Korean Job Discussion Forums :: View topic - SF Criminal Lab Technician Caught Skimming/Using Cocaine

Speak Korean Now!

Teach English Abroad and Get Paid to see the World!

Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"

FAQ

Memberlist

Usergroups

Profile

SF Criminal Lab Technician Caught Skimming/Using Cocaine

Korean Job Discussion Forums Forum Index -> Current Events Forum

View previous topic :: View next topic

Author

Message

bucheon bum

Joined: 16 Jan 2003

Posted: Fri Mar 19, 2010 5:11 am Post subject: SF Criminal Lab Technician Caught Skimming/Using Cocaine

Yup, this war on drugs is going great!

Quote:

The Police Department closed the lab March 9 amid suspicions that a technician there had been skimming and using cocaine. Since then, prosecutors say, about 30 cases a day have been dropped because no one has been able to test the drugs.

Quote:

The turmoil at the lab began when lab officials were alerted to possible cocaine theft by a criminalist, Deborah Madden, 60. Her sister contacted a lab supervisor Dec. 16 to report what she believed to be a police vial of the drug inside Madden's San Mateo home.

By then, Madden had gone on leave from the department and was undergoing drug and alcohol rehabilitation therapy. She retired March 1.

What a freaking joke. I was tempted to say she might have sold the coke for some extra retirement savings, but as a SF city employee, I'm sure she's got a sweet pension plan.

Street Magic

Joined: 23 Sep 2009

Posted: Sat Mar 20, 2010 10:57 am Post subject: Re: SF Criminal Lab Technician Caught Skimming/Using Cocaine

bucheon bum wrote:

What a freaking joke. I was tempted to say she might have sold the coke for some extra retirement savings, but as a SF city employee, I'm sure she's got a sweet pension plan.

Judging from the word choices the article used, it sounds like she was taking small amounts out for personal use to avoid being detected. Also, I think the article would've outright said if she stole in viable dealing quantities.

My mom was a dispatcher for the police station in the town I went to high school in and the cops there did similar stuff (raiding the evidence locker, drinking while driving since no one's going to pull them over, listing their friends' and families' license plates to prevent tickets and other legal troubles on the road, etc.).

Once again, law enforcement is essentially a supergang. If you ever get busted for a controlled substance, my money's on the cop seeing it as just another step towards his quota (yes, they have quotas for everything) rather than as a valuable moral service (although I'm sure some cops convince themselves of the latter to justify the former).

pkang0202

Joined: 09 Mar 2007

Posted: Sat Mar 20, 2010 6:18 pm Post subject:

A 60 year old woman doing coke. She must have a healthy heart.

bacasper

Joined: 26 Mar 2007

Posted: Sun Mar 21, 2010 12:47 am Post subject:

Isn't the bigger story that the woman was turned in by a family member instead of being confronted directly? Have we already become that much of a police state?

Sleepy in Seoul

Joined: 15 May 2004
Location: Going in ever decreasing circles until I eventually disappear up my own fundament - in NZ

Posted: Sun Mar 21, 2010 1:42 am Post subject:

Street Magic wrote:

Once again, law enforcement is essentially a supergang. If you ever get busted for a controlled substance, my money's on the cop seeing it as just another step towards his quota (yes, they have quotas for everything) rather than as a valuable moral service (although I'm sure some cops convince themselves of the latter to justify the former).

Are you trying to tar police everywhere with your rather large brush? Or is this simply true for your own sordid corner of the world?

Street Magic

Joined: 23 Sep 2009

Posted: Sun Mar 21, 2010 2:41 am Post subject:

Sleepy in Seoul wrote:

Street Magic wrote:

Are you trying to tar police everywhere with your rather large brush? Or is this simply true for your own sordid corner of the world?

If you've noticed, I've mostly been focusing on the war on drugs, the enforcement of other victimless crimes, and the hypocrisy of many of those doing the enforcing. That, combined with the standing American court precedent that the police aren't responsible for protecting individuals. If you'd like me to say that some individual police officers are good people, OK-- some individual police officers are good people. This doesn't change my stance that the law enforcement system in the US overall is a horribly corrupt supergang.

For someone whose complaint is generality, you didn't do a great job coming up with a specific dispute that I could address more thoroughly. Feel free to argue with an actual claim or piece of evidence I've made/cited here or elsewhere during my "tarring" campaign.

PS: Here's a thread I started a little while back about an exceptional former cop:

http://forums.eslcafe.com/korea/viewtopic.php?t=179061

I also approve of this particular American law enforcement organization:

http://www.leap.cc/cms/index.php

Incidentally, there are plenty of stories on that site about how the American law enforcement system screws over not only civilians, but honest cops as well.

PPS: If you were just talking international vs. American, I'm mostly only familiar with the American system (although I have followed stories from Canada and the UK a bit).

Sleepy in Seoul

Joined: 15 May 2004
Location: Going in ever decreasing circles until I eventually disappear up my own fundament - in NZ

Posted: Sun Mar 21, 2010 6:26 am Post subject:

I have no problems with your statements about the American police, however if you expect police everywhere to be the same, I think you'll be mistaken (and this is from the perspective of an ex-policeman from Queensland).

bacasper

Joined: 26 Mar 2007

Posted: Sun Mar 21, 2010 6:43 am Post subject:

Sleepy in Seoul wrote:

I have no problems with your statements about the American police, however if you expect police everywhere to be the same, I think you'll be mistaken (and this is from the perspective of an ex-policeman from Queensland).

I have had experiences with police in more countries than I care to remember (even a Communist one) and have been astounded by the similarities in mindset I have seen.

Street Magic

Joined: 23 Sep 2009

Posted: Sun Mar 21, 2010 9:37 am Post subject:

Sleepy in Seoul wrote:

Do you support the war on drugs? Answering that question alone will probably go a long way towards telling me whether your career as an officer would be objectionable to me in the same way the American police system in general is to me. And if you believe the war on drugs is a matter of public safety, then I recommend checking out Brecher's Consumers Union Report on Licit and Illicit Drugs, starting with the very first modern prohibition law, which outlawed opium smoking in Chinese opium dens specifically because of miscegenation anxieties regarding Caucasian "young women" being "corrupted" by Chinese men.

Sleepy in Seoul

Joined: 15 May 2004
Location: Going in ever decreasing circles until I eventually disappear up my own fundament - in NZ

Posted: Mon Mar 22, 2010 1:04 am Post subject:

I think you will find that America is one of the few (if not the only country) countries in the world to publicly declare war on an inanimate object. Why would I support anything that America does? Whether or not I and my ex-career are objectionable to you means nothing to me. When you've gone out at the pointy end of law enforcement and done the job for a couple of years, putting your safety at possible risk each and every day, then and only then will your opinion start to mean much to me. I've had friends murdered at work, shot, stabbed, almost run over (deliberately) and even had a couple of acquaintances sent away for well-deserved spells in gaol. All of that means a hell of a lot more than the opinion of someone I've never met. Anyway, what the hell does my opinion mean? I was employed as a police officer to enforce the law. I did that, regardless of my opinions (most of the time). If you don't like the law then set about changing it; whinging and complaining about police officers doing their job won't change anything. If you don't like the law, then use it to change what the law is.

Street Magic

Joined: 23 Sep 2009

Posted: Mon Mar 22, 2010 3:40 am Post subject:

Sleepy in Seoul wrote:

I think you will find that America is one of the few (if not the only country) countries in the world to publicly declare war on an inanimate object. Why would I support anything that America does?

Sleepy in Seoul wrote:

Whether or not I and my ex-career are objectionable to you means nothing to me. When you've gone out at the pointy end of law enforcement and done the job for a couple of years, putting your safety at possible risk each and every day, then and only then will your opinion start to mean much to me. I've had friends murdered at work, shot, stabbed, almost run over (deliberately) and even had a couple of acquaintances sent away for well-deserved spells in gaol. All of that means a hell of a lot more than the opinion of someone I've never met.

You're the one who's gone out of his way to inquire about my opinion in the first place. It's not as though I'm forcing you to read and respond to my posts.

And why should I become a member of the profession I object to? That's like saying until you've earned a living violating the law for a couple of years, putting your safety at "possible risk" (the risk of risk? /redundant) each and every day, then and only then will your opinion start to mean much to criminals.

Anyway, I already linked to both a thread and a separate site with commentary from police officers who feel the same way I do, so feel free to take their word for it instead. Or barring that, feel free to not care about my opinion by not caring about my opinion instead of questioning it and then getting indignant about the straightforward answers I give you.

Sleepy in Seoul wrote:

Anyway, what the hell does my opinion mean? I was employed as a police officer to enforce the law. I did that, regardless of my opinions (most of the time). If you don't like the law then set about changing it; whinging and complaining about police officers doing their job won't change anything. If you don't like the law, then use it to change what the law is.

That's a pretty ridiculous claim:

1) This is a forum. People exchange ideas and opinions for the sake of discussion.

2) If discussing topics had no effect on public opinion, there'd be no such thing as political advertising.

3) I've heard that last line by plenty of US cops pre-decriminalization in the states which have successfully voted through the legislative measure following massive grassroots campaigns spurred on in large part by internet discussions like this one. Unsurprisingly, as soon as the law was changed through the proper legislative process, many police officers openly protested and even refused to uphold the new law because they didn't approve of it.

(For some opinions from average Joe cops, here's a police site with responses to the same article-- just scroll down, the article itself was taken down for whatever reason)

Notice how the officer comments are unanimously opposed to simple cannabis decriminalization even though it's the law.

Taken from the parenthetical link, here's a quote from one of those supposedly agenda-less cops just doing his job:

Quote:

Wow, this is amazing. I feel bad for the LEO's in Mass. Sadly it seems more and more places are finding a way to be softer on people who break the law by smoking marijuana. Whats next, armed robbery becomes a common and everyday ordeal so we make it a non criminal offense? Its illegal, keep it illegal, and keep fighting the war on drugs. Why be soft? The excuse about it ruining future job prospects is stupid, don't smoke it.

Or this nugget of wisdom from another experienced officer who, by your reasoning, is a well qualified expert on the topic because of what he's gone through:

Quote:

Its too bad this state passed such a poor law. I can not believe that individuals can smoke weed on the streets, and truly law enforcement officers can't do anything about it. I can't believe the voters voted to accept this change, I truly don't believe they knew how much an "ounce" of marijuana is or what can be done with it.

Thanks, but I think I'll stick to Breecher when I need a reputable opinion on this matter.

4) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_disobedience

Sometimes, people choose not to follow unjust laws. Just because something is law doesn't mean that something is right or should be followed until remedied legally.

5)

Sleepy in Seoul wrote:

I was employed as a police officer to enforce the law. I did that, regardless of my opinions (most of the time).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuremberg_Defense

And while that can be bad enough on its own, it's even worse once you realize most American cops anyway only claim to work that way when it's about issues they personally agree with (see #3).

-------------------------------

But yes, thank you for having decided to risk your life.

If you want, I can call up my little brother and have him lecture you about how he's risking his life voluntarily deploying to Afghanistan in a few months. Unlike you though, he can actually have a reasonable conversation about the merits of the war there without insisting everyone discussing the topic needs to go through basic training before they're qualified to talk about it.

Which reminds me:

Sleepy in Seoul wrote:

You may be right that foreigners can join the U.S. military, but let me reiterate: I neither want nor need to have a lobotomy at this stage of my life.

You didn't have a problem criticizing them without having served, did you?

Way to show everyone cops aren't hypocrites.

Sleepy in Seoul

Joined: 15 May 2004
Location: Going in ever decreasing circles until I eventually disappear up my own fundament - in NZ

Posted: Mon Mar 22, 2010 4:58 pm Post subject:

Street Magic wrote:

Sleepy in Seoul wrote:

I think you will find that America is one of the few (if not the only country) countries in the world to publicly declare war on an inanimate object. Why would I support anything that America does?

Sleepy in Seoul wrote:

You're the one who's gone out of his way to inquire about my opinion in the first place. It's not as though I'm forcing you to read and respond to my posts.
Fair enough.

And why should I become a member of the profession I object to? That's like saying until you've earned a living violating the law for a couple of years, putting your safety at "possible risk" (the risk of risk? /redundant) each and every day, then and only then will your opinion start to mean much to criminals.
That's just plain stupid. And from reading your confused and badly-written posts, I'm grateful that you aren't in the police.

Anyway, I already linked to both a thread and a separate site with commentary from police officers who feel the same way I do, so feel free to take their word for it instead. Or barring that, feel free to not care about my opinion by not caring about my opinion instead of questioning it and then getting indignant about the straightforward answers I give you.
I don't care abut your opinion. I'm just here to correct your mistakes then I'm gone.

Sleepy in Seoul wrote:

That's a pretty ridiculous claim:

1) This is a forum. People exchange ideas and opinions for the sake of discussion.
OK.

2) If discussing topics had no effect on public opinion, there'd be no such thing as political advertising.
I wish there was no such thing.

3) I've heard that last line by plenty of US cops pre-decriminalization in the states which have successfully voted through the legislative measure following massive grassroots campaigns spurred on in large part by internet discussions like this one. Unsurprisingly, as soon as the law was changed through the proper legislative process, many police officers openly protested and even refused to uphold the new law because they didn't approve of it.
Damned lies. From the article to which you have linked:

Quote:

"We're just basically not enforcing it right now," said Mark R. Laverdure, chief of police in Clinton, a Central Massachusetts town of about 8,000 residents, who said the law was so poorly written that it cannot be enforced.

There is no comment whatsoever to support your allegation that the police aren't enforcing it because they don't like it. Your comment is either a lie or you are an idiot.

(For some opinions from average Joe cops, here's a police site with responses to the same article-- just scroll down, the article itself was taken down for whatever reason)

Notice how the officer comments are unanimously opposed to simple cannabis decriminalization even though it's the law.
Unanimously opposed to cannabis decriminalisation? More lies. Some of the comments there don't even mention cannabis at all but are about speeding and ID. Again, either you are a liar or an idiot.

Taken from the parenthetical link, here's a quote from one of those supposedly agenda-less cops just doing his job:

Quote:

Thanks, but I think I'll stick to Breecher when I need a reputable opinion on this matter.
Who the hell is Breecher?

4) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_disobedience

Sometimes, people choose not to follow unjust laws. Just because something is law doesn't mean that something is right or should be followed until remedied legally.
Fine, do what you like. But be prepared to face the consequences.

5)

Sleepy in Seoul wrote:

I was employed as a police officer to enforce the law. I did that, regardless of my opinions (most of the time).

Sleepy in Seoul wrote:

You may be right that foreigners can join the U.S. military, but let me reiterate: I neither want nor need to have a lobotomy at this stage of my life.

You didn't have a problem criticizing them without having served, did you?
Again, off topic. Also taken out of context. What does this have to do with the topic?.

Way to show everyone cops aren't hypocrites.
Way to show everyone that you are a liar or a fool. Possibly both. And where did I show that I was a hypocrite? Not that I care really, because by now I can't believe anything that you say.

Street Magic

Joined: 23 Sep 2009

Posted: Mon Mar 22, 2010 7:47 pm Post subject:

Sleepy in Seoul wrote:

Street Magic wrote:

Sleepy in Seoul wrote:

I think you will find that America is one of the few (if not the only country) countries in the world to publicly declare war on an inanimate object. Why would I support anything that America does?

What? Most countries have controlled substances. Even the Netherlands practices "non-enforcement" rather than permitting explicit liberty when it comes to cannabis in order to comply with the UN International Narcotics Control Bureau's standards. Like it or not, America has a great deal of sway over the UN's policies on issues such as drug control, which is why I can't even come up with a single developed nation that doesn't at least pay some lip service to unjustified prohibition measures. Whether or not you refer to it as a "war" is a trivial observation.
You called it a 'war on drugs', not me. It is nice to see that you are noticing that your own comments are trivial, though.

You apparently have a problem understanding elementary nuance. I could care less what label you or I or anyone else might choose in referring to prohibition. You addressed the label instead of the actual issue. Hence trivial. Unlike with your response, I didn't trivially focus on the term; I just happened to use it in the process of making my actual point.

That said, I think this belongs here:

Sleepy in Seoul wrote:

Way to show everyone that you are a liar or a fool. Possibly both.

Sleepy in Seoul wrote:

You're the one who's gone out of his way to inquire about my opinion in the first place. It's not as though I'm forcing you to read and respond to my posts.
Fair enough.

And why should I become a member of the profession I object to? That's like saying until you've earned a living violating the law for a couple of years, putting your safety at "possible risk" (the risk of risk? /redundant) each and every day, then and only then will your opinion start to mean much to criminals.
That's just plain stupid. And from reading your confused and badly-written posts, I'm grateful that you aren't in the police.

Yeah, well that's just plain stupid. That counts as an argument, right?

Incidentally, I like how your criticism of my writing style directly follows the one part where I mimicked your writing style.

Anyway, I already linked to both a thread and a separate site with commentary from police officers who feel the same way I do, so feel free to take their word for it instead. Or barring that, feel free to not care about my opinion by not caring about my opinion instead of questioning it and then getting indignant about the straightforward answers I give you.
I don't care abut your opinion. I'm just here to correct your mistakes then I'm gone.

Alright.

Sleepy in Seoul wrote:

Quote:

There is no comment whatsoever to support your allegation that the police aren't enforcing it because they don't like it. Your comment is either a lie or you are an idiot.

Or you're incredibly naive and incapable of simple inferences.

Here are the two official complaints:

Quote:

Many complain that their current citation books lack a check-off box for marijuana possession and they have yet to receive updated ticket books, although temporary forms are available through a state website.

So the law's unworkable because they're missing a check-off box on their tickets, which they don't even need to improvise since temporary forms were available. Yeah, that sounds plausible.

Quote:

Before the law was changed, officers could arrest them, or threaten them with arrest to force them to show identification. Now, they say they cannot force users to show IDs, and cannot arrest them if they refuse to identify themselves.

And here's your "damned lie." Even one of the cop commenters figured out how much BS this excuse was:

Quote:

Police can't arrest for refusing to identify? What about traffic infractions?

I can't believe you seriously believe the MA police never had to issue non-criminal citations for any other minor infractions before this law was passed.

(For some opinions from average Joe cops, here's a police site with responses to the same article-- just scroll down, the article itself was taken down for whatever reason)

Notice how the officer comments are unanimously opposed to simple cannabis decriminalization even though it's the law.
Unanimously opposed to cannabis decriminalisation? More lies. Some of the comments there don't even mention cannabis at all but are about speeding and ID. Again, either you are a liar or an idiot.

Or you're pedantically grasping at straws.

The closest I can find to support for the new law is the guy who said he was OK with a citation for small quantity first time offenders, which isn't the law in question. Every comment with an explicit stance on this law was opposed to it. If that doesn't count as unanimous opposition, I could call it "overwhelming opposition," although that wouldn't really change anything aside from falsely implying that some of the comments actually supported the law.

Taken from the parenthetical link, here's a quote from one of those supposedly agenda-less cops just doing his job:

Quote:

Or this nugget of wisdom from another experienced officer who, by your reasoning, is a well qualified expert on the topic because of what he's gone through:
My reasoning, from a previous post, is that an experienced police officer's opinion may start to mean something to me, NOT that they are a 'well qualified expert on the topic'. Learn to read, for God's sake.

Learn to infer. You dismissed an opinion backed by the highly reputable criminology historian I cited because I personally didn't have experience as a police officer. You placed experience as an officer over academic expertise in this discussion topic.

Quote:

Thanks, but I think I'll stick to Breecher when I need a reputable opinion on this matter.
Who the hell is Breecher?

I threw in an extra "e" in his name there. It's "Brecher."

He's the guy I mentioned in that three sentence post you apparently didn't read but somehow managed to respond to anyway.

Not surprising (unless that question was just meant to point out the extra "e," in which case, nice job finding an extra "e").

4) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_disobedience

Sometimes, people choose not to follow unjust laws. Just because something is law doesn't mean that something is right or should be followed until remedied legally.
Fine, do what you like. But be prepared to face the consequences.

I'm not currently in the habit of breaking the law. I just reserve the right to.

Thoreau would agree with your assessment about facing the consequences.

5)

Sleepy in Seoul wrote:

I was employed as a police officer to enforce the law. I did that, regardless of my opinions (most of the time).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuremberg_Defense

And while that can be bad enough on its own, it's even worse once you realize most American cops anyway only claim to work that way when it's about issues they personally agree with (see #3).
What? Work what way? I don't understand what you are talking about in your last sentence. Are you in some way trying to equate police officers with Nazis? If you don't agree with the law, don't become a police officer. If you are a police officer, then it's your job to enforce the law, regardless of your feelings. Don't like it? Then quit.

I wasn't equating the police with Nazis. I was equating the Nuremberg defense with the Nuremberg defense. "Just following orders" is rarely a good justification for anything. And often enough, people will say they're just following orders when it involves tasks they actually agree with. I don't see how you were able to respond to this same argument a couple paragraphs ago without realizing I was referencing it again here.

And yeah, it's totally the officer's job to enforce the law regardless of his feelings, unless his ticket book is missing a check-off box and he doesn't feel like picking up the readily available updated version.

-------------------------------

But yes, thank you for having decided to risk your life.

If you want, I can call up my little brother and have him lecture you about how he's risking his life voluntarily deploying to Afghanistan in a few months. Unlike you though, he can actually have a reasonable conversation about the merits of the war there without insisting everyone discussing the topic needs to go through basic training before they're qualified to talk about it.
What does that have to do with anything? That has nothing to do with the thread. Concentrate!! I'm sure that you can stay on topic if you try. (Well, not really.)

You should work on your lateral thinking skills. Maybe start incorporating crossword puzzles into your daily routine. Supposed to ward off dementia in old age.

But to answer your question, you made a meaningless argument from authority and lectured me about how tough and dangerous your job was instead of sticking to the actual discussion topic. I responded by pointing out that my little brother could make an equally meaningless argument from authority, but he wouldn't because he's humble enough to realize soldiers aren't the only people who are capable of having compelling opinions about the war.

Which reminds me:

Sleepy in Seoul wrote:

You may be right that foreigners can join the U.S. military, but let me reiterate: I neither want nor need to have a lobotomy at this stage of my life.

You didn't have a problem criticizing them without having served, did you?
Again, off topic. Also taken out of context. What does this have to do with the topic?.

You made an argument from authority. This is hypocritical when you just recently expressed opinions about the military even though you didn't serve.

Way to show everyone cops aren't hypocrites.
Way to show everyone that you are a liar or a fool. Possibly both. And where did I show that I was a hypocrite? Not that I care really, because by now I can't believe anything that you say.

I'm sure I'd have a hard time believing a series of ideas beyond my understanding too.

Feel free to have the last word if you have more to add. You're one of those constant misinterpretation types I try not to argue with for more than a few exchanges.

bucheon bum

Joined: 16 Jan 2003

Posted: Mon Mar 29, 2010 12:23 pm Post subject:

Drug lab scandal jepordizes hundreds of cases

Quote:

San Francisco prosecutors may be forced to drop a total of 1,400 cases in the growing scandal at the police drug lab, including hundreds in which defendants have been placed in drug treatment programs.

1400 drug cases? In SF alone? What a waste of resources...

Display posts from previous:

	Korean Job Discussion Forums Forum Index -> Current Events Forum	All times are GMT - 8 Hours
Page 1 of 1

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum

TEFL International Supports Dave's ESL Cafe