McSting, or Would you like fries with that?

[Tim Burke]

http://www.news-press.com/news/local_state/030525mcsting.html

Fort Myers police recently manned a new battle station in their fight against crime: the drive-through window at McDonald’s.

Dressed as a McDonald’s employee, an undercover officer worked the drive-through window March 21 and April 25 and spotted enough wrongdoing inside customers’ cars to warrant six arrests and 29 citations.

 

[Jim March]

Also known as an "unhappy meal".

 

[Bruce H]

Makes for nice arrest statistics. Why don't they spend the time devoted to this investigation crimes already on the books? Because these are caught in the act right now. Would really like to see the charges. There is enough crime to keep them all busy without setting up to look for it.

 

[hammer4nc]

To echo the point I made on the "homeless stoplight" thread; this is more of that same "creative" policing crap. Question for leo's: When the general public starts to feel like they're going to be "stung" whenever they leave the house, will they be more (or less) inclined to support their le agencies when the time comes? Unintended consequences.

 

[444]

I think the question is, if you choose to break the law and flaunt it, should you be surprised when you are arrested ?
I am all for individual rights and all that, but you can't just thumb your nose at the law either. For example; if you see no problem with smoking dope and choose to do so, at least have the common sense to do it in privacy because it is illegal. If you decide to openly do it in public, then expect to pay the price. THis isn't about supporting the war on drugs and all that. To have order in a society, there must be some rules or laws. If people freely break these laws then we have a break down of our society. So, as long as there is a law against something, I can't fault the police for enforcing it on prinical alone.
Of course a lot of this gets into endangering people other than yourself. Driving while intoxicated is not good. Not having your children restrained in a car is not good. Neither one of these things only effects you, it effects others.

 

[Lone_Gunman]

quote:

" So, as long as there is a law against something, I can't fault the police for enforcing it on prinical alone. "


This is a very bad concept.

 

[444]

Obviously I disagree.
The alternative is anarchy, which may sound cool to the arm chair commando, or to someone who hasn't really given it much thought. But, it is certainly not any kind of stable society.

 

[hammer4nc]

Man, talk about not thinking things through! Somehow, through history, we've managed to avoid "anarchy" without having the local burger flippers ratting out expired inspection stickers and seat belt violations (I too, would like to see the list of charges that this "sting" netted). Armchair commandos (hehe)? What a stretch.

 

[444]

A stretch ?
Please. We have been saved from anarchy dispite not having cops at McDonalds.
Get real.

 

[Mr. James]

???

444,

Respectfully, I'm not sure I got your point. You suggest we need rules and laws, elsewise we face anarchy, and you seem to smile upon - in the context, suggest they're a positive good, - fuzz-cheeked police officers dressed up as burger flippers, nabbing people for whatever visible violation is at hand. I humbly submit, with hammer, these probably leaned heavily towards expired tags and no seat belt. Perhaps an occasional open container. Then you suggest:

We have been saved from anarchy dispite not having cops at McDonalds.

So...why put them there?

Are there extant laws which ought to be disobeyed and flaunted because of their manifest injustness? I'm not sure I know the correct answer [oh, heck, of course I think I do], but I do reserve judgement on the excrescences our politicritters are liable to give a big "Approved" stamp to.

Cheers,
Bob

 

[MR.G]

As if Mc Dons wasn't having enough trouble attracting customers lately. Two in my area are going out of business at the end of this month. Great marketing plan.

 

[JPM70535]

I also would like to see the crimes being committed in the vehicles at the McDonalds sting. If the crimes are drug related (Smoking Pot in public,) Alcohol violations (drinking in violation of open container laws) or other violations that could affect the well being of other motorists or pedestrians, then I see nothing wrong with this kind of pro-active Law Enforcement.


Those who see nothing wrong with the use of recreational drugs, and who subscribe to the position that use of Pot and Coke cause no harm need only check the Drug treatment centers and ask what drug(S) the addict started with. Better yet, check the local Highway Patrol records to acertain the percentage of Crashes involving the use of alcohol or drugs.

There is no one who values personal liberties more than I, but mypersonal liberty ends when it adversely affects others in their lawful pursuits.

 

[444]

Let me put it this way. As a civilized society, we need laws. And we need people to enforce the laws. All people don't always agree with the laws, but as long as they are laws, we are required to obey them. If we have people that totally disregard the law, we have the a partial breakdown of our society. It isn't so much because someone broke a minor law, but because they have basically thumbed their nose at soceity in general. Where these people are caught breaking these laws isn't the issue. If someone pulled up next to a police car at a traffic light while they were smoking a joint, the result would be the same as doing the same thing at a McDonalds drive through.

You are basing most of your argument on pure speculation. You in fact don't know what these violations were. They do specifically mention drug use in the article. Drug use is one thing. Drug use while operating a motor vehicle on public streets is another thing. Open drug use in public is yet another thing. Doing all three usually results in being arrested, and I can't say I find fault with that. And the main reason is because we pay the police to enforce the law. They are doing their job, you then find fault with them for where they enforced it and which laws they chose to enforce. Their job is to enforce all of them and do it whenever they see a violation of the law. Their job isn't to call you and see which laws they are supposed to enforce today and where you would like to see them concentrate their efforts. From what the article says, they recieved complaints from the people working at the drive though about violations of the law. I am fairly certain that these people were not looking for expired registrations although that is just speculation on my part.

How about a similar senario with a twist. Let's say an undercover cop was taking his lunch break in the drive through at McDonalds and witnessed the same kind of law violation, would it be OK with you if he did something about it ?

The fact that we have or have not had police officers operating at fast food restraunts is certainly not a big factor in the prevention of anarchy. That is a stretch you made.

 

[TexasVet]

need only check the Drug treatment centers and ask what drug(S) the addict started with.

Why should I care how a junkie started his personally chosen road to addiction? The result will be the same, "evolution in action" when his dumb rear dies from personal stupidity. I might feel for his family (unless they are another bunch of idiot druggies) but his life is his choice.

 

[CZ-75]

ask what drug(S) the addict started with.

Unfortunately for where you were trying to go with this, that drug was most likely alcohol. To claim that marijuana is worse than alcohol or that it leads any more so to harder drugs are both asinine.

but as long as they are laws, we are required to obey them.

Speak for yourself. There are more, and more asinine, laws than ever. I doubt that most folks even know a fraction of them, which raises the question: what good are they then? Laws that no one knows aren't much good at all for the obvious reason that there is minimal awareness. Thus, they serve a a selective pretext for detaining a citizen or, more likely, emptying his wallet. Of course, the intent probably wasn't to prevent crime through educating people, but rather enhance the role of government in the lives of the people (and make money, too).

Many of these laws, such as asset forfeiture, drug, and anti-2nd amendment statutes are unjust and not worthy of being obeyed. I, for one, will never slavishly obey the directives of my legislature, if I don't agree with them, just because its members got a majority of the vote in their districts. That sounds too much like "I was just following orders."

As to the argument about preventing anarchy, couldn't we argue that enforcement of arbitrary laws is the promotion of authoritarianism?

 

[sm]

Getting a milkshake with a box of Sudaphed [tm] on the seat opens me to illegal search and seizure now? What, now I "must" be making meth??

I understand and appreciate the undercover work that is done within legal means. Invasion of privacy, and entrapment is wrong.

Diabetic with 'test kit", leads to syringes...leads to ...?

Some poor nursing/med student with red sleep depraved eyes 'is quesionable' and they find the syringes and vials of legal practice 'test'meds...to practice measure, mix, draw and giving shots...??

Root Beer float- homemade sounds good to me...

 

[444]

CZ, I think you are missing one important point here. If you choose not to obey the laws, that is one thing. If you choose to do so in public, you are risking arrest. If you get arrested, the arresting officer is not at fault, you are.

 

[CZ-75]

CZ, I think you are missing one important point here. If you choose not to obey the laws, that is one thing. If you choose to do so in public, you are risking arrest. If you get arrested, the arresting officer is not at fault, you are.

No, I'm not missing that because it is a different issue from the sting.

But, since you raised it - yes, one would be a fool to openly disobey the law, unjust or not.

 

[444]

I don't see how that is a different issue. If you go through the drive though smoking a joint, making no attempt to hide it and a police officer sees you, expect to have something said about it. It doesn't matter if the cop is doing a sting, or is simply in the McDonalds eating. He might be walking by, he might be in the car behind yours, but you are breaking the law in public. If you smoked the same joint at home, you may still be breaking the law, but nobody will know or probably care.
If you did this, it wouldn't be the cops fault for busting you. It is clearly your fault for either being stupid, or having a total disregard for the law. Either way, the result is the same.

 

[faustulus]

Let me put it this way. As a civilized society, we need laws.

So you believe man is inherintly evil?

 

[braindead0]

You could call it civil disobedience.... Laws that attempt to control some percieved cause (that really isn't) are simply wrong.

Example, drinking and driving. Drinking and driving doesn't cause any problems, being drunk (or otherwise incapacitated) does. Laws should criminilize criminal behaviour, drinking a beer while driving down the road doesn't cause a problem.. unless the person drinking that beer can't handle it... at which point mandatory jail time, rehab, license suspension or revokation would be in order.

What we've done is criminilize so many things that the legal system can't cope, so it lets everybody off easy. The guy that drank one beer with dinner and just happened to blow a .00000 whatever ends up with the same slap on the wrist as the guy that drank a 12 pack and could hardly walk.

 

[El Tejon]

WLS, 890 AM Chicago, is reporting that the police did not have permission of the franchisee or corporate HQ in Oak Brook, Illinois to be at the store.

Wonder if the police will arrest themselves for Criminal Trespass? Maybe just warn and release themselves?

 

[HankB]

As a civilized society, we need laws.

I believe that's true . . . but the question is, HOW MANY and WHAT KIND of laws?

To paraphrase Ayn Rand - the State - if it is to maintain the pretense of legitimacy - has no power over the law-abiding. The only power it has is over people who break laws. So . . . create a growing plethora of laws, so dense, so all-encompassing, it becomes more and more difficult to avoid breaking some law.

Hence things like drug laws, seat-belt laws, smoking bans (even outside!) zoning laws, environmental laws, gun laws, and so forth. Some may be sensible, but things have gotten out of hand. I've heard Federal laws and regulations covering the production and sale of cabbage run to thousands of pages.

 

[Lone_Gunman]

444,

my objection is not necessarily to what the police are doing at McDonalds, but your theoretical contention that enforcing all laws all the time is morally correct.

quote:

" So, as long as there is a law against something, I can't fault the police for enforcing it on prinical alone. "


This argument could be used to justify genocide.

Law enforcement needs to be wary of enforcing laws that are immoral or unjust. I am talking on a larger scale than some idiot smoking pot at a drive thru. I don't really care about that.

But the idea that laws must be blindly enforced can lead to bigger problems.


anoth quote:

"All people don't always agree with the laws, but as long as they are laws, we are required to obey them."

Be careful with that idea. If what you said is true then:
-- we would still be British colonies
-- Black people would still be riding in the back of the bus
-- Prohibition would still be in effect

 

[CZ-75]

I don't see how that is a different issue.

Because I wasn't even talking about the sting, but your assertion that we should obey the law.

Obviously, if one wishes to be disobedient, one should try not to get caught, unless you can turn it into a "show trial" to change public opinion. I'm not the martyr type, though.

Read lone_gunman's last post again.