TexasCHLforum.com

texanjoker wrote:

mojo84 wrote: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."

He made a statement that held the words of an apology, it has been 8 days since this thread started has he come back with the conclusion of his review or was that nothing more than a way to keep people happy until they forget about it. This is not a complex murder, either they did it or not how much time does it take to ask questions?

mojo84 wrote:

texanhttp://www.star-telegram.com/2013/11/20/5356114/fort-worth-police-chief-apologizes.html?rh=1joker wrote:

mojo84 wrote: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;

He apologized for their participation and pointed out they are investigating to see if any policies were violated and that they won't do this again for the reasons stated. This is not saying they did anything wrong. I am glad to see them doing this. Public trust is very important and the chief is addressing it quickly. I hope they release whether or not the fed's have a mandate that allows blocking a roadway ect. Regardless this survey is just another waste of tax payer money.

“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.”

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.”

I'll take the chief's words at face value and know that he has to limit what he says as far as overtly admitting wrongdoing due to potential liability reasons. You don't get to be chief by being a dummy.

texanjoker wrote:

goose wrote: 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.

It appears that FWPD, for all intents and purposes, did approve it (substitue survey for BK) and are now reviewing their proceedures and policies. The federal governmant shouldn't have that authority either, which is why folks are upset. FWPD has stated in so much as this was a poor choice. At a minimum you said it was a waste of tax payer money. Do you agree with FWPD that it was a poor choice? Would you take the survey job to divert traffic with all we know today?

mojo84 wrote:I'll take the chief's words at face value and know that he has to limit what he says as far as overtly admitting wrongdoing due to potential liability reasons. You don't get to be chief by being a dummy.

He didn't issue his statement because he thought they did it right.

goose wrote:

texanjoker wrote:

goose wrote: 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.

It appears that FWPD, for all intents and purposes, did approve it (substitue survey for BK) and are now reviewing their proceedures and policies. The federal governmant shouldn't have that authority either, which is why folks are upset. FWPD has stated in so much as this was a poor choice. At a minimum you said it was a waste of tax payer money. Do you agree with FWPD that it was a poor choice? Would you take the survey job to divert traffic with all we know today?

Me - no and it is a waste of tax payer money. I am very careful to what I do and anybody that knows me in the 'real world' knows I do not violate peoples rights. In fact I will speak out if I see an issue at work. Having many years in the business it is my job as a senior officer to teach the next generation. After all we take an oath and that oath is very imporant.

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]

texanjoker wrote: Me - no and it is a waste of tax payer money. I am very careful to what I do and anybody that knows me in the 'real world' knows I do not violate peoples rights. In fact I will speak out if I see an issue at work. Having many years in the business it is my job as a senior officer to teach the next generation. After all we take an oath and that oath is very imporant.

I am happy to hear this. This post reads, to me, much different than claiming over and over that we don't know anything was done wrong. Even if it isn't letter of the law wrong it was spirit of the law wrong. If you are saying that you would not take this job and that you do not violate peoples rights, I'll take that.

I truly and honestly salute your 'real world' persona. Thank you.

goose wrote:

texanjoker wrote: Me - no and it is a waste of tax payer money. I am very careful to what I do and anybody that knows me in the 'real world' knows I do not violate peoples rights. In fact I will speak out if I see an issue at work. Having many years in the business it is my job as a senior officer to teach the next generation. After all we take an oath and that oath is very imporant.

I am happy to hear this. This post reads, to me, much different than claiming over and over that we don't know anything was done wrong. Even if it isn't letter of the law wrong it was spirit of the law wrong. If you are saying that you would not take this job and that you do not violate peoples rights, I'll take that.

I truly and honestly salute your 'real world' persona. Thank you.

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]

But… Who was wasting taxpayer money? The officers were off-duty, so presumably they were not being paid by FW, but rather by the feds. So if you're implying the Feds should be fired, I'm all in!

texanjoker wrote: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.

As I have stated in a post earlier on this page in response to your previous post saying that this was done by a federal agency under a federal mandate: The survey was set up and operated by a PRIVATE CONTRACTOR who was awarded an $8 million bid by the NHTSA to conduct the surveys. The survey was conducted by the Pacific Research Institute, a private company in Maryland, that operates for a profit. That is not a "federal agency", and they have no official authority...that's why they clearly state in their proposal that they will hire off-duty officers to facilitate the necessary traffic diversions. There was no public mandate to either the Federal Government or the NHTSA on this...it was simply one of thousands of federal contracts being bid on every day by companies that make their money from federal contracts supplying goods and services to the government.

Really? The lady was forced into a checkpoint on her lunch break under the guise of drunken or impaired drivers? At noon?
Maybe if this survey was at 9PM after happy hour. But it wasn't. As long as it's a good reason to keep us all safe it will fly on face value alone.

I think the real survey results garnered here would be how well the American Citizens respond to being randomly stopped by the State and asked for "things". That information might come in handy if the Federal Government was ever wondering...

How come we don't have a tinfoil hat icon?

rbwhatever1 wrote:Really? The lady was forced into a checkpoint on her lunch break under the guise of drunken or impaired drivers? At noon?
Maybe if this survey was at 9PM after happy hour. But it wasn't. As long as it's a good reason to keep us all safe it will fly on face value alone.

I think the real survey results garnered here would be how well the American Citizens respond to being randomly stopped by the State and asked for "things". That information might come in handy if the Federal Government was ever wondering...

How come we don't have a tinfoil hat icon?

Ha! I see you think like me too!

Another nail in the BOR's coffin.

Move along, peasants, unless you want to volunteer you DNA.

Anygunanywhere