Vision Qualifications

[That Guy]

In my dept vision must be correctable to 20/20. There is no limit on how bad it is, only that it can be corrected.
I notice a few agencies require that the applicant MUST not be 20/40 or higher even if it is correctable.
I think thats a load of BS. I can understand not being able to correct it.
The arguement I am sure is what if your contacts or glasses get knocked off during a fight.
My sight was too bad to be able to join the military but ok for police work. Since then I have had PRK(another story ).

Feed back anyone?

[InSane1]

If you can see this clearly, your okay here.

LPD Squad

teeheeheehee.... *sorry piper, I couldn't help myself*

[ 12-10-2002, 04:16 AM: Message edited by: InSane1 ]

[KCadet]

Yeah, I know what you mean. I don't meet vision requirements by a long shot. Has to be uncorrected 20/40. I'm not even close...

[IPDBrad]

I think plenty of people lacking the right level of people skills make on, even with perfect "vision". I have very bad uncorrected vision but met the departments requirement. I have had a contact knocked out in a fight. I still came out on top. I think it is a concern, but I don't think it should stop a department from hiring an officer. I carry an extra set of contacts and some saline. A good dose of CS/OC can have a worse effect than a loss of a contact.

[Delta_V]

I think it's BS too. As someone with less than stellar vision, I've noticed that the vast majority of departments out there do not have uncorrected vision requirements (at least if the person wears soft contacts). The major exception to this rule seems to be with the feds.

I played football and basketball in high school, and never once had a soft contact come out. I can understand where you would want an officer who wears glasses to have good uncorrected vision, since they have more of a propensity to be knocked off. Soft contacts on the other hand should not fall out except in rare circumstances.

I really don't see how some departments can get away with still having uncorrected vision requirements. It seems to me that it would make a very good ADA lawsuit, since the majority of departments do not have these requirements and their officers do the job just fine. I don't see how a department could argue that uncorrected requiremets are necessary when there are a great many officers on the job with bad vision who can do the job just as well as officers with perfect vision.

[Bob A]

The whole thing is stupid.

When I was being released from active duty, I went to the job fair on the base (Camp Lejeune) and applied for the NCHP. I went through the entire process and thought I was going to be hired, but instead got a letter requesting "clarification" with respect to my vision.

Their standard was 20/80 uncorrected, in either eye. Mine was 20/20 with both eyes open, 20/10 right eye, and 20/100 in my left eye. Who runs around with only one eye open?

Needless to say, after a lot of trouble, I sent a copy of my medical records, and promptly got back a letter telling me I didn't meet the standard.

Wearing glasses made my vision worse. The doc tells me that it's because the eyes become dependant on them. Since I stopped wearing them, I can see better than most people who meet the standard, as long as both eyes are open.

If my one eye is all I have, how is that any worse than guy who wears glasses and gets them knocked off?

[209]

I know of one case where a guy who was blind in one eye from birth managed to get into the Marine Corps (through sleight of hand- or in this case sleight of eye). Once he made it thru the initial physical and was in, he fell under a regulation that a loss of vision was OK. Since his initial physical said he had 20/100 in that eye, they allowed him to stay in. He ended up serving twenty years in the military. And he is now a LEO. I don’t know that his vision has slowed him down or has been a hindrance to his job performance.

That said, there are some departments that don’t have minimum sight requirements. But they are hard to find.