Police - always been a supporter BUT . . .

[Grand Koalafornian]

There is an upper IQ?

I don’t know what they are talking about either. My DH didn’t have to take an IQ test before becoming an officer. My DH is a college graduate, so they did request his transcript as part of the application process, but there were definitely no “upper IQ limits”.

It was big news when I was in middle school when the Supreme Court ruled it constitutional. As far as I can tell it has not changed. Most sources on this that are current are also political, though. It's not all agencies, apparently.

Technically, it's not an IQ test, specifically. Applicants do have to take intelligence tests because officers need to be able to use reason. However, a lot of agencies also have an upper limit and you can be excluded from employment if you score too high. This is what bothers me. That limit is above average and varies by agency, by the way.

 

[Mackenzie Click-Mickelson]

it seems like they were pretty laid back about the whole thing.

Have you watched a lot of shows on police or other enforcement (like game wardens, water patrol, etc)? I have. They are trained to be calm like this especially if you have someone who knows the victim, your frantic nature would feed into theirs. Think about your training as a lifeguard. Would it help to be in a panic yourself when you're trying to save someone else?

Reading the transcript it can go two ways: reassurance and attempt to help, "you're not going to drown" can be trying to calm someone down, get them to think of getting themselves out of the water not just go complacent because you think there's only one outcome, talking about a safe way to get to a place where you can be rescued more easily "Come back over to the pylon,", alerting someone to the realistic nature of the situation "Okay, I’m not jumping in after you" because if you think someone is just going to jump over the bridge to rescue you you won't be trying to actually get to the safer route, etc

The other way is one of indifference towards life where all those quotes are more of "meh"

I don't know which way here it went, hopefully we find out, but it's one of those things that at least right now it's IMO hard to just say the police were laid back didn't care based on things right now.

Your original post it was very much that you thought the police should have done something especially your protect and serve comment and then your subsequent comments. That's why so many have focused on water rescues and training. It wasn't until the comment I pulled the above quote from that you said it wasn't about them not going in but rather did they call for the correct unit. Before it was "what else did they do? Did they look for something to throw to him? Did they look for a rope to throw? If they literally stood there and did nothing other than make a call, the next question is -- would they have done the same if it was someone else?"

 

[RamblingMad]

Unfortunately things in Arizona regarding police officers have gotten worse and worse. Look at the Daniel Shaver case, the video is haunting. Theres also the Ryan Whitaker case, but this may be more the fault of the neighbors although the police did shoot him in the back. Its a sad situation and I fear people will start taking matters into their own hands if they cannot trust the police.

The police have always been aggressive in AZ. This isn't anything new.

 

[starry_solo]

The Uvalde conduct, on the other hand, was gross incompetence that cost children their lives. Then they swore in the chief of police to the town council? That's blatant corruption. That man needs to be stripped of his power, not given more. Anyone who so clearly does not care about their community's safety should not be a police officer, much less chief of police, or on the city council.

They didn't have a choice. The guy won the election that was held before the Uvalde school shooting.

 

[kymom99]

I’m going to have to believe that police respond according to their training the majority of the time. I believe that also applies to those in other lines of work. Here is why I choose to believe that until the evidence proves otherwise:

In my area this past week, an autistic boy “eloped” from a children's home. It took him 11 minutes to travel .5 mile to the river where he drowned. He was known as a runner. As you can imagine, public response towards the caregivers has been brutal. People who don’t have any experience with autistic children don’t know that it is common for them to run. Video shows that he left the grounds and an adult followed 13 seconds later. However, they stopped following and called police. This is where I am assuming the procedures came into play. More than likely the plan is that once a child leaves the property they call on police to find him. People think the adults should have chased him. Let me tell you that if I had to chase a kid through the woods at 57 years old, I’d probably have a heart attack. He would be long gone.

I know as a teacher, we have procedures to follow in emergencies. The procedures are to protect the kids but they also protect us. So until an investigation shows the officers did something wrong, I’ll hold off on my judgement.

 

[rigs32]

To me, there is a difference between the "serve and protect" standards that govern most law enforcement versus the "willing to take a bullet" standard we think of for Secret Service protecting the President". Some people see that line in different places. If all officers were regularly expected to run into gunfire or other danger without proper precautions, we'd have a lot more injured or killed officers.

 

[kymom99]

To me, there is a difference between the "serve and protect" standards that govern most law enforcement versus the "willing to take a bullet" standard we think of for Secret Service protecting the President". Some people see that line in different places. If all officers were regularly expected to run into gunfire or other danger without proper precautions, we'd have a lot more injured or killed officers.

A google search tells me that secret service can earn 500k so there’s that too

 

[dvcgirl67]

There is an upper IQ?

Confirming....there isn't an upper IQ....no offense to the poster that said it. But, in most professions, we have super smart people...and otherwise, from CEO of the Universe on down to the lowliest of dog catchers (who are always deemed to the bottom rung of society . Anyway...funny comment kymom99...legit made me chuckle.

 

[Grand Koalafornian]

They didn't have a choice. The guy won the election that was held before the Uvalde school shooting.

In my city, we've held off on confirming people to office and held special reelections for much less. If the people voted for him again, fine.

Confirming....there isn't an upper IQ....no offense to the poster that said it. But, in most professions, we have super smart people...and otherwise, from CEO of the Universe on down to the lowliest of dog catchers (who are always deemed to the bottom rung of society . Anyway...funny comment kymom99...legit made me chuckle.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/too-smart-to-be-a-cop/ Sorry for the old source. All current sources I can find are partisan. I phrased it poorly, I will admit. There is no IQ limit across the board in the US. Law enforcement agencies have the right to not hire people because they are too smart, and the Supreme Court has upheld this. I know two people who were rejected for being too smart for the agencies they applied to within the last five years, so this is still happening.

You and/or your family may work for an agency that does not reject candidates based on a maximum intelligence threshold, in which case, that's great! I don't think you can speak for all agencies in the US.

 

[GreatLakes]

We just took my son to a water safety presentation by local police two weekends ago. The presentation made it clear in a situation where there was danger in the water no one would enter until a skilled rescue diver from either the police department, fire department, or park ranger (we have a large park system with a full police force) arrived. Normal uniformed police, firemen, and rangers would not enter the water but gather information and act as guides when the pros arrived.

I imagine most police forces would be similar unless all police were trained in water rescue.

While there are some bad officers I'm still pro police and if I felt in danger they are who I'd turn to and we teach our son the same. If he is lost or in danger look for a police officer, fireman, or other parent in that order.

All that said Uvalde was a failure for everyone involved and it starts at the top with leadership. The police for sitting around and the school for not making sure all entrances were secured at all times unless that information has changed since I last heard. Every door should be locked at all times (egress only) and all visitors should be screened outside via camera through locked doors.

 

[mrodgers]

I am really glad that we are at the point in society that showing 3 people in the news is absolutely representative of the hundreds of thousands of others in that genre of society.

 

[mrs. magoo]

I think we need to do away with the upper IQ limits for officers. It's a hard job, I will give you that (though safer than convenience store clerk, teacher, and many other occupations in the US).

My brother is a police officer in the same city where I am a teacher. We both work in the inner city. I have been at my school for 27 years and he has been an officer in the same neighborhoods where my students go to school for 25 years. His job is much more dangerous than mine as a teacher. My students go through metal detectors and have their bags searched everyday. When he goes out on a call especially domestic ones and child abuse cases he places himself in danger. Just yesterday a young man was sentenced to 40 years for blinding an officer when the officer responded to a domestic situation. His job is exponentially more dangerous and hard than my job. Do both of our jobs suck on some days - absolutely? But at the end of the day I feel pretty safe in my school.

 

[leeniewdw]

Have you watched a lot of shows on police or other enforcement (like game wardens, water patrol, etc)? I have. They are trained to be calm like this especially if you have someone who knows the victim, your frantic nature would feed into theirs. Think about your training as a lifeguard. Would it help to be in a panic yourself when you're trying to save someone else?

Reading the transcript it can go two ways: reassurance and attempt to help, "you're not going to drown" can be trying to calm someone down, get them to think of getting themselves out of the water not just go complacent because you think there's only one outcome, talking about a safe way to get to a place where you can be rescued more easily "Come back over to the pylon,", alerting someone to the realistic nature of the situation "Okay, I’m not jumping in after you" because if you think someone is just going to jump over the bridge to rescue you you won't be trying to actually get to the safer route, etc

The other way is one of indifference towards life where all those quotes are more of "meh"

I don't know which way here it went, hopefully we find out, but it's one of those things that at least right now it's IMO hard to just say the police were laid back didn't care based on things right now.

Your original post it was very much that you thought the police should have done something especially your protect and serve comment and then your subsequent comments. That's why so many have focused on water rescues and training. It wasn't until the comment I pulled the above quote from that you said it wasn't about them not going in but rather did they call for the correct unit. Before it was "what else did they do? Did they look for something to throw to him? Did they look for a rope to throw? If they literally stood there and did nothing other than make a call, the next question is -- would they have done the same if it was someone else?"

There's a difference between maintaining calm and doing nothing. I've made my point clear from the beginning based on my experience with water sports/safety, no way should they have entered the water.

This was my first contribution to this thread.

I haven't read the details on this story, but that would be my question as well. If police are wearing full gear, etc, it would be very difficult to swim even w/o trying to save someone. I guess I never thought about it police have any kind of water rescue equipment in their vehicles (extension poles, etc) but a person-person rescue has always been the very last resort when I was a lifeguard back in the 80s and now lifeguards literally wear rescue tube/floats at all times.

Again, I haven't seen the details of this beyond the headlines and it does sound tragic, especially if they didn't appear to even try to locate something to throw to the person, but I don't think they can be faulted for not entering the water w/o any flotation/rescue equipment.

Protect and Serve is literally a police motto (which was in response to someone say 'well some people don't know how they'll react until they are in the moment' -- I was just pointing out that the career is based on serving the community and being in those kind of moments). In this case I've been consistent, they shouldn't have entered the water. If they didn't exhaust all land based options (in addition to call for proper support) then they should review their training program to include alternative, safe options. And again, if they would have behaved any differently depending on the person in the water, they need to review their training.

I'm not saying anything remotely controversial. I'm not condemning police writ large, as I consider that divisive whether you're taking about police, teachers, politicians, etc.

 

[DisneyHardin]

To me, there is a difference between the "serve and protect" standards that govern most law enforcement versus the "willing to take a bullet" standard we think of for Secret Service protecting the President". Some people see that line in different places. If all officers were regularly expected to run into gunfire or other danger without proper precautions, we'd have a lot more injured or killed officers.

Absolutely!!!! When my husband was getting ready to graduate from the Police Academy, they had a presentation for families and one of the things that stuck with me the most from that presentation was the guy said "At the end of the day, the #1 goal of every police officer is go home alive".

 

[Mackenzie Click-Mickelson]

I'm not condemning police writ large,

Well I'm pretty sure that's the direct opposite of what your post is especially with your "if it was someone else". I don't think that's bad to wonder that but it would certainly point more to a larger societal problem within the police force. And that's exactly why you got some of the responses you did (ones not focused on water rescues).

then they should review their training program to include alternative, safe options. And again, if they would have behaved any differently depending on the person in the water, they need to review their training.

This is what I was talking about. It's expecting the police to equip their vehicles and themselves for something that which for many areas is the responsibility of the fire department for the reason that they have the ability to have ladders on their trucks, they have rescue training as part of their job because that is their job.

If these police officers in particular had an indifference towards life that is specific towards them, but what you've intermingled into your point was the actions they can and should do to save a person including "Throwing something that floats or tossing a rope is just 2 things that came to mind." "I would have gone to stores or nearby drivers or whatever and been yelling my head off trying to find something that floated or a rope" and then you've made it about "should review their training program to include alternative, safe options." You can't just toss a rope (and it's much more complicated than that) you can't just go to a store and get a rope (for one in this case watching the video that I can see they were on a bridge and even the landing area around it I see no store in sight for that and no drivers nearby and it was at night).

I honestly do empathize with where you might be more thinking, like you see a public servant and you think they should do any and everything out there, but there are limitations as well. I do think I read that they may be looking into have at least more training for police on water stuff but how extensive and how many IDK; it does take resources including funding and equipment, etc. It's hard I think because we are so used to calling for help from police officers.

This is a video of training from 2017 (and the article is press release from the amusement park from 2020) at my local amusement park (correction from earlier they train at one of the water rides at the amusement park rather than the water park connected to it). In our area some police do go there for training (to my knowledge it's normally just one police department) the majority being fire department (my city sends the fire department) and then there are civilians as well. In the videos they use an extensive rope system tied to trees and themselves in a daisy chain style, they use inflated fire hoses now amongst other things and train their bodies. It is certainly not something that even a trained person can just go to a store and purchase a rope and throw it out there (you're talking about a human body the rope actually needs to be strong, rated to take it otherwise you're going to risk easy breakage of the rope) and you can't just throw something that floats either (that's like the movies). And ideally when these rescuers are going in the water they have on gear that is designed to keep them safe such as full body gear for floatation for themselves.

https://www.worldsoffun.com/blog/2020/fury-of-the-nile-helps-train-local-first-responders

no way should they have entered the water.

That wasn't what I was debating but yes I agree.

 

[DisneyMomx7]

After Uvalde - not quite sure "serve and protect" still means somehting.

 

[leeniewdw]

Well I'm pretty sure that's the direct opposite of what your post is especially with your "if it was someone else". I don't think that's bad to wonder that but it would certainly point more to a larger societal problem within the police force. And that's exactly why you got some of the responses you did (ones not focused on water rescues).

This is what I was talking about. It's expecting the police to equip their vehicles and themselves for something that which for many areas is the responsibility of the fire department for the reason that they have the ability to have ladders on their trucks, they have rescue training as part of their job because that is their job.

If these police officers in particular had an indifference towards life that is specific towards them, but what you've intermingled into your point was the actions they can and should do to save a person including "Throwing something that floats or tossing a rope is just 2 things that came to mind." "I would have gone to stores or nearby drivers or whatever and been yelling my head off trying to find something that floated or a rope" and then you've made it about "should review their training program to include alternative, safe options." You can't just toss a rope (and it's much more complicated than that) you can't just go to a store and get a rope (for one in this case watching the video that I can see they were on a bridge and even the landing area around it I see no store in sight for that and no drivers nearby and it was at night).

I honestly do empathize with where you might be more thinking, like you see a public servant and you think they should do any and everything out there, but there are limitations as well. I do think I read that they may be looking into have at least more training for police on water stuff but how extensive and how many IDK; it does take resources including funding and equipment, etc. It's hard I think because we are so used to calling for help from police officers.

This is a video of training from 2017 (and the article is press release from the amusement park from 2020) at my local amusement park (correction from earlier they train at one of the water rides at the amusement park rather than the water park connected to it). In our area some police do go there for training (to my knowledge it's normally just one police department) the majority being fire department (my city sends the fire department) and then there are civilians as well. In the videos they use an extensive rope system tied to trees and themselves in a daisy chain style, they use inflated fire hoses now amongst other things and train their bodies. It is certainly not something that even a trained person can just go to a store and purchase a rope and throw it out there (you're talking about a human body the rope actually needs to be strong, rated to take it otherwise you're going to risk easy breakage of the rope) and you can't just throw something that floats either (that's like the movies). And ideally when these rescuers are going in the water they have on gear that is designed to keep them safe such as full body gear for floatation for themselves.

https://www.worldsoffun.com/blog/2020/fury-of-the-nile-helps-train-local-first-responders

You can disagree on anything I wrote, of course! I believe there are 2 questions (that I've said consistently), did they consider alternative methods and would they have behaved if the person was not the subject of a complaint or disturbance with a record. I'm asking this about this situation and these actions, I'm not condemning "police writ large". As a tax paying citizen, I believe their training should address both of those. I'm not asking for them to be fired or charged or painting the profession with a broad brush. My first post admits I hadn't familiarized myself yet with the event, but later I'd read and watched more. That's why I wrote what I did about their reaction after the person was in trouble. You can disagree, of course. (White water is not what was happening here)

Perhaps time has changed what they teach in general water safety, but it definitely included throwing things that float or throwing a line out. It was never "stand there and wait while another unit arrives". I put myself thru college teaching swim lessons to preschoolers and adults and coached swim team. Every class I ever taught included water safety. Every adult class I taught included getting adults to jump in the diving well in order to simulate getting pushed in a pool or falling off a boat. The most important thing I taught to adults was how to get back to safety -- even if it was just a few feet away. When we did this (with adults who started class afraid to put their faces in), I didn't tread water near them (like I would with 5 year olds jumping off the boards for the first time), I stayed firmly on the ladder and always enlisted another guard to standby the guard stand where there was a rope/ring buoy and/or shepherds hook.

Put another, very blunt way, if that was someone you knew in the water and they did exactly the same thing, you'd be fine with it?

 

[Mackenzie Click-Mickelson]

did they consider alternative methods

That's my point, what you have described as methods to do aren't realistic for the situation (buying rope from a store, flagging down drivers, finding a ladder, etc). The methods you've mentioned I've given counterpoints to. I wouldn't lean to this being a situation of merely agreeing to disagree, in a practical way what methods you've said they should have explored were not realistic nor practical for the situation.

it definitely included throwing things that float or throwing a line out.

Did you watch the videos though? Because that point above isn't being debated. It's what you throw out there, who is doing it, and the conditions (both water and surroundings) of the area the rescue is in because you won't always have trees to hook onto, you'll have debris in the way, etc and at least in my area the police department that sends officers out there are part of their tactile unit (specialized units) not your normal police officer. The training they do here if you watched the video is not just for rapid water situations, it's rivers and lakes as well.

Here's a video actually taken yesterday from the city's fire department and the large (relatively speaking that is) lake from the area although there are videos from 2020, etc you can find.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1534648779684687872

It was never "stand there and wait while another unit arrives".

You're coming at it from a lifeguard/swim instructor viewpoint. What you trained people on is their own safety should they find themselves in situations. What ring buoy do you think these officers have? Shepard's hook? Plus the rope you used I would assume is rated for such strength. What you describe is your training as it related to being a lifeguard and swim instructor. It's not the same as normal water rescues such that is being talked about. If you're at the pool you've got things near you for that expressed purpose and if you're at the beach you have this as well. And from the transcript they were giving directives to the person and the person who knew the victim. They did not just stand there either (although I would hope they had alerted the appropriate persons for aid, I think we all hope that as well). Do you carry around floatation devices like ring buoys and ropes and hooks in your vehicle since you have training on being a lifeguard? That would be actually kinda interesting if that were the case.

I actually don't think we're that far apart on our opinion of police because I would sure hope the officers approached the situation as they would any person without applying a discriminatory practice but I would think would go without saying. However, I am separating out that aspect and talking about other things such that related to what you have brought up.

 

[Mackenzie Click-Mickelson]

Put another, very blunt way, if that was someone you knew in the water and they did exactly the same thing, you'd be fine with it?

To this point I think I would act like many of us would, and as the person who knew the victim would. You'd act like a maniac desperately not wanting the person you knew not to die. This is a normal, natural, very human reaction. And many of us would probably be screaming for more and more action regardless of what was being done meaning they could be doing everything and we'd still want more, because again that's a normal natural very human reaction. It's also why you have people, despite every warning out there not to who jump in the water to save someone or an animal (including pets), it's why you have people or animals (including pets) trying to rescue someone only to die themselves or nearly die. Falling through ice for example, being swept away, drowning (sometimes unfortunately being pulled under the water by the very person you're trying to save).

Because our reactions are often made of split second, irrational, highly emotional reactions especially if it's a loved one (be that human or pet) and is the direct opposite of what we want our first responders to do and sometimes our first responders do just jump in the water (sometimes disobeying their training) and sometimes they are lucky and sometimes they are unfortunately not (either they die or the person(s) they were trying to save still does).

I do feel like phrasing it like "you'd be fine with it" is disingenuous to the conversation, it's not even a real question because who would be okay with that? That is distinctly different than discussing water rescues.

 

[leeniewdw]

That's my point, what you have described as methods to do aren't realistic for the situation (buying rope from a store, flagging down drivers, finding a ladder, etc). The methods you've mentioned I've given counterpoints to. I wouldn't lean to this being a situation of merely agreeing to disagree, in a practical way what methods you've said they should have explored were not realistic nor practical for the situation.

Perhaps you are very familiar with the area and what is around them? How would one know that literally no one in the vicinity had something that would have helped without asking? And (as I've said before) even if their efforts fell flat, I would feel better knowing someone would have been trying.

The officers are (or were) on some sort of non-disciplinary review leave so it seems like even the police department is going to conduct an investigation. I don't know how you or I know that their response was appropriate or not if the department doesn't. There's is nothing wrong with review and improvement. We do that in my world of IT after any major event (successful or rocky or failure) to identify ways to improve. It's not controversial.