FREE e-Newsletter
Important News - Hot Topics
Get them Now!
Doug  Wyllie

Doug Wyllie

Doug Wyllie has authored more than 1,000 articles and tactical tips aimed at ensuring that police officers are safer and more successful on the streets. Doug is a Western Publishing Association “Maggie Award” winner for Best Regularly Featured Digital Edition Column. He is a member of International Law Enforcement Educators and Trainers Association (ILEETA), an Associate Member of the California Peace Officers’ Association (CPOA), and a member of the Public Safety Writers Association (PSWA).
November 2018 (2)
October 2018 (4)
September 2018 (3)
August 2018 (6)
July 2018 (4)
June 2018 (3)
April 2018 (1)
March 2018 (2)
January 2018 (1)
September 2017 (1)
August 2017 (1)
May 2017 (1)
April 2017 (1)
January 2017 (1)
November 2016 (1)
September 2016 (1)
June 2016 (2)
May 2016 (3)
April 2016 (2)
March 2016 (1)
February 2016 (3)
January 2016 (1)
December 2015 (1)
November 2015 (5)
October 2015 (1)
September 2015 (3)
August 2015 (3)
July 2015 (6)
June 2015 (3)
May 2015 (2)
April 2015 (3)
March 2015 (5)
February 2015 (1)
January 2015 (1)
December 2014 (9)
October 2014 (2)
September 2014 (2)
August 2014 (2)
July 2014 (1)
June 2014 (2)
May 2014 (2)
April 2014 (4)
March 2014 (2)
February 2014 (3)
January 2014 (3)
December 2013 (2)
November 2013 (2)
October 2013 (3)
September 2013 (5)
August 2013 (3)
July 2013 (3)
June 2013 (3)
May 2013 (4)
April 2013 (3)
March 2013 (5)
February 2013 (3)
January 2013 (3)
December 2012 (5)
November 2012 (2)
October 2012 (4)
September 2012 (2)
August 2012 (5)
July 2012 (4)
June 2012 (3)
May 2012 (5)
April 2012 (6)
March 2012 (5)
February 2012 (3)
January 2012 (5)
December 2011 (5)
November 2011 (3)
October 2011 (3)
September 2011 (3)
August 2011 (2)
July 2011 (2)
June 2011 (3)
May 2011 (4)
April 2011 (3)
March 2011 (5)
February 2011 (3)
January 2011 (3)
December 2010 (2)
November 2010 (4)
October 2010 (4)
September 2010 (5)
August 2010 (4)
July 2010 (4)
June 2010 (4)
May 2010 (4)
April 2010 (3)
March 2010 (3)
February 2010 (1)
January 2010 (3)
December 2009 (4)
November 2009 (4)
October 2009 (2)
September 2009 (3)
August 2009 (4)
July 2009 (5)
June 2009 (3)
May 2009 (5)
April 2009 (4)
March 2009 (4)
February 2009 (3)
January 2009 (2)
December 2008 (4)
November 2008 (3)
October 2008 (3)
September 2008 (3)
August 2008 (2)
July 2008 (3)
June 2008 (4)
May 2008 (5)
April 2008 (5)
March 2008 (4)
February 2008 (5)
January 2008 (3)
December 2007 (2)
November 2007 (5)
October 2007 (4)
September 2007 (4)
August 2007 (5)
July 2007 (4)
June 2007 (4)
May 2007 (5)

We Need Smart Cops

At a time when the job is becoming more and more complex, officer culture still discourages demonstrations of intelligence.

May 16, 2013  |  by - Also by this author

Photo by Kelly Bracken.
Photo by Kelly Bracken.
Watching the 1972 movie "The New Centurions" the other day, I was struck by a scene in which Stacy Keach's fresh-from-the-academy boot speculates that probable cause will prove the determining factor as to whether or not a collar made by George C. Scott's veteran will stick. His cop audience regards Keach with a kind of stunned amazement. While the scene's purpose is to show how Keach's cop is plainly a cut above the others, I found myself thinking that if his character's speech smacked of some anomalous profundity then perhaps the academy of that era had been derelict in training its cadets on certain legalities.

I like to believe it was more a matter of novelist Joseph Wambaugh's creativity at work; failing that, some embroidery by the movie’s writer Stirling Silliphant that left me with said impression. But if there is a difference between generations, perhaps it is because a different kind of intelligence has been allowed to foster within the profession. Now I'm not talking the kind of intel that the feds kept from their Boston PD brethren, but the honest-to-God stuff that theoretically occupies the space between our ears and, if applied properly, would have made damn sure Boston's finest had been privy to the information regarding the Brothers Tsarnaev, a.k.a., the Boston Marathon Bombing suspects.

I'm talking the kind of intelligence that has been manifest in a variety of corners, on everything from community-based policing, to officer safety, to crime predicting algorithms and analytics. I'm specifically alluding to the very intelligence that would theoretically preclude its being exercised.

And what do I mean by that?

Recently, a link was posted to the Police_L listserv. Click here.

The article detailed a case decision upholding the right of the New London, Conn., police department to deny Robert Jordan a position as a peace officer on the basis that his IQ was too high. (The implicit irony that a smart man would be too dumb to recognize his vocational limitations is glossed over). Many cops on the listserv were unfamiliar with the case and expressed dismay upon reading the story.

While some noted its 1999 date of publication, anecdotes concerning people "too smart" to be cops pre-date Robert Jordan's sad affair. That Jordan's was judicially sanctioned may have had something to do with the peculiar prejudice that the best and the brightest are categorically unfit to be cops. One friend's comment summed the prevailing attitude of many on the sidelines: "Cops are pretty much people who didn't know what the hell else they wanted to do and decided to live off the public dollar. They're welfare recipients with a working title." Ouch. (To be fair, the profession's fates do have a tendency to deal many a cruel hand to its supplicants and applicants. How many of us have seen the guy who lived, breathed, and slept the prospect of being a cop get bypassed in favor of his friend who, on a lark, accompanied him to the testing?)

It probably doesn't speak well of me to say that my own motivations were largely mercenary, and in the absence of the recession of 1981 I might today be a shrink. But at the time, the opportunity for decent pay and good benefits seemed a no-brainer. I just didn't expect that I was expected to be a no-brainer, as well.

And yet that appeared to be the case, if not for legal precedent then for the instructors' tastes. It wasn't that they wanted blank slates. They wanted us to be able to read, write, and do arithmetic, as these skills were required for regurgitating data in other forms such as traffic or arrest reports, or radio codes. But ideologically speaking, the more tabula rosa you were, the better. Cadets were desired to toe the line both literally and figuratively and become models of conformity in appearance, conduct, and—ideally—ideals. If you were unfortunate enough to show up with a European surname, a manifesto, and unseemly compassion for a fellow cadet heaving his guts out on a run, your days were numbered.

Like most life forms, I'm adaptive and so suppressed my more libertine bent when in such unmixed company. Camouflaging my smarts was nothing new, and perhaps my greatest genius has been an uncanny ability to conceal it (even my 2.2 high school GPA only lends credence to my affected imbecility). But while it may have served me well, I was always resentful of the imposition.

But throughout, I knew for every dumb ass policy and practice that was promulgated within the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department, there were a good many others that were instrumental in saving lives (including my own). I knew there were those who plainly were a cut above who were doing some hard thinking on a variety of fronts. These included everything from keeping abreast of evolving case law, to steeping themselves in the limitations of man and vehicle when it came to high-speed driving, to studying the psychological and physiological dynamics that came into play in use-of-force situations. Why this kind of intelligence wasn't more manifest in what was being communicated through the news media is a mystery that remains with me to this day. It was as though the best and the brightest were perpetually relegated to the sidelines while others basked in the limelight. Unfortunately, too often this "out of sight" came with the whole "out of mind" thing, too. It wasn't kosher to "over-think" things.

Sadly, cops enjoy no monopoly on the bias. Nor do Americans.

From across the pond, Robert Heaton notes, "Here in the U.K., despite the fact that many graduates are recruited to the police nowadays, it is still viewed by a segment of society, including the political elite, as a job that anyone can do—to be laced with patronizing platitudes about bravery. That a person of above-average intelligence should want a police career, is seen as an offbeat choice and lacking in ambition.

"I have lost count of the number of times I have been told by people that they had thought of joining the police but hadn't had the courage to do so. What they actually mean, by and large, is that they thought that, interesting as it was, they were of too superior a class or educational background. Naturally I can't speak for the U.S.A., but it seems to me there are some similar attitudes around."

With typical English refinement, Heaton declines to speak for the U.S. Nonetheless, I find his appraisal equally applicable here.

And the sad thing is that there are some within our profession that wouldn't have it any other way. I recall a conversation I had with a climber on the department regarding an individual who I thought was the smartest man I'd ever met on LASD.

"Yeah," the climber admitted. "He's book smart. But he's not the kind of guy you'd go drinking with on the river"

Yeah? Well, who gives a rat's behind if he’s not the guy you want to go drinking with on the river? I thank whatever deity there may be for allowing the man to be in a position to be one of the greatest change agents the department had ever seen. That the department would be better served with such think-outside-the-box men is as inarguable as is the fact that it doesn't want them (and a review of a recent LASD intent-to-promote list only underscores the assertion).

Even the public we serve wants it both ways when it comes to our IQs. They want us to be smart enough to divine the murderous intentions of society's miscreants and discerning enough to leave everybody else the hell alone, regardless of their petty crimes. An unfortunate number love to denigrate our profession, and call us pigs (although that in the metaphorical hierarchy of intelligent animals, an argument could be made that we at least fare well on that score).

As Christopher Karney of the Chicago Police Department notes, "Law Enforcement—the only job that everyone knows more about than the people who do it."

Unwanted as a cop, undesired as an intellectual, is it any wonder that this conundrum often left me feeling more than a little like my simian friend here?

Some have called me on the carpet for what they see as an ostentatious display of wordplay. I don't find my vocabulary particularly exotic. (Hell, I don't resent having to reach for the dictionary when I find words like "diaspora" (scattering of people) and "abnegation" (self-denial) in Wilfred Sheed's books. Such words are part of his charm as a writer.)

I like to employ a words that by sound, tone, and definition best convey a particular sentiment. And people who criticize me for using such “10-dollar: words routinely create arrest reports that showcase their own brand of unnecessary ornamentation: Utilize (instead of use), individual (person), vehicle (car), proceed (go), apprehend (arrest), place in custody (arrest), etc.

But I’m the one called on the carpet for using 10-dollar words. WTF?

Occasionally, I can find a justifiable explanation, particularly as it relates to describing use of force incidents when we tend to be as euphemistically apt as possible, e.g. "I fired a single round, which struck the suspect in the head" as opposed to "I shot the bastard in the face." Conversely, more graphic descriptions of victim's injuries can make the difference between getting a case filed, let alone successfully prosecuted.

Lest the reader think I’m merely off on another of my insufferable tangents, my little diatribe herein serves a purpose. It illustrates just one more example of how it is deemed dumb to be smart.

This prejudice against intelligence tempts a degree of defensive arrogance. Do you know of anyone who resents the drug-free athlete who can drill a hardball 455 feet or slam-dunk on the tail end of a 360 spin?

But the guy who speaks his well-exercised mind? He has to be out of it to endure the defensive hostility he’s apt to encounter.

I don’t get it. If such cerebral discrimination extended itself to other arenas, Batman wouldn't have made the cut for the Justice League; Pinky wouldn't have had his Brain, and Sherlock Holmes nemesis Moriarty would be running things.

Look, it's not as though I'm expecting a cadre of badged Nobel Laureates. But I know that I'd sleep better knowing that those tasked with the power of making life or death decisions were those most capable of doing so. I’d also feel better defending a profession that truly catered to a culture of diversity wherein differently abled men and women recognized one another’s inherent worth and respected it as opposed to waiting until such time that previously resented skill set somehow profited them. I can’t tell you how many times people who’d resented my vocabulary appreciated some timely display of it on their behalf.

Explicit herein is the acknowledgment that the current environment fostered by law enforcement is perhaps better than it might once have been. But it can still stand to be improved a hell of a lot.

Or can it? Do the dummies have the numbers and just enough foresight to keep the reins, whatever the ultimate cost to the profession, the citizens and themselves? Just what can be done to get the kind of policing we all clamor for but all too few see realized?

"For me, the answer is quite simple,” asserts Heaton. “One of the few elements about policing which has been entirely predictable over the years, is that it only ever gets harder and more complex. Police are expected to solve individuals and society's problems, and are held accountable for doing so by a population which has in the main, lost deference. They have to be able to juggle considerations, hold an argument, and make defensible decisions against those who have the advantage of hindsight and/or axes to grind. In general, those who only just make the recruitment grade, quit early or are struggling by the end of their careers.

"The police need to recruit the brightest people possible, if only in the interests of future-proofing."

Anything else is just dumb.

Comments (8)

Displaying 1 - 8 of 8

Doug M. @ 5/16/2013 4:01 PM

Yup. And how many of the low functioning clowns who make it to the top LE ranks are afraid of the smart underling who knows and can show what a fraud that boss is? I bet you've seen a lot more of such than I have, and I have seen enough to be discouraged. Sadly, I have also seen the same sydrome referred to by a friend as "blue welfare" that you described above. Sad.

Badger @ 5/16/2013 4:15 PM

Kudos for a great article! It's too bad that many of the powers-that-be will dismiss it out-of-hand because they are either intimidated by its conclusions or are unable to comprehend its message. Don't ever be ashamed of your intelligence, and only "dumb-down" your presentation if it is required for your audience (children, etc.)

wes crume @ 5/16/2013 4:20 PM

Great writing....and so true.....daily I'm reminded by my boss that he is smarter than I am....and I always agree...reminding him...that it was he...who hired me....! ha ha

FireCop @ 5/17/2013 4:47 AM

We need smart people, not just people with multiple college degrees, but smart people. Let's find men and women with common sense, honesty, loyalty, strong ethical and moral values, who care about the difference between right and wrong. People who know or can learn what the intent of the laws are and not just worrying about what is politically correct. While we're at it, stop lowering the bar just to accomodate diversity; that's not what diversity was supposed to be about. It's well past time we stopped over complicating everything and put a little 'simple' back into what we do. Stay safe.

Arby @ 5/17/2013 6:03 AM

Great article, Dean, though its accurate portrayal of an awful truth is saddening. I'm also unafraid to pick up a dictionary when I see a new word (your use of "abnegation" was new to me), and when people utilize the word "utilize" instead of "use" is one of my pet peeves - even though I couldn't resist it here. Your bloviation was one of the most enjoyable reads I've had in awhile. Keep up the good work!

Rob Heaton @ 5/17/2013 2:36 PM

Dean, an enjoyable article which brought together nicely, several strands of thought around this topic such as 'outside' public perceptions and internal acceptability of intellectualism within the job. If I might pick up the 'within the job' aspect, I can see a couple of contributory factors. One is that people and systems tend to value and perpetuate/promote people within their own image. For example, if the chief's persona is more about force of personality than depth of thought, the organisation will acquire 'mini chiefs' of that particular ilk, throughout the ranks and that bit of culture can persist for years.
Secondly, an intellectual approach tends to be objective and introduce complications to issues which those with strong vested interests would like to keep simple.
For example, burglary in a town has gone up by 20% so an anti-burglary operation is introduced. Sure enough, burglary falls to its previous level. The key players - chief of police, politicians etc - want to interpret and publicise this as effective police action, not a statistical reversion to the mean which would probably have happened anyway because crime raises and falls naturally. I would argue that anyone with an intellectual approach finds it harder to engage in corporate game-playing and become a 'company person' because their heart isn't really in it. And the higher the rank, the more of a 'company person' is expected - this is what employers want to pay for.
Which is why I for one, have sat through many meetings of corporate emperors (mostly mini emperors), wondering whether I'm the only one thinking that in terms of what is actually being said, they are distinctly lacking in clothing.

Troop @ 5/20/2013 11:58 PM

Agreed. But until the former knuckle dragger bosses stop promoting yes men buddies this culture will not change.

Jack Betz @ 5/21/2013 1:21 AM

One of the problems is that Law Enforcement is still rather strongly military in stlye. Soliders are trained to obey without question, not think

Join the Discussion

POLICE Magazine does not tolerate comments that include profanity, personal attacks or antisocial behavior (such as "spamming" or "trolling"). This and other inappropriate content or material will be removed. We reserve the right to block any user who violates this, including removing all content posted by that user.

Other Recent Blog Posts

Speaking on the Unspeakable: Ending the Pandemic of Police Officer Suicide
I've talked with officers who have lost a colleague to suicide—as well as many widows of...
Love and Hate: Some Observations about the Pittsburgh Synagogue Attack
It's somewhat disappointing that it takes an act of evil for the pure good in people to...

Police Magazine