One more thing:
What state mandates? You claimed that state mandates are “an Associate Degree in Criminal Justice or Police Science or a Bachelor Degree in something else before one can even apply.”
How can those same requirements be in excess of state mandates?
Dude, What the fuck is your hard on with me?
My state has made several changes to the training and standards requirement. I perused WILENET and couldn’t find the activation date for the mandatory education requirement prior to application. I was under the impression it was already enacted. It’s possible it has been and your cite is old news. Agencies routinely fail to update their website. But if it hasn’t been activated yet, it will soon. So I was a bit early. So what?
They have already enacted no grace period for peace officers to complete in-service training prior to July 1st. Some have already been decertified because they missed the date. In years past they had extra time to cover it. No more.
Why do you think an agency risks a lawsuit if it requires standards higher than the minimum? My agency requires a higher standard for in-service training (40 hours instead of 24) and a higher standard for pistol qualification (twice a year vs once, and extra exercises). Do you really think that if an agency required a masters degree to apply they’d lose a lawsuit? What are you basing this on? You don’t even live in Wisconsin.
Wilenet is a state website with training and standards published. Show me where what I’ve posted is incorrect, with the exception of maybe the date of when the college qualifications are activated.
I’m taking issue with factual statements you’ve made in GQ. Most you haven’t responded to despite several contradictions pointed out.
You claimed I was wrong before you even baldly stated that. When I pointed out that your claims appear to be a known myth based on a government website I linked to, you claimed:
“No it’s not a myth. your cites include 2 class A cities that do have different rules.”
You mean, the biggest cities with the biggest populations? If they have different rules, then the state requirements you claimed don’t exist.
I then pointed to a village where the requirements also don’t exist. A village that is not a class A city.
Do you have evidence of class A cities having “different rules” in this regard?
So what? You posted I was wrong and in the same breath said class A cities have different rules. That makes YOU wrong, not ME wrong, and that’s even if your claim is correct. You haven’t posted any evidence that this goes in effect in a couple of weeks. I think that would be posted on the internet somewhere and fairly easy to find. That’s a big increase in requirements for an entire state.
What does this have to do with anything?
I didn’t say that. I tried to make that clear for you. I said this:
“not hiring someone because they don’t have a qualification not necessary by that department’s listed qualifications opens them up to a lawsuit.”
:rolleyes:
You want me to search through a website to prove you wrong? I already posted cites that do that. You are claiming that my cites are not up to date. Does your linked to website show that? If so, you quote that part and link to that page.
You’re not going to answer the questions asked in post 137, are you?
2 agency cites is hardly “several”. And as I said, if the new regs don’t go into effect until 2019 so I was a bit early. So what? Why does that get your bowels in an uproar? What is it about this topic that bugs you so?
I had just talked to someone from T&S about 2 weeks ago that told me about the new regulations. I was under the impression that they had already been implemented. He was telling me how there have been too many cases of officers not getting the educational requirements after 5 years so they’re going to require it prior to hire. And then I listed some departments that are already doing that.
Is three? Because that’s what I posted. Would you like more? How many before it counts? Hell, even your cites don’t have the requirements you claimed.
I answered that already.
My bowels are fine, but I answered that already too, when it was you that sounded like you had a bowel issue. Has someone on the internet flustered you, Cupcake?
New regulations for the entire state that requires applicants have “either an Associate Degree in Criminal Justice or Police Science or a Bachelor Degree in something else before one can even apply”? And there’s nothing to be found on the internet regarding this?
And when you told another poster that Wisconsin does have this unusual statewide requirement, what you meant to say was “there’s going to be the following requirement, someone told me so a couple weeks ago”?
My cousin’s uncle’s nephew says he heard otherwise from a government worker in Wisconsin. Does that hold any weight?
From earlier:
Do you have evidence of class A cities having “different rules” in this regard? How does a non-requirement for highly populated cities not make your blanket statement wrong?
You want me to search through a website to prove you wrong? I already posted cites that do that. You are claiming that my cites are not up to date. Does your linked to website show that? If so, you quote that part and link to that page.
You’re not going to answer the questions asked in post 137, are you?
Can we have one thread without this shit? Is it possible on this board?
Moderator Note
Let’s dial it way way back. And I don’t care who started it. Discuss this civilly or not at all.
Colibri
General Questions Moderator
Yup. Ms. Scarlet, Professor Plum, even Mrs. White. Everyone.
You’ve been on these boards long enough to know well enough that I am not a cupcake, I am in fact sir a Ho-Ho. Please get it right.
Going back to the OP, one of the things I learned when I participated in a Code Adam exercise was about security cameras. Some (not all) businesses have their security cameras run by an administrator in a centralized location (many of them in Minneapolis for some reason). This means that nobody at the local store, including head managers, have any access to video footage except real time. So it takes a bit of time to get to review the footage from stores that have such a set up. And I guess it takes more than just the manager making a call to get to view the video. The purpose of this is to maintain the integrity of the video which may become admissible evidence in criminal or civil cases. I knew banks used such systems but had been unaware that some stores do to. This was all told to me verbally, so no cite to link to.
Speaking as a Certified Master Locksmith…
They’re talking about locks whose INSIDE mechanism can be disabled.
The vast majority of door locks are not capable of doing this; the inside mechanism always operates, without a key. There do exist locks whose inside mechanisms can be disabled; the familiar double cylinder deadbolt is a common example. This is the type of lock that is normally forbidden in retail establishments, but the fire code allows an exception (on the front door only), provided that a sign there says “This door to remain unlocked during business hours” or something similar. This exception may be revoked by the AHJ – Authority Having Jurisdiction (typically the local Fire Marshall).
I disagree. The code you quoted here absolutely does NOT say the the doors may not be locked. It says the door is required to have a particular kind of sign. That’s it. The code is completely silent about whether anyone has to obey the sign, or what the penalty might be for disobeying it.
What is to stop a store from obtaining the exception, installing the locks and the sign exactly as the code requires, and then ignoring the sign and locking the doors whenever they feel like it?
The only remedy I can see is that the AHJ could revoke their exception. The AHJ can do that for any reason, or for no reason at all. But it’s not correct to say that locking the door violates the fire code.
As a point of reference, cops just graduating the Academy in Denver only need a diploma or GED and they make 10K more than a starting Denver teacher with a bachelor’s degree and credential.