User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 11/24/2015 8:24:38 PM EDT
[#1]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
they also conduct checkpoints where people who have committed no offense are forced to blow or have blood drawn. "no refusal weekends" happen here as well Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I understand that it is tough trying to figure out where to draw the line. And I'll probably get ripped for this but there needs to be a line though. You can see it in this thread. People implying that it doesn't matter how stoned someone is. That any kind of law is unjust. Same goes for alcohol. Like someone already said, everything is fine until it is your family affected by the impaired person. I won't speak for others but I know the limit for drunk driving keeps me in check so I can't say it won't change anything. the line should be driving recklessly. Why is important only for possible treatment (anger management therapy, AA, NA, etc...) If someone isn't driving recklessly, why bother them? How do you think LE determines a person is impaired? We observe a vehicle operating in a reckless manner, violating traffic laws, which gives us grounds to stop the car and make contact with the driver. During contact with the driver, an officer can further determine if they suspect a driver is impaired, and request that they submit to Standardized Field Sobriety Tests. If the officer determines the driver is not impaired, then the officer can issue citations for the traffic violations, or not. The driver's performance on the SFST's and other related tests, and the driver's behaviors and actions during the entire time the officer has been in contact with him/her will either give the officer reason to believe they are driving while impaired and request that they submit to a chemical test of either their breath or blood. If the driver's performance on the SFST's causes the officer to determine that they are not driving impaired, then the officer can issue citations for the traffic violation, or not. they also conduct checkpoints where people who have committed no offense are forced to blow or have blood drawn. "no refusal weekends" happen here as well I got pulled over and harassed by a cop who insisted I had been drinking (his exact words were "If I pulled you out of the car right now I know you would fail a sobriety test"). It was 1AM and he pulled me over because I "went around a corner fast". I hadn't been drinking, but it was late and I was tired. I just said "ok". He kept talking, obviously trying to get me to say something that would justify pulling me out of the car. Finally let me go. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/24/2015 9:02:24 PM EDT
[#2]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Didn't you get that in your contract?  Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
 Dont ever change.......
Didn't you get that in your contract? You just wish you were me Junior 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/24/2015 9:25:05 PM EDT
[#3]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I understand the difference between federal and state charges, I also repeatedly see incidents where the state will not go after an officer for a crime at all or, if they do, half ass it like in this instance which indicates tolerance if not outright support for the officer committing the crime.. Wasn't just a weak sentence, the MO judge specifically stated he was giving him a suspended sentence.so he would not be harmed in prison. Clearly shows that type of behavior by police is rewarded in their justice system. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Left out a couple of commas. "consensual, or non, partners..... aka non-consensual partners. An example is the young woman featured here: http://www.kansascity.com/news/local/article303615/Jackson-County-settles-lawsuit-in-sex-abuse-case.html Tough break for the deputy when he got a 14 year federal sentencet after getting the MO state judge only gave him a suspended sentence. Still should be able to get back to policing if he settles in a state that does not prohibit felons from becoming police. I wouldn't call it a tough break. He deserves to be in prison. Also civil rights cases are done federally and are separate from state law violation cases. You should learn this as this is not your first time trying to prove a point about supposed police impartiality within the court system where your point is basically weakened because you lump them together. If you want to bitch at the state legal system for his weak sentence by all means do so because I will be there with you on the case you cited. I understand the difference between federal and state charges, I also repeatedly see incidents where the state will not go after an officer for a crime at all or, if they do, half ass it like in this instance which indicates tolerance if not outright support for the officer committing the crime.. Wasn't just a weak sentence, the MO judge specifically stated he was giving him a suspended sentence.so he would not be harmed in prison. Clearly shows that type of behavior by police is rewarded in their justice system. People who are not LEO's get weak sentences all the time. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/24/2015 9:27:53 PM EDT
[#4]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Didn't you get that in your contract? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Dont ever change.......
Didn't you get that in your contract? Two more DUIs and I get a 20% increase in pay. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/24/2015 9:35:38 PM EDT
[#5]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I highly doubt you get a jury trial for a misdemeanor DUI. While one case may have had that outcome, Jury trials are generally reserved for serious felonies. Dui what? |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/24/2015 9:38:37 PM EDT
[#6]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
People who are not LEO's get weak sentences all the time. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Left out a couple of commas. "consensual, or non, partners..... aka non-consensual partners. An example is the young woman featured here: http://www.kansascity.com/news/local/article303615/Jackson-County-settles-lawsuit-in-sex-abuse-case.html Tough break for the deputy when he got a 14 year federal sentencet after getting the MO state judge only gave him a suspended sentence. Still should be able to get back to policing if he settles in a state that does not prohibit felons from becoming police. I wouldn't call it a tough break. He deserves to be in prison. Also civil rights cases are done federally and are separate from state law violation cases. You should learn this as this is not your first time trying to prove a point about supposed police impartiality within the court system where your point is basically weakened because you lump them together. If you want to bitch at the state legal system for his weak sentence by all means do so because I will be there with you on the case you cited. I understand the difference between federal and state charges, I also repeatedly see incidents where the state will not go after an officer for a crime at all or, if they do, half ass it like in this instance which indicates tolerance if not outright support for the officer committing the crime.. Wasn't just a weak sentence, the MO judge specifically stated he was giving him a suspended sentence.so he would not be harmed in prison. Clearly shows that type of behavior by police is rewarded in their justice system. People who are not LEO's get weak sentences all the time. I am sure there is less of a chance of the average citizen getting a weak sentence. Just like it is more likely for a judge or prosecutor to get a weak sentence. The system protects each other. And that is not even mentioning the members of those 3 groups not getting arrested in the first place when the crime is known to, or committed in front of, LE. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/24/2015 10:17:10 PM EDT
[#7]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I am sure there is less of a chance of the average citizen getting a weak sentence. Just like it is more likely for a judge or prosecutor to get a weak sentence. The system protects each other. And that is not even mentioning the members of those 3 groups not getting arrested in the first place when the crime is known to, or committed in front of, LE. There are literally thousands of nonLEO people who get weak sentences every year. Sorry that this fact escapes you. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/24/2015 11:09:30 PM EDT
[#8]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Well, the "study" shows the killer driver would not be impaired. So, the state, instead of charging them with vehicular manslaughter, should file Capital Murder charges instead. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Until they cross a double yellow line and destroy your life or your loved ones.... This must be a joke. Well, the "study" shows the killer driver would not be impaired. So, the state, instead of charging them with vehicular manslaughter, should file Capital Murder charges instead. What is the atmosphere like there on your planet where there are no accidents? |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/24/2015 11:14:33 PM EDT
[#9]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I would put money on the worst outcome of driving while stoned being the fact that you forget where you are or where you are going from time to time. Or driving too slow. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
here Colorado prosecutors are getting frustrated at jurors for daring to exercise rationality instead of blindly following the will of the State. A growing number of juries are acquitting people of driving under the influence of cannabis, even when tests show they are over the state’s legal blood-THC limit.
Since the recreational use of cannabis became legal, Colorado authorities are scrambling to apply rules and regulations to this new reality. They have established a 5 ng/ml blood-THC limit for operation of a motor vehicle, which seems to be arbitrary as there is no preponderance of data to support a specific number. Indeed, the assumption that driving on weed poses the same risks as driving on alcohol would be a fallacy. In September, we reported on a novel study that found virtually no driving impairment under the influence of cannabis, while alcohol caused complete impairment. People in Colorado seem to realize that applying a number to a person’s blood-THC level is not an ultimate determination of their motor abilities. I don't quite believe this... I would put money on the worst outcome of driving while stoned being the fact that you forget where you are or where you are going from time to time. Or driving too slow. When "forget where you are going" means you end up upside down in a culvert, yes it's a problem. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/24/2015 11:16:43 PM EDT
[#10]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Correct me if I'm wrong but isn't BAC levels and by extension THC levels only a piece of the total picture and that someone can be convicted of driving under the influence if they still act impaired regardless the exact level? You can be convicted on BAC alone w/o evidence of impairment. For other drugs, presence in the blood stream is at least some evidence that the driver is under the influence; other evidence of impairment is required. A person with a .02 BAC who fails FSTs and otherwise acts impaired goes down. A person with X amount of cocaine or MJ in his system who displays no impairment should be acquitted, at least until the legislature sets illegal blood levels for those drugs. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/24/2015 11:19:08 PM EDT
[#11]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
What does "non-indictable" mean? Because your state constitution says: 9. The right of trial by jury shall remain inviolate; but the Legislature may authorize the trial of civil causes by a jury of six persons. The Legislature may provide that in any civil cause a verdict may be rendered by not less than five-sixths of the jury. The Legislature may authorize the trial of the issue of mental incompetency without a jury. 10. In all criminal prosecutions the accused shall have the right to a speedy and public trial by an impartial jury; to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor; and to have the assistance of counsel in his defense. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Thank God for no jury trials here. 
They don't follow the 6th Amendment in NJ? I mean, not that I'm surprised, they don't follow the 2nd, either. But ...  No jury trials for any non indictable (sp). What does "non-indictable" mean? Because your state constitution says: 9. The right of trial by jury shall remain inviolate; but the Legislature may authorize the trial of civil causes by a jury of six persons. The Legislature may provide that in any civil cause a verdict may be rendered by not less than five-sixths of the jury. The Legislature may authorize the trial of the issue of mental incompetency without a jury. 10. In all criminal prosecutions the accused shall have the right to a speedy and public trial by an impartial jury; to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor; and to have the assistance of counsel in his defense. The USSCt has ruled that jury trials need not be provided for "minor offenses," IIRC those involving no more than 6 months exposure. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/24/2015 11:21:14 PM EDT
[#12]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Never sat on a jury have you? Judges give very particular instructions to juries when they deliberate. I was the foreman on my last jury. Even with everyone agreeing to follow the judges instructions, it was still like herding cats. Personally, I like the rule of law ruling as opposed to mob justice. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Jury nullification just shows the will of the people, no fucks given, nullify away! We could only hope for some good jury nullification in some 2nd Amendment cases.... What makes you think that jury nullification will go our way in 2nd amendment cases? Having sat on a jury, I would hate to have my life or rights decided by a jury. Even when they follow the rules laid out by the judge there is an unbelievable amount of idiocy. Let them make up their own rules and things will get crazy quick. Ummmm... Everyone makes up their own rules. Sort of how we got into this mess in the first place. Never sat on a jury have you? Judges give very particular instructions to juries when they deliberate. I was the foreman on my last jury. Even with everyone agreeing to follow the judges instructions, it was still like herding cats. Personally, I like the rule of law ruling as opposed to mob justice. Jury nullification is not mob rule. The power of jury nullification is the law. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/24/2015 11:22:49 PM EDT
[#13]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Jury nullification people are the most rabid left wing loonies. No way on Earth they will support any sort of a gun person. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
How fucking ridiculous. Of course being stonned out of your gourd is dangerous. So is being fit shaced drunk. And distracted driving is just as bad for folks who can't drive worth a shit anyway. Good on the jury for nullification though. hopefully they can nullify a bunch of illegal magazine cases in the future instead of something that is sure to cause death and injuries like impared driving. Jury nullification people are the most rabid left wing loonies. No way on Earth they will support any sort of a gun person. Dream on. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/24/2015 11:34:23 PM EDT
[#14]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I think the biggest problem with this whole arena is that there is no simple test like a breathalyzer for cannabis that can be used out in the field to determine sobriety. Or, if there is, I haven't heard of it. One of the things I thought, before they started legalizing this shit (and, for the record, I'm of the opinion that it never should have been made illegal, in the first damn place...), was that they should have told all the activists who wanted to "change the world" that they first needed to figure out all the follow-on second- and third-order effects that would come from legalization. This is just one... Wait a few years, and let the whole "drug-free workplace" rules get challenged because dope is legal. How the fuck is that going to work, for liability laws for employers? On the one hand, they're likely to be told that they can't ban legal behavior without just cause, so urinalysis is going to go out the window, and trying to keep your employee pool drug-free is going to be damn hard. But, the employer is still going to be liable for whatever happens on the job, in terms of liability. So, likely, what's going to happen is that they won't be able to control for drug use, and they'll also be liable for whatever stupidity employees get up to while testably under the influence--And, with no fixed standard or easy test for sobriety, guess what? You have metabolites from pot in your system, get into an accident with your bosses forklift, and hey, presto--He's potentially now liable for millions in damages. And, what's messed up is that the presence of marijuana metabolites might not have a damn thing to do with the facts of the accident, but because they're there...? Yeah. This whole legalization thing was fucking stupid from the beginning, because they didn't sort out the full ramifications of the idea, and they should have. Now, we're going to have a generation or two trying to figure all this crap out in the courts, and it is going to be expensive, stupid, and ugly. When it is all over, many of us may be looking back and saying "Man, we just should have let things alone...". Employers can forbid tobacco use, test for it, and fire employees who test positive for tobacco metabolites. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/24/2015 11:35:11 PM EDT
[#15]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The USSCt has ruled that jury trials need not be provided for "minor offenses," IIRC those involving no more than 6 months exposure. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Thank God for no jury trials here.
They don't follow the 6th Amendment in NJ? I mean, not that I'm surprised, they don't follow the 2nd, either. But ... No jury trials for any non indictable (sp). What does "non-indictable" mean? Because your state constitution says: 9. The right of trial by jury shall remain inviolate; but the Legislature may authorize the trial of civil causes by a jury of six persons. The Legislature may provide that in any civil cause a verdict may be rendered by not less than five-sixths of the jury. The Legislature may authorize the trial of the issue of mental incompetency without a jury. 10. In all criminal prosecutions the accused shall have the right to a speedy and public trial by an impartial jury; to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor; and to have the assistance of counsel in his defense. The USSCt has ruled that jury trials need not be provided for "minor offenses," IIRC those involving no more than 6 months exposure. That merely sets the federal floor. States can and many do provide a right to a jury for lesser offenses. You can get a jury for ANY case in my state, even a traffic ticket, if you go to circuit court and request it. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/24/2015 11:35:31 PM EDT
[#16]
.gov has their feels hurt? Good.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/25/2015 12:03:52 AM EDT
[#17]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Two more DUIs and I get a 20% increase in pay. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Dont ever change.......
Didn't you get that in your contract? Two more DUIs and I get a 20% increase in pay. Performance based pay. Free market at work?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/25/2015 4:26:33 PM EDT
[#18]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I never said your posts had any effect. Just recognizing you will make any claim you can think up to support control over others. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Yes, that's it. That's the exact purpose of my posts here on this thread and elsewhere on this board, to have control over others. I'm amazed you were able to discern that from my vague posts here on this thread. Your insight and intuition is amazing!! Are you a wizard???? Look, whatever it is you're drinking, smoking, or inhaling, just stop. It's not making you any smarter either. ETA - I'm impressed you're still around and havent been found familiar by NorCal yet. Keep posting, maybe that will change. I never said your posts had any effect. Just recognizing you will make any claim you can think up to support control over others. Really? What proof do you have that I "will make any claim you can think up to support control over others". Are you implying that I: Manufacture evidence that is predjudicial to suspects? Make false reports? "Free case" suspects or "plant" evidence/drugs/weapons on them? Please clarify your statement as I'm confused as to exactly you are accusing me of. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/25/2015 4:29:08 PM EDT
[#19]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
they also conduct checkpoints where people who have committed no offense are forced to blow or have blood drawn. "no refusal weekends" happen here as well Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I understand that it is tough trying to figure out where to draw the line. And I'll probably get ripped for this but there needs to be a line though. You can see it in this thread. People implying that it doesn't matter how stoned someone is. That any kind of law is unjust. Same goes for alcohol. Like someone already said, everything is fine until it is your family affected by the impaired person. I won't speak for others but I know the limit for drunk driving keeps me in check so I can't say it won't change anything. the line should be driving recklessly. Why is important only for possible treatment (anger management therapy, AA, NA, etc...) If someone isn't driving recklessly, why bother them? How do you think LE determines a person is impaired? We observe a vehicle operating in a reckless manner, violating traffic laws, which gives us grounds to stop the car and make contact with the driver. During contact with the driver, an officer can further determine if they suspect a driver is impaired, and request that they submit to Standardized Field Sobriety Tests. If the officer determines the driver is not impaired, then the officer can issue citations for the traffic violations, or not. The driver's performance on the SFST's and other related tests, and the driver's behaviors and actions during the entire time the officer has been in contact with him/her will either give the officer reason to believe they are driving while impaired and request that they submit to a chemical test of either their breath or blood. If the driver's performance on the SFST's causes the officer to determine that they are not driving impaired, then the officer can issue citations for the traffic violation, or not. they also conduct checkpoints where people who have committed no offense are forced to blow or have blood drawn. "no refusal weekends" happen here as well Keep reading the thread. I addressed those already. Blood draws w/o a warrant or consent are a violation of the 4th Amendment IMO, and just waiting for SCOTUS to smack them down. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/25/2015 4:31:49 PM EDT
[#20]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Keep reading the thread. I addressed those already. Blood draws w/o a warrant or consent are a violation of the 4th Amendment IMO, and just waiting for SCOTUS to smack them down. Definitely, pure laziness by the states, there is no reason they can not have judges available 24/7 via teleconference to decide if a warrant is required. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/25/2015 4:35:12 PM EDT
[#21]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
As one who supports total legalization of all drugs, among other things, I have to agree with this. I don't care what the study shows, pot will impair your driving ability. That's a fact Jack. ETA Impairment should have to be demonstrated. No blood draws. No road block check point bull shit. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
so driving around stoned is good? WTF. If you're stoned, you shouldn't be driving. As one who supports total legalization of all drugs, among other things, I have to agree with this. I don't care what the study shows, pot will impair your driving ability. That's a fact Jack. ETA Impairment should have to be demonstrated. No blood draws. No road block check point bull shit. Question regarding impairment: In the event of a motor vehicle accident with fatality(s), and/or serious physical injuries, (assuming the potentially impaired driver is unconcious or hospitalized), how can impairment be demonstrated without a blood draw (under search warrant)? |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/25/2015 4:37:15 PM EDT
[#22]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Left out a couple of commas. "consensual, or non, partners..... aka non-consensual partners. An example is the young woman featured here: http://www.kansascity.com/news/local/article303615/Jackson-County-settles-lawsuit-in-sex-abuse-case.html Tough break for the deputy when he got a 14 year federal sentencet after getting the MO state judge only gave him a suspended sentence. Still should be able to get back to policing if he settles in a state that does not prohibit felons from becoming police. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Speaking of drug use, is the jury nullification causing an increase in the Viagra/similar ED drug use in Colorado's police/prosecutors/judges communities? Someone has the penis on the mind. I bet they do when they didn't get their way in court and are unable to perform with their consensual or non partners. What is a "non partner"? Left out a couple of commas. "consensual, or non, partners..... aka non-consensual partners. An example is the young woman featured here: http://www.kansascity.com/news/local/article303615/Jackson-County-settles-lawsuit-in-sex-abuse-case.html Tough break for the deputy when he got a 14 year federal sentencet after getting the MO state judge only gave him a suspended sentence. Still should be able to get back to policing if he settles in a state that does not prohibit felons from becoming police. Please list any state that does not prohibit felons from becoming police. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/25/2015 4:39:44 PM EDT
[#23]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
There are literally thousands of nonLEO people who get weak sentences every year. Sorry that this fact escapes you. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
I am sure there is less of a chance of the average citizen getting a weak sentence. Just like it is more likely for a judge or prosecutor to get a weak sentence. The system protects each other. And that is not even mentioning the members of those 3 groups not getting arrested in the first place when the crime is known to, or committed in front of, LE. There are literally thousands of nonLEO people who get weak sentences every year. Sorry that this fact escapes you. Is anyone legally obligated to put up with the crap of any of those people from other occupational groups? |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/25/2015 4:41:25 PM EDT
[#24]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Seriously, I've never had to take one, but I'd be afraid to even sober. Looks like you need to be an Olympic balance beam gymnast to pass that shit. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
What’s more, the sober jurors tried doing roadside sobriety maneuvers on their own, and some of them failed. Seriously, I've never had to take one, but I'd be afraid to even sober. Looks like you need to be an Olympic balance beam gymnast to pass that shit. They really arent that hard. The attorneys have managed to dictate so much that cops are being told not to rely on them as the sole proof of impairment and are actually being to be told not to do SFST's because they get tossed so often and in an effort to show impairment in other ways. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/25/2015 4:41:34 PM EDT
[#25]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Please list any state that does not prohibit felons from becoming police.
Tennessee |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/25/2015 4:43:35 PM EDT
[#26]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Jury nullification just shows the will of the people, no fucks given, nullify away! We could only hope for some good jury nullification in some 2nd Amendment cases.... Don't celebrate just yet. The "will of the people" is a dangerous thing. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/25/2015 4:46:18 PM EDT
[#27]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Apples to oranges. Try doing it in front of someone who can improve their career by damaging your reputation/life if you bobble. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
What’s more, the sober jurors tried doing roadside sobriety maneuvers on their own, and some of them failed. Seriously, I've never had to take one, but I'd be afraid to even sober. Looks like you need to be an Olympic balance beam gymnast to pass that shit. If i can demonstrate them with my fucked up knees..any reasonably sober person can manage Apples to oranges. Try doing it in front of someone who can improve their career by damaging your reputation/life if you bobble. So....demonstrating the tests on camera, for the suspects,(who are also on camera), where the recording is scrutinized by the defense attorney who is going to do his/her damndest to me look incompetent/poorly trained, or just plain stupid to get their client aquitted and the case dismissed is what exactly? Oh, right...it's "doing it in front of someone who can improve their career by damaging your reputation/life if you bobble". Ok then.... |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/25/2015 4:47:35 PM EDT
[#28]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Please list any state that does not prohibit felons from becoming police.
Federal law does not prohibit it for certain. And in case anyone wants to claim it doesn't happen or is rare: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2467767/posts |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/25/2015 4:48:10 PM EDT
[#29]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Well, since you brought it up, caffeine, cocaine, and speed will all increase you alertness and decrease your reaction time, in proper doses. And then there are nootropics. So the "important part" of your post isn't exactly correct. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
You missed the important part of my post. I made the print larger and colored it red so you wouldnt miss it again. Please re-read the read parts, (Mine and David0511's posts) and then go find me a study showing that either the presence of alcohol or drugs improved anyone's reaction times or cognitive abilities. I never stated that what applies to alcohol also applies to marijuana. I know this may be shocking to you, but some people who attend concert night clubs or nightclubs in general will also use drugs instead of or along with alcohol. Therefore as a bartender in a large concert nightclub, I have actually seen people under the influence of alcohol, drugs, and alcohol and drugs combined. Well, since you brought it up, caffeine, cocaine, and speed will all increase you alertness and decrease your reaction time, in proper doses. And then there are nootropics. So the "important part" of your post isn't exactly correct. Links? Cites? Studies? Again, the criteria are that drugs or alcohol improve cognative ability and reaction time. I'll wait. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/25/2015 4:56:05 PM EDT
[#30]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Definitely, pure laziness by the states, there is no reason they can not have judges available 24/7 via teleconference to decide if a warrant is required. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Keep reading the thread. I addressed those already. Blood draws w/o a warrant or consent are a violation of the 4th Amendment IMO, and just waiting for SCOTUS to smack them down. Definitely, pure laziness by the states, there is no reason they can not have judges available 24/7 via teleconference to decide if a warrant is required. Here in StL, we have the 57 easy steps to do an online blood draw search warrant. If the system is working, I'm told it is approximately 5 minutes faster than typing it up, bringing the copies to the PA, getting his/her approval, taking it to the Judge, getting their approval and signature, taking it to the clerks, then serving said search warrant. StL County is being dragged kicking and screaming into the 21st Century, and they are reflexively fighting it. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/25/2015 5:04:43 PM EDT
[#31]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Tennessee Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Please list any state that does not prohibit felons from becoming police.
Tennessee From the Tennessee Bar Association: http://www.tba.org/journal/crime-and-punishment-and-punishment Tennessee Laws Relating to Employment Tennessee law outright prohibits an individual previously convicted of a felony from ever working in many occupations. In other instances, Tennessee requires individuals to be licensed to practice certain occupations, and when a license is required in most cases, a felony conviction and even some misdemeanors may serve as a basis to deny an application for such a license or establish grounds to revoke the license of an individual currently licensed. The occupations that either preclude employment for some convictions or have licensing laws that may allow the state to deny employment for criminal convictions in certain occupations include: Emergency 911 call takers and dispatchers,[5] Sheriff office employees,[6] Police officers or special deputies,[7] Etc... |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/25/2015 5:10:03 PM EDT
[#32]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Keep reading the thread. I addressed those already. Blood draws w/o a warrant or consent are a violation of the 4th Amendment IMO, and just waiting for SCOTUS to smack them down. Didn't SCOTUS already rule on blood withdraws? (We have to get a warrant for everything now anyway) |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/25/2015 5:10:55 PM EDT
[#33]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Definitely, pure laziness by the states, there is no reason they can not have judges available 24/7 via teleconference to decide if a warrant is required. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Keep reading the thread. I addressed those already. Blood draws w/o a warrant or consent are a violation of the 4th Amendment IMO, and just waiting for SCOTUS to smack them down. Definitely, pure laziness by the states, there is no reason they can not have judges available 24/7 via teleconference to decide if a warrant is required. Unless it's a true emergency, there is such a thing called a "witching hour". |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/25/2015 5:14:50 PM EDT
[#34]
So, GD is good with dui now?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/25/2015 5:15:03 PM EDT
[#35]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Federal law does not prohibit it for certain. And in case anyone wants to claim it doesn't happen or is rare: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2467767/posts Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Please list any state that does not prohibit felons from becoming police.
Federal law does not prohibit it for certain. And in case anyone wants to claim it doesn't happen or is rare: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2467767/posts The states themselves prohibit it. Additionally, what Federal LE Agency does NOT prohibit felons from becoming agents? Please provide cites or supporting links. Felons should not be hired as LE. Period. You stated states do not prohibit felons from becoming police. You cited horrible instances where felons were hired as police contrary to state law, not what states do NOT prohibit felons from becoming police. Still waiting for you to actually provide a link to back up your bullshit. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/25/2015 5:16:11 PM EDT
[#36]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
So, GD is good with dui now? Nothing new. It's been a "victimless" crime for a while now. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/25/2015 5:17:31 PM EDT
[#37]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
From the Tennessee Bar Association: http://www.tba.org/journal/crime-and-punishment-and-punishment Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Please list any state that does not prohibit felons from becoming police.
Tennessee From the Tennessee Bar Association: http://www.tba.org/journal/crime-and-punishment-and-punishment Tennessee Laws Relating to Employment Tennessee law outright prohibits an individual previously convicted of a felony from ever working in many occupations. In other instances, Tennessee requires individuals to be licensed to practice certain occupations, and when a license is required in most cases, a felony conviction and even some misdemeanors may serve as a basis to deny an application for such a license or establish grounds to revoke the license of an individual currently licensed. The occupations that either preclude employment for some convictions or have licensing laws that may allow the state to deny employment for criminal convictions in certain occupations include: Emergency 911 call takers and dispatchers,[5] Sheriff office employees,[6] Police officers or special deputies,[7] Etc... Then there is reality. Our investigation found more than 100 people with criminal records became police officers in Tennessee over the past three years. 29 had DUI records, other convictions and charges ranged from assault to theft to illegal drug possession, even solicitation of prostitutes. Most disturbing was that four of the officers hired were felons
Officers like John Brannon was sentenced for aggravated assault and went on to work for three local police departments including Robertson County, Ridgetop, and Greenbrier. Carlton Owens is an officer who is a convicted drug felon who carried a badge in Burns, Tenn. Rodolfo Castro who's now a cop despite felony convictions out of California. Officer Robert Schmidt was recently indicted in Memphis for illegal weapons possession. All of them are felons who would normally be prohibited by state law from carrying any guns are carrying police-issued guns. Even now, the state is investigating four police departments accused of improperly hiring criminals: Spring City, Piperton, Gallaway, and Centerville where a federal lawsuit claims the police chief knowingly hired a felon. "For someone to do something like this, it's unreal,” said Jason Warden, who is suing a local police department. Warden's lawsuit strikes at the heart of the concern about cops with criminal backgrounds. WSMV found cases of officers with records accused of committing new crimes after they got a badge. The lawsuit claims the Centerville officer kidnapped Warden's wife after arresting her during a family fight over child support. "This man has no business wearing a gun or being a police officer," said Warden |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/25/2015 5:19:12 PM EDT
[#38]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Federal law does not prohibit it for certain. And in case anyone wants to claim it doesn't happen or is rare: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2467767/posts Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Please list any state that does not prohibit felons from becoming police.
Federal law does not prohibit it for certain. And in case anyone wants to claim it doesn't happen or is rare: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2467767/posts Federal law does not govern police officer hiring standards. But, you knew that already. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/25/2015 5:23:47 PM EDT
[#39]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Federal law does not govern police officer hiring standards. But, you knew that already. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Please list any state that does not prohibit felons from becoming police.
Federal law does not prohibit it for certain. And in case anyone wants to claim it doesn't happen or is rare: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2467767/posts Federal law does not govern police officer hiring standards. But, you knew that already. Can someone with a criminal history obtain a waiver to get POST certification? |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/25/2015 5:28:13 PM EDT
[#40]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Then there is reality. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Tennessee From the Tennessee Bar Association: http://www.tba.org/journal/crime-and-punishment-and-punishment Tennessee Laws Relating to Employment Tennessee law outright prohibits an individual previously convicted of a felony from ever working in many occupations. In other instances, Tennessee requires individuals to be licensed to practice certain occupations, and when a license is required in most cases, a felony conviction and even some misdemeanors may serve as a basis to deny an application for such a license or establish grounds to revoke the license of an individual currently licensed. The occupations that either preclude employment for some convictions or have licensing laws that may allow the state to deny employment for criminal convictions in certain occupations include: Emergency 911 call takers and dispatchers,[5] Sheriff office employees,[6] Police officers or special deputies,[7] Etc... Then there is reality. Our investigation found more than 100 people with criminal records became police officers in Tennessee over the past three years. 29 had DUI records, other convictions and charges ranged from assault to theft to illegal drug possession, even solicitation of prostitutes. Most disturbing was that four of the officers hired were felons
Officers like John Brannon was sentenced for aggravated assault and went on to work for three local police departments including Robertson County, Ridgetop, and Greenbrier. Carlton Owens is an officer who is a convicted drug felon who carried a badge in Burns, Tenn. Rodolfo Castro who's now a cop despite felony convictions out of California. Officer Robert Schmidt was recently indicted in Memphis for illegal weapons possession. All of them are felons who would normally be prohibited by state law from carrying any guns are carrying police-issued guns. Even now, the state is investigating four police departments accused of improperly hiring criminals: Spring City, Piperton, Gallaway, and Centerville where a federal lawsuit claims the police chief knowingly hired a felon. "For someone to do something like this, it's unreal,” said Jason Warden, who is suing a local police department. Warden's lawsuit strikes at the heart of the concern about cops with criminal backgrounds. WSMV found cases of officers with records accused of committing new crimes after they got a badge. The lawsuit claims the Centerville officer kidnapped Warden's wife after arresting her during a family fight over child support. "This man has no business wearing a gun or being a police officer," said Warden Felons were ILLEGALLY hired in Tennessee, contrary to Tennessee State law. Again, that article exposes sonething that was horribly wrong, and was addressed, but does NOT support JasonB's bullshit claim that felons can be hired as police in any state that does not prohibit it. What state(s) do NOT prohibit felons from becoming police? Name one and provide a supporting link. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/25/2015 5:30:12 PM EDT
[#41]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Can someone with a criminal history obtain a waiver to get POST certification? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Please list any state that does not prohibit felons from becoming police.
Federal law does not prohibit it for certain. And in case anyone wants to claim it doesn't happen or is rare: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2467767/posts Federal law does not govern police officer hiring standards. But, you knew that already. Can someone with a criminal history obtain a waiver to get POST certification? Not a felony criminal history. ETA- nice try, but I read the entire article. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/25/2015 6:09:46 PM EDT
[#42]
Quote HistoryQuoted: My data is anecdotal, but all I know is some kid high on weed texted "YOLO" to his buddies and then failed to negotiate a dog-leg in the road and put his grandma's car sideways into a tree at 70mph on my 35mph street.  I've never seen a weed smoker who wasn't "impaired".This is absolutely fucking correct!!! |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/25/2015 6:12:54 PM EDT
[#43]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
When "forget where you are going" means you end up upside down in a culvert, yes it's a problem.
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
here Colorado prosecutors are getting frustrated at jurors for daring to exercise rationality instead of blindly following the will of the State. A growing number of juries are acquitting people of driving under the influence of cannabis, even when tests show they are over the state’s legal blood-THC limit.
Since the recreational use of cannabis became legal, Colorado authorities are scrambling to apply rules and regulations to this new reality. They have established a 5 ng/ml blood-THC limit for operation of a motor vehicle, which seems to be arbitrary as there is no preponderance of data to support a specific number. Indeed, the assumption that driving on weed poses the same risks as driving on alcohol would be a fallacy. In September, we reported on a novel study that found virtually no driving impairment under the influence of cannabis, while alcohol caused complete impairment. People in Colorado seem to realize that applying a number to a person’s blood-THC level is not an ultimate determination of their motor abilities. I don't quite believe this... I would put money on the worst outcome of driving while stoned being the fact that you forget where you are or where you are going from time to time. Or driving too slow. When "forget where you are going" means you end up upside down in a culvert, yes it's a problem.
I had one of those drive head on into a wall he wasnt expecting like that
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/25/2015 6:16:07 PM EDT
[#44]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Didn't SCOTUS already rule on blood withdraws? (We have to get a warrant for everything now anyway) Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Keep reading the thread. I addressed those already. Blood draws w/o a warrant or consent are a violation of the 4th Amendment IMO, and just waiting for SCOTUS to smack them down. Didn't SCOTUS already rule on blood withdraws? (We have to get a warrant for everything now anyway) The one you;re thinking was an NJ appellate Case...where the guy was afraid if needles???? |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/25/2015 6:17:47 PM EDT
[#45]
If there were no state and no law, you would be justified in brutally punishing or even killing murderers, robbers, rapists, thieves, well poisoners et c. You would not be justified in punishing the guy down the street for smoking a blunt or snorting a rail, or even using meth. That is the biggest difference between drug crimes and other crimes: malum prohibitum vs malum in se.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/25/2015 6:29:01 PM EDT
[#46]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
in no condition could I readily recite the alphabet backwards. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
To be fair the 5 ng limit is ridiculous. With marijuana people have differing levels of tolerance and some people probably wouldn't feel a thing from 5 ng. How hard is it to simply tell if the guy is too stoned to drive? Give them a field sobriety test or something. If they're too stoned to follow simple commands and communicate in a sane way with the officer then they're too stoned to drive. Well, I'm assuming they are arresting them because they failed a sobriety test as they have to have PC to arrest and get a blood test. in no condition could I readily recite the alphabet backwards. I can't do it sober. My wife can do it while fitshaced. It's a dumb test. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/25/2015 7:20:35 PM EDT
[#47]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Here in StL, we have the 57 easy steps to do an online blood draw search warrant. If the system is working, I'm told it is approximately 5 minutes faster than typing it up, bringing the copies to the PA, getting his/her approval, taking it to the Judge, getting their approval and signature, taking it to the clerks, then serving said search warrant. StL County is being dragged kicking and screaming into the 21st Century, and they are reflexively fighting it. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Keep reading the thread. I addressed those already. Blood draws w/o a warrant or consent are a violation of the 4th Amendment IMO, and just waiting for SCOTUS to smack them down. Definitely, pure laziness by the states, there is no reason they can not have judges available 24/7 via teleconference to decide if a warrant is required. Here in StL, we have the 57 easy steps to do an online blood draw search warrant. If the system is working, I'm told it is approximately 5 minutes faster than typing it up, bringing the copies to the PA, getting his/her approval, taking it to the Judge, getting their approval and signature, taking it to the clerks, then serving said search warrant. StL County is being dragged kicking and screaming into the 21st Century, and they are reflexively fighting it. OK, that sounds reasonable........... |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/25/2015 7:20:53 PM EDT
[#48]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The one you;re thinking was an NJ appellate Case...where the guy was afraid if needles???? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Keep reading the thread. I addressed those already. Blood draws w/o a warrant or consent are a violation of the 4th Amendment IMO, and just waiting for SCOTUS to smack them down. Didn't SCOTUS already rule on blood withdraws? (We have to get a warrant for everything now anyway) The one you;re thinking was an NJ appellate Case...where the guy was afraid if needles???? There is a US case What we follow is county policy. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/25/2015 7:30:33 PM EDT
[#49]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
There is a US case What we follow is county policy. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Keep reading the thread. I addressed those already. Blood draws w/o a warrant or consent are a violation of the 4th Amendment IMO, and just waiting for SCOTUS to smack them down. Didn't SCOTUS already rule on blood withdraws? (We have to get a warrant for everything now anyway) The one you;re thinking was an NJ appellate Case...where the guy was afraid if needles???? There is a US case What we follow is county policy. Last recert they were still operating on the State case..i know the State was looking to challenge the prohibition on forced draws... Doesnt matter WHAT the state says..there was NO effing way we were ever going to do one. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/25/2015 7:31:04 PM EDT
[#50]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I can't do it sober. My wife can do it while fitshaced. It's a dumb test. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
To be fair the 5 ng limit is ridiculous. With marijuana people have differing levels of tolerance and some people probably wouldn't feel a thing from 5 ng. How hard is it to simply tell if the guy is too stoned to drive? Give them a field sobriety test or something. If they're too stoned to follow simple commands and communicate in a sane way with the officer then they're too stoned to drive. Well, I'm assuming they are arresting them because they failed a sobriety test as they have to have PC to arrest and get a blood test. in no condition could I readily recite the alphabet backwards. I can't do it sober. My wife can do it while fitshaced. It's a dumb test. It is not an SFST. |
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
