# FREEZE! I JUST HAD MY NAILS DONE!



## mkpnt (Sep 8, 2004)

FREEZE! I JUST HAD MY NAILS DONE!
March 16, 2005

How many people have to die before the country stops humoring feminists? Last week, a defendant in a rape case, Brian Nichols, wrested a gun from a female deputy in an Atlanta courthouse and went on a murderous rampage. Liberals have proffered every possible explanation for this breakdown in security except the giant elephant in the room - who undoubtedly has an eating disorder and would appreciate a little support vis-a-vis her negative body image.

The New York Times said the problem was not enough government spending on courthouse security ("Budgets Can Affect Safety Inside Many Courthouses"). Yes, it was tax-cuts-for-the-rich that somehow enabled a 200-pound former linebacker to take a gun from a 5-foot-tall grandmother.

Atlanta court officials dispensed with any spending issues the next time Nichols entered the courtroom when he was escorted by 17 guards and two police helicopters. He looked like P. Diddy showing up for a casual dinner party.

I think I have an idea that would save money and lives: Have large men escort violent criminals. Admittedly, this approach would risk another wave of nausea and vomiting by female professors at Harvard. But there are also advantages to not pretending women are as strong as men, such as fewer dead people. Even a female math professor at Harvard should be able to run the numbers on this one.

Of course, it's suspiciously difficult to find any hard data about the performance of female cops. Not as hard as finding the study showing New Jersey state troopers aren't racist, but still pretty hard to find.

Mostly what you find on Lexis-Nexis are news stories quoting police chiefs who have been browbeaten into submission, all uttering the identical mantra after every public safety disaster involving a girl cop. It seems that female officers compensate for a lack of strength with "other" abilities, such as cooperation, empathy and intuition.

There are lots of passing references to "studies" of uncertain provenance, but which always sound uncannily like a press release from the Feminist Majority Foundation. (Or maybe it was The Pew Research Center for the People and the Press, which recently released a study claiming that despite Memogate, "Fahrenheit 911," the Richard Clarke show and the jihad against the Swift Boat Veterans, the press is being soft on Bush.)

The anonymous "studies" about female officers invariably demonstrate that women make excellent cops - even better cops than men! One such study cited an episode of "She's the Sheriff," starring Suzanne Somers.

A 1993 news article in the Los Angeles Times, for example, referred to a "study" -- cited by an ACLU attorney - allegedly proving that "female officers are more effective at making arrests without employing force because they are better at de-escalating confrontations with suspects." No, you can't see the study or have the name of the organization that performed it, and why would you ask?

There are roughly 118 million men in this country who would take exception to that notion. I wonder if women officers "de-escalate" by mentioning how much more money their last suspect made.

These aren't unascertainable facts, like Pinch Sulzberger's SAT scores. The U.S. Department of Justice regularly performs comprehensive surveys of state and local law enforcement agencies, collected in volumes called "Law Enforcement Management and Administrative Statistics."

The inestimable economist John Lott Jr. has looked at the actual data. (And I'll give you the citation! John R. Lott Jr., "Does a Helping Hand Put Others at Risk? Affirmative Action, Police Departments and Crime," Economic Inquiry, April 1, 2000.)

It turns out that, far from "de-escalating force" through their superior listening skills, female law enforcement officers vastly are more likely to shoot civilians than their male counterparts. (Especially when perps won't reveal where they bought a particularly darling pair of shoes.)

Unable to use intermediate force, like a bop on the nose, female officers quickly go to fatal force. According to Lott's analysis, each 1 percent increase in the number of white female officers in a police force increases the number of shootings of civilians by 2.7 percent.

Adding males to a police force decreases the number of civilians accidentally shot by police. Adding black males decreases civilian shootings by police even more. By contrast, adding white female officers increases accidental shootings. (And for my Handgun Control Inc. readers: Private citizens are much less likely to accidentally shoot someone than are the police, presumably because they do not have to approach the suspect and make an arrest.)

In addition to accidentally shooting people, female law enforcement officers are also more likely to be assaulted than male officers - as the whole country saw in Atlanta last week. Lott says: "Increasing the number of female officers by 1 percentage point appears to increase the number of assaults on police by 15 percent to 19 percent."

In addition to the obvious explanations for why female cops are more likely to be assaulted and to accidentally shoot people - such as that our society encourages girls to play with dolls - there is also the fact that women are smaller and weaker than men.

In a study of public safety officers - not even the general population - female officers were found to have 32 percent to 56 percent less upper body strength and 18 percent to 45 percent less lower body strength than male officers - although their outfits were 43 percent more coordinated. (Here's the cite! Frank J. Landy, "Alternatives to Chronological Age in Determining Standards of Suitability for Public Safety Jobs," Technical Report, Vol. 1, Jan. 31, 1992.)

Another study I've devised involves asking a woman to open a jar of pickles.

There is also the telling fact that feminists demand that strength tests be watered down so that women can pass them. Feminists simultaneously demand that no one suggest women are not as strong as men and then turn around and demand that all the strength tests be changed. It's one thing to waste everyone's time by allowing women to try out for police and fire departments under the same tests given to men. It's quite another to demand that the tests be brawned-down so no one ever has to tell female Harvard professors that women aren't as strong as men.

Acknowledging reality wouldn't be all bad for women. For one thing, they won't have to confront violent felons on methamphetamine. So that's good. Also, while a sane world would not employ 5-foot-tall grandmothers as law enforcement officers, a sane world would also not give full body-cavity searches to 5-foot-tall grandmothers at airports.

:thumbup: Someone had to say it. I think Ann Coulter makes a very valid point.


----------



## Barbrady (Aug 5, 2004)

I agree. No offense ladies, but, what the [email protected]#k were they thinking when they allowed a 51 year old woman to escort an enormous, former college linebacker solo. And furthermore, not bother to watch her back on monitors. Shame on them!!! Again, I mean no disrespect to anyone.


----------



## John J (Jul 18, 2002)

Are you saying that women should not be cops? This should be good.


----------



## Barbrady (Aug 5, 2004)

Not even close. I just think they should have used some sense when they allowed her to escort him alone. And then, not monitor her on camera. This guy was strong enough to overpower most men. He should of had a 2 person escort or at the least be restrained. Thats all.


----------



## stm4710 (Jul 6, 2004)

Reading this article makes me think of the black lady on Reno 911. :roll:


----------



## kttref (Oct 5, 2004)

mkpnt";p="59890 said:


> Of course, it's suspiciously difficult to find any hard data about the performance of female cops. Not as hard as finding the study showing New Jersey state troopers aren't racist, but still pretty hard to find.


That is the best line of the whole thing!

Women know we're not as strong as men. Our bodies aren't built for that. Which is why when I was asked in an interview "What would you do if 5 large drunk men were fighting?" My answer was "Wait for backup."

Women should be officers, but we sure as hell should not be completely responsible for escorting someone who could squash a male of the same size. Women shouldn't let their damn egos about "I want to be equal" come into play. This is how people get hurt. :2c:

Fact: Women don't have the same upper-body strength (or capacity to get it) like men.

Fact: My PT will always be easier then the men.

Fact: I'll pass my PT and still beat 1/2 the guys...but I know I can't bench as much as them, and never will be able to.

Fact: Women bitch too much...myself included.


----------



## stm4710 (Jul 6, 2004)

kttref";p="60130 said:


> mkpnt";p="59890 said:
> 
> 
> > Of course, it's suspiciously difficult to find any hard data about the performance of female cops. Not as hard as finding the study showing New Jersey state troopers aren't racist, but still pretty hard to find.
> ...


Women want the same job and responsibility, pass the same test. [-X

I want to know my female partner is going to have the strength to pull my fat ass out of a burning building when the defication hits the oscillation, while following a hose line out down a smoke filled,super heated hallway with collapseing walls.........cause you aint got to time to wait for backup.


----------



## jmo (Jan 22, 2005)

I certainly agree that they did not use common sense and there needed to be more officers escorting this party. I also agree that women are not physically as strong as men...but don't make the mistake of thinking we can't do the job. Yes-there are women out there who do not have the mindset or tactics to handle themselves in physical confrontations on the street. But this applies to men as well. I have seen men-we're talking over six feet tall and in good physical condition-unable to physically control a suspect because they try to overpower them with muscle and use no defensive tactics. You can't rely on strength-you must use sound tactics and good skills-that applies to men as well as women.


----------



## mkpnt (Sep 8, 2004)

To get the same job you should have to do the same PT.


----------



## JoninNH (Jan 29, 2004)

stm4710";p="60131 said:


> Women want the same job and responsibility, pass the same test. [-X
> 
> I want to know my female partner is going to have the strength to pull my fat ass out of a burning building when the defication hits the oscillation, while following a hose line out down a smoke filled,super heated hallway with collapseing walls.........cause you aint got to time to wait for backup.


I agree 100% with you on this one, stm4710. And I mean no disrespect towards any woman LEO anywhere. But the minimum physical requirements are there for a reason; they are a quantitive standard of physical fitness level necessary to perform the duties of the job. If you can't meet these physical requirements, you shouldn't be allowed to work the job.

I had to take a PT test once when I had to drag a realistically weighed manikan 150 feet. That simulated me dragging my partner out of the area. Now why should that standard be any different for men rather then women? If safety lay 150 feet away, I would rather my partner be able to carry or drag me the entire 150 feet to safety, rather then 2/3rds the distance. Some women I know have said, "well thats not fair, women are made differently." Thats true, women aren't, but how fair is it to the officer who gets left behind or can't be carried to safety because his partner couldn't make it the 150 feet? Just my two cents...

As a disclaimer, without going into specifics, I had a female fellow soldier drag my lard ass out of a bad situation, and I watched a recruit in Basic finish her APFT run with a fractured ankle, so I have no problems with women in the service or police... I would just perfer we all get held to the same standard.

Seperate but equal standards, I don't think so.


----------



## kttref (Oct 5, 2004)

I agree with you all, women should have the same physical standard as men, but we don't. That won't change anytime soon.

I know for a fact that the Cooper Standard of bench pressing 106% of your body weight (What most CT towns use for males 21-29) I could NEVER do (my standard for the same age is 65% and that's no problem). But I do know I could drag someone who weighed 150lbs. no problem. When I was lifeguarding we practiced on heavier, and I was weaker. Not sure why I'm defending myself.

So there are many women who can do it, except possibly the bench press, but your right many women shouldn't be in LE if it were to be based just on physical strength, but that is why there are different elements to testing. Would you want a really stupid, but strong, female rescuing your ass? She may run right into the line of fire. :roll:


----------



## cmagryan (Dec 15, 2004)

I agree that the physical abilities test should be equal for men and women. That being said, women seeking the job can take it upon themselves to train until they match the male's requirements for the test. (I did it ten years ago--no one told me to do it, and I didn't tell anyone what I was doing, I just trained until I met the male standards for the run, bench press, etc. It gave me confidence and a feeling of earning the position). The debate can go on forever, but ultimately everyone knows of men and women who would be better off in another line of work.


----------



## mpd61 (Aug 7, 2002)

WTF????

Let's cut this crap out right away! There are guy's on this job right now who are 5' nothing and weight 150&lt; pounds. They wait for backup or use their experience too, or they might get creamed. Let's cut this gender-based bull now. It is sooooo beneath this group!
:roll:


----------



## kttref (Oct 5, 2004)

mpd61";p="60178 said:


> WTF????
> 
> Let's cut this crap out right away! There are guy's on this job right now who are 5' nothing and weight 150< pounds. They wait for backup or use their experience too, or they might get creamed. Let's cut this gender-based bull now. It is sooooo beneath this group!
> :roll:


Good call.


----------

