Leader

Collapse

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Disqualifying factors

Collapse

300x250 Mobile

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

  • Disqualifying factors

    Given the cost and time involved in filtering out candidates, why don’t police and corrections departments make the list of disqualifiers more reflective of where they really stand? In other words, most I see say a felony conviction within last 10 years or drug use in last 10 is disqualifying or something to this effect. But reading this forum leads me to believe this is mendacious information and really any felony arrest (never mind conviction) or narcotic use in one’s life at any time is disqualifying. So why waste time and resources on these candidates?’Why not a more transparent list of disqualifying factors?

  • #2
    Originally posted by Starks11 View Post
    Given the cost and time involved in filtering out candidates, why don’t police and corrections departments make the list of disqualifiers more reflective of where they really stand? In other words, most I see say a felony conviction within last 10 years or drug use in last 10 is disqualifying or something to this effect. But reading this forum leads me to believe this is mendacious information and really any felony arrest (never mind conviction) or narcotic use in one’s life at any time is disqualifying. So why waste time and resources on these candidates?’Why not a more transparent list of disqualifying factors?
    Why don't you ask them...

    Comment


    • #3
      Was your pot arrest a felony?

      Comment


      • #4
        No and it has not come up as an issue. But I just applied to a other place as well and the list is the same sort of stuff: 10 years for this or that. My one arrest ended as nolle prosequi.
        How is New Orleans Police regarding such matters, anyone know?

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by Starks11 View Post
          Given the cost and time involved in filtering out candidates, why don’t police and corrections departments make the list of disqualifiers more reflective of where they really stand? In other words, most I see say a felony conviction within last 10 years or drug use in last 10 is disqualifying or something to this effect. But reading this forum leads me to believe this is mendacious information and really any felony arrest (never mind conviction) or narcotic use in one’s life at any time is disqualifying. So why waste time and resources on these candidates?’Why not a more transparent list of disqualifying factors?
          Because there are hard disqualification and permissive disqualification.

          99.99% of the LE agencies in the United States will not hire a cop if they have a felony conviction. Period.
          They MIGHT look at a felony ARREST as to the specifics of the arrest & disposition of that case before deciding if the person fits the profile of what they are looking for in an officer.

          Drug use disqualification is fluid. It is all depending on the laws of the state, temperature of the climate in the hiring area and recent court cases

          The bottom line is that a LE or Corrections agency is wanting to hire someone that they can trust to
          #1 Follow rules
          #2 Enforce the law
          #3 Represent the agency in the public
          #4 Conduct their business with little direct supervision

          In order to best serve the agency it is so much better to hire people who do not have the history of breaking laws since it is a proven fact that past history is predictive of future history. Yep, people can change.....................but quite honestly there is no police chief, sheriff , or agency head that wants to be the guy/gal who hires the next Drew Peterson
          Since some people need to be told by notes in crayon .......Don't PM me with without prior permission. If you can't discuss the situation in the open forum ----it must not be that important

          My new word for the day is FOCUS, when someone irritates you tell them to FOCUS

          Comment


          • Aidokea
            Aidokea commented
            Editing a comment
            Yup.

            Liability, liability, liability...

        • #6
          Because LE isn't Burger King. Just because a candidate meets the minimum standards set by the department doesn't mean that they get the job. "Automatic DQ's" or "minimum standards" indicate a lowest baseline for hiring, not a hiring standard. Most candidates exceed those particular "minimum standards" by a significant margin, so you're now comparing qualifications above and beyond. This isn't a lack of transparency.
          "He who fights with monsters might take care lest he thereby become a monster. And if you gaze for long into an abyss, the abyss gazes also into you."
          -Friedrich Nietzsche

          Comment


          • Aidokea
            Aidokea commented
            Editing a comment
            Yup.

            For example, I think the standard for the 1.5 mile run for us was something ridiculous, like 16 minutes. There were people that applied that actually thought that was all they had to do to get hired. I did it in 9:28, and there were only two others that graduated from my class that were slower. The applicants that could barely make the standard, were all gone by the end of our first day of PT.

        • #7
          You keep bringing up the fact that you were not prosecuted for your drug crime, as if that is supposed to mean something to us. It does not.

          It is the offense that you committed, that is the problem.

          And since you still haven't given us the fact pattern that led to your drug arrest, we have no idea how big of a problem it is.

          Comment


          • #8
            No offense was committed. Evidence was planted or perhaps didn’t even exist.

            Comment


            • #9
              Originally posted by Starks11 View Post
              No offense was committed. Evidence was planted or perhaps didn’t even exist.
              You're not gonna make it in law enforcement...

              Comment


              • #10
                We shall see, I’ll keep you posted!

                Comment


                • #11
                  Originally posted by Starks11 View Post
                  No offense was committed. Evidence was planted or perhaps didn’t even exist.
                  Yeah... sure.

                  Comment


                  • Aidokea
                    Aidokea commented
                    Editing a comment
                    Sounds like the old "These aren't my pants!" defense...

                • #12
                  Originally posted by Starks11 View Post
                  We shall see, I’ll keep you posted!
                  Don’t bother. It won’t be the truth anyway.

                  Comment


                  • #13
                    Ya because ALL cops tell the truth ALL the time and ALL arrests have integrity. And NO cop has committed perjury. What a joke

                    Comment


                    • #14
                      Originally posted by Starks11 View Post
                      Ya because ALL cops tell the truth ALL the time and ALL arrests have integrity. And NO cop has committed perjury. What a joke
                      We met the standards. You don't.

                      Comment


                      • #15
                        Originally posted by Iowa #1603 View Post
                        The bottom line is that a LE or Corrections agency is wanting to hire someone that they can trust to
                        #1 Follow rules
                        #2 Enforce the law
                        #3 Represent the agency in the public
                        #4 Conduct their business with little direct supervision
                        Agree with the above, and would add

                        #5 Be a credible witness in court.

                        The testimony of an officer with a criminal history of their own is easily impeachable. Any decent defense attorney will bring up an officer's past offenses in order to attack their credibility. This might very well make the difference between a conviction and an acquittal.

                        Comment


                        • Iowa #1603
                          Iowa #1603 commented
                          Editing a comment
                          Absolutely

                      MR300x250 Tablet

                      Collapse

                      What's Going On

                      Collapse

                      There are currently 2973 users online. 175 members and 2798 guests.

                      Most users ever online was 158,966 at 04:57 AM on 01-16-2021.

                      Welcome Ad

                      Collapse
                      Working...
                      X