• prayer@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      14
      ·
      8 months ago

      Which makes sense because many states require you to be 21 to carry a handgun.

      • Zuberi 👀@lemmy.dbzer0.comOP
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        8 months ago

        Are there genuine education maximums? I could see test scores barring you for being too much of a free thinker, but why not let the rich kids play w/ the boom-boom-sticks after their PHD?

        • Armok_the_bunny@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          8 months ago

          Nah, they aren’t set in stone requirements, just an excuse they are allowed to use to reject a candidate. That means they get to selectively enforce it.

            • idiomaddict@feddit.de
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              8 months ago

              But education teaches you to try to understand why things are so, instead of just accepting that they are so, and the longer you spend there, the more you internalize it. There was a guy in Connecticut who was rejected because his IQ was too high because they thought that would make him less likely to want to do the same thing every day (which seems like or speak for the same, to me).

              I think the rest of the comment section has the right idea that after six months of training, the potential police officer needs to be 21, either due to local laws or actuarial calculations from the department’s insurer (which they’d probably describe as internal policy).

  • jordanlund@lemmy.worldM
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    7
    ·
    edit-2
    8 months ago

    If I were to guess… the onboarding/training takes 6 months, so they want applicants to be at least 21 by the time they are fully certified.

    Imagine having a police officer who couldn’t go into a bar.

  • southsamurai@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    8 months ago

    That is not even close to being a problem. Age requirements make sense, and so does that of.

    It’s the rest of the shit that’s a problem.

    • Zuberi 👀@lemmy.dbzer0.comOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      8 months ago

      I mean if that much training is good for some yee-yee 30 y/o, why does it need an age minimum at all? If you “train” them, tf does it matter?

      • southsamurai@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        8 months ago

        Legalities.

        In a jurisdiction where there is a minimum age to be able to perform the duties of a job, be it for good reason or not, the employer is obligated to follow that law until it gets changed.

        Since US police training is relatively shit, and there are plenty of jurisdictions where the age limit is 21. I can’t recall offhand at the moment if the post covers where the job opening is/was, but that could be looked up.

        Six months of training to start as a cop is not impossible. Again, that’s by jurisdiction, there’s no single limit afaik. With US police training being shit, a six month span of training wouldn’t surprise me at all.

        If that’s the case, and they’re being required the be able to legally carry in their jurisdiction, then dropping the minimum age to apply and be hired for training six months makes as much sense as it only being six months of training in the first place.

        Frankly though? I remember that age. I remember how damn many of the people my age at the time were complete idiots. I would be perfectly fine with the age limit being higher than 21 to be a cop. There is such a thing as maturity coming with age. It might not be perfect, but you usually weed out the real idiots by the late twenties.

  • JackGreenEarth@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    8 months ago

    Idk what it’s like in the US, but in the UK age discrimination is illegal as a protected characteristic.

    • dual_sport_dork 🐧🗡️@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      13
      ·
      edit-2
      8 months ago

      In the US, at least federally, you are protected against age discrimination only if you are over 40. You can discriminate against younger people on the grounds of their age all you want.

      Which, incidentally, governments on all levels (federal, state, local) happily do all the time with inconsistent ages of majority depending on the topic at hand:

      • 16: Age to get a driver’s license.
      • 18: Age to vote, enter into contracts, buy a rifle or shotgun, legally considered “adulthood,” except…
      • 21: Age to drink, smoke, or buy a handgun, and…
      • 25: Age before which no rental car agency will rent a car to you. (Go figure.)