Seems like this psych exam was correct but this department hired them anyway. https://www.nbcbayarea.com/news/local/alameda-sheriff-deputies/3013680/ This supposed cop can't recognize a flustered intimidated 115 lb. girl. Stay alert but maybe talk her down to do your job and leave a positive experience in her mond.
Why, nobody else with a gun and a badge follows that process , why should he
Last edited by steve4102; 04/21/24.
Give a man a fish and he eats for a day. Give a man a welfare check, a forty ounce malt liquor, a crack pipe, an Obama phone, free health insurance. and some Air Jordan's and he votes Democrat for a lifetime.
Seems like this psych exam was correct but this department hired them anyway. https://www.nbcbayarea.com/news/local/alameda-sheriff-deputies/3013680/ This supposed cop can't recognize a flustered intimidated 115 lb. girl. Stay alert but maybe talk her down to do your job and leave a positive experience in her mond.
Considering how different his version of events was versus the video(several falsehoods) it is reasonable to ponder if he had plans other than what his job duties would cover.
As this guy points out, the act of reaching inside the car to unbuckle her seatbelt doesn't go along with someone claiming to be concerned about their safety.
That makes no sense. I've never heard of a psychological test being scored like an achievement test with letter grades. Plus, the purpose of those tests is prediction, so after they've been on the job for a time and performed satisfactorily with no problems, the test is more or less moot. Unless there's some sort of "ticking bomb" theory, and that would be a huge stretch of the predictive validity of such tests. Which, by the way, is a major argument against requiring psych. testing of prospective gun owners.
It looks to me like a can of worms for the agency and its govt. Legal liabilities all over the place, including the deputies having a cause of action. A lawyers' field day.
Stupidity has its way, while its cousin, evil, runs rampant.
That makes no sense. I've never heard of a psychological test being scored like an achievement test with letter grades. Plus, the purpose of those tests is prediction, so after they've been on the job for a time and performed satisfactorily with no problems, the test is more or less moot. Unless there's some sort of "ticking bomb" theory, and that would be a huge stretch of the predictive validity of such tests. Which, by the way, is a major argument against requiring psych. testing of prospective gun owners.
It looks to me like a can of worms for the agency and its govt. Legal liabilities all over the place, including the deputies having a cause of action. A lawyers' field day.
1) the article didn't say the D grades had performed satisfactorily with no problems.
2) this is the Devin mentioned who was later revealed to have not passed his. Sounds like a problem.
Seems like I always have been a strong supporter of LEOs wherever we have lived and worked, and for very good reasons. But, great appreciation for all of the fine cops I have known or seen perform does not erase the experiences of the occasional bad ones - the contrast only intensifies the differences.
For me, the biggest lesson from this example is the attitude aspect. It pops up as a glaring example at times. No matter how much knowledge of the job and good training takes place, some individuals will abuse the role/authority and fail to serve as sworn. There is something in their makeup and personal needs that is overly selfish - so the specific knowledge, training and heavy authority tends to intensify the bad behavior they cannot resist.
One good addition to the LEO hiring criteria would be a definitive test to reveal such disqualifying personality and attitude traits - before any training is even attempted.
They knew he is a bad apple when they hired him. They defended him until the local pressure got too high.
"Only Christ is the fullness of God's revelation." Everyday Hunter
I'm not going to offer a semester course on this topic.
1) If the performance of some was not up to standards, corrective action should be taken on that basis, not against a whole group based on a test score. ex post facto
2) Tests aren't perfect predictors and should not be the sole basis for hiring decisions. Being on either side of a cutoff score is not some kind of conclusive proof of negligent hiring. A group of factors would have to be considered. Kind of a due diligence review.
Stupidity has its way, while its cousin, evil, runs rampant.
I'm not going to offer a semester course on this topic.
1) If the performance of some was not up to standards, corrective action should be taken on that basis, not against a whole group based on a test score. ex post facto
2) Tests aren't perfect predictors and should not be the sole basis for hiring decisions. Being on either side of a cutoff score is not some kind of conclusive proof of negligent hiring. A group of factors would have to be considered. Kind of a due diligence review.
You don't need to offer anything.
Just go back and read the article instead of adding a defense in to it for those who didn't pass their test.
On top of that, it's California.
Does California.gov:
A) grant special priveleges to anyone that can't be shown as being a trouble maker over a 10 year period?
B) constantly tries to remove rights from people who have done nothing wrong to anyone with the little D grade henchmen gleefully carrying out California.gov's orders?
