Because they can. They are THE GOVERNMENT, when you have that kind of power you don’t need a reason for doing anything.
Slight hijack here.
That is exactly the wrong way to think about a rail system, but you’re not alone. Transit issues in this country are always sold to the voters by saying that they will magically reduce congestion on the highways. Everyone Else[sup]TM[/sup] will ride the train so you, yes you sir, can drive your car without any traffic.
If you’re going to have a train, make it better than the freeway. Talk, and think, about it that way from the start, or don’t bother. And if it runs down the median so I can look out the window and laugh my ass off at the people stuck in traffic, so much the better.
And they think 120 mph is a bullet train. C’mon voters, let’s drag the Florida constitution, kicking and screaming, into the 1960s.
I don’t see what would be so bad about this, slightly tweaked of course. Suppose they had up a sign that offered you $5.00 for five minutes of your time. Your just driving to or from work most likely. Wouldn’t you like to get a free lunch that day for answering some voluntary questions?
Actually, I just want to ride the damn train. I don’t have a car, and I’m sick of taking the bus so I can take BART so I can take another fucking bus to get where I want to go. But “All of you people vote for this so I, personally, will no longer be inconvienenced” seems unlikely to bring in a whole lot of support.
A) More likely, they’ll pass a constitutional amendment banning Satan from the state.
B) I wonder if HTNB Corp. is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Penultimate, Inc.
Well, that’s enough obscure allusions for one post.
Pull over on the side of the highway and talk to some yo-yo about a bullet train, including questions about my income? For five bucks?
No thanks.
Obviously, they’d blame the bad press on the subcontractors. Expect to see some troopers die in fishing ‘accidents’.
You are Dave Barry and I claim Elizabeth Dole.
Did the movie ever come out?
Today, surveys.
Tomorrow: “Sir, I’m going to have to ask you to stop squeezing the Charmin and put your hands behind your head. Sir? Listen to me now…”
This state is amendment-mad. Next on the ballot is a proposed constitutional amendment to limit class size!! I hesitate to ask how much more idiotic it can become. I’m counting the days till I’m no longer a Florida resident (just under 22 months)
I hate this state.
You think Florida is ammendment mad? Texas has one of the longest constitutions of any state in the nation. The only way to get something done is make a constitutional ammendment.
Anyway, my original post to this thread got ate. I had a question:
If these are off-duty police officers, and if they’re not officers when they’re off-duty, would this constitute impersonating a police officer? I ask, because the distinction of “off-duty” was made. In fact, I seem to remember someone telling me that an off-duty officer who makes an arrest (say, working as a security guard) is doing so as a citizen’s arrest, vs. a normal arrest performed if he was on-duty.
It’s an interesting legal question, based almost purely on semantics and very little on common sense, so keep this in mind before you reply.
inkblot
This is what my husband says, inkblot. I don’t have any cites, so take with a grain of salt:
I didn’t see where it said that they were in uniform, but I’d guess that it would be just like the rent-a-cop directing traffic exiting the driveway of your local Randalls.
My WAG – state really does not want impliment what the voters voted for, and is looking for an way out? Or just a delaying tactic? As in, “It needs more study.”
And I think this was an idiotic thing to do, regardless of the reason.
The photo shows a uniformed officer with the caption:
The uniform is only part of the issue, though. The real question, in my opinion, is whether police can or should pull you over for a matter wholly unrelated to any crime. Directing traffic is different than pulling you over in that it does not arrest your progress. Arguably, it actually enables your progress and has a compelling public safety interest to boot.
[hijack]
Suppose you were pulled over to take a survey and the officer noticed a bag of pot (or something you shouldn’t have, whatever). Considering you were pulled over for a survey and not because of any suspicion of wrongdoing, would you be protected from any action taken against you due to possession of whatever?
[sub]And no, the reason I’m asking isn’t that I drive around with bags of pot on the passenger seat of my car. I’m just curious:)[/sub]
[/hijack]
Cessandra, thanks! That clarifies much of it for me. So, if violations occured, they are most likely with codes of conduct within the police force itself, not public statues.
Well, then, iampunha, based on Cessandra’s statement from her husband, if it’s in plain view they would act the same as if they pulled you over for speeding. It’s not that they pulled you over for any particular reason, if it’s plainly visible they have probable cause to search the rest of your vehicle and person (insofar as I understand this sort of thing, which isn’t a great deal, but hey, you asked :)).
inkblot
peasea, don’t get me wrong, I think it’s total crap and an abuse of power. I was just trying to answer Inkblot’s question.
No, no, no. This is different. Here, they obstruct your intended path and corral you. This is very close to dum, dum false imprisonment. Do not feed the lawyers.
Seriously. This is bad. I have never heard of such an obvious abuse of power for such a stupid reason. Hypothetical: someone gets into an accident because of the huge backup this causes. Car after car plow into one another in a huge chain reaction. The state is freaking liable for that. My tax dollars at work. Oh well, at least we don’t have a state income tax.
I meant wearing the uniform doing this would be like wearing the uniform directing traffic. I DO think it’s bad. I really do, I promise.