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."

6 of 783 comments (clear)

  1. Good for the goose... by Somebody+Is+Using+My · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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.

  2. Re:I'm surprised they didn't get shot by BlueStrat · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Over my dead body feds.

    Shooting cops tends to be...unproductive in the medium term. Their initial performance is likely to be underwhelming; but after that, you'll be lucky if they just empty a dozen magazines into your corpse, since that will at least keep you out of SuperMax Forever Fun Time.

    The response will be rather reminiscent of MiB, when "Edgar" gave the alien "Bug", in the fresh impact crater on his farm, a similar response when told to drop his weapon.

    "Your proposal is acceptable."

    LE officers these days no longer accept nearly as much personal risk to avoid injuring/killing subjects. The amount of time, risk, and effort to try and defuse & deescalate situations before tasers and/or firearms are used against subjects has dramatically fallen over the last 25-35 years.

    This is largely due to extreme militarization coupled with the "officer safety first" and "*I'm* going home tonight!" mentality culture and training. Also, it seems like the psych-screening and attitude/demeanor suitability culling processes have suffered greatly, judging by the tsunami of YT videos available recording a huge and ever-growing number of over-the-top LE behaviors and actions.

    Besides, as long as they don't kill you, you can hurt them much worse and for far longer with paper than with bullets, as long as the court system and rule of law means anything at all. I'll leave that for you to judge.

    Check out what DHS will do to one of their own who tries to do their duty. They used a freaking Blackhawk and a military style 27-man SRT to raid her and her husband's house. The 24-year-old neighbor who video-recorded the raid and Blackhawk was found dead in his house of unknown causes. If they'll do that to one of their own, what are they willing to do to you or I if we should happen to attract their anger over something we said, or something we have no clue would have any connection to anything government or cause any kind of reaction by anyone at all?

    http://www.whistleblowers.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1181

    http://youtu.be/3LHC-C-ODO0

    Strat

    --
    Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
  3. Re:Food for thought by x0ra · · Score: 5, Interesting

    "Without Liberty, Law loses its nature and its name, and becomes oppression. Without Law, Liberty also loses its nature and its name, and becomes licentiousness." -- James Q Wilson.

    All in all, it is all a matter of balance. In the US, the balance is awfully tipping on the oppression side.

  4. Re:The police are unwitting participants. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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!

    Your snarky hate-inciting comments aside.....

    Local Fort Worth Police were involved, but they were off duty. I seriously doubt they were "unwitting". I would think that police departments have internal rules or state laws that have to be followed regarding notification to the department of off duty employment by officers.

    These off duty cops might have flagrantly violated a state law by doing this, even while off duty. At the state level there is a state law that forbids involuntary traffic stops by police for the purposes of "checking everyone out as they go by" or for stuff like this "study". The usual legal reasons in Texas for traffic stops are still allowed.

    According to tonight's TV news report, it seems like the Fort Worth City Council was not aware these cops were participating in this traffic stop. That "unawareness" is now getting those cops that worked the stop tossed into an investigation by the City Council. I hope that investigation does not get "disappeared"; I really hope something is done locally. I hope the local citizenry make an effort to pressure on the local TV stations to investigate this matter.

  5. Re:Food for thought by canadiannomad · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Here is a question... If you can't consent to sex while drunk, how can you consent to this research while drunk?

    --
    Hmm, the humour and sarcasm seem to have been be lost on you.
  6. Re:Food for thought by Pav · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Really. In my part of the world the government which went hardest for the free market and small government was New Zealand in the 80's. It was called Rogernomics, named after Reaganomics... except Roger Douglas actually did reduce the deficit unlike Reagan (by drastically cutting government services of course). How did it work out? Well, when the following administration continued largely the same policies under Ruth Richardson it was known as "Ruthenasia". Crime, poverty and unemployment kept increasing. My cousins and a significant portion of the population left the country. My country (Australia) tightened our mutually generous immigration arrangement with NZ to stem the tide.