DQ'ed because of age?

[SnapShawt]

So your saying that 22 y/o former Marine(or any military for that matter) who did 2 combat tours in Iraq and has all sorts of decorations from his military career, doesnt possess tthe maturity level to be a LEO?

Your saying people old enough to fight and die for their country are to immature to wear a badge. Kind of disrespectful IMO.

Why yes, that's precisely what I'm saying. Take it as disrespectful if you wish, but it has nothing to do with respect. Those that serve our country are appreciated and rightly so. However, serving in the military does NOT require some assets and traits that are necessary to work in law enforcement. They are two VERY different beasts entirely.

I believe that 18 is fine for military service, and I also believe that that service does provide for growth and maturity. But the appropriate ages for military service as compared to law enforcement are simply two different concepts with different elements of consideration.

I respect and honor every servicemember having been one myself. But this notion that military service and foreign combat somehow immunizes one from question or other criteria just doesn't fly.

"How dare you question my ability to serve and protect, I have two tours in Iraq!!!!" Some will say that as you basically have. Serving and protecting in the military is a different creature, and as a groundpounder I know that very well. As a peace officer, I know it even more.

I would even say that little to no life experience outside of activity duty military service can even be detrimental, but it would take a novel to explain that. In any case, I would still say that someone under the age of 25 (give or take a year or two, but we have to set the bar somewhere), just needs to live a little more to be more rounded out so to speak.

But I'm speaking from the point of view of someone understands the massive difference not only between the two different service types but also how massively different a person becomes through their twenties. I'm actually beginning to believe the 20's are really the new teens in many cases.

Yes, there are exceptions. Okay, let's say YOU are one of those exceptions. So grow and learn even MORE and when the time comes you'll just be that much more on the level and ready.

[bell4fan]

Im actually not an exception, I'll be 27 in October. And I agree to an extent that 21 y/o's might be questionable. Fresh out of college and 22 y/o might not be the best time to try and become a policeman.

However, isnt that what background investigations, oral boards are for--to see if the person demonstrates a certain level of maturity. Isnt this what the academy and FTO program is designed to do, to teach someone the ropes, show em the right way to do things.

BTW--22-24 y/o military vets are not an exception to the rule, they are a large part of the pool of applicants departments choose from. And I, as Im sure you to, served with people who couldnt pour pee out of a boot w/ instructions on the heel. But I have also served with people that were ready at 20 y/o to do whatever, some are more mature than others as we all know. Stupidity does not discriminate w/ age.

I just think you might be selling most(not all of course) of our vets short on maturity level, and their level of responsibility.

[SnapShawt]

We'll just have to agree to disagree on the military experience and how it actually contributes to maturity and preparedness for this profession. It does in many ways, but in other very important ways it does not. That aside ....

Yes, that's exactly what the background and hiring process is for. However, that doesn't mean that there aren't limitations set for people to even be IN the BI process. Drug usage, criminal history, driving history, and other factors are all things that can DQ a person from the process all together or delay it either significantly or temporarily. Age already IS one of those things. I can only speak for Texas, but here you may not be considered to be a peace officer, and may not attend the academy, unless you will be 21 years of age at the time you take the state licensing exam.

Okay, so we have a minimum age - 20 and turning 21 - to even be considered for the hiring process. Minimum requirements do change, and I simply think this is one that needs to change to a minimum of 25. If a person is too impatient to wait until the tender age of 25 to begin a career in law enforcement, then that causes other concerns in my mind anyway.

And you are sure right that stupidity does discriminate with age. There are people I've known who have been doing this for years who should never have been allowed in the front door, much less kept in the house.

[TamaDrummer88]

Wow, some pretty good points have been brought up here.

I will agree, that 20 or even 21 is a little too young to become an LEO, but i signed up early for this job because i feel that i can handle the everyday stresses of doing the day to day duties of a police officer. But then again, if the det. assigned to my investigation says otherwise, then im gonna have to just take that.


btw, not to disrespect anyone, but i know of a few 20-23 year old's that are WAY MORE MATURE than some 25-30 year olds out there. but then again, thats just a handful.

[MP_Steve]

I know a guy who was a decorated combat vet, a Marine that was part of the invasion in 2003. He's a Purple Heart recipient and I have no doubt that he was a good service member.

However, his life crashed around him when he left active-duty, loosing the stability that the military offered; being thrown back into society without the life experience gained prior to military service.

He wasn't an LEO applicant, but I believe there are exceptions to those who otherwise might be the exceptions.

[Roger Dat]

I was one of those kids that was extremely mature for my age early on in life. I couldnt for the life of me understand why they said I was too young the first go around. When I finally got hired just prior to my 26th birthday I realized they were right. Nothing confirmed this better then attending and academy with mostly 21-23 year olds. It was all the proof I needed.

[bell4fan]

I'll agree most 18-23 y/o kids are something else. I deal with em in recruiting on a daily basis and they have no clue what they want. they'll be set to go to the navy, get a girl friend, and that first piece of tail, and before ya know it, they have quit the navy to work a minimun wage job so they can stay w/ their girl. very immature.

My main point was if you set the standard at 25, you alienate those 22-24 y/o who are truly ready to step up. I just think if someone is to young, to immature to handle the job, the hiring process should weed those out, and leave you with the best candidates, regardless of age.

[Wanabe]

Good arguments on both sides but i guess we are all going to have to agree to disagree. We dont make the standards we just follow them.

[Roger Dat]

You will see that when you get hired the process doesnt always weed out those that shouldnt be cops.

[Wanabe]

That is true. I guess you cant argue with that