No, that's actually beside the point. You're perceiving examples of bad policing and consequently argue that a police force is run by dumb psychopaths. That is like seeing examples of bad practice in the NHS and consequently saying that the NHS is run by dumb psychopaths. Real Life™ is not as simple as that. People are flawed, but in the end someone needs to know what they're doing for the system to be at all sustainable.
Well we're the ones that elect them. Maybe that says more about us, the same us that the police recruit from, than anything else.
I would say that they are most often selected for us to elect. Not being conspiratorial here. That's a good point. I never said it was sustainable, what I said was it appears we've reached the tipping point. As for whether it would be possible to use people out on patrol with low intelligence, low empathy, high aggression and with a weak psychological constitution? Absolutely.
Only if they are managed (tightly) by those who are not. Invoking a 'tipping point' is like invoking the end of the world. Never happens. Back to gun control: you argue that the way to deal with dumb psychopath cops having guns is to allow the population to have guns --the same people that the dumb psychopath cops are recruited from (the others arguably become criminals). Basically: escalation as a strategy for achieving balance of power. Because that always works out so well.
I see where you are going with this but if that was the case the screening process would have been addressed a long time ago by those very officers in the first place. If anything these officers are scared shitless of getting in the way of these trigger happy rouge, if you will, cops. Besides, how do you manage psychopaths in the field? It would be wiser to address the screening process instead of trying to handle it in the field. The end of the world will never happen, it could be an end of mankind though. That said, we will see if things get better or worse, view that as the tipping point. My statement that more restricted gun laws for the citizenry would solve nothing stays. That said, we've been over the gun control debate and the constitution before. I see no reason for why we should go over it again in this thread.
Although a bit off topic - and taken to its ludicrous extreme - the world will eventually come to an end. It will just take a really long time to get here.
So now you are saying that senior police officers are scared of the staff they manage? How would such an organisation function at all? And wouldn't such a fear be a really powerful motivator for changing the screening process (hey guys, let's not hire any more psycho's because they're scary)? You're contradicting yourself. Ask the CIA. Seriously dude, I don't even.
I was under the impression we were talking about officers in the field not those managing from behind a desk, whether this fear is a powerful enough motivator depends on how many "old-timers" are teamed up with their younger trigger happy colleges, I would think. It is clear to me that many with low intelligence, low empathy, high aggression, and with weak psychological constitution are being hired, not saying it is deliberate, but the screening process isn't working all too well. The culture within the organisation itself has changed too with police having become increasingly militarized. I suppose that's another factor.
No police officer in the field wants to be partnered with a dumb, socially unskilled, aggressive and volatile partner, wouldn't you think? And no superior behind a desk would want to be held accountable for their actions. It is clear to me that you have no idea what you are talking about.
Largely unarmed? Incapacitate Spray Police officers in England, Wales and Scotland are now issued with an incapacitant spray as standard as part of their personal protection equipment. Batons Several different types are used by police forces in the UK. and then there's. The days of the British police saying that they are only armed with a wooden stick and the respect of the public are long gone, either that or largely unarmed doesn't mean what I think it means fair enough not every officer is carrying a gun but I can see a day coming when they do.
That all depends on whether the partner is equally dumb, socially unskilled, aggressive and volatile. I am certain "old-timers" who are up for retirement either request a new partner or get transferred. So let me repeat it. It is clear to me that many with low intelligence, low empathy, high aggression, and with weak psychological constitution are being hired, not saying it is deliberate, but the screening process isn't working all too well. Oh, I do believe things will be getting worse in terms of police becoming more aggressive and militarized. I admit it is an assumption on my part. Though I would argue not completely unfounded or without merit.
Maybe the screening process is working perfectly, maybe the screening process is selecting those with the highest intelligence, highest empathy, low aggression, and strong psychological constitutions when compared to those that don't make it. If someone asks you to pick ten apples from a barrel full of rotten apples and you pick the ten least rotten it doesn't mean your selection process is flawed, it could mean the apples you selected were the least rotten ones you could find. If a police force draws its officers from the population doesn't your description of low intelligence, low empathy, high aggression, and with a weak psychological constitution say more about society as a whole than the actual screening process?
Maybe it is but I don't think that's the case. I really don't. I would also like to say that I hope that you are wrong. Perhaps the wrong apples are seeking out the profession, I would also hate for the wrong apples to be encouraged. This assumes the screening process works and that the profession attracts the right kind of apples, not the damaged ones. If it does then what you say would make perfect sense. I like your thinking that was an excellent post some +rep your way.
So far all you have to offer for that assumption is your feeling about it. You don't appear to know the police force, police officers, or the selection process, or indeed the psychological constitution of the general population. That doesn't mean they would not be screened out. You should read the kind of applications that the Special Forces get. It is in the interest of those who design and apply the screening process to avoid the bad apples, and they have access to expertise to make sure that it works. I could be wrong, but it all sounds a bit like you're saying "All cops are psycho's", and such sweeping generalisations reflect prejudice, not objectivity. "I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that" --Ben Goldacre
But what do you do when there are nothing but bad apples? Do you starve to death, or do you lower your standards to pick out the least rotten ones. Could it be possible that a society with high levels of public gun ownership causes the population in general to have lower intelligence, lower empathy, higher aggression, and a weaker psychological constitution? Note: I am not saying that's how things are, I'm proposing it as a possible hypothesis.
