Alcohol and ketamine is a known bad bad combination. 500mg is a damn lot of ketamine and morally there is no difference than drugging someone against their will by non medical people for no medical purpose.
If someone is waving a knife or gun about and is a danger to others, I would say there is a moral difference. I am assuming that the police use it mainly for cases like that, but that is just an assumption. It still seems better than shooting at them. The linked article doesn't say anything like that though, but it is quite low on details leading to the arrest.
If someone is waving a weapon around I really doubt the police are getting near enough to inject drugs. There seems to be zero good reason for the use of this.
Cops also use pepper spray. It's against someone's will, by non-cooks, for no culinary purpose.
Cops also use electric stun guns. It's against someone's will, by non-electricians, for no electronic purpose.
Mind proposing an acceptable method of restraint? Go ahead, and see people tear it apart as a human rights violation.
It's much like the hopeless situation in bad schools, where all possible methods of discipline have been banned. Things are a mess if we deny the need to impose proper behavior by force.
There is another method you neglected to mention: deescalation.
From all I've seen of US law enforcement, this seems to be applied very seldom, with cops actively escalating the situation and quickly reaching for tools of violence (beatings, batons, pepper spray, tasers, guns).
Most (all?) of the rest of the western world doesn't have these issues to anywhere near the degree the US does. Nobody in their right mind outside of the US would be justifying injecting people with massive doses of disassociative drugs, yet some people in the US think this is OK. That kind of says it all, really.
They're not injecting this with tranq darts. Someone who is restrained enough to inject with a syringe, is already restrained enough. Probably with handcuffs/leg-irons/etc., but some cops also like to kneel on necks.
And cops use bullets, too. Soldiers use even better bullets, and these are a super effective method of disciplining people with great longterm success in reducing repeat offenders.
But the cost on the detainee (who is to be presumed innocent, who may be in distress themself, who may have a psychotic episode due to some unknown cross-reaction with medication or the like, who may be deeply scared) is much, much, much higher, which is why this sort of thing almost never happens where I live (not the US, obviously).
I feel there are good reasons to assume that force-injecting someone with a megadose of Ketamine without their knowing what they're getting, understanding what they're getting into, competent assistance during what follows, in a profoundly bad state of mind, likely in deep fear, under heavy stress, while being restrained (otherwise, how would you inject?), with no knowlegde of their medical history or current condition, administered by laypeople, who would be completely useless in case of complications – I believe that isn't quite the same as tasing someone, or using pepper spray. While it's not visible in the way beating injuries are, that sort of thing has big potential to really deeply traumatize and mentally scar people for a long time.
Cops here do not have such powers and no one has tried to give them such powers, so far; I hope it stays that way. If someone has to be sedated, a doctor and an ambulance have to be summoned, and the then-patient has to be brought directly to a clinic that can take care of them; all in a medical setting from that point, not primarily an arrest (though, of course, depending on the situation, they may not be allowed to just leave once they're lucid again). This is only ever to be done in case of people in a psychotic episode that cannot be calmed otherwise or the like, it's not something to put into annoying detainees to make them shut up and be easier to handle. Any emergency doctor willing to inject such drugs without proper medical indication would take on big personal risks.
And, finally:
> Things are a mess if we deny the need to impose proper behavior by force.
Things are a mess as well if the tools to do so are passed out without checks and safety mechanisms that are appropriate to their effects. Letting cops shoot people at will while there are other, less severe options, that's awfully bad. And letting them drug people into submission while there are other, less severe options, that too is really bad.
Almost universally not true. The Geneva convention prohibits many types of bullets that are allowed for civilian use. Hollow points, for example. And there are good reasons why they're allowed for civilians and not war.
2. It's not fair to give us a sanctimonious lecture about how great your country's police procedures are without stating your country. Put up, or drop the lecture.
I believe soldiers have bullets with a lot more kinetic energy behind them than bullets fired by ordinary police guns; that said, I'm not a gun person, so maybe a police small arms shot is more effective against people than one fired by an assault rifle.
Besides, the policy I described is what (AFAIK) most of Europe implements at the moment (might be all of Europe even), including Germany. I don't quite see why stating that requires chutzpah.
That wasn't intended as a sanctimonious lecture at all, but since there already is a lot of "nothing less drastic could ever work" in the comments, I thought I'd give an example of another policy that works well. I'm well aware there is no police force or security apparatus without fault, they all get some things wrong (and some are outright atrocious, like in Belarus currently), not trying to make it sound like some EU police service is perfect. I don't know where the US police falls on that spectrum, though reading US news makes it seem like they do have some serious issues currently. This particular policy doesn't exactly help, either.
Sure, the military has access to more powerful rounds. Aircraft cannons, for example. But they don't typically load the soldier's rifles with rounds more powerful than what a civilian can buy.
- Soldiers' bullets really don't have more kinetic energy than civilian ones. For one, a civilian can always hand load, and get whatever K.E. they want (until they blow up their gun's chamber). Also, civilians can buy military rounds. Either surplus or whatever.
Smaller bullets means soldiers can carry more ammo. Not as important in the trenches of Europe, but crucial in the jungle colonial wars, I mean freedom wars, since WW2.
- Also, the military only wants a bullet powerful enough make it through any reasonable personal armor. The idea is that a bullet that isn't powerful enough to exit the body will cause more damage by tumbling inside and/or be more difficult to remove -> it's a way around the Geneva conventions that mandates rounds hold themselves together
- Third hunters, by law, have to use a bullet with a certain minimum K.E. The .30-06, for example, was initially used as a military round, but is today a popular deer hunting round. It has been replaced in the military by the much smaller, weaker, round used in the M-16.
The civilian .30-06 is considerably more powerful round than the AK-47's, whose round is considered too powerful for a modern rifle.
- Check out the perfectly legal, if expensive, .50 BMG.
Police small arms are equal to military small arms, but usage is different.
Police get better ammunition for destroying human flesh, due to treaty restrictions on the military. Police can get all of the military small arms ammunition.
Police normally leave rifles locked up in their cars.
"I don't know where the US police falls on that spectrum, though reading US news makes it seem like they do have some serious issues currently. "
Well that's the problem, isn't it? You read news coverage of the US. The observational bias there is huge. Consider:
The US is a country of 320 million. As of Brexit, larger than the EU and homogeneously English speaking with homogeneous press and institutions. The EU is smaller with 23 languages or so and a patchwork of everything.
So if a Eastern EU cop beats the shit out of a homosexual in jail who would ever find out?
At least in Greece it's pretty well documented that cops sodomized Albanian migrant workers with broomsticks. But you wouldn't know that unless you happen to have an Albanian wife who lived in Greece.
An Italian squad of carabinieri was just disbanded because it turned out to be running a drug dealing and extortion racket. This is literally current news. Have you heard about it?
Spanish police took COVID as an opportunity to abuse their power. National scandal in Spain, I haven't read any non-Spanish (and I mean Spain Spanish, not Spanish language) news about it.
In Hesse police computers were used to find out the personal details of a left-wing politician to send them neo-Nazi affiliated threats. Armed agents of the Germany with neo-Nazi links is quite the scandal today in Germany.
Notice the bias in my examples:
Spanish police - I'm half Spanish
Italian police - I'm half Italian
Greek police - My wife is Greek speaking Albanian.
German police - I suspect you're German so I specifically googled German police abuse
Notice I don't have specific French police abuse examples... because I don't speak French! I'm sure a google search will quickly inform me of Algerians young men beat to a pulp by a gendarme.
In general, as EU citizen living in the US for over a decade, I find that the EU perspective of the US couldn't be more wrong.
But surprisingly, even in “good schools”, when the same offense happens by minorities vs. non minorities, it is criminalized when done by minorities.
I was amazed at the stories my son told me about kids getting caught with drugs, hitting a coach, vandalizing property and all that happened was that the parents got called and a few days of suspension and the police were never involved. Because “kids will be kids”. Of course this is in a high income district.
When I was previously married living in a predominantly minority neighborhood - great neighborhood, lower income minority school district - my step daughter would tell me about the even the most minor of offenses where administrators would get the police involved.
There have been plenty of studies showing the unequal treatment of Black and White kids.
That's a different school, run by different people. It does not prohibit attendance by students of any race. The only bias I see is that of the parents, who pay a housing premium to avoid being associated with some kinds of people.
The local people choose the school board, which then chooses the school policy and administration.
School policy is limited by what is allowed and by what seems to work. If the parents usually are quick to discipline students for misbehavior, then parents will be relied upon to do so. If the parents ignore or encourage misbehavior, there is no reason to involve them. The police will be called instead.
Still, you elected a school board that would permit that difference, and you chose where to live.
If telling parents gets students under control at one school, and it doesn't work at the other school, punishment will be different. You could get to that policy by trial and error, without any knowledge of the racial makeup of the student body.
A) Because someone who lived in my school district where rent was $600 a month - I had a house as part of the “gentrification” movement pre real estate bust - could pick up and move to a better school district like I did in the opposite side of the metro area over an hour away where the rent is now $2000/month.
B) if minorities are treated differently in the same school district, why would the majority care? Are you now going to argue that if you are a minority and face statistically unequal treatment by the criminal justice system you should move out of the city? state? country?
Things are different, yes, but I'm not seeing any racism on the part of the school administration or school board.
You are in "a high income district". You were in "lower income minority school district". I don't know the racial situation in your current district, though I could probably guess right. It's realistic, though not very nice, to imply that "minority" is the opposite of "high income".
For the discipline difference, it's enough that there is an income difference. That explains everything. There is no need to mention race.
The high-income people, of any race, care about education and discipline. Getting a kid to behave is usually as simple as telling the parents.
The low-income people, on average, don't give a damn. Telling a parent about bad behavior will just generate a tirade of insults. Calling the police works, so that is done.
It's unfair to the low-income people who aren't terrible. Well, life isn't fair. The group you associate with will determine how you are treated.
It's realistic, though not very nice, to imply that "minority" is the opposite of "high income".
Hint: Not only are “some of my best friends Black”, my parents, my wife, my children, and all of my family is too. Please don’t go all “woke” on me.
For the discipline difference, it's enough that there is an income difference. That explains everything. There is no need to mention race.
Studies show that it happens in the same district...
The high-income people, of any race, care about education and discipline. Getting a kid to behave is usually as simple as telling the parents.
Right because poor people don’t care about education.
The high-income people, of any race, care about education and discipline. Getting a kid to behave is usually as simple as telling the parents.
Uhh, this isn’t new. I went to a private school growing up. By definition if they were paying to go to the school I went to, they weren’t poor. I saw myself how much different the “bad” White kids were treated than the Black kids.
The group you associate with will determine how you are treated.
Oh that’s all I have to tell my six foot 3 son to do! Make sure he has one of his White friends with him (he usually does) when he hangs out so police won’t wonder what he’s doing in our part of town.
He was going to walk from school one night down the street to a Waffle House after a football game to meet his other classmates. His friend group is like the rainbow coalition, but this one night he wasn’t sure whether his non-Black friends were going to the game and walking down there with him. We told him if not, just take an Uber. Two Black kids walking down the street were an easy target for harassment. Not by other kids - kids aren’t as stupid as the older generation - they were worried about being harassed by the cops.
I'm nearly the opposite of “woke” but I try to be nice, and that wording reminded me of this awful Biden quote: “poor kids are just as bright and just as talented as white kids”
As a general rule, yes, poor people don't care about education. That's typically a contributing factor to being poor. Exceptions are common.
Poor areas and poor families have a sort of cultural rot. Some have given up. Some see other things, often less honest or less productive, as an easier path to getting by in life. Some fear loss of friends if they choose a different path in life. In those areas, a kid who does well in school will be attacked by peers.
So at home, the parents are not reading to kids. The parents are not asking about homework. The parents are not taking away sources of entertainment that distract from success. The parents are not bothered by a non-A grade or in a panic over a below-B grade. Instead, the parents are creating chaos. The parents are getting arrested, coming to blows while drunk or high, and cranking up the TV volume. Very often, the families are broken. Sometimes the kids don't even know their father. All sorts of non-academic nonsense is glorified. The priorities are just all wrong. That is not an environment that promotes discipline, studying, or academic success.
If teachers are really treating black kids of equivalent income and wealth different from white kids, that is interesting. It's particularly interesting because teachers are among the most “woke” of all, commonly marching for BLM while accusing the MAGA crowd of being racist. In the name of BLM people have torched black neighborhoods (both business and residential) and torn down statues of people who fought against slavery, and the arrested people have included numerous teachers.
Life isn't fair, so some hints for your son: wear a nice suit, speak crisp standard English, and keep the grooming strictly traditional. Basically, adopt the mannerisms of a lawyer.
Life isn't fair, so some hints for your son: wear a nice suit, speak crisp standard English, and keep the grooming strictly traditional. Basically, adopt the mannerisms of a lawyer.
You did see the article I posted where Ving Rhames had five cops show up to his house pointing guns at him because they thought he was breaking into his own home? Should he have been wearing a suit in his own home?
No “acting White” doesn’t keep you from getting pulled over. My (step)son grew up in the burbs all of his life. No matter how “White” he talks he will still be treated with suspicious. So he is suppose to wear a suit everywhere? Do you tell your son to wear a suit when he is going to play basketball?
I know for a fact according to statistics I make more than twice the median in my county - the most affluent in the state and one of the top 25 in the country - the benefit of working for BigTech remotely while living in the south, I’m by no means rich - and yes we still get looked at suspiciously walking into our own homes.
So you mean all Black people have to do is wear a suit everywhere and they won’t get harassed? You have singlehandedly solved racism, police misconduct, the disenfranchisement of minorities, racial profiling, etc in one sentence!
And no, teachers come from their communities just like cops do. Do you really think they earn a degree and automatically become “woke”?
So poverty couldn’t possibly be caused by systemic racism, educational funding based on property taxes, the War on Drugs that habitually punishes minorities more than Whites for the same offenses that also makes it harder to get a job.
My son is actually paranoid of cops when he goes to play basketball. But anyway, life isn't fair, and if you're having a problem then there are things you can do to improve perception. The lawyer look/mannerisms get you out of the "might be lower class" bucket, which is where the fear and hostility comes from. Although I admit that being white can help avoid that bucket, any white person can put themselves into the "might be lower class" bucket with awful grooming choices. Facial tattoos will do it, a slurred voice will do it, etc.
The kind of people who become teachers are generally not the kind of people who become cops. The education is radically different. So that is a different starting point and a different path to the career. The teaching degree is nearly 100% “woke” garbage, none of it practical in the classroom. Some, for example the methods for reading instruction, has even been proven to be actively harmful.
Educational funding has nearly nothing to do with educational success. The per-child budget for the DC schools should make this very clear. Culture is nearly everything. Some cultures are toxic.
The lawyer look/mannerisms get you out of the "might be lower class" bucket, which is where the fear and hostility comes from.
So should Ving Rhames had “the lawyer look” in his own home? Would that have stopped five cops from coming to his house? If the Black guy sitting in his own home who got shot by the cop because she thought she was entering her house not have been shot if had gone to sleep in a suit not been killed?
Do you also tell your female relatives if they dress appropriately they won’t be raped?
And in France as well (leboncoin.fr), I guess the idea here is to encourage people who needed a push to fix their tires or breaks to make the move and use all those bikes left collecting dust.
I don't like the moral policing of any group. But there is always a choice to politely say no and go on with your live. Everyone has there own values.
I don't agree on the moral witch hunt that followed either. Take his private email, reframe it in the media. It destroys a person and I think that is very wrong.
The environment would benefit dramatically if we ate half the meat we did. That's not nearly so distressing a concept. Let's start there.
You can still have your mignons and bacon as a treat every now and again, for fun, or to top up your iron levels, and everybody will be happier and healthier.
I think it also has todo with scope creeps. When a product / Service is developed, new possibilities are appear and customers are always trying to put these in the scope without adjusting the time / money necessary
