Albuquerque police to undergo random steroid testing

a reply to: Boadicea

Nope, sorry. When my life, the lives of my family or friends may depend on your actions, you should be held to a higher standard. Some steroids have serious side effects and if going in to a killing rage is one of them you don't need to have that responsibility.

a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

That's the down side of all of this and I honestly believe it's on purpose. They're giving them a chance to stop taking it and for it to clear their system.

I'll probably get flamed for this, but is it the steroids or the overtly macho nature of American culture. Seems like everyone wants to be the tough guy opening up cans of "whoop ass" where ever they go. Whether in the banking industry, politics, Hollywood , military or police force.

originally posted by: damwel
not good enough, it needs to be MANDATORY steroid, HGH and testosterone testing. I am certain a lot of the aggressiveness in police are tied to this.

Having worked in the military legal system, I can tell you that random screenings will catch more people than known mandatory ones. It's easy to avoid detection during scheduled mandatory screenings, but doing them randomly puts a bigger responsibility on the individual to avoid using altogether.

I think this is a good plan, assuming that it's enforced properly and frequently enough.

originally posted by: woodwardjnr
I'll probably get flamed for this, but is it the steroids or the overtly macho nature of American culture. Seems like everyone wants to be the tough guy opening up cans of "whoop ass" where ever they go. Whether in the banking industry, politics, Hollywood , military or police force.

It's obvious you don't live in America--the wussification of Americans (men and women) is ongoing everyday. There's not much "overtly macho nature" in America anymore. I think that you're still holding on to the 80s and the "Rambo" mentality.

I think that one of the real issues is that people in the (social) media sphere call things "excessive force" when it isn't, and they fail to take into account training and the actions of the suspect against the police officer. When a culture is bombarded with people complaining about the overabundance of machismo, I would argue that it's almost a subliminal attach that makes most people see any use of force as excessive.

There absolutely are cases of LEO brutality, over-excessive use of force, or plain murder and manslaughter, but I would argue that for every video posted on ATS that argues excessive force, half of them are justified. I would argue that we have a perception problem more than a machismo problem.

But like you say...I'll probably get flamed for this, too.

a reply to: ghaleon12

The idea of individual rights in this case, would seem legit, but that'd probably also hold that an individual's "wrong", would solely effect themselves, but that isn't the case with this.

That's an excellent point, and one which I confess I did not think of... however, doesn't that just demonstrate the need for tort reform as well? As opposed to the deep pocket approach? And a system which is financially out of reach for most people, and manipulated beyond recognition by the wealthy? Our "justice" system is anything but just.

Bottom line for me is that if inalienable rights were respected to begin with, this would not even be an issue. The more we refuse to live by the principles that made us great (once), the more we compound the problems.

originally posted by: DAVID64
a reply to: Boadicea

Nope, sorry. When my life, the lives of my family or friends may depend on your actions, you should be held to a higher standard.

Okay. Fair enough. Do you drive? Every time you get behind the wheel and put it in motion, you have the lives and well-being of hundreds -- perhaps thousands -- of others depending on your actions.

How about we just demand that every driver must pass a piss test before driving? Not just random tests, not just once a month or even once a day either, because it would be too easy to pass a test and then indulge in one's drug of choice and then drive. Nope. Every single solitary time. And if a false positive comes up -- oh well! The test is always right, so too bad so sad. If a false negative comes up and someone dies or is injured -- oh well! The test is always right, so too bad so sad.

I would hope that you agree that would be a colossal waste of time, money and energy -- not to mention the gross violation of human rights, all in a misguided -- albeit noble -- effort to secure safety. That doesn't mean that we must turn a blind eye to steroid use by LE... but we can find a happy medium.

Some steroids have serious side effects and if going in to a killing rage is one of them you don't need to have that responsibility.

You are right. But random testing is not the only answer, nor -- in my opinion -- the best answer. More important, violent killing rages are not the first or only indication of steroid use. Nor is police brutality confined to only those using steroids. The answer lies in training and supervision -- not violating inalienable rights.

a reply to: DAVID64

Not a bad move. That's a very good possibility to explain some of the aggression.

Random testing can work out well. The way the military does it, it tends to be a no-notice sort of thing, as in, "show up and go in a cup, no option to decline.

a reply to: DAVID64

I am interested to see if it clears up any behavioral issues that are seen there.

In my own town, a former classmate turned cop was fired from the squad for being the supplier for the steroids. The cops were at their worst during that time locally, and it was rather shortlived (he was on the local force for about 2 years).

They shuffled a few out over the next few years, and turned over all patrol positions. All the folks who had the forearms that looked like phone poles were gone.

Things are considerably better, although it takes a long time to rebuild that trust.

a reply to: DAVID64

I believe it' s a matter of two things. We have qualified Army/Marine/Navy personell that automatically become local law enforcement, when presenting their credentials. They are still thinkin we are Taliban/ Al-queda (U.S. Citizens). They are still on the power trip. If they are taking steroids/testosterone, that's a no go. It creates male aggresiveness. As bioligists, we recognize this.
Some, not all, went to fight in the middle east to satisfy their blood thirst.

As a side note, this is not to be an flammatory response. I just want to create a conversation.

a reply to: woodwardjnr


I think there's a lot of instances where the aggressor isn't on steroids, but I believe if an officer is to take steroids the risks of an incident happening increases. Steroid testing is a joke in the police force, just look at Ronnie Coleman, ex Mr Olympia Champion (blatantly on huge amounts of steroids) - he was an officer. Although he does seem like a big friendly giant.