The high-scoring student could have tried for the FBI instead. Or maybe they have a max age requirement for FBI rookies (the guy was 49).

I recall other stories like this one back around 2K and being worried. In those stories, they said the upper limit was about 110, but average was average, or 100IQ....that meant there would be some that were 90 IQ (or less).
This story (and link) had holes, the math didn't seem right. They claim a 33 in their test is a 125, that's 3.78 IQ points per test point...then they say the normal accepted score was 20-21, which they claim was equivalent to 104 IQ or 5.07 IQ points per test point. What's up with that?
I suppose 110 being the max is ok for beat cops (but not much under 100 IQ...the dumb really shouldn't have too much authority...see Idiocracy), but then where do you get intelligent detectives from?

As much as we would like those who pass judgement on us to be intelligent, the notion that this test-range is based on, is stable from a governing perspective.

Take the emotion out (concerns of ones personal safety/punishment) and review the situation again.

i.e. Businesses are financially driven and therefore do not hire people that are over educated for a role, as they do tend to feel unsatisfied and eventually will leave for a reason that falls within a bell curve (knowing they can do more). This sensibility is in direct relation to sustainability. If as a standard they kept hiring people unnecessarily skillful who will likely get bored and also know they could do something more intelligent/challenging/satisfying, they would blow all their money and go out of business.

Would you rather have,
1. No service (or and including, a perpetually collapsing service that exists only by way of endless cash injections that drains a countries budget), or
2. A relatively ok service that is trained to follow a fairly simple set of guidelines, with a dispute system (courts) to back up any non-time sensitive poor decisions?

There's no justifiable value to a required service if it's not sustainable.

They will still hire intelligent people, but for the right roles, which will be with different testing criteria. Not the more common base-level operator (widespread foot soldier) roles.

Cue Don LaFontaine voiveover:
"Imagine a world, with an untouchable minority of elite who make the laws, private armies outside of these laws, and robotic, hind-brained minions to enforce that law and corral the interred.....If you are not part of one of these three groups.... (cue moans, screams, slamming cell doors-montage)

Then you are....part of the problem.....PLANET NOW!. (coming soon to the theater of every city on Earth)

For a business, I agree, but the police aren't a for profit business (thank goodness...and yet).
They could easily solve this issue and have more intelligent police by simply having them sign a binding contract before they start training requiring them to either stay a cop for (say 2) years or the cost of training becomes their bill. Then those looking for free training would be excluded.
I disagree that the two options you offered are the only available.
I can't see how they would still hire intelligent people, the beat cop is the entry level position for police, you don't start as detective. If they won't hire intelligent beat cops, they won't have them to promote.

Moving this video to chingalera's personal queue. It failed to receive enough votes to get sifted up to the front page within 2 days.

I don't know, but I doubt free training would be a driving force for people joining the police.

Forcing someone to do something they've lost interest in is a poor way of encouraging them to invest themselves in and commit themselves to their work longer term. If the aim was to get them to thumb it in just enough, this would be ideal. Cycling on 2 years would not be ideal as a general target to aim for.

The first point is intended to be an unlikely extreme, put there predominantly to highlight the more realistic 2nd point, which is currently in use. I agree that there would be other options, but I'm not aware of any that have been employed. Checked with my brother-in-law (a NSW 'beat' cop, who doesn't like being called that) who couldn't offer another viable option either, even from his side of the fence.

You do not have to start as a beat cop. An easy example is, Forensics units, they tend to come from other avenues that are specifically science based with no prior affiliation to that of a beat cop. Administration, is another easy to see example, as well as criminal psychologists.

Do you see how those with higher IQ's will still be targeted, but towards different roles, completely bypassing the more rudimentary or 'on-show' (as my bro-in-law says) roles?

There ARE police who start as detectives. There are courses that gear them up with the required knowledge for the role. Sure some (not aware of the %) will go the longer career advancement path.

A great form of stability for any organization in its hiring procedure is to keep an individual in the same role for close to a decade. It's cheap, largely efficient, and by the 3rd to 4th year they are essentially a master at that role.. why then would the administration want to pull them out of that role, only to have to start the cycle again by training another (currently) inferior for the vacancy? Granted this method would offer some strengths otherwise missed.

Nothing is clear cut and exceptions can always be made. But policies such at the one featured in this video, exist to create predictable balances of resources that will make managing the overall organization easier and more stable.

Lol, I liked reading this in that movie trailer voice.