FallonJeeper
Regular Member
And, there are so many jobs being performed in each of the military services. To say the skill sets don't transfer well, is using a pretty broad brush.
-
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.
OT: Park Ranger Shot
- Thread starter Stretch
- Start date
Dave_pro2a
Regular Member
You do realize that today's college is not too much easier than High School was 50 years ago.
You do realize that colleges abandoned the merit system for enrollment.
You do realize that colleges often deal with grading like they deal with trophies in modern organized sports for kids (little league) -- no one can end up with bruised self-esteem, so everyone wins and everyone graduates.
I suspect that by your claim that "the vast majority of LEOs are college grads" really means that most have an AA CJ degree. You do realize a CJ degree from a Junior College is vastly different than a hard science degree or liberal arts degree from a 4 year institution.
Ahh the devils in the details.
Last edited:
Dave_pro2a
Regular Member
I'll grant that for paramilitary organizations, personal with military training is a real boon.
That's kind of the crux if the issue. A militarized police force is bad for America, and bad for her citizens imho.
decklin
Regular Member
It's funny how you continue to ignore previous statements. You are generalizing a multitude of MOS's into one category. Just because one was in the military does not mean they were a soldier. For some reason you seem to think that most LEO's are former military. It's also interesting how you refuse to see any view point other than your own. You cannot possibly imagine any scenario that would result in the events taken place. I do not understand how grading at a school has to do with anything here.
Dave_pro2a
Regular Member
Since I was curious how CJ curriculums are developed I did a little reading. In Florida for instance, the CJ program is dictated by a commission comprised by:
http://www.fdle.state.fl.us/Content/getdoc/91a75023-5a74-40ef-814d-8e7e5b622d4d/CJSTC-Home-Page.aspx
* Three (3) sheriffs
* Three (3) chiefs of police
* Five (5) law enforcement officers who are neither Sheriffs or Chiefs who are the rank of Sergeant or below within the employing agency.
* One (1) Person in charge of a county correctional institution.
* Two (2) Correctional Officers. One (1) of whom is an administrator of a state correctional institution, and one who is of the rank of sergeant or below within the employing agency.
* One (1) training center director
* One (1) Florida resident who falls into none of the above categories.
* The Attorney General or designated proxy
* The Secretary of Department of Corrections or designated proxy
* The Director of the Florida Highway Patrol
So that is who determines what the future LEO learn, while they obtain their 2 year degree in Criminal Justice. The college doesn't, the police and politicians do.
Whomever controls education...
Last edited:
Dave_pro2a
Regular Member
You brought up the claim that most LEOs are college grads. I'm merely exploring that assertion, and its implications.
Last edited:
Dave_pro2a
Regular Member
A member of the military is by definition a soldier. 4 out of 4 dictionaries agree.
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/soldier
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/soldier
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/soldier
http://www.brainyquote.com/words/so/soldier221407.html
decklin
Regular Member
Dictionaries can say what they want. There is a huge difference between being a soldier on paper and then being a soldier in reality.
Your assertion would not seem to be supported - "college graduates" are customarily considered to have BA or BS degrees, not AA.
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2194/is_n1_v63/ai_15155536/
Please provide a cite.
Dave_pro2a
Regular Member
Dave_pro2a
Regular Member
To be fair, imho I do think an AA degree IS a college degree.
But usually people don't boast about having one. And AA degrees are typically not an end in and of themselves (unless it's for a 'trade' degree like CJ). Typically AA degrees are part of a person's plan to get a BA from a 4 year institution.
Last edited:
arentol
New member
Your original statement was somewhat correct. Your followup statement (the one above) is wrong.
You originally specified that being in the military doesn't make you a soldier, and from some points of view and definitions of the term soldier that is correct. Alternate definitions of soldier can limit it to members of the ground forces of a military, making you partially correct. For instance in the Airforce you are an airman/woman, and some people wouldn't ever think to call you a soldier. The navy is similar with seaman/woman. I would still call them soldiers, but it is not entirely wrong to not consider them soldiers....
However, when you that clarified with the statement above, which I can only assume to mean that you are basically calling REMF's non-soldiers, you lost the argument. If you are a soldier on paper, then you are a soldier. You may not be a combatant, and you may not be a warrior, but you are still a soldier. If you disagree I suggest you enlist in the army as a dental assistant and on your first day of bootcamp, when the drill sergeant calls you a soldier, try disagreeing with him. Let me know how that goes.... And just feel lucky this isn't the 80's or earlier when they could still beat the ever loving snot out of you.
Last edited:
With the acceptance of either 2 or 4 year programs as the criteria, the allegation that a "vast majority" of police officers have college degrees is likely still inaccurate. Departments have long wished to elevate their minimum standards, but the pay scale to attract such candidates just isn't there. Some LEA have in fact reduced their minimum educational requirements.
.......the city eased its hiring requirements and began accepting those with two years of college or three years in the military. The latest requirements are stiffer than those from last year, when recruits were required to have at least the equivalent of a high school education. But the episode fueled an ongoing debate over whether police departments' desire to raise recruiting standards can be realized at a time when there are thousands of openings for cops nationwide.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2006-09-17-police-education_x.htm
bmg50cal
Regular Member
Especially for USCG members since their missions have no public interaction what so ever as defined by 6 U.S.C. § 468.
I know lots of combat vets who are well respected fully functioning members of society. They are "everyday people," most you can't look at and tell whether they have been through hell and back. Others don't do as well, but there is help available, it's free; people who care that want to help are available, some just don't want to helped or think they can manage on their own.
amlevin
Regular Member
Are you overlooking or just purposely sidestepping the fact that ALL who enter the Military go through BASIC TRAINING. That does make them a "soldier" although not necessarily a specialist in any specific area. They are all given Basic Combat Training.
As for this actor, he only served 2 years, 7 Months before they tossed his butt to the curb. DUI and violation of regs regarding transport of personal weapons.
Considering the amount of time involved for Basic, AIT, and at a minimum, pre-deployment trraining, he spent very little time in Iraq. His problems were in his head before he hit the Army.
SpyderTattoo
Regular Member
This has gotten way off topic.
So, he refused to stop at a "safety checkpoint". I hate to say it, but, maybe if the rangers hadn't been so zealous in chasing down someone who didn't want to stop at an illegal checkpoint, they wouldn't have been fired upon. Maybe they should have just let him go.
Say you come to a checkpoint like this... "Why am I being detained?"
"We need to make sure you have chains on and your vehicle is safe to go further up the mountain.".
" It's none of your business, I will take responsibility for my own welfare, and unless you have a warrant, I'll be going on."
I see a lot of parallels here with what some of us have self with while open carrying. Sure the guy was a criminal, but the rangers didn't know that. If they would have followed the Constitution and not chased him down, a tragedy would have not happened.
So, he refused to stop at a "safety checkpoint". I hate to say it, but, maybe if the rangers hadn't been so zealous in chasing down someone who didn't want to stop at an illegal checkpoint, they wouldn't have been fired upon. Maybe they should have just let him go.
Say you come to a checkpoint like this... "Why am I being detained?"
"We need to make sure you have chains on and your vehicle is safe to go further up the mountain.".
" It's none of your business, I will take responsibility for my own welfare, and unless you have a warrant, I'll be going on."
I see a lot of parallels here with what some of us have self with while open carrying. Sure the guy was a criminal, but the rangers didn't know that. If they would have followed the Constitution and not chased him down, a tragedy would have not happened.
sudden valley gunner
Regular Member
Metalhead47
Regular Member
Dude, this guy had ALREADY created a tragedy by this point. He shot a couple of people down Tacoma way just before this. The news seems to be downplaying that factor. Don't go making excuses for a murderer.
And I don't think the chain checks are entirely unreasonable in the national park and under the current legal paradigm, since it's the park rangers & staff who have to deal with fools who end up stuck or in a ditch because they're too dumb to chain up.
CAVEAT to that being, a statement similar to yours should be enough to cover those who are smart enough to take responsibility for their own actions. Unfortunately most people don't fall into that category.
SpyderTattoo
Regular Member
How did I make any excuses for this guy? I didn't make any excuses for him.
Yes, he shot some people in Skyway, but the rangers didn't know that. As far as they knew, he was just any other person visiting the park. Was my example not clear enough? Like when someone open carrying gets stopped for open carrying. RAS. The rangers had no RAS.
Do not mistake my Liberitarian views for being callous to the loss of this ranger (mother, wife...) Individual rights are most important. Individual responsibility goes along with that.
(And don't "dude" me)
Yes, he shot some people in Skyway, but the rangers didn't know that. As far as they knew, he was just any other person visiting the park. Was my example not clear enough? Like when someone open carrying gets stopped for open carrying. RAS. The rangers had no RAS.
Do not mistake my Liberitarian views for being callous to the loss of this ranger (mother, wife...) Individual rights are most important. Individual responsibility goes along with that.
(And don't "dude" me)
TheJeepster
Regular Member
What would make this an illegal checkpoint? All I have ever seen regarding illegal police checkpoints for Washington is setting up DUI checkpoints. This the police are not allowed to do in Washington...at least not yet. I know they are allowed in other states, Nevada and Michigan being a couple.
The US Supreme Court ruled sobriety checkpoints were legal in Michigan. Michigan Dept. of State Police v. Sitz (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michigan_Dept._of_State_Police_v._Sitz).
Though checkpoints are technically a violation of the Fourth Amendment, unless the good of the public outweighs the intrusion to the public. For instance, a murder suspect contained in a small area. They could legally check cars leaving that area. <-- I read up on this after I watched the Belfair video of the two guys detained.
Seems the police had every legal means to setup a checkpoint, stop, detain and search vehicles based on the search for a known dangerous suspect.
I am NOT in favor of random checkpoints by enforcement to check for DUI, dangerous suspects or tire chains but most times enforcement do these things because, in the instance of tire chains, some people are just to stupid to realize they cannot drive their vehicle in snow causing accidents or problems for everyone else and maybe killing themselves or someone else.
Could they have reacted a little less reckless based on a "tire chain" violation, most likely.
Additionally, this happened on federal property. What are the rules regarding checkpoints on federal property?