Small people on the police force...

http://www.wsbtv.com/news/9317373/detail.html
I saw the footage of this. Lucky for the chick, a good Samaritan helped her out. This reminds me of when that [guy] down in Georgia went nuts in the courthouse while he was being watched by a guard that was elderly and unarmed. He overpowered her, of course, and went on to kill several people.

Now we have this. I'm 5'4" myself and know my limitations. Granted, I'm as small as this chick but I guarantee you I'm stronger. Is it un-PC to not allow short weak people from serving as cops? What's your opinion...

I dunno Dave, if you ban short arses on the force what would you do if a gang of criminal dwarves comes into town? Eh? ~;)

I think it is completely reasonable to have physical requirements for some jobs. Being an equal opportunity employer does not mean that you have an equal opportunity of letting your employees get their @$$ handed to them by someone they are not suited to guard.

That tall SOB will probably try to sue the Good Samaritan.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by English assassin

I dunno Dave, if you ban short arses on the force what would you do if a gang of criminal dwarves comes into town? Eh? ~;)

---

You call Santa and let him know his elves are loose again...:laugh4:

In all probability that police force had a minimum height of 5' for female applicants, maybe 5' 1". For men it might be 5' 5". Granted that is for the RCMP.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lars573

In all probability that police force had a minimum height of 5' for female applicants, maybe 5' 1". For men it might be 5' 5". Granted that is for the RCMP.

---

How is a 5' tall woman going to take down someone that's over 6' without using weapons, which liberals would have a fit about, or risking others around her and the suspect while she's trying to subdue the suspect. I think this is complete PC BS that puts everyone in danger. i know it makes the bleeding heart feel good when you see a midget "overcoming" their "shortcomings" but is it worth risking the lives of others in order to help someone's self esteem or to give a PC liberal lunatic a warm fuzzy?

I don't think little people should be cops or disabled people.


I was watching an episode of "cops" (great show btw) and a one legged officer was chasing a druggy! the druggy was easily outrunning him the only reason the cop got him is because the druggy fell:wall:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Devastatin Dave

How is a 5' tall woman going to take down someone that's over 6' without using weapons, which liberals would have a fit about, or risking others around her and the suspect while she's trying to subdue the suspect. I think this is complete PC BS that puts everyone in danger. i know it makes the bleeding heart feel good when you see a midget "overcoming" their "shortcomings" but is it worth risking the lives of others in order to help someone's self esteem or to give a PC liberal lunatic a warm fuzzy?

---

Part of the physical qulaifications for joining the RCMP is a shove simulator. It's about the shape of a punching bag and it's on a metal pole that is sprung to simiulate a 175 pound person pushing against you, and it moves latterally too. And you have to be able to hold it back (IE not lose your footing and fall over) and manuver it around. It's really and endurance test. You have to hold this thing for a set amount of time (don't remember how long though). The mounties say that this is practice for subdoing a suspect. And later on you practice against real people, your class mates. IIRC they taugh the women how to take down a man taller than them. Without using his manberries for a speed bag.


Before you ask why I refer to the RCMP so much. I saw a documentary about the Mountie acadamy and all the training they do their. And in high school I went to a carrer seminar thing the mounties were having. They both said the same thing.

Quote:

---

How is a 5' tall woman going to take down someone that's over 6' without using weapons,

---

With training.

Exactly. If you are good enough, you are big enough.

it might be funny to watch a little policeman getting his ass handed to him in the middle of th street....but I doubt that´s the most efficient way to keep the streets safe...

Huh, the funny thing is that this whole escapade started when she pulled the driver over for not wearing a seatbelt (a BS law), and then apparently searched the passenger (is that legal?) before trying to make the arrest.

And DD has a great point about standards being thrown out because they're 'discriminatory', like old firefighting requirements and feminazis.

Crazed Rabbit

Are you serious? someone under 5,8 trying to tackle a six footer and over.
WTF?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bopa the Magyar

Are you serious? someone under 5,8 trying to tackle a six footer and over.
WTF?

---

Trust me, it's not a pretty sight. I learned martial arts a while back, for recreational purposes, and the absolute best fighter there (who could literally beat anyone, if one does not count the trainer) was this slip of a girl, 5'1'', maybe 5'2''.

Police are there to protect, not beat up. Even in the example that you give, it would be bettter for a burly 6 footer to merely be there than the short gal. Sure, she can floor any trouble makers better than the other, but the 6 footer will be better at keeping the peace. Some jobs in the police force like and other are what one appears to be, not what one is. Those that are not able to be passively intimidating should be given desk jobs - or become a Merc if you really want to fight - there offence is the objective.

~:smoking:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Keba

Trust me, it's not a pretty sight. I learned martial arts a while back, for recreational purposes, and the absolute best fighter there (who could literally beat anyone, if one does not count the trainer) was this slip of a girl, 5'1'', maybe 5'2''.

---

Exception to the rule.:bow:

Ummm no. Properly trained a height difference is a none issue.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lars573

Ummm no. Properly trained a height difference is a none issue.

---

@ me?

Yes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lars573

Ummm no. Properly trained a height difference is a none issue.

---

Yup, that training worked well for that little gal didn't it. She would have had a better chance of subdueing the suspect with giving him a lewinsky, I'm sure she could do that better than her lame attempt of playing cop. :dizzy2:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by A.Saturnus

With training.

---

And You can pay the extra tax dollars it takes to get the little twig to do something a bigger person could already do:2thumbsup:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lars573

Yes.

---

Statistically I’ll bet a 5’2” slip of a girl that is the best fighter in class is the exception to the rule. I didn’t say anything about training, just that she was the exception to the rule.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Devastatin Dave

Yup, that training worked well for that little gal didn't it. She would have had a better chance of subdueing the suspect with giving him a lewinsky, I'm sure she could do that better than her lame attempt of playing cop.

---

The kind of training I'm talking about is as much mental as it is physical. An attitude and having control of the situation. Which can be taugh, but is much better if it's already there to be fostered. I guess being raised by a bossy and domineering mother colours my view of what women can do even though there smaller. I don't treat my sister that much differently than my brother (I just punch her less). Being a girl is not an excuse not being able (or not allowed) to do something far as I'm concerned.

So you think women should be allowed to go on the front lines during a war?

I personally think that women should be allowed on the front line as long as they are as able as men. Basically no allowances.

And sure, if they get taken prisoner there is a chance they'll be gang raped until the end of the war.

~:smoking:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rory_20_uk

Police are there to protect, not beat up. Even in the example that you give, it would be bettter for a burly 6 footer to merely be there than the short gal. Sure, she can floor any trouble makers better than the other, but the 6 footer will be better at keeping the peace. Some jobs in the police force like and other are what one appears to be, not what one is. Those that are not able to be passively intimidating should be given desk jobs - or become a Merc if you really want to fight - there offence is the objective.

---

Well, I guess police departments get so many applicants that they can be very choicy...

Let me tell you all a story a medic once told me. In the hospital he was working a while back, they once had a problem with a woman who has brought into the psychatric department (against her will, obviously). She was brought by firemen because the ambulance didn't dare to approach her. Well, the was also about 1.60m (about 5 foot 2 inch), and around 50 years old. She suffered from a condition called polytoxicomanie - that's what you may get if you take speed, crack, PCP, alcohol and some other stuff at the same time. Now, the firemen tried to get her from their truck into a room in the hospital, about 50 meters. They got help from a few policemen, called just for the case. That were maybe 10 men. It took them nearly 2 hours to get her from the truck to the room. Several of the men involved got rips, noses or arms broken. A doctor who just looked what was going but wasn't actually involved got his nose broken in passing. When they finally got her to that room, they tried to bind her to the bed but it was impossible. It was only possible when a psychatrist came and injected her a drug with the description "for the raging insane".
Now, I don't mean to say that that woman would have done well in the situation discussed here (as she probably would have eaten that guy), only that size can be deceiving.

And finally: yes, I'm willing to pay the extra tax money to keep policemen and women trained.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by yesdachi

Statistically I’ll bet a 5’2” slip of a girl that is the best fighter in class is the exception to the rule. I didn’t say anything about training, just that she was the exception to the rule.

---

Actually, there were two of the type ... plus one that was 5'6''.

I wouldn't underestimate short people, proper training and anyone can knock down a much larger opponent without training ... when both have similar levels of training, the one with the greater weight usually wins, if he knows proper tactics ... if he doesn't, he's dead.

As you probably know, when we use our muscles we don't use 100% of their power. There are neural pathways that block the ability of the muscle to pass a certain threashold (you might notice this if you're forcing someone's arm and suddenly they stop resisting).

There are situations when this is overridden. Normally it falls under the "fight or flight" - where people have lifted massive weights. Here the body (somehow - don't ask me) turns the safeties off as failing to give 100% today will mean there isn't a tomorrow. Usually severe suppression of pain goes along with this. It's the same in sport when you notice the massive bruise on yourself after the game, but barely can remember when the injury occurred as you were so hyped up.

In a dyed in the wool junkie like that, something similar is probably responsible. Her muscles are working at a level of intensity that is likely to cause major damage to tendon, bone and muscle, but her brain is so messed up it doesn't care.

~:smoking:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ceasar010

So you think women should be allowed to go on the front lines during a war?

---

Canada already does that. And I whole heartedly agree. The location of your reproductive organs isn't a mearure of what you can do.

Quote:

---

Here the body (somehow - don't ask me) turns the safeties off

---

Adrenaline?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Keba

Actually, there were two of the type ... plus one that was 5'6''.

I wouldn't underestimate short people, proper training and anyone can knock down a much larger opponent without training ... when both have similar levels of training, the one with the greater weight usually wins, if he knows proper tactics ... if he doesn't, he's dead.

---

I rarely underestimate anyone. ~D And I agree that with proper training and motivation a person of diminutive stature can be every bit as skillful in a fight as a larger opponent. But I will stand by my claim that they are the exception.

Just for fun, pick any ten 5’2” slips of a girl from any mall, store, school or babe thread and face them off against any ten 6’+ guys or even girls and imagine (we must imagine because it would be impossible to really test) who would win. The answer is a no brainer. Now just for more fun imagine the same ten 5’2” slips fighting each other in a kid’s pool filled with cool whip! The winner of that fight would be anyone watching. giggity giggity

Dev Dave: you mean you're vertically disadvantaged, yet you don't vote for democrats?

Traitor!!!!!!!!! :furious3:




:laugh4:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Keba

Trust me, it's not a pretty sight. I learned martial arts a while back, for recreational purposes, and the absolute best fighter there (who could literally beat anyone, if one does not count the trainer) was this slip of a girl, 5'1'', maybe 5'2''.

---

I´ve trained martial arts for a number of years(stopped now because on an injury) and I can say that those cases exist...but they are a clear exception....8, maybe 9 out of 10 times size is gonna win in the end.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by yesdachi

Now just for more fun imagine the same ten 5’2” slips fighting each other in a kid’s pool filled with cool whip! The winner of that fight would be anyone watching. giggity giggity

---

In red lingerie to see who gets to be the cherry? Alllll riiiiight.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kralizec

Dev Dave: you mean you're vertically disadvantaged, yet you don't vote for democrats?

Traitor!!!!!!!!! :furious3:




:laugh4:

---

I just don't want to be "shorted" on my tax return!!!:idea2: :laugh4:
I know, i know, bad pun. I'm "short" on humor and "low" on puns.:laugh4:
badabing-badaboom!!!

All this crap about training and psychology and preparation and fairness mean nothing when you are squaring off with someone who has been having street fights their entiure lives for fun. Hold them all to relatively to the same standards as men for duty police, or they can all shove off, lady soldiers too. Desk and kitchen jobs is where littler, phtsicaly incapable people belong

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lars573

Canada already does that. And I whole heartedly agree. The location of your reproductive organs isn't a mearure of what you can do.

---

IIRC Canada does not segregate genders or have separate gender standards for physical tasks during boot camp/training. The result is very few women can actually pass which is to be expected.

In contrast the US military have gender normed standards which have caused controversy. For example the marines found that 45% of female marines could not throw grenades safely beyond the burst radius and so instituted separate testing requirements.
http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/...98donnelly.htm

With all this talk about modern warfare not having frontlines, I think it's pointless to argue whether or not women should be allowed on the frontlines, "since their already there." If a woman is willing to enlist in the military then she should have to deploy, just like everyone else.

As far as a woman serving in a infantry battalion, I would say no. Now a lot of people would say that a woman can fire a rifle as well as any man, which is true, but there's so much more to being an infantryman than just being able to fire a weapon. I believe the main reason woman shouldn't be in infantry battalions is because they can't carry the same amount of weight as men on hikes/patrol. An infantryman is expected to carry a combat load of roughly 90lbs. in addition to this your also expected to be able to carry 50lbs of gear and equipment. That alone is 140lbs, this doesn't include light machine guns, grenade launchers, rocket launchers and radios that members of a rifle squad may be required to carry. This also doesn't include the weight of crew served weapons that men in a weapons plt/company are expected to carry, nor does it include the weight of ammunition (which can get very heavy) that needs to be carried in order to use these weapons. As you can see the load of a combat infantry can easily surpass 150lbs. This also doesn't take into account that hikes are done at a fast pace, usually a fast walk or slow jog if your having trouble keeping up and their normally done up and down hills.

I'm sure there's women that are capable of this, but the fact is that they are an extreme minority, so few that it would not be worth the cost to get them there.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by orangat

IIRC Canada does not segregate genders or have separate gender standards for physical tasks during boot camp/training. The result is very few women can actually pass which is to be expected.

---

You recall wrongly then. Having almost joined the reserves a fews years back the litterature I was given stated that women did have to do fewer push ups/chin ups, run 10 KM in more time and such. But the times and numbers differences weren't that large. E.G. I as a man would have do say 25 push ups in 10 minutes (this is in no way accurate just a guess), a woman would have to do 20 in the same amount of time. Also our ending of gender segregation is only about 10 year old. Another example of this is that when I was trying to join there were few if any higher ranking enlisted women. My friend who was trying to get myself and brother in said was that the desegregation based on gender had happened so soon that no women had the time (promotion being based on years of service and suitability for the job) to get to the higher enlisted ranks (warrent officer or higher). He said this wa because the artillery regiment I was going to go for was classed as a combat unit. Another thing is that women don't join in great numbers, the military has a bad rep for being sexist. While picking up some forms to fill out to join I saw a platoon of recruits training. Of the 20-30 recruits maybe 8 were women.

Also we don't do boot camp. The Canadian military is more like a highly structured and diseplined construction crew. Our officers salute each other, but enlisted don't. You can smart mouth an officer so long as you call him sir. My friend who was a corporal at the time told an officer cabet, that "Those bars on your shoulders mean you don't got to think. You just delegate and dissapear."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mercian Billman

I'm sure there's women that are capable of this, but the fact is that they are an extreme minority, so few that it would not be worth the cost to get them there.

---

Please explain the extra costs in training capable women. Also, imagine you are a women who meets all the physical standards; is it fair if you are told "you can't join - it's too expensive - we will take this man who scored lower than you in the physical tests"

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lars573

You recall wrongly then. Having almost joined the reserves a fews years back the litterature I was given stated that women did have to do fewer push ups/chin ups, run 10 KM in more time and such. But the times and numbers differences weren't that large. E.G. I as a man would have do say 25 push ups in 10 minutes (this is in no way accurate just a guess), a woman would have to do 20 in the same amount of time. Also our ending of gender segregation is only about 10 year old. Another example of this is that when I was trying to join there were few if any higher ranking enlisted women. My friend who was trying to get myself and brother in said was that the desegregation based on gender had happened so soon that no women had the time (promotion being based on years of service and suitability for the job) to get to the higher enlisted ranks (warrent officer or higher). He said this wa because the artillery regiment I was going to go for was classed as a combat unit. Another thing is that women don't join in great numbers, the military has a bad rep for being sexist. While picking up some forms to fill out to join I saw a platoon of recruits training. Of the 20-30 recruits maybe 8 were women.
........

---

My source was Stephanie Gutman's book Kinder Gentler Military which I read few years go.
http://www.traditioninaction.org/bkr...erMilitary.htm

A search on Canada's geder integrated training - http://www.fact.on.ca/news/news9912/np99120i.htm

"Art Hanger, Reform MP for Calgary Northeast, and the official Opposition's defence critic, says this is exactly what has occurred. Through a series of Access to Information requests, Hanger's office has collected documents that show training standards have fallen sharply. In 1984, a fully trained female recruit aged 34 or younger needed to be able to complete 30 sit-ups, while a male recruit was required to complete 33. By 1996, those requirements had dropped to 15 and 19 sit-ups respectively."


If the difference in standards now aren't huge as you say then the pendulum has definitely swung back from the other way.

I may still have the paper work somewhere, but 15 and 19 sounds about right. 25 and 20 were just guesses like I said.

Also if you read anything with the words National post if the title disregard anything it says. It has about as much credibility as the National inquirer.

The NP may be a tabloid rag but the quotes were from Art Hanger the opposition defense critic.

http://www.heretical.com/miscella/frcombat.html
"After extensive research, Canada has found little evidence to support the integration of women into ground units. Of 103 Canadian women who volunteered to joint infantry units, only one graduated the initial training course"

It seems that at one point, Canada had a single recruitment standard regardless of gender. Then I suppose, the affirmative action movement necessitated the use of gender normed aka lower standards to produce a more pc gender ratio.

No the way we trained people changed. We lowered the standards for everyone. We don't do boot camp at all. We don't have military personell who's only job is training. When you join a unit your recruited by that unit and trained by that unit. The people who train you and judge your fitness are the same people who will be working along side you. Most tmes, my experience and knowledge is limited after all. But I've never heard of specific bases for military training beyond the speicalized units. Like the JTC2 (Joint taskforce command 2 our special forces, stupid name I know), armoured regiments, or the RCAF. The theory is that you get some basics in your first few weeks then the rest you pick as OJT.