Slashdot Mirror
Texas Drivers Stopped At Roadblock, Asked For Saliva, Blood
schwit1 writes "Some drivers along a busy Fort Worth street on Friday were stopped at a police roadblock and directed into a parking lot, where they were asked by federal contractors for samples of their breath, saliva and even blood. It was part of a government research study aimed at determining the number of drunken or drug-impaired drivers.The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, which is spending $7.9 million on the survey over three years, said participation was '100 percent voluntary' and anonymous. The 'participants' hardly agree."
But those come after the semen and stool samples, right?
In Australia it is called a 'Booze Bus'. They don't take blood, but they do the rest and it is 100% involuntary. They will block off freeways to test everyone and park cop cars in all the side streets.
Personally I am mostly OK with this. The next morning when you see the huge line of cars left behind because the drivers were drunk justifies it to me.
It's a shame that this even happened.
I do not consent to living in a police state.
I do not consent to "federal contractors".
I DO NOT CONSENT
OR:
"These are not the droids you're looking for."
Posting as anonymous coward, complete with cheek swab.
Don't let the fact that an armed man and his buddies just forced you off the road, in the dark, convey any kind of misleading impression about the voluntariness of what you are about to do the sensible thing and agree to....
Over my dead body feds.
Why not shoot anybody and everybody? That way, you'll certainly get all the rapists, murderers, etc.
The rights of somebody else granted by law should be respected even when they're violating the law.
The police are unwitting participants in this experiment. Gathering data on intoxication is just the cover story. The real experiment is to see whether Texas is as tough as they talk, or if they're going to bitch out and take this shit. If the result is positive, somebody will roll up to the roadblock with an AR-15 and pop a few skulls. But my money's on the pigs not having anything to worry about, 'cause Texas is full of trash-talkin' BITCHEZZZ!
Did we make sure to get blood and saliva samples from the police officers and federal contractors as well?
I'd like to make sure that my samples aren't being mishandled due to drug- or alcohol-induced ineptitude.
I think this study was less to count the number of drunk drivers and more as a test to see how willing people are to give up their precious bodily fluids when demanded to do so by some random authority. Sort of checking to see if the frog has been boiled yet. Fortunately, it sounds as if some of those frogs were willing to still jump a little bit, as at least the named driver refused to everything but a breathalyzer.
I'm moving to Canada!
I'm an American expat living in Australia, and the first time I was stopped by a 'booze bus' I was quite indignant. A booze bus is a large, mobile drug and alcohol screening facility which set it up at choke points like any police blockade would so you usually can't take a side-street to avoid it. After that, about half the traffic gets funneled through where drivers are breathalyzed, one after the other - you can't say no. My wife and friends can't understand why I feel that they're so invasive, and get angry any time I have to stop for one. Especially when it's 10:30 in the morning. On the edge of town. With no housing or pubs on the other side. Oz must have a lot of farmers who get drunk every morning and drive into town.
Texas and the Feds. What could possibly go wrong?
Table-ized A.I.
Oh, the irony. It was Texas' favorite sun, GWB, who got the ball rolling on this type of intrusion in the first place. I have a feeling most Texans will fail to see the irony though.
They do this in the US as well, having a set-up sobriety checkpoint. It varies by state but Indiana and Ohio both would do it...mostly in college towns for football games or holidays like Halloween.
Usually it's just a breathalyzer but if you get close enough to see it, it's too late to turn around...they strategically place the checkpoints to catch potential dodgers on the way back.
Not optional.
Of course "driving is a privilidge' but from a libertarian standpoint, how much is it really? it is **government regulation** any way you slice it...for some that is always the wrong policy...
I don't know how I feel about mandatory sobriety checkpoints...IMHO there are more important things for the cops to be doing (organized crime in the US is out of control)...I dont see them as much of a deterrant to drunk driving
Thank you Dave Raggett
It would be nice to know this statistics but how to gather the data?
If this is involuntary, only sober people would consent. Why take a risk?
Some sober people would refuse also, perhaps a small group.
So do they imply refuse" as "drunken" then?
4wdloop
....says the illegal.
White females are special in their get-out-of-everything-free card, but crime stats say black female beats white male though. Sexism's worse than racism among LEOs, prosecutors, and judges.
"A soft answer turneth away wrath. Once wrath is looking the other way, shoot it in the head."
After all that's all they are really after. They take your saliva and blood because you're driving a care which means that you have something of value that they can take from you, and that's all they really want. Why catch criminals that only possess stolen property? You can't pay for law enforcement with contraband. But you can pay for all of this stuff by impounding cars and busting people who can afford to drive one. The efforts of law enforcement are skewed towards the crime that gives THEM the most reward, not what gives the citizens the most value. Last night my buddies car got broken into by a pro - no broken glass. It was in his driveway, and all of his tools were stolen. The police couldn't care less and have no intention of doing ANYTHING about it. They just resent you wasting their time on something that gets them ZERO. At least drug dealers have cash to confiscate, but a thief costs the system even more than it costs the victims. And the police cost everyone a whole hell of a lot more than that. But don't expect them to do anything particularly helpful. That serve and protect crap went away when municipal coffers ran dry...
Lets see if texans will put up with *this*. Oh it's just for research purposes. Yup.
If they will. Most of the country will for sure.
And then we can move onto the next step of cataloging everyone in america by DNA.
What for? Oh well we got some good ideas already. And as technology improves we'll have some more. And have the data already.
Police states dont spring up overnight.
see title
Thank you Dave Raggett
Who can tell anymore? Wars fought by mercs, prisons run by corps... Corporate municipal police would seem to be the next logical step — they already write our laws. It is fascism defined.
Thank you, Edward Snowden.
"Arguments from authority are worthless." —Carl Sagan
Oh, but they sure do talk a good game!
This is not a contract. This is the law. Violating it isn't a contract dispute. It is a criminal offense.
But presumably many/most of the people who were involuntarily detained and intrusively searched weren't committing a criminal offence, so what is the justification for the detention and search?
We shouldn't allow carte blanche intrusions into people's lives in exchange for just doing something that is a normal or even necessary part of those lives such as travelling from place to place or communicating with someone else. It's like saying we should condone arbitrary, abusive security theatre at an airport because terrrsm, and everyone "accepted" that they could be mistreated in those ways by buying a ticket so they have no grounds for complaint.
If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
This is the norm in Canada.
At this time of year, they arbitrarily pull over any vehicle passing through an unpublished checkpoint, the location of which is kept secret for as long as possible, and interrogate every driver at the side of the road.
Police state manual entry #1: permit the arbitrary and sudden detaining of citizens for committing absolutely no offense (the Supreme Court of Canada has ruled that this is somehow not in violation of our charter rights)
If they demand a sobriety test, it is *mandatory* ... as in, you *cannot* legally refuse. Legally speaking, refusal is identical to guilt. You refuse out of principle (or maybe not wanting to be humiliated, demoralized and degraded, not to mention ostracized by your community...) you get cuffed, dragged into the cruiser and charged the same as if you over the limit, even if you were 100% sober.
Police state manual entry #2: leave discretion entirely at the whim of cops with no disincentive for corruption and get rid of those pesky requirements for consent.
Yes, currently, as far as I know, they need reasonable suspicion to demand a sobriety test ... and when they come up with any bullshit they want, what court is going to believe your word over a cop's?
Police state manual entry #3: always give cops the benefit of the doubt, because an advanced pinky swear apparently bestows one with magic trustworthiness.
And nobody with credence fights this blatant abuse of power because OMGDRUNKDRIVERS ... never mind that there are numerous other ways of preventing it that don't stampede over everyone's rights. But none really give that "tough on crime" appearance that works so well in a news spot.
Police state manual entry #4: gain a complacent public's majority support (making dissenters look like conspiracy theorist nutjobs) by convincing them that your "tough on crime for their safety." Don't tell them that they will eventually all be criminals (or already are because of vague laws that can be interpreted with equal vagueness) and will have their lives ruined whenever they become "inconvenient."
Your constitution may be spending it's retirement as toilet paper, but you might be surprised to learn that, in some factions of law, there are graver violations of rights being waged against your neighbors to the north.
According to the local Dallas-Fort Worth late (10pm) news on TV (KXAS-TV, NBC affiliate), so no citation in this post, but the URL in the OP is correct:
Off-duty Fort Worth police officiers were involved.
There were no on-duty police officers involved ...just off-duty officers and government contractors, illegally distrupting traffic, illegally collecting passive sensor data, even when consent was declined, and collecting a bunch of other information if you were willing to give it for free (the breathalyzer) or willing to be paid $10, $50, or $60, depending on how intrusive you let them get in exchange for money.
Everything about it was illegal; this was not a standard DUI checkpoint which contractors "embraced and extended", this was private citizens pulling over private citizens and collecting at least a minimum amount of data without consent.
This is a civil rights violation, and for each count where consent was not given after the fact, worth 20 years in a Federal prison.
one - as far as i know cars now officially kill more people than anything else on the planet. more importantly - cars kill more children than anything else on the planet. as far as i know the situation in north america, in particular, suggests that the safest place to be is behind the wheel of an american dream, because - apparently - cars don't usually kill car drivers - just the pink and brown squishy things, the stuff without air bags.
apparently we have evolved into a species of metal beetle brain, and no other form of human - to date - has a better chance of survival.
two - alcohol appears to be the leading factor in cases vehicular death or trauma, and if there is any bias at all, alcohol appears to favour the survival of the driver, over that of the victim(s).
various other intoxicants have a similar, sometimes worse, effect on the body count.
setting all else aside, the simple fact that drunk drivers kill more children than anything else on the planet, indicates that something MUST BE DONE.
but what?
how do we fix this?
please list.
What would they do if you refuse?
Isn't this called kidnapping?
Australia has always been used as a testbed for social engineering projects by the British since the colony was first founded for criminals. Initially, the British allowed its worst monsters to set up what were effectively private prisons, where the prisoners were subject to the most grotesque and horrifying physical and psychological experimentation. These prisons operated separately to the common penal colonies, and paralleled the Human experimentation work the Nazis, Japanese and Americans would do many, many years later.
Today, nothing has changed in Australia, except the ENTIRE population is used as the subjects of various social engineering initiatives. The intention is to create new ways of ruling the sheeple in the West, where 'standard of living' is traded for every possible Human Right hard won across the last 150+ years. The idea is that the sheeple themselves (just look at the comments from Australians here) are 'persuaded' to think that it is they who have demanded the elimination of their Human Rights "for the greater good".
It is no coincidence that the vile racist zionist propagandist, the main mouthpiece of Tony Blair and Obama, the filthy scumbag we know as Rupert Murdoch, rose to power in Australia.
Australia is a next-generation police state, but the experiment is incomplete, because the populous of Australia are FAR FAR too pathetic to accurately represent the peoples of proper nations of the West. Winning the hearts and minds of every Australian is like winning the hearts and minds of the weakest, most submissive 10 percent of the population of the UK or USA.
Here's a for example. Australians are so very very very thick, they accept a system where they are forced to vote by law. Now, being forced to vote, as at least 50% of the people in the UK and USA are smart enough to realise, would mean being forced to vote FOR THE SYSTEM, regardless of which way a vote was cast. In a proper, functioning democracy, people must ALWAYS be able 'vote against the system', and this means the RIGHT not to vote. The logic of this moral argument flies straight over the heads of ALL Australians. "I vote", dribbles the Australian, "so clearly every other Australian MUST vote".
Of course, Australia is a living example of how 'universal education' can be used to ensure that your entire sheeple population are 'dumbed down' while at the same time individual sheeple consider themselves 'smart'. And consider this. Australia has the land mass and resources to be another USA. So why did the USA become Great Britain II, inheriting and massively improving everything the 'motherland' had achieved at peak, whereas Australia resembles those saddo inbred satellite towns found near every major city in the UK?
It was a running (bad) joke in TV/films of the 1970s/80s that muggers would frequently 'suggest' in very moderate and 'reasonable' language that their victims might like to consider giving them a 'donation'. The idea was that the situation was so clear, that the actual threat could be left implicit, as if this somehow reduced the criminality, or made the victim some kind of accomplice.
Of course, the mugger would ensure the victim was aware that he had a weapon (frequently dual use, like a screw-driver), so that a classic power game played out.
Now we see the police in the USA using the SAME tactic, but with one more refinement- the use of proxies/mercenaries/'contractors' to do the actual 'mugging' of citizens Human Rights, while the uniformed goons themselves stand to the side as 'back-up'.
Let me ask you all a question. Would you prefer your police-state to be upfront and honest, like say Stalinist East Germany, or Obama style, where everyone pretends the man with the gun and uniform who is forcing you do act against your will is just a friendly, harmless 'servant' of the people.
Would you prefer your mugger to be some lone pathetic loser, or a member of a well organised gang whose power and influence reaches into ever aspect of your city's administration and law enforcement? Team Obama not only abuses you, it pays massive amounts to PR operations so stories of the abuse are ignored or dismissed as untrue by your fellow sheeple.
The best method I can think of for eliminating the conflict of interest related to fines is to introduce the concept of destroying money. When a fine is given, the money should not go to the police department, or the treasury, and especially not to private contractors. Instead it should be possible to destroy the money entirely. Not the cash, mind you, the money (cash is only a small part of the money supply). No one would receive it and instead a small amount of deflation would occur making everyone's money a little more valuable. The money destruction could be handled by the Federal Reserve, since they are the ones doing most of the money creation.
If they can do something useful with it, it might want to give my saliva too, but they will never get my blood.
And many states do, and many more have done in the past.
If these rights are somehow universal as GP claimed, how is it that throughout history only a minority of people have (or had) them?
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
In Washington State, there are no "Safety check points" or "DUI Check Points", or these crazy "Survery" check points. For case law, reference Seattle v. Mesiani; 1988.
It's been very clearly understood that under our state constitution that these types of things are a violation of the 4th Amendment. You can't just stop everyone and then look for probable cause. You have to have it prior to stopping an individual.
While I agree that a crackdown on DUI (and now in Washington Marijuana is legal too) is good for the public, it can not come as an expense to your rights. As a society, we need to look back at why the constitution was written and what happened before, and in other societies after that.
how comes ?
Forced DNA sample collection, it is just me seeing that?
The rights of individuals surpass that of society to be protected at any cost. Life has risks. Deal with it. Driving has risks. Deal with it. If you can't bare the thought of dying don't drive.
While society has the right to general protection under the law it doesn't have the right to bear no risks at the cost to civil liberties.
I'm against social security numbers. I'm against mandated health insurance. I'm for publicly funded medical system funded through taxation. I'm against governments involvement in regulating hospitals (beyond public safety issues, ie yes to minimum standards, no to restrictions on abortions/etc).
I'm against drivers licenses. I'm for making arrests of those who have shown a complete disregard for public safety and there is evidence to back it up beyond a cops say-so (ie drunk driving, seriously excessive speeding; 2x max limit, etc).
I'm against license plates. There are plenty of identifiers and police shouldn't be allowed to use modern tracking technology/license plate readers.
Not a bad idea really. A radical approach that definitely eliminates the perverse incentives, and gives a miniscule amount of carrot juice to everybody. Talk about taking a bite out of crime... The thing is, with the computer power we have, its not technically impossible to pull it off anymore. Too bad our social and political reality is heading more towards The Lord of the Flies.
See? This is another problem that would go away if autonomous vehicles were the norm.
Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
They wanted to get brain samples, At first, - and the subjects were friendly and wiling to cooperate - but they ran into unforseen dificulties.
Read the fucking stub.
This isn't a stop taking people's saliva, blood etc for traffic enforcement. This is not a Police operation; The Police are there because contractors can't stop or direct traffic. This is data gathering by a third party, and is 100% voluntary because the people doing the survey aren't the Police, and can't compel you to provide a sample. It is not evidence in relation to a crime, and more than likely wouldn't meet the guidelines for chain of custody as it's anonymous. This is for statistical use only.
Half of the replies on this articleare to the "Booze bus" comment; It's not the same thing! The Booze Bus is an enforcement vehicle, a mobile police van with a breathaliser, for use by police in roadblocks, but THIS ISN'T A POLICE OPERATION.
This is the worst case of reading comprehension failure I've seen on this site. Are you all so blinded by your hatred and malice towards LEOs that anything they are involved in is nefarious?! Jesus christ, I expected better from you.
Finally had enough. Come see us over at https://soylentnews.org/
Before we start electing contractors to represent us in Congress. (bit of a hyperbole, yes, but it seems we have sold off the government to all of these private companies)
But since the ability to have property is equivalent to the right to private property (because if you don't have the ability to keep that property private, you have no rights to private property absent some government-granted right to it, see copyrights for example), their point is still spot on.
If you have why they are different, elucidate.
Racism and sexism rampant, is it? Then explain the face of the USA in the Phillipines in this last hurricane, is a black female and the president is a black man when they represent no more than 15% of the population. I fail to see the racism you talk about.
And since it was evenly distributed, it was not vindictive harrassment.
Seems like when YOU are the butt of police actions, you want a double-fork get-out-of-jail-free argument:
If you're being targeted specifically, it's harrassment, by definition.
If you're being randomly selected, it cannot be done for reason to you specifically, by definition.
Random selection helps work out how much of a sample of people in the population as a whole have attribute X.
This stop was to ascertain the level of drug or drink abuse in the population of drivers.
The reason for this was to determine if there would be probable cause, and to what extent the probability is, and to spend money randomly stopping ANYONE to reduce the risks.
And some time later, if they determined a change was necessary, they'd have to do the same thing again to measure whether it was successful.
Speed limits are validly set where there is evidence that a speed above that constitutes a notable risk to the driver and other road users, right? I mean, assuming you think that speed limits should exist anywhere. So how would they determine this? Assess the accident rate. Put up a limit, check whether the accident reduces, right?
Well how do you know if the change doesn't appear because everyone ignores the speed limit?
So what you need to do is check everyone going through, picking random times because you don't want to waste money or police time, which would be a waste of your taxes, right?
But then you get people who would like to ignore speed limits claiming that this is harrassment, and that if they aren't doing it to EVERYONE, they shouldn't do it to THEM.
The system was that stopping was the only mandatory thing. Brethalyzer was a request, but if the police have a suspicion you want to avoid incriminating yourself, they can insist.
The saliva test is what you have to test for drugs. This is not usual in a stop, but it's not invasive. Every time you open your mouth, you're displaying the inner mouth and saliva. It's not like taking a dick cheese sample.
And the blood tests were definitely voluntary. The voluntariness of that test may have been unmentioned in the stop, and those being stopped may have felt intimidated by being asked. Then again, do you agree that if a woman FELT intimidated by your advances and therefore *pretended* aquiescence to your invitation to sex, that you are therefore a rapist? No? Then the police here should not really be held responsible for weaksauce cowards who whined about how intimidated they felt. And you should push for firearm officers to be a small contingent of your police forces, since this is definitely intimidating.
I ride motorcycles. Over the past few years, it's become 'normal' for the police to stop a motorcyclist for no other reason than the fact that he's on 2 wheels. I'm not talking about random here and there stops, this is an organized troop of LEO's that wave every single motorcycle coming down an interstate into a rest area and taking the opportunity to 'educate' the detainees. In the process of having the luxury of this captive audience, they look for and prosecute every violation they can see. The impetus for this is largely enforcing a totally ridiculous helmet law. Regardless of your thoughts on helmet use the practice of singling out a subset of all motor vehicles for 'education' is or SHOULD be illegal. This would be no different than the cops saying ' studies show that cars painted red speed .0025% more than other colored cars' and proceed to pull over and do a 'safety check' on all red vehicles. This is the very definition of the slippery slope.
Right now this blood, saliva and breath test is supposedly voluntary. I would imagine having gone through the 'education' experience on motorcycles the experience is anything but when you're sitting there talking to the officers. I'm sure that there will be a 'positive' result from this test as well. Why not do it more often? More places.. look at all the 'bad guys' we can catch this way! You as a private citizen cannot avoid breaking the law. A prominent law professor and a retired 30 year detective did a very interesting lecutre I watched on youtube.. there are simply too many laws to be aware of all of them, so the opportunity to have cause to LOOK for a reason to cite someone at one of these random stops is egregious. Anyone that doesn't see the bad precedent this sets deserves the police state we are heading for.
If I sound stupid, it's not me talking....
Oh, there isnt one?
Well that would be why your scenarios are libertard fantasies of anyone who isn't a lubertard.
To a TSA line near you; especially the DNA sampling part. #Gattica
Or their ISP's ToS? Or the agreements on their car rental?
It seems like they're happy to agree to the most onerous terms of license if done by an unelected and irresponsible private company, but one where someone else gets as much a vote on the actions as the libertard does (ie. government) even minor "infringements" are apoplexy inducing problems.
Srsly.
Captcha appropriate: paranoia.
nobody makes me bleed my own blood.
\
how do you stop a police state? take out the actors?
http://www.nhtsa.gov/people/injury/research/pub/HS810704/pages/ExecSummary.html
http://www.pire.org/topiclist2.asp?cms=63
They don't stop everybody, they stop, say, every third car. And they use high-pressure sales techniques to try to get "biological samples". But they actually don't arrest people they find impaired; they try to arrange transportation for them. I don't think that makes it right, but let's at least be accurate about what they're doing.
More information and links to past examples of these "studies":
http://www.politechbot.com/2007/09/21/colorado-sheriff-creates/
PHEM - party like it's 1997-2003!
Yeah, I know that this is what the first paragraph in the article says, but I have to wonder why KXAS even wrote that. The rest of the article specifically says the Fort Worth Police had no involvement - it was ran by the federal government, and they hired a few off-duty police officers - and that the Fort Worth Police was conducting an internal investigation about it.
This is again about the Federal Government overstepping their authority, and the federal government closing down a city road without consulting local law enforcement is horrible. The cities should really sue the federal government over this.
Moreso, Beach Street is an extreamely busy street, expecially now with all the construction in the area. The video says this is on the border of Fort Worth and Haltom City, and the video seems to confirm that area. This is a very busy area - I am usually over here a few times a month. The federal government closing off this area is inexcusable. I am sure that if someone had of called the FWPD about this when it was happening, the NHTSA contractors would have been arrested, and the off-duty officers placed on administrative leave - Fort Worth doesn't put up with that kind of crap.
stopped in these situations. What do they know their plates and let them pass? Or do they have a special sticker in their window?
> You're either trolling, or stupid, not sure which
I take it you're new to planet earth. The post to which you replied is a nice example of what we call "sarcasm".
Anarchy does not mean "no rules", but rather, "no rulers". That's all the difference in the world, for those of you who learned your vocabulary from politicians, hollywood, and clueless teenagers.
As for police roadblocks, how can this not be viewed as "guilty before proven innocent", the polar opposite of what government claims to guarantee us?
Hell put them on everyone's front door in case they try to GOWI (going outside while impaired)
Know your rights! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LRyFKRMUUu8
Anybody that goes along with this is contributing to the problem.
You have no obligation to comply. Say "No" and drive on. Do not allow this to become another Nazi Germany.
This is going to result in a lot of people getting into fights with police, and it's the fault of the police. They shouldn't be there in the first place; they should refuse those orders, or at least disobey them. They made a choice to be there, and conduct those operations, so they accept the outcome of that.
So let me get this straight, police and federal authorities (read contractors) were pulling people over and sampling them for intoxication levels for an anonymous survey.
Now correct me if I'm wrong but shouldn't a police officer cite someone who is then proven to be intoxicated? If this person is allowed to continue driving while intoxicated wouldn't the police department as well as the fed be liable for damages this person may cause.
I am Bennett Haselton! I am Bennett Haselton!
Maybe Texas wasn't actually looking for drunks. It sure is a handy way to create a DNA database tied to license plates tied to name, address and ssn#. I'm sure they disposed of all that data aftewards however. Right?
Join the Slashcott! Feb 10 thru Feb 17!
1. I was in the military for 20 years. They already have my DNA.
2. I have been stopped by roadblocks for both sobriety checks and seatbelt checks.
3. I haven't drank or done drugs for many years.
4. They paid you $60 for the samples!!!
5. It is for research. When I was in college, as part of my Intro to Psychology class, it was strongly recommended to participate in a grad student's psychology test program. You didn't get paid and it could affect your grade.
6. But, I do appreciate the concerns of the impression that people were being intimidated into providing the samples by police officers.
Did you mean Fourth amendment (search and seizure) ? Third is quartering of soldiers.
This isn't the first time and it is voluntary. The is just Texans too cowardly to say 'no think you' to an off duty police officer and then whining about it later.
From the article
"They're essentially lying to you when they say it's completely voluntary, because they're testing you at that moment," Colosi said.
Hay lady, did you say 'No thank you'?
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
If you only test voluntary drivers, chances are most of the ones with something to hide will refuse.
Did they really not think of that?
I'm gonna start keeping a jar of spit on my person at all times, in case I run into any federal agents.
"It is fascism defined."
no, it is not. You should probably understand what fascism is before spewing nonsense out of your pie hole.
.
Fascism is about nationalism, and comes from syndicalism. Please tell me how corporation running things is nationalism or syndicalism.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
Red: The man's been in here fifty years, Heywood. Fifty years! This is all he knows. In here, he's an important man. He's an educated man. Outside, he's nothin'! Just a used up con with arthritis in both hands.
one road always has priority and the other gives way.
How do you tell which road has the right of way?
Always north-south/east-west? What about diagonal streets then (I live on one)?
Are there signs at every intersection saying which road has right-of-way?
Unity? Screw that: XFCE. Slashdot Beta? Screw that: SoylentNews. Australis? Screw that: Pale Moon. UX developers DIAF
Wait. Are you actually, seriously, arguing that racism cannot exist in the U.S. because a handful of people in positions of authority are black? Are you really advancing that as an argument? Or am I missing some sort of subtle joke?
Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
You cannot wash away blood with blood
I'm almost afraid he means the 3rd...
Now some Vodka to get that picture out of my mind.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
It's corporatism. Basically fascism but without the ideology behind it.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
You might want to take a look at the Pacific Institute for Research and Evaluation http://www.pire.org/index.asp . They appear to be an advocacy group against the use of any kind of drugs or alcohol. Their own literature notes that they want to promote "...expansion of laws and programs that will result in a substantial reduction in alcohol and drug related traffic fatalities." That's a fine goal but way too often these kinds of things come at a huge cost to civil liberties (TSA, NSA, etc). In any case it's hard to believe such a group would have real objectivism with their research and are probably fine with drivers being sent off to jail for the least bit of alcohol these road blocks might uncover.
It all starts at 0
My right testicle didn't drop until one day when I was lifting something at age twelve. I am sixty now and have two children, so the left one pulled up the slack. Obviously I frequently inspect the atrophied right one for any unusual growths.
The job of the police is not to act on suspicion -- it is to uphold the laws and the Constitution of the United States, along with the state they are part of.
"Suspicion" is not the same as "Probable Cause." Otherwise the cops would be justified in raiding every house that has a broadband connection because, let's face it, it's near 100% likely you've engaged or are engaging in -some- kind of piracy or illegal behavior -- unless you want to try to make the case that you've never downloaded an MP3 you should have paid for, a movie, a book -- or simply didn't abide by a web site's TOS.
Breathing into a breathalizer can fuck you even if you haven't been drinking. For example, some breath mints will register a false positive on a breathalyzer. What if you're five minutes away from a job interview and it starts in ten minutes? Then the simple random stop and breathalyzer test -is- onerous because it's going to make you late and may cost you that job.
...someone inside a vehicle is not 'in public.'
Same exact beltway bandit company who socially engineered a Colorado Sheriff into forcing motorists into providing DNA samples at a roadblock.
Suggestion: Maybe the Maryland state police, out of sympathy for their Texas and Colorado fooled by this corporation might consider setting up a mandatory roadblock on the edge of that company's parking lot so the US public learn the percentage of crack cocaine users on staff. I see more Probable Cause for blood testing that company's executives than the Texas or Colorado officers had for testing random citizens.
-proctor
I presume you are British/Commonwealth due to the spellin of "offence." Therefore, why do you spell the word licenCe as such, while you write "unlicenSed?" I am not being snarky, I'm just curious.
This is why roadside bombs were invented.
"Yes, I have something for each of you."
The precedent has already been set that you can pull people over without probable cause.
I just ask, because I went to grade 5 just outside of Fort Worth, and you sure look like Serfs to me.
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
Go to the NHTSA's Facebook page and tell them how you feel...
https://www.facebook.com/NHTSA
Did they accidentally the samples?
Anyone who would volunteer for such of a GESTAPO ordeal would be a STUPID SON-OF-A-BETCH !!!!!!!!!
I saw the sarcastic GP of your post as its parent.
Me: Have I broken any laws?
Officer/"Survey taker": No.
Me: Are you detaining me?
Officer/"Survey taker": No.
Me: Am I free to go?
Officer/"Survey taker": Yes
Me: Thank you. Tell your boss's boss to go F'k himself. Have a nice day.
You do realize feminazi patriarchy bullshit rests on the official face-people of the teeny tiny elite being male, right?
"A soft answer turneth away wrath. Once wrath is looking the other way, shoot it in the head."
They can test you and, provided you were in custody, they can prove what your BAC must have been a clocked number of hours ago when you were stopped... WITHOUT regard to your body weight. The standard clearance rate of .0169 BAC/hr applies pretty consistently regardless of body weight.
LMFAO, they got offered money for a sample but were offended that anyone would make such an offer.
Only in America, where freedom means the right not to deal with anything outside your comfort zone.
TAXPAYER MONEY wasted so some "friend of friend" can PROFIT from selling USELESS SERVICES to the local government... this is GRAFT AND CORRUPTION AT ITS BEST !!!
In Russia, test take YOU
you seem to think we're all drunks...
(i realise i'm flaming here, if offended please substitute "me" and "you" for "sober" and "drunk"
additional tax deductions - you want us to pay for your lack of self control?
coverage of taxi fares - you actually want us to carry you home?
loosening transport regulation - you expect these good people to carry drunks?
free parking - is there even enough to go around, as it is? where do the sober citizens park, next morning?
monetary honariums - you want us to pay for you lack of self control?
sponsoring ride share software - for drunks?
subsidise "drive-you-home-in-your-own-car" - you want us to pay to make like easier for drunks?
no, sorry, what i see is a rubbie, touching me for change, to spend on booze.
what i think is we need to promote a social division - drunk people are over here, and the rest of us are over here, by defining, legally, the lines around existing "red light" areas, to begin with - and the thing we focus on controlling is whatever it takes to keep teh zombies on the proper side of those lines.
if you are out of it and you can't pay to be carried home, you are simply not allowed out, or you go to jail, no option.
I have never seen so many teabaggers in my life!
Fuck /., fuck it really hard!
... well, in the widest sense...
Contractors operating under color of authority directing (ordering) people to pull into a parking lot is a kidnap. I would seek arrest warrants for all involved. The notion that all people complied without feeling they were under threat in itself is proof of coercion. Did these contractors make it clear that they were a private company or did they imply that they were government workers?