When State drug labs are run by the state police running tests for police you will get that. For instance any amount of THC in the blood can get an impaired driving charge. Unless it is a legalized state in which case it minuscule tiny amount that could have resulted from smoking 14 week days ago is still enough. With the smallest amounts, one nanogram per milliliter, false positives are as high as 40%, but when they go into court they don’t say that. They make it sound like this is what it is science. We could speak of a dozen different types of junk science they have been involved in as well. Like hair analysis.
If you need a source to explain the inherent conflicts of interest and having the Police lab run by the state police for the police, it would not make a difference anyway. Likewise since you are unaware, and keep scorn on the idea, it shows that you either do not follow the news very closely, or are dishonest about it. Either way think what you want.
I agree with the principal idea, but if this is as much of a prevailing issue as you’re making it out to be, it shouldn’t be too hard to produce even a single solid source beyond your own convictions of, “Well that’s just how the world works!”
It’s common knowledge, does somebody asked politely I might have gone to the trouble, or you could just search for Crime Lab people get caught cheating and find pages of results. Or you can search for any number of junk Sciences like hair test analysis. Or not I don’t care what you think. Someone coming from a place of it is preposterous the police would do anything improper is not worth talking to, and as such good day.
Your issue is you think it’s all or nothing. I never said I didn’t think police would do anything improper. Obviously many of them do. But I’m also not just going to take your assertion based solely on the idea that it’s “common knowledge.” Common knowledge is a term for assumptions people make with no other proof of than, “Yeah, that sounds right to me.”
You can take my tangential comment that police crime Labs try to give police the results they are looking for or not I don’t care. My point was there should be independent testing of the barrels given the odd circumstances.
Demanding sources for something you disbelieve on points tangential to the point is something people that want to derail your argument do to put you on the defensive without cause.
As if I care that you believe the cops are trustworthy or not. The barrels should be tested independently.
Contracting to a private company amounts to the same thing. If they do not have anything to hide they should have no problem retesting it independently.
I do not doubt they privatize more and more law enforcement operations so they can pay more for less with worse service.
Speaking of which, that gives them less credibility not more if it is contracted out. That is less to anybody that has followed events and understands them.
For instance any amount of THC in the blood can get an impaired driving charge. Unless it is a legalized state in which case it minuscule tiny amount that could have resulted from smoking 14 week days ago is still enough.
Sure, that’s just the law.
With the smallest amounts, one nanogram per milliliter, false positives are as high as 40%, but when they go into court they don’t say that.
I don’t think the lab techs attend the court cases to provide details about how testing works…
If you know that, you don’t think a decent defense lawyer knows that?
What I asked for was a source for your bold claim that:
drug testing Labs try to give the results the cops want.
Interesting that you’d downvote me just for asking for a source for your strong claim though…
When State drug labs are run by the state police running tests for police you will get that. For instance any amount of THC in the blood can get an impaired driving charge. Unless it is a legalized state in which case it minuscule tiny amount that could have resulted from smoking 14 week days ago is still enough. With the smallest amounts, one nanogram per milliliter, false positives are as high as 40%, but when they go into court they don’t say that. They make it sound like this is what it is science. We could speak of a dozen different types of junk science they have been involved in as well. Like hair analysis.
So no source then, just making things up. Got it!
There was a pretty famous case of this in the Boston area recently(last decade or so) and there is a Netflix series about it.
I’m gonna guess you don’t know the details, do you?
Off the top of my head I’d be summarizing, let me see if I can find a link.
The Netflix documentary is called “how to fix a drug scandal”
Here’s an article about the documentary and the scandal: https://www.bostonherald.com/2020/03/30/netflix-spotlights-mass-lab-debacle-in-how-to-fix-a-drug-scandal/
Thanks – that one lady seems like a total sociopath, but it’s at least an example of something close to what OP was claiming.
If you need a source to explain the inherent conflicts of interest and having the Police lab run by the state police for the police, it would not make a difference anyway. Likewise since you are unaware, and keep scorn on the idea, it shows that you either do not follow the news very closely, or are dishonest about it. Either way think what you want.
I agree with the principal idea, but if this is as much of a prevailing issue as you’re making it out to be, it shouldn’t be too hard to produce even a single solid source beyond your own convictions of, “Well that’s just how the world works!”
It’s common knowledge, does somebody asked politely I might have gone to the trouble, or you could just search for Crime Lab people get caught cheating and find pages of results. Or you can search for any number of junk Sciences like hair test analysis. Or not I don’t care what you think. Someone coming from a place of it is preposterous the police would do anything improper is not worth talking to, and as such good day.
Your issue is you think it’s all or nothing. I never said I didn’t think police would do anything improper. Obviously many of them do. But I’m also not just going to take your assertion based solely on the idea that it’s “common knowledge.” Common knowledge is a term for assumptions people make with no other proof of than, “Yeah, that sounds right to me.”
You can take my tangential comment that police crime Labs try to give police the results they are looking for or not I don’t care. My point was there should be independent testing of the barrels given the odd circumstances.
Demanding sources for something you disbelieve on points tangential to the point is something people that want to derail your argument do to put you on the defensive without cause.
As if I care that you believe the cops are trustworthy or not. The barrels should be tested independently.
The cops aren’t the ones who tested the barrels. But feel free to keep rearranging the goal posts about backing up a claim with anything of substance.
Contracting to a private company amounts to the same thing. If they do not have anything to hide they should have no problem retesting it independently.
I do not doubt they privatize more and more law enforcement operations so they can pay more for less with worse service.
Speaking of which, that gives them less credibility not more if it is contracted out. That is less to anybody that has followed events and understands them.
Not sure why you felt the need to come back and double-down on having nothing of substance to back up your bold claim whatsoever, but thanks.
Because you are purposely being obtuse here because you have an ax to grind defending the police apparently.
That State Police labs are biased in favor of the police is common knowledge and doesn’t need a source.
I don’t know why I would waste time with someone that heaps scorn on the idea that the cops would be anything less than forthright.
Tripling down on it now!
Wow…
We get it. You don’t have even a single example of this to point to.
Sure, that’s just the law.
I don’t think the lab techs attend the court cases to provide details about how testing works…
If you know that, you don’t think a decent defense lawyer knows that?
What I asked for was a source for your bold claim that:
Interesting that you’d downvote me just for asking for a source for your strong claim though…
You want a solid source over their feelsies? Gods you’re so demanding.
(/s for the illiterate)