What's more, the seller -- Brian Jackson, then a strength and conditioning coach for the much-heralded Oregon City High School girls basketball team -- told the informant he didn't worry about getting caught by the police because he was selling to the police...What who doesn't want?
"What you don't want is a more aggressive police officer...
"Only Ones" on steroids. What could go wrong?
[Via Ed D]
6 comments:
Houston Police Department has such a big problem with cops on 'roids that they have a small marketing campaign (posters mostly, around courthouses) claiming HPD doesn't tolerate Steroids. Of course, the only action they seem to have taken is the marketing campaign to convince us there's no problem.
Holy crap are some HPD goons aggressive.
It would be really funny to replace their steroids with estrogen or something.
Let's set aside the steroid use for a moment, and look at the core problem here:
"Deason's two former wives also filed multiple domestic violence complaints against Deason with Canby police or the Clackamas County Sheriff's Office between 2001 and 2005. He was not charged with domestic abuse..."
I believe that the level of "roid rage" is entirely dependent on the personality of the user. Deason is still responsible for his own actions. It's a shame that the breaking point came when the ancillary problems became so pronounced that the fedgov stepped in.
So, instead of just enforcing the laws that supposedly protect people and property...
"Other federal investigations of police and steroid use have led departments...to consider expanding random testing for steroids."
...every police officer is now going to have his Fifth Amendment rights violated. I sidestepping constitutional protection is just fine as long as we do it one occupation at a time: high school student; baseball player; police officer...
That last sentence should read, in part, "I guess sidestepping..."
HTownTejas said...
"Holy crap are some HPD goons aggressive."
I'm sure we've all noticed the shift away from investigation and apprehension, to a more active approach. How about "interdiction"? The job is more physically demanding. There is a competition between the criminals and the police.
Not only does our government continue to enforce laws that make black markets profitable (and necessitate internal enforcement of the ranks through violence), but it also actively thwarts Citizens who attempt to arrest crime. The result is distrust on both sides. When a law enforcement agency has to pay informants for a significant portion--if not the majority--of the tips needed to pursue cases, something might be wrong.
So it is that we have policy decisions that are alienating the public, and police departments being pressured to deal aggressively with violent criminals. That type of work appeals to people who like an adrenaline rush. Are the people simply getting the type of police officers they're demanding? If it is understood that the actions of police are a special circumstance, and they are permitted to do things that others may not, then what types of personalities would we expect to find within a department?
Without even considering my argument above, what does the Deason story reveal about the predictive nature of tests? He had to have gone through tests of fitness while in police academy. Did he go through a criminal background check? Why would any such thing be of any use for anyone buying or carrying their own personal firearm?
TJP said,"every police officer is now going to have his Fifth Amendment rights violated. I sidestepping constitutional protection is just fine as long as we do it one occupation at a time: high school student; baseball player; police officer..."
Under the present circumstances I am all for it. Here's why, it is amazing how quickly the authors and enforcers of the law find a law to be repugnant and a violation of civil rights when they too must live under its strictures. Nobody is more strident in defense of their rights than law authors and enforcers when they must live under law they impose on the rest of us.
Two cases in point; The smart gun; just who is it who has refused to arm with them when the techonology becomes available? Just who is it who has exempted that particular group from complying? Yep! You got it. The enforcers and authors of that law in NJ. Think how fast that law would disappear if there were allowed NO exceptions.
2nd case, mandatory HIV testing at medical facilities; Though this may not sound at first blush like a legislative or enforcement issue it is. The American Medical Association about 20 years ago was campaigning and lobbying Congress ardently for a law requiring a mandatory HIV test for every patient visiting a physician or admitting to a hospital. Supposedly it was for the safety of the medical professional.
Congress was holding public hearings on the issue and taking testimony in front of the relevant subcommittee. One witness pointed out that the most common interface between patients who may or may not have HIV was the medical provider. Therefore wouldn't mandatory testing for this virus be useless unless applied to the medical personnel of every health care providing facility? This struck a chord with the legislators and they seemed inclined to include medical personnel in the mandate.
Within 8 hours (no kidding, 8 hours) the AMA had reversed its postion of many months and strenuously started lobbying for killing the bill before the subcommittee so it would never reach the floor for a vote. They were successful,and mandatory testing for HIV died in committee. Now a little known fact is that every patient is tested for HIV, every time blood is drawn or exposed. The medical facility doesn't bill for it, but they do it.
As you can see from just these two examples, among thousands, when those who would violate your person or rights for some interest of their own, are required to live under and submit to the same violations, they no longer support that violation.
As for drug testing, I have taken them for years and years before any others were required to take them. My occupation was considered too dangerous to allow me my rights under the fifth and fourth amendments. I was taking them when poppy seed salad dressing would cause you to fail, that's how long ago it was. And every testing facility had a "hold blameless" clause in the case of false positives in the forms one was required to sign. I always struck through it and added my own words to the effect that "so long as their tests and results were accurate and must be verified by an independent facility. I had many a heated discussion over that, but I never backed down and the caveat stayed in every case.
So yeah, until all these violations of rights are rescinded for everyone, I am all in favor of those who enforce them and author them to suffer the same indignities and denial of rights as those of us they are currently abusing.
Thanks for the follow-up, SA. You make a good point.
Post a Comment