Upset about this:

[flydream777]

A couple things I apparently need to clear up...

The purpose of my original post was as follows:

1) I have no problem with the idea of raising the maximum age for police applicants, however, young applicants should not be viewed as less desirable than anyone else, which is what the first quote suggests.

2) I do not think depts should lower their standards to generate a greater pool of applicants.

I think the "War on Drugs" might be exaggerated, so no, smoking weed when you're 16 should not necessarily DQ you from being a cop. Cocaine and ecstasy, on the other hand, should. And still, I would not want to work alongside an ex-gang member as the police. Period.

pf217: Did you misread my post?

[pf217]

No, I didn't. In fact, I quoted it answer for answer to make sure that I didn't. I also referred to your post several times while posting my own. Did you expect everyone to have your back on this?

[flydream777]

No, I didnt expect everyone to side with me.

But Pf217, I dont understand what you are disagreeing with. I have no idea what you were inferring about the "i pay your salary" comment. Of course I dont think like that, or else why would i want to be a cop? Thats not even close to what I said. I said that young applicants can be just as qualified as older ones. I owe my dept. I know they do not owe me. What I owe to them is to learn as much as I can and be the best officer I can be. I'm sorry if any of my sarcasm in the original post caused my statements to be misconstrued.

Let me PM you to clear things up, if need be.

[pf217]

The salary comment is in reference to the comment off you topping out 500 applicants. It's just a "Holier than Thou" approach that I can't stand.

[flydream777]

I'm really sorry. I totally didnt mean to come off that way. I'll be more careful next time.

...and no, i don't have big biceps

[Fëanor]

2) I do not think depts should lower their standards to generate a greater pool of applicants.

Ideally, no. But it has to happen. You cannot have an un-policed community while you sit back and say "Nope, you're not qualified."

[michiganDT]

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.

First of all, if he lost 35% of his brain functioning, it would be OBVIOUS and he would not get hired. And I don't mean someone who has been in jail for many years, or accused of serious crimes, but if they are minor crimes then big deal.

The marijuana thing was a handful of times and at the time I had no idea I wanted to be a cop, or that that kind of thing would stop me from being one. As far as my alcohol use, all of you that are officers, you did not drink when you were younger??

[scratched13]

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.

I am in that catagory. While I drink occasionaly (6 plus minus times a year), I haven't smoked pot in a LLLLOOOOOOONNNNNGGGGGGGG time. Ever since I had a job that required a test. Would I do it again were it legalized and wasn't a job requirement not to? No.

But this type of attitude in the hiring ranks cuts out TOO many great applicants. And most of those entering are not the generations greatest. I am not saying excuse ALL drug/alcohol use ..... but reasonable is reasonable. I guess this hits home with me, because I never thought that I would make it into LE, but I was given "a chance" and I consider myself a very hard worker who tries his best and CARES about my city. You would rather have a couch potato fat blob who never left his mamma's side with a clean history????

[Redders]

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.

As I said be more specific. What do you consider to be a law enforcement employable ex-criminal or ex-drug user? List the offense's that you consider to not affect status.

[rbeck712]

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.

Damn dude... I hate to come out swinging, but were you one of those kids that got their *** kicked everyday in high school? Who are you to be judging people based on what they did when they were kids? Just because you drink here and there or smoke pot a couple of times doesn't mean you are a bad person or not good enough by your standards to be a cop.

I think that there are a lot of people around here that need to remember that the badge you wear does not give you the right to place yourself above anyone... It gives you the privilege to serve your fellow citizen. I know that this is a serious job, but remember we follow a set of rules, we don't make up our own based on our thoughts of whats right and whats wrong.

And ChrisF, I think if you were out on your prom night instead of spanking it in the bathroom to the victoria's secret catalog, you might just have a little insight that not all kids who make mistakes grow up to be bad people.

[Stewie]

Damn dude... I hate to come out swinging, but were you one of those kids that got their *** kicked everyday in high school? Who are you to be judging people based on what they did when they were kids? Just because you drink here and there or smoke pot a couple of times doesn't mean you are a bad person or not good enough by your standards to be a cop.

I think that there are a lot of people around here that need to remember that the badge you wear does not give you the right to place yourself above anyone... It gives you the privilege to serve your fellow citizen. I know that this is a serious job, but remember we follow a set of rules, we don't make up our own based on our thoughts of whats right and whats wrong.

And ChrisF, I think if you were out on your prom night instead of spanking it in the bathroom to the victoria's secret catalog, you might just have a little insight that not all kids who make mistakes grow up to be bad people.

Ouch

[katzeyze]

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.

You'll be quite happy to learn that the fine folks at many of the agencies here in Arizona tend to be of the same mindset.

My husband, who is 38 years old now, has been disqualified from at least six agencies because of something very close to this. When I first met him he had long hair, had just stepped down from played guitar in a heavy metal band (not a garage band either, but one that had been signed by a major recording label), and was 23 years old. Did he know THEN that he wanted to be a cop? No, he thought he was going to the next Eddie Van Halen. Did he live the "rock star" life? Sadly, the answer if "of course". Now fast forward to 2007.

In the 15 years that I have been with him he has never so much as even inhaled deeply through his nose when walking by a group smoking pot a concert. He no longer even smokes cigarettes. His whole criminal history includes fishing without a license when he was a minor a possession of paraphernalia from 1988.

It is very frustrating to me, as his wife, because I see both sides of the argument. Yes, you want officers to have integrity and honesty. I get that and support that. However, can't someone who made a mistake when they were young (and has since changed their whole lifestyle) be given some form a second chance? On the plus side, I do use my husbands experience as an example though to my 10 year-old niece (and will use it with my children when they get older) to impress upon her how the choices she makes today can impact her decisions and options in the future.

[djack16]

They disqualify for crimes of moral turpitude at most departments don't they? Marijuana experimentation when young? I didn't do it but I can imagine some good cops that made mistakes as kids. The big kicker there is it's because it's a "drug."
Chris, you are making many assumptions about underage drinkers. Some of that may be spot on but you cannot lump them all together. Fake ID's. That's moral turpitude area IMO. Some people have drank since before they were teenagers because their families introduced it to them as a normal thing. Now if there was alcohol ABUSE involved I certainly think it's relevant.

I just don't really see safe underage drinking or experimentation with marijuana as depraved acts. There are good cops out there that have done both, some of which I had the privilege of being instructed by.

[djack16]

I also want to add. People change drastically over the years. It doesn't take a lifetime's worth of experience to know this either. Look at some of your heroes, mentors, and role models. They are assured to have flaws. Sometimes serious flaws. Everybody has skeletons in the closet. Your pastor, doctor, politicians, police officers, politicians, and also did I mention politicians :P.

[Future_Cadet]

Ideally, no. But it has to happen. You cannot have an un-policed community while you sit back and say "Nope, you're not qualified."

There are many departments I know of in Texas doing this very thing. News stories all the time about how desperately they need officers, but yet they have an 80% rejection rate. I know of 3 departments off the top of my head that are doing this. Before anyone asks, no I have not been rejected by any departments so I am not saying this out of spite.



As for the lax standards, I think relaxing the age requirement is a very good thing. I honestly believe in any situation you need rookies and vets. Different modes of thinking lead to better problem solving.

The drug standards are fine the way they are, IMO. If a guy smoked pot a couple times in high school he still has a chance, but if he did pretty much any other drug he is screwed. Everyone experiments, but there is a fine line between experimentation and use.

As for the gang involvement, I think those guys could help a police department, just not as officers. Maybe hire them to help the gang interdiction unit, or to simply be a familiar face in the neighborhoods. I believe giving them guns and authority would be a huge mistake.

Just my $0.02