Can a person actually be "too smart" to be a cop in America?

A federal court's decision back in 2000 suggests that, yes, you actually can be.

Robert Jordan, a 49-year-old college graduate, scored a 33 on an intelligence test he took as part of the application process to become a police officer in the town of New London, Connecticut. The score meant Jordan had an IQ of 125.

The average score for police officers was a 21-22, or an IQ of 104. New London would only interview candidates who scored between 20 and 27.

Jordan sued the city alleging discrimination, but the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New York upheld that it wasn't discrimination. "Why?" you might ask. Because New London Police Department applied the same standard to everyone who applied to be a cop there.

And the theory behind it?

"Those who scored too high could get bored with police work and leave soon after undergoing costly training," ABC News reported back then. While at least acknowledging the basic fact that such a policy might be "unwise," the court deemed it had a "rational basis" because it was put in place to lower cop turnover.

The police department went on to continue automatically disqualifying anyone whose IQ was "too high." Jordan went on to become a prison guard instead.

And there you have it.

Considering all the police brutality and officer-involved shootings in the news these days, here's a rhetorical question for you: how well does this hiring practice bode for cops actually being able to follow the Constitution or use proper discretion while "protecting and serving" America?

Does this snapshot from the past at least partially help explain how we got to where we are as a nation today - a total police state? Wow, and the Pentagon has been giving these guys tanks straight off the battlefields in the Middle East to drive down American streets, too.

Recent public opinion polls, just by the way, show trust in police is pretty abysmal; 65% feel that our police departments do a poor job of holding officers accountable for misconduct.

Well America's local law enforcement agencies - of which there are 18,000-plus, more than any other country in the world - aren't exactly encouraging geniuses to apply to be officers here; in fact, geniuses don't stand a chance even if they wanted to (which, I guess if they are geniuses, they probably don't).

Melissa Melton is a writer, researcher, and analyst for The Daily Sheeple, where this first appeared, and a co-creator of Truthstream Media with Aaron Dykes, a site that offers teleprompter-free, unscripted analysis of The Matrix we find ourselves living in. Melissa also co-founded Nutritional Anarchy with Daisy Luther of The Organic Prepper, a site focused on resistance through food self-sufficiency. Wake the flock up!
http://www.globalresearch.ca/us-court-ruled-you-can-be-too-smart-to-be-a-cop/5420630

Interesting that the 104 score is only about 20 points above 'mentally deficient'. Scary that they are issued weapons.

Personally I think the entire training syllabus on use of force for cops stresses the use of 'toys' like tasers and pepper spray with escalation going to firearms.

This mindset of 'us versus them' started at the end of the 60's and solidified in the 70's with the creation of SWAT and issuing AR-15's, Mini-14's, and 'combat' shotguns to street cops. When shootouts with militant groups like the SLA and later MOVE erupted into thousands of rounds fired,and sieges with groups like The Branch Davidian and militias required snipers and armored vehicles, the use of force rules go out the door.

Back in the 60's most cops would swing a baton or grab a perp and punch them in the face to make a bust. They got their uniforms dirty, and they took a punch or a kick, and they sometimes got injured as well.

Cops that came down the pipe after that decided they didn't need to throw a punch, or get dirty, but just whip out a taser and light someone up. The leap to deadly force is buried in the training. If you zap a guy and he doesn't go down, he must be on angel dust, so grab your weapon as you may need to use it.

Shooting someone became a much shorter leap than in the past, because you're already starting at taser. You only really see physical altercations now with cops who specialize in either gang work or street level plainclothes drug/vice work. They tend to be bulked up gym rats who actually want an excuse to punch somebody out like a drunken frat boy on a Saturday night.

Cops need to go back to teaching solid hand to hand and street fighting skills to street cops. If you have that lower starting point on the violence escalation scale, firearms are less likely needed.

What do you have?

The lowest i.q. necessary to be considered functional, able to sign contracts, is like 75. 104 is more average, the "average" i.q. is about 100.


Here's another rhetorical question: why is it presumed having a higher i.q. translates to better, or more moral, decision making abilities?


That's not all that bad of a reason.
People bored with their jobs are dissatisfied with their job.
People dissatisfied with their jobs tend to take it out on their employer.
Like stealing office supplies, slacking off, not paying attention, not trying, or attempting to do things against policy in order to make their job more fun, more exciting.
Would that be good for cops to do?
Lots of studies support the idea the smarter you are the unhappier you are.


IMO that's not much different than not being hired for being "overqualified."

If you remove the i.q. requirement for police...wouldn't you have to remove ALL of the i.q. requirements?
You ever been to wal-mart or the grocery store, and you see those "special" employees bagging your groceries, mopping, getting carts, putting dough in the oven?
You really want officer Corky patrolling your neighborhood?


No.
What, IMO, "partially helps explain how we got to where we are as a nation today" is blind loyalty and buttering civil servants up.
Too many years of "support the troops! Support the firemen! Support cops! They're hard working men and women sacrificing themselves for your security and freedom!"

Not to mention going to war on everything. War on poverty. War on hunger. War on gangs. War on drugs. War on terror. War on women. Danger danger danger, ultimate danger behind every door, so we need to ultimately equip our patriotic saviors to combat all those dangers.

the way i see it - average/stupid people are easier to control...


higher IQ's usually means you ask more questions... police are like military, they don't like that...

the higher ups are the only ones that like to have the smarts...

Something else to recognize: the situation described is far from unique. It's just the first time that that particular reporter heard of it happening, and since it involved Police, it struck them as being a "funny" thing to report.

It has long been a practice in TONS of such situations, that people with higher intelligence or higher educational achievements have been refused employment by people who fear that they wont remain in the jobs long enough.

I suffered many employer rejections myself, for that exact reason a long while back (the 1970's), so I know first hand what this is about.

It's something to keep in mind the next time you are about to whine about how some apparently intelligent and educated American isn't taking entry-level employment in order to get off of the unemployment roles: potential employers WONT LET THEM take those jobs.