FWIW, way back when this story was news instead of history I asked my county's Sheriff about the rationale behind this kind of thing. He explained it thusly:
"Suppose you're an officer and you're called to a convenience store robbery. When you arrive, you find the clerk on the floor has been shot and will certainly die if you don't render aid immediately. Meanwhile, you see the robber escaping in your neighbor's car so you know it's stolen. This fits the MO of an armed robber who's been in the region for a few weeks, never strikes in the same town twice, and always kills the clerks he robs. There are no witnesses. If you render aid to the fallen clerk the criminal will escape and will almost certainly kill again, but if you pursue the criminal the clerk will certainly die and you may not succeed in apprehending the criminal anyway. What do you do?"
I immediately responded that I'd pursue the criminal. He went on to explain:
"It's not really important which option you choose because in the end some innocent is going to die. What's important is that you quickly choose a response and follow it through to the end. The rationale behind not hiring those of exceptional intelligence is that they'll waste time thinking through their options hoping to find the optimal solution when there really isn't one instead of just springing into action."
It's horribly flawed logic, but that's the general consensus among law enforcement so it's self-reinforcing. You can't promote thinking leaders from within a force that doesn't include thinking officers.