North Texas motorists stoped by Feds to take DNA and blood

[talltex]

This will never happen, it's de facto personnel funding for most departments. Allows them to pay officers poorly by subsidizing their "off-duty" security job with use of the car etc.

What needs to happen is better guidance and oversight of what jobs are appropriately "subsidized", and frankly the officers involved in this incident need to be disciplined as an example to others of what not to do. I'd like to see the TX AG come out with a position letter against this too. Bad judgment itself should have consequences, even if minor, not a complete whitewash in the name of "it didn't turn out too bad".

I agree that the departments need to take a hard look at what type of jobs they are hiring the off-duty officers out to do, but I don't think you can discipline or fire the officers for doing a job that the FWPD contracted to do. The federal contractor working for the NHTSA contacted the FWPD's traffic division and arranged to hire the off duty officers, and that's where the fault lies...I doubt that the supervisor that arranged it ever really looked at exactly what all the job entailed...just thought," it's for the NHTSA so it's fine".

[Oldgringo]

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

The uniform and the flashing light is all that Mr. and Mrs. John Q. Public have to go by. Otherwise, it's muggers and sodomites, etc. forcing them off the road. Firings and/or other disciplinary actions, all the way to the top, are in order.

[talltex]

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?

Come on now...what does the liberal media have to do with this, and why throw Obama's name into it ? No one with the department has denied any part of the story...in fact they have apologized for citizens being "inconvenienced" and the Chief said they would look more closely at any future arrangements to see that they didn't have officers providing assistance to projects that might not be in the best interest of the public. What factual information do you think the media has withheld that would change the current perception?

[texanjoker]

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?

Come on now...what does the liberal media have to do with this, and why throw Obama's name into it ? No one with the department has denied any part of the story...in fact they have apologized for citizens being "inconvenienced" and the Chief said they would look more closely at any future arrangements to see that they didn't have officers providing assistance to projects that might not be in the best interest of the public. What factual information do you think the media has withheld that would change the current perception?

Way too many stories pop up on this forum where people immediately call for firings, ect without knowing the facts. If they are going to believe the media for everything where does it stop? There is nothing wrong with an apology if people were inconvenienced. That doesn't mean they did anything wrong or right, but shows a good attitude with the department. The key is that the department is looking to see if any policy violations occurred. If they did then the officers will face appropriate discipline if warranted, and if not they will be cleared. Unfortunately we have people on here calling for their being fired, ect based on a news article that doesn't provide proof of any wrong doing. I think the news media should find out what authority the feds have to do this and provide an update as to what the officers were doing. For all we know they may be doing something entirely legal or they may be doing something illegal while wasting millions of tax payer dollars. We just don't know and it is premature to call for firings, ect based on one news article.

[cb1000rider]

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. :-)

[cb1000rider]

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. :-)

[sjfcontrol]

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. :-)

Straw man

[cb1000rider]

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.

[sjfcontrol]

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.

No.
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.

[cb1000rider]

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]

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..

And another straw man to cover for the first. I said nothing about firing people, or what they were wearing. And nobody said off duty officers couldn't pull over people that have broken the law. And I have no idea what the inherently non-optional ... Inherently cohesive stuff is supposed to mean. Shear babble.

[cb1000rider]

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.

[gigag04]

Traffic stops?

This thread gets more entertaining as time goes on.

[talltex]

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. :-)

I understand the point you are making...that they still have the same authority regardless of who is paying them, but that is exactly what I think is wrong...they are being paid to use official vehicles while wearing uniforms, giving the appearance of being on duty, to accomplish the goals of a private company that is paying for that impression. To anyone that disagrees, have them park their personal vehicle in the roadway and try to divert traffic in their civilian clothes and see how that works out. An off duty officer may have the legal authority to pull me over, in an unmarked vehicle wearing shorts and tee shirt, but it will be difficult, because unless I see an official looking vehicle with official looking lights flashing, I'll most likely ignore it.

[mojo84]

Again, just because something is legal, doesn't mean it's right.

How many of you that are not defense attorneys are glad to see someone that is obviously guilty walk because of a technicality? Just because out may be legal for the cop to do this, it doesn't make it right. Apparently the Chief agrees.

This is much different than a cop working security as a second job.