NationStates Jolt Archive

The New York Times said the problem was not enough government spending on courthouse security ("Budgets Can Affect Safety Inside Many Courthouses"). Yes, it was tax-cuts-for-the-rich that somehow enabled a 200-pound former linebacker to take a gun from a 5-foot-tall grandmother.

It turns out that, far from "de-escalating force" through their superior listening skills, female law enforcement officers vastly are more likely to shoot civilians than their male counterparts. (Especially when perps won't reveal where they bought a particularly darling pair of shoes.)

Unable to use intermediate force, like a bop on the nose, female officers quickly go to fatal force. According to Lott's analysis, each 1 percent increase in the number of white female officers in a police force increases the number of shootings of civilians by 2.7 percent.



Adding males to a police force decreases the number of civilians accidentally shot by police. Adding black males decreases civilian shootings by police even more. By contrast, adding white female officers increases accidental shootings. (And for my Handgun Control Inc. readers: Private citizens are much less likely to accidentally shoot someone than are the police, presumably because they do not have to approach the suspect and make an arrest.)

In addition to accidentally shooting people, female law enforcement officers are also more likely to be assaulted than male officers – as the whole country saw in Atlanta last week. Lott says: "Increasing the number of female officers by 1 percentage point appears to increase the number of assaults on police by 15 percent to 19 percent."


There is also the telling fact that feminists demand that strength tests be watered down so that women can pass them. Feminists simultaneously demand that no one suggest women are not as strong as men and then turn around and demand that all the strength tests be changed. It's one thing to waste everyone's time by allowing women to try out for police and fire departments under the same tests given to men. It's quite another to demand that the tests be brawned-down so no one ever has to tell female Harvard professors that women aren't as strong as men.


http://www.townhall.com/columnists/anncoulter/ac20050317.shtml

gee, who would have thunk it :)

In addition to accidentally shooting people, female law enforcement officers are also more likely to be assaulted than male officers – as the whole country saw in Atlanta last week. Lott says: "Increasing the number of female officers by 1 percentage point appears to increase the number of assaults on police by 15 percent to 19 percent."
do you think these might be related, just a little bit? i mean, if female officers are significantly more likely to be assaulted, might that increase how "trigger happy" those female officers are? if a female officer feels (apparently with good reason) that she is in more danger, it's not unreasonable that she would be more likely to use her weapon. i'm not saying that's a good thing, nor am i saying it's okay for female officers to shoot people willy-nilly just because they feel scared, it's just a possibility that might be worth looking at.

There is also the telling fact that feminists demand that strength tests be watered down so that women can pass them. Feminists simultaneously demand that no one suggest women are not as strong as men and then turn around and demand that all the strength tests be changed. It's one thing to waste everyone's time by allowing women to try out for police and fire departments under the same tests given to men. It's quite another to demand that the tests be brawned-down so no one ever has to tell female Harvard professors that women aren't as strong as men.

I always thought this was rather weird. I think if women want to get onto the police force they should have to pass the same tests to the same level as men.

do you think these might be related, just a little bit? i mean, if female officers are significantly more likely to be assaulted, might that increase how "trigger happy" those female officers are? if a female officer feels (apparently with good reason) that she is in more danger, it's not unreasonable that she would be more likely to use her weapon. i'm not saying that's a good thing, nor am i saying it's okay for female officers to shoot people willy-nilly just because they feel scared, it's just a possibility that might be worth looking at.

I agree with you, though I dont come to the same conclusion.

Yes, its entirely possible that female officers might believe they are more at risk of being assaulted and therefore be more ready to use deadly force.

What I am concerned about are the outcomes. Everyone wants to be PC, but that ignores some important issues.

I am a guy, 5'7" and 140lbs.(far less muscle than I would like). I would make a HORRIBLE police officer. Do you know why? Because my only real resort if the perp didnt comply would be for me to pull my piece and maybe have to shoot. But if I was a 6'2" guy and 250+ lbs then maybe I would have more options with a recalcitrant criminal. Maybe I could smack him one or whack him with my flashlight instead of being in the position where my only option is to draw down and maybe shoot him. It is also probable that a criminal factors in his relative strength before he chooses to resist or comply.

In some lines of work, physical strength and size counts and men are generally stronger than women. Sorry, its the way it is. PC in some industries is just really bad. I still think we should have MANY female officers(obviosly they going to be more able in many tasks) but believing they will be as good as men or men will be as good as women in ALL] tasks is just foolish.

Men and women should be encouraged(generally) to fill roles where their advantages are emhasized and their disadvantages are de emphasized.

I agree that women should have to pass the same tests as men to become a police.... person. Theres really no excuse.

If you can do it, you can be it. It sounds like a good policy.

What about the military? They have different standards for women and men, but women don't serve in active combat roles, is that fair?

Perhaps this is a sign that police training for women needs to be modified more, not by decreasing the amount of strength they need to pass, but changing the focus of their training to work with their strengths better.

Using combat theory to illustrate my point; A kick to the nuts hurts more than a punch to the face. Kicks have longer reach, can have more power, and can be used as fast a most punches.

Women generally have strong legs, right? If a male cop can subdue an attacker using upper body strength, why not also teach women to use their lower body with equal effectiveness? It can obviously be done, but it would require rethinking how to train police officers to include other specialties than upper body strength.

Arguing that people are not different is just silly. Pissing into the wind. But arguing that a variety of ways can reach the same goal is perfectly reasonable. Why not simply find new ways of training our officers?

If you can do it, you can be it. It sounds like a good policy.

What about the military? They have different standards for women and men, but women don't serve in active combat roles, is that fair?

Perhaps this is a sign that police training for women needs to be modified more, not by decreasing the amount of strength they need to pass, but changing the focus of their training to work with their strengths better.

Using combat theory to illustrate my point; A kick to the nuts hurts more than a punch to the face. Kicks have longer reach, can have more power, and can be used as fast a most punches.

Women generally have strong legs, right? If a male cop can subdue an attacker using upper body strength, why not also teach women to use their lower body with equal effectiveness? It can obviously be done, but it would require rethinking how to train police officers to include other specialties than upper body strength.

Arguing that people are not different is just silly. Pissing into the wind. But arguing that a variety of ways can reach the same goal is perfectly reasonable. Why not simply find new ways of training our officers?


Maybe you are correct, maybe not. What needs to be done is drop the PC bullshit and actually study what roles different genders would be best in.

Maybe women would make better hostage negotiaters than men. Maybe teaming up a woman with a really big man would be the ideal combination. The man would provide the intimidation factor and the woman would do a better job of talking the perp into not resisting.

Who knows, all I think is that it should be looked at objectively and not based on the assumption that men and woman are exactly the same and should act the same way and do the same exact jobs.

Using combat theory to illustrate my point; A kick to the nuts hurts more than a punch to the face. Kicks have longer reach, can have more power, and can be used as fast a most punches.

It's not kosher to instruct female police officers to sterilize every man that looks at them funny. I'd rather be pistol whipped then kicked in the nuts. Perhaps they can tell them to kick for the solar plexus or the pressure point behind the knee, but that's it.

It's not kosher to instruct female police officers to sterilize every man that looks at them funny. I'd rather be pistol whipped then kicked in the nuts. Perhaps they can tell them to kick for the solar plexus or the pressure point behind the knee, but that's it.

Its also not kosher to instruct every male officer to beat the face in of every man who looks at them funny. Restraint would come with the knowledge that you can actully defeat an opponent in hand to hand fighting, what this article suggests is that firearms are used because the women fear for their safety. But either way I'll leave the specifics to the trainers.

Would someone be as likely to attack a woman officer, knowing it would cost them their nuts? But in any case my point stands...or in this case falls over, clutching its ruined testies.

Its also not kosher to instruct every male officer to beat the face in of every man who looks at them funny. Restraint would come with the knowledge that you can actully defeat an opponent in hand to hand fighting, what this article suggests is that firearms are used because the women fear for their safety. But either way I'll leave the specifics to the trainers.

Would someone be as likely to attack a woman officer, knowing it would cost them their nuts? But in any case my point stands...or in this case falls over, clutching its ruined testies.

restraint comes from two things.

1) the person feels less threatened

2) the perp feels that there is less chance of getting away with it.

The case of a big male
a) he is not so worried about being attacked/overpowered
b)the perp thinks his chance of success in attempting to overpower the officer is diminished

the case of a slimly built female officer
a)the officer feels more threatened
b)the perp is more confident of success in a physical altercation.

restraint comes from two things.

1) the person feels less threatened

2) the perp feels that there is less chance of getting away with it.

The case of a big male
a) he is not so worried about being attacked/overpowered
b)the perp thinks his chance of success in attempting to overpower the officer is diminished

the case of a slimly built female officer
a)the officer feels more threatened
b)the perp is more confident of success in a physical altercation.

That is the status quo, yes. Thank you for reiterating it, and breaking it down into easily digestible pieces.

...and? You have a point I assume?