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

[stoner]

1 hour ago, placnx said:

Sixty years ago

few days there eh. 

[Longwood50]

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. 

[stevenl]

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.

[Bkk Brian]

52 minutes ago, Longwood50 said:

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.  

 

[placeholder]

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 March 21, 2023 by placeholder

[EVENKEEL]

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.

[2009]

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.

[2009]

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).

[2009]

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.

[Chomper Higgot]

40 minutes ago, 2009 said:

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

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

[2009]

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).

[Scott]

10 hours ago, Longwood50 said:

Two comments

First and most importantly I doubt we have ALL THE FACTORS.  I doubt seriously if all of the information is disclosed to the public.  The very fact that the police ordered a follicle test in addition to the test that disclosed the marijuana use is to me indicative that they rightfully suspected the driver was on more than just marijuana.  They were right. 

Second, you and others are Monday morning quarterbacking.  Did they error.  Perhaps, but if they did it was out of an abundance of caution. 

They rightfully feared also being Monday morning quarterbacked when one of the children in the car found the gun played with it and shot someone with it.   Then all those who expect a perfect 20/20 hindsight decision would have blamed the police and child protective services saying, they knew this person was driving DUI and had a gun in the car yet they did nothing. 

I say,first off IT HAD NOTHING TO DO AS THE OP SUGGEST TO DO WITH RACE. They had a car with windows so tinted that it obscured the people inside the car.  We also don't know the ethnicity of the police officer  Recently there was outrage in about a beating in Memphis that led to a teens death suggesting it too was racial.  Here is a picture of the 5 officers charged in that beating. 

The OP and articles like it are strictly inflaming passions and race baiting for the sake of an inflamatory headline.  If the exact same thing had happened and the parents were Asians or Caucasians the media would treat it totally different.  

Well, to some extent everybody is Monday morning quarterbacking.  I do have a fair amount of experience with removing children and the circumstances.  Children are removed because of abuse, neglect or abandonment.  There are circumstances where a child is out-of-control and is removed because of behavioral problems, but that is usually done at the request of the parents.  

None of those conditions appear to exist.   Absolutely nothing about hair follicles and former drug use should result in the immediate removal of the children. 

 

There is a huge amount of racial bias in removing children.  With people of  color an emergency removal order is almost always given for minority children -- the bias is that blacks and native Americans aren't as good of parents as whites.  When removing white children judges will seriously question the need and often have an emergency hearing.  I've never experienced an emergency hearing with minority children -- it's as simple as a phone call to a judge who gives a verbal order and follows up the following day with the written order.  No hearing is held. 

 

If you want examples, I can give you many. 

 

Had the family been white, it's not the media that would have treated it differently, it's the judicial and CPS that would have as well.

 

[stoner]

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. 

 

 

[placeholder]

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.

[stoner]

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. 

[Chomper Higgot]

9 hours ago, 2009 said:

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).

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’.

 

 

 

 

Edited March 22, 2023 by Chomper Higgot

[placeholder]

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?

[Chomper Higgot]

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.

[Longwood50]

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. 

 

 

[Purdey]

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. 

[Scott]

19 minutes ago, Longwood50 said:

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. 

 

 

Yes, it is pretty simple.  Our department NEVER had an emergency placement order turned down or an emergency hearing held for a minority race.  We NEVER had a white child removed on an emergency hearing without an emergency hearing being held. 

 

The Child Welfare System is biased against people of color in very many ways.  It's just very easy to remove children of color and it's difficult to remove white children.  It should be difficult to remove children, whether regardless of color.  CPS and social services are required to do everything possible to keep families together.  They are mandated to provide services to that end, that includes financial assistance, rehabilitation services, housing assistance -- whatever it necessary.   If that fails, then children are placed in care.  

 

If they are placed in care, the first choice of placement is with other family members, grandparents, or aunts and uncles.   If they are not suitable then foster care.  

 

None of that was done in this case.  

 

[bamnutsak]

On the plus side, at least the THP didn't murder a family of five, ya know for having tinted windows, and "not complying".

 

 

[2009]

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 

 

 

[bamnutsak]

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.

 

 

[Purdey]

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 March 23, 2023 by Purdey