Aggressive, loud hipsters (not homeless) "camping" in tricked out van in front of my house. Guy runs motorcycle to make noise/pour fumes into my house.

Nice looking bike.

I had a neighbor (in California) who used to play the music in his car at top volume when coming into his driveway. My wife asked him to turn it down and he made a show every time of pulling into the driveway with loud music, stopping in the driveway, letting it play for a little bit, and then turning it down His wife and his friends started doing the same when they visited.

It was that loud thumping bass - the kind that annoys because you can't hear the rest of the music, just the loud thumping bass, which rocks the house and interferes with whatever you're listening to.

That wasn't their only trespass. His wife would walk their large dog outside our backyard and let him do his business there. It got to the point where we couldn't use our patio. I asked her to pick it up and she insisted she always cleaned up after him, but the frequent wind shifts gave lie to her claim.

After I said something, she started taking the dog across the street and letting him do his business outside the back fence of an elderly lady's house. She later received a letter from the HOA (via a notice on her door). From the glares she shot us in passing, I'm sure she thought we turned her in, but we didn't.

Luckily, Junior was renting from his father and they decided to buy their own house. He and his wife moved to another neighborhood and were replaced by a quiet young couple with a small child.

We later found out that most of the other neighbors had been annoyed by them and were glad they moved. We never did find out who had complained about their dog antics to the HOA.

What is it about people who trample all over other people's environments thinking it's their right to do that?

Amy, I’ve always pictured your residence as a Kinsey Milhone like setting in a Sue Grafton novel.

And I’ve envied your lifestyle and the wonderful weather.

I don’t really know what to say. The rule of law is what keeps a place habitable. It is a shame that anarchy seems to have been weaponized by the California politicians against their own constituents.

The police are still around to make sure you don't protect your property rights from violators. Otherwise you'd be able to deal with the situation like a self-owning adult human being instead of imagining you need government employees to take on your responsibilities for you.

Cops are (a big) part of the problem, not a solution.

Amy, I’ve always pictured your residence as a Kinsey Milhone like setting in a Sue Grafton novel. ~ Isab at August 21, 2020 8:01 AM

Interesting analogy; but Venice Beach instead of Santa Barbara. I think I made it as far as "O" in that series.

For some reason, female hardboiled mystery writers with female protagonists seem, at some point, to allow their series to devolve into romance novels with an easily-solved mystery attached. For a steady boyfriend, she ends up with a software millionaire former SEAL with CIA connections and the protagonist spends half the book wondering what he sees in her.

As far as I know, Sue Grafton has resisted that tendency. Sara Peretsky, too. Marcia Muller didn't and her Sharon McCone novels became unreadable, even with their San Francisco setting.

As far as I know, Sue Grafton has resisted that tendency. Sara Peretsky, too. Marcia Muller didn't and her Sharon McCone novels became unreadable, even with their San Francisco setting.

Conan the Grammarian at August 21, 2020 9:36 AM

Sue Grafton’s last Kinsey Milhone book was a mess. A real tribute to pc culture with homeless alcoholics camping in the yard and taking out the bad guys.

The thing that made the series generally so appealing was the simplified almost non existent back story and her focus on the plot.

Tried to read (possibly the only James Lilek’s mystery) once, and couldn’t finish. Too clever by half.
Excellent writer but the book was like a Orchestra score with no melody line. Came across as just noise, tedious noise. And yet the man can turn a phrase. Just not in the form of a book.

Let us assume that 150 million is, in fact, better spent in prevention than in policing. Let us assume that to be true.

There's still going to be a need for policing until the effects from that 150 million kick in.

Finding home for the homeless and mentally ill is going to take months, minimum.
Educating kids takes over a decade.

They are going to need that 150 million until it starts working.

What is it about people who trample all over other people's environments thinking it's their right to do that? Conan the Grammarian at August 21, 2020 5:53 AM

IME, with that kind of people it's always a Venn diagram with Only child parenting, and Never been spanked.

In the victim olympics, criminals (including looters, shoplifters, and rioters) are now "victims" of oppression. Without oppression and the patriarchy there would be no homeless and people in jail, donchaknow. "Investing in the community" sounds so nice but no one knows how to do that to reduce violence--the Woke act like we do know.

Police also come when there is an accident and direct traffic so more accidents don't happen. I guess when your car dies on the freeway now you will just get rear ended by someone going 70mph--no big deal. Police come when your child is missing. Guess not anymore. In some places they come quick enough to stop a break-in or rape. Hahhaah too bad so sad.

There was a window where meaningful reform of the police had a chance to pass. If we could just get rid of the corrupt and incompetent in the police force the world would be a better place. Sadly that window closed quickly and now everyone is digging their feet in ground either trying to defund the police or blindly worshiping them. To make matters even worse the police are now demoralized and doing even less policing. Good times...

The argument for hiring not more police, but smarter police. Let's no longer limit police officers to a 104 IQ.

The argument for hiring not more police, but smarter police. Let's no longer limit police officers to a 104 IQ.

Conan the Grammarian at August 21, 2020 2:00 PM

My question is, if you do this to make your diversity numbers look good, where do your detectives come from?

My question is, if you do this to make your diversity numbers look good, where do your detectives come from? ~ Isab at August 21, 2020 2:13 PM

It's not done for diversity. It's done because the belief is that smarter cops will be bored by the drudgery of a patrol job and quit early in their police careers - this after expensive training. So, it's better to have cops that can handle routine jobs and will stay on the job several years.

From what I've read, detective work is not usually Hercule Poirot with clues, red herrings, and a nice denouement at the end. It is usually lots of legwork, taking statements, matching alibis, etc. Again, work that involves a certain amount of drudgery.

Meanwhile progressive Chicago Mayor Lori Lightfoot has police blocking her street because she has received threats.

Violent crime is going to go up, and part of the reason is that otherwise law abiding individuals are going to get tired of the BS and take matters into their own hands. Unfortunately, if they get caught then the full force of the law will descend on them because we can't have vigilante justice, that power belongs exclusively to leftists.

I don't feel sorry for most Californians though. They elected to have a one party authoritarian state, full of compassion and rolling blackouts.

Lucky for Mr. motorcycle guy that nobody takes to tossing a brick on his van late every night.

Lucky for Mr. motorcycle guy that nobody takes to tossing a brick on his van late every night.

Lucky for Mr. motorcycle guy that nobody takes to tossing a brick on his van late every night.

“It's not done for diversity. It's done because the belief is that smarter cops will be bored by the drudgery of a patrol job and quit early in their police careers - this after expensive training. So, it's better to have cops that can handle routine jobs and will stay on the job several years.“

I think this was the excuse, but not the real reason. Departments that set these rather low IQ standards just eliminated a bunch of mostly white and Asian men. Women don’t want to be police in large numbers so they were not as much of a concern.

I think this was the excuse, but not the real reason. Departments that set these rather low IQ standards just eliminated a bunch of mostly white and Asian men. Women don’t want to be police in large numbers so they were not as much of a concern. ~ Isab at August 21, 2020 4:37 PM

The court upheld Jordan's rejection because the standard was applied across the board. So, the smart black guys aren't getting the jobs either.

Over the period of time the force was grown, we’ve seen the police militarize to a startling degree. Bigger guns, body armor, smoke grenades, even tanks.

It is, I think, a way of reinforcing brawn over brains: the hope that more and better equipment can overcome the deficiencies of imagination. It is a constant renovation of the same ideas, shinier and glossier sure but not different in either kind or scope, over over again, against any kind of real innovation … because innovation requires brains and any brains above a certain level is not allowed. The long trend of passing over high intelligence recruits for fear that they wouldn’t handle well the boredom that might come with job has left many of the recruits comfortable in lowered expectations. As a result of this absence of both smarts and discipline officers come to believe that the authority they carry derives not from the badge or the city he served, but from the gun carried.

We're expecting Sherlock Holmes, but we're getting Barney Fife. The problem is that Barney Fife is choking Eric Garner and George Floyd to death, and shooting Breonna Taylor, while his Fife-esque compatriots look on and do nothing.

Politicians keep saying we need more police on the streets; along with more funding for officers, weapons, and equipment. Perhaps what we really need are smarter police on the streets, police who can solve problems without a default reliance on force.

Politicians keep saying we need more police on the streets; along with more funding for officers, weapons, and equipment. Perhaps what we really need are smarter police on the streets, police who can solve problems without a default reliance on force.

Conan the Grammarian at August 21, 2020 5:50 PM

Admit it. 90 percent of policing isn’t crime fighting at all, It is bean counting and ticket issuing.

The militarization of policing gave a bunch of largely incompetent paper pushers lethal force.

“The court upheld Jordan's rejection because the standard was applied across the board. So, the smart black guys aren't getting the jobs either.”

Smart black guys have all sorts of opportunities thrown at them by affirmative action. They don’t need or want to be police. They are all either engineers, scientists, or going to law school.

What you are looking at here is a racist IQ cut off that has disparate impact against mostly white guys and Asians.

It does this by design.

I had to go in to austin today for BLS renewal. Now, driving through austin has felt like an anthropological trek through an undeveloped nation for a while now, so I'm used to the tents in literally every square foot of shade, and trash and feces everywhere. But today, my first trip down since the defund announcement, it was scary. At stoplights, the homeless swarm onto the road, surround the cars, bang on windows, slop water on the windshield and try to charge you to squeegee it. I'm done. No more austin, for any reason, until there are sane people making the decisions there.

Amy - Stay Safe!

Smart black guys have all sorts of opportunities thrown at them by affirmative action. They don’t need or want to be police. They are all either engineers, scientists, or going to law school. ~ Isab at August 21, 2020 5:59 PM

Well, apparently enough applied and got rejected to satisfy the court that the policy is applied equally. I don't know how many that would have to be.

Your assumption that "They don’t need or want to be police" is hinged on a premise that no one intelligent would ever want to be on the police force, despite the romanticization of police work in movies, on television, and in novels; despite the very real intellectual challenges it would present an intelligent person. It's condescending, like John Kerry's implication that only losers would join the military, and then only out of desperation.

Engineers, scientists, and lawyers also encounter drudgery on their jobs. They too battle boredom and disillusionment. Choosing a career is choosing the type of drudgery you're willing to bear.

"You know, education, if you make the most of it, if you study hard and you do your homework, and you make an effort to be smart, uh, you, you can do well. If you don’t, you get stuck in Iraq." ~ John Kerry

"Every worthwhile accomplishment, big or little, has its stages of drudgery and triumph: a beginning, a struggle and a victory." ~ Mohandis K. Gandhi

“Your assumption that "They don’t need or want to be police" is hinged on a premise that no one intelligent would ever want to be on the police force, despite the romanticization of police work in movies, on television, and in novels; despite the very real intellectual challenges it would present an intelligent person. It's condescending, like John Kerry's implication that only losers would join the military, and then only out of desperation.”

Let me point out that this is the policy of *one police department* or at best one state. It is neither nation wide or standard. Smarter guys who still want to be in law enforcement can find another agency to join. Many federal ones are looking for smarter people. (Whether they are finding them, at least with any moral character to go with that intelligence is another question)

I have seen the hoops that the feds jumped through once they could no longer do in person interviews for jobs, or ask for test scores. It wasn’t pretty. Then they had to start vetting credentials, and demanding transcripts straight from colleges, because they were getting so many forged ones. Screening for diploma mills came next.

Generally when you and I have differences of opinion on an issue it is because you take these court cases or journalistic renditions of them at face value.

I refuse to, because in my extensive experience most of them are set ups. Designed to test a certain facet of a particular law so that agencies can tailor their discriminatory policies to fall within the law.

I’m not particularly condescending about the police, but generally when I was in the military, the MP’s both officer and enlisted, were a rather average thuggish bunch. And the officers who left the military to become police were in general a bit more regimented and jack booted than the others. They didn’t find what they were looking for in the military in terms of respect and authority, and seemed to be drawn to police work because of that.

Don’t get me wrong, there are many good ones, but like teachers they are prisoners of a generally rotten system controlled by incredibly corrupt politicians.

Does it work both ways?

Is the police powerless to stop you from putting sawdust in their gas tank and tacks in their tires?

Let me point out that this is the policy of *one police department* or at best one state. It is neither nation wide or standard. Smarter guys who still want to be in law enforcement can find another agency to join. Many federal ones are looking for smarter people. ~ Isab at August 21, 2020 8:18 PM

According to the piece I cited, "across the nation, at that time the average test scores of hired police officers were between 21 and 22." So, avoiding high IQ officers may not be a stated or written policy, but it is pretty standard.

...you take these court cases or journalistic renditions of them at face value. ~ Isab at August 21, 2020 8:18 PM

I'm not taking any court case at face value. In fact, I don't really care about the court case. My concern is the quality of the police officers in the US. If the court is allowing police departments to intentionally dumb down their forces, we're gonna have a lot more George Floyds and Breonna Taylors.

You may be right that the IQ standard started as a way to increase diversity by excluding smart white and Asian people. If you are right, that rests on the very racist assumption that black people are not very smart overall.

Such a policy, broadly implemented means smart black applicants are getting rejected, as are smart white and Asian applicants. In the end, we still have a less-than-smart police force armed with heavy weapons and the authority to use force. We'll have more Breonna Taylors, not fewer.

I’m not particularly condescending about the police.... ~ Isab at August 21, 2020 8:18 PM

Nor am I. Anyone standing between me and chaos has my support.

Nor am I hostile to the idea of having a police force. I like civilization and am skeptical that it can formed organically without some sort of structure intended to rein in mankind's baser tendencies.

I'm also a realist; and too many police officers forget they represent the law, they are not themselves the law.

...but generally when I was in the military, the MP’s both officer and enlisted, were a rather average thuggish bunch. And the officers who left the military to become police were in general a bit more regimented and jack booted than the others. They didn’t find what they were looking for in the military in terms of respect and authority, and seemed to be drawn to police work because of that. ~ Isab at August 21, 2020 8:18 PM

When you're not getting respect for anything other than the badge on your chest and the gun on your hip, you tend to internalize those things.

Don’t get me wrong, there are many good ones, but like teachers they are prisoners of a generally rotten system controlled by incredibly corrupt politicians. ~ Isab at August 21, 2020 8:18 PM

I'd agree with that. Politicians for years called for more police, not smarter policing; more force. Now that the full effects of their short-sighted foolishness have come to light, they blame the police and call for reducing the funding for police. Politicians don't exist to solve problems, they exist to exploit them for their own benefit.

Whatever the original reasons for limiting the IQ of police officers, it's a policy that needs to be ended.

The Jordan case began in 1996 and was resolved in 2000. So, we've had 20+ years to implement reforms of the weakness this case brought to light and we've done nothing. Leavening our police forces with smarter officers would have gone far to produce smarter policing; still would.

"Politicians are the same all over. They promise to build a bridge even where there is no river." ~ Nikita Khrushchev

It's not necessary to have a higher IQ to be an effective and valuable police officer. Traits such as good character, a particular personality, and street-smarts are WAY more important. If a given officer has these traits, s/he will be an irreplaceable asset as a neighborhood beat cop. Those officers with higher IQ tend to become detectives and/or part of the command structure. We need all kinds. A higher IQ doesn't have any correlation with character.

We've got to come out of lockdown ASAP. I see that as an absolute precondition to getting our cities to function again. Philadelphia isn't doing as badly as a lot of other cities but it's noticeably less safe-feeling. My husband has worked downtown for thirty years and was, for the first time, physically in fear when he walked about twelve blocks this week to go from his office to the dentist. Streets are almost deserted, there is a large homeless encampment near the Art Museum, and of the people who are on the street, many are drugged-out, many are aggressive pan-handlers, many appear to be mentally ill.
We know younger people who live in Center City, and they are taking Ubers even if their destination is only a few blocks away.
None of this will get better until this insane tyrannical lock-down ceases.

A higher IQ doesn't have any correlation with character. ~ RigelDog at August 22, 2020 7:02 AM

No one said it did. Nor does IQ correlate with wisdom.

IQ does, however, have something to do with decision-making and the ability to consider multiple variables in problem solving.

Having higher IQ officers mixed in with the rest means a better collective decision-making. When the only tool you have is a hammer, you approach every problem as if it were a nail. We need our police forces to have a better mix of tools in the toolbox.

"You know, it's amazing how many supervillains have advanced degrees. Graduate schools should do a better job of screening those people out." ~ Sheldon Cooper

Conan said: No one said it did. Nor does IQ correlate with wisdom.

IQ does, however, have something to do with decision-making and the ability to consider multiple variables in problem solving.

Having higher IQ officers mixed in with the rest means a better collective decision-making."

Hmmmm, maybe. In my experience, though, the situations that confront patrol officers and neighborhood beat cops are almost never of the type of complexity that a higher IQ would help to evaluate. Things on the street get chaotic and complicated but that's where street-smarts and experience come in. They use people-skills and experience to predict what may happen next, when to apply physical force and when to de-escalate, how to talk to people who are angry, high, crazy. If and when the situation is unusual, they call in supervisors.

“You may be right that the IQ standard started as a way to increase diversity by excluding smart white and Asian people. If you are right, that rests on the very racist assumption that black people are not very smart overall.”

Most progressive policies are inherently racist.

There is some evidence that East Africans are generally more intelligent than West Africans.

Regardless there is more individual variance of intelligence than among groups.

Giving preferences based on skin color or ethnic group always discriminates against individual merit.

Also I find the argument that higher IQ people don’t handle repetitive or boring tasks well to be a specious argument.
Usually they find a more efficient way to perform them.

Can you imagine that standard applied to physicians? We find that being a GP requires a lot of boring and repetitive tasks like charting and heart checking so we are going to restrict that profession to people with an IQ of no more than 105. Whuut?