4 ms·
Why US allows such clowns to enforce law ?
by ilyt 3y ago
Why US allows such clowns to enforce law ?
- black6 3y agoBecause no one of appreciable intelligence and morals would take the job. It's the last resort for people who are otherwise unhireable.
- MerelyMortal 3y agoSpeak only for yourself. If it paid more than what I am doing now, I would take the job. If you attract better people with higher pay, you can choose better people.
- orwin 3y agoIn my country, the entry-level pay is above the median salary, and according to a recently retired police chief, new hires are dumber and dumber. They used to demand a score of 11 (14 to be officer) in the early 90s, they simplified the exam, and still hire people who score lower than 8 nowadays. He saw a new hire flashball his own foot. I don't think it's pay related.
- black6 3y agoIf policing paid more then yes, it would attract higher quality applicants. But it's terrible pay for a terrible job, so it's the last resort for those who aren't sociopaths.
- arrowsmith 3y agoBecause clowns also wrote the law.
- tyingq 3y agoThere are no national standards, so every city, county, and state get to determine the requirements for being a police officer. There's typically no educational requirement beyond high school. The prospect of being able to legally bully people obviously attracts some amount of people of a certain mindset. So if you don't try to filter for that, you get this situation. There's several other factors, like our concept of "qualified immunity", "thin blue line" attitudes, and powerful police unions that contribute to the environment where you can do whatever you want with impunity.
- ArtemZ 3y agoBecause there is a shortage of people who want to work in law enforcement.
- salamanderss 3y agoIt would only take once of being forced to arrest the struggling dad for late child support or one of the harmless homeless persons for vagrancy before sane persons would question their vocation.
- techdmn 3y agoThis assumes the job of policing in the U.S. is, in fact, to enforce the law. It could also be several others things, such as raising funds for local government (primarily by targeting less privileged members of society). Another common argument is that they are primarily employed to reinforce existing power structures - See violence against anti-police violence protestors. Our government in general (and Supreme Court in particular) are loathe to put almost any limits on police behavior, or to enforce consequences for bad behavior. There is largely bi-partisan agreement on this, and the stranglehold the two-party system has on elections prevents alternatives.