North Texas motorists stoped by Feds to take DNA and blood

[anygunanywhere]

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?

The entire point of that post was to get some peoples attention about the liberal media and not believing everything they post w/o facts, but unfortunately that isn't sinking in. This is actually rather concerning that some are so gullible to believe everything the media spins as the truth. No where did I defend anything, in fact there is nothing to defend because there is no proof of any wrong doing in that article. The PD will look into it and nobody has answered whether or not the federal agency in question (not a private agency) has the authority do block a roadway (if that was done) and do this. That would answer a lot whether something was wrong or right. You keep missing that and call for firings, now talk about stomping on the Bill of Rights, wow .

Let me ask you this. Let's assume they are blocking a roadway for a federal agency doing a mandated survey and you believe they should be fired. How is this different then the 100s of leo's that block traffic for churches on Sundays? They interfere with public roadways to help at a religious event for private churches. Should they be fired as well? Where does it stop?

Apple vs orange. In your example, the LEOs are directing traffic around the church for traffic safety, not directing all citizens into the church for mandatory "volunteer" religion.

Anygunanywhere

[texanjoker]

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?

The entire point of that post was to get some peoples attention about the liberal media and not believing everything they post w/o facts, but unfortunately that isn't sinking in. This is actually rather concerning that some are so gullible to believe everything the media spins as the truth. No where did I defend anything, in fact there is nothing to defend because there is no proof of any wrong doing in that article. The PD will look into it and nobody has answered whether or not the federal agency in question (not a private agency) has the authority do block a roadway (if that was done) and do this. That would answer a lot whether something was wrong or right. You keep missing that and call for firings, now talk about stomping on the Bill of Rights, wow .

Let me ask you this. Let's assume they are blocking a roadway for a federal agency doing a mandated survey and you believe they should be fired. How is this different then the 100s of leo's that block traffic for churches on Sundays? They interfere with public roadways to help at a religious event for private churches. Should they be fired as well? Where does it stop?

Apple vs orange. In your example, the LEOs are directing traffic around the church for traffic safety, not directing all citizens into the church for mandatory "volunteer" religion.

Anygunanywhere

I had cut my post to reply to yours but you beat me to the punch.

How can you have it both ways? They are impeding my right away. As you posted I should be free to go about my business, ect and if I am not doing anything wrong I shouldn't be impeded. They are blocking the road and can cause me to be late for work(some of us do work on Sunday), an appointment, late to my kids soccer game and all the other reasons I have seen mentioned in this thread. What if I am an atheist(I am not)? Why should I be subjected to a uniformed leo (the uniform represents the govt) and a marked patrol car (representing the govt) shutting down a busy highway so people can attend a religious event? Apples or Oranges or your version of what they can or cannot do? We all know it is factual that they do this every Sunday because many of us have seen it at our churches.

However, I have yet to see somebody produce info whether or not the feds had the authority to allegedly shut a roadway down to do this. One could argue their survey is for safety as well. We all read about the fatal car crashes each weekend involving a drunk driver. We don't know what is factual or not because none of us were there. If they are spending 7 plus million you would think there would be more articles if they were violating peoples rights.

Lets be clear: IF the federal govt is violating peoples rights doing this, then THEY MUST BE STOPPED. In reality what a waste of 7 million tax payer dollars.

[mojo84]

I was hoping 4 would come up.

I was following this thread hoping that the LEOs in this forum would unanimously condemn the actions of the LEOs in the story.

Anygunanywhere

I think I have been pretty clear lets see facts of wrong doing. I won't condemn somebody based on a news article nor jump on the bandwagon without proof.

You should actually be glad we call for facts. It would be a whole lot easier at work to make decisions based on limited information vs. doing a complete investigation to uncover the truth. When I worked child abuse you can be sure all those accused of some pretty heinous crimes were very thankful I am meticulous when it comes to wanting to know factual information vs hearsay. (A news story is hearsay.) In many instances I cleared people that otherwise would have been charged with a crime.

I take it then you ALWAYS operate on just facts and never a hunch or gut feeling then. If that the case, you don't believe in pretextual stops and detentions? I find it quite concerning how you seem to give such little credence to the law abiding citizen's rights and so much leeway and benefit of the doubt to your Brotherhood. Why is it so upsetting to you what people's OPINION is if they are not the judge or on the jury? I notice many of your brotherhood do not always give the mere citizens the benefit of the doubt over on the policeone forum. Is there a double standard involved? Can you really have it both ways?

If you wouldn't be so ardently supportive of your bretherin when it is obvious they are in the wrong, your arguments would have much more credibility.

[gigag04]

I was hoping 4 would come up.

I was following this thread hoping that the LEOs in this forum would unanimously condemn the actions of the LEOs in the story.

Anygunanywhere

I think I have been pretty clear lets see facts of wrong doing. I won't condemn somebody based on a news article nor jump on the bandwagon without proof.

You should actually be glad we call for facts. It would be a whole lot easier at work to make decisions based on limited information vs. doing a complete investigation to uncover the truth. When I worked child abuse you can be sure all those accused of some pretty heinous crimes were very thankful I am meticulous when it comes to wanting to know factual information vs hearsay. (A news story is hearsay.) In many instances I cleared people that otherwise would have been charged with a crime.

I take it then you ALWAYS operate on just facts and never a hunch or gut feeling then. If that the case, you don't believe in pretextual stops and detentions? I find it quite concerning how you seem to give such little credence to the law abiding citizen's rights and so much leeway and benefit of the doubt to your Brotherhood. Why is it so upsetting to you what people's OPINION is if they are not the judge or on the jury? I notice many of your brotherhood do not always give the mere citizens the benefit of the doubt over on the policeone forum. Is there a double standard involved? Can you really have it both ways?

If you wouldn't be so ardently supportive of your bretherin when it is obvious they are in the wrong, your arguments would have much more credibility.

This is highly entertaining for me during an otherwise slow start to a holiday week. First - thanks to all the participants for making the slow, pre-holiday, and last workday of the week much more enjoyable.

So, in the above post, you indicate that it is plainly obvious that they are in the wrong. Others in the thread have offered similiar opinions and little to no factual basis on which to hang those opinions. None-the-less, opinions are free here. In saying there was wrong doing on the part of the LEOs, here, we disagree. I'm sure we can go back and forth, but at the end of the day, I can't get separate from this:

I have actually blocked traffic, worked off duty LEO jobs, deprived people of their rights under the color of law (with cause and often warrants). Furthermore, I have been detained during a traffic stop and criminal investigation, and I have been a free person, pursuing happiness with my family. There is little I haven't seen in police behavior, and I have been the first in line to address wrong, both in myself and others on the job. I have firm ethical convictions on what is acceptable behavior, and on these I do not waiver. I will not and cannot give much weight to the opinion of uninformed outsiders on this....and in the same breath I will add - I don't intend to offend in saying that. I really want to indicate that I will be at an impasse with anyone that calls for firing these guys or otherwise condemns them without know what exactly their involvement was, and how the courts would define and interpret their actions under the reasonable standard.

Stamp and shout and come at the LEOs on this forum and others all you want. It will not change that the activity described in the internet article has not been held by any court I know of to constitute a detention, stop, or otherwise seizure.



And to address the minor point:
LEOs block roads for private sector companies all the time. Many times they are windmill blades and I think that wind power is a waste of tax payer dollars and am strongly against their use. I am no more seized under 4A by diverting around a windmill blade escorted by privately paid, "off duty" motorcycle officers than I would be under the actions described in the original article. it is also done for mobile homes, funerals, oversized O&G equipment, cranes, tanks, and marathons. This is part of life.

[texanjoker]

I was hoping 4 would come up.

I was following this thread hoping that the LEOs in this forum would unanimously condemn the actions of the LEOs in the story.

Anygunanywhere

I think I have been pretty clear lets see facts of wrong doing. I won't condemn somebody based on a news article nor jump on the bandwagon without proof.

You should actually be glad we call for facts. It would be a whole lot easier at work to make decisions based on limited information vs. doing a complete investigation to uncover the truth. When I worked child abuse you can be sure all those accused of some pretty heinous crimes were very thankful I am meticulous when it comes to wanting to know factual information vs hearsay. (A news story is hearsay.) In many instances I cleared people that otherwise would have been charged with a crime.

I take it then you ALWAYS operate on just facts and never a hunch or gut feeling then. If that the case, you don't believe in pretextual stops and detentions? I find it quite concerning how you seem to give such little credence to the law abiding citizen's rights and so much leeway and benefit of the doubt to your Brotherhood. Why is it so upsetting to you what people's OPINION is if they are not the judge or on the jury? I notice many of your brotherhood do not always give the mere citizens the benefit of the doubt over on the policeone forum. Is there a double standard involved? Can you really have it both ways?

If you wouldn't be so ardently supportive of your bretherin when it is obvious they are in the wrong, your arguments would have much more credibility.

This is highly entertaining for me during an otherwise slow start to a holiday week. First - thanks to all the participants for making the slow, pre-holiday, and last workday of the week much more enjoyable.

So, in the above post, you indicate that it is plainly obvious that they are in the wrong. Others in the thread have offered similiar opinions and little to no factual basis on which to hang those opinions. None-the-less, opinions are free here. In saying there was wrong doing on the part of the LEOs, here, we disagree. I'm sure we can go back and forth, but at the end of the day, I can't get separate from this:

I have actually blocked traffic, worked off duty LEO jobs, deprived people of their rights under the color of law (with cause and often warrants). Furthermore, I have been detained during a traffic stop and criminal investigation, and I have been a free person, pursuing happiness with my family. There is little I haven't seen in police behavior, and I have been the first in line to address wrong, both in myself and others on the job. I have firm ethical convictions on what is acceptable behavior, and on these I do not waiver. I will not and cannot give much weight to the opinion of uninformed outsiders on this....and in the same breath I will add - I don't intend to offend in saying that. I really want to indicate that I will be at an impasse with anyone that calls for firing these guys or otherwise condemns them without know what exactly their involvement was, and how the courts would define and interpret their actions under the reasonable standard.

Stamp and shout and come at the LEOs on this forum and others all you want. It will not change that the activity described in the internet article has not been held by any court I know of to constitute a detention, stop, or otherwise seizure.



And to address the minor point:
LEOs block roads for private sector companies all the time. Many times they are windmill blades and I think that wind power is a waste of tax payer dollars and am strongly against their use. I am no more seized under 4A by diverting around a windmill blade escorted by privately paid, "off duty" motorcycle officers than I would be under the actions described in the original article. it is also done for mobile homes, funerals, oversized O&G equipment, cranes, tanks, and marathons. This is part of life.

Yup - I was working a gig 2 weeks ago where we blocked a road. Nobody cared and it benefited a large group.

[talltex]

The PD will look into it and nobody has answered whether or not the federal agency in question (not a private agency) has the authority do block a roadway.
Let me ask you this. Let's assume they are blocking a roadway for a federal agency doing a mandated survey and you believe they should be fired. How is this different then the 100s of leo's that block traffic for churches on Sundays? They interfere with public roadways to help at a religious event for private churches. Should they be fired as well? Where does it stop?

A couple of points...it WAS done for a private company. The FWPD was hired a private contractor who was awarded an $8 million contract by the NHTSA to conduct surveys. Way back in this thread, there was a link to the survey done by Pacific Research Institute (a PRIVATE contractor) located in Maryland (DC) which outlined in great detail exactly how they conducted the survey. In it they stated they would hire off-duty officers to facilitate the diversion of traffic into the parking lot. It even detailed how the vehicles diverted would be selected, such as: the first vehicle diverted would be the 3rd one to approach the diversion point once the officer and vehicles were in place and one of the survey crew signaled the officers to begin...after that each time the crew member signaled, they were to divert the next vehicle in line. As for your last example, I've already stated my opinion earlier...I don't think that blocking traffic for Churches, or any other private business, should be allowed either. That's simply another case of a private entity, paying for the use of official authority, in order to receive a special privilege, that they are not entitled to, and cannot achieve otherwise. Personally, I've never said I thought they should be fired...I just think this practice should be stopped.

[mojo84]

There's a difference when the reason for the stop is to help the flow of traffic or safety than when it is to screen for alcohol without the person/subject knowing or to take blood or saliva samples. Do you really not see the difference?

By the way, I have not called for anyone's job over this. There are either forms of discipline that may be more appropriate.

If it was so right, why did the chief acknowledge it was wrong?

[sjfcontrol]

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.

[goose]

This is highly entertaining for me during an otherwise slow start to a holiday week. First - thanks to all the participants for making the slow, pre-holiday, and last workday of the week much more enjoyable.

And to address the minor point:
LEOs block roads for private sector companies all the time. Many times they are windmill blades and I think that wind power is a waste of tax payer dollars and am strongly against their use. I am no more seized under 4A by diverting around a windmill blade escorted by privately paid, "off duty" motorcycle officers than I would be under the actions described in the original article. it is also done for mobile homes, funerals, oversized O&G equipment, cranes, tanks, and marathons. This is part of life.

I don't think this is the minor point at all. I think that this is the point.

A very simple question has been asked that you and texanjoker have both chosen not to respond to, as best as I can tell. If I missed it I apologize. Is redirecting traffic for a funeral or construction or oversized load the same as directing traffic into a Burger King or Best Buy at the direction of said Burger King or Best buy? These strike me as very different situations, maybe you do not.

Not calling for firings, just asking if all those examples above (or the ones you gave) are the same as directing a streets traffic into a business/private venture, in your opinion. Would you take a job diverting traffic into a store at the request of a store?

(Admittedly this isn’t a direct correlation as Burger King and Best Buy would quickly get hit in the pocketbook. The federal government is less directly concerned with monetary penalties, however.)

[goose]

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.

[texanjoker]

There's a difference when the reason for the stop is to help the flow of traffic or safety than when it is to screen for alcohol without the person/subject knowing or to take blood or saliva samples. Do you really not see the difference?

By the way, I have not called for anyone's job over this. There are either forms of discipline that may be more appropriate.

If it was so right, why did the chief acknowledge it was wrong?

Where did the chief say it was wrong? He offered an appaulogy and said they would look into it. Unfortunately that is often why an agency won't say they are sorry because people assume that means they did something wrong.

"We are reviewing the actions of all police personnel involved to ensure that FWPD policies and procedures were followed," he said. "We apologize if any of our drivers and citizens were offended or inconvenienced by the NHTSA National Roadside Survey."

[sjfcontrol]

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.

Which is why I used the word, "some"...

[mojo84]

It's quite common for some to ignore questions when the only obvious reasonable answers do not support their position. It's a common practice on here.

[texanjoker]

This is highly entertaining for me during an otherwise slow start to a holiday week. First - thanks to all the participants for making the slow, pre-holiday, and last workday of the week much more enjoyable.

And to address the minor point:
LEOs block roads for private sector companies all the time. Many times they are windmill blades and I think that wind power is a waste of tax payer dollars and am strongly against their use. I am no more seized under 4A by diverting around a windmill blade escorted by privately paid, "off duty" motorcycle officers than I would be under the actions described in the original article. it is also done for mobile homes, funerals, oversized O&G equipment, cranes, tanks, and marathons. This is part of life.

I don't think this is the minor point at all. I think that this is the point.

A very simple question has been asked that you and texanjoker have both chosen not to respond to, as best as I can tell. If I missed it I apologize. Is redirecting traffic for a funeral or construction or oversized load the same as directing traffic into a Burger King or Best Buy at the direction of said Burger King or Best buy? These strike me as very different situations, maybe you do not.

Not calling for firings, just asking if all those examples above (or the ones you gave) are the same as directing a streets traffic into a business/private venture, in your opinion. Would you take a job diverting traffic into a store at the request of a store?

(Admittedly this isn’t a direct correlation as Burger King and Best Buy would quickly get hit in the pocketbook. The federal government is less directly concerned with monetary penalties, however.)

They would be different situations and wouldn't happen. I don't know of any legal authority to block a road and force one into a BK parking lot nor could I see an agency approving that. One has to obtain agency approval to work off duty gigs. As I have stated in this case, do the feds have authority to do this? This was a federal survey with a federal agency running it. We don't know the leo's roll. True they may have actually done this by blocking the road and actually directing people into the parking lot, but it would boil down to if the feds had the authority to do this with their federal mandate for this survey. If that was the case the leo's would be working under that mandate. If they lied to the PD and said they had this authority when they didn't then they should be spanked hard. I have worked details with the feds in the past at the port of entry and check points. When you work those details you are working under their authority which is a lot different then a regular leo's authority. Regardless I personally think this is a waste of tax payer money.

[mojo84]

There's a difference when the reason for the stop is to help the flow of traffic or safety than when it is to screen for alcohol without the person/subject knowing or to take blood or saliva samples. Do you really not see the difference?

By the way, I have not called for anyone's job over this. There are either forms of discipline that may be more appropriate.

If it was so right, why did the chief acknowledge it was wrong?

Where did the chief say it was wrong? He offered an appaulogy and said they would look into it. Unfortunately that is often why an agency won't say they are sorry because people assume that means they did something wrong.

"We are reviewing the actions of all police personnel involved to ensure that FWPD policies and procedures were followed," he said. "We apologize if any of our drivers and citizens were offended or inconvenienced by the NHTSA National Roadside Survey."

Here you go. http://www.star-telegram.com/2013/11/20 ... .html?rh=1" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

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

Fort Worth police officers are allowed to work off-duty jobs in uniform if they adhere to rules set out in the department’s “general orders.” Police administrators are reviewing whether the rules were followed when officers were approved to work off-duty on the survey, Halstead said.

The review is important, he said, “not only to ensure that our policies and procedures were followed, but also to ensure that any off-duty job is in the absolute best interest of our citizens.”"