> He was non-violent, and conscientious, and principled, and enforced the law with unusual accuracy and precision [...] I'm inclined to imagine that they found

> He was non-violent, and conscientious, and principled, and enforced the law with unusual accuracy and precision [...] I'm inclined to imagine that they found his resistance to what he saw as bad, stupid, or unethical policies inconvenient [...] Are we really sure that it's unreasonable to reject an applicant because he is too smart, if it creates a dissatisfied officer and dissatisfied superiors? You summarized in a short number of lines why I left the United States, and why I think it's unsalvageable. "This man was smart and ethical, and thus was a bad police officer, because this was inconvenient to his superiors, and that all makes sense to me." What's particularly morally empty about your argument is that the rights and needs of the citizens are completely ignored - not even mentioned. In this world, the only people who need satisfying are his "superiors".