Well first you look around to make sure that no one is filming you, if there is someone filming (or a visible security camera who’s tape/data you can not steal or erase later) you should repeatedly tase the person before you kneel on their chest and handcuff them. If there is no one filming (or if a security camera is filming but one which you can gain access to later) then you should feel free to fill this person’s body with lead, it will be much easier to kneel on them and handcuff them while they are bleeding out on the ground.
*Note, it is recommended that the person be a minority.
It’s not fake weed. That’d be like saying methamphetamine is fake cocaine.
The synthetic cannabinoid analogs in spice agonize the same receptors as THC, but unlike THC which is a partial agonist, these are full agonists that have very high binding affinities, but cause a very short lived high. Usually less than half an hour whe I still smoked the stuff.
I’m glad weed is legal in my state now. Synthetic cannabinoids are an interesting, and almost psychedelic high. But the comedown sucks and leaves you feeling tired, and foggy for a long time, and whatever plant matter they use burns about as well as steel wool, leading to mouth and throat scalding.
A second point here is that while I can totally see spice leading to a psychotic break, I can’t see it lasting much longer than a few hours in an otherwise mentally healthy person.
What I find so tragic is that these killings are completely unnecessary, and the episodes will almost certainly resolve if given just a little time.
You don’t need to subdue these people. You need to put them in a place where they can safely ride it out. Like a drunk tank.
I heard about some trucking company where drivers come to work and play a game on a computer. The game tests their alertness and fitness for the job. If they don’t pass, they won’t drive.
No testing for arbitrary substances, and catches even dangerous levels of fatigue.
That’s probably the way it should be done; ability is more important than chemistry. Particularly with cannabinoids, testing tells you nothing about intoxication. We’re still at the “this test tells me that you smoked an unknown amount of cannabis sometime in the last week or so” level of accuracy.
There are a few potential counter-arguments, though:
Ability testing may not catch recently-imbibed intoxicants that are yet to take full effect, or employees who consume intoxicants post-testing;
Stimulants may actually enhance ability in a short focussed test, while still being undesirable in the longer term (potential for late-shift drowsiness, lowered risk aversion, possible mood effects, etc). Really good test design could catch these things as well, but I wouldn’t bet on that actually happening in the real workplace.
In both of those cases, however, you can deal with it by having competent management and not relying on a blindly-applied chemical test to do your thinking for you.
Your crane operator is behaving unusually? Talk to him. Talk to his mates. Talk to his supervisor. Find out if he’s having personal troubles, or if he’s sick, or if there’s something wrong with the crane, etc. Make sure your supervisors are on notice to keep an eye out for these things, and listen to them when they raise issues with senior management.
If they put tat on the label or sold the compound straight instead of spraying it on whatevs it wouldn’t be fake weed, but if the product promotes via mimicry it’s fake whatever it mimics.
A better analog would be margarine/butter where margarine would lose much of it’s appeal were it marketed as vegetable oil spread instead of butter-like.
Larger police forces, with less family ties? As I said to another comment, this doesn’t mean corruption isn’t in other police departments, just that rural police departments have specific kinds of corruption.
They do random testing in my company. It is a good idea in theory, because we do spend quite a bit of time with heavy equipment. On the other hand, we really never know where we are going to end up traveling to, and a normal trip can be 30 days or seven months long. you just never know. It is a horrible job choice for a drug addict or alcoholic. So it is not surprising that nobody ever fails the test. My primary fear is false positives. Such things are rare, but it makes sense that if you get tested enough, a false positive has to come up eventually. Fatigue is a much bigger problem. We have all sorts of rules for required rest periods and such, but that is all more theoretical than practical, as we are constantly shifting between time zones.
Basic training for police recruits in Norway is three years. They get a bachelor’s degree before they’re allowed to go out and work, and the school also offers master’s degrees and 90ish different training courses for qualified cops. I’d think that’s a better method for creating a competent police force than mandatory service. Mandatory service would result in young, inexperienced officers with no real desire to do a great job and make a career of it, and that would cause the force to have to use military type discipline to keep them in line. Police are not military and should not be organised or run as military units. Norwegian Police University College
I was comparing the quality of a draftee to the products of the present system, implying that the lower quality draftees might be better anyway. It was a facetious question of course as the majority of cops are perfectly decent people, they just tend not to make the news as a result, and would of course be better than a draftee with less training.
The real problem is that A - quality of policing is widely variable, and B - the good cops everywhere get painted with the same brush as the bad ones that hit the news. (Not saying that “B” is a bad thing, the good ones just need to erase that thin blue line and clean house!)
If someone in a position of power is looking the other way when they see abuse, they’re the definition of corrupt.
I believe there are very few “good cops” because there are very few cops who are willing to report the bad and illegal behavior of their co-workers.
Sure they might not be out killing people. But they’re still a part of the problem, if they’re not making it impossible for their department, and failing that the FBI, to ignore ongoing abuse.
Obviously we have corrupt departments, as the case of Adrian Schoolcraft shows. But then, the FBI is there to investigate corrupt departments.
