-
Be sure to read this post! Beware of scammers. https://www.indianagunowners.com/threads/classifieds-new-online-payment-guidelines-rules-paypal-venmo-zelle-etc.511734/
Alabama police set up roadblocks to request DNA samples from drivers
- Thread starter rambone
- Start date
-
- Tags
- checkpoints
The #1 community for Gun Owners in Indiana
Member Benefits:
Fewer Ads! Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership Discuss anti-gun legislation Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses Discover free outdoor shooting areas View up to date on firearm-related events Share photos & video with other members ...and so much more!
Member Benefits:
Bunnykid68
Grandmaster
Only if it is on pant legs and boots
These survey's aren't new. This same organization ran a similar survey in 2007 and they produced a 104 page "lab report" if you will. The report, linked below (link found in Rambone's link BTW), has all the information you would come to expect from a good lab report including the goal of the survey, list of procedures, results, etc...
https://docs.google.com/viewer?url=http://www.nhtsa.gov/DOT/NHTSA/Traffic%2520Injury%2520Control/Articles/Associated%2520Files/PilotTest_NRSM.pdf
The good stuff starts at page 15. Though I doubt many of you will read it.
However, since many of you would rather jump on the bandwagon and follow Rambone of the bridge, I'll try and address some of your concerns:
-The goal of the survey was to determine the amount/type of drugs (legal/illegal) and alcohol in the [weekend nighttime driving population]
-*These are not your standard sobriety checkpoints. They are not done in the middle of the highway and there are no lines to wait in.*
-*All police pressence was Off-Duty*
-Site locations were choosen based on officer, researcher, and participant safety as well as least disturbance to the flow of traffic. (There are diagrams on page 16 of the report showing the layouts of the "checkpoints")
-Officers would attempt to stop vehicles only when a "bay" was available. No commercial vehicles were stopped.
-Once in the "bay" no more officer contact.
-*If drivers were found to be over the legal limit, researchers would help them get rides home. Researchers also went so far as to drive people home themselves (4 participants required this service)* NO ONE WAS ARRESTED FOR DWI.
-Once in the bay, participants were made clear that they could stop the survey and drive away at anytime.
-Average participant waiting times:
-Written Survey and BAC: 5-7 Minutes
-Written Survey, BAC, and one Oral Fluid Sample: 10-12 Minutes
-Written Survey, BAC, Oral Fluid Sample, and Blood Sample: 20-25 Minutes
-Results of the survey show that compared to previous surveys in the past, the BAC of participants was overall lower than previously measured in 1973, 1986, 1996, and 2005.
-It was also determined that it was feasible to gather reliable, self-reported data about drug and alcohol use using this method of survey.
PSA:
Fellow Ingo'ers, I'd just like to point out that these "drive by" stories that are posted in the forum are what we deal with from Liberal media outlets everyday. It is OUR responsibility to research what we are being told to make an informed decission.
Too many people are quick to dispell what they hear from NBC, CNN, Etc but take BS posted on a forum as God's truth. There is just as much reason to question the statments from Rambone's links as there is to question the reporting from NBC, CNN, Etc.
https://docs.google.com/viewer?url=http://www.nhtsa.gov/DOT/NHTSA/Traffic%2520Injury%2520Control/Articles/Associated%2520Files/PilotTest_NRSM.pdf
The good stuff starts at page 15. Though I doubt many of you will read it.
However, since many of you would rather jump on the bandwagon and follow Rambone of the bridge, I'll try and address some of your concerns:
-The goal of the survey was to determine the amount/type of drugs (legal/illegal) and alcohol in the [weekend nighttime driving population]
-*These are not your standard sobriety checkpoints. They are not done in the middle of the highway and there are no lines to wait in.*
-*All police pressence was Off-Duty*
-Site locations were choosen based on officer, researcher, and participant safety as well as least disturbance to the flow of traffic. (There are diagrams on page 16 of the report showing the layouts of the "checkpoints")
-Officers would attempt to stop vehicles only when a "bay" was available. No commercial vehicles were stopped.
-Once in the "bay" no more officer contact.
-*If drivers were found to be over the legal limit, researchers would help them get rides home. Researchers also went so far as to drive people home themselves (4 participants required this service)* NO ONE WAS ARRESTED FOR DWI.
-Once in the bay, participants were made clear that they could stop the survey and drive away at anytime.
-Average participant waiting times:
-Written Survey and BAC: 5-7 Minutes
-Written Survey, BAC, and one Oral Fluid Sample: 10-12 Minutes
-Written Survey, BAC, Oral Fluid Sample, and Blood Sample: 20-25 Minutes
-Results of the survey show that compared to previous surveys in the past, the BAC of participants was overall lower than previously measured in 1973, 1986, 1996, and 2005.
-It was also determined that it was feasible to gather reliable, self-reported data about drug and alcohol use using this method of survey.
PSA:
Fellow Ingo'ers, I'd just like to point out that these "drive by" stories that are posted in the forum are what we deal with from Liberal media outlets everyday. It is OUR responsibility to research what we are being told to make an informed decission.
Too many people are quick to dispell what they hear from NBC, CNN, Etc but take BS posted on a forum as God's truth. There is just as much reason to question the statments from Rambone's links as there is to question the reporting from NBC, CNN, Etc.
Well they certainly aren't volunteering, are they? They are getting paid by the Feds instead of their local departments.
They are posing themselves as government agents, wearing their government uniforms and using their government vehicles.
If they don't want me to talk about their stupid program, they should use private funds, private vehicles. and plain-clothes workers. Don't impersonate the police and abuse public resources.
On its face its a stupid idea. The vast majority of people with something to hide are going to drive away. The rest of the people respondents are just collecting free Federal giveaway money. The accuracy of this study is nil. Its a pointless waste of time and money.
If it was self-reported data, there wouldn't be a cash exchange.
PSA:
Fellow Ingo'ers, I'd just like to point out that these "drive by" stories that are posted in the forum are what we deal with from Liberal media outlets everyday. It is OUR responsibility to research what we are being told to make an informed decission.
Too many people are quick to dispell what they hear from NBC, CNN, Etc but take BS posted on a forum as God's truth. There is just as much reason to question the statments from Rambone's links as there is to question the reporting from NBC, CNN, Etc.
This program has no redeeming qualities.
gunman41mag
Shooter
ALABAMA just wanted to see how many married couples were brother & sister
So...? I like me some overtime too.
Given the goal of the survey, that's arguably the safest method...
The survey is in conjunction with the NHTSA, why wouldn't they get federal funds?
I'm not going to argue that.Ok, so you just invalidated every survey that encourages participation for a reward. (edited to add: That's, more or less, every successful survey conducted in the history of surveys)
This program has no redeeming qualities.
What's redeeming about it, is that it is not the big government intrusion that people, who don't bother to inform themselves, believe it to be.
Your post, and the links included, left out a lot of information that was actually pretty pertinent to the situation.
I'm just trying to help the people who read your original post, get a better understanding of what was really going on here. That way, if they decide they don't like it, they know why instead of just following the general concensus.
Last edited:
ALABAMA just wanted to see how many married couples were brother & sister
According to the report, this sample (only 600 participants) wasn't enough to draw any conclusions about the country as a whole. It did prove that their method of obtaining data was good.
If the people running this survey follow through with their plans, This will be done on a larger scale nationwide in the future.
In that case, ALL the southern states will get to find out just how related they really are...
Why wouldn't they do this? Once they get everyone in the database, think how quick they will be able to solve a lot of crimes. Think of the children this may save. And if we need to get rid do someone we don't like, we have their DNA to plant at the scene of a crime. This can be an outstanding tool for the .gov.
It came out that the IRS was targeting the political enemies of POTUS and other than some crackpots, people didnt really care. I saw some guy on TV that had college students signing a thank you note to the IRS for doing it. He said not one student was against it. We find out the .gov is capturing all of our phone calls, email, web traffic, etc. and again, there doesn't seem to be much outrage by the masses. So why wouldn't they push the envelope further.
It came out that the IRS was targeting the political enemies of POTUS and other than some crackpots, people didnt really care. I saw some guy on TV that had college students signing a thank you note to the IRS for doing it. He said not one student was against it. We find out the .gov is capturing all of our phone calls, email, web traffic, etc. and again, there doesn't seem to be much outrage by the masses. So why wouldn't they push the envelope further.
Slavery isn't new. Historical existence is hardly grounds for justification for tyranny, wouldn't you agree?
All the excuses you offer to address the concerns are just that. Excuses. There is no reason whatsoever to conduct these surveys. Achieving compliance by using the badge is an abuse of the power and authority we have vested in police. Detaining people without legal cause is an abuse of the power and authority we have vested in police.
Or in some cases, "no - with flair" as in "Eff THAT noise, copper!!"
Not that I personally know anyone who would say that...
PSA:
Fellow Ingo'ers, I'd just like to point out that these "drive by" stories that are posted in the forum are what we deal with from Liberal media outlets everyday. It is OUR responsibility to research what we are being told to make an informed decission.
Too many people are quick to dispell what they hear from NBC, CNN, Etc but take BS posted on a forum as God's truth. There is just as much reason to question the statments from Rambone's links as there is to question the reporting from NBC, CNN, Etc.
And Fox News is fair and balanced right?
These survey's aren't new. This same organization ran a similar survey in 2007 and they produced a 104 page "lab report" if you will. The report, linked below (link found in Rambone's link BTW), has all the information you would come to expect from a good lab report including the goal of the survey, list of procedures, results, etc...
https://docs.google.com/viewer?url=http://www.nhtsa.gov/DOT/NHTSA/Traffic%2520Injury%2520Control/Articles/Associated%2520Files/PilotTest_NRSM.pdf
The good stuff starts at page 15. Though I doubt many of you will read it.
However, since many of you would rather jump on the bandwagon and follow Rambone of the bridge, I'll try and address some of your concerns:
-The goal of the survey was to determine the amount/type of drugs (legal/illegal) and alcohol in the [weekend nighttime driving population]
-*These are not your standard sobriety checkpoints. They are not done in the middle of the highway and there are no lines to wait in.*
-*All police pressence was Off-Duty*
-Site locations were choosen based on officer, researcher, and participant safety as well as least disturbance to the flow of traffic. (There are diagrams on page 16 of the report showing the layouts of the "checkpoints")
-Officers would attempt to stop vehicles only when a "bay" was available. No commercial vehicles were stopped.
-Once in the "bay" no more officer contact.
-*If drivers were found to be over the legal limit, researchers would help them get rides home. Researchers also went so far as to drive people home themselves (4 participants required this service)* NO ONE WAS ARRESTED FOR DWI.
-Once in the bay, participants were made clear that they could stop the survey and drive away at anytime.
-Average participant waiting times:
-Written Survey and BAC: 5-7 Minutes
-Written Survey, BAC, and one Oral Fluid Sample: 10-12 Minutes
-Written Survey, BAC, Oral Fluid Sample, and Blood Sample: 20-25 Minutes
-Results of the survey show that compared to previous surveys in the past, the BAC of participants was overall lower than previously measured in 1973, 1986, 1996, and 2005.
-It was also determined that it was feasible to gather reliable, self-reported data about drug and alcohol use using this method of survey.
PSA:
Fellow Ingo'ers, I'd just like to point out that these "drive by" stories that are posted in the forum are what we deal with from Liberal media outlets everyday. It is OUR responsibility to research what we are being told to make an informed decission.
Too many people are quick to dispell what they hear from NBC, CNN, Etc but take BS posted on a forum as God's truth. There is just as much reason to question the statments from Rambone's links as there is to question the reporting from NBC, CNN, Etc.
I read a few pages of the report you linked. Basically, they used the implied authority of LEO to stop unsuspecting motorists, who were minding their own business. What happens after that is all well and good. But stopping me (and as far as I could tell, the motorists had no way to know if the stop was required or not) just so you can ask me if I would participate some scientific experiment of yours is abuse of authority.
What's the big deal? All they had to say was no.[/QUOT
UGH, UGH, Your kidding right?
Of course he is. You have to say it how *I* inferred you should!UGH, UGH, Your kidding right?
