Upset about this:

[flydream777]

Excuse me, I am just a little bit PERTURBED:

I just read the article on this website's front page entitled, "Police Departments Relaxing Age, Fitness Standards."

I hope I'm not the only one mad about it.
And I quote:

"Being well-rounded, having some life experience, makes for a better person and patrolman - someone who is coming up on a conflict who is mature and measured, as opposed to some young kid right out of school."
---I guess I am one of those 'young kids right out of school' and I'd like to think that because I am getting hired on an extremely desirable and competitive department on the list in the top 10 out of 500 applicants, not ever having been a sworn officer, that I have what it takes to be a good officer and not be judged because I am young. I am green and will have a lot to learn about being a cop, but my personal integrity and high standards make me very well qualified. Maybe someone should write an article about how police depts should look for younger, more educated, moldable candidates instead of the book-stupid, dumb*****es like the guy that made that commentary above.

Secondly: "Oakland, Calif., is no longer disqualifying applicants for minor, long-ago drug convictions or gang involvement."
--- Prior gang involvement??? Are you kidding me??? I wouldn't want to work as a police officer alongside anyone who's an ex-banger, no matter how long ago it was.....

And thirdly: "In Alaska, Juneau Police Lt. Kris Sell said that because of rising obesity among Americans, recruits included, the department recently relaxed its fitness requirements."-"It's different now for the kids. There's a lot of drugs out there," said Fort Myers Maj. Glenn Johnson. "I'd hate to rule them out because of that."
---OK, this is great... the kids these days, they can't resist an occasional trip on ecstasy or a snort of cocaine, who says they can't be cops in a couple years? And yeah, you see all the fat people in America these days. Not enough personal responsibility to take care of themselves, can't perform any physical activity, great for sitting in cars all day long. Wow, these make great candidates to represent our cities, counties, and states. It's nice that we're responding to a problem like obesity by lowering our standards. And we wonder why people around the world perceive Americans as they do........

Please don't tell me that I'm the only one upset by this.

[Ten Six]

Whats wrong with relaxing the age restriction? There are a lot 40 year olds that another good 20 years in them. What about people retiring from the service?

[michiganDT]

I sort of agree, I mean how are we going to chase around criminals if we are out of shape? As for prior convictions and so forth, I really don't see any of that to be a problem. I honestly would not care if I was working with an ex-criminal (he may be able to pick up on things I wouldn't) or an ex drug user. I mean let's put it this way, if they passed the physical and the psych exam, they are obviously changed people. Why punish people for their past? What about the squeaky clean cop? Everyone who has a record was clean at some point. I am not trying to argue myself in, other than trying pot a handful of times and underage drinking every other month, I really don't think I have a whole lot against me. Should squeaky clean guys get first priority? Sure, but why rule out someone just because they have made mistakes?

[scratched13]

I think some age on a cop isn't a bad thing. The drug use shouldn't be an automatic disqualifier - as long as it was not extensive. I have a BIG problem with the relaxing of the physical standards.

[Ten Six]

I sort of agree, I mean how are we going to chase around criminals if we are out of shape? As for prior convictions and so forth, I really don't see any of that to be a problem. I honestly would not care if I was working with an ex-criminal (he may be able to pick up on things I wouldn't) or an ex drug user. I mean let's put it this way, if they passed the physical and the psych exam, they are obviously changed people. Why punish people for their past? What about the squeaky clean cop? Everyone who has a record was clean at some point. I am not trying to argue myself in, other than trying pot a handful of times and underage drinking every other month, I really don't think I have a whole lot against me. Should squeaky clean guys get first priority? Sure, but why rule out someone just because they have made mistakes?

Smoking pot a few times and illegally consuming alcohol on a regular basis are not mistakes. Those are cognizant acts that could (and probably will) result in detrimental consequences. You can’t deliberately violate the law and anticipate that a PD to over look your indiscretions.

[irishdep]

I sort of agree, I mean how are we going to chase around criminals if we are out of shape? As for prior convictions and so forth, I really don't see any of that to be a problem. I honestly would not care if I was working with an ex-criminal (he may be able to pick up on things I wouldn't) or an ex drug user. I mean let's put it this way, if they passed the physical and the psych exam, they are obviously changed people. Why punish people for their past? What about the squeaky clean cop? Everyone who has a record was clean at some point. I am not trying to argue myself in, other than trying pot a handful of times and underage drinking every other month, I really don't think I have a whole lot against me. Should squeaky clean guys get first priority? Sure, but why rule out someone just because they have made mistakes?

WTF? You don't see any problem with an "ex-criminal or ex-drug user" becoming a police officer? Just because they can pass a physical and a psych eval you think they should be allowed to police officers? Take your head out of the sand for a minute. There is a lot more to being a police officer than that. There are things like INTEGRITY and HONESTY. Criminals and drug users NEED NOT APPLY!

[grog18b]

Agree 110%.

[Redders]

I sort of agree, I mean how are we going to chase around criminals if we are out of shape? As for prior convictions and so forth, I really don't see any of that to be a problem. I honestly would not care if I was working with an ex-criminal (he may be able to pick up on things I wouldn't) or an ex drug user. I mean let's put it this way, if they passed the physical and the psych exam, they are obviously changed people. Why punish people for their past? What about the squeaky clean cop? Everyone who has a record was clean at some point. I am not trying to argue myself in, other than trying pot a handful of times and underage drinking every other month, I really don't think I have a whole lot against me. Should squeaky clean guys get first priority? Sure, but why rule out someone just because they have made mistakes?

You should probably be a bit more specific when you make these statements. I don't think that you would be comfortable working next to a guy that spent 10 - 20 for robbery and has a damn tear drop tattoo under his left eye, nor would you want to work next to the "recovering" crank addict since studies have shown that after extensive use of crank your brain lose's up to 35% of its functioning ability. Good lord.

I'd take a fatty fat pants over a frickin con or a junkie any day.

[malka881]

I suppose it depends on which standards-

Relaxing the age requirement doesn't bother me as long as the person can do the job- Take the best person whether they're 17 or 70, I don't care. Same for uncorrected vision requirements, gender, height, and any other physical traits.

A couple of nonviolent juvenile offenses don't bother me much either- I've never been into breaking the law, but I sure did plenty of other stupid things at that age. Far be it from me to judge as long as the person has cleaned up their act.

Violent acts or repeat offenses are a different matter. For the former, there is such a thing as redemption, but it's very rare. Those who seek it can find it in other professions. For the latter- Once is an incident, twice is a coincident, three times is a pattern of behavior. And not one we need in such a key position.

[Blatant]

Original poster: Congrats on getting hired. Now, while you're in training, start developing a thicker skin. If you're bothered enough to create a new topic based on something you disagree with on the Internet, I'd hate to see what happens to you in real life on the street.

Here's the truth: No matter how much you appear to be built for this job, no matter how book smart, fit and how well you do in the Academy, the only way to know if you're really cut out to be a cop is to get out there and do the job. That's where the iron meets the fire. Good luck.
d

[Fëanor]

Original poster: Congrats on getting hired. Now, while you're in training, start developing a thicker skin. If you're bothered enough to create a new topic based on something you disagree with on the Internet, I'd hate to see what happens to you in real life on the street.

Posting a thread online in response to an online news article is a pretty appropriate response. It's not really an overreaction to do something as drastic as clicking on the "New Thread" button.

I guess I am one of those 'young kids right out of school' and I'd like to think that because I am getting hired on an extremely desirable and competitive department on the list in the top 10 out of 500 applicants, not ever having been a sworn officer, that I have what it takes to be a good officer and not be judged because I am young. I am green and will have a lot to learn about being a cop, but my personal integrity and high standards make me very well qualified. Maybe someone should write an article about how police depts should look for younger, more educated, moldable candidates instead of the book-stupid, dumb*****es like the guy that made that commentary above.

You could be in the top 10 out of 500 million applicants. It still wouldn't mean squat about how good of a cop you will make. They didn't say that young people couldn't be cops. They said that old people benefit from all the different experiences they have had, and they apply that experience to their policework.

Secondly: "Oakland, Calif., is no longer disqualifying applicants for minor, long-ago drug convictions or gang involvement."
--- Prior gang involvement??? Are you kidding me??? I wouldn't want to work as a police officer alongside anyone who's an ex-banger, no matter how long ago it was.....

I don't know if you have ever been in a poorer neighborhood in Oakland, but in some places it's hard to find a kid who isn't a gang member, because a kid can barely survive without joining a gang. Althought it might, it doesn't necessarily make them a "banger" doing drive-by shootings and smoking crack. But it does give them a lot of insight into the way a gang member's mind works, which can be useful to them as a cop.

I kinda agree with you on the physical fitness issue, I don't see the benefit of hiring the fatties (like myself) who actually WOULD sit in their squad car all day munching donuts and chugging coffee.

[ChrisF202]

Dropping the age requirement I can see; 40 is the new 20 as the saying goes and people are living longer and staying in shape longer.

As for overlooking criminal backgrounds, anyone who as much as smoked pot more then once or twice or drank under 21 on more then an occasional basis should be automatically rejected. People who drink under 21 these days are not doing it on social occasions and the party here and there they are doing it EACH AND EVERY night and god forbid they miss a single night of drinking, you would think the world would end if they had to miss a single night of sneaking into bars and nightclubs with fake IDs. Take it from someone who is in that age group.

[ChiTownDet]

MichiganDT,If you're talking someone who may have been in a few fights, maybe an underage drinking ticket, or a disorderly conduct, you don't need those experiences to "spot" a bad guy. If you mean the "x" stick-up man, burglar, auto theif, or gun toting ,hit man, gang banger, you need some "life experience," or change that Major from CJ to Social Work..

[deputy x 2]

Secondly: "Oakland, Calif., is no longer disqualifying applicants for minor, long-ago drug convictions or gang involvement."
--- Prior gang involvement??? Are you kidding me??? I wouldn't want to work as a police officer alongside anyone who's an ex-banger, no matter how long ago it was.....
Please don't tell me that I'm the only one upset by this.

Sadly this is happening everywhere. Glad I'm almost done.

Gang bangers have tried to inflitrate agencies in the past. Hell we had one but was "outed" after he spent too much time conversing with several known validated members who were incustody.

Finding qualified applicants have dried up. Qualifications have been lowered to basically anyone who has a heartbeat. Upset, yeah but it's a battle we can't conquer.

I take pride in what I do for a living, I guess I am old school and still believe in integrity. Just watch your back and rely on yourself. Kind of a bad attitude but call it survival instincts.

[pf217]

Excuse me, I am just a little bit PERTURBED:

I just read the article on this website's front page entitled, "Police Departments Relaxing Age, Fitness Standards."

I hope I'm not the only one mad about it.
And I quote:

"Being well-rounded, having some life experience, makes for a better person and patrolman - someone who is coming up on a conflict who is mature and measured, as opposed to some young kid right out of school."
---I guess I am one of those 'young kids right out of school' and I'd like to think that because I am getting hired on an extremely desirable and competitive department on the list in the top 10 out of 500 applicants, not ever having been a sworn officer, that I have what it takes to be a good officer and not be judged because I am young. I am green and will have a lot to learn about being a cop, but my personal integrity and high standards make me very well qualified. Maybe someone should write an article about how police depts should look for younger, more educated, moldable candidates instead of the book-stupid, dumb*****es like the guy that made that commentary above.

First of all, I hate the list comment. The "I made #9 out of 500 applicants" comment is like the "I pay your salary!" comment. That Department doesn't owe you anything. Not even a job if you made the top of the list.

Secondly, I don't think the original post was directed right at you, obviously. No one is judging you or stereotyping you. If anything, you threw yourself into the stereotype by defending it and insulting the original poster.

Third, he used a word of comparison: "Better". You said it yourself, you have a lot to learn. So think, in 10 years when you have all this experience, won't you be..."better"...at the job? And then you'll still beat out the 35 year old who only has life experience, and no police work experience.

Secondly: "Oakland, Calif., is no longer disqualifying applicants for minor, long-ago drug convictions or gang involvement."
--- Prior gang involvement??? Are you kidding me??? I wouldn't want to work as a police officer alongside anyone who's an ex-banger, no matter how long ago it was.....

Do a survey of each department in the country. You'd be hard pressed to find a department where more Officers have not smoked weed than have. And maybe you would want to work beside an ex-gang member since he knows how to talk to a gang member, whereas you have to reference your gang manual to even see if the guy on the corner is a GD or King.

And thirdly: "In Alaska, Juneau Police Lt. Kris Sell said that because of rising obesity among Americans, recruits included, the department recently relaxed its fitness requirements."-"It's different now for the kids. There's a lot of drugs out there," said Fort Myers Maj. Glenn Johnson. "I'd hate to rule them out because of that."
---OK, this is great... the kids these days, they can't resist an occasional trip on ecstasy or a snort of cocaine, who says they can't be cops in a couple years? And yeah, you see all the fat people in America these days. Not enough personal responsibility to take care of themselves, can't perform any physical activity, great for sitting in cars all day long. Wow, these make great candidates to represent our cities, counties, and states. It's nice that we're responding to a problem like obesity by lowering our standards. And we wonder why people around the world perceive Americans as they do........

Please don't tell me that I'm the only one upset by this.

No one does coke every other week. You're either on it or you're not. And if you are, it's reflected in your tests, not only the **** test. You won't get hired if you're a coke head. I smoked weed quite a few times before I applied. You should call my bosses and tell them that. Wait, they know. And I'm still a damn good cop.

Fat or not, Departments are going to try to hire the best cops they can. I'm 5'11'', 175 and willing to fight one on one with most people I run into on the street. That doesn't mean I can interview as well as "Officer Fatso" or have testified in a felony prelim as many times as "Officer Lardass." Almost everyone who is in this job has a place in this job. The ones who don't, they usually fall out.

Step out of your circle of anger for a minute. Look at the big picture. It's not all about big biceps under creased shirts. There's a job to do. And it has to be done right or someone gets seriously hurt. Every time.