What, the cops are actually doing at least something to weed out the bad apples now?

Sarcasm aside: interesting how far they go for a simple copper on the street now. Here in Germany, that level of background checks (Sicherheitsüberprüfung Ü2/Ü3) is only done for higher level (i.e. leadership) cops and IT staff.

[1] https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sicherheits%C3%BCberpr%C3%BCfu...

>> To less of a degree, when applying for law enforcement jobs, family members and sometimes friends have to surrender a lot of personal data. I had to [hand] over my SSN along with pretty much all my PII and do interviews on behalf family members when they applied to be cops. I tried to say no, but at the end of the day they're holding their jobs hostage until I comply. Hate it.

> What, the cops are actually doing at least something to weed out the bad apples now?

How is forcing a friend or family member to surrender their own PII have anything to do about "weed[ing] out the bad apples"?

My intuition is that those kinds of background checks have been going on for a long time, and have been focused on stuff like preventing infiltration by organized crime rather than specifically rooting out police brutality.

> preventing infiltration by organized crime

Sounds like they're trying to weed out some of the bad apples then, aren't they? Would you rather they not be doing this? It doesn't address all the ways in which a cop might be bad, but you shouldn't let perfect be the enemy of good.

Nothing they said even remotely suggests they're against this type of background check, just that checking up on your wife's credit and social circle says nothing about whether you are a "bad apple" yourself.

It's a confusing comment because in one paragraph they say the practice doesn't weed out bad apples, but then in the subsequent paragraph they concede that it probably does. The only way to square these is if cops affiliated with organized crime aren't classified as bad apples, but that makes zero sense.

> The only way to square these is if cops affiliated with organized crime aren't classified as bad apples, but that makes zero sense.

I see how it was confusing, but what I was thinking was the nature of what is considered a "bad apple" has changed over time. I think police forces have been trying to prevent things like organized crime infiltration and corruption for a long time, while things like excessive use of force and racial bias have only started to be considered serious problem by them much more recently. Acting surprised about background checks seems like it's exclusively referring to the latter, while the process itself (e.g. getting friends' SSNs) seems mostly target at the former.

> preventing infiltration

I believe this is correct.

> by organized crime

I believe this depends on the precinct.

> How is forcing a friend or family member to surrender their own PII have anything to do about "weed[ing] out the bad apples"?

Well, interviewing family and friends can definitely help weed out people with problematic far-right attitudes, a history of domestic violence or other issues.

A friend applied for a state police job. They wanted references and interviews not only from immediate family members, but also a number of friends, his adjacent neighbors, multiple current coworkers, his current supervisor, and all past supervisors he was able to get ahold of (with detailed explanations if he was unable to comply with the last).

And then, when they interviewed me, they asked me for further references for him.