Women, Affirmative Action, Law Enforcement

T

tjhands

New member
I was watching Fox News last evening - either O'Reilly Factor or Hannity&Colmes - and they had a blurb about the possibility of Affirmative Action policies undermining the law enforcement profession. Specifically, when they hire females to reach a quota who, due to their generally small statures and inferior physical strength, can't defend themselves against large, powerful criminals. Your thoughts on this?

Personally, I feel that across the board it's wrong to lower the bar of standards to simply fill Affirmative Action quotas. This type of liberalism puts us all in danger.
 
They are trying to make the issue about women but the issue is really about being fit for a certain job. Affirmative Action does undermine this simple capitalistic principle. It doesn't matter if it's a man or a woman, if they are 110 lbs they are going to have serious difficulty restraining a 300lb hardened criminal no doubts. Same goes with hiring a less-qualified individual for a job because they are a minority.
 
Not all male officers are able to defend themselves against all male criminals, either.

I know several small women whom I would never, under any circumstances, attempt to get physical with, as I know they could soundly kick my ass.
 
Not all male officers are able to defend themselves against all male criminals, either.

I know several small women whom I would never, under any circumstances, attempt to get physical with, as I know they could soundly kick my ass.
Click to expand...

So what? Yes, some women can do the job, and some men can't. The point is no company, or department, or organization should be forced to hire minorities, women, homosexuals, or whatever in order to meet a quota. Jobs and promotions should be given based on merit, regardless of your sexuality, gender, skin color, religion, etc. Affirmative action is racist, and sexist.
 
The biggest problem with the question of "WHO?" is "QUALIFIED" for a particular position is incumbent upon what type of qualifications you determine are necessary for that position.

In the past a large number of positions required that the applicant must meet some particular racial and/or religious position. Fortunately, in this country at least, those types of qualifications have been removed from jobs. That they are still in place in certain jobs is more in relation to the particular job. Like why the female Wiccan cannot get the position as a Catholic priest or the overweight(obese?), hairy, male cannot get a position as a Rockette.

When organizations can come up with clear justifications and reasons for the qualifications that are attached to a particular job they should have no problem with filling the positions with the best people available and have little worry about legal problems. Fortunately, I do not believe that most organizations management is up to providing clear justifications and reasons for job qualification and so the many dregs of society that belong to the Bar will stay occupied in fruitless endeavours.
 
Good points, all.

Yes, I say that the physical fitness test should dictate who stays in the running to get hired and who does not. Man, woman, black, white, whatever....if you can run this course, do X number of pullups, pushups, hit the paper with a 9mm at this distance, or whatever, you qualify so far. I'm sure there's a lot more to do, but the point is that if you have ONE test for ALL people, then you can be sure that your street force is of the same physical caliber.

I'm all for hiring women into jobs like these. In fact, I think in certain high-stress situations, women handle the stress better than men do. I just ask, and would insist if I were in charge, that they be able to pass the same exact fitness test that men do.
 
Apparently, according to the other guy in the other thread you started, in GA, you don't have to fight anyone, you can just shoot them. So why should physical size play any part at all in hiring?

Personally, I feel that across the board it's wrong to lower the bar of standards to simply fill Affirmative Action quotas. This type of liberalism puts us all in danger.
Click to expand...

When they raise the bar to the level that only people who can read and write comprehensively can get over, then they can raise the bar for physical fitness. Both bars were lowered a long time ago.
 
Frank,

Yep, I agree. Cops (should) need to be able to pass non-physical tests as well. I don't want to hear a cop talking ghetto-talk or otherwise acting like some punk off the streets, but until cops make more money at their job, how do you recruit upstanding, college-educated people into that profession?

As to the thread on the Tactics board....... :D Come on now, that was one very specific scenario: a big guy coming at a cop saying he's gonna kick his apple. Cops have to restrain people who are trying to run away, etc....that's what they need physical strength for.
 
As to the thread on the Tactics board....... Come on now, that was one very specific scenario: a big guy coming at a cop saying he's gonna kick his apple. Cops have to restrain people who are trying to run away, etc....that's what they need physical strength for.
Click to expand...

What's the difference between shooting someone who says they're going to kick your ass and then doesn't stop walking towards you when you tell him to and shooting the guy who fights with you after you catch him running away? I've chased down a lot of felons, and a lot of them fought after being caught....If I'd have shot every one of the ones who were bigger than me, or may have been able to break my nose or blacken an eye, I would have been retired or sent to prison. I'm not sure that you should be talking about physical standards for women if you can't throw down with a scumbag without having to shoot him.
 
Frank, I'm not a cop. I'm not going to be shooting anyone or trying to cuff anyone. Seemed like you were talking to me personally. I'm just starting what are meant to be thought-provoking threads here.

I hear your point in the above post, but I see the difference as follows:

In the first situation (BG approaching cop saying he's gonna kick his apple), the intent is verbalized and the target is the cop DIRECTLY. A person who puts up a scuffle after being chased down for stealing hubcaps should not be treated to ice cream and a Happy Meal, but they shouldn't be shot. They're usually just trying to get away, right? I mean seriously, I'm not a cop so I don't know. Are those guys really trying to kick your ass, or are they just trying to distract you enough to be on the run again? I guess that's where I see a difference: the first guy genuinely wants to kick the holy hell out of you, stopping only when you are a lump of unmoving flesh on the ground. The second guy just wants to beat feet outta there. Correct me if I'm wrong......as you know, it's been known to happen. :o
 
When I was in the academy a couple decades ago, one of my use-of-force instructors once said: "Sometimes you're just going to get your ass kicked." I guess things have changed quite a bit.
 
No, things haven't necessarily changed. I'm just a non-LEO sitting here mulling and pondering. I'm speaking more of what the law SHOULD be....not necessarily what the law IS. You're the expert there, and I don't at all doubt what you say in regards to the law.
 
The point is no company, or department, or organization should be forced to hire minorities, women, homosexuals, or whatever in order to meet a quota. Jobs and promotions should be given based on merit, regardless of your sexuality, gender, skin color, religion, etc.
Click to expand...

+1 on that


Forced diversity, aint it grand.

But hey, it not that bad yet :rolleyes: , at least Agencies are forced to hire transgender folks, that are still confused, and want to go back to their original gender. Yet, that is.
 
"So what? Yes, some women can do the job, and some men can't."

Did I disagree with that?

No.

Did I make an observation?

Yes.

Frankly, I don't care if they hire 2" midgets with downs syndrom.
 
You know, it occurs to me that discussions like this are what could get a "firearms-related discussions only" cap put on this forum.

If I had my way ...
 
If the only requirement for being a peace officer was the ability to whip everyone coming down the pike, this would be a valid argument.

The ability to communicate with people is far more important to being a Peace Officer than is the ability to beat people. And the ladies are better at it than us guys are.

Talking prevents lawsuits, ER trips and additional charges, and communicating with the public is something an officer will do throughout most of his/her shift every shift for the rest of his or her career.

Beating the Alpo out of a citizen is something that should be a fairly rare occurance.

If I have two applicants, one of whom is able to communicate effectively, but is a bit shy on the knuckle-jousting; and someone who can stomp every Tom, Dick and Harry out there, but that's his only way to deal with the public, my choice is going to be fairly clear.

I can give a communicator some armour, OC, baton, Taser, firearms and some basic DT training, and improve her ability to knuckle-joust after the communicating fails.

Communication skills are damned difficult to impart to someone whose debating talents are imparted by way of digital impaction trauma.

Yes, the best choice would be someone who is able to communicate and who can kick-butt when required. And when they apply, we generally hire them right skippy. Unfortunately, there aren't a whole hell of a lot of them in these parts, or some other agency has hired all of the available ones.

Just my $.02 worth.

LawDog
 
That guy that took the gun and beat the snot out of the girl deputy in Georgia went on to kill people . If a knuckle buster had been assigned to him the perp might not have even tried this . The idea that people are interchangable is pure BS . There are SEALS and there are commo techs . There are Abn. Rangers and there are supply clerks . Both are probably good at their job but are not as interchangable as one might think . If you need a Public Information Officer use someone with the "communicative skills" . When you need someone to guard a bad dude use another bad dude .
 
If you need a Public Information Officer use someone with the "communicative skills" . When you need someone to guard a bad dude use another bad dude .
Click to expand...
Exactly. It is about managing your people. Can women make good police officers? Some can. Some can't. Same goes for men. All of them should have to pass physical and mental testing. Of course. But they don't have to all be "SEAL" material.
I worked as a dispatcher for several years. After a while, you got to know the strong and weaker points of your "guys". Are there situations where you would not put a physically smaller or less "bad-ass" officer (either man or woman)? Of course. There are also situations where you would not put a bad-ass physically dominant officer (either man or woman). Even the officers understood this. There were situations where one officer would request the assistance of another when attempting to interview someone, for instance, a child, or a rape victim, and they felt the other officer would be able to get further, either because that officer was a woman, or in some cases, another man who simply had a good track record for communicating with children or victims. In other situations, the more "physical" officer was requested to aid in a situation that involved, shall we say, less "communicative" techniques.
I don't care if you are talking about law enforcement or running a traveling circus: to be successful, you have to have good people, and you have to know the abilities (and limitations) of each of your people and draw on them accordingly.
 
The point of affirmative action programs is to affect a change in our rather white male controlled culture. Affirmative action evens the scales NOW, so down the road we can go back to hiring strictly on ability.

Anyone who thinks that traditionally white male jobs, like firefighters, are that way because of ability only has a mental defect. Bigotry IS a major component of the American psyche, and Affirmative Action is merely a tool to try and excise this disease.


The fact that the people who complain the loudest about the "Affirmative Action Problem" are the people with best employment stats makes this whole topic disgusting.

Want a better society for your kids? Want to get rid of the ghettos and lower the crime rate? Then swallow the bitter pill in the HOPES that it may do something to make this country equal from the ground up.



BTW, the number of pushups one can perform is a fairly unrealistic measure of ones ability to do a job. Physical fitness tests are there to evaluate OVERALL fitness and strength - not one's ability to fist fight goons.
 
Affirmative action evens the scales NOW, so down the road we can go back to hiring strictly on ability.
Click to expand...
Well, actually, it tips the scales. Hiring strictly on ability would place the scales even-steven. I realize that in the past, the scales were tipped in the opposite direction. But today, NOW...while bigotry does still exist, it is not nearly the problem that it once was. As long as the qualifications for a job directly relate to the actual performance of a job, and are the same for all applicants...then I have no problem with the process. Most companies realize that discriminating on the basis of sex or race can get the pants sued off of them. I would raise holy hell if I was obviously more qualified than a competing male for a position, yet he got the job. Yet, I would expect and respect a male competitor to raise holy hell if he were more qualified, and I got the job. I would never knowingly accept a job to fill their "quota" of women. We have come a long way, baby...and we simply do not need the hand-outs. We kick ass all on our own.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top