Should police officers everywhere now be required to pass a psychological evaluation before being given a gun? Or do you think that just requiring an IQ higher than 100 at time of hiring could serve the same purpose?
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071008/ap_on_re_us/wisconsin_shooting
Thank God he was shot by a gun-carrying free American!
2007-10-08 06:27:40 · 15 answers · asked by Estrella E 4 in Politics & Government ➔ Law Enforcement & Police
Goes to show you that it still isn't "guns" that are the problem, regardless of how much the Democrats want to disarm America.
2007-10-08 06:32:54 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 4⤋
I understand your question but apparently most of the other people answering don't get it. Your question is asking about psychological evalutions for law inforcement officers. In fact, most states and localities do require it. Your point seems to clearly be that law enforcement should not be so casual about its hiring policies. If the Patriot Act were to have any meaningful laws associated with it maybe requiring evaluations for all law enforcement officers would be a good idea. One would hope that congress might take up this issue or at least Wisconsin will pull its head out of its cheese hole and get with the times.
2007-10-09 07:40:38 · answer #2 · answered by Sketch 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Who says they don't already go through those tests? Try contacting the LAPD, Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department, California Highway Patrol or any other law enforcement agency in the State of California and ask what tests are administered to cadets prior to even being accepted into the academy. Minimum is: 1. Written test. 2. Physical agility test. 3. Psychological evaluation 4. Full background investigation. 5. Polygraph 6. Oral interview.
2016-05-19 00:13:42 · answer #3 · answered by ? 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
This is why all citizens should be armed - if everyone at that party had been armed, as guaranteed by our Constitution, then he would have been shot and killed right then and there, and many lives would have been saved.
The Constitution does not say that you need to be 18 or 21 or even older, nor does it say you need to have a license nor a permit - and back in the day when it was drafted, you had a gun given to you when you reached your 4th or 5th birthday and you learned how to use it properly. This is how it should be done.
2007-10-08 07:15:33 · answer #4 · answered by MrKnowItAll 6 · 2⤊ 0⤋
The fast majority of police officers in the US have to go thru psychological testing before they are hired. Both agencies I have worked for required multiple test, three for the first job, two for the one I work for now, plus an interview with a physiologist.
That’s besides requiring a college degree, back ground checks, medical exams, and a polygraph!
2007-10-08 07:08:16 · answer #5 · answered by Magic Matt 4 · 4⤊ 0⤋
Could not help noticing that NBC national news devoted about 5 seconds in the middle of todays broadcast to a mention of the event and that was all.
Now if the deputy who did the mass murder had been in some other profession, it would be their lead story for a week. If it had been done at the school the victims attended, it would be on the news for a year.
2007-10-08 15:06:07 · answer #6 · answered by Gaspode 7 · 4⤊ 0⤋
The gun didn't kill those people, the off-duty sheriff deputy who pulled the trigger, did.
The gun was the tool used to commit the crime. The tool just as easily could have been a knife, cudgel, or some other nefarious item of personal destruction like poison.
Does there need to be better psychological screening of potential law enforcement candidates? Yes. Of that, I have no doubt.
2007-10-08 06:39:04 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 0⤋
Do you bother to read the articles that you post?
"Peterson, a deputy and part-time police officer, later died after exchanging gunfire with law enforcement officers. Whether Peterson was shot by police or took his own life was unclear."
That's a quote from the link that you posted.
But posting the correct information would have made it harder to exploit the victims to further your second amendment argument.
2007-10-08 22:12:54 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
I'd be surprised if this story stays up for more than a day on national news...
For the peson above: The truth is not disgusting. After all, each time there's been a tragic shooting at schools, basically for the same reason this police officer went berzerk, the anti-gun groups are out in force! Why should this now be treated differently? The truth is that guns are not the problem. People are.
2007-10-08 06:36:37 · answer #9 · answered by Danny G 1 · 4⤊ 3⤋
in America you have to be 21 years of age to legally purchase a hand gun but as an officer one was issued to him. I believe there are very few 20 year olds in this world who are capable of handling the stress that comes with having a badge. This person was one of them. The gun is not at fault and I doubt there was anything in a screening process that would have caught this. Since he was working full time as a deputy sheriff and part time as a city officer He was definitly working way to much for the position he was in at his age.
2007-10-08 06:51:35 · answer #10 · answered by hunting4junk 4 · 2⤊ 2⤋
Every agency worth its salt does do psychological exams on potential candidates.
This guy was just a nut and an isolated incident.
It is sad as it give a black eye to all of us honest and sane police officers.
As with any profession or person, there are going to be a few bad apples.
2007-10-08 06:43:11 · answer #11 · answered by Dog Lover 7 · 6⤊ 2⤋