Jump to content

Police stopped a Black couple in Tennessee – and took their children


onthedarkside

Recommended Posts

3 hours ago, Bkk Brian said:

Here you go again with unsubstantiated claims.

Brian which part of thinking troubles you the most.  You seem to indicate that it is of some significance that the tests were conducted later.  

What I said was that I find it amazing that people including you, seem to defend these people when testing shows they were on the road, under the influence of marijuana.  A week later, a hair follicle test shows that both the mother and father had Meth, Oxycodene, and Fentanyl in their system. 

Now the fact the test was done later might have some bearing on its admissability in court.  It has no bearing on the fact that obviously these were not model parents and were drug users.  It has no bearing on the fact that the father chose to have his five children in the car endangering their lives while driving under the influence.  It has no bearing on the fact he was driving impaired on the road endangering the lives of others.  

As said, normally I would say a person defending such behavior should have a cognitive function test but as previously stated there is no such need in your case. 

  • Sad 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, Longwood50 said:

Brian which part of thinking troubles you the most.  You seem to indicate that it is of some significance that the tests were conducted later.  

What I said was that I find it amazing that people including you, seem to defend these people when testing shows they were on the road, under the influence of marijuana.  A week later, a hair follicle test shows that both the mother and father had Meth, Oxycodene, and Fentanyl in their system. 

Now the fact the test was done later might have some bearing on its admissability in court.  It has no bearing on the fact that obviously these were not model parents and were drug users.  It has no bearing on the fact that the father chose to have his five children in the car endangering their lives while driving under the influence.  It has no bearing on the fact he was driving impaired on the road endangering the lives of others.  

As said, normally I would say a person defending such behavior should have a cognitive function test but as previously stated there is no such need in your case. 

Quote

What I said was that I find it amazing that people including you, seem to defend these people when testing shows they were on the road, under the influence of marijuana. 

Which is not true. There really is no point in any discussion when you keep spouting debunked claims.

 

Quote

It has no bearing on the fact that the father chose to have his five children in the car endangering their lives while driving under the influence.  It has no bearing on the fact he was driving impaired on the road endangering the lives of others.  

Not facts at all.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Longwood50 said:

Brian which part of thinking troubles you the most.  You seem to indicate that it is of some significance that the tests were conducted later.  

What I said was that I find it amazing that people including you, seem to defend these people when testing shows they were on the road, under the influence of marijuana.  A week later, a hair follicle test shows that both the mother and father had Meth, Oxycodene, and Fentanyl in their system. 

Now the fact the test was done later might have some bearing on its admissability in court.  It has no bearing on the fact that obviously these were not model parents and were drug users.  It has no bearing on the fact that the father chose to have his five children in the car endangering their lives while driving under the influence.  It has no bearing on the fact he was driving impaired on the road endangering the lives of others.  

As said, normally I would say a person defending such behavior should have a cognitive function test but as previously stated there is no such need in your case. 

No, it was not proven that they were under the influence of marijuana. For one thing, the mother tested negative. For another people can test positive for marijuana up to 3 days after in a urine test and a week later in a blood test long after the intoxicating effect of the marijuana have worn off. So the test didn't confirm that the father was under the influence. I really hope it's the case that he has me on ignore otherwise there's a serious cognitive deficit on his part.

Edited by placeholder
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, placeholder said:

No, it was not proven that they were under the influence of marijuana. For one thing, the mother tested negative. For another people can test positive for marijuana up to 3 days after in a urine test and a week later in a blood test long after the intoxicating effect of the marijuana have worn off. So the test didn't confirm that the father was under the influence. I really hope it's the case that he has me on ignore otherwise there's a serious cognitive deficit on his part.

If you're a regular stoner and you stop, weeks can go by and you might still test pos in a urine test.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/19/2023 at 7:58 AM, Chomper Higgot said:

Like you rightly say, we are short of a few facts.

 

Which hasn’t stopped you inventing some to fit your world view.

He's just stating the obvious: nobody loses their kids of such a small thing.

  • Sad 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/20/2023 at 9:09 AM, stoner said:

what are your thoughts on the parents carrying weed and a gun with their 5 children ? 

While I do consider myself a conservative gentleman and would never have either of those items in the car, I can't see much wrong with it.

 

Weed is legal in many countries - just like alcohol and cigarettes - so therefor unless you are driving under-the-influence, what's the problem?

 

As for the gun: aren't guns legal in the US? What's the problem? Everyone else has guns, so you probably should too (for self defense).

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 hours ago, Purdey said:

Why do newspapers have to stress the color of the family? Do they write "a yellow family was arrested"  

Because they write what fits their sick agenda and the narrative of the moment.

 

The media likes to brainwash people. It could be to hate men, or hate whites, or feel sympathy for blacks, or queers, or women.

 

Right now, black is the flavor of the times and they're pushing the narrative of the police treating blacks unfairly. They'll spin any article they can that way.

  • Sad 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

39 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

The obvious needs to be supported by information, if there is no information the the obvious is based on blind assumptions.

Then, the only other assumption is that it was unjustified and due to a supposed racist police force and racist justice system.

 

I think you'd like to believe that.

 

That's certainly the narrative of the media and the motive behind mentioning skin color in this article (which I think is irrelevant).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, placeholder said:

For another people can test positive for marijuana up to 3 days after in a urine test and a week later in a blood test long after the intoxicating effect of the marijuana have worn off.

this time frame is for a single use. you forgot to state that part.

 

its a little more complex than that. there are also other factors that come into play that determine the length the drug can stay in ones system. blood tests detection length can also vary depending on many factors as well. with heavy users results can remain positive up to 30 days or even more.

 

for urine testing. i worked on the oil filed back home for a year and before starting i had to stop smoking. i stopped for 34 days and when i took the urine test the lady told me she still saw traces in my system. 

 

the following are general urine sample time frames.

 

  • single use: 3 days
  • moderate use (four times per week): 5 to 7 days
  • chronic use (daily): 10 to 15 days
  • chronic heavy use (multiple times per day): more than 30 days

hair follicle testing for cannabis can give a window into the last 3 months of use as well. 

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, stoner said:

this time frame is for a single use. you forgot to state that part.

 

its a little more complex than that. there are also other factors that come into play that determine the length the drug can stay in ones system. blood tests detection length can also vary depending on many factors as well. with heavy users results can remain positive up to 30 days or even more.

 

for urine testing. i worked on the oil filed back home for a year and before starting i had to stop smoking. i stopped for 34 days and when i took the urine test the lady told me she still saw traces in my system. 

 

the following are general urine sample time frames.

 

  • single use: 3 days
  • moderate use (four times per week): 5 to 7 days
  • chronic use (daily): 10 to 15 days
  • chronic heavy use (multiple times per day): more than 30 days

hair follicle testing for cannabis can give a window into the last 3 months of use as well. 

I'm not going to bother fact checking because this has no bearing on whether or not the father was under the influence when he was stopped. And, for what it's worth, the mother tested negative for marijuana use.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, placeholder said:

I'm not going to bother fact checking because this has no bearing on whether or not the father was under the influence when he was stopped. And, for what it's worth, the mother tested negative for marijuana use.

no need to check anything its well known. yes the mother is squeaky clean. good grief. 

clean of weed ok...... but other drugs....ill take that bet. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Chomper Higgot said:

That’s not the only other conclusion.

 

One might for example conclude, something isn’t quite right in the official explanations when highway patrol refuse to release dash/body camera footage and when Tennessee Department of Child Service threaten to bring charges against the parents for publicly discussing the case of their own children.


We aren’t allowed to see the dash/body camera footage and the parents are being threatened with legal action for speaking about their own children.


It reads like ‘Nothing to see here, and shut up talking about the nothing to see here’.

Also, the Child Services Dept said it didn't keep the results of the hair follicle tests. Bizarre, no?

  • Thumbs Up 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, placeholder said:

Also, the Child Services Dept said it didn't keep the results of the hair follicle tests. Bizarre, no?

If they haven’t got the evidence to support their actions, they haven’t got justification to act. 

Well, not evidence based justification anyway.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Scott said:

None of those conditions appear to exist. 

You hit the key " appear " to exist.  Obviously officials not you thousands of miles away saw it differently. 

As to the racial bias, I say Bull Pucky.  This mentality that everything that someone feels is a negative is about the race is nothing more than convenient rationalization and in some cases a pretext for a lawsuit. It is far more mentally comforting to blame ones bad occurences and station in life on their race rather than their personal behavior. 

I didn't get the job because of my race - instead of no I was not qualified. 

I got stopped by the police only because of my race - instead of no I was doing 90 in a 60 zone. 

I was only arrested because of my race - instead of no I was arrested because I was breaking into a store and stealing things. 

Are there incidence of racial bias, probably. but not every negative thing in life is a result of it.  It is far more comforting and easier to blame something you can't control such as your race than our own personal shortcomings. 

In this instance the only thing that seems to be evident is that these people were far from model people. 

1. The driver "chose" to drive the vehicle while under the influence of marijuana endanging everyone in that car and other innocent people also on the road.

 

2. The driver and passenge "chose" to at some point take meth, ocycodene, and fentanyl still present in their system.  To what extent that would impair their driving ability I will leave that to the experts.  However it hardly suggests a stable, safe, and responsible enviornment for the children. 

3. We have zero idea of any other aspects witnessed by the police or child protective services.  Perhaps, the children appeared abused, perhaps malnourished.  I have no idea but again, I am in no position to say my assessment from 7,000 miles away is superior to theirs. 

4. Very simple answer to not ending up with problems with the law.  DONT BREAK THEM.  In this instance the driver chose to have darkly tinted windows and chose to drive while under the influence of marijuana.  Guess what if he did neither of those, this is not a story at all. 

In Thailand there are numerous stories of people who encounter less than what they believe is appropriate treatment from the police.  Guess what?  I avoid at all costs doing anything that would put me in a position to have a situation where it puts me at odds with the police. 

Pretty Simple. 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, 2009 said:

Because they write what fits their sick agenda and the narrative of the moment.

 

The media likes to brainwash people. It could be to hate men, or hate whites, or feel sympathy for blacks, or queers, or women.

 

Right now, black is the flavor of the times and they're pushing the narrative of the police treating blacks unfairly. They'll spin any article they can that way.

I cannot remember when US media did not identify the race and deliberately write "a black man" . It is not a modern or fashionable occurrence. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

45 minutes ago, Purdey said:

I cannot remember when US media did not identify the race and deliberately write "a black man" . It is not a modern or fashionable occurrence. 

It's certainly coming more in fashion, particularly with the media narrative of police treating black people worse than whites, allegedly 

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

53 minutes ago, Purdey said:

I cannot remember when US media did not identify the race and deliberately write "a black man" . It is not a modern or fashionable occurrence. 

Was race mentioned by the mainstream white media with lynchings?

 

Asking for a friend.

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/22/2023 at 11:21 AM, bamnutsak said:

Was race mentioned by the mainstream white media with lynchings?

 

Asking for a friend.

 

 

Either "black' or the "n' word when referring to the victims. The KKK wore white so there was no question of race of the lynchers. 

Edited by Purdey
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.










×
×
  • Create New...