• prayer@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      14
      ·
      4 months ago

      Which makes sense because many states require you to be 21 to carry a handgun.

      • Zuberi 👀@lemmy.dbzer0.comOP
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        4 months ago

        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?

        • Armok_the_bunny@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          4 months ago

          Nah, they aren’t set in stone requirements, just an excuse they are allowed to use to reject a candidate. That means they get to selectively enforce it.

            • idiomaddict@feddit.de
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              4 months ago

              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).

  • jordanlund@lemmy.worldM
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    7
    ·
    edit-2
    4 months ago

    If I were to guess… the onboarding/training takes 6 months, so they want applicants to be at least 21 by the time they are fully certified.

    Imagine having a police officer who couldn’t go into a bar.

  • JackGreenEarth@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    4 months ago

    Idk what it’s like in the US, but in the UK age discrimination is illegal as a protected characteristic.

    • dual_sport_dork@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      12
      ·
      edit-2
      4 months ago

      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.)