TexasCHLforum.com

Jaguar wrote:It looks like some believe that wasting tax payer money is no reason to fire anyone. I do not know if anyone deserves to be fired or not – but saying, “all they did was waste tax payer's money, no need to fire anyone” seems a little disingenuous to me.

If I waste my employer's money I would be canned.

But, but, but - have you seen how much money they waste in D.C.? Well, I have and those guys should be fired. It has becomes commonplace for many in public occupations to waste tax payer's money, my money, and no one is ever held accountable. I agree to pay it because the guys with guns who take it say they will use it for greater good than I would (I only using it to feed my family, pay my mortgage and such) when in fact it is often wasted with no consequences to those who actively flush my money down a toilet.

Were those who work for the public held as accountable as those who work for private industry we wouldn't be in this hand basket headed God know where.

[/rant]

goose wrote:

sjfcontrol wrote:I find it inconceivable that some on this forum see no difference between blocking/controlling a public road to alleviate an unsafe condition (transport of mobile homes, turbine blades, or other oversized objects, or directing traffic for temporary heavy traffic condition around an event letting out) -- and redirecting traffic in order for somebody to perform a survey.

I think the calls for heads to roll is a bit much, but I do think this activity should cease.

Oh, believe me, plenty of us see the difference. Not all, it would seem.

cb1000rider wrote:

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.

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. 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 an illegal stop, but because no one got in trouble we don't get to figure that out definitively.

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

cb1000rider wrote:

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.

cb1000rider wrote:

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. :-)

talltex wrote:

Oldgringo wrote:Ease up, guys. Rather than belittle each other, let's ponder how it feels to be "stoped". Does it hurt or what, anybody?

Once again, the Oldgringo proves to be a master of the obvious...what are we all debating about? I checked in the penal code and "stoping" isn't even a misdemeanor! (and it only took 7 pages)

talltex wrote:

Cedar Park Dad wrote:

C-dub wrote:They make it sound so sweet and innocent. It may be, but the folks stopped at the recent one in FW said it sure didn't seem voluntary. Maybe that part wasn't explained very well or at all. Also, I don't remember hearing about any of the others This one in FW hit the national news.

If the LEO's have lights flashing on me, there's absolutely nothing voluntary about it.

Exactly! I read the methodology for how the random drivers were "selected" to participate: once the roadblock was in place, the third vehicle to approach was diverted into the survey area...after that, each time one of the "contractors" finished with a driver they indicated it to the officers and the next vehicle approaching was diverted each time. As the woman in the video stated, "it sure didn't seem voluntary"...and when she wanted to continue down Beech street without being diverted, she was still directed into the parking lot and a parking space, where she was "interviewed" anyway. That would be a different definition of "voluntary" than I'm aware of.

C-dub wrote:

“'I agree with our citizens concerns and I apologize for our participation. Any future Federal survey of this nature, which jeopardizes the public’s trust, will not be approved for the use of Fort Worth police.'

Chief Jeffrey Halstead

It appears as if they won't be doing this kind of thing again.

I heard this on the radio today and this was the first link I found about it.
http://m.amarillo.com/blog-post/ricky-t ... bmit-blood" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

gigag04 wrote:Any other articles on this?


I'm late to the party as all the "govt is out to get me" threads kind of run together so I passed over this one. The original link isn't working, and I haven't seen much else on the story.