Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

IMO the thing that needs to be changed first and foremost is the education of LEOs.
In most European countries the education to become a police officer is of an equivalent length to that of becoming a nurse.

The training should be focused more on conflict management, crime prevention and peaceful solutions.
If one finds that such solutions are inadequate, then perhaps the prevalence of firearms and social injustice in your society should be looked at.

My signature does not say I would. It is however a friendly warning. For instance my brother in law lost both his legs up to the hip from an IED. If you said you almost joined but you didn't want to end up legless, I !Ight have some harsh words. If you pressed it I may escalate but it's unlikely. However if I was in uniform I would simply walk away because I understand while wearing a uniform I represent my organization. Therefore my actions are not technically free to be my own. The fact that I understand that makes me more desirable than someone bucking at the chance to wear a uniform because they think it gives them power.

Also, vets are human beings and allowed to talk tough on the interwebz, just like everyone else.

In real life, usually, most will just roll with stupid comments because people often say dumb stuff.

Not sure how that is hard to understand.

 redleger wrote:
I got nothing. By that logic then I should just curl up in a ball in 2 days when I get out, abandon my family and accept I am broken. Bull gak. We are people, fallible just like everyone else. The difference it most of us have matured and experienced more than most due to the nature of our lives. I did say lives not job, because military service is all encompassing. Secondly there are difference between branches and even job branches within each military branch. For example Army and Navy vary immesurably. So the term vet is not a narrow description. Combat vet is equally misleading as few vets have actually seen combat as you think of it.

Now the ability to follow instructions, maturity around fire arms are usually consistent. Then it begins to vary based on job. So what you are implying would be very hard to prove.

You seem primed to be offended by this topic. Your first post indicated that merely the title of the thread angered you, and now you are responding with this?

Please point out where anyone in this thread suggested that you, or any other veteran is "broken"?

I will give you one thing, your post is a great example of the "us and them" mentality that is problematic with the military and police.

I'm pretty sure I responded with we are people, not a mention of class or caste. There is no us vs them, except in the constant desire to say things like vets hiring preference is wrong, PTSD means they are probably not fit to hold X job which is the implication made by the OP. Does that tick me off, yes. I'm a person, not a PTSD suffering broken human, and neither is any other vet. It's a treatable disorder so the implication that having it means we shouldn't have the same opportunities such as being a LEO is false in every regard. Numerous examples have been laid out in this thread. Secondly offended is not the word, not the feeling. But tired of seeing posts like this because its frustrating. The divide comes not from the vet community who struggles to integrate back into society but from the community that fears and loathes them in many regard. From people posting over social media likening us to attack dogs that should be put down, to fellow war gamers who are fascinated to try to learn a correlation between bad police and vets. If you were gay and being told you don't belong constantly you might be frustrated. The only difference is we signed up for something, came out different and it seems like we struggle against a stream. 3 days ago I was called a war criminal bastard. It's not the kind of thing normal members of society endure. So I read the thread, was happily surprised then for some reason I am being singled out for having an opinion. I don't like many opinions here but I don't seem to remember calling anyone out unless I could provide factual evidence about why they may be wrong, but it's never personal.

I think it's very unlikely there is a correlation between bad police and vets, although neither I nor anyone else can prove this one way or the other.

I think there are bad departments, and they tend to foster a culture of bad policing. The background prior to joining I think is generally irrelevant, other than that vets are represented more among police (good, bad, and indifferent) due to already having some of the same skillset prior to hiring.

 Ouze wrote:
I think it's very unlikely there is a correlation between bad police and vets, although neither I nor anyone else can prove this one way or the other.

I think there are bad departments, and they tend to foster a culture of bad policing. The background prior to joining I think is generally irrelevant, other than that vets are represented more among police (good, bad, and indifferent) due to already having some of the same skillset prior to hiring.

Now that is a statement I can 100% agree with. Department make internal policy, and policies whether written or ingrained are often the issue. This came up a year ago I think during the height of BLM and my main issue was pulling the trigger a bit too soon looked to be a trend till you crunched the numbers and factored in all interactions that end with no issues on a daily basis. The main issue is, some people have leaned through experience certain things that may not be easily taught in a class room such as being functional under immense pressure. This is the kind of training that makes vets preferable. Policies of the department take over from there since military tend to be driven by regulation and policy.

 redleger wrote:

 Ouze wrote:
I think it's very unlikely there is a correlation between bad police and vets, although neither I nor anyone else can prove this one way or the other.

I think there are bad departments, and they tend to foster a culture of bad policing. The background prior to joining I think is generally irrelevant, other than that vets are represented more among police (good, bad, and indifferent) due to already having some of the same skillset prior to hiring.

Now that is a statement I can 100% agree with. Department make internal policy, and policies whether written or ingrained are often the issue. This came up a year ago I think during the height of BLM and my main issue was pulling the trigger a bit too soon looked to be a trend till you crunched the numbers and factored in all interactions that end with no issues on a daily basis. The main issue is, some people have leaned through experience certain things that may not be easily taught in a class room such as being functional under immense pressure. This is the kind of training that makes vets preferable. Policies of the department take over from there since military tend to be driven by regulation and policy.

Also veterans may seek police as its well slightly like thr life they left and want to keep elaments of such.
Its not quite civilian and maybe some may find that more comfortable than going from military, to civilian work places.

Not sure the Police should be closed off to service veterans, but there should be some kind of screening process - military veterans may have PTSD etc which could affect judgement.

If there already is, hurrah.

I know a former Squaddie that's now a Prison Officer. He also used to be a Doorman for a local pub, but his license didn't really cover that (for instance, as a Prison Officer he can, in certain circumstances, pretzel an unruly/violent prisoner. Bouncers/Doormen can't)

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Not sure the Police should be closed off to service veterans, but there should be some kind of screening process - military veterans may have PTSD etc which could affect judgement.

If there already is, hurrah.

I know a former Squaddie that's now a Prison Officer. He also used to be a Doorman for a local pub, but his license didn't really cover that (for instance, as a Prison Officer he can, in certain circumstances, pretzel an unruly/violent prisoner. Bouncers/Doormen can't)

It was touched on earlier, there definitely is screening in place for all applicants to try and catch any "problem officers" before they get the badge.

Is it perfect? No. But then again, find us a system anywhere for anything that is perfect.

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Not sure the Police should be closed off to service veterans, but there should be some kind of screening process - military veterans may have PTSD etc which could affect judgement.

If there already is, hurrah.

I know a former Squaddie that's now a Prison Officer. He also used to be a Doorman for a local pub, but his license didn't really cover that (for instance, as a Prison Officer he can, in certain circumstances, pretzel an unruly/violent prisoner. Bouncers/Doormen can't)

It was touched on earlier, there definitely is screening in place for all applicants to try and catch any "problem officers" before they get the badge.

Is it perfect? No. But then again, find us a system anywhere for anything that is perfect.

You can screen and screen but some of it relies on the secreenee honesty too.
If they lie at certain stages they may slip the net.

Mets have to have holes, not like perfect walls so a net always gonna get odd bed egg through.

Meh, you can do stress and simulation testing that do not require honesty. But you also need to test honesty as integrity is crucial for an LEO.

Ouze nailed it- like most organizations, departments have their own cultures and histories for better or for worse. If leadership embraces honesty, transparency, and integrity, you will see a very different result than one engaged in political gamesmanship, self serving, and fear mongering.

Law enforcement is one of the areas where vets can go to get a job when they get out. No additional training (other than PTI, etc.) or degrees required. If the rest of the nation would do more than pay lip service to veterans they'd probably wind up in different career fields more often. Some industries look down their nose at veterans. Being a cop or a fire fighter is sometimes the only decent paying gig a guy can get.

 jmurph wrote:
Ouze nailed it- like most organizations, departments have their own cultures and histories for better or for worse. If leadership embraces honesty, transparency, and integrity, you will see a very different result than one engaged in political gamesmanship, self serving, and fear mongering.

One thing both military and police (at least well-led police) have in common is appearing as a unified force in the field, meaning you don't second-guess or say no to the commander - especially if outsiders could see it. That's not a problem in itself, ofc, it's quite necessary to keeping it all working and looking good. It does get to be a problem in that second sort of department you mention because bad decisions/orders will be defended and complaints discouraged so the brass can put a lid on it. The possibility to learn from mistakes and improve things becomes less important than hiding those mistakes to save face.

 jmurph wrote:
Meh, you can do stress and simulation testing that do not require honesty. But you also need to test honesty as integrity is crucial for an LEO.

Ouze nailed it- like most organizations, departments have their own cultures and histories for better or for worse. If leadership embraces honesty, transparency, and integrity, you will see a very different result than one engaged in political gamesmanship, self serving, and fear mongering.

True. No matter what they have done in past the culture of the departments will effect the future actions..
If its a good department even if they have issues and There's support in place . That can help make despite the very real issue, that its under control and reconise what needed to keep its members mentaly in good shape.

So let's break this down:.

 redleger wrote:
I'm pretty sure I responded with we are people, not a mention of class or caste. There is no us vs them, except in the constant desire to say things like vets hiring preference is wrong, PTSD means they are probably not fit to hold X job which is the implication made by the OP.

Regarding the us versus them, earlier in this thread you posted this:

 redleger wrote:
We are people, fallible just like everyone else. The difference it most of us have matured and experienced more than most due to the nature of our lives. I did say lives not job, because military service is all encompassing.

That is pretty clearly drawing a line between service members and civilians.

 redleger wrote:
I'm a person, not a PTSD suffering broken human, and neither is any other vet. It's a treatable disorder so the implication that having it means we shouldn't have the same opportunities such as being a LEO is false in every regard.

No one called into question your personhood, or accused you of being broken. No one is denying that PTSD can be coped with through treatment, in fact, that has been a common through-line in this thread that more treatment is needed for veterans and especially veterans in law enforcement. That sentiment is repeated throughout the article I posted in the OP. Did you read the article? Genuinely curious because your responses have been emotional and seem to be arguing against positions that aren't being presented here.

Also no one is saying veterans shouldn't have the same opportunities to be in law enforcement as civilians. No one in this thread has stated that. What this thread was inquiring about was whether or not the current preferences given to veterans to fill law enforcement positions should be re-evaluated given the higher occurrence of PTSD in veterans, and some data indicating that veteran LEO applicants had an almost double rate of failure when screening for impairment. That isn't an attack on veterans, that is data pointing to a possible problem in our police recruitment strategies. Strategies that have favored military veterans in some states for over a century.

But we can't question this or discuss whether or not those hiring practices should be re-evaluated because it is an affront to veterans? I don't think so. It is a legitimate question that should be investigated, but instead people like you try to re-frame the issue to be an attack against veterans and the conversation changes and grinds to a halt.

 redleger wrote:
Numerous examples have been laid out in this thread.

Not really. One example of an officer who was a veteran being fired for not shooting has been presented. Numerous times. I have also brought up the research shown in the OP article numerous times and people have ignored it, so I call bull here. The fact is there isn't enough data to satisfactorily answer this question, but people in your position, who want to take umbrage at slights against veterans that aren't being made, make it difficult to even posit a simple question about police recruitment strategies because suddenly its all about declaring veterans "broken".

 redleger wrote:
Secondly offended is not the word, not the feeling. But tired of seeing posts like this because its frustrating. The divide comes not from the vet community who struggles to integrate back into society but from the community that fears and loathes them in many regard. From people posting over social media likening us to attack dogs that should be put down, to fellow war gamers who are fascinated to try to learn a correlation between bad police and vets. If you were gay and being told you don't belong constantly you might be frustrated. The only difference is we signed up for something, came out different and it seems like we struggle against a stream. 3 days ago I was called a war criminal bastard. It's not the kind of thing normal members of society endure. So I read the thread, was happily surprised then for some reason I am being singled out for having an opinion. I don't like many opinions here but I don't seem to remember calling anyone out unless I could provide factual evidence about why they may be wrong, but it's never personal.

And here is the heart of the issue. You are bringing baggage from other parts of the internet, from other aspects of your life, from other arguments you've had with people, and venting your frustrations here and making meaningful conversation next to impossible because you have a bone to pick with anyone you feel is disparaging veterans. You see attacks where there aren't any.

I love that my curiosity about this subject is viewed the same by you as someone on social media likening veterans to rabid dogs that need to be put down. You really need to step back and take some perspective because what is occurring in this thread, and whatever bs you've encountered elsewhere are so far removed that it is insulting for you to even try to connect the two issues.






Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ouze wrote:
The background prior to joining I think is generally irrelevant, other than that vets are represented more among police (good, bad, and indifferent) due to already having some of the same skillset prior to hiring.

How then do you account for this:

Of nearly 4,000 police applicants evaluated by Guller’s firm from 2014 through October of 2016, those with military experience were failed at a higher rate than applicants who had no military history — 8.5% compared with 4.8%.

The higher rates of trauma are exacerbated by the fact that service members with PTSD often aren’t diagnosed and keep quiet about their suffering. Although up to 20% of those deployed to Iraq and Afghanistan have PTSD, only half get treated, according to a 2012 National Academy of Sciences study. Veterans are 21% more likely to kill themselves than adults who never enlisted, according to a report in August by the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs.

Officers with a history of mental health problems — even those who have been treated and are now healthy — can pose a twofold problem for departments who hire them. First, their history can become a liability if the department is sued. Second, it can be used to attack their credibility on the stand if they’re called to testify.

Advocates say the safety net for struggling officers at most police departments is minimal to non-existent. Even departments sensitive to mental health are in a difficult position: Top brass needs to be able to take unstable police officers off the street lest they hurt someone or themselves on the job. Yet officers must feel they can ask for help confidentially, without jeopardizing their careers, or “you're never going to get cops to come forward” for treatment, says Brian Fleming,

If background is irrelevant, why are failure rates higher with applicants with a military history?

The article also states that officers with a case of mental health problems cause potential problems for their departments - that includes all officers not just ones with a military background.

So, the onus on police departments should be to find candidates who are mentally healthy, but if preferences are given to a pool of candidates more likely to fail impairment screenings (if the data found by The Institute for Forensic Psychology isn't a fluke) shouldn't a persons background be given more consideration?

 DarkTraveler777 wrote:
So let's break this down:.

 redleger wrote:
I'm pretty sure I responded with we are people, not a mention of class or caste. There is no us vs them, except in the constant desire to say things like vets hiring preference is wrong, PTSD means they are probably not fit to hold X job which is the implication made by the OP.

Regarding the us versus them, earlier in this thread you posted this:

 redleger wrote:
We are people, fallible just like everyone else. The difference it most of us have matured and experienced more than most due to the nature of our lives. I did say lives not job, because military service is all encompassing.

That is pretty clearly drawing a line between service members and civilians.

 redleger wrote:
I'm a person, not a PTSD suffering broken human, and neither is any other vet. It's a treatable disorder so the implication that having it means we shouldn't have the same opportunities such as being a LEO is false in every regard.

No one called into question your personhood, or accused you of being broken. No one is denying that PTSD can be coped with through treatment, in fact, that has been a common through-line in this thread that more treatment is needed for veterans and especially veterans in law enforcement. That sentiment is repeated throughout the article I posted in the OP. Did you read the article? Genuinely curious because your responses have been emotional and seem to be arguing against positions that aren't being presented here.

Also no one is saying veterans shouldn't have the same opportunities to be in law enforcement as civilians. No one in this thread has stated that. What this thread was inquiring about was whether or not the current preferences given to veterans to fill law enforcement positions should be re-evaluated given the higher occurrence of PTSD in veterans, and some data indicating that veteran LEO applicants had an almost double rate of failure when screening for impairment. That isn't an attack on veterans, that is data pointing to a possible problem in our police recruitment strategies. Strategies that have favored military veterans in some states for over a century.

But we can't question this or discuss whether or not those hiring practices should be re-evaluated because it is an affront to veterans? I don't think so. It is a legitimate question that should be investigated, but instead people like you try to re-frame the issue to be an attack against veterans and the conversation changes and grinds to a halt.

 redleger wrote:
Numerous examples have been laid out in this thread.

Not really. One example of an officer who was a veteran being fired for not shooting has been presented. Numerous times. I have also brought up the research shown in the OP article numerous times and people have ignored it, so I call bull here. The fact is there isn't enough data to satisfactorily answer this question, but people in your position, who want to take umbrage at slights against veterans that aren't being made, make it difficult to even posit a simple question about police recruitment strategies because suddenly its all about declaring veterans "broken".

 redleger wrote:
Secondly offended is not the word, not the feeling. But tired of seeing posts like this because its frustrating. The divide comes not from the vet community who struggles to integrate back into society but from the community that fears and loathes them in many regard. From people posting over social media likening us to attack dogs that should be put down, to fellow war gamers who are fascinated to try to learn a correlation between bad police and vets. If you were gay and being told you don't belong constantly you might be frustrated. The only difference is we signed up for something, came out different and it seems like we struggle against a stream. 3 days ago I was called a war criminal bastard. It's not the kind of thing normal members of society endure. So I read the thread, was happily surprised then for some reason I am being singled out for having an opinion. I don't like many opinions here but I don't seem to remember calling anyone out unless I could provide factual evidence about why they may be wrong, but it's never personal.

And here is the heart of the issue. You are bringing baggage from other parts of the internet, from other aspects of your life, from other arguments you've had with people, and venting your frustrations here and making meaningful conversation next to impossible because you have a bone to pick with anyone you feel is disparaging veterans. You see attacks where there aren't any.

I love that my curiosity about this subject is viewed the same by you as someone on social media likening veterans to rabid dogs that need to be put down. You really need to step back and take some perspective because what is occurring in this thread, and whatever bs you've encountered elsewhere are so far removed that it is insulting for you to even try to connect the two issues.






Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ouze wrote:
The background prior to joining I think is generally irrelevant, other than that vets are represented more among police (good, bad, and indifferent) due to already having some of the same skillset prior to hiring.

How then do you account for this:

Of nearly 4,000 police applicants evaluated by Guller’s firm from 2014 through October of 2016, those with military experience were failed at a higher rate than applicants who had no military history — 8.5% compared with 4.8%.

The higher rates of trauma are exacerbated by the fact that service members with PTSD often aren’t diagnosed and keep quiet about their suffering. Although up to 20% of those deployed to Iraq and Afghanistan have PTSD, only half get treated, according to a 2012 National Academy of Sciences study. Veterans are 21% more likely to kill themselves than adults who never enlisted, according to a report in August by the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs.

Officers with a history of mental health problems — even those who have been treated and are now healthy — can pose a twofold problem for departments who hire them. First, their history can become a liability if the department is sued. Second, it can be used to attack their credibility on the stand if they’re called to testify.

Advocates say the safety net for struggling officers at most police departments is minimal to non-existent. Even departments sensitive to mental health are in a difficult position: Top brass needs to be able to take unstable police officers off the street lest they hurt someone or themselves on the job. Yet officers must feel they can ask for help confidentially, without jeopardizing their careers, or “you're never going to get cops to come forward” for treatment, says Brian Fleming,

If background is irrelevant, why are failure rates higher with applicants with a military history?

The article also states that officers with a case of mental health problems cause potential problems for their departments - that includes all officers not just ones with a military background.

So, the onus on police departments should be to find candidates who are mentally healthy, but if preferences are given to a pool of candidates more likely to fail impairment screenings (if the data found by The Institute for Forensic Psychology isn't a fluke) shouldn't a persons background be given more consideration?

Saying Veterans have a maturity over other civilians of comparable age is not a line drawn between two groups, its a statement based on the amount of training, experience and even stress that is pushed upon an average service member. This for most service members begins to change they way they conduct themselves, which makes them seem like a different class of citizen, when in reality we are not. Just because your average 20 year old, with 2 years of service has learned to work 60+ hours a week, under stress, with little sleep and has to maintain strict adherence to policy, verbal and written instruction as well as be responsible by that time for the every day lives and interaction of a team of Soldiers(Usually 4) vs the average American 20 year old who can not be quantified because they vary too greatly does not mean there is a line between vets and civilians, but there is a line between active duty and civilians in that regard. Neither is better or worse, but they are different. The point I was attempting to make, probably poorly was that there is a difference in experience which is probably seen as desirable by departments and desirable for those looking for that same type of structure, but looking to avoid the bs military service can and does offer.

Your inference in another post was definitely that of PTSD and vets being a problem. Its a problem among vets but I can honestly say not as big a problem as many would make it seem. By the time most leave the service they have learned the tools to cope, those that haven't are usually bound for failure when they get out, regardless of the job they choose. Honestly I suck at multi-quote but it was the same comment that Jmurph replied to, he saw the same inference that I saw you making. As for suicide rates among vets I am not sure what that has to do with anything. the 22 suicides a day problem is a community problem that doesn't seem to matter to anyone till it comes time to use them as an example as to why they can't or shouldn't do X, just as you did. The very last sentence states that preference is given to a group that is more likely to fail shows that there is already a bias. Why do they fail the initial process? Is it quantifiable with your assertion that is has anything to do with PTSD? Post Traumatic Stress Disorder is not one single thing, and most happen to function superb at work, then turn around at night and fall apart, just to wake up and start over again. Those are the ones that can not be easily rooted out, and are not the ones that this study would easily find due to learning to operate in a constant state of anxiety and stress, it becomes the norm, the reality and therefore becomes normal. So if they are then acting normal, how do you identify them? There is no quantifiable data that can point to any one factor. If you can crunch the numbers, provide a proof then I will stand a side, and say you are right, vets suck at police work, please receive my sincerest apologies for my opinion I originally had of you.

 redleger wrote:
Saying Veterans have a maturity over other civilians of comparable age is not a line drawn between two groups, its a statement based on the amount of training, experience and even stress that is pushed upon an average service member. This for most service members begins to change they way they conduct themselves, which makes them seem like a different class of citizen, when in reality we are not. Just because your average 20 year old, with 2 years of service has learned to work 60+ hours a week, under stress, with little sleep and has to maintain strict adherence to policy, verbal and written instruction as well as be responsible by that time for the every day lives and interaction of a team of Soldiers(Usually 4) vs the average American 20 year old who can not be quantified because they vary too greatly does not mean there is a line between vets and civilians, but there is a line between active duty and civilians in that regard. Neither is better or worse, but they are different. The point I was attempting to make, probably poorly was that there is a difference in experience which is probably seen as desirable by departments and desirable for those looking for that same type of structure, but looking to avoid the bs military service can and does offer.

It is very much a line drawn between the two groups. You cannot make blanket assumptions about the maturity level of one group over another because individual experiences within those groups vary. You are happy to point out others biases, but yours are showing here. You clearly think military services members are more mature than their civilian peers since you have stated as much.

 redleger wrote:
The very last sentence states that preference is given to a group that is more likely to fail shows that there is already a bias. Why do they fail the initial process? Is it quantifiable with your assertion that is has anything to do with PTSD?

That statement is based off the article in the OP. Again, did you read the article? It is not my bias driving that statement, it is me reflecting on the content of the limited studies featured in the article which indicated that police applicants with a military service background failed impairment screens at almost double the rate of applicants without a military service background.

How do you account for that disparity?

 redleger wrote:
If you can crunch the numbers, provide a proof then I will stand a side, and say you are right, vets suck at police work, please receive my sincerest apologies for my opinion I originally had of you.

I couldn't give a flipping feth what your opinion is of me, but I would like you to stop characterizing me as someone who is saying "vets suck at police work" so, again, stop lumping me in with the idiots you argue with elsewhere on the internet.

 DarkTraveler777 wrote:

 redleger wrote:
Saying Veterans have a maturity over other civilians of comparable age is not a line drawn between two groups, its a statement based on the amount of training, experience and even stress that is pushed upon an average service member. This for most service members begins to change they way they conduct themselves, which makes them seem like a different class of citizen, when in reality we are not. Just because your average 20 year old, with 2 years of service has learned to work 60+ hours a week, under stress, with little sleep and has to maintain strict adherence to policy, verbal and written instruction as well as be responsible by that time for the every day lives and interaction of a team of Soldiers(Usually 4) vs the average American 20 year old who can not be quantified because they vary too greatly does not mean there is a line between vets and civilians, but there is a line between active duty and civilians in that regard. Neither is better or worse, but they are different. The point I was attempting to make, probably poorly was that there is a difference in experience which is probably seen as desirable by departments and desirable for those looking for that same type of structure, but looking to avoid the bs military service can and does offer.

It is very much a line drawn between the two groups. You cannot make blanket assumptions about the maturity level of one group over another because individual experiences within those groups vary. You are happy to point out others biases, but yours are showing here. You clearly think military services members are more mature than their civilian peers since you have stated as much.

 redleger wrote:
The very last sentence states that preference is given to a group that is more likely to fail shows that there is already a bias. Why do they fail the initial process? Is it quantifiable with your assertion that is has anything to do with PTSD?

That statement is based off the article in the OP. Again, did you read the article? It is not my bias driving that statement, it is me reflecting on the content of the limited studies featured in the article which indicated that police applicants with a military service background failed impairment screens at almost double the rate of applicants without a military service background.

How do you account for that disparity?

 redleger wrote:
If you can crunch the numbers, provide a proof then I will stand a side, and say you are right, vets suck at police work, please receive my sincerest apologies for my opinion I originally had of you.

I couldn't give a flipping feth what your opinion is of me, but I would like you to stop characterizing me as someone who is saying "vets suck at police work" so, again, stop lumping me in with the idiots you argue with elsewhere on the internet.

read and understood. Only thing I will point out, which is my fault for bad wording is that what I meant by maturity was akin to firearms discipline, maturity at work, and the ability to work long stressful hours with out the need to stop. Basically adulting, which from what I see dealing with new recruits on the daily is a thing no longer translating well into 18 year olds as much as I saw when I was 18.

 redleger wrote:

read and understood. Only thing I will point out, which is my fault for bad wording is that what I meant by maturity was akin to firearms discipline, maturity at work, and the ability to work long stressful hours with out the need to stop. Basically adulting, which from what I see dealing with new recruits on the daily is a thing no longer translating well into 18 year olds as much as I saw when I was 18.

Just to play devils advocate for a moment, but when you were a recruit, how many old timers with the same time you are at now would say the exact same thing about you?

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 redleger wrote:

read and understood. Only thing I will point out, which is my fault for bad wording is that what I meant by maturity was akin to firearms discipline, maturity at work, and the ability to work long stressful hours with out the need to stop. Basically adulting, which from what I see dealing with new recruits on the daily is a thing no longer translating well into 18 year olds as much as I saw when I was 18.

Just to play devils advocate for a moment, but when you were a recruit, how many old timers with the same time you are at now would say the exact same thing about you?

Many I'm sure. It is accepted among !Any that each generation seems to be getting softer and softer.