]

imported post

I agree that no statistic is going to truly yield a great answer. If we had a way of collecting perfect data that is not available, I think we would find out that it is not that hard to become a LEO.

I think, of those who meet the minimum qualifcations (no drug use, no felonies, decent driving record, no bankrupty/credit problems, clean work history, college degree, etc.) that most people who are in the proper shape (can pass the physical test plus the doctor's exam) are able to become an officer if they apply. I would seriously doubt that more than 10-20% of people who truly meet/exceed the minimum requirements and honestly tries to become an officer for an extended amount of time (not talking about someone who applies to less than 10 departments for less than a couple years) is truly stopped from becoming a LEO.

This is not to say it is easy to do. I know I wouldn't meet the physical tests right now. Not that I couldn't correct that, but I know at this point in time I would not. If I was trying to become a LEO, I would start working out/dieting like crazy for 6-18 months until I was in the perfect shape my body could. This is what it would take for me to meet/exceed the minimum requirements.

The information/statistic I would like to know is simple: how many people who are qualified and honestly try to become a LEO never become a LEO because the hiring process weeds them out for some reason other than discovering, at any point during the process, that a minimum qualification is not met.

We are short on good officers throughout the country. I suspect that most people who meet the requirements will get hired within a reasonable amount of time at some local department. Hopefully this is the case, as a society we want to set the minimum bar high. We also want clear guidelines on hiring, want to make the process efficient and fair. These are all good things.

I would not doubt that of all the people who want to be a LEO that only 2% or some tiny number make it. That is easy to see though; how many people that would prefer to be a doctor or lawyer or ceo actually have the ability/tranining/schooling, etc. to do so. I look at it the same way. Almost EVERY person earning less/in a position of less respect should, by the laws of economics, prefer to to become a LEO than the job they have. Likewise, those earning more should almost always prefer to keep their current jobs. Again, simple economics. Therefore, if police officers earn over median income (they do in WA, not true everywhere), over half of the population should want to become an officer. However, there is NO WAY that over half of the population comes even close to meeting the minimum requirements. On the flip side, I would take a bet that far more than half of the CPL holders do (or could with 0-18 months of preparation).

 

[Johnny Law]

imported post

thebastidge wrote:

I'm pretty sure I could pass your department'squalifications. This is not to downplay your achievements, but yours is not the only demanding career field, my friend.

Agreed, This whole topic started in response to clarifying the fact that some felt that the hiring standards of Dept's in general were not stringent. I only sought to try and correct that misnomer. All it means is that one who passes these tests is probably qualified to do this job.

I for instance, may not be qualified to do numerous other jobs, as the qualifications for them are probably just as stringent in other ways. It is all about finding the proper "fit" for the particular job, and group of people that one will be working with.

I am a business owner, and am VERY picky about who I hire. Many times I ask my employees if they know someone (usually have worked with in the past) who would be a goodemployee. I have found many great people in this way, as those who already work there certainly don't want a problem child as a coworker (I also pay them a handsome finders fee).

When the list of possible candidates for my Dept. is narrowed down, it is emailed to everyone in the Dept. to see if they know, or have had any experiences (good or bad) with any of the individuals. This is just one more little screening that takes place along the way.

I find nothing wrong with taking pride in one's profession, as I'm sure many others here do as well, including you. We have all worked in a job where we didn't like our boss, coworkers, situation, etc. and usually one moves on in hopes of finding a better, more satisfying job.

There are not many things worse than hating your job, and not wanting to be there. If you find something you enjoy doing, and can make a living at it, it certainly makes your life more enjoyable. I myselfhave found a profession that I fit, and am veryproud to be doing it.

 

[joshmmm]

imported post

Johnny Law wrote:

There are not many things worse than hating your job, and not wanting to be there. If you find something you enjoy doing, and can make a living at it, it certainly makes your life more enjoyable. I myselfhave found a profession that I fit, and am veryproud to be doing it.

Personally, I am very glad that you have found a profession you enjoy. People who enjoy their jobs tend to be better at them and provide a far higher level of service and professionalism whether it be the employee at McDonald's, a police officer, or your dentist. It doesn't make any difference.

On the other hand, I am glad that other people have chosen to become police officers. While I could see enjoying the job, it is a lot of responsibility every day to realize that your decisions could kill you, your partner,ora total stranger... combined with the rough hours, etc, and it is a demanding profession, no doubt and I am glad that we have professionals who are qualified to step up and do this job.

Thisis a huge benefit of living in WA. Our officers starting salary is nearly DOUBLE the starting salary in New Orleans, not to mention the disparity of experienced officers or of the better working conditions here. We get college educated officers who have the ability to get other decent paying jobs. In other areas, they draw from a much lower caliber group of candidates.

 

[Johnny Law]

imported post

Thanks Joshmmm,

I agree with you 100%.

 

[BluesBear]

imported post

joshmmm wrote:

Thisis a huge benefit of living in WA. Our officers starting salary is nearly DOUBLE the starting salary in New Orleans, not to mention the disparity of experienced officers or of the better working conditions here. We get college educated officers who have the ability to get other decent paying jobs. In other areas, they draw from a much lower caliber group of candidates.

Amen to that. For those here who love to "Blue-Bash" you really ought to get out more. There are many area of the country where the attitudes, training and professionalism of the rank and file AND command level officers would make Barney Fife look like Elliott Ness.

Let's face it, this thread has pretty much degraded into yet another, us against them, blue vs beige, urinals at 20 paces, pissing contest. Can we remember who the "enemy is here? It's not Johnny Law,it is a few officers of OPD who seem to have formed a Band of Mothers with an anti-OC agenda. I'm not quite sure if Lt Wilson is actulaaly our friend or our foe. But I do know that Johnnyisour friend. Even if you disagree with him. Even if you dislike him. He is a supported of what brings us all her. And that is lawful, peaceful, open carry. We should all be trying to make him a closer friend. Hell's Bells™, if you can't get along with a policeman who IS on our side, how do you expect to get along with those who are not?

 

[thebastidge]

imported post

With the exception of a couple contentless posts calling names, the majority seem to me to be a pretty civil and informative conversation. The ratio of content to crap was decent and seemed to warrant continuation to me, at least to this point, where I think I've made all my points and listened to others'.

I try to remember that most of the people on this forum are gun enthusiasts, not necessarily Internet enthusiasts, and therfore lack a lot of 'Netiquette I would expect elsewhere. Somtimes that helps.

Although seriously folks, try to remember that asynchronous, text-only communication lacks a lot of nuance and can really stir people up because it lacks any of the subtle visual cues that help us navigate a conversation in person. So being extra careful to be polite and to hint at the mood behind a statement is always better.