Texas Drivers Stopped At Roadblock, Asked For Saliva, Blood 783
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."
Booze Bus (Score:2, Interesting)
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.
Good for the goose... (Score:5, 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.
Re:Booze Bus (Score:0, Interesting)
Not to me. Sorry. You can have it in australia.. I don't want it america. These days the BA content ratio is so low, you can trigger the limit by sniffing a drink.. i've even seen breathalizers triggered by someone who used mouthwash..
Fuck that and fuck your police state.
Australia (Score:2, Interesting)
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.
Re:Booze Bus (Score:3, Interesting)
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.
The reduced number of deaths from Drink Drivers are the price we pay for this in Australia.
I've driven in the US and the standard of driving is absolutely shocking. Even ignoring the speeding (yes, everyone speeds over there) there is little to no lane discipline (keeping to the outside lane, people cant stay in their lane), I saw about 3 people indicate during my entire time, people will cut you off with little or no warning, people also slow down and stop with no warning (and I'm not talking about a gradual stop, they slam on the brakes), people push in, block intersections and completely disregard the lights (yellow means gun it, red means gun it more as you've missed the yellow). These are common things, not the odd occurrence like here in Oz.
In my first 2 days on US roads I came across 3 accidents.
We're not even considering the terrible road designs like all way stops. Yep, all roads have a stop sign. In theory you give way to your right, in reality it's whoever has the balls to go first. In Australia this situation is impossible because they'd put in a round about or at least give one road priority.
I have no doubt a lot of drink drivers are getting off scot free in the US from the standard of driving I witnessed there. I dont think highly of the average Australian driver but the US is a hell of a lot worse.
Re:I'm surprised they didn't get shot (Score:5, Interesting)
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 [whistleblowers.org]
http://youtu.be/3LHC-C-ODO0 [youtu.be]
Strat
Re:Food for thought (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.
Re:sobriety checks are common in the US (Score:1, Interesting)
You put so many ppl in prison for so many crap little offences, ...
This is all a problem of metrics. PD are judged by how much they tickets, pursue or convicts people. Thus the low-hanging fruit which are not creating any problem are often preferred over getting down on tougher real harming crime... and heck... would you prefer to ticket/arrest an unarmed sheep, or a tough blood thirsty criminal who will shoot you if he has the occasion ? :-)
Re:The police are unwitting participants. (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.
Re:Food for thought (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?
Re:Food for thought (Score:3, Interesting)
Smaller communities care more about the people living in them than supranational trillion dollar organizations. While I see a good use for national governments (healthcare, public transport), most power should probably belong with the municipalities.
Re:I do not consent (Score:2, Interesting)
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."
I am curious, how do you think the police should be able to look for people drink driving?
Should they need to see you do something legal but seriously stupid like weaving between the lanes of the highway like a jackass before they can breathalyse you? Or should you actually need to break the law by running a red light? Or should they only be able to breath test people who crash? Or should they be able to breath test anyone who drives? Or should they only be able to breath test anyone driving if they have a history of being drink in charge?
I actually think this is an interesting question. Overhere in the UK the cops need some sort of reasonable suspicion to perform a breath test but if you fail there is zero chance of you getting off the crime by saying they did not have that reasonable suspicion. This effectively means that they can stop anyone they like for a breath test since there is very little comeback. Obviously, anyone who actually crashes gets a mandatory breath test.
We also ban people from driving for 1 year at their first drink driving offence, longer for repeated offenders. Also, failing to provide a breath sample when lawfully asked is an offence that carries the exact same sentence.
Some countries (Australia for one, I believe) just take the line that if you drive on a public road it is your duty to prove to the police that you are sober and they can randomly stop anyone the like.
I personally think that the UK approach is ok, but would not really object to the australian approach since I can understand that it makes keeping drink drivers (who are a menace anyway) off the streets. What is the law in the US though? Can you legally be breath tested without having committed a crime first? If it is more like our approach then can you get away with drink driving if you can prove that that cops did not have reasonable suspicion before pulling you over?
Oh, and just in case anyone is curious, I do think people who drive while they are too drunk to control a car should forfeit their driving privileges for at least a year so please don't come back and argue that drink driving is perfectly fine anyone should be able to drive back from the pub after anything other than a beer or so. I also do think though that the limit should be more variable depending on how long you have held a licence.
Re:Food for thought (Score:4, Interesting)
Not wanting to downplay such violent fringes at all, but this article [wikipedia.org] about those Black Banner cadres says
The typical age of the Chernoznamentsy was nineteen or twenty, and some of the most active adherents were as young as fifteen years old.
Which kind of reads like juvenile "watch it burn" adherents which I alluded to earlier.
I don't think we're actually in any significant disagreement here. I just regret the fact that the word "anarchy" has come to mean what you emphasize it now does, whereas the more mature aspects of the eponymous philosphy remain largely unknown.
People should read about Proudhon, Bakunin, Kropotkin, and so on -- they actually had some valuable things to say.
Re:Food for thought (Score:5, Interesting)
It seems odd you never hear of a lawyer getting (Score:4, Interesting)
stopped in these situations. What do they know their plates and let them pass? Or do they have a special sticker in their window?
Re:Food for thought (Score:4, Interesting)
Anarchy originally meant 'absence of a ruler' by definition it isn't anarchy if you are forced to accept someone as having control over you. What a lot of people want is very, very small and usually local governance and they think that means anarchy