I debate this at work quite often and people either strongly agree with me or think I'm a nut. I figure the truth is hard for some to accept lol. (Not that I'm NOT a nut though)
My stance is that up until recent times, law enforcement jobs were tougher to get and this resulted in better officers. Since they've PC'ed us in recent times, we've suffered as a result.
Most departments used to require all recruits to pass rigid physical testing in order to be considered for an academy. The result was that many former high school/college athletes and prior military types were hired.
You had tough, capable individuals who were able to physically handle most people in their approximate age/size range. Nowdays, lawsuits and "progressive" changes have resulted in far less departments maintaing the tough physical standards for their recruit pool.
I've seen more and more recruits come through, who are unable to do a single pushup (male and female) or run a mile and a half without stopping or slowing to walk. It's sad and disgusting at the the same time but this is who they (recruiters) keep sending to us.
Big surprise that these weaklings dont convey any sense of confidence in uniform, nor do they have any "command presence" in any sense of the word. I've seen assaults against officers rise in the last few years and I cant help but think the fact that we look "soft" has something to do with it.
For over 200 years, we managed to police this country without all the tazers, OC spray, and other bat-belt gadgets. I believe it was because most of the officers were physically tough and could handle themselves. Since we've gotten away from these requirements, our dependence on these gadgets has grown.
Not that I think they aren't useful items to have... they are, but many officers NEED them because they're so physically incapable. Am I wrong in my thinking? Give me some feedback, be it positive or negative. I'm curious how some of you view this.