[TheeBadOne]

Homeless advocates in Florida are outraged by an operation where undercover police officers dressed as vagrants, observed drivers running red lights or committing other traffic violations, then radioed ahead to other officers who stopped those cars and wrote tickets.

"Operation Vagrant," a sting operation involving the Florida Highway Patrol, Kissimmee police and the Osceola County Sheriff's Office, nabbed 171 drivers - most of whom ran red lights, a violation that carries an $83 fine.

Undercover deputies stood along streets and gave the indication they were vagrants by pushing shopping carts and wearing fake teeth and tattered clothing. They also carried small cardboard signs, which read, "Sheriff's traffic sting in progress. Buckle up."

"It's kind of appalling," said Marilyn Gordon, executive director of the Homeless Services Network of Central Florida. "I wonder if it will be a consciousness-raising exercise for the law-enforcement officers."

Robert H. Brown, president and chief executive officer of the Coalition for the Homeless of Central Florida, said the officers were being silly.

"It's ironic that they would use a disguise of someone that people think of as visually offensive," Brown said. "I just think it shows that the community's aware of the homeless problem. I wish they would solve it, rather than masquerading."

Osceola sheriff's bureau Chief Jerry Geier said the sting was designed to raise awareness about dangerous intersections.

Nearly 25,000 drivers were ticketed for running red lights in Florida in 2001, and 107 deaths that year were attributed to drivers disregarding traffic signals. Plus, police nationwide started a new initiative this week to call attention to dangers of riding in a vehicle without using a seat belt.

"Our ultimate goal is to make an impact," Geier said. "The last thing we're trying to do is disrespect anybody."

State Rep. Irv Slosberg, D-Boca Raton, an advocate of stronger seat-belt and other traffic-safety laws, applauded the sting operation. His daughter, Dori, 14, was killed in a 1996 traffic accident in which she did not wear a seat belt.

"I admire them for being creative," Slosberg said.

[Greybeard]

Some depts. here in Tejas outfit officers as construction workers - hard hat, orange vest, blue jeans and - radar gun. Fines can be DOUBLED for speeding in construction zone "when workmen are present". ;)

[roscoe]

Those boys are a bit too well-fed to be homeless.

http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/South/05/23/offbeat.homelesssting.ap/index.html

[El Tejon]

Wow! I thought you were suppossed to be low profile when "undercover"? Maybe just use a lot of covers?:D

BTW, I have a solution for the "homeless crisis". Have Bobby Brown and all the other whiny leftists at the Coalition for Setting Fire to El Tejon's Money pull their BMWs over and pick up two "homeless" persons and take them home. The "problem" would disappear overnight!:D

Grey, are you sure that's an official gig? Mabbe they're just trying out for The Village People?:scrutiny: [arm signs, people] "Y-M-C-A."

[Chuck Dye]

Such stings operations don't bother me with their tactics: honestly run, they only zap volunteers. I have seen a couple of (old) studies showing a very strong negative correlation between the rate of citation of moving violations and accident rates, injury rates, and property damage rates. The sting operations do utilize limited resources which might be better allocated to other activities, but that can only be argued knowing the specifics of each operation. The "advocates" and their PC angst mongery are dismissable.

[TheeBadOne]

Good thing Hill Street Blues isn't running anymore. Can you imagine the uproar over Belker's charector?

:D

[benewton]

After all, if you've nothing to hide...

Papers, please?

:barf:

[dinosaur]

Badger, Al Capp fan?:o

[Azrael256]

I don't quite understand how this is a "sting" operation. My father wore a suit to work when he was a deputy chief in Dallas, so I guess if he spotted a person running a red light and then radioed a car to pull him over that would be a "sting" because he wasn't in uniform or something? Somebody help me out here... All I see here is a police officer observing a person comitting a traffic violation and having a car stop them.

I do think this is hillarious:They also carried small cardboard signs, which read, "Sheriff's traffic sting in progress. Buckle up. You have to admit, they're at least giving fair warning.

[toro]

I worked for an insurance Co. for 30 years where I read reports about auto accidents. Running a red light often was the cause of horrible deaths. I had a co-worker who was killed when she ran a red light and didn't have a seat-belt on. She had been given a ticket for this and was gripping how she was loosing her rights, instead she lost her life. I always wear my seat-belt, because I think it's the smart thing to do.
Having said that, I must say if I were in Kissime? Florida and saw a bunch of vagrants running around, I think I would turn around and go home. I don't think it helps the image of the city, for the police to have these kinds of sting operations. After all if you are on vacation you want to feel safe. I have a carry permit for Florida. I would hate to shoot a police officer thinking he was trying to highjack my vehicle. So I don't think this is a very good idea.
As I was riding around today doing some shopping here in Ohio. I noticed an over abundance of Highway Patrol. They were supposed to be looking for seat belt violations. I don't think they got many because they were parked along side of the road having long conversations with each other. I guess it was their social time.
Mrs. Toro

__________________________________
1 Corinthians 10:33-11:1
"I am not seeking my own good but the good of many, so that they may be saved. Follow my example, as I follow the example of Christ."

[sm]

They use Highway Dept outfits here to disguise officers. Fines 2x in work zones. Jiminey...I think two monkey with a sand castle pail and shovel could build our roads better...and faster.

I do know some" homeless "are in fact Sociology students working on a thesis.

Maybe for construction sites... Big Big Maybe...still don't like it, espcially when they ask for papers...Orwellian

[Mike Irwin]

""It's ironic that they would use a disguise of someone that people think of as visually offensive,"


Oh?

I live in the Washington, DC, metro area. Quite frankly, most people I know don't even really "see" the homeless on the streets anymore -- they're practically invisible.

Dressing this way, while possibly a sad commentary on contemporary life, is a way for the officers to blend in with the environment. It's almost perfect urban camoflage.

[Mike Irwin]

"After all, if you've nothing to hide...

Papers, please?"


Huh?

[Chuck Dye]

Folks, as I read this, the guy in mufti is THE SPOTTER! The spotter radios to the writer who, presumably in uniform, waves over those called in by the spotter and cites them. The driver will have a very tough time articulating fear of death or grievous injury, and will (HORRORS!) have to show papers (driver's license, vehicle registration, and maybe proof of insurance.) Presuming an honestly run operation, the only issue I see here is the one of resource allocation versus benefits for which I have no data.

As always, don't do the crime if you can't do the time.

[TallPine]

"Our ultimate goal is to make an impact,"

I thought their goal would be to stop impacts :D

[Erik]

Who cares what the spotters dress themselves up as? And who cares what advocates for the homeless think, anyway? Stopping deaths and grevious injuries is a good thing, even if it does involve the apparently dreaded-for-some review of "papers." :rolleyes:

[Don Gwinn]

All right, I'm a wild-eyed libertarian too, but what exactly is the problem? In your world, would it be puke-inducing for a patrol car to be sitting behind a roadside sign with a radar gun? They're not checking anyone's papers, for God's sake. This is not a case of "you have nothing to hide, right?" as someone put it above. They're NOT SEARCHING! All they're doing is watching the intersection to see if you stop at the darn light.

Quick! Name a more dangerous traffic violation than running a red light! I'm sure there are some, but not many. Good use of cops in my opinion. Besides, the guy with the sign has obviously spent years developing the ideal Sitting-In-A-Chair-By-The-Side-Of-The-Road physique for an operation just like this one. You want to waste that finely tuned radio spotter's body on tasks it was obviously not designed for, like vainly struggling to jump a fence in pursuit of a car thief?

The signs are priceless. Maybe the SO should argue that the signs are giving people an incentive to read the signs held by real homeless people, thus humanizing them to the population at large. Heck, they're actually HELPING those homeless advocates!

[Mike Irwin]

It's funny, isn't it, Art?

Some people go explosively sideways about the concept of red light cameras, and some people go explosively sideways about actual cops enforcing red light violations.

Maybe we can placate all of them?

Simply remove ALL traffic control signals of all types. No red lights, no stop signs, no speed limit signs, no yield signs. Street signs? Hey, they gotta come down, too. Guard/guide rails? Unnecessary. Lane markings? Out of the question.

I figure within two months the herd will be so sufficiently thinned that it will be easy, and safe, to drive again.

All of the A-holes will have killed themselves, taking along a lot of other people...

[Coronach]

Well, you know...if you're not hurting anyone...

I mean, I should have the right to drive as I please, just as long as I manage to get from A to B without running anyone over.

Right?

Mike :scrutiny:

Edit: Apparently biting sarcasm doesn't translate well over the internet. Assume that this was delivered in a tone that would indicate that the poster thought the idea espoused was about the stupidest thing he'd ever heard. ;)

[Mike Irwin]

That would be great, Coronach.

IF you were the only one on the road.

But you're not.

[El Tejon]

Ya know, Mike brings up a good point. In my gig I see people who are all bent out of shape over a traffice infraction, but shrug off felony arrests.

People fly off the handle over some poor mensch of a po-po who drew speed enforcement by the high school, but say nothing when the General Assembly passes even more feckless, unenforceable laws that only besmirch the criminal justice system.

Some days you just want to scream.:scrutiny:

[WyldOne]

Okay, I have two opinions about this.

The first is, why does it matter how the cops are dressed? They're catching people who are breaking the law. If you don't want to be caught, um, perhaps don't break the law.

The second is, it just feels a bit too "big brother"y to me.

[Coronach]

Sir...the reason your shoes are all wet? Its because you missed the dripping sarcasm in my post. ;)

Mike ;)

[hammer4nc]

From a purely pragmatic standpoint, the lawbreakers have no excuse. However, one might question this traffic enforcement action on several points:

1. Allocation of resources - have all the local criminal cases been solved? How many people have had things stolen, only to be told police are too busy to even come out to take a report, much less investigate? Don't know what the situation is like in Osceola County, but I'd wager its no different than most metro areas...most property crimes get zero response.

2. Economic agenda - this multi-agency crackdown grossed $14k+ (for 1 day? article doesn't specify). Pays better than solving petty crime, eh? Some have mentioned the dangers of running red lights, I suppose we could trade anecdotes along those lines, but lets just say that traffic enforcement without all the stealth undercover elements thrown in, would be just as effective, from a public safety standpoint.

3. Loss of trust - we have lots of threads where leo's question why the public wants to bash them, seemingly oblivious to the fact that operations like this, intended to fool the general public over traffic enforcement (and smugly rub their noses in it with the cardboard sign... What do you bet that the arresting officer had a witty opening question, for arrestees..."Hey, didn't you read that cardboard sign the "homeless" guy was holding? (yuk yuk)) My point is, when the leo's engage in deception at this level, it comes back on them in the future, in terms of general loss of respect. Is that too hard to grasp?

When the general public starts feeling like its going to be "stung" whenever they leave the house, do you think they'll be more (or less) inclined to support leo agencies when the time comes?

[TheeBadOne]

4. Reducing the number of property and personal injury accidents through traffic enforcement.

[Coronach]

I would say that it depends. If this is a problem intersection, the local cops should be expected to do something to enforce it. And, lets face it, there are a lot of problem areas that are not possible to enforce, at all, with marked patrol units.

Why?

Easy. Marked patrol units are, well, marked. If you pull up to an intersection and see a cruiser sitting there, are you going to:

A. Run the light!

B. Stop for the light!

:scrutiny:

Well, we all know what the answer is. The question then becomes what you are going to do when you pull up there tomorrow and see no cruiser. IF the intersection is a high-accident intersection, I think we all know what the answer is to this one, too.

scrrreeeeeeech-*CRASH*

This is an attempt to make people think that, hey, the cops might just be watching me, even though there is no cruiser in sight. I better not run this light.

And, before we start with the Big Brotherism, this is no different than speed enforcement. Heck, lets be truthful...the thought that there might be a State Trooper hiding in a bush is the only thing that keeps my velocity out of the triple-digit range on interstate highways. :uhoh:

Mike

PS also, OTOH, if this is NOT a problem intersection, and just a fishin hole, well...I'll gladly chime in that this is a poor allocation of resources.

PPS Also, having been assigned to address traffic problems in a given area, lemme share...probably no one involved in this little operation is really having a good time. Some Lieutenant somewhere probably thought it was a brilliant scheme, and all the line officers are eye-rolling at his posterior when he walks by. BTDT.

[TheeBadOne]

Some "problem areas" get labeled that way not because of a high accident rate, but a "high call rate". A citizen or two, or three (you get the point) call and complain about an intersection/roadway, etc, and often call repeatedly. The result? Cops are directed to work that area. If it's an area that really doesn't have a problem other than busy bodies with nothing to do but call, I'm sure the officers assigned are less thrilled than anyone.

[hammer4nc]

Mike,

Thanks for the insight on traffic enforcement. For the record, I've only received one moving citation in 35 years of driving (deserved); got the hotrod stuff out of my system a long time ago; don't drive any different if there are unmarked, marked, or no squad cars in the vicinity.

You're right, we've become inured to hidden speed-traps, and sometimes it seems there are more UNmarked patrol cars than there are marked ones around here.

Yet, this story takes it to a new and novel level, hence that's why it made cnn national headlines, after all. Let me put it another way: I think the safety objective could have been accomplished without the "homeless" spotter and his cutesy sign. At least a couple of groups have been ticked off enough to be quoted in the article...if I'd been nabbed in this sting, I would remember the method employed long after forgetting about the actual ticket. Its like the agency is trying to audition for "COPS", the TV show.

"Good will" is something that has to be managed, by private businesses, and public agencies alike. Do you think this story did anything to elevate the "image" of Florida law enforcement? I do not.

[Sleeping Dog]

Disguise? If you see a couple of homeless vagrants huddled around a box of Krispie Kremes, be suspicious.

Regards.

[Coronach]

:D

I've had...lots of tickets. All of them deserved. :D

I agree that it does the image of the department no good, but I'll also bet that if you had asked the genius that thought it up, he would tell you that they would not have done it if they knew it would blow up like it did.

Actually, I would not be at all startled to find out that such operations had been going on for a while with not so much as a batted eye. I think what gave them press this time was the fact that homeless advocates are freaking out about it, when they should be making sandwiches for their disadvantaged charges.

Query: would it be better if the spotter was uniformed cop, in plain view?

How about a plainclothes cop, in plain view? Which, essentially, these guys are.

How about a guy hiding in a bush?

How about a guy in a parked car?

All of the above are used every day by LE, nationwide, to reduce accidents at problem intersections. But if we take the plainclothes guy and give him a sign that says "sting in progress, buckle up"... it is a bad thing?

Sorry, I'm just not seeing it.

Mike

[Mike Irwin]

"Sir...the reason your shoes are all wet? Its because you missed the dripping sarcasm in my post."

You're right, I missed the "dripping sarcasm."

Why?

Because it seemed as if you were taking a stance that I've seen here quite a few times before...

The concept that "rights" give someone free license to do anything, and act anyway, in which they desire.

Own a home in the middle of a suburban neighborhood? Hey, my "rights" should allow me to operate a rendering works or strip mine if I want! Restrictions on the use of my property violate my "rights!"

Well, what about the property rights of your neighbors, who would obviously be affected by such operations?

"Well :cuss: them! MY rights! MY property! I don't care if I violate any one else's rights, by God forbid anyone violate mine!"

That's just a single example of a trend among some that I sarcastically refer to as the "Me God, you Sh**" concept of Constitutionally protected, or otherwise ordained, rights. And hell, driving's not even a right.

So, no, I missed your sarcasm, because I thought you simply had become a proponent of the Me God, you Sh** camp.l

[Mike Irwin]

Problem intersection vs. Fishing Hole...

I submit that ANY intersection where people blow the red light is a problem intersection.

If this were not a problem at this intersection, I sincerely doubt that the police would have devoted resources to assessing the situation.

[Drjones]

$83??? $83???????

In CA red lights are $271!!!!!!!!!

:fire:

Regardless, this is pretty pathetic.

Don't these guys (cops) have terrorists to hunt down or something? :rolleyes:

[mpthole]

Ok, I didn't read all of the replies to the original post, so I suppose I shouldn't even get into this conversations but...

I can't believe noone has mentioned this yet:State Rep. Irv Slosberg, D-Boca Raton, an advocate of stronger seat-belt and other traffic-safety laws, applauded the sting operation. His daughter, Dori, 14, was killed in a 1996 traffic accident in which she did not wear a seat belt.
To me this says that Rep. Slosberg wasn't a good enough parent to watch out for his own kid's safety, so he's going to dictate how everyone else has to live.

[Sergeant Bob]

Mike And hell, driving's not even a right.

Sorry to take it off topic, but can you tell me where in the Constitution it says we do not have a right to drive? See Ninth Amendment.

[Coronach]

Ok, thats a thread in and of itself. ;)

[my opinion]
Driving is a priv, not a right.
[/my opinion]

However, lets not debate that here. This is a thread about officers dressing as homeless to give tickets. If you want to debate driving as a right vis a vis the BOR, start a new thread, please.

Mike

[TheeBadOne]

http://www.msnbc.com/news/918426.asp?0dm=C278N (http://)
Study: 91 percent take risks on road

WASHINGTON, May 27 — A majority of drivers admit they routinely speed, eat or even read while driving in a new poll designed to measure drivers’ attitudes about safety.

NINETY-ONE PERCENT of drivers of all ages acknowledged at least one risky activity in the previous six months, including 71 percent who said they sped; 59 percent who ate while driving; 37 percent who used a cell phone; 28 percent who wore no seatbelt and 26 percent who used no signal when turning. Fourteen percent admitted to reading while driving.
At the same time, drivers were likely to say that someone else on the road is more dangerous than they are. Drivers ages 26-44 were most likely to engage in risky driving, but when that age group was asked which drivers should be retested to make sure they’re driving safely, 83 percent said seniors and 69 percent said teens. Only 56 percent said everyone should be retested.
“We worry about the car, the weather, the driver in front or behind us. But we don’t spend nearly enough time worrying about our own driving habits,” said Bill Johnson, executive director of the National Association of Police Organizations.
Of those 65 and older, 68 percent said teens should be retested and 59 percent said seniors should be retested. Of those under 26, 83 percent said seniors should be retested and 47 percent said teens should be retested.
The survey, released Tuesday, was conducted for Volvo Cars of North America, AAA and Partners for Highway Safety as part of a new safety campaign.
The groups plan a Web site that invites drivers to test their knowledge of safe driving habits and learn about safe driving techniques. The group also plans to air a half-hour television special this summer on safe driving.
“So far, the focus has been on making cars and roads safer,” AAA Vice President Susan Pikrallidas said. “But driving is a complex task and many of us have poor driving habits.”
The drivers polled also said drivers have gotten more dangerous. Of those polled, 81 percent said cars are safer than in the past and 57 percent said roads are safer, but only 27 percent said drivers are safer.
The poll was conducted by Mason-Dixon Polling & Research Inc. from May 13 to 16. It questioned 1,100 drivers ages 16 or older and had a margin of error of plus or minus 3 percentage points.

[Mike Irwin]

"Sorry to take it off topic, but can you tell me where in the Constitution it says we do not have a right to drive? See Ninth Amendment."

Oh, I get it!

Anything enumerated in the Constitution is a protected right...

And anything NOT enumerated in the Constitution is ALSO a protected right because of the Ninth Amendment?

Cut me a :cuss: ing break.

That is the most patently assnine thing I've ever heard.

Think you have the "right" to rape children? Seems to be covered in that definition of the Ninth Amendment.

Think you have the "right" to randomly murder whomever you please? Seems to be covered in that definition of the Ninth Amendment.

Hey, I think it should be my right to shoot out the streetlights whenever I want.

Second Amendment says I have the right to bear arms, so by extension the Ninth Amendment must mean that I have the right to discharge those arms whenever I see fit, for any purpose at all.

Yow.

[Mike Irwin]

Whoops.

Sorry, Coronach...