×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Judge Rules That Police Can Bar High I.Q. Scores

timothy posted more than 2 years ago | from the breaking-the-curve dept.

Government 260

An anonymous reader writes "A Federal judge has dismissed a lawsuit by a man who was barred from the New London police force because he scored too high on an intelligence test. Judge Dorsey ruled that Mr. Jordan was not denied equal protection because the city of New London applied the same standard to everyone: anyone who scored too high was rejected." Update: 04/16 22:01 GMT by T : Mea culpa. This story slipped through; consider it a time-machine / late-April Fool's day joke, please.

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

260 comments

Seriously... (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#35843146)

Published: September 09, 1999

Re:Seriously... (2)

by (1706743) (1706744) | more than 2 years ago | (#35843336)

You might find this interesting [politicalbyline.com], too.

Re:Seriously... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#35843620)

I found a typo in the middle column, 3rd line from the bottom:

Always will we remember the character of the onslaughter against us.

Should we call the publisher? Maybe there's time to get it fixed.

Re:Seriously... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#35843562)

That came up when the article was in the Firehose. [slashdot.org]

Re:Seriously... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#35843738)

What race of people need worry about a High IQ ?

Hmmm Discrimination against Whites!!
, How many With a Face that isnâ(TM)t white need to worry about High IQ (1 or 2?)?

Screw those liberals!
This is no different than a jury selection.
No liberal Judges or lawyers allows smart Jurors !
their butts are tossed back the Jury pool real fast
This is a similar discrimination

Re:Seriously... (1)

Schadrach (1042952) | more than 2 years ago | (#35843900)

I don't think the juror thing is limited to liberal lawyers -- I'm pretty sure no lawyer wants intelligent persons as jurors because people who lack intelligence are easier to manipulate. =p

Not unexpected... (1)

Mikkeles (698461) | more than 2 years ago | (#35843154)

First class people choose first class people; second class people choose fourth class people; third class people choose ninth class people; and so on; and so on.

Re:Not unexpected... (3, Insightful)

causality (777677) | more than 2 years ago | (#35843764)

First class people choose first class people; second class people choose fourth class people; third class people choose ninth class people; and so on; and so on.

It's a failure of the moderation system that I need to scroll past a dozen irrelevant comments about the article's date before I find one that addresses the actual topic. Anyway...

Not only are you right about this, but the logic the judge used was quite faulty and I can trivially demonstrate why:

Judge Dorsey ruled that Mr. Jordan was not denied equal protection because the city of New London applied the same standard to everyone: anyone who scored too high was rejected.

Using that logic, they could discriminate racially or on religious grounds. "Anyone who scored too black was rejected" or "anyone who scored too Muslim was rejected". I mean hey, they apply that standard to everyone so it surely could not contradict the principles of equal protection. That's why this is absurd.

I'll never understand what it is about a law degree and a bench that fundamentally distorts someone's ability to use solid logic. If I can see the flaw in seconds couldn't this judge maybe think on it a bit before committing it to a ruling that will affect a man's life?

It's as though the judge had a personal objection to having high-IQ police officers and was looking for an excuse to disallow them.

Holy Old Story! (4, Informative)

damn_registrars (1103043) | more than 2 years ago | (#35843158)

Anyone pay attention to the first line?

Published: September 09, 1999

This happened almost twelve years ago...

Re:Holy Old Story! (4, Insightful)

The End Of Days (1243248) | more than 2 years ago | (#35843184)

Awww now I miss the the stupid things the government did before 9/11 turned them into wholesale Constitution tramplers.

Re:Holy Old Story! (3, Funny)

damn_registrars (1103043) | more than 2 years ago | (#35843490)

Awww now I miss the the stupid things the government did before 9/11 turned them into wholesale Constitution tramplers.

You're new here, I see - or at least newer than me. Let me clue you in on something; slashdot is a pro-conservative site.

If you want to be up-modded, just praise Bush, Reagan, and all the greatness that came immediately after 9/11, when the government was working in your best interest. Further, calling the current POTUS the great socialist satan will accomplish similar results. You are daring to suggest that what happened immediately after 9/11 might not have been done with everyone's best interests in mind - prepare to be moderated "troll".

Re:Holy Old Story! (2)

causality (777677) | more than 2 years ago | (#35843824)

The politicians who call themselves "conservative"... I'd like to know what they are conserving. Certainly it isn't tax money or political power.

The old answer to this question was along the lines of, "well, a 'conservative' is someone who doesn't want to rock the boat, doesn't want to make any sudden or drastic changes to society"... to that I'd say that the way government has become much larger and more authoritarian during my lifetime alone, or since 9/11 alone, represents a drastic and sudden departure from what were once traditional American values. Much of that was done by those calling themselves "conservative". So that definition is also a no-go.

Maybe "Liberals" and "Anti-Liberals" would make better labels. For some reason a lot of media personalities hate the word "neo-con" or "neo-conservative" but it was created from the need to distinguish what the word once meant from what it now represents.

Note that all I want is a smaller and less powerful government that doesn't try to protect me from every perceived threat, doesn't try to manage my life for me, doesn't try to separate me from the consequences of my decision-making. I don't want their brand of "for my safety" and "for my own good". I don't want there to ever be a law against consentual activity among adults. For those who find that distasteful, who are fearful, or who want to control what others do, there are many existing countries where you'd be happier. Why not go there instead of trying to make this one a clone of those? I want there to be at least one remaining nation with a minimal government, such that anyone who doesn't like that can go to any other nation on earth.

Is that so much to ask? Or is this like the very worst of religion, where it is not good enough that the "infidels" live in peace and leave you alone, their very existence is offensive to you?

Re:Holy Old Story! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#35843214)

You must be new here. This is "recent" by our standards. BTW did you hear we shouldn't use those Soviet Russia jokes anymore, turns out they fell and their no longer communist. I'm hoping slashdot will pick up the story within the next few years.

Operating System (3, Funny)

wideBlueSkies (618979) | more than 2 years ago | (#35843344)

Hey, did you guys hear about that guy from Finland who wrote his own operating system? What a cool little project....

Re:Holy Old Story! (1)

zill (1690130) | more than 2 years ago | (#35843254)

Slashdot bars people with high I.Q. scores from becoming editors apparently. Unfortunately the bar was set a little too low.

Re:Holy Old Story! (1)

ElMiguel (117685) | more than 2 years ago | (#35843260)

I'm thinking 9/9/99 isn't the article's real date.

Re:Holy Old Story! (1)

damn_registrars (1103043) | more than 2 years ago | (#35843350)

I'm thinking 9/9/99 isn't the article's real date.

Well, it turns out that day did happen in history; I tend to remember it fairly well for reasons that aren't important here. Although it is interesting numerically...

Nonetheless, it does read "New York Times Archives", so even if the date may be wrong it is not likely a recent story.

Re:Holy Old Story! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#35843394)

Release date of the Sega Dreamcast: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dreamcast

Re:Holy Old Story! (1)

identity0 (77976) | more than 2 years ago | (#35843708)

Anyone else remember this guy getting on the Tonight Show with Jay Leno back in '99 and thought "Wait, has the case dragged on for this long?"

Indeed, I was going to add that "It's a bit before my time", but then I realized that I was on Slashdot back then, too. Way to make me feel old, Slashdot. :(

This raises interesting new legal possibilities... (5, Insightful)

Nick_13ro (1099641) | more than 2 years ago | (#35843166)

Next I propose they develop a skin pigmentation test. Those with too much skin pigmentation, too colored let's say, are to be barred from the police force. Naturally this would also be ok since the same standard was applied to everyone, right ?

Re:This raises interesting new legal possibilities (1)

wideBlueSkies (618979) | more than 2 years ago | (#35843274)

I'm going to invoke Godwin's Law here. The Nazi's applied the same standard to everyone they sent to the camps too....

Re:This raises interesting new legal possibilities (1)

Threni (635302) | more than 2 years ago | (#35843390)

> Nazi's

Why the possessive apostrophe?

Re:This raises interesting new legal possibilities (2)

dirty_ghost (1673990) | more than 2 years ago | (#35843438)

He does not want to lose eligibility with the New London police.

Re:This raises interesting new legal possibilities (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#35843676)

It seems to me he has to be really intelligent to have planned ahead like this.

Re:This raises interesting new legal possibilities (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#35843332)

This raises interesting OLD legal possibilities...

Re:This raises interesting new legal possibilities (1)

pavon (30274) | more than 2 years ago | (#35843440)

To be fair, the correct interpretation of "equal protection under the law" has been a matter of confusion since the day the 14th Amendment was passed. In your particular case however, there is additional law that states that race is one of the protected classes [wikipedia.org] that cannot be discriminated against in nearly any circumstance. So the courts would cite that, and punt on the constitutional issue.

News from 1999 (1, Informative)

rihkama (732472) | more than 2 years ago | (#35843170)

"Published: September 09, 1999" This is pretty much oldest news I have seen here.

Re:News from 1999 (1)

webmistressrachel (903577) | more than 2 years ago | (#35843304)

You must be new here then.. despite your low UID you did ask for that...

Re:News from 1999 (1)

Z00L00K (682162) | more than 2 years ago | (#35843386)

And what about references to various religious texts?
Jesus was born, Moses crossed the red sea, David has slain Goliath...
And even older - Yellowstone Volcano erupted 600 000 years ago. Meteorite killed dinosaurs 65 million years ago...

At least one of above must have been on slashdot...

Re:News from 1999 (1)

hedwards (940851) | more than 2 years ago | (#35843622)

That's a trick question, isn't it? Neither the Yellowstone Eruption nor the Meteorite could possibly have happened due to them being more than 4 thousand years ago.

Re:News from 1999 (1)

aix tom (902140) | more than 2 years ago | (#35843720)

Na, they all really happened that much longer ago. Problem is, the editor of the Bible just posted them as news without checking, so everybody 4 thousand years ago thought it just happened. Bible, Slashdot, same thing. Only on different hardware.

Re:News from 1999 (1)

FunPika (1551249) | more than 2 years ago | (#35843718)

"Published: September 09, 1999" This is pretty much oldest news I have seen here.

http://slashdot.org/index2.pl?color=green&index=1&view=stories&fhfilter=&duration=-1&startdate=19990909&page=1 [slashdot.org] Here's plenty of older news on /. for you to read. :P Including such gems as the launch of the G4, StarOffice not being open source, initial reports of Microsoft developing the Xbox, some leaked info about Star Trek: Enterprise, and CmdrTaco adding features such as karma, the post anonymously checkbox, and metamoderation.

can someone explain this? (1)

rbrausse (1319883) | more than 2 years ago | (#35843176)

I understand the judge's ruling, everyone is treated identical so everything is fine.

But is there a rationale for accepting only candidates in a specific IQ range?

Re:can someone explain this? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#35843212)

Obviously they need to be just smart enough to operate the foolproof equipment they are issued, but not smart enough to start questioning things likes orders or laws.

Re:can someone explain this? (1)

DataDiddler (1994180) | more than 2 years ago | (#35843224)

I remember when this story was (actually) new. The argument was that the department would end up spending a great deal of time and money training him, but he'd end up getting bored quickly -- too quickly to make training him worth it.

Re:can someone explain this? (1)

wideBlueSkies (618979) | more than 2 years ago | (#35843384)

Or maybe the real reason was that the brass felt threatened. He'd move up the ranks too fast, and any one of their own jobs would be at risk.

Re:can someone explain this? (1)

TheRaven64 (641858) | more than 2 years ago | (#35843526)

Or there's the Terry Pratchett argument: that a smart police officer realises that crime can pay, and the best-placed person to get away with it is a police officer. It's not good for society to have too clever a police force...

Re:can someone explain this? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#35843230)

They want idiots to be able to get jobs too.

Re:can someone explain this? (1)

slackzilly (2033012) | more than 2 years ago | (#35843812)

Highly intelligent people tend to think to much before they act, instead of just reacting immediately? I don't believe that myself, but I guess that could be an argument.

How did this story get approved? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#35843190)

This happened in 1999.

Re:How did this story get approved? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#35843282)

Slashdot has the same standards for mods?....

Prejudices (1)

JWSmythe (446288) | more than 2 years ago | (#35843198)

    In other news, they won't hire anyone who's too black, or too female, or ... or ...

    Applying a standard as such across the board without legitimate reasons is completely wrong. There are some legitimate reasons. Hiring a quadriplegic, a blind man, or a deaf mute to patrol may not be quite the right choice. They could be considered for equivalent (pay and status) positions. Refusing people because they are too smart, too strong, or too ... well ... any favorable trait, is insane.

    Or maybe we have it. Management scored too low on sanity tests.

Re:Prejudices (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#35843270)

No, there's laws against discriminating against people on racial or gender grounds - as far as i know, while stupid, banning someone for being to smart is not illegal.

Re:Prejudices (1)

epyT-R (613989) | more than 2 years ago | (#35843630)

no, actually, today, it's the opposite. it's ok to ban someone for being too white, too male, or too straight because the activism has built up assumptions that this group doesn't ever need any protection. The irony here is that the activism has been so strong that it's actually causing a discriminatory backwash. piecemeal discrimination protection like this is the root of the problem. The law says people are not to be discriminated based on race, gender, or lifestyle, but the enforcement of these laws is very selective. only some groups are actually protected. the intelligent are not among them either.

The real issue here is that people are being judged on non relevant attributes. If you're blind, you're not gonna make a good street cop. A wise and intelligent white male would make an excellent street cop (among other things). So would a black male..or white female..etc. Why? because gender and race are irrelevant. Intelligence and wisdom are relevant.

Re:Prejudices (1)

hedwards (940851) | more than 2 years ago | (#35843648)

I think the issue is as you put it that the standards have to be reasonable. It is typically legal to refuse to hire somebody that is overly qualified, which sucks, but unless the applicant can prove it was something else that is protected by law, there is no right to a job just by virtue of being the best qualified candidate.

Like The Old Joke (5, Funny)

kittylyst (1467097) | more than 2 years ago | (#35843200)

Well, as it's old news, here's an old joke to go with it: "Why do policemen always go around in threes? One that can read, one that can write, and one to keep an eye on the two dangerous intellectuals."

Unlikely (1)

MikeRT (947531) | more than 2 years ago | (#35843208)

It's likely just a way for them to avoid an age-discrimination lawsuit. Law enforcement, like the military, generally doesn't recruit new people past their early to mid 30s. If he's new, by the time he'd hit 20 years on the force, he'd be staring down 70 (he's 48, according to TFA).

1999 called... (1)

ELCouz (1338259) | more than 2 years ago | (#35843240)

and want his news back!

Re:1999 called... (1)

ELCouz (1338259) | more than 2 years ago | (#35843250)

grammar fail... [ it's ]

Re:1999 called... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#35843276)

its

Re:1999 called... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#35843342)

grammar fail... [ it's ]

It's another grammar fail to use it's when you mean its. We won't even get started on when to use wants instead want.

Re:1999 called... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#35843568)

Double grammar fail. It's "its".

Re:1999 called... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#35843370)

Did you warn them? About Haiti and Japan?

http://xkcd.com/875/

Re:1999 called... (1)

ELCouz (1338259) | more than 2 years ago | (#35843558)

No but I told them to register facebook.com... the world would be saved from this disaster !!!

Defendant, Robert Jordan (1)

wideBlueSkies (618979) | more than 2 years ago | (#35843242)

Good thing he didn't get the job. Because Mr Jordan then went on to write a series of very successful fantasy novels, gaining fame and legions of devoted Rand-Fans world wide. ALl this before his sad and untimely passing.

Logical much? (1)

Xanthanov (1116109) | more than 2 years ago | (#35843248)

OK, so if we institute a law to not allow people with dark skin to be police, it's okay, because this filter is being applied to everyone? Last I checked, this is how we form subsets. Define A = {p | p is a person and p has an IQ 170} Define B = {p | p is a person and p has white skin} These are completely analogous, therefore only allowing police officers from set B should be an OK law. I think we should institute a new law: Person x can only write laws if x is in the set {p | p is a person and p understands basic set theory}. QED

Seriously? (2, Insightful)

nedlohs (1335013) | more than 2 years ago | (#35843266)

Timothy you are an idiot.

I take it slashdot uses the same policy.

Re:Seriously? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#35843770)

Timothy you are an idiot.

I take it slashdot uses the same policy.

You repeat yourself.

Hey, YOU are eminently qualified to be a Slashdot editur.

IQ != Smart (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#35843272)

Although I have little if any real science to back this up, I can offer the anecdotal evidence that the majority of high IQ people I know are collectively dumber than a box of rocks. They are quite knowledgeable when it comes to certain fields of expertise but just can't hack Real Life. They're arrogant jack-asses with little regard for their fellow humanity.

Re:IQ != Smart (1)

Bert64 (520050) | more than 2 years ago | (#35843352)

There are a few factors at play here...

Often, people with a higher IQ will have been pushed down an academic path and had less time to do things like play with other kids.. They also often get shunned by other kids because they spend more time doing schoolwork.

As for arrogance, someone who is predisposed to being arrogant will use any aspect of themselves to demonstrate their superiority to someone else, be it intelligence, physical strength, money etc.

Re:IQ != Smart (1)

19thNervousBreakdown (768619) | more than 2 years ago | (#35843570)

There's many alternative explanations for your observation, but I'll offer just two:

  1. Those who are actually intelligent, instead of just highly specialized, have enough social skills that you think of them as more than just "smart".
  2. You feel threatened by smart people, so judge them more harshly than you do "normals".

As for having "little regard for their fellow humanity (sic)", well, even someone of only average intelligence would think that half the people in the world are stupid. Imagine what Feynman felt like.

Up Next... (1)

Haedrian (1676506) | more than 2 years ago | (#35843294)

Scientist discovers that sun doesn't move around the earth after all.

Retro-slashdot.

Re:Up Next... (1)

zill (1690130) | more than 2 years ago | (#35843446)

Scientist discovers that sun doesn't move around the earth after all.

When object A revolves around object B, object B is also revolving around object A by definition.

The disproved geocentric model [wikipedia.org] incorrectly proposes that all objects in the universe revolve around the Earth. In actuality, only the Moon and the Sun revolve around Earth.

Another problem with the story (1)

93 Escort Wagon (326346) | more than 2 years ago | (#35843326)

Okay, as others pointed out... this story is 12 years old. But a larger issue is that the story is strictly a report of the legal ruling - it doesn't even touch on the (likely) flawed reasoning behind New London's policy. I realize Slashdotters tend to pride themselves on not reading the articles (or, often, even the submissions) - but even if this story were current, it'd be hard to have an intelligent discussion / discourse / debate over this without more information.

Is this a Slashdot record? (1)

joeszilagyi (635484) | more than 2 years ago | (#35843348)

For oldest necro post--13 years?

Re:Is this a Slashdot record? (1)

jd (1658) | more than 2 years ago | (#35843406)

Not even close. Far, far older stories have been published as new on Slashdot over the years. Mind you, it's still impressive.

I wonder (1)

overshoot (39700) | more than 2 years ago | (#35843428)

if they could apply the same reasoning to require a minimum serum testosterone level. Or maybe a maximum level of integumental melanin. After all, the same test applies to everyone.

Slashdot has retconned continuity.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#35843434)

Its now 1999 again. Buy apple stocks.

Fart imitating life... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#35843478)

The really funny/sad/alarming/ridiculous thing about this, is that today, it could be true!

For those that have asked (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#35843586)

A little google research reveals that the policy at the time was enacted because they believed that smart people would get bored with police work and quit the costly training program or quit the job shortly after the costly training program despite the fact that there has never been a correlation between IQ and job satisfaction shown (according to the article....I didn't try to determine if that was true).

As to how it worked....They used some sort of standard entrance exam to identify candidates and only gave interviews to applicants who scored within a certain range. The really scary part was that the man's "high" IQ was only 125. That still places him within 2 standard deviations of the mean of 100 (i.e. 70-130) which is where 95% of folks are generally considered to lie. This means that more than 1 person out of every 50 (and, injecting some of my own bias, likely a higher percentage of college educated people with broad experiences) are banned from serving because they're "too smart". We're not talking about geniuses here they're just bright people.

Based on some of the decisions I've seen made by police in the past perhaps this isn't the best entrance test.

im used to reading last week's news on slashdot (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#35843598)

but last decade's?

what the police department was looking for (1)

FudRucker (866063) | more than 2 years ago | (#35843606)

was dumb cops that will just blindly follow orders without conscience, someone smart enough to use critical thinking would probably get other officers, and government officials in to trouble.

Not the only government office with this rule (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#35843632)

I hear Congress has IQ limits as well they are just a bit lower.

Editorial Hint (1)

Fnord666 (889225) | more than 2 years ago | (#35843658)

Here's a quick tip. If the header at the top of the page for TFA says Archives, take a second look before posting the story.

Next time you hear cops saying how much respect... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#35843688)

Next time you hear cops saying how much pay and respect they deserve, remember this.

Not even McDonalds turns down employees for being too smart. I don't think there's any other "profession" on the planet that would try something like this, let alone go to court for it.

Same criteria for appointing Judges. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#35843692)

Intelligence: Anyone scoring too high is disqualified.
Color: Anyone scoring too black is disqualified.
Religion: Anyone scoring too Jewish is disqualified.
Orientation: Anyone scoring too heterosexual is disqualified.
Gender: Anyone scoring too female is disqualified.

Yup, the criteria are being applied equally to everyone making it entirely fair.

The Rationale Behind It (4, Informative)

asackett (161377) | more than 2 years ago | (#35843748)

FWIW, way back when this story was news instead of history I asked my county's Sheriff about the rationale behind this kind of thing. He explained it thusly:

"Suppose you're an officer and you're called to a convenience store robbery. When you arrive, you find the clerk on the floor has been shot and will certainly die if you don't render aid immediately. Meanwhile, you see the robber escaping in your neighbor's car so you know it's stolen. This fits the MO of an armed robber who's been in the region for a few weeks, never strikes in the same town twice, and always kills the clerks he robs. There are no witnesses. If you render aid to the fallen clerk the criminal will escape and will almost certainly kill again, but if you pursue the criminal the clerk will certainly die and you may not succeed in apprehending the criminal anyway. What do you do?"

I immediately responded that I'd pursue the criminal. He went on to explain:

"It's not really important which option you choose because in the end some innocent is going to die. What's important is that you quickly choose a response and follow it through to the end. The rationale behind not hiring those of exceptional intelligence is that they'll waste time thinking through their options hoping to find the optimal solution when there really isn't one instead of just springing into action."

It's horribly flawed logic, but that's the general consensus among law enforcement so it's self-reinforcing. You can't promote thinking leaders from within a force that doesn't include thinking officers.

Re:The Rationale Behind It (5, Insightful)

Man On Pink Corner (1089867) | more than 2 years ago | (#35843840)

I know the sheriff was trying to give an example of a dilemma that's likely to come up in police work, but the example he chose seems like a no-brainer, with a very clear right and wrong answer. You call in a description of your neighbor's car so other officers can look for it, then help the clerk. He'll probably be able to ID the robber or at least provide some solid clues in the event the suspect escapes the dragnet, but he can't do that if he's dead.

If you let the clerk die and fail to catch the suspect, you're no better off than you were before, and you have one more stiff in the morgue. Even if you do catch the robber, the dead clerk will still haunt your whole department, in the form of bad press and lawsuits.

One option will be second-guessed endlessly regardless of the final outcome, and the other will make you look like a hero, or at least someone who tried to help.

What's important is that you quickly choose a response and follow it through to the end.

Reminds me of a recent case in Seattle, where a roid-raging berserker with a badge emptied his Glock into a bum who was whittling with a pocket knife, after giving him four seconds to "comply." Somebody forgot to tell him that Robocop was not a training film.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...