|
Yeah, I have a few friends who are police where I grew up. They basically said that there's about 20-30% we would rather not have on the force, but we need policemen and there isn't a robust pool of candidates to choose from. Pay keeps decreasing, long hours, everybody hates them (esp around St. Louis) and it is getting more and more dangerous. At this point, unless you have a bad record or can't lie through a psych eval - you have a good chance of being on the force.
So, I don't think cutting retirement/compensation is a good idea if you want to improve the caliber of policeman. I argued with them that maybe this gives even more reason to separate the roles and have fewer normally armed police. Have higher standards for those roles and then allow more specialized positions that aren't full Rambo. The one said that wasn't a bad idea, while the other said those spots would just end up calling for backup in half their calls and overwork the few armed guys left (and potentially cause more issues for a tired and armed cop). It's an interesting discussion and I still don't have a great answer.
|