Container said:
But when the "standards" are a grade twelve education and a passing score, and a background check that is less involved now than even five years ago, that doesnt mean much.
Or a "Good Enough Diploma" GED:
http://www.rcmp-grc.gc.ca/recruiting-recrutement/selection/requirements-exigences-eng.htm
"If you did not complete secondary school, you must obtain an equivalency assessment."
I have a copy of a 1974 Metro Emergency Services recruiting ad: "Qualified applicants will be at least 5'8" in height, with weight of 160 lbs., possess a Grade 12 diploma and be physically fit." Height and weight was not negotiable. Neither was the Grade 12 diploma.
My guess is that the RCMP used to have a similar height and weight requirement: "Before the 1970s, the RCMP hired only men of a certain height and weight. Often, a "good" candidate weighed over 200 pounds (91 kg) pounds and stood at or above 6 feet (180 cm).":
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RCMP_recruiting#Physical_attributes
Of course, the human rights people condemned it, and eventually had it removed.:
http://www.ohrc.on.ca/en/resources/Policies/PolicyHtWt?page=he-Introduc.html
Edit to add:
But, it was a matter of public safety that rescuers be able to "carry their weight". I believe that now, as much as the department did back then. It reached a point where some crews had to call so often for a second ambulance ( which often was not available ) to help lift, restrain, extricate or rescue patients, that they eventually started sending the TFD/TFS to avoid being sued by the families for the delay in transport. Lives that might be saved could be lost because of a delay.
The debate continues this year in New York City:
"Sorry ladies, but I want a fire
man" ( The "man" is in italics. )
http://www.nypost.com/p/news/national/sorry_ladies_but_want_fireman_YqszteeZBBTmJSTcUizSiK
"You can't choose the one who will rescue you. You can weaken the pool. And that is something this city can't afford in the name of "diversity." "
This story is from less than two weeks ago: "in Ontario, an officer's size, skill and level of training help justify how they choose to handle threats":
Regarding use of force, I would interpret that to mean that a smaller sized officer might choose to justify handling a physical threat differently than a larger sized one?
From the U.S.: "On March 11, 2005, Brian Nichols, 33, was being escorted by a 51 year old female sheriff's deputy to his rape trial inside an Atlanta Courthouse. Nichols disarmed and seriously injured the deputy, who
was half his size, before entering the courtroom and shooting the judge and court reporter to death with the deputy's gun. He would murder another sheriff's deputy on his escape from the courthouse as well as an off duty federal agent, at the agent's home, as he eluded capture."
"If the deputy had been equal in size and strength, one must wonder if Nichols would have delayed his plan; until, a target of more certainty presented itself."
