They know who they’re hiring. I’m just surprised they said the quiet part out loud: "It’s okay if you’re dangerously violent, everyone here is, so long as you only do it in private. "
Im betting originally they required 21 so you likely have to be able to go into adult establishments but then figured training and some stuff could be done for 6 months till then.
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.)
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?
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).
Add comment