125 is a "Superior" IQ.
But I digress...
It's damn good thing residents in the Hollywood area and other fire areas didn't agree with you. Someone's setting car ports on fire? It's cool. Not mine. Why talk to the police?I honestly believe that involving the police, even when something grossly criminal is involved, will lead to a suboptimal outcome
Guy is trying to light his shoe on fire in a plane? That's odd. He must be crazy, it's cool.
Friend got raped? It's over, she'll be fine, and I'm sure the guy will never do it again.
Seriously, yo, give it a rest.
Last edited by FishMonger; January 12th, 2012 at 08:57 AM.
I'm not going to knock this policy as we actively consider retention when we start the interview process for candidates. It seems to me though that someone too smart for the job is a shameful principle to weed out candidates. I mean if that were the case I would suppose the job was literally bottom barrel entry level churn position anyway and retention shouldn't be a high priority. It would be better if they could create positions within a police force that could utilize and stimulate a person of "superior intellect". I know seniority is very important to the hierarchy of most police forces but sometimes you have to admit that it doesn't take patrol duty awareness to graduate to forensic skills.
My writing is a bit nuanced, but it's generally legible. My statement concerning police involvement is not centered on inactivty, but rather the idea of alternative paths. Sometimes it's difficult, and sometimes it's way more difficult than just involving the cops, but there's more than one way to skin a cat.Terrible Crimes
Based on what you have written, it seems to me that you see what you're looking for, and ignore the rest. You focus on the minority and use it as evidence of broad, generalized statements.So when I make claims like: I empathize, I've done the research, etc... I've probably done it. If you choose not to believe it, or simply ignore it; that's on you, not me.
I have no doubt you look. But ones eyes being open doesn't make them less blind.
That was a whole lot of typing to say absolutely nothing.My writing is a bit nuanced, but it's generally legible. My statement concerning police involvement is not centered on inactivty, but rather the idea of alternative paths. Sometimes it's difficult, and sometimes it's way more difficult than just involving the cops, but there's more than one way to skin a cat.
But I'll bite, it's slow at work. In those instances, what should people do? You claim there are alternative paths. Please elaborate.
These are tricky cases, I'll give it a half-assed attempts:In those instances, what should people do? You claim there are alternative paths. Please elaborate.
1) Sleep in car
2) Call flight attendant. Order 7up. Pay 5$. Open sodapop, pour on shoe.
3) This is the easiest one of them all.
Considering there's been millions, of instances where people come across cops in that time, I'd say your numbers are pretty weak.
And listen, nobody is saying the system is perfect. Nobody is saying mistakes aren't made. Nobody is saying there are not cops who are bad people and abuse their power. But to say you have significant enough evidence that we're better off without police... that's just absurd.