You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Small gov tales of fl morons
- Thread starter The Dude
- Start date
G
Guns Guns Guns
Guest
I assume you mean pRick Scott, who owns (in his wifes' name) a chain of clinics that do drug testing?
Rookie gov has welfare folks testing. 2.5 percent tested positive while 9 percent of the gen population use drugs.What a bunch of education hating republicans.[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[
Now that the bullshit is crossed out...wtf is your point ?.... If .05% test positive, they should forfit any benefits from the government......WTF's it got to do with education other than your obvious lack of it?
SmarterthanYou
rebel
one more example of how people seem forced to surrender their rights in order to get help from their government.
G
Guns Guns Guns
Guest
one more example of how people seem forced to surrender their rights in order to get help from their government.
But pRick Scott is a conservative Republican.
SmarterthanYou
rebel
But pRick Scott is a conservative Republican.
and?
G
Guns Guns Guns
Guest
and?
And he also requires state employees to undergo drug testing.
Do you consider that a bad thing?
SmarterthanYou
rebel
And he also requires state employees to undergo drug testing.
Do you consider that a bad thing?
the only state employees that should be required to undergo mandatory drug testing are those with badges and arrest powers.
G
Guns Guns Guns
Guest
the only state employees that should be required to undergo mandatory drug testing are those with badges and arrest powers.
Why is that?
Don't other state employees operate machinery, interface with children and engage in other activities that could compromise public safety if they are impaired?
SmarterthanYou
rebel
Why is that?
Don't other state employees operate machinery, interface with children and engage in other activities that could compromise public safety if they are impaired?
every single person out in the world has the potential to compromise public safety, whether they work in the private sector or public sector. That is not the same as someone with a badge that can kill you and be sanctioned with qualified immunity.
G
Guns Guns Guns
Guest
every single person out in the world has the potential to compromise public safety, whether they work in the private sector or public sector. That is not the same as someone with a badge that can kill you and be sanctioned with qualified immunity.
Are you saying that a law enforcement officer who kills someone on duty is immune from prosecution, but one that is stoned isn't?
SmarterthanYou
rebel
Are you saying that a law enforcement officer who kills someone on duty is immune from prosecution, but one that is stoned isn't?
for the most part, yes. only in extremely rare circumstances is a law enforcement officer charged with any crime if someone dies by his hand while on duty.
and adding on to this, there are very few policies in effect to force an LEO to undergo any testing after an excessive force incident. It also should include steroid testing at scheduled intervals.
G
Guns Guns Guns
Guest
for the most part, yes. only in extremely rare circumstances is a law enforcement officer charged with any crime if someone dies by his hand while on duty. And adding on to this, there are very few policies in effect to force an LEO to undergo any testing after an excessive force incident. It also should include steroid testing at scheduled intervals.
Really? Can you substantiate these claims with factual evidence?
Because in just one jurisdiction, I found the opposite to be true:
"Compelled intoxicant testing can be conducted if there are indications of possible intoxication and legal standards are met."
http://www.denverda.org/News_Release/Decision_Letters/PS-2011%20Protocol.pdf
And when I ran this search, I got a lot of results that indicate that police do face charges in shooting cases.
http://www.google.com/webhp?complet....,cf.osb&fp=c2c8e0a28be5382c&biw=1024&bih=510
And why should a test you regard as invasive be mandatory for law enforcement officers but not aircraft operators?
SmarterthanYou
rebel
just because it CAN be, doesn't mean it's GOING to be. i've posted numerous articles on this forum about police officers causing accidents ON DUTY where it was later determined that there was evidence that the officer might have been drunk, but on scene fellow officers covered it up. Again, i've posted numerous articles on incidents like this. don't pretend that i haven't.Really? Can you substantiate these claims with factual evidence?
Because in just one jurisdiction, I found the opposite to be true:
"Compelled intoxicant testing can be conducted if there are indications of possible intoxication and legal standards are met."
whats the date on this policy? oh, 2011????? what was it before?
so because a FEW are actually 'arrested', that would mean that no officer escapes being charged?And when I ran this search, I got a lot of results that indicate that police do face charges in shooting cases.
http://www.google.com/webhp?complet....,cf.osb&fp=c2c8e0a28be5382c&biw=1024&bih=510
we have government agents that are aircraft operators?And why should a test you regard as invasive be mandatory for law enforcement officers but not aircraft operators?
G
Guns Guns Guns
Guest
just because it CAN be, doesn't mean it's GOING to be.
Doesn't mean it's not going to be, either, does it? If you have evidence to the contrary, post it.
i've posted numerous articles on this forum about police officers causing accidents ON DUTY where it was later determined that there was evidence that the officer might have been drunk, but on scene fellow officers covered it up. Again, i've posted numerous articles on incidents like this. don't pretend that i haven't.
Numerous articles that police officers "might have been drunk", eh? If you have evidence that officers have perjured themselves and weren't prosecuted, you duty as a citizen is clear. If you don't, you're blowing smoke. Numerous doesn't mean anything, execept numerous.
whats the date on this policy? oh, 2011????? what was it before?
I don't know. Why don't you find out and tell me?
so because a FEW are actually 'arrested', that would mean that no officer escapes being charged??
Can you cite the ratio of guilty officers vs those arrested and charged? Yes, or no?
we have government agents that are aircraft operators?
Probably, but that's not what I said. The discussion was about drug testing Florida state employees before you got all twisted with your favorite bugaboo.
We definitely have state employees who operate aircraft in the line of duty, yet you only want LEOs tested. What's up with that?
SmarterthanYou
rebel
if you wish to remain willfully ignorant of all that i've posted over the last year alone, go for it. you know what i'm telling you is true.Doesn't mean it's not going to be, either, does it? If you have evidence to the contrary, post it.
Numerous articles that police officers "might have been drunk", eh? If you have evidence that officers have perjured themselves and weren't prosecuted, you duty as a citizen is clear. If you don't, you're blowing smoke. Numerous doesn't mean anything, execept numerous.
I don't know. Why don't you find out and tell me?
Can you cite the ratio of guilty officers vs those arrested and charged? Yes, or no?
again, LEOs are in an entirely different capacity because of the powers given to them by the government. Do I really need to outline and document dozens more incidents of extra special rights and protections afforded to police officers in comparison with that of a non LEO?Probably, but that's not what I said. The discussion was about drug testing Florida state employees before you got all twisted with your favorite bugaboo.
We definitely have state employees who operate aircraft in the line of duty, yet you only want LEOs tested. What's up with that?
G
Guns Guns Guns
Guest
if you wish to remain willfully ignorant of all that i've posted over the last year alone, go for it. you know what i'm telling you is true.
Ummmm, no. I don't.
If you want to claim that my unwillingness to agree with you when you haven't proved your case constitutes wilful ignorance, I'm OK with that.
again, LEOs are in an entirely different capacity because of the powers given to them by the government. Do I really need to outline and document dozens more incidents of extra special rights and protections afforded to police officers in comparison with that of a non LEO?
I think I'd be equally concerned that a state aircraft pilot isn't high when they soar above the city, that a state doctor or nurse isn't baked while they perform a procedure, or that a teacher's not toasted when they have charge over kids. But that's just me.
SmarterthanYou
rebel
if you want to claim that I haven't proved my case when i've spent over 12 months posting cases of special treatment to police officers for committing crimes, then i'm OK with calling you willfully ignorant.Ummmm, no. I don't.
If you want to claim that my unwillingness to agree with you when you haven't proved your case constitutes wilful ignorance, I'm OK with that.
are you saying we should have blood and breath testers for every pilot, doctor, nurse, and other professions that deal with jobs that could cause harm to people?I think I'd be equally concerned that a state aircraft pilot isn't high when they soar above the city, that a state doctor or nurse isn't baked while they perform a procedure, or that a teacher's not toasted when they have charge over kids. But that's just me.
G
Guns Guns Guns
Guest
..are you saying we should have blood and breath testers for every pilot, doctor, nurse, and other professions that deal with jobs that could cause harm to people?
Nope.
But I'm not OK with singling out police as the only class of person who should be forced to submit to such prior testing in the anticipation of a possible event that may never happen.
Does the Constitution apply to all Americans, or not?
SmarterthanYou
rebel
Nope.
But I'm not OK with singling out police as the only class of person who should be forced to submit to such prior testing in the anticipation of a possible event that may never happen.
Does the Constitution apply to all Americans, or not?
it hasn't since FDR. it also took a major plunge around 68 as well.