To Protect and to Serve...

[n_huffhines]

They have that right and as an employer I'd be more than happy to tell people like that to gtfo

I'm the last guy that you need to tell they have that right. That's what my political philosophy is all about.

 

[Rasputin_Vol]

Undercover provocateurs???

CHP undercover officer pulls gun on demonstrators - KTVU -

OAKLAND (BCN) -- A demonstration that started in Berkeley ended abruptly in Oakland Wednesday night when an undercover California Highway Patrol officer pulled out a gun and pointed it at the crowd.

Only a few dozen protesters remained from a mass of between 150 and 200 people. Two CHP officers, both dressed as civilians and wearing bandanas over their faces, were walking with the group when the demonstrators started pointing at them yelling, "Hey, they're undercover, they're cops!"

 

[Grand Vol]

Undercover provocateurs???

CHP undercover officer pulls gun on demonstrators - KTVU -

You're pretty clueless aren't you? Ever hear of officers going into those demonstrations to keep an eye on the troublemakers?

Although I thought this part of the report was entertaining:

Tania Kappner, a BAMN organizer and Berkeley alumna, said the organization will continue to call for demonstrations until former Ferguson police Officer Darren Wilson is jailed for killing Michael Brown, an unarmed 18-year-old.

Nothing says "I'm an idiot" like hitching your wagon to a dead thug.

 

[DEFENDTHISHOUSE]

You're pretty clueless aren't you? Ever hear of officers going into those demonstrations to keep an eye on the troublemakers?

Although I thought this part of the report was entertaining:



Nothing says "I'm an idiot" like hitching your wagon to a dead thug.

I'm just happy the guy didn't have his finger on the trigger.

I will also say, agent provocateurs are a very real thing. Was that the case here? Who knows.

 

[Grand Vol]

I will also say, agent provocateurs are a very real thing. Was that the case here? Who knows.

I won't argue the point since some of the COINTELPRO tactics do live on today. But it's just as plausible that they were there to observe and report.

Problem comes that you have two officers surrounded by a couple of dozen people. And if the crowd starting advancing in a menacing way, I can see their actions being justifiable. I mean, it is the same group that already showed they were being irrational when they crashed the debate.

I also consider the source. It's Berkeley. Not exactly what most would consider a bastion of rational thought in the first place and it's not a stretch of the imagination to think the local media wouldn't blow something out of proportion either. It is the same area that brings us Nancy Pelosi time and time again.

 

[Rasputin_Vol]

I won't argue the point since some of the COINTELPRO tactics do live on today. But it's just as plausible that they were there to observe and report.

Problem comes that you have two officers surrounded by a couple of dozen people. And if the crowd starting advancing in a menacing way, I can see their actions being justifiable. I mean, it is the same group that already showed they were being irrational when they crashed the debate.

I also consider the source. It's Berkeley. Not exactly what most would consider a bastion of rational thought in the first place and it's not a stretch of the imagination to think the local media wouldn't blow something out of proportion either. It is the same area that brings us Nancy Pelosi time and time again.

They are bad undercover cops. One of the stories floating around is that the undercover cops were actually trying to instigate activity by throwing objects and acting belligerent. That caught the attention of the other protesters and that is how it all started. Or, the other story is that the undercover cops stood out because they were the only ones that looked to be over the age of 35 in the crowd of 150.

 

[Grand Vol]

So you automatically assume the worst?

 

[Rasputin_Vol]

So you automatically assume the worst?

Either they were there to be instigators or they were piss poor undercover cops.

 

[Grand Vol]

Either they were there to be instigators or they were piss poor undercover cops.

Or you're just a moron.

 

[hndog609]

Yet, same guy can go home after work and drink beer or liquor and no problem. It's hypocrisy at its best.

Is it hypocrisy or is it a matter of time sensitive testing? An alcohol test is a "right now" level of intoxication because of how quickly it's fully metabolized. Sobriety can be actually measured. As I understand it that's not how it works with THC. It's my understanding (which might be wrong) that with THC they can test for usage but not actual intoxication levels so the only way to be "sure" someone isn't toking at work is to require a zero tolerance policy.

 

[Rasputin_Vol]

Or you're just a moron.

Or morons... correct.

 

[Grand Vol]

Is it hypocrisy or is it a matter of time sensitive testing? An alcohol test is a "right now" level of intoxication because of how quickly it's fully metabolized. Sobriety can be actually measured. As I understand it that's not how it works with THC. It's my understanding (which might be wrong) that with THC they can test for usage but not actual intoxication levels so the only way to be "sure" someone isn't toking at work is to require a zero tolerance policy.

You can check for intoxication levels with THC. Typically that's a blood test though.

 

[hndog609]

You can check for intoxication levels with THC. Typically that's a blood test though.

I did a very cursory search and this is what I found on Wiki.

Unlike alcohol, for which impairment can be reasonably measured using a breathalyser (and confirmed with a blood alcohol content measurement), valid detection for cannabis is time-consuming, and tests cannot determine an approximate degree of impairment. The lack of suitable tests and agreed-upon intoxication levels is an issue in the legality of cannabis debate, especially regarding intoxicated driving.

Are you saying they have testing which can accurately make a determination and timeline for impairment vs usage? Specifically, if a person gets pulled out and tested at work could it be reasonably determined that while clearly there's been usage they could rule out at work impairment?

 

[Grand Vol]

I did a very cursory search and this is what I found on Wiki.

Unlike alcohol, for which impairment can be reasonably measured using a breathalyser (and confirmed with a blood alcohol content measurement), valid detection for cannabis is time-consuming, and tests cannot determine an approximate degree of impairment. The lack of suitable tests and agreed-upon intoxication levels is an issue in the legality of cannabis debate, especially regarding intoxicated driving.

Are you saying they have testing which can accurately make a determination and timeline for impairment vs usage? Specifically, if a person gets pulled out and tested at work could it be reasonably determined that while clearly there's been usage they could rule out at work impairment?

I should have been more clear and expanded the answer.

There is the vertical nystagmus test which is used in drug cases to determine impairment. It's what's used for suspected THC impairment. I don't recall exactly, but I think you can get a horizontal nystagmus reading as well, but not as pronounced as alcohol impairment is. Don't quote me on that though as it's been a while since I did the class. Anyway, a blood test determines the amount of THC in the system which in turn can be used with a VGN to conclude probable intoxication.

Most chemical tests like a breathalizer or blood test can determine the levels of concentration in the blood, but not levels of "intoxication." Field Sobriety Testing determines the level of suspected intoxication, a blood or breath test confirms it. The problem, like you quoted, is there isn't a scientific standard across the board for impairment resulting from THC use. Even blood alcohol tests are just a baseline of what scientists and the like have deducted to be "impaired/intoxicated" and in turn passed by State Legislatures. Alcohol, like any other drug, affects people in different ways. Which is why you can have a person get completely hammered off a single beer and have a 0.02% BAC and have others drink the whole case and be perfectly fine although having a 0.20% BAC. And this is why for a long time you had some States that determined DUI to be at 0.10% while others had lowered it to 0.08%.

So a blood test will determine THC levels while additional physical testing will determine impairment. My apologies for not being as detailed on the initial answer.

 

[hndog609]

I should have been more clear and expanded the answer.

There is the vertical nystagmus test which is used in drug cases to determine impairment. It's what's used for suspected THC impairment. I don't recall exactly, but I think you can get a horizontal nystagmus reading as well, but not as pronounced as alcohol impairment is. Don't quote me on that though as it's been a while since I did the class. Anyway, a blood test determines the amount of THC in the system which in turn can be used with a VGN to conclude probable intoxication.

Most chemical tests like a breathalizer or blood test can determine the levels of concentration in the blood, but not levels of "intoxication." Field Sobriety Testing determines the level of suspected intoxication, a blood or breath test confirms it. The problem, like you quoted, is there isn't a scientific standard across the board for impairment resulting from THC use. Even blood alcohol tests are just a baseline of what scientists and the like have deducted to be "impaired/intoxicated" and in turn passed by State Legislatures. Alcohol, like any other drug, affects people in different ways. Which is why you can have a person get completely hammered off a single beer and have a 0.02% BAC and have others drink the whole case and be perfectly fine although having a 0.20% BAC. And this is why for a long time you had some States that determined DUI to be at 0.10% while others had lowered it to 0.08%.

So a blood test will determine THC levels while additional physical testing will determine impairment. My apologies for not being as detailed on the initial answer.

No problem and thanks for the answer.

In your opinion is THC testing to a point where, once the legality issue is set aside, testing for THC at work could be made analogous to testing for alcohol? If a person got drunk the night before and showed up for work he could be tested at 0.0 for alcohol and that's pretty much that. If the same person got stoned and came in he'd absolutely test positive for THC but could he be considered 0.0 for impairment at work?

I'm asking because with weed becoming legal I think this argument is going to really heat up in the near future.

 

[Grand Vol]

No problem and thanks for the answer.

In your opinion is THC testing to a point where, once the legality issue is set aside, testing for THC at work could be made analogous to testing for alcohol? If a person got drunk the night before and showed up for work he could be tested at 0.0 for alcohol and that's pretty much that. If the same person got stoned and came in he'd absolutely test positive for THC but could he be considered 0.0 for impairment at work?

I'm asking because with weed becoming legal I think this argument is going to really heat up in the near future.

I honestly don't know that much on the chemical side of things. I mean, I know the formulas they use and the end result from the alcohol side, but not how one would determine THC impairment. I figure there's labs out there right now determining what THC levels would be considered a baseline for "intoxication/impairment" for a court ruling. If they haven't done so already. The problem is some States have made it legal while others haven't. Alcohol is a nationally legal drug and plenty of research has been done into what would constitute legal impairment. I wouldn't imagine THC being that far behind it now that the debate is getting more mainstream.

 

[W.TN.Orange Blood]

According to an article on foxnews.com, NYC's rank-and-file police union is urging cops to tell Mayor Bill DeBlasio not to attend their funerals in the event they are killed in the line of duty. Police officers can sign a waiver requesting that he & City Council Speaker Melissa Mark-Viverito not to attend their funerals due to their "consistent refusal to show police officers the support & respect they deserve". I wonder, if the mayor needs any kind of emergency help anytime soon, just how long will it take for the police to respond to his or her emergency? Maybe after all the coffee & donut breaks? :crazy:

 

[tim]

According to an article on foxnews.com, NYC's rank-and-file police union is urging cops to tell Mayor Bill DeBlasio not to attend their funerals in the event they are killed in the line of duty. Police officers can sign a waiver requesting that he & City Council Speaker Melissa Mark-Viverito not to attend their funerals due to their "consistent refusal to show police officers the support & respect they deserve". I wonder, if the mayor needs any kind of emergency help anytime soon, just how long will it take for the police to respond to his or her emergency? Maybe after all the coffee & donut breaks? :crazy:

Not a big fan of Unions, but you realize the mayor and NYC politics who create these silly ass laws is partially to blame for long response times. Basically they have 30-50K cops policing millions of people. Split that into shifts and the numbers are ridiculous.

 

[SpaceCoastVol]

We agree on something. The Fulmer haters at the time didn't realize what bad times were. Now they do! We still are a spoiled fan base.

fyp

 

[SpaceCoastVol]

We are just here on earth to serve our employers.

Really hoping that this is sarcasm. If not, you need to find a job you like, and go get the education to get that job. A degree in women's studies is probably not what one would need to get a job designing drug testing gadgets... and no.. I am not saying that you have a degree in women's studies.

 

[SpaceCoastVol]

I'm numb from Old Fashioneds and about to go into work.

Wow. You actually sound proud of the fact that you go to work tanked.

You might want to look into this

 

[Grand Vol]

Wow. You actually sound proud of the fact that you go to work tanked.

You might want to look into this

You do know where he works, right?

 

[SpaceCoastVol]

Yet, same guy can go home after work and drink beer or liquor and no problem. It's hypocrisy at its best.

Hypocrisy? mmmmmmmmmm not really.

 

[SpaceCoastVol]

They are bad undercover cops. One of the stories floating around is that the undercover cops were actually trying to instigate activity by throwing objects and acting belligerent. That caught the attention of the other protesters and that is how it all started. Or, the other story is that the undercover cops stood out because they were the only ones that looked to be over the age of 35 in the crowd of 150.

lulz.

 

[SpaceCoastVol]

According to an article on foxnews.com, NYC's rank-and-file police union is urging cops to tell Mayor Bill DeBlasio not to attend their funerals in the event they are killed in the line of duty. Police officers can sign a waiver requesting that he & City Council Speaker Melissa Mark-Viverito not to attend their funerals due to their "consistent refusal to show police officers the support & respect they deserve". I wonder, if the mayor needs any kind of emergency help anytime soon, just how long will it take for the police to respond to his or her emergency? Maybe after all the coffee & donut breaks? :crazy:

I wouldn't want Obola anywhere near mine.