Do what, you ask?
Have off-duty cops pull your ass over for a “voluntary” interview.
I could rant about this, but instead I recommend you read the article and think about it for awhile. Of course, you are welcome to rant about it, too.
Well, I’ll rant.
What the fuck?! Florida is getting a high speed mass transit system? Fucking Florida? How about California? Y’know, high-tech capital of the fucking planet? I know people who live all the way out in fucking Tracy who commute to work in San Francisco! Do you ahve any fucking idea how much a high-speed transit system would cut down on traffic? The way it is now, you have a fender bender on the Golden Gate, and traffic stops in fucking Sacramento! Hello, Ca. taxpayers! Do you like spending forty-five fucking minutes a day sitting in traffic? Is this one of the fucking perks of living on the west coast? Can we vote some fucking money for a decent transit system that actually takes people where they fucking want to go? Is that to much to fucking ask, you fucking fuckers?
Oh, you meant the cop thing. Yeah, that’s bad too.
If it’s voluntary, just say “No.”
(and it was sneaky. But you have to figure, how many people want to answer a survey?)
Officer: What do you think of running this high-speed train down the median?
Me: Screw you. Lemme go or I’ll beam a nasty virus to your Palm Pilot.
Officer: And how much money do you make?
Me: More than you, fuckface. Now lemme go.
[sub]This exchange never took place. However, if a cop ever pulled me over in order to administer a damned MARKETING SURVEY, it sure would…[/sub]
I’m in the marketing business and I think this is atrocious.
Say NO to a cop pulling you over? Try it sometime.
Call a cop fuckface after he’s pulled you over?
You guys are braver than I.
Ooh, I don’t know about this. I hate to get all grand and sweeping with the issues that I see here, but this strikes e as a bad idea for a whole lot of reasons.
[ul]
[li]First of all, it is using a resource that is held in public trust for marketing type ends. If this door is opened, where will it lead? Can I anticipate being pulled over to have a Coke/Pepsi taste test. EMPs handing out fabric softener samples?[/li][li]It also erodes trust in law enforcement. In a time where the public trust has been rocked by recent reports of police beatings/brutality, the last thing that will help is to have then seen as a commodity that is for sale.[/li][li]Finally, <Knee jerk Liberal/Anarchist hat on> at its root, this tactic is coercive. I am inclined to believe that a lot of folks would have felt very ill at ease “just saying no and driving away”. <Knee jerk Liberal/Anarchist hat off>[/li][/ul]
Wait - they pass a friggin’ amendment to the state constitution demanding that a high speed rail be built, then the state decides to spend a bunch of money and inconvenience a shitload of people if they’d like a high speed rail?
Vote first, ask questions later much? America’s wang needs to get their ass out of their heads by the next election.
/blink…blink…blink/
They’re being paid THIRTY DOLLARS AN HOUR for this?
/blink…blink…blink/
Once again I must fall back upon the theory that just because we can do something, it doesn’t necessarily follow that we should.
I, too, am clueless regarding the need for the survey. If the story is right, they’ve already voted to build the high-speed rail. Why then are they surveying people about it?
"With the cooperation of state troopers, the state is allowed to pull people over just to seek information.’’
The design of the law obviously allows troopers to solicit FACTS or DATA from drivers for the purpose of upholding the law.
The opinions they’re soliciting have nothing to do with crime solving or prevention. It’s a complete and total abuse of the public trust.
I’ve always been a little suspicious of Florida…
Wheres my slice of Reason Pie?
Voluntary…
I have great problems with this word being associated with being waved to exit from the roadway by a uniformed law officer.
When an officer of the law is in uniform and directing you to do something there should not be anything voluntary about it.
If a driver was picked at random and chose not to pull over, were they guilty of breaking a law?
If not, what’s to prevent someone from trying to say “I saw the officer trying to pull me over, but I didn’t want to take a survey” the next time that happens?
Good fucking gawd. “It’s well within in the law.” Well how about citing the goddamn statute then. Bullshit.
The first thing I noticed about the article is the dateline…Lakeland, Florida.
My original hometown.
Yeesh.
Yet another thing I could use to explain why I’d rather not move back there.
In my local paper the FHP apologized with a letter to the editor and said they would not do it anymore. They probably sent it to every city paper on the I-4 corridor. It sucked, and everyone knew it. They lied. OHMIGOD, the state police lied.
As for our “fucking” high speed rail system. We had to vote for a “fucking” constitutional amendment to get it. I am still waiting to see how the legislature “fucking” torpedos the project.
I would love to hear how stopping people who have done nothing wrong is legal. Hearing how it is the right thing to do would be even more interesting. Courts have upheld DUI checkpoints - not exactly on point.
This is just creepy… How can they justify doing this?
Off-topic
A constitutional amendment requiring the state to build a high-speed rail? How much more mundane can a state’s constitution get? Shouldn’t a state’s constitution be limited to somewhat more, say, weighty and profound topics? What’s next for Florida voters, a constitutional amendment requiring all toilet paper be two-ply?
“The bottom line is, we can do it. It’s well within the law.”
Too bad the bottom line is legality, and not right vs. wrong. Fucknuggets.
I’m amazed that the Powers That Be are willing to risk officer safety for this, too. Pulling people over is always dangerous – there are nuts out there with weapons, and traffic whizzing by the officers is dangerous, too! And for a survey? Christ. Use the damn phone.