Leader

Collapse

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Police shortages, fitness standards relaxed

Collapse

300x250 Mobile

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • 2Z4
    replied
    Maybe "lowering the standards" isn't about an overall lack of fit people. Maybe all the fit people want to be fireman, make a ton of money, and work every fourth day and be loved by the public.

    I've been through a few police processes, and having recently relocated I am in the market again. Just for kicks I went to a testing process for the local FD, and saw plenty of fit candidates for those spots. Police testing, different story. Also, what's the point of having entry standards if they aren't in force the whole time you're a cop? I was one of the very few I know who in eight years on the department got into better shape. Almost everyone else went downhill, and fast.

    Leave a comment:


  • actionjackson
    replied
    Everyone thinks of the PT test in terms of "I may have to fight someone on the street and I need to be big and strong" etc....but the way I see it, it is more of a how bad do you want it thing. The problem with lowering PT standards isn't so much bad because it is going to let "not as in shape" guys/gals in but it is bad because it is allowing people that aren't willing to work their butt's off to acheive their goal. I don't believe that there is a PT test out there that is impossible if you just work towards it. You wanna be a cop? Well wake up every morning an hour early and go run. Seems to me this lowering of PT standards is a result of people getting lazier.

    I see some people writing about how they are able to do 75 push ups in 5 seconds or something...and thats cool....but what does that say about your character? Are you just naturally strong? or Are you committed to hitting the gym every morning to acheive your goals? Cause the bottom line is more often than not you won't be in a foot pursuit or a physical resisiting.

    Leave a comment:


  • chktovegas
    replied
    I don't really agree with lowering the physical standards. Alot of other strict requirements need to go. But even if people are able to pass the initial test, there is still no guarantee that their waists won't expand and they won't stay in shape. Believe me, I have seen so many that have passed the physical and just ballooned up after graduating the academy. I take pride myself. I have joined a gym which I attend 3 times a week. Plus, my agency rewards us with 3 hours of comp time/ week just for working out. Nothing but good benefits for taking care of myself. I understand that when you're married and have a family that it is very hard to keep up your physical fitness. There is also the factor of the joke of a wage we get paid and having to work part-times to make ends meet. My main motivation for staying in shape is that THIS IS MY LIFE ON THE LINE. When it comes down to getting physical with a subject, I want to have all the advantages.

    Leave a comment:


  • saintsfan71
    replied
    Originally posted by JSD73 View Post
    The 1.5 mile run, the sit and reach, the sit ups, all a waste of time in my book for a police officer.

    You want a physical "agility" test...you do the 1/4 mile run at 2 minutes or under, you can do the dummy drag, a wall jump, a car push but I will be (you know what) if Im gonna be in a foot pursuit for a mile and a half. That's what radios are for, that's what cars and perimeters are for. That stuff doesn't prove anything to me and again I find it pretty worthless in judging a police officer. Put an additional 20lbs of gear on the fast runners and see just how fast they really are.
    I completely agree with you there...i will not be the youngest one there (im 36), but i am still fit for my age. the 15 years i spent in the army kept me in pretty good shape. The Arlington PD explained to us exactly what you said when doing our PA test. we would never chase a person 1.5 miles with all that gear... we had to do a 160lb dummy drag, a obstacle course that consisted of a 3, 5, and 6 foot wall - 15 foot drainage tunnel - 25 foot in and out (to simulate a crowd) - had to be completed in 30 seconds, shotgun carry up a 30 foot ladder, trigger pull, and the most difficult - a 1/4 mile run with flights of stairs in between within 2:10 (i think it was worse than running the 1.5 mile).

    Leave a comment:


  • JSD73
    replied
    The 1.5 mile run, the sit and reach, the sit ups, all a waste of time in my book for a police officer.

    You want a physical "agility" test...you do the 1/4 mile run at 2 minutes or under, you can do the dummy drag, a wall jump, a car push but I will be (you know what) if Im gonna be in a foot pursuit for a mile and a half. That's what radios are for, that's what cars and perimeters are for. That stuff doesn't prove anything to me and again I find it pretty worthless in judging a police officer. Put an additional 20lbs of gear on the fast runners and see just how fast they really are.

    Leave a comment:


  • pc2761
    replied
    Originally posted by Mikis View Post
    I believe the 1.5 mile test is pretty good because it measures your endurance for decent amount of time. If you can run 1.5 miles in 10 minutes, that means your keeping up a high level of intensity, consistantly, for 10 minutes. When your in a knock down, drag out fight, that equals to a lot.

    Why a 1.5 mile? If its about endurance why not make all recruits complete a scheduled marathon before academy graduation? Not knocking those who set the standards for testing, but running a 1.5 mile is different from a good 2-3 minute foot pursuit with a 20lb weight belt, more than likely running in boots, jumping a fence, and trying to maintain radio communication...numerous sprints involving these i feel is A. equal test of endurance B. more law enforcement related. i would also add that for most people running distance is more mental than physical.

    Leave a comment:


  • wildestkabs
    replied
    Originally posted by Mikis View Post
    I believe the 1.5 mile test is pretty good because it measures your endurance for decent amount of time. If you can run 1.5 miles in 10 minutes, that means your keeping up a high level of intensity, consistantly, for 10 minutes. When your in a knock down, drag out fight, that equals to a lot.
    Absolutely spot on! I totally agree with you.

    Leave a comment:


  • wildestkabs
    replied
    Originally posted by Up_On_Base
    Dude, you gotta be kidding me. 1.5 miles in 15mins is HORRIBLE
    Hey Up_On_Base, LAPD asks you to do the same in 10 min 20 sec, not on the road but on a treadmill with varying incline and speed.

    I tried. Requires running between 7.5 - 8.5 miles per hour, right from the start.

    Not easy at all.

    Leave a comment:


  • Mikis
    replied
    I believe the 1.5 mile test is pretty good because it measures your endurance for decent amount of time. If you can run 1.5 miles in 10 minutes, that means your keeping up a high level of intensity, consistantly, for 10 minutes. When your in a knock down, drag out fight, that equals to a lot.

    Leave a comment:


  • bigj8550
    replied
    Why is 1.5 miles in 15mins not enough? 1.5 miles in 15 mins is a 10 min mile pace. That is pretty standard for a endurance run. Now for shorter distanaces sprints are in order. Current ILEA exit standards are for the 300m sprint in 71 seconds or less. So how does 1.5 at 15mins show that a person is out of shape?

    BTW last PT test I did was pass or fail I was exhausted and ready to go home. So was everyone else we all agreed just pass the test no racing so I finished next to last at 14:00 flat Last night I ran 1.5 miles in just a hair over 13
    Last edited by bigj8550; 06-22-2007, 12:56 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • pc2761
    replied
    Originally posted by Up_On_Base
    I don't think people are saying you should not be in LE, you obviously passed the PT test w/ no problem and seem squared away. I think lowering standards of the PT test is a problem.

    Example - 30 pushups to 15 pushups or 1.5 miles in 15 minutes. I am not saying if you can do 100 push-ups that make you a super cop but it gives a basic physical baseline to build from. You should be in shape before the academy not get in shape during.

    In my USSS class there were a few recruits who were disasters and did not graduate because of PT, it's an officer safety issue. I also think agencies need to put more emphasis on staying shape, some guys from my class now put on 30 lbs in 2 years and don't even get me started on some Sgt's/LT's.
    I'm sure im not alone however i've never understood why dpts use the 1.5 mile as a means of fitness for law enforcement. I've never seen a foot pursuit go 1.5 miles at at constant run. I would like to see them implement some type of sprint drills, for example 300meter sprint with a 10-15lb weight belt, involving fences, and other obstacles that one would encounter when in a chase

    Leave a comment:


  • wildestkabs
    replied
    Originally posted by pc2761 View Post
    "I can understand why fed agencies wouldnt hire LPR" because of sensitive information issues. Get a clue. are you going to sit here and tell us that someone who is a regular "beat" officer doesnt come across sensitive information, high profile individuals? The information might not be as n depth as it would be if handled by the FBI, but its important information, why do you think its so secured? Why do you think those triple III's and ncic hits are monitored by the FBI? It's not like they dont have enough already on their plate, and we're talking federal time if this access is mishandled. Why would they go through all of this? BECAUSE IT IS A SECURITY RISK, AND THEY ARE CONFIDENTIAL FILES.
    Totally understand what you mean. However, integrity is in the mind of the individual. Whats that got to do with the status?

    Also, when I meant security risks, I was talking more on the lines of national security and not just security. A citizenship requirement is understandable.

    Anyway, I am done with this discussion as it is a meaningless one. I am in no position to change the rules and neither are you, so why waste each other's time?
    Last edited by wildestkabs; 06-21-2007, 09:20 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Aco275RGR
    replied
    I'm sorry, but if you want to be a police officer / Sheriff deputy, you're going to deal with some people who are strong, fast, or both. I'm not LEO yet, but when i am, i do not want some crapbag sucking for air while i chase down some bonehead next to me...

    You guys should see the latest crop of LAPD officers. They're a damn joke, there is no way they would catch me if i ran, no way. It's a public safety issue, you cannot have physically incompetent officers on the street in my opinion.

    I know that just because some guy doesn't have popeye forearms and broad shoulders doesn't mean he is out of shape, i've seen some freaks of nature, but that is a small, small group.

    Leave a comment:


  • finfanfromcsu
    replied
    I want to speak a little on the "lowering of standards."

    To describe myself, I have a 46 inch waist and a 48 inch chest. I weigh around 240 pounds. Just so it is clear my Blood Pressure is 120/70 (I think) but my cholestrol is a LITTLE high (my doctor isn't concerned and I take NO medication)

    I maxed the PT agility test. I did my 35 push ups (I can do well into the 50's my highest ever in two minutes was 73 but that was two years ago). I did my situps and finshed 15 seconds early. I ran 1.5 miles in under 13 minutes (I was second to finish in my heat) and all around passed easily.

    While my waist isn't 50 inches like was mentioned previously in the post I am in excellent physical shape. Why shouldn't I be allowed in Law Enforcement. I can pass the agility test while candidates half my size (literally) were failing miserably.

    It is not lowering the standard to let unfit people in, it is allowing people of all shapes and sizes to serve. I will admit that if you can not pass a basic agility test there are some problems but if you can pass that and pass the physical, by all means give the person a badge.

    I am also prior military (military intel) and have a Bachelor's of Science degree in Psychology.

    Leave a comment:


  • pc2761
    replied
    Originally posted by pc2761 View Post
    Law enforcement boils down to who can do the job best. If it is a citizen, so be it, if it is an LPR, so be it. But I don't think you share that belief. "Only a citizen can arrest another citizen" IMO, is a poor mentality. I see it as an officer of the law who will arrest someone who violates the law. Besides, an LPR HAS VIRTUALLY the same employment rights that a citizen does, so why can that not be in law enforcement? If an LPR can be the CEO of a company, then why not a police officer?

    Now, I *CAN* understand if *FEDERAL AGENCIES* might not want to hire LPRs till they have naturalized. But this is because we are talking about a whole different level of law enforcement, which does entail some security risks, like handling confidential data or files, or intelligence information, which, understandably, people would not want somebody other than a citizen to handle. Like I said, that part is understandable.

    But when it comes down to traditional police work, then it merely boils down to who can be a good officer. There are quite a few states which don't have a citizenship requirement and I am sure their thought process would have been a little more broadminded than yours of "don't enforce the house rules against me even if I wrote them and then broke them." Wow!!



    Hey don't generalize. Don't forget that this country was built by immigrants. Thankfully, most Americans (that I know at least), don't have the negative attitude that you seem to have. All that they care for is that people who come to this country from other countries contribute positively towards the society and help this country grow.

    Besides if an LPR can dedicatedly follow all the laws, then why can he not enforce them?

    By the way, the army also accepts LPRs (I think the other services do as well). Actually, there are quite a few of them who are deployed and are fighting for this country right now. You have a problem with that as well?

    Peace.

    First that whole "LPR'S have VIRTUALLY the same employment rights", interesting choice of words. virtually= sort of, kinda, not really as much but almost.

    secondly that whole "I can understand why fed agencies wouldnt hire LPR" because of sensitive information issues. Get a clue. are you going to sit here and tell us that someone who is a regular "beat" officer doesnt come across sensitive information, high profile individuals? The information might not be as n depth as it would be if handled by the FBI, but its important information, why do you think its so secured? Why do you think those triple III's and ncic hits are monitored by the FBI? It's not like they dont have enough already on their plate, and we're talking federal time if this access is mishandled. Why would they go through all of this? BECAUSE IT IS A SECURITY RISK, AND THEY ARE CONFIDENTIAL FILES.[/QUOTE]

    Leave a comment:

MR300x250 Tablet

Collapse

What's Going On

Collapse

There are currently 5297 users online. 265 members and 5032 guests.

Most users ever online was 158,966 at 05:57 AM on 01-16-2021.

Welcome Ad

Collapse
Working...
X