Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Texas Drivers Stopped At Roadblock, Asked For Saliva, Blood

Soulskill posted about 9 months ago | from the also-need-an-eyeball-scraping-and-a-chunk-of-lung dept.

Transportation 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."

cancel ×

783 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Sure (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45470131)

But those come after the semen and stool samples, right?

Re:Sure (5, Funny)

kermyt (99494) | about 9 months ago | (#45470137)

no that's new mexico.

Booze Bus (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45470145)

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.

Re:Booze Bus (5, Informative)

Zaelath (2588189) | about 9 months ago | (#45470173)

Booze buses don't take DNA as saliva or blood ... and they sure as f#&k aren't run by contractors.

Re:Booze Bus (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45470197)

They do take saliva, just not all the time. DNA wasn't mentioned in the article. The contractor part is probably the biggest issue.

Re:Booze Bus (1)

Pherdnut (969927) | about 9 months ago | (#45470347)

What do they swab cheeks for other than DNA just out of curiosity?

Re:Booze Bus (4, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45470453)

Most roadside drug tests use a cheek swab test.

Re:Booze Bus (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45470517)

And most schools have penis inspection day.

Re:Booze Bus (4, Informative)

cheater512 (783349) | about 9 months ago | (#45470201)

They can take blood if a initial drug test comes back positive (if they test for drugs).

But yeah contractors doing it is pretty dodgy.

Re:Booze Bus (1)

Zaelath (2588189) | about 9 months ago | (#45470273)

At the roadside?

I've only ever heard of blood tests being administered by nursing staff and assessed by pathologists, in Australia.

Re:Booze Bus (1)

mjwx (966435) | about 9 months ago | (#45470391)

At the roadside?

I've only ever heard of blood tests being administered by nursing staff and assessed by pathologists, in Australia.

IIRC, they use saliva swabs to test for drugs. But I live in a state where they dont do roadside drug tests.

Re:Booze Bus (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45470285)

This comment is current the highest rated on the story and 'Informative' while being the least correct.

Go Slashdot.

Re:Booze Bus (1)

Pherdnut (969927) | about 9 months ago | (#45470361)

Most of these comments remind me of the conversations between the Scandinavian members of Dethklok.

Food for thought (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45470175)

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.

Re:Food for thought (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45470211)

Why not remove government and have anarchy?

Just as useful as your argument. I'll go back to enjoying health care, education, and other crazy oppressive things.

Re:Food for thought (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45470263)

There are other ways to structure a society that don't require a coercive government yet amazingly include all of those things. Expand your horizons a tad,

Re:Food for thought (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45470413)

Why not remove government and have anarchy?

This. There would be some problems, but overall it'd be a lot better than what we have now.

Re:Food for thought (5, Interesting)

x0ra (1249540) | about 9 months ago | (#45470469)

"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:Food for thought (1)

marka63 (1237718) | about 9 months ago | (#45470265)

Your licence to drive a car on the road is conditional on you being sober / no impaired. This is something you agree to when you get/renew a licence. You make a choice to get/renew your licence. You make a choice to drive drunk/impaired. There is no one forcing you to get behind the wheel.

Now if you are unlicensed then you haven't agreed but you are still committing a offence.

Re:Food for thought (5, Insightful)

Sun (104778) | about 9 months ago | (#45470303)

While I agree with the point you are trying to convey, I think you chose a really bad way of driving (sorry about the pun) it home.

This is not a contract. This is the law. Violating it isn't a contract dispute. It is a criminal offense. There is not difference, as far as your consent goes, between driving without a license and driving under the influence.

You did not accept the rules when you got your license. The rules bind you whether you agree with them or not. Within the rules, you are free to choose not to get your license (and not drive), or to drive only when the law decides you are not prohibited from doing so.

Shachar

Re:Food for thought (5, Insightful)

FlyHelicopters (1540845) | about 9 months ago | (#45470399)

That is all true, but it does not give the government the right to stop and search me without probable cause.

Yes, we are bound by the laws, regardless if we agree with them or not.

And so are the cops, who are bound by the 4th amendment, last time I checked.

Re:Food for thought (4, Insightful)

s.petry (762400) | about 9 months ago | (#45470447)

Except that in the US there must be probable cause in order to detain people and search them. And absolutely yes! A breathalyzer, saliva (DNA) gathering, finger printing, paper checking, etc.. is all supposed to be illegal to gather without having probable cause. This is why "Stop and Frisk" was outlawed in New York (after way too long of it being done as the court case dragged on).

The citizens here need to file a suit here against the police involved, the contractors, and the US agencies involved. There have been a few suits against breathalyzers which have held them legal, but given by officers not "contractors".

Re:Food for thought (4, Informative)

Entropius (188861) | about 9 months ago | (#45470317)

Yes, my license to drive is conditional on me being sober. It does not give the government permission to harass me to see if I am sober without any evidence that I am not.

Re:Food for thought (1)

Pherdnut (969927) | about 9 months ago | (#45470341)

But what if it's just for a completely useless survey? Come on! 10 bucks for some spit!

Re:Food for thought (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45470385)

Only if it's in your face.

Re:Food for thought (0)

marka63 (1237718) | about 9 months ago | (#45470395)

You really need to lookup what harass means.

Random breath tests, when properly implemented, don't fall within the definition of harassment.

Re:Food for thought (5, Insightful)

LordLimecat (1103839) | about 9 months ago | (#45470455)

Its a pretty clear violation of the spirit of the 4th amendment, and its a little saddening that people are trying to pretend that it isnt.

Re:Food for thought (5, Insightful)

s.petry (762400) | about 9 months ago | (#45470401)

The cops had no probable cause for this so called "voluntary" pull over. Everyone driving was diverted and forced to pull in, and detained. According to TFA, if you bothered to read it, the driver discussing issues was harassed to the point of finally blowing in a breathalyser so that they could leave and return from work since it was during their lunch break that they were forced into a detainment area. For doing _NOTHING_!

Assuming you read TFA and understood that these people were not pulled over for doing anything wrong: By your broken logic, a cop should be able to jam a camera up your ass since you might be carrying illegal narcotics up there. Lets not forget you are consenting to the same treatment for your significant other.

If you didn't bother reading TFA and just assumed that these people were acting illegally and therefor pulled over you are just as broken in critical thinking. Congrats on being either the cooked frog or dangerously ignorant.

Re:Food for thought (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45470407)

Searches upon your person are clearly protected by the Constitution, since the Constitution overrides all state and Federals laws, then these searches are unconstitutional. I am surprised this would happen in Texas, since for the most part people are against road blocks of any sort. These sorts of searches and seizures should only be allowed by court order of a judge. Cops are not judge, jury, and executioner. Your points are all null and void when pitted against what is clearly stated in the Constitution. You have the right to conduct commerce, and driving is part of that.

Re:Food for thought (1)

x0ra (1249540) | about 9 months ago | (#45470483)

Your comment is just the same as saying: "Your freedom is conditional of you not being a murderer, please give us a sample of you DNA so we can be sure of that". Such fishing expedition is totally unacceptable without probable cause.

Re:Food for thought (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45470281)

People like you tend to forget that a drivers licence is a privilege, not a right. You only have the right to apply for one, not the right to be granted one, and certainly not the right to put everyone elses life in danger by being rat-arsed drunk behind the wheel.
Once you are rat arsed drunk you have the right to walk home, catch a cab, or bus. If you chose to ignore those options, you have (In Autralia) the right to lose your licence for up to 3 years, and pay a thousand or three in fines (more if second/third/fourth offence).

Note: I am supporting this dragnet that just happened, just noting that people have blurred the distinction between "right to apply",and "right to have".

Re:Food for thought (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45470307)

nice post, sheep. You'll make a nice meal for the wolves.

Moron.

Re:Food for thought (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45470371)

People like you tend to forget that a drivers licence is a privilege, not a right.

True. But at least in the US, I do have the Right to be presumed innocent.

Once you are rat arsed drunk you have the right to walk home

Nope. Public Intoxication.

Re:Food for thought (0)

x0ra (1249540) | about 9 months ago | (#45470495)

True. But at least in the US, I do have the Right to be presumed innocent.

Do you ? I thought Emperor Obama had already ruled over this...

Re:Food for thought (2)

FlyHelicopters (1540845) | about 9 months ago | (#45470409)

Does Australia have something in it's constitution similar to the 4th amendment that the US has?

In other words, is it legal for a cop to pull you over "just to see if you might be committing a crime"? In the US, it is not, the cop has to have a probable cause to pull you over, or (in theory), anything the cop finds would not be allowed in court against you.

If so, then more power to you. It is illegal here, even if the cops try and do it anyway (which is just an abuse of power, but what are you going to do, call the cops about it?)

Re:Food for thought (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45470443)

It should be obvious that you have the privilege not getting stopped on the whim of some contractors and overzealous cops. You should be free to conduct your business as long as you aren't driving suspiciously like speeding or swerving around. These road blocks are clearly again the letter and spirit of the Constitution.

Re:Food for thought (1)

Hans Lehmann (571625) | about 9 months ago | (#45470283)

I agree, we should just shoot the next person that tries to pull us over. Better safe than sorry, and they had it coming.

Re:Food for thought (3)

sumdumass (711423) | about 9 months ago | (#45470377)

Except that in the US, these rights are not granted by law, they exist regardless of it. The law is actually bared from violating them except in limited and specific ways. That is what is so important about a constitution and the need to change it rather than ignore it. It takes a lot more to change the constitution than it does to change a law.

Re:Food for thought (0, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45470421)

Except that in the US, these rights are not granted by law, they exist regardless of it.

The concept of natural rights is a relic of the 18th century when people believed in a magical sky fairy (however Deist they might have been) who could grant these rights. Now that it is obvious that there is no god, natural right theory is untenable. The best one can do is see rights as a convenient fiction that increase total happiness, but they are granted by the complicated interplay of state and society and are not somehow innate.

I agree with you about the need to change the Constitution. So much of the wrangling over it in recent decades comes from a recognition that the values of a few 18th-century superstitious farmer-gentlemen are not what our contemporary society wants, but there is no sufficient social momentum for serious rewriting (nor would the government with its NSA allow such momentum to build), so one either has to read the Constitution in creative ways, or just flat-out ignore it.

Re:Food for thought (1, Insightful)

sumdumass (711423) | about 9 months ago | (#45470463)

I completely disagree. Rights do not need to be granted by a God or gods just as morals can come about without them too.

As for creative interpretations, that us just completely wrong. The problem is as you twist to your enjoyment, someone else is twisting to your detriment. A constitution limiting government prevents that for a set or subset of freedoms we as a society hold dear. What made the US great for the longest of time was the fact that the government was subject to the people. Now it seems the people are subjects of the government. And when i saw subjects, i mean owned and controlled by the king or queen. We shouldn't need to beg permision to live life the way we want.

Re:Booze Bus (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45470209)

Yeah I'm a big fan of pre-crime too.

Re:Booze Bus (0, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45470219)

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.

Re:Booze Bus (1)

ackthpt (218170) | about 9 months ago | (#45470225)

We have the usual traffic checks at a few times of the year - New Years, Mardi Gras. Breath only, though. Maybe get out and walk if it's on the bubble.

Re:Booze Bus (1)

sumdumass (711423) | about 9 months ago | (#45470279)

Columbus ohio does the DUI road blocks too- not on the freeways but busy city streets. They announce the results on the news and it is always something like 3 arrests for alcohol or drug DUI and a couple for outstanding warrants (typically child support or failed to renew license related) out of 600-1000 cars stopped.

It is a complete invasion of privacy for the vast majority of people hassled by them. Of course the cops announce where the check points will be in order to get around 4th amendment issues. I don't even think they expect to catch anyone for DUI.

Re:Booze Bus (1)

Entropius (188861) | about 9 months ago | (#45470327)

I don't understand how announcing them in advance gets around 4th amendment issues: we paid for those roads. They don't belong to the cops, they belong to us. Saying "you can't drive on the roads without going through these checkpoints, which are only legal since we announced them in advance" makes no sense.

Re:Booze Bus (0, Flamebait)

sjwt (161428) | about 9 months ago | (#45470375)

I do hope you get taken out by a drunk, drugged unlicensed driver whilst avoiding one of these.

Re:Booze Bus (4, Insightful)

Jane Q. Public (1010737) | about 9 months ago | (#45470491)

"I do hope you get taken out by a drunk, drugged unlicensed driver whilst avoiding one of these."

I hope he runs over you first. Your belief in regard to what constitutes "freedom" is a hell of a lot more dangerous than some drunk driver.

--
"That it is better 100 guilty Persons should escape than that one innocent Person should suffer, is a Maxim that has been long and generally approved." -- Benjamin Franklin, letter to Benjamin Vaughan, March 14, 1785.

Re:Booze Bus (1)

sumdumass (711423) | about 9 months ago | (#45470415)

The courts have outlawed this in the past then someone said if they announce it, you are volunteering for the search by not going around it and they allowed it.

I agree with you. It isn't right and anyone wjo says drunks on the road justifies it doesn't know the facts. We are more likely dieing from slipping and falling around the house than we are from a drunk driver and no one is demanding the cops search every house or making living in one illegal.

Re:Booze Bus (1)

gl4ss (559668) | about 9 months ago | (#45470313)

that's different, really. we call them raids in finland. usually just a breathalyzer test though(they don't usually even bother asking for papers).

that's quite a bit different from using police powers to push people to give saliva tests "voluntarily" for a "study" done by federal contractors(so not the police administering it).

of course I can see how they might have had hard time getting volunteers so asking the local sheriff to round up some volunteers might have seemed like a good idea.

a study means they'll be putting them in a long living database too. it wasn't a spot check either. it's just one step away from sending them fines because they found thc traces in their hair.

sobriety checks are common in the US (1)

globaljustin (574257) | about 9 months ago | (#45470339)

They don't take blood, but they do the rest and it is 100% involuntary

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

Re:sobriety checks are common in the US (1)

sjwt (161428) | about 9 months ago | (#45470393)

See, this is the problem with America.

You put so many ppl in prison for so many crap little offences, the government is so corrupted that its almost able to buy its self. The police are just a rebadged Military force, your Military force is used as the class bully on a world wise scale, and here you guys are complaining about the deprivation of Liberty and government regulations on what is the kind of "protecting the public" that the police should be doing.

....something **on topic** (1)

globaljustin (574257) | about 9 months ago | (#45470493)

The police are just a rebadged Military force, your Military force is used as the class bully on a world wise scale, and here you guys are complaining about

see title

Re:sobriety checks are common in the US (1, Interesting)

x0ra (1249540) | about 9 months ago | (#45470515)

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:Booze Bus (3, Interesting)

mjwx (966435) | about 9 months ago | (#45470365)

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:Booze Bus (2)

bakes (87194) | about 9 months ago | (#45470509)

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

I've been to South Africa a few times, they have 4-way stop signs too. The way it works there is when you get to the line, everyone who is already stopped on the other entries goes before you, then you go. All-in-all it works quite well. In fact, when they have one of their frequent power outages and the traffic lights go out, the drivers just treat the intersection as a 4-way stop and get on with it.

Re:Booze Bus (1)

sjwt (161428) | about 9 months ago | (#45470367)

Dude, RTFA, its talking about Drug tests being administrated with the breath tests.
You can bet they will come in, but at lest here in Queensland for the trial voluntary period we got envelopes with a $50 note in it.

Re:Booze Bus (1, Insightful)

WaffleMonster (969671) | about 9 months ago | (#45470405)

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.

Australia is a police state.

Personally I am mostly OK with this.

And this would be why.

The next morning when you see the huge line of cars left behind because the drivers were drunk justifies it to me.

Your ok with it cuz you believe ends justify means?

If authorities systematically searched everyone's homes without cause and installed cameras and microphones in every room I'm sure it would also bear fruit.

Re:Booze Bus (4, Insightful)

cffrost (885375) | about 9 months ago | (#45470423)

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.

I prefer the risks of liberty over the certainties of tyranny.

Re:Booze Bus (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45470427)

In America, we have a constitution that prohibits search and/or seizure without specific personal probable cause. Just because the rule of law is dead to the NSA doesn't mean it needs to be dead everywhere.

Re:Booze Bus (2)

LordLimecat (1103839) | about 9 months ago | (#45470449)

Start justifying means with ends, and you get all sorts of nasty fun. Be real careful where that leads you.

Re:Booze Bus (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45470459)

A huge line of cars by itself is not a good justification. It's only a good justification if the removal of those cars/drivers from the system reduce the the accident rate with statistical significance.
Remember the 0.05 BAC limit here in aus is somewhat arbitrary and other places have different limits.

It still happened (2)

e1t (2040102) | about 9 months ago | (#45470151)

It's a shame that this even happened.

Re:It still happened (1)

ackthpt (218170) | about 9 months ago | (#45470233)

It's a shame that this even happened.

It's amazing it happened in Texas, Fort Worth, even.

I do not consent (5, Insightful)

NoNonAlphaCharsHere (2201864) | about 9 months ago | (#45470161)

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."

Re:I do not consent (1)

ackthpt (218170) | about 9 months ago | (#45470243)

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."

They were looking for 'roids. When Lance Armstrong went through the meters all broke. TILT

Police, or Government Contractors, Which Was It? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45470163)

Posting as anonymous coward, complete with cheek swab.

Re:Police, or Government Contractors, Which Was It (1)

cffrost (885375) | about 9 months ago | (#45470497)

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.

Sure, it's voluntary. (5, Insightful)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | about 9 months ago | (#45470165)

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....

Re:Sure, it's voluntary. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45470199)

seems like they were doing this midday

Re:Sure, it's voluntary. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45470245)

Oh. Well, that makes ALL the difference. Carry on then.

Does your drooling idiot pedantic bullshit add anything to the discussion? Yeah, I thought not. Piss off, there's a good lad.

Re:Sure, it's voluntary. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45470247)

Shhh... you're interupting the evil government hate train.

I'm surprised they didn't get shot (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45470169)

Over my dead body feds.

Re:I'm surprised they didn't get shot (1)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | about 9 months ago | (#45470193)

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.

Re:I'm surprised they didn't get shot (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45470251)

I keep trying to deny what is happening in my country, but every day I get slapped in the face with more news that makes me want to scream.

Re:I'm surprised they didn't get shot (1)

fahrbot-bot (874524) | about 9 months ago | (#45470309)

SuperMax Forever Fun Time

Worst Japanese TV game show ever.

Re:I'm surprised they didn't get shot (5, Interesting)

BlueStrat (756137) | about 9 months ago | (#45470467)

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 [whistleblowers.org]

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

Strat

Re:I'm surprised they didn't get shot (1)

cbhacking (979169) | about 9 months ago | (#45470481)

Worth noting: "federal contractors" working on behalf of the NHTSA are not cops. I'm not saying that shooting them would have been a god use of one's time, but this *is* Texas. I'm a bit surprised if none of them were at least threatened with a gun if the "100 percent voluntary" part is as BS as people are claiming.

The police are unwitting participants. (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45470183)

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!

Re:The police are unwitting participants. (0)

Lodlaiden (2767969) | about 9 months ago | (#45470227)

I would have wasted a mod point on that post.

Re:The police are unwitting participants. (1)

unitron (5733) | about 9 months ago | (#45470277)

I would have wasted a mod point on that post.

By chance I happen to have been able to right up to the point of hitting submit on this post, but as for actually modding that post, I'm thwarted by the lack of an "insightful interesting informative funny flamebait troll" option.

Re:The police are unwitting participants. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45470475)

Mod hint: -1, Domestic Terrorist.

Parent post is attempting to incite domestic terrorism. Mod him -1, not +2 Interesting.

TEXAS BITCHES OUT EVERY TIME (1)

I. P. Freely (2969967) | about 9 months ago | (#45470521)

Oh, but they sure do talk a good game!

Good for the goose... (4, Interesting)

Somebody Is Using My (985418) | about 9 months ago | (#45470189)

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:Good for the goose... (0)

mysidia (191772) | about 9 months ago | (#45470237)

Did we make sure to get blood and saliva samples from the police officers and federal contractors as well?

It was a biased study; police officers and non-police-officers were not equally likely to be selected for the study, in proportion to their numbers that would normally be driving around the area around that time.

Re:Good for the goose... (1, Troll)

girlintraining (1395911) | about 9 months ago | (#45470255)

I will not willingly surrender anything but words to the government. Many feel similar. The government has done nothing but lose credibility since at least the 1950s regarding how it treats its citizens privacy and confidentiality. "Anything you say can and will be used against you"... and funny thing: Nothing you say, by law, can help you. So no. Government can suck a fart out of my curvy white arse. :/

Re:Good for the goose... (1)

NoKaOi (1415755) | about 9 months ago | (#45470343)

That would depend on whose definition of "willing" and you're using. Is it considered "willing" if the consequence of not surrendering is being detained for 48 hours? Because that would still be considered "willing" by the federal government.

Fuck this country.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45470203)

I'm moving to Canada!

White Person Pulled Over, BIG NEWS!!! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45470231)

This is Texas...not far behind Alabama in instituting racial profiling any way they can, where the one protected right is to have a gun. If this wasn't a white woman nobody would have even looked into this or considered it strange in the first place. Pull people over because they 'look mexican' and involuntarily interrogating them - why that is just good policy, cause you know those people are up to no good! Pull over some white woman for a very legitimate study in the middle of the day and even explain it is voluntary - VIOLATING MY CIVIL RIGHTS!

Re:White Person Pulled Over, BIG NEWS!!! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45470425)

....says the illegal.

Re:White Person Pulled Over, BIG NEWS!!! (1)

Nephandus (2953269) | about 9 months ago | (#45470439)

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.

Australia (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45470295)

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:Australia (1)

Jamie Ian Macgregor (3389757) | about 9 months ago | (#45470305)

It is the same in New Zealand, once got stopped first thing in the morning leaving Auckland City (on a work day), surprising number of people pulled over still drunk from the night before. eat your breakfast folks.

Re:Australia (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45470477)

"eat your breakfast folks."

Does absolutely nothing for blood alcohol content.

Re:Australia (1)

couchslug (175151) | about 9 months ago | (#45470381)

Wait until their "anti-bikie laws" are used against the general population, for which use they are appropriately written.

bad brew (2)

Tablizer (95088) | about 9 months ago | (#45470323)

Texas and the Feds. What could possibly go wrong?

Texas Irony (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45470333)

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.

how on earth conduct such study? (1)

4wdloop (1031398) | about 9 months ago | (#45470387)

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?

Re:how on earth conduct such study? (1)

Bob_Who (926234) | about 9 months ago | (#45470465)

Good question. One thing for sure, they are totally full of shit and they will not be straight forward about their intentions. At the very least, nobody trusts what they say as being any more than politically astute spin. Its business as usual for those who keep their jobs in demand while on the government tit. I remember when those were the shit jobs. Not any more.

Why don't they just ask for your wallet and keys (1)

Bob_Who (926234) | about 9 months ago | (#45470441)

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...

Thin edge of the wedge. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45470485)

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.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>