TexasCHLforum.com

gigag04 wrote:

anygunanywhere wrote:

gigag04 wrote: Which of the 1st 10 amendments do you feel was "curb stomped" by the LEOs?

#4. Pretty obvious to most people.

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Anygunanywhere

I was hoping 4 would come up.

What unreasonable search did the LEOs conduct?

gigag04 wrote:

Cedar Park Dad wrote:

texanjoker wrote:

gigag04 wrote:

Cedar Park Dad wrote:Those who approved it should be fired. If no one approved it then the troopers who actually did it should be fired. If they had permission they should be suspended as "just following orders" is not an excuse, so "hey the boss said I could" doesn't cut it either.

Seems fair. I think they should burn down their homes too and take away their kids so that those vile offenders can't taint the next generation.

It is rather concerning that people believe everything they read in the liberal media. One would think people would want factual information vs jumping on the bandwagon without proof of any wrong doing. Just a thought, but the same liberal media thinks Obama is the greatest thing to happen to the US. Does that mean we are surrounded by Obama supporters?

Its interesting that those defending police curb stomping the Bill of Rights for a private employer are then calling others who disagree Obama supporters. Does that mean Obama haters hate the Constitution?

Which of the 1st 10 amendments do you feel was "curb stomped" by the LEOs?

cb1000rider wrote: Think an "off duty" LEO can't pull you over in his/her own unmarked car while wearing Magnum PI shorts and issue a citation? Think again. :-)

texanjoker wrote:

gigag04 wrote:

Cedar Park Dad wrote:Those who approved it should be fired. If no one approved it then the troopers who actually did it should be fired. If they had permission they should be suspended as "just following orders" is not an excuse, so "hey the boss said I could" doesn't cut it either.

Seems fair. I think they should burn down their homes too and take away their kids so that those vile offenders can't taint the next generation.

It is rather concerning that people believe everything they read in the liberal media. One would think people would want factual information vs jumping on the bandwagon without proof of any wrong doing. Just a thought, but the same liberal media thinks Obama is the greatest thing to happen to the US. Does that mean we are surrounded by Obama supporters?

jmra wrote:

Cedar Park Dad wrote:

MasterOfNone wrote:I wonder if a Burger King owner could hire off-duty officers to direct motorists into his drive-thru. They wouldn't be forced to buy anything; they could just say they're not interested and move on.

Well, I think I just discovered a new way to get more foot traffic into our church. Just close off 620 and Steiner Ranch and move all traffic through the parking lot. You can leave if you show a pew sheet and can summarize the sermon...

They say God works in mysterious ways...

Of course right before they leave the parking lot you could have a few more officers holding offering buckets.

MasterOfNone wrote:I wonder if a Burger King owner could hire off-duty officers to direct motorists into his drive-thru. They wouldn't be forced to buy anything; they could just say they're not interested and move on.

jmra wrote:

Right2Carry wrote:Let me see if I understand this correctly. The LEO's did nothing wrong yet they FORCED innocent civilians who were doing no wrong off the roadway into a parking lot to participate in a voluntary survey? I am unclear how FORCING motorists into a parking lot by LEO without probable cause or reasonable suspicion isn't some sort civil rights violation. These individuals were DIRECTED by LEO off the roadway into a parking lot to be SOLICITED by some type of government entity. However you cut this it appears to be an abuse of power by the LEO's involved and a full investigation should be initiated into those individuals who authorized this illegal activity under the pretense of a survey.

pretty much black and white. But I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for an investigation.

gigag04 wrote:The LEOs weren't administering any tests from what I read/watched.

They directed them into the parking lot. NHTSA folks spoke with them.

SewTexas wrote:aside from the LEO's, I don't think we're going to see eye-to-eye on that issue.

isn't there concern though that even if you just speak to them they are using that device to take a "passive" breath test? don't get me wrong, it's never going to test positive on me, I just find it invasive and flat out deceiving.

talltex wrote:

gigag04 wrote: Valid points from the outside looking in, but in my experience, "off duty" (notice the quotes I put) is signed up for through the department. I was never free to "sell" my services or otherwise seek out secondary employment.

Also - like it or not, "off duty" LEOs direct traffic on and even close or restrict public streets for private enterprise all time time...garages, churches, sporting events, parades, marathons.

Joker and I are familiar with how these things worksand have a context within which to frame a situation instead of reading hyped up over limited coverage stories and getting all in huff calling for firings, training, and other knee-jerk reactions to actually non-existent problems.

I don't disagree with your first statement about how you had to apply to the department to do those types of "off duty" jobs...I think that's the way most departments operate...which brings it right back to what my objection is: off duty officers, using official equipment, exerting official authority over the public, and being personally compensated for doing so by private groups, for those group's own benefit. I'm not talking about police escorting a funeral procession onto a highway, or directing traffic and closing down a street for a planned civic activity such as a parade, or managing the traffic snarl following a NASCAR race or Cowboys game. We all understand the need for those special situations. Those services benefit a large population group. I'm referring to examples that you put forth...a private corporation paying to have a lane shut down on a public roadway to give their employees a special privilege not available to the general public. The same goes for the Churches...they are a also a private business (albeit one with many special privileges already). Should all churches be able to access off duty officers...or just those big enough and rich enough to pay for it? You can sugarcoat it, but it still boils down to paying money to obtain the use of official authority, to benefit someone who doesn't have that authority otherwise. In this particular case, it's a private company, that was awarded an $8,000,000.00 contract by the NHTSA to obtain breath/tissue/blood samples, and they are using some of that money, to hire the FWPD to divert traffic off Beech Street to them...something THEY don't have any authority to do on their own.

cb1000rider wrote:

Cedar Park Dad wrote: You need retraining on "hey dude you can't just pull people over for no reason and shut down a road." What the heck is their hiring standards then?

Let me know how that works out for you... Seriously. I hope you've got a recording device.

The hiring standards for LEOs are public in most communities. Ever had a look at 'em? Ballpark - graduated high school, may or may not require some college, not a criminal. Not exactly high bar. Like you, I wish that they'd consider constitutionality before engaging in behavior, but clearly that isn't always the case. I don't know which would be worse - relatively low entry criteria and letting them think for themselves or having a strict "follow departmental policy" with no room on either side.

cb1000rider wrote:

Dave2 wrote: Earlier you said they should be "fired immediately" (emphasis mine). I disagree... The TX AG and FWPD IA dept should conduct investigations to determine who started making balls for the sole purpose of dropping them, and based on the outcome of said investigations file any necessary criminal charges and/or fire people for bad judgement (respectively).

Kudos for being able to disagree without resorting to name-calling...
Some re-training might be necessary, but starting over and taking new LEOs out of the raffle - might not solve the issue.

texanjoker wrote:

Cedar Park Dad wrote:

texanjoker wrote:

Cedar Park Dad wrote:

gigag04 wrote:

Cedar Park Dad wrote:

The fault lays at the operation directors feet for this one.... the local LEOs did them self no favors in participating.. but what we do not know is how the "survey" was presented to them. // For all we know, contractors motivated my money (no surveys taken, no money paid) may have implied or outright stated to the officers the method was approved by the department, or home land Security, or the POTUS.. or......... The officer being approached may not have realized they were being duped.. Or maybe bey they did and did not care.. All I know it the process was wrong, and LEOS helped.. I don't know how they came to be involved or what was told to them to get there involvement.

I don't buy that at all. Everyone involved on the LEO side from approving on down should be fired, immediately.

That's stupid.

I debated not even acknowledging the reply as I'm pretty sure you're trolling for responses...but there you go.


Everyone loosen up your tin foil and go for a walk or something.

Why is that stupid? What part of "using your official powers to detain people under color of law for an illegal purpose" is stupid?

Please provide a reason why that is any way legal, not an abuse, and the LEOs and those who approved shouldn't immediately be fired?

Technically they are innocent until proven guilty. As suck I think it is your responsibility in this debate to prove that they did something illegal and should be fired vs the person you are asking that of

What? Your standard for whether someone should be fired is if it can be proven ina court of law that they committed a crime?

Where was a court of law mentioned? Apparently you can't read because I stated it is your responsibility IN THIS DEBATE to prove they did something illegal and be fired as you called for. Just a thought, but if you haven't already done so, you should register on cop block so you can have free reign to bag on leo's.