PTSD and Military veterans that join the police force. Should pre-employment screening for PTSD be a requirement?

When I leave the military, I don't plan to do LE or even anything associated with security. The problem with screening veterans is one, it might be discrimination, and two, it will cost someone some money and who will pay for that, the department the vet is trying to get hired onto? Personally, if a potential employer asked if I have been diagnosed with PTSD I will make sure to file a complaint with EO.

I did 10 years and 6 deployments before getting out. I was hired as a cop in Phoenix after being out for only two months. I met alot of people in my agency who were getting help for PTS from various (recent) prior military service.

None of us had any issues with the public or our peers attributable to our diagnosed combat related PTS. We were all seeking treatment from what was the worst VA on the planet at the time!

I have to think some of these recent issues with LE and the minority public probably stemmed from something else. It streamlines the story for the press and lessens the liability of the LE agency related to the incident if they scream "PTSD" from the rooftops.

In my eight years as a cop I had no issue and neither did any of my peers...

One can make statistics show what one wants...

Statistics show that the majority of police that commit violent crimes against American citizens are prior military? Hmm, maybe that's because the majority of POLICE OFFICERS are former military.

Is this a serious question with videos that relate to what exactly? Violence comes in all colors sir. Good day.

Most agencies require applicants to take a psych evaluation as part of the hiring process.

Anyone can get PTSD, from any cause....car wreck, dog bite, falling off the roof of your house, being a cop in certain jurisdictions. It's not exclusive to combat veterans.

Since I don't know what has gone on in the lives of the LEO's involved, I can't make a judgment. That's what internal affairs investigations are for.

It would not be legal to selectively screen Vets for PTSD. Lawsuits would abound, and rightfully so. What does the question have to do with the linked video?

It's curious that you would only provide for two alternatives - it must be either a medical/psychological condition or it's hate. Hate comes in all colors, shapes, sizes, and flavors. So do racism and prejudice. It comes from people from both sides of the tracks, and in every pursuit of human endeavor. I think it's probably more of a "problem" because it's getting more attention. Everyone has a camera on their phone, and every news outlet wants to generate ratings and get the story out first. They do so without facts, without any real reporting, and, often, with an agenda they with to push. These high profile cases have tended to be blown way out of proportion, and the victims less of a victim when the evidence comes to light.

There are always going to be bad actors on both sides of the badge, but to answer the question: No. Use a personality assessment to determine risk factors and screen out people based on their own responses.

The hate is spilled over from years of aggression from the ones that are being protected by the Police Force. I had no issues, nor did I (or do I) hate groups of people. As a Police Officer, I was spit on and hit. I did not kill a single person, nor did I shoot anyone.

I was hated because of the uniform I wore. Not a single person that hated me knew who I was or even my first name. None of them gave any of us a chance to show them who we were. They despised and hated us.

The problem I saw was caused from ignorance and misconceptions of their own perceptions. If they would have educated themselves, and maybe follow the law there would be less incidents and agitation

Now the OTHER side of the story is coming out, with vids and testimony from the people who live in the neighborhood, and the "bad cop" storyline is taking a pounding. A wise old colonel once told me "the first SITREP is always wrong. Wait until you have more facts." Guess that applies here.

Regardless of whether such cops tend to be veterans, I do not think either PTSD or hatred are the reasons, nor do I think it can necessarily be simplified to that degree. It is likely a conglomeration of factors, a more prominent one being that police are afforded a great deal of authority, and great lenience when that authority is abused.

I take the opinion that power tends to corrupt; and when power is given to an individual who has inclinations to maximize/abuse/etc that power over time - for whatever reasons incline them to do so - and/or that individual had past training/experiences for resorting to force more quickly, and/or that individual takes and "us vs them" mentality, and/or other relatable factors are present in that individual: such power will likely affect them in a negative manner, leading to abuse.

From other responses on here, I've seen a lot of concern about the need for a robust psychological screening process at police departments. But from the experience of friends I have that are in LE, and my own research into the application process for various departments (as I have strongly considered a career in LE after I get out of the military, especially given my educational background); I can say that psychological screening, as well as interviewing friends/family/acquaintances of the applicant, is already commonplace. When I was interviewed for my friend's application to San Jose PD, it was very similar to the interviews I've been through for TS security clearances for both myself and others. Additionally, my friend had to go through multiple written and in-person psychological/behavioral evaluations. Of course, a lot of the questions on written psychological tests are seemingly stupid things such as "have you ever, or do you think you would have enjoyed inflicting pain on an animal?", which to pretty much everyone has an obvious answer. But that partially just goes to show that no matter how thoroughly you attempt to screen people, or read their minds, or otherwise predict their behavior, you can't know how they're going to behave when given great authority.

And so instead of calls for even more screening (of which there is arguably, already as much as is effective), I would advocate calling for police to be more accountable to those tax-payers they serve. With the rise of police and other public sector unions, and public sector employees granting themselves great leeway, who is really serving who? I do not think public sector jobs should have nearly as much job security as they do, especially jobs in LE. If it was as easy to fire a bad cop as it is for a typical business to fire a bad employee, I would not be surprised by statistically significant reductions in police instances of excessive force, and other markers of bad behavior. If we're going to charge an individual with upholding the rule of law, then we need to be hold them to higher standards, which includes greater accountability. Seems I've gone on quite the rant here.....