Gun Free Zones Aren’t an Inhibition….they’re an Invitation.
Bullshit.
#RESIST
I agree with at least the second part. Push-ups aren't used because they measure anyone's ability to do the job...they are used because they are easy to test for and to count. Which is the problem with PT tests in both the military and LE. They are designed to be able to run large amounts of people through a standard (and arbitrary) series of easily quantifiable tasks. They are not designed for any bonafide job requirements.He said some of the evaluations - such as the push-up test - favored men, while "not being designed to evaluate an officer's overall suitability for duty."
Bummer. There's jobs I can't pass arbitrary tests for either.
Semper Gumby, Always Flexible
It's a good thing that physical fitness has nothing to do with your ability to handle stressful, life-and-death situations. Otherwise, someone might get hurt.
- It's not the odds, it's the stakes.
- If you aren't dry practicing every week, you're not serious.....
- "Tache-Psyche Effect - a polite way of saying 'You suck.' " - GG
My former agency didn't have PT test once you were on the streets and certified. Instead, they had a weight/height chart thingie and annual weigh in.
If you couldn't make weight, you had to go get a body fat percentage test (at your own expense/ bout 5.00 at a local university) and if you were sub 20 percent (males) you were GTG.
Current agency has a watered down version of an obstacle course with a more than generous time to beat. 70 seconds is the cutoff and at the graceful age of 47, I ran it in 44 seconds the other day at a moderate jog. This is with gunbelt on but your choice of footware.
We do this every two years and it really brings out the whining and moaning.....and the doctor's excuses flow in like a tidal wave.
Our recruits have to pass state standards and they really aren't that hard. 22 push ups, 25 sit ups and of course, the 1.5 mile run in 15 seconds and change. I passed several times in my youth and if I trained for a couple of weeks could pass it as I approach the 50 year mark.
It's to make sure someone isn't completely dead weight if the fight gets brought to their lap......not to see if they can do the job.
If this agency can't do PT test anymore, do the weight requirement thing like my former agency. I never could make weight there even in my 20s as the standards were designed for someone who never eats. Give me a PT test once every two years instead. Our chubbiest and laziest can pass that thing. A weight chart would blitz 40 percent of our sworn ranks.
Regards.
From the article:
Are they sure they want to go down this road? Any fitness test for being a patrol or tactical officer that has a scientific or realistic basis is going to be far more difficult than push-ups and sit-ups or a run. I would be all for a test that involves having to overpower and cuff a large attacker/resister or fight to retain your gun from a large aggressor or chase down a fleeing person in full kit. The reason that most agencies don't do this (including most of the military) is that most people would fail. In the Army SF Q course much of the PT goes well above and beyond the sit-up/push-up/jog test because they know it's nonsense while many of the "regular Army" units do PT that focuses entirely on improving PT test scores for their (often remarkably out of shape) soldiers. A real world PT test in the military would mean a run & gun stress shoot followed up by a buddy carry/drag of the largest person in your unit in full kit. But most people can't drag or carry a 250lb. kitted soldier 100 yards (or even 1 yard, often), so they don't test for that even if they should."If municipalities are going to use tests like this, they have to make sure there's a scientific basis behind them," said Jocelyn Larkin, executive director of the Impact Fund. The organization helps bankroll civil-rights lawsuits, and it contributed $30,000 to this case."
The point is, if an agency is going to commit to doing a realistic PT test they are going to lose a lot of people. What the women involved in this lawsuit are asking for would almost certainly be more difficult than what has been asked of them in the past. This might be a case where "malicious compliance" could come in to play. "Oh you want a realistic PT test? OK, fight off a 230lb man who is trying to take your gun." We all know how that would end for most of the women (and many of the men) in the average LE agency.
"I need your help. I can't tell you what it is, you can never ask me about it later, and we're gonna hurt some people."
Which assumes push-ups are a measure of physical fitness that is relevant vs just easy to administer.Originally Posted by John Hearne
It's a good thing that physical fitness has nothing to do with your ability to handle stressful, life-and-death situations. Otherwise, someone might get hurt.
Let's look at the Army. I knew medics who could pass the PT test with flying colors, but couldn't lift me out of the cupola of my mine clearing tank. I knew bridge layers (12C) who could pass the PT test but who struggled with Bailey bridge pieces. I was a combat engineer. Something like carrying two 40-lb weights (cratering charges) a set distance, driving a certain number of fence posts, carrying a 65-lb pack a few miles...those would be things relevant to what we were expected to do. I'm a bigger guy. The 2 mile run was something I passed but never really excelled at, maxing it only once. Yet when it came time to pound fence posts for hours to make wire obstacles or hump demolitions for a few miles, guess who excelled while smaller guys who could run the 2 mile flagged?
That's the difference between arbitrary testing and bonafide job requirements. Not that you can't, or shouldn't, test for physical ability but that the tests aren't measuring ability that's relevant. Body weight exercises especially.
All I know is that I've seen some law enforcement officers during my time that I'm amazed could ever have passed muster based upon their size and girth. There is no way that some of these folks could ever do a chin up let alone see their feet while zippering their pants.
I won't argue that everyone needs to be in "SWAT" team shape, (though I'm not sure just what that is these days), but the ability to lift and carry significant weight up and down flights of stairs without a heart attack or being out of commission with a bad back might be a starting point.
Removing standards of performance doesn't seem to have made things better, imho.
ETA: Just read BBI's post after typing mine and I think he and I are on something of the same page. You don't have to excel at the broad jump, bench press or two mile run to be fit for the job...there are better performance measuring tasks. And I completely agree with BBI regarding the ability to do strenuous labor (like sledge hammering, sawing, chopping etc) over a protracted period of time.
Last edited by blues; 07-14-2017 at 09:34 AM.
There's nothing civil about this war.
We are in the process of implementing a physical fitness standard. The women's standards are significantly lower. I voiced my displeasure of this and the reason given was that women have less muscle density and generally perform at lower standards then men due to their physical makeup. Such bullshit as I know inevitably these tests are going to be a factor in advancement...
Last edited by secondstoryguy; 07-14-2017 at 09:52 AM.
Reply With Quote