TexasCHLforum.com

sjf,

Respectfully, we're not speaking the same language. I know that you think I'm somehow supporting what happened here. I am not. You can call that straw man if you want, but I don't follow.

Inherently non-optional is a nice way of saying that the traffic stops were not voluntary.

sjfcontrol wrote: You're implying that since an off-duty cop can pull over and ticket (or even arrest) somebody that has broken the law in his presence, that THAT Justifies their redirecting them into a parking lot to take a government survey. That, sir, is a classic straw man argument. Fail.

No, sir... I'm not implying that at all. If you find it offensive that I don't want to fire someone, that's OK.. But please hang me out to dry on my positions, not on a position that I didn't take. I'm more than capable of making a bad argument, but I'm certainly not arguing what you're suggesting above.

To me, it wouldn't make a difference if they were wearing Magnum PI shorts and Hawaiian T-shrits while redirection traffic if they were identifying themsevles. As LEOs, they're authorized to stop us on or off duty within jurisdictional bounds, even if they're wearing moo-moos. I'll skip more creative descriptions of interesting Austin attire. It's inherently non-optional to have a LEO direct you to stop and is inherently cohesive. Dress doesn't matter. Mode of transportation doesn't matter. They were probably illegal stops, but because no one got in trouble we don't get to figure that out definitively.

Stated another way to be perfectly clear: They have the authority to stop. That doesn't make it "right" and it doesn't make it legal. And I do not agree with what happened.

No offense intended to those that own Hawaiian T-shirts..

sjfcontrol wrote: Straw man

If it makes you feel any better, I understand his point: The public can't distinguish between on and off duty if a uniform and red/blue lights were involved. I'm not misrepresenting his argument (straw man). I'm simply stating that on or off duty it makes absolutely no difference. Nor does it make a difference in terms of what they were wearing or what they were driving.

Oldgringo wrote:HORSEFEATHERS! If they were in uniform and using marked city police cars, they were on duty!

I think "on duty" as more to do with who is forking over the payroll than what they are wearing and what they are driving... I'll let the LEOs detail their departmental policy on car use and uniform policy on/off duty.

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. :-)

gigag04 wrote: 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.

I find that amusing...

I agree with Joker here - who knows what went on. This might have been authorized as something else, implemented improperly, or a hundred other ways that don't make it an egregious issue. Ever had someone work for you that didn't do what you intended for them to do? A difference in policy and implementation perhaps? Again, I don't know that was the case, but you guys don't know the other way either. To call for someone to be tossed out of his/her profession based on a general description that lacks details, it's just smells a bit harsh too me.

Show me that it was intentional, calculated, or just reckless and I'll call for assassination of offspring too. :-)

Incrementalism means a lot to me. However, this got swatted in the public view, albeit without the department officially apologizing. If you were hoping that it got spun into a bigger deal, we'd need to see an arrest out of it - or some other fruits of the poisoned tree that are actionable. I mean what outcome do you want? The department cut it out. Fire the officers? Sure they bad choices, but I don't think they should be career ending ones. No everyone agrees.

We're all armchair here. I don't approve of these actions and we have that in common. It just makes my hair stand up at like a 3 out of 10 versus a 8 out of 10, that's all. My perspective maybe different as I've been through much more aggressive and oppressive tactics.

The LEOs on this forum take a lot of heat, but I'm glad they are here. I think it takes a strong stomach for them to stick around. It gives us civilians a valuable point of interaction and also shows that they share some common interests. I just don't think we should tie them in by proxy, that's all. I've never seen them hold a strong line of support for all LEO actions and indicating that they do so - well, you'll need to show me. Besides, the media loves to spin and until we hear both sides, it's easy to judge incorrectly.

Abraham wrote:Only two (I think) LEO's have commented and both seem to think nothing wrong was done.

Don't put words into their mouths and don't take the misdeeds of another officer out on them. They're not the LEOs that did this stuff and they're not part of the same department.
As wrong as it was to do, I'm unaware of any arrests that came out of it. Inconvenient, oppressive (maybe), but did it do any lasting harm to anyone? I don't support it, but there are bigger problems to look at.

I think the department got the messages as they responded to complaints - not really accepting blame.

mojo84 wrote:It appears we only have to obey the commands of a uniformed officer sometimes. Others, we don't since they are off-duty.

On-duty / Off-duty, doesn't matter.
Who else are you going to hire to siphon off traffic?

Jaguar wrote: The other question would be, what would have happened had they detected alcohol with their passive sensor, or convinced someone who had been drinking to blow?

That's my question too.. As soon as a "voluntary" stop leads to an arrest, you've taken me from being suspicious to being sure that they are doing the wrong thing. I'm with you guys - on the grand scale of getting bent out of shape for an action of law enforcement, this one is pretty low on my list...

Jaguar wrote:Are random DUI checkpoints legal in Texas?

Not currently.

I believe that APD uses some other sort of "checkpoint" to get drivers leaving downtown to speak to them at some high traffic times, but I can't find references to them.. Or I can't come up with the right name. DUI checkpoints are not legal, although there is constant legislation around their status in Texas. It may be some sort of "roll down your window" to pass traffic control, but again, I can't find the right name or policy, whatever that is worth.

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.

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.

suthdj wrote: Right or worng is not dependent on who is paying you.

Just sayin' - to me, it's not any different than "enforcing" invalid 30.06 signs at the gun show..... Well, maybe a little different as gun shows are opt-in...

It's not a LEO thing, it was setup by the Feds. LEOs are hired (off duty) to enforce things that private parties want.. Think about it the next time you see enforcement of 30.06 at your City owned facility gun show. They were asked to do a job and they were doing it... Should they know better? Maybe. I don't blame the LEOs..

"It just doesn't seem right that they should be able to do any of it," she said. "If it's voluntary, it's voluntary, and none of it felt voluntary."