View Full Version : Checkpoint refusals...
Decent video of a bit of pushback on this front. If nothing else, it gives you an idea of how these things tend to unfold if you ever find yourself in the drivers' position. I guess the main issue is that the CP's are popping up further and further from the border. I don't have any good data, but I doubt these checkpoints are doing anything but costing money and giving drivers problems. Is that right or wrong?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=u4Ku17CqdZg
What agency was that in the video? Customs or DHS? Was it a border checkpoint?
What agency was that in the video? Customs or DHS? Was it a border checkpoint?
Looks like Border Patrol, and I think one of the officers self-identified as such. The news article I got the link from was calling the checkpoints DHS checkpoints. I'm not positive how that works. What are the rules for how far in from the border the BP can set up a checkpoint?
ETA: One of the CP's at the end appears to be US Customs.
I don't know what the Border Patrol rules are. I haven't worked that far south. I am guessing that by their conversation with the driver and someone running the registration while they were talking, they determined that the driver was a U.S. citizen. They also probably satisfied themselves that he was not a Coyote.
I definitely see why the driver would be irritated.
Looks like Border Patrol, and I think one of the officers self-identified as such. The news article I got the link from was calling the checkpoints DHS checkpoints. I'm not positive how that works. What are the rules for how far in from the border the BP can set up a checkpoint?
ETA: One of the CP's at the end appears to be US Customs.
It's actually a Cal. Dept. of Food and Agriculture check point. They are designed to keep pest out... It didn't take.
It's actually a Cal. Dept. of Food and Agriculture check point. They are designed to keep pest out... It didn't take.
That makes sense.
It's actually a Cal. Dept. of Food and Agriculture check point. They are designed to keep pest out... It didn't take.
You mean the stop starting at around 11:00, right?
I'm pretty sure the stops in the beginning are these -- specifically the "Tactical Checkpoint" variety:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Border_Patrol_Interior_Checkpoints
Awesome... DHS No Longer Uses Control of Border as Measure of Border Patrol. (http://cnsnews.com/news/article/testimony-dhs-no-longer-uses-control-border-measure-border-patrol)
The U.S. Department of Homeland Security no longer uses control of the actual border as a measure of how well the Border Patrol is doing its job, according to written testimony released today by the Government Accountability Office.
The GAO said that by the end of fiscal 2010, the Border Patrol had been able to secure “operational control” of only 44 percent of the U.S.-Mexico border. Then, with 56 percent of the border not under “operational control,” DHS simply stopped using “operational control” as a measure of the Border Patrol’s performance.
DHS to release thousands of illegal immigrants, blaming budget cuts. (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/02/26/dhs-to-release-thousands-illegal-immigrants-blaming-budget-cuts/)
Pinal County Sheriff Paul Babeu said Tuesday that Immigration and Customs Enforcement released more than 500 detainees in his county alone over the weekend. A spokesman for Babeu told FoxNews.com that ICE officials have said they plan to release a total of nearly 10,000 illegal immigrants -- though an ICE official told FoxNews.com it's unclear how many ultimately might be released.
U.S. Releases “Waves” of Illegal Immigrants from Custody. (http://www.judicialwatch.org/blog/2013/02/u-s-releases-waves-of-illegal-immigrants-from-custody/)
Never one to let a crisis go to waste, President Obama is using impending budget cuts to justify releasing “waves” of illegal immigrants from detention centers throughout the country.
Groups of illegal aliens have been freed this week from facilities in Texas, Florida and Louisiana, according to a mainstream newspaper story that quotes advocates reporting “waves” being released. U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) confirmed the secret liberation program, but wouldn’t say how many illegal immigrants were let go or what facilities they came from.
Littlelebowski
02-27-13, 11:12
Decent video of a bit of pushback on this front. If nothing else, it gives you an idea of how these things tend to unfold if you ever find yourself in the drivers' position. I guess the main issue is that the CP's are popping up further and further from the border. I don't have any good data, but I doubt these chceckpoints are doing anything but costing money and giving drivers problems. Is that right or wrong?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=u4Ku17CqdZg
Hello, fellow libertarian :D
brickboy240
02-27-13, 11:42
It is easy to tell that the drivers are mostly Anglos and by their accents...do the BP agents STILL have to ask if they are US citizens?
It is not as if the drivers have dark skin or any sort of thick accent!
Still...couldn't this be avoided by just saying "yes...I am a US citizen" and that is it?
It looks like these drivers were intentionally trying to stir up shit with these people. That is not cool...sorry. I understand rights violations but if you can avoid problems by just saying "yes" when asked if you are a citizen...I don't see this as a huge problem. I don't feel my rights are trampled on by answering that question. The car search....well...
Hell...I wish the cops here WOULD ask more people they pull over, if they were here legally. Illegals get the run of our city and cops are told not to ask if they are here legally or not.
-brickboy240
I have no problem with checks on the border but I do have a problem with internal checkpoints in my country.
Basically it seems like an attempt to get around the City of Indianapolis v. Edmond decision in which SCOTUS limited the power of law enforcement to conduct suspicionless searches, specifically, using drug-sniffing dogs at roadblocks. So without reasonable suspicion or probable cause these stops, a seizure, violate the 4th Amendment under normal circumstances but since it's within 100 miles of the border you give up your constitutional rights.
Nearly 2/3 of Americans live within this 100 mile "Constitution-free zone".
http://survivalacres.com/blog/constitutionfree.jpg
It is easy to tell that the drivers are mostly Anglos and by their accents...do the BP agents STILL have to ask if they are US citizens?
It is not as if the drivers have dark skin or any sort of thick accent!
Still...couldn't this be avoided by just saying "yes...I am a US citizen" and that is it?
It looks like these drivers were intentionally trying to stir up shit with these people. That is not cool...sorry. I understand rights violations but if you can avoid problems by just saying "yes" when asked if you are a citizen...I don't see this as a huge problem. I don't feel my rights are trampled on by answering that question. The car search....well...
Hell...I wish the cops here WOULD ask more people they pull over, if they were here legally. Illegals get the run of our city and cops are told not to ask if they are here legally or not.
-brickboy240
Now now... we don't want them to be out their racial profiling, their job efficacy might accidentally improve. :rolleyes:
El Pistolero
02-27-13, 11:57
I actually have some experience with this. I live near Holloman AFB, and I frequently travel to Las Cruces or El Paso. I have to pass through these stupid-ass checkpoints to go home regardless what city I'm coming from. I'm always hassled by an endless list of stupid questions.
So one time I was asked if they could look in the trunk and I said "not without a warrant, I'm sorry." So they asked me to pull to the side and get out. Thy asked me more lame questions and brought a drug dog and asked if the dog could enter the vehicle and I said no problem as long as only the dog goes inside. Probably looking for probable cause. Dog handler said everything checked out ok and they said I was free to go. They never looked in my trunk. By the way my trunk was empty. My little refusal tied up about seven or eight CBP agents. I was polite and courteous the entire time but simply refusing a search because I know what my rights are.
What a waste of tax dollars. They can't keep illegals from crossing the border so they harrass real Americans. I'm not anti-LE in any way but I'm tired of those checkpoints. When was the last time they found a van full of illegals driving through a checkpoint?
ETA: I guess I could've refused the dog but I have a soft spot for dogs so somehow it seemed okay.
Littlelebowski
02-27-13, 12:18
If you don't have anything to hide, you wouldn't be afraid to answer our questions or submit to a search :rolleyes:
GeorgiaBoy
02-27-13, 12:22
If you don't have anything to hide, you wouldn't be afraid to answer our questions or submit to a search :rolleyes:
Just show me your papers to prove your innocence.
It is easy to tell that the drivers are mostly Anglos and by their accents...do the BP agents STILL have to ask if they are US citizens?
It is not as if the drivers have dark skin or any sort of thick accent!
Still...couldn't this be avoided by just saying "yes...I am a US citizen" and that is it?
It looks like these drivers were intentionally trying to stir up shit with these people. That is not cool...sorry. I understand rights violations but if you can avoid problems by just saying "yes" when asked if you are a citizen...I don't see this as a huge problem. I don't feel my rights are trampled on by answering that question. The car search....well...
Hell...I wish the cops here WOULD ask more people they pull over, if they were here legally. Illegals get the run of our city and cops are told not to ask if they are here legally or not.
-brickboy240
I agree...Why be a prick and waste everyone's time? To make a silly point that the checkpoints are stupid?
I got stopped around 2 am near the Mexican border outside Tucson...and I'm definitely no white anglo person....They asked their stupid question, I answered "yes"...and I was on my way.
Worthless checkpoint...so why make it even more worthless by making a stupid point that's never going to change anything.
Let me see if I understand this correctly. They just ask if you're a citizen, and if you say yes, they tend to let you go on your way if there are no obvious suspicious indicators (extreme nervousness, visible weapons or drugs, etc)? What is that supposed to do?
Let me see if I understand this correctly. They just ask if you're a citizen, and if you say yes, they tend to let you go on your way if there are no obvious suspicious indicators (extreme nervousness, visible weapons or drugs, etc)? What is that supposed to do?
It was exactly that short...I didn't even take the car out of gear.
It was stupid...and it would have been even more stupid if I made a scene and waste 5 minutes of my life making a point.
I was tempted to say "Si Senor"...but common sense got the better of me.
Not being cooperative is reasonable suspicion... :blink:
It was exactly that short...I didn't even take the car out of gear.
It was stupid...and it would have been even more stupid if I made a scene and waste 5 minutes of my life making a point.
I was tempted to say "Si Senor"...but common sense got the better of me.
Well, it's pointless and insulting. You should be able to travel down a road without a Federal Agent asking you a pointless question that anyone could just lie in response to anyway.
GeorgiaBoy
02-27-13, 12:40
It was exactly that short...I didn't even take the car out of gear.
It was stupid...and it would have been even more stupid if I made a scene and waste 5 minutes of my life making a point.
I was tempted to say "Si Senor"...but common sense got the better of me.
Just complying with these checkpoints will never change anything, and will only make things worse.
People actually protesting and complaining changes things.
Not being cooperative is reasonable suspicion... :blink:
Yeah, I've heard that line too, and from friends in LE, no less. That would rather debase the entire premise of reasonable suspicion / probable cause, now wouldn't it.
It is easy to tell that the drivers are mostly Anglos and by their accents...do the BP agents STILL have to ask if they are US citizens?
It is not as if the drivers have dark skin or any sort of thick accent!
Still...couldn't this be avoided by just saying "yes...I am a US citizen" and that is it?
It looks like these drivers were intentionally trying to stir up shit with these people. That is not cool...sorry. I understand rights violations but if you can avoid problems by just saying "yes" when asked if you are a citizen...I don't see this as a huge problem. I don't feel my rights are trampled on by answering that question. The car search....well...
Hell...I wish the cops here WOULD ask more people they pull over, if they were here legally. Illegals get the run of our city and cops are told not to ask if they are here legally or not.
-brickboy240
WTF???
your stupid attitude is what causes people to slowly lose their rights...
its not avoiding a problem by answering.... its giving up your rights as an american citizen and permitting to illegal search and seziure, which includes information.
unless you were breaking the law, it is not legal for them to stop you.
allowing yourself to be stopped and not giving them push back just allows them free reign to do whatever they want.
what happend whan a PO stops you on the street and asks to see proof your a US citizen? will that change your view point?
or when the ask you if your carrying a concealed weapon?
when is enough enough???
It is easy to tell that the drivers are mostly Anglos and by their accents...do the BP agents STILL have to ask if they are US citizens?
It is not as if the drivers have dark skin or any sort of thick accent!
Still...couldn't this be avoided by just saying "yes...I am a US citizen" and that is it?
It looks like these drivers were intentionally trying to stir up shit with these people. That is not cool...sorry. I understand rights violations but if you can avoid problems by just saying "yes" when asked if you are a citizen...I don't see this as a huge problem. I don't feel my rights are trampled on by answering that question. The car search....well...
Hell...I wish the cops here WOULD ask more people they pull over, if they were here legally. Illegals get the run of our city and cops are told not to ask if they are here legally or not.
-brickboy240
So people exercising their rights is not cool? :rolleyes:
I agree...Why be a prick and waste everyone's time? To make a silly point that the checkpoints are stupid?
I got stopped around 2 am near the Mexican border outside Tucson...and I'm definitely no white anglo person....They asked their stupid question, I answered "yes"...and I was on my way.
Worthless checkpoint...so why make it even more worthless by making a stupid point that's never going to change anything.
If it's worthless, why support it with cooperation? The point is certainly not silly. You're exercising your rights and refusing to accept a wasteful misuse of tax dollars. I'd follow up by contacting your representatives requesting that the program be defunded.
http://i151.photobucket.com/albums/s157/Glocktogo/37404132_zps594d6d11.jpg
Doc Safari
02-27-13, 12:45
I actually have some experience with this. I live near Holloman AFB, and I frequently travel to Las Cruces or El Paso. I have to pass through these stupid-ass checkpoints to go home regardless what city I'm coming from. I'm always hassled by an endless list of stupid questions.
So one time I was asked if they could look in the trunk and I said "not without a warrant, I'm sorry." So they asked me to pull to the side and get out. Thy asked me more lame questions and brought a drug dog and asked if the dog could enter the vehicle and I said no problem as long as only the dog goes inside. Probably looking for probable cause. Dog handler said everything checked out ok and they said I was free to go. They never looked in my trunk. By the way my trunk was empty. My little refusal tied up about seven or eight CBP agents. I was polite and courteous the entire time but simply refusing a search because I know what my rights are.
What a waste of tax dollars. They can't keep illegals from crossing the border so they harrass real Americans. I'm not anti-LE in any way but I'm tired of those checkpoints. When was the last time they found a van full of illegals driving through a checkpoint?
ETA: I guess I could've refused the dog but I have a soft spot for dogs so somehow it seemed okay.
Interesting. I go through the checkpoint near Holloman AFB and the one betwenn Deming and Las Cruces every few months and I've never been more than just waved through.
http://www.samliquidation.com/images/nazi.h8.jpg
RancidSumo
02-27-13, 12:52
It is easy to tell that the drivers are mostly Anglos and by their accents...do the BP agents STILL have to ask if they are US citizens?
It is not as if the drivers have dark skin or any sort of thick accent!
Still...couldn't this be avoided by just saying "yes...I am a US citizen" and that is it?
It looks like these drivers were intentionally trying to stir up shit with these people. That is not cool...sorry. I understand rights violations but if you can avoid problems by just saying "yes" when asked if you are a citizen...I don't see this as a huge problem. I don't feel my rights are trampled on by answering that question. The car search....well...
Hell...I wish the cops here WOULD ask more people they pull over, if they were here legally. Illegals get the run of our city and cops are told not to ask if they are here legally or not.
-brickboy240
**** that. My time isn't so valuable that I cant afford to use up a little of it making a point when it comes to my rights. Even if all I accomplish is to piss off the people conducting these bullshit checkpoints, that is time well spent.
El Pistolero
02-27-13, 13:00
**** that. My time isn't so valuable that I cant afford to use up a little of it making a point when it comes to my rights. Even if all I accomplish is to piss off the people conducting these bullshit checkpoints, that is time well spent.
Good point. That was my thinking when I refused a search and they let me go. I was there less than 10 minutes. But you summed it up better than I could have.
Just think DHS is in the process of releasing probably more illegals as a result of this sequestration bullshit than have ever been detained as a result of these internal checkpoints. It makes ya feel all warm and fuzzy on the inside.
Just think DHS is in the process of releasing probably more illegals as a result of this sequestration bullshit than have ever been detained as a result of these internal checkpoints. It makes ya feel all warm and fuzzy on the inside.
Now, now... You're not supposed to be looking under the curtain! :rolleyes:
It looks like these drivers were intentionally trying to stir up shit with these people. That is not cool...sorry. I understand rights violations but if you can avoid problems by just saying "yes" when asked if you are a citizen...I don't see this as a huge problem. I don't feel my rights are trampled on by answering that question. The car search....well...
Hell...I wish the cops here WOULD ask more people they pull over, if they were here legally. Illegals get the run of our city and cops are told not to ask if they are here legally or not.
-brickboy240
I think the larger issue is that the exercising of certain rights considered "shit stirring" in the first place.
Refuse to answer questions and people get suspicious. Refuse to consent to searches and people get suspicious. Choose to hire an attorney, and people get REALLY suspicious.
As we're seeing with gun legislation, requests today can become demands tomorrow. Your desire to fight the immigration problem does not trump my right to move about freely in my country. We've given up a lot already in this country; I've yet to be convinced a good chunk of that stuff was worth it.
AZ-Renegade
02-27-13, 14:35
If you don't like interior checkpoints, your best bet is to write your congressman about it. Making an agent's job harder is only going to put you both in a bad mood and further the "us versus them" mentality.
The fact is, most agents I know don't like working checkpoints anymore than folks like getting stopped at one.
I will concede that asking if someone is a citizen without any evidence that they aren't is pointless and comes off as invasive to law abiding citizens. This is the canned academy method for immigration checks that many of the junior (or retired on duty) agents use.
If you don't like interior checkpoints, your best bet is to write your congressman about it. Making an agent's job harder is only going to put you both in a bad mood and further the "us versus them" mentality.
The fact is, most agents I know don't like working checkpoints anymore than folks like getting stopped at one.
I will concede that asking if someone is a citizen without any evidence that they aren't is pointless and comes off as invasive to law abiding citizens. This is the canned academy method for immigration checks that many of the junior (or retired on duty) agents use.
Says a guy with the screen name "AZ-Renegade. ;)
The takeaway here is to train every checkpoint agent that as soon as someone refuses to answer the question they have no legal authority to compel an answer to, they wave that person through (absent articulable RAS or PC to detain).
Would that really be so hard to accomplish? I'd think a few shift briefings and memos would accomplish the necessary change. It ain't rocket science! :rolleyes:
The rest of what we see in this video is simply harassment of a person exercising their right to freedom of movement protected by the Privileges and Immunities Clause under Article IV, Section 2, Clause 1 of the U.S. Constitution. Technically, if a state adopted a law against interfering with the right of freedom of movement under the above listed article, the U.S. Border Patrol agents could be arrested and denied immunity under the Supremacy Clause or Color of Law, due to the fact that their actions beyond asking the question and then allowing a citizen to leave unmolested would be unlawful under both state and federal law.
For anyone else who thinks refusing to answer is wrong, then work to get these unnecessary, unreasonable and ineffective tactics performed at checkpoints eliminated! THAT, will do more to serve these agents than pissing and moaning that American citizens are being "unreasonable"! :mad:
I love it. I cant wait until the TSA 'tards are with them, all over the U.S.
Then the freedom hating-terror fighting-neocons will be able to beat it (aka their meat) everytime they see them. Just like they do at the airports. I mean come on, who doesnt love being radiated and molested by pervs!!?? This is amerika after all......FOR THE GREATER GOOD you know.
Me personally I'd tell them to F' off (i have to sensor myself since we are kiddies here) and inform them they need probable cause or reasonable suspicious (at the least) to search me or my vehicle.
AZ-Renegade
02-27-13, 15:41
Says a guy with the screen name "AZ-Renegade. ;) Touche!
They definetely need to train agents better when it comes to working with their fellow citizens.
I have always held that by simply engaging a person in brief, polite conversation you can tell if someone is a United States citizen or if they may not be. You don't have to ask every person you meet what their citizenship is like its German-occupied Poland.
Sure the occasional Canadian might get past you but no one cares about them anyway. :)
ETA: I doubt TSA could handle a southwestern checkpoint. Extreme heat and the possibility of getting hit by a south bound semi-truck isn't in their job description.
Or simply just stop conducting unconstitutional check points in the interior of the country.
Does anyone find it ironic that the BP is conducting these checkpoints, yet the ATF is funneling weapons to mexican cartels??? And the DEA is laundering dope money from them??? But nope, instead of looking within, lets screw with the citizens of the Ununited States of Amerika.
How about this, maybe if ICE would actually DO SOMETHING with the millions of illegals that are arrested (probably daily) instead of sitting on their thumbs, there wouldnt be any checkpoints. But no, they wait until the dirtbags commit a violent felony. Because we dont want to hurt their feelings of course.....
The garbage coming across the border in hoards seem to find their way into the hands of law enforcement themselves.
Or you know we could do away with most if not all of the welfare in this country and they would leave. Dirt bags dont like paying their own way, thats why they're here.
The complete and total IDIOCY of this country and its inhabitants is becoming overwhelming.....
From user Hdog83
I lack the posts to post in GD, but 4th Amendment law and practice is a favorite subject of mine. If you're so inclined, please use this as you see fit, including posting it up in the thread:
=============
I am not a lawyer, but this is an area of keen interest for me. The questioning at these checkpoints are not Terry stops, tied to immediate officer or bystander safety - they do not involve a patdown or frisk to look for weapons. Instead, they are rather free inquiries by law enforcement absent articulable suspicion that meets a standard of objective reasonableness, and the individuals are therefore free to fail to respond/comply, as shown in the videos.
The U.S. Supreme Court has held (Florida v. Royer, 460 U.S. 491 (1983) ) that individuals in such circumstances can refuse to answer or even listen, and that their refusal to do so does not, in and of itself, create any articulable reasonable suspicion. From the majority decision (starting near the bottom of page 498):
Second, law enforcement officers do not violate the Fourth Amendment by merely approaching an individual on the street or in another public place, by asking him if he is willing to answer some questions, by putting questions to him if the person is willing to listen, or by offering in evidence in a criminal prosecution his voluntary answers to such questions. See Dunaway v. New York, supra, at 442 U. S. 210, n. 12; Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. at 392 U. S. 31, 392 U. S. 32-33 (Harlan, J., concurring); id. at 392 U. S. 34 (WHITE, J., concurring). Nor would the fact that the officer identifies himself as a police officer, without more, convert the encounter into a seizure requiring some level of objective justification. United States v. Mendenhall, 446 U. S. 544, 446 U. S. 555 (1980) (opinion of Stewart, J.).
The person approached, however, need not answer any question put to him; indeed, he may decline to listen to the questions at all, and may go on his way. Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. at 392 U. S. 32-33 (Harlan, J., concurring); id. at 392 U. S. 34 (WHITE, J., concurring). He may not be detained even momentarily without reasonable, objective grounds for doing so; and his refusal to listen or answer does not, without more, furnish those grounds. United States v. Mendenhall, supra, at 446 U. S. 556 (opinion of Stewart, J.). If there is no detention -- no seizure within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment -- then no constitutional rights have been infringed.
The full decision in Royer can be found here: http://supreme.justia.com/cases/fede.../491/case.html Based on my keeping up with my favorite blog on the topic, http://www.fourthamendment.com/blog/, I'm pretty sure that this is still the law of the land.
In any case, thanks for your time.
The real funny thing about case law and the review by the Supreme Court is........The Supreme Court does not have the power to do it. Nowhere in the Constitution does it state the Supreme Court has the power to review cases, they just started doing it lol.
Ya ya I know, I had to study case law too.
Bottom line is, what they are doing is a "consensual conversation" or a "stop and talk" you can leave at any time and you dont even have to talk to them. They do not have any reasonable suspicion or probable cause to contact you. Therefor you dont have to ID or even talk to them.
It becomes unconstitutional when they do not allow you to leave at your free will.
The real funny thing about case law and the review by the Supreme Court is........The Supreme Court does not have the power to do it. Nowhere in the Constitution does it state the Supreme Court has the power to review cases, they just started doing it lol.
Ya ya I know, I had to study case law too.
Bottom line is, what they are doing is a "consensual conversation" or a "stop and talk" you can leave at any time and you dont even have to talk to them. They do not have any reasonable suspicion or probable cause to contact you. Therefor you dont have to ID or even talk to them.
It becomes unconstitutional when they do not allow you to leave at your free will.
It would be VERY interesting to see what happened if someone simply rolled up the window and drove off. I'd pay money to see that! :D
It would be VERY interesting to see what happened if someone simply rolled up the window and drove off. I'd pay money to see that! :D
I almost added..."do at own risk"...lol
I'm going to take a different view on this situation. The producer of the video misplayed the encounter with the female agent in a big way. I would have bartered for a quid pro quo along these lines:
"I'll tell you my name if you text me your number."
"I'll tell you my citizenship if you tell me your dimensions."
When she asked if I had any passengers, I'd say that we always have room for one more, but she would have to lose the uniform (the weapon belt can stay).
Something tells me that I'd get waived through real fast...
Just complying with these checkpoints will never change anything, and will only make things worse.
People actually protesting and complaining changes things.
ditto :)
soon it will be OK open your trunk and step out while our dog sniffs your car every single time
as far as handing them my ID ! no dont like them putting it down in some data base where I was when I was etc..
its baby steps and these are the steps that should not be allowed at all !!
Not being cooperative is reasonable suspicion...
You were misinformed.
If you don't like interior checkpoints, your best bet is to write your congressman about it.
This is the best way to handle it. Contact your Congressman's office and raise hell about the checkpoints.
When the guy said if you don't have anything to hide just answer the question and you can go... he should have said .. but if I were a criminal, I would just lie to you... so where does that get us?
threeheadeddog
02-27-13, 23:10
This is a movement that needs to happen. If everyone would just say no than there would be nothing else to do but stop.
Let me see if I understand this correctly. They just ask if you're a citizen, and if you say yes, they tend to let you go on your way if there are no obvious suspicious indicators (extreme nervousness, visible weapons or drugs, etc)? What is that supposed to do?
I wonder how often somebody rolls up and answers: "No ciudadano del estados unidos". Like its ever going to be that easy. What a joke.
Alaskapopo
02-28-13, 00:03
I understand sticking up for your rights but these guys are just being asses in the videos. I agree with the poster who said call your congressman rather than acting like an ass so you can post it on youtube.
Pat
I was also stopped recently at the checkpoint on I-10 (probably the same one). I had no issues with the basic questions, but then I was asked if they could search my vehicle after I was directed to the secondary point.
I told him "sure thing get a warrant and you can empty my entire vehicle out". They then went on to ask if I had firearms, if I had anything to hide, etc..
I told them conversation was over and then asked if I could go. They asked again of they could search and I refused and then asked if I was being detained. They said "no" and then let me proceed.
I actually have some experience with this. I live near Holloman AFB, and I frequently travel to Las Cruces or El Paso. I have to pass through these stupid-ass checkpoints to go home regardless what city I'm coming from. I'm always hassled by an endless list of stupid questions.
So one time I was asked if they could look in the trunk and I said "not without a warrant, I'm sorry." So they asked me to pull to the side and get out. Thy asked me more lame questions and brought a drug dog and asked if the dog could enter the vehicle and I said no problem as long as only the dog goes inside. Probably looking for probable cause. Dog handler said everything checked out ok and they said I was free to go. They never looked in my trunk. By the way my trunk was empty. My little refusal tied up about seven or eight CBP agents. I was polite and courteous the entire time but simply refusing a search because I know what my rights are.
What a waste of tax dollars. They can't keep illegals from crossing the border so they harrass real Americans. I'm not anti-LE in any way but I'm tired of those checkpoints. When was the last time they found a van full of illegals driving through a checkpoint?
ETA: I guess I could've refused the dog but I have a soft spot for dogs so somehow it seemed okay.
I understand sticking up for your rights but these guys are just being asses in the videos. I agree with the poster who said call your congressman rather than acting like an ass so you can post it on youtube.
Pat
This is misguided. Let's look at what's actually going on here. So, the agents are undoubtedly aware that motorists are under no legal obligation to stop and speak with them. And unless reasonable suspicion presents itself, assuming the motorist doesn't even acknowledge the agent, in the initial one way communication from the agent to the motorists --say the agent notices drugs, for example -- the agent has no right to detain or impede the freedom of movement of the motorist.
But what happens in every single scenario in this video? The motorist asks if he's free to go or being detained and the Federal Agent does not answer truthfully, but instead obfuscates, escalates, or otherwise refuses to acknowledge the motorists' rights. If the answer to "am I being detained" is "no" but the agent continues to give instructions without addressing the question, that is a problem. That is, as you say, "being an ass," and probably worse.
This video and the motorist's behavior within it is necessary because it makes public a very real problem. Why do you constantly and reflexively stick up for authority in the face of all reason? I just don't get it man.
I understand sticking up for your rights but these guys are just being asses in the videos. I agree with the poster who said call your congressman rather than acting like an ass so you can post it on youtube.
Pat
Of course you think that. :rolleyes:
Why do you constantly and reflexively stick up for authority in the face of all reason? I just don't get it man.
I'll tell you why. Because he's staked his entire identity around what he does for a living, rather than who he is as a human being.
thopkins22
02-28-13, 00:56
They're asking you to be a willing participant in a witch hunt in which they believe or suspect you to be the witch.
It's not being a dick.
It's not a question of "Am I being a dick?" Rather it's "are these checkpoints a good use of time and money? Or are they an illusion of border security at the expense of liberty and annoyance?" Would I go to those lengths when I could just say "yes" and be on my way? Hell no...but I wouldn't give in at "secondary" and let them search my vehicle either.
Alaskapopo
02-28-13, 01:45
Are you an american citizen? Yes. Ok see you later. Ok.
Done. Then if you are unhappy with the tactics call or write your congressman. Honestly I am not a fan of checkpoints for anything outside of a man hunt for a killer. But these guys in the videos in my opinion are making it worse. Frankly they come across as whinny crybabies.
Pat
Alaskapopo
02-28-13, 01:48
Of course you think that. :rolleyes:
I'll tell you why. Because he's staked his entire identity around what he does for a living, rather than who he is as a human being.
Really so you're a shrink now. And you see to rebel against everything like a teenager. Why is that? Pick your battles and do things that people will take seriously. Oh and by the way looks like I was right when I said you have to win the battle in the courts in New York. Looks like there was an injunction placed against the Safety Act. There is a way to fight things that work and there is a way that does not work. Being a crybaby kid at a check point does little to further any cause. Filing a law suit, writing your congressman, donating money to lobby groups like the NRA that course of action is generally more effective. I am not saying your cause is not just. Just not big into the trying to pick a fight and post it on youtube. In my mind thats just not a mature way to handle the issue. Of course part of my reaction could be because some posters on here are fight authority types no matter what is going on or what the reason. Fight the power yea!
Pat
Touché. I've seen the light. Citizens who won't put up with unwarranted detainment on a public road are crybabies, and citizens who speak up against the dozens of examples of government abuses of power are whiny teenagers who ought to just pick one cause and get a life. Thank you oblivious jack-boot tard statist. Thank you
Alaskapopo
02-28-13, 04:34
Touché. I've seen the light. Citizens who won't put up with unwarranted detainment on a public road are crybabies, and citizens who speak up against the dozens of examples of government abuses of power are whiny teenagers who ought to just pick one cause and get a life. Thank you oblivious jack-boot tard statist. Thank you
So you have forgotten the rules about personal insults and name calling. A person with a poor argument often results to these tactics. You also seem to not be able to read because if you had you would have seen where I said I am not against your cause mearly this way of fighting it. You also need to gain the ability to disagree with people without lashing out. Perhaps this will come with age.
Pat
El Pistolero
02-28-13, 04:43
Let's not turn this into a pissing contest or LE-bashing thread. I want it to stay open because I am genuinely interested in how to intelligently and succesfully refuse these searches. I feel that by simply being polite and courteous (which goes a long way in itself when interacting with LEOs) but being firm on your refusal as well as knowing your own rights as well as their limitations will allow one to successfully refuse everytime and be let on their way. I will simply answer "Yes, I'm an American citizen" and then refuse to give more information beyond that. As I said earlier, refuse a search without a warrant, and if I'm not being detained I'll be on my way.
I see in a lot of the open carry/LE confrontation videos people are jackasses to the officers, quoting court cases and case law and IMO they are doing it wrong, so that's not my intention. If I'm going to refuse a search or answering questions I don't need to be a dick on top it. I'll leave that to the clowns on YouTube who seem to instigate confrontations with LE for the purpose of uploading to YT to make LE look bad.
Alaskapopo
02-28-13, 04:46
Let's not turn this into a pissing contest or LE-bashing thread. I want it to stay open because I am genuinely interested in how to intelligently and succesfully refuse these searches. I feel that by simply being polite and courteous (which goes a long way in itself when interacting with LEOs) but being firm on your refusal as well as knowing your own rights as well as their limitations will allow one to successfully refuse everytime and be let on their way. I will simply answer "Yes, I'm an American citizen" and then refuse to give more information beyond that. As I said earlier, refuse a search without a warrant, and if I'm not being detained I'll be on my way.
I see in a lot of the open carry/LE confrontation videos people are jackasses to the officers, quoting court cases and case law and IMO they are doing it wrong, so that's not my intention. If I'm going to refuse a search or answering questions I don't need to be a dick on top it. I'll leave that to the clowns on YouTube who seem to instigate confrontations with LE for the purpose of uploading to YT to make LE look bad.
I agree. I would refuse a search without a warrant as well. But the whole refusing to say your an american citizen is being stupid.(I also feel making the border patrol agent ask the question is equally stupid) I also don't agree with checkpoints like those in the videos. But if I were in that area I would be writing letters to my congressman not making youtube videos. Your right this does smell of the same odor of the open carry guys who go around with a chip on their shoulder trying to bait cops on you tube videos.
Pat
IF YOU CANNOT ACT LIKE AN ADULT STAY THE **** OUT OF THIS THREAD. IF IT CONTINUES YOU WILL BE REMOVED.
Pat,
I understand what you are saying, but people are getting tired of being trampled. You can write your Congresscritter all day long and most don't give a shit. Look at the gun control issue, fiscal issues, etc.. Almost everyone of them has lost touch with America. And while they scream about the sequester not one of them has stepped up and said they will refuse a paycheck until it's resolved. They created this mess and they refuse to fix it.
These are the same whores who pass these laws and them force them down our throat but they damn sure exempt themselves at every opportunity.
In my particular situation the agent didn't ask me if I was a citizen. He asked me where I came from, if I was alone and then asked me to go to the secondary checkpoint. Then they brought over the K9. The dog left(without a hit) and then they asked to search my vehicle. It was obvious that they were fishing. Then I was asked if I had firearms when I know damn well that he saw the loaded Glock on my front seat in plain view with the holster. At that point I told them ETADIK.
They know damn well I had no obligation to tell them where I was going, where I came from or anything else. But, I guess I am to blame because I opened the door for their fishing expedition.
My routine SOP is I NEVER provide anything more than basic info and I NEVER allow anyone to search my vehicle for any reason unless I cannot refuse (such as airport paking, etc..).
I agree. I would refuse a search without a warrant as well. But the whole refusing to say your an american citizen is being stupid.(I also feel making the border patrol agent ask the question is equally stupid) I also don't agree with checkpoints like those in the videos. But if I were in that area I would be writing letters to my congressman not making youtube videos. Your right this does smell of the same odor of the open carry guys who go around with a chip on their shoulder trying to bait cops on you tube videos.
Pat
Are you an american citizen? Yes. Ok see you later. Ok.
Done.
Pat
Right, but don't you see the double standard operating here? How about "am I free to go" or "am I being detained?" Yes. No. See you later. Done.
In every case, the agent is just as much involved in escalating the situation and causing a problem as the citizen -- but actually the motorist is the one holding the high ground and here's why.
The citizen is under no legal obligation to answer, and the agent has no legal authority to continue questioning if the citizen wants to leave. The motorist is not legally obligated to answer, but the agent is legally obligated to let him go unless he has good cause. So in one scenario a citizen could answer with a simple "yes I'm a citizen" and in the other the Federal Agent could answer with a simple "you are free to go." One of these actors is justified in continuing to repeatedly ask his question -- either "am I free to go" or "are you a citizen" -- and the other is not. This person is the motorist.
I'd like to see you address this argument, which is basically what I said in my first reply.
Let's not turn this into a pissing contest or LE-bashing thread. I want it to stay open because I am genuinely interested in how to intelligently and succesfully refuse these searches. I feel that by simply being polite and courteous (which goes a long way in itself when interacting with LEOs) but being firm on your refusal as well as knowing your own rights as well as their limitations will allow one to successfully refuse everytime and be let on their way. I will simply answer "Yes, I'm an American citizen" and then refuse to give more information beyond that. As I said earlier, refuse a search without a warrant, and if I'm not being detained I'll be on my way.
I see in a lot of the open carry/LE confrontation videos people are jackasses to the officers, quoting court cases and case law and IMO they are doing it wrong, so that's not my intention. If I'm going to refuse a search or answering questions I don't need to be a dick on top it. I'll leave that to the clowns on YouTube who seem to instigate confrontations with LE for the purpose of uploading to YT to make LE look bad.
Good post. If you are looking for a confrontation, it puts things in a different light. If you were unlawfully detained while being polite to the officer, it would carry some weight when you filed a complaint and the incident was investigated. It would also carry some weight if an agency is considering policy change.
I would say something to the effect " No sir, I don't want anyone searching my car; there is no reason to search. Yes, I am a U.S. citizen and I do not have anything illegal in my vehicle. Unless I am being detained, I would like to go on my way now." If the officer continues to ask questions, you can ask "Am I being detained sir? I would like to leave if I am not being arrested for anything." It's not always what you say, but how you say it.
If you want the checkpoints to stop, find a politician sympathetic to your views to initiate change. If that does not work, contact the ACLU and ask them to intervene. The ACLU is always itching for a fight against unreasonable search and seizures.
I understand sticking up for your rights but these guys are just being asses in the videos. I agree with the poster who said call your congressman rather than acting like an ass so you can post it on youtube.
Pat
And the agents refusing to tell them they're free to go aren't? :rolleyes:
If this were a rout I traveled frequently and I got stopped every time by federal agents, I'd be pretty cranky personally.
I was also stopped recently at the checkpoint on I-10 (probably the same one). I had no issues with the basic questions, but then I was asked if they could search my vehicle after I was directed to the secondary point.
I told him "sure thing get a warrant and you can empty my entire vehicle out". They then went on to ask if I had firearms, if I had anything to hide, etc..
I told them conversation was over and then asked if I could go. They asked again of they could search and I refused and then asked if I was being detained. They said "no" and then let me proceed.
And that is too much. There's no reason whatsoever to subject a person travelling freely on within the confines of the U.S. to that, absent RAS.
This is misguided. Let's look at what's actually going on here. So, the agents are undoubtedly aware that motorists are under no legal obligation to stop and speak with them. And unless reasonable suspicion presents itself, assuming the motorist doesn't even acknowledge the agent, in the initial one way communication from the agent to the motorists --say the agent notices drugs, for example -- the agent has no right to detain or impede the freedom of movement of the motorist.
But what happens in every single scenario in this video? The motorist asks if he's free to go or being detained and the Federal Agent does not answer truthfully, but instead obfuscates, escalates, or otherwise refuses to acknowledge the motorists' rights. If the answer to "am I being detained" is "no" but the agent continues to give instructions without addressing the question, that is a problem. That is, as you say, "being an ass," and probably worse.
This video and the motorist's behavior within it is necessary because it makes public a very real problem. Why do you constantly and reflexively stick up for authority in the face of all reason? I just don't get it man.
This stems from the mistaken belief that it should be illegal for a citizen to lie to the authorities, but it's perfectly OK for the authorities to lie or misdirect the citizens. :(
Really so you're a shrink now. And you see to rebel against everything like a teenager. Why is that? Pick your battles and do things that people will take seriously. Oh and by the way looks like I was right when I said you have to win the battle in the courts in New York. Looks like there was an injunction placed against the Safety Act. There is a way to fight things that work and there is a way that does not work. Being a crybaby kid at a check point does little to further any cause. Filing a law suit, writing your congressman, donating money to lobby groups like the NRA that course of action is generally more effective. I am not saying your cause is not just. Just not big into the trying to pick a fight and post it on youtube. In my mind thats just not a mature way to handle the issue. Of course part of my reaction could be because some posters on here are fight authority types no matter what is going on or what the reason. Fight the power yea!
Pat
And you know it to be a fact that part of the reason the court stood up to the state on this isn't in part because of this, among many efforts to quash the SAFE Act?
So you have forgotten the rules about personal insults and name calling. A person with a poor argument often results to these tactics. You also seem to not be able to read because if you had you would have seen where I said I am not against your cause mearly this way of fighting it. You also need to gain the ability to disagree with people without lashing out. Perhaps this will come with age.
Pat
Ahem...<cough, cough> whinnycrybabies<cough, cough>. ;)
In the end, I believe the correct way to handle this is be polite, be professional, do not submit unless ordered to do so. The obfuscation of the agents is not a reason to comply. As I said earlier in the thread, write your representatives AND practice refusal. If enough citizens did this, eventually the agents would either learn to operate the checkpoint is a less aggressive manner, or rise up hard enough to get the practice stopped. After all, if the legislator goes to the unit to investigate, they're going to know if the agents are sick of it as well.
Does anyone know if there is a policy or statute requiring the officers to video record the checkpoints?
AZ-Renegade
02-28-13, 09:38
In the end, I believe the correct way to handle this is be polite, be professional, do not submit unless ordered to do so. The obfuscation of the agents is not a reason to comply. As I said earlier in the thread, write your representatives AND practice refusal. If enough citizens did this, eventually the agents would either learn to operate the checkpoint is a less aggressive manneror rise up hard enough to get the practice stopped., After all, if the legislator goes to the unit to investigate, they're going to know if the agents are sick of it as well.
I agree with this statement.
A calm, professional citizen asserting their rights in the face of authority will go farther than an emotional one screaming about it.
It will also influence how a good agent handles the situation.
I agree with this statement.
A calm, professional citizen asserting their rights in the face of authority will go farther than an emotional one screaming about it.
It will also influence how a good agent handles the situation.
I would actually hope for a pleasant, open and honest discussion, rather than a verbal beatdown. :D
AZ-Renegade
02-28-13, 09:51
Unfortunately not all agents know the Constitution or their statutory authority well enough to have that discussion, even though they should know.
I imagine there are times those discussions do happen, but they don't make for good Youtube.
TSA VIPR teams have been conducting these operations across the country for quite some time on highways, trains, buses, subways, etc. The ever expanding leviathan of government control knows no boundaries and if you don't stand up for your rights they will become extinct.
Not recording these incidents would seem foolish to me, it's for their own protection, and Pastor Anderson is proof of that.
Are you an american citizen? Yes. Ok see you later. Ok.
Pat
But they have no right to be asking those questions and that is only the first question they ask. so what if you just "yes". What has that proved? It has only proved that someone with a badge on their sleeve can detain other citizens and start asking questions.
When the guy asked "is this the United States" and got the answer "yes"... he then stated that because of that he had the right to travel freely. That comment alone implies citizenship or at the very least the valid right to do what free citizens do. But... the guys with the badges were not going for that..... they wanted specific answered to specific questions. this sort of thing needs to be done ---on the border-- not all over the USA.
So "are you a citizen?" is simply to get them talking... It's the lead up to the other information they intend to acquire.
OR.. it is simply an ineffective means of identification and an incredible waste of tax dollars.
================
On a side note that link a page or so back about the 100 mile border. I'm confused on that. Is that saying they do have a right at 50 mile or 70 miles or where ever these road blocks were? The comment was the one with the US map and the 100 mile yellow border.
Right, but don't you see the double standard operating here? How about "am I free to go" or "am I being detained?" Yes. No. See you later. Done.
In every case, the agent is just as much involved in escalating the situation and causing a problem as the citizen -- but actually the motorist is the one holding the high ground and here's why.
The citizen is under no legal obligation to answer, and the agent has no legal authority to continue questioning if the citizen wants to leave. The motorist is not legally obligated to answer, but the agent is legally obligated to let him go unless he has good cause. So in one scenario a citizen could answer with a simple "yes I'm a citizen" and in the other the Federal Agent could answer with a simple "you are free to go." One of these actors is justified in continuing to repeatedly ask his question -- either "am I free to go" or "are you a citizen" -- and the other is not. This person is the motorist.
I'd like to see you address this argument, which is basically what I said in my first reply.
That is exactly what I'm thinking the motorist is not the one causing the hold up and the wasted time, the motorist is not the one who initiated the encounter the agent is. The agents are the ones that should answer immediately, "No you are not being detained, yes you may leave."
These long drawn out videos are not because the motorists were uncooperative, but because the agents were.
Cameron
I don't live near a border state. How many miles away from the border are some of these checkpoints set up?
Unfortunately not all agents know the Constitution or their statutory authority well enough to have that discussion, even though they should know.
I imagine there are times those discussions do happen, but they don't make for good Youtube.
With due respect, how do they not know? Lack of training? It's law 101. It's not like anyone is asking for them to know every subsection of every code/law. That would be impossible. But this?
I'm very pro law enforcement. You can go back and read my previous posts and it will support that statement. But once someone refuses to answer their questions and asks if they're detained or if they're free to leave, unless they have reasonable suspicion or probable cause to think someone is doing or has done something illegal, conversation is over. Furthermore, if someone refuses a search of their vehicle, unless the agent has the above stated reasonable suspicion or probable cause that one or more of the vehicles inhabitants is or has committed a crime, conversation is over. And if you have RS/PC, detain them and get a search warrant. If not, let them pass.
I think the people on youtube do it to get fifteen minutes of youtube fame on. I really do, but those agents/officers should know the search&seizure, detainment and arrest laws. Yes, there's some room in there for interpretation. But interpretation doesn't mean because I want to or because I have authority granted to me by the United States of America. If they don't know the basics, retrain them or replace them. Sorry and no disrespect intended to you but, IMHO that's inept and it makes me question whether or not the right people are being hired to do the job.
Alaskapopo
02-28-13, 11:45
Pat,
I understand what you are saying, but people are getting tired of being trampled. You can write your Congresscritter all day long and most don't give a shit. Look at the gun control issue, fiscal issues, etc.. Almost everyone of them has lost touch with America. And while they scream about the sequester not one of them has stepped up and said they will refuse a paycheck until it's resolved. They created this mess and they refuse to fix it.
These are the same whores who pass these laws and them force them down our throat but they damn sure exempt themselves at every opportunity.
In my particular situation the agent didn't ask me if I was a citizen. He asked me where I came from, if I was alone and then asked me to go to the secondary checkpoint. Then they brought over the K9. The dog left(without a hit) and then they asked to search my vehicle. It was obvious that they were fishing. Then I was asked if I had firearms when I know damn well that he saw the loaded Glock on my front seat in plain view with the holster. At that point I told them ETADIK.
They know damn well I had no obligation to tell them where I was going, where I came from or anything else. But, I guess I am to blame because I opened the door for their fishing expedition.
My routine SOP is I NEVER provide anything more than basic info and I NEVER allow anyone to search my vehicle for any reason unless I cannot refuse (such as airport paking, etc..).
I am lucky because in Alaska we don't even do DUI check points. The only time we have done anything like this is when prisoners escaped.
I am sure I would get very annoyed if this was happening to me on a daily basis too.
Pat
I don't live near a border state. How many miles away from the border are some of these checkpoints set up?
I haven't been down on the border recently, but 20 years ago I was traveling to Larado on a weekily basis for several months. Every week on the way home there was a checkpoint about 20 to 30 miles north of the border on I-35.
The routine: pull in, get asked if I was a US citizen, say yep, and I was on my way in less than 30 seconds, pull off to pull back on, unless there was a line ahead of me, which there never was.
These checkpoints are nothing new. I believe they were set up, at least back then, to check for vehicles carrying illegals/drugs or both that walked accross. It was common for them cross on their own or with a guide, then meet up with a vehicle on some back road to make their way north to San Antonio, Austin and all other points north.
It never really bothered me to pull in, say my yep and be on my way as I was more concerned about the influx of illegals and drugs than I was with my once a week 30 second detour. YMMV
Alaskapopo
02-28-13, 12:01
Right, but don't you see the double standard operating here? How about "am I free to go" or "am I being detained?" Yes. No. See you later. Done.
In every case, the agent is just as much involved in escalating the situation and causing a problem as the citizen -- but actually the motorist is the one holding the high ground and here's why.
The citizen is under no legal obligation to answer, and the agent has no legal authority to continue questioning if the citizen wants to leave. The motorist is not legally obligated to answer, but the agent is legally obligated to let him go unless he has good cause. So in one scenario a citizen could answer with a simple "yes I'm a citizen" and in the other the Federal Agent could answer with a simple "you are free to go." One of these actors is justified in continuing to repeatedly ask his question -- either "am I free to go" or "are you a citizen" -- and the other is not. This person is the motorist.
I'd like to see you address this argument, which is basically what I said in my first reply.
I agree the agents should have let the motorist go when they asked them am I being detained or am I free to go. I just am not big on the whole back and forth and videoing the incident to post on youtube. But perhaps this is after the motorist have been detained once too many times and are sick of it.
Pat
But perhaps this is after the motorist have been detained once too many times and are sick of it.
Pat
That's my guess too. Again, recording their interaction to protect themselves and expose what's happening. Recording it so it's not hearsay and is a verifiable fact.
thopkins22
02-28-13, 12:04
It never really bothered me to pull in, say my yep and be on my way as I was more concerned about the influx of illegals and drugs than I was with my once a week 30 second detour. YMMV
Right, I've been through one probably two hundred times in south TX. I say yes, and I've never been asked for a more thorough check.
But, do you believe for an instant that they have even remotely stemmed the influx of illegals or drugs?
The only good I ever saw come of one was when my friend's grandfather's home near Kingsville had been broken in to. He saw some Mexicans/illegals walking along and one of them was wearing a t-shirt of his. He pulled over and offered them a ride, and proceeded to take them straight to the checkpoint in the bed of his truck and told the officer "These guys are illegal and at least one of them broke into my house." They ran and the dogs got them.
But, do you believe for an instant that they have even remotely stemmed the influx of illegals or drugs?
Only the dumb ones!
But my guess would be minimal as the checkpoint I had to go thru was a permament facility so I am sure those in the know would simply do whatever they had to do to get around it before they headed north on I-35.
But I didn't see that as a reason to give the guys and gals at the checkpoint a hard time as they were just doing the job they were told to do, no matter how stupid in might have been.
PS - Love the grandpa story.
Right, I've been through one probably two hundred times in south TX. I say yes, and I've never been asked for a more thorough check.
But, do you believe for an instant that they have even remotely stemmed the influx of illegals or drugs?
My first inclination is to say that they have some small effect since an increase in the frequency of contact between LE and the public tends to deter crime. For example, you'd be amazed at the number of drug traffickers who actually consent to a search when asked.
A better question is whether these checkpoints are cost effective. Many people on this board believe the entire WOD to be a waste of money. So, the effect on drug trafficking will likely be a point of contention. As for the effect on illegal immigration, I do not have the data to make that determination.
TSA VIPR teams have been conducting these operations across the country for quite some time on highways, trains, buses, subways, etc. The ever expanding leviathan of government control knows no boundaries and if you don't stand up for your rights they will become extinct.
Not recording these incidents would seem foolish to me, it's for their own protection, and Pastor Anderson is proof of that.
Thats crazy talk right there......the TSA are protecting freedom!!!!
How about this, I consider operating an unconstitutional hwy check point as "looking for trouble".
There is absolutely no reason to require a U.S. citizen to stop their vehicle unless you have reason to believe they have committed a crime. Bottom line.
Of course I guess if I worked for the feds I could just pull over everyone "just because". I can just see it now....."no Sgt. I put on my TSA chimo shirt with my BP green pants so I can stop anyone I want for whatever reason......if any at all" Ya lets see how that works out...
I just cant understand how you people are willing to accept this bullcrap like its ok.
The level of Jellyfish in this thread is remarkable.
You know what, since unwarranted hwy checkpoints are OK, why not universal background checks or universal gun registration. I mean after all "if you have nothing to hide, whats the big deal......its for our safety" lol lol Some of you guys need to figure out WHAT YOU WANT.
Do you want freedom, or do you want to be a slave?
Also, video tape me and any LEO all you want. Number one, its legal in public, number two you're already on camera somewhere....so it doesnt matter. I couldnt care less if someone whips out their Iphone.....
But I didn't see that as a reason to give the guys and gals at the checkpoint a hard time as they were just doing the job they were told to do, no matter how stupid in might have been.
So were these guys...
http://www.stephenhalbrook.com/registration_article/pic6.jpg
Godwin's law applied. ;)
Thats crazy talk right there......the TSA are protecting freedom!!!!
How about this, I consider operating an unconstitutional hwy check point as "looking for trouble".
There is absolutely no reason to require a U.S. citizen to stop their vehicle unless you have reason to believe they have committed a crime. Bottom line.
Of course I guess if I worked for the feds I could just pull over everyone "just because". I can just see it now....."no Sgt. I put on my TSA chimo shirt with my BP green pants so I can stop anyone I want for whatever reason......if any at all" Ya lets see how that works out...
I just cant understand how you people are willing to accept this bullcrap like its ok.
The level of Jellyfish in this thread is remarkable.
You know what, since unwarranted hwy checkpoints are OK, why not universal background checks or universal gun registration. I mean after all "if you have nothing to hide, whats the big deal......its for our safety" lol lol Some of you guys need to figure out WHAT YOU WANT.
Do you want freedom, or do you want to be a slave?
Also, video tape me and any LEO all you want. Number one, its legal in public, number two you're already on camera somewhere....so it doesnt matter. I couldnt care less if someone whips out their Iphone.....
Pure awesome.
AZ-Renegade
02-28-13, 16:25
Sorry and no disrespect intended to you but, IMHO that's inept and it makes me question whether or not the right people are being hired to do the job.
Bingo.
Keep in mind this is not the majority of the agents that work within USBP, but the few that make the rest of us look bad.
El Pistolero
02-28-13, 17:26
Are you a CBP agent? If so PM me.
I just cant understand how you people are willing to accept this bullcrap like its ok.
So how is it that random, no refusal, DUI checkpopints are legal in Texas?
So how is it that random, no refusal, DUI checkpopints are legal in Texas?
Because people havent stood up and fought for their constitutional rights. That and they've listened to the bleeding hearts like MAAD.
EDIT: I just did some research, it appears DUI checkpoints are now illegal in Texas.( i thought they passed a bill outlawing it, so my above statement stand for all those states that still allow it)
DUI checkpoints are BS too.
Alaskapopo
02-28-13, 18:53
Because people havent stood up and fought for their constitutional rights. That and they've listened to the bleeding hearts like MAAD.
EDIT: I just did some research, it appears DUI checkpoints are now illegal in Texas.( i thought they passed a bill outlawing it, so my above statement stand for all those states that still allow it)
As someone who has lost a brother to DUI I can say I appreciate MADD and what they have done. When it comes to DUI I don't care if you're another cop or my own mother your going to get arrested and your going to jail.
Pat
As someone who has lost a brother to DUI I can say I appreciate MAAD and what they have done.
Pat
Are you guys talking about MADD?
Alaskapopo
02-28-13, 18:56
Are you guys talking about MADD?
Yes Mothers Against Drunk Driving. Typo.
Pat
MADD completely lost the original intent of it's founder, she left the organization because of it, and has been quoted as saying "MADD has become far more neo-prohibitionist than I had ever wanted or envisioned ...," Lightner is quoted as saying in an Aug. 6 story in the Washington Times. "I didn't start MADD to deal with alcohol. I started MADD to deal with the issue of drunk driving," she said.
They're a bunch of wingnuts... "Ultimately, the group said yesterday, it wants so-called alcohol interlock devices factory-installed in all new cars. "The main reason why people continue to drive drunk today is because they can," MADD president Glynn Birch said at a news teleconference from Washington, D.C."
Former MADD President got a DUI for .239!!! http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504083_162-20036544-504083.html
RogerinTPA
02-28-13, 19:23
This is a movement that needs to happen. If everyone would just say no than there would be nothing else to do but stop.
I saw this video last week and posted it on my facebook. I applaud all Americans for standing up for their rights. Freedom from illegal behavior under the guise of law enforcement, to assert one's protected rights, is always a good thing, and should be encouraged. I don't consider it being uncooperative to do so. Funny how it is lawful for law enforcement to lie to us to get us to give up our protected rights, 'looking' for probable cause that they didn't have before a stop, but when we assert our rights, it's uncooperative and reasonable suspicion. Sounds like they either A. don't know the constitution B. Know and don't care about a person's civil or constitutional rights. or C. Needs remedial training on constitutional protected rights...
As someone who has lost a brother to DUI I can say I appreciate MADD and what they have done. When it comes to DUI I don't care if you're another cop or my own mother your going to get arrested and your going to jail.
Pat
Ya thats great and everything, but just because some morons make poor decisions it doesnt give you the authority to violate everyone's rights. Again, if that were the case why not register all our firearms or just confiscate them...since some people have been killed with firearms. (even though Im sure you'd be all for that too)
So arrest on DUI's all you want, just make sure you have PC to make the stop. Not unconstitutional checkpoints.
(p.s. I dont care what those bleeding heart authoritarians call themselves MAAD, MADD, MOO, dont care)
When are you people going to connect the dots??? This topic has direct carry over to all other rights. Give an inch, they'll take a mile. You give up the 4th amend, they'll take the 2nd too.
Alaskapopo
02-28-13, 20:00
Ya thats great and everything, but just because some morons make poor decisions it doesnt give you the authority to violate everyone's rights. Again, if that were the case why not register all our firearms or just confiscate them...since some people have been killed with firearms. (even though Im sure you'd be all for that too)
So arrest on DUI's all you want, just make sure you have PC to make the stop. Not unconstitutional checkpoints.
(p.s. I dont care what those bleeding heart authoritarians call themselves MAAD, MADD, MOO, dont care)
When are you people going to connect the dots??? This topic has direct carry over to all other rights. Give an inch, they'll take a mile. You give up the 4th amend, they'll take the 2nd too.
I won't argue with you on the checkpoints because I don't like the idea either. But MADD has done a lot of good over the years. With DUI unfortunately it is a lot of people who make this mistake. Most of them are not typical criminals. Many are people who are otherwise law abiding who did not realize they were over the limit and made a poor choice. Not excusing the behavior but they are not all morons as you said. The opposite of being an authoritarian or statist is being an anarchist. We need to find a happy middle ground between the two extremes.
Pat
Javadrinker asked me to post this in this thread as he doesn't yet have the post count required. His comments, not mine:
Good evening, I do not yet have the post count to post in the GD, but find this subject interesting.
All of the check points on the north/south routes on the way out of the Rio Grande Valley are now permanent, take your picture headon, side view and rear, recording license plate and occupants.
All have k-9s which check each vehicle, sometimes multiple k-9s. I usually travel north going to see my mother that lives in Waco.
I do not mind answering that I and my wife are US Citizens, but where I am going and why is none of their business, and I will tell them.
Now that damn database has my license plate in it as well as my home address and all the other stuff, which is viewable to them before I get to where the agent is asking questions.
I think these people know who you are BEFORE you ge to them, unless that license plate has not gone through any checkpoint before.
In addition, you are also photographed going south.
Can we say people control, nothing to do with illegals or drugs, in spite of what BP may or may not say.
When are you people going to connect the dots??? This topic has direct carry over to all other rights. Give an inch, they'll take a mile. You give up the 4th amend, they'll take the 2nd too.
Oh, I can connect the dots, no problem. And I am sympathetic to your position.
But I am also sympathetic to the guy or gal that is just doing their job, which they will lose if they refuse. As long as they treat me with respect, and only ask my nationality, I am going to comply and not give them a hard time over a policy they can't control. But if they try to go father without PC, that is where I will refuse and exercise my rights.
And if I am unhappy with the law or policy that allows them to do the checkpoints, I will express myself to where it might actually do some good, which I don't believe is at the checkpoint level. I'll sic Ted Cruz on them!
Oh, I can connect the dots, no problem. And I am sympathetic to your position.
But I am also sympathetic to the guy or gal that is just doing their job, which they will lose if they refuse. As long as they treat me with respect, and only ask my nationality, I am going to comply and not give them a hard time over a policy they can't control. But if they try to go father without PC, that is where I will refuse and exercise my rights.
If my Sgt, LT, or Cpt. told me to run a checkpoint for dui/illegals/whatver my answer would be "no thanks".
The law is very clear, I can not detain or search a U.S. citizen without justification (reasonable suspicion or probable cause that I can articulate). Requiring a person to stop at a checkpoint is detainment, unless they can tell you to pound sand and drive away (which it seems is the tricky part of this discussion..)
Bottom line. I dont want to be sued, or sell my soul for "doing my job".
There is no law that states Border Patrol or TSA get a free pass to violate the 4th amend. they just claim "national security" and do it. Ya "national security"......I guess OPERATION FAST AND FURIOUS WAS FOR NATIONAL SECURITY TOO......"national security, nothing to see here move along slave and do as your told".
It was exactly that short...I didn't even take the car out of gear.
It was stupid...and it would have been even more stupid if I made a scene and waste 5 minutes of my life making a point.
I was tempted to say "Si Senor"...but common sense got the better of me.
Hell, Ive been pulled over by CBP K9 unit, I didnt realize a tail light was out. The officer asked what I was doing and kindly informed him that I made a run for the border...I had Taco Bell with me. That went over well. I didnt know that it was CBP until I looked in the rear view and saw the green stripe. It was at night in the rain, so the marked unit was a bit obscured.
I did notice the Constitution Free Zone for all of Florida. Border Wars did an episode in which they tagged around with CBP on I-95 and in Imokolee, looking for illegal migant workers.
If my Sgt, LT, or Cpt. told me to run a checkpoint for dui/illegals/whatver my answer would be "no thanks".
Told you, or ordered you? Are you LEO in any capacity? If not, I would observe that it is an easy claim for you to make. If you are, then my hat is off to you.
If my Sgt, LT, or Cpt. told me to run a checkpoint for dui/illegals/whatver my answer would be "no thanks".
I understand how you feel, but if you refused to work assigned details they would start the process to terminate your employment.
The law is very clear, I can not detain or search a U.S. citizen without justification (reasonable suspicion or probable cause that I can articulate). Requiring a person to stop at a checkpoint is detainment, unless they can tell you to pound sand and drive away (which it seems is the tricky part of this discussion..)
The law must not be all that clear because they have them here all the time. In fact they usually announce them on the news for a day or two prior. DUI checkpoints that is.
Ya thats great and everything, but just because some morons make poor decisions it doesnt give you the authority to violate everyone's rights. Again, if that were the case why not register all our firearms or just confiscate them...since some people have been killed with firearms. (even though Im sure you'd be all for that too)
So arrest on DUI's all you want, just make sure you have PC to make the stop. Not unconstitutional checkpoints.
(p.s. I dont care what those bleeding heart authoritarians call themselves MAAD, MADD, MOO, dont care)
When are you people going to connect the dots??? This topic has direct carry over to all other rights. Give an inch, they'll take a mile. You give up the 4th amend, they'll take the 2nd too.
I think problems with your DUI checkpoint position is 1) the term "unreasonable" in the 4th Amendment in reference to searches, and 2) that the Constitution contains no right to drive or use the public roads. SCOTUS has already determined (MI State Police v Sitz) that DUI checkpoints are "reasonable." Driving is, in fact, a privilege and so is the use of public roads. By exercising this privilege, you must consent to random DUI and driver's licenses checkpoints in many states.
When it comes to these immigration checkpoints, your position is much stronger. SCOTUS determined that there must be a substantial public benefit (i.e. mitigation of DUI public health risk) for a checkpoint to be reasonable. I'm not so sure that the need to deter illegal immigration is enough public benefit to be a reasonable search. This is especially true if the government is using these checkpoints to affect other means of population control such as recording movements, looking for drugs, etc.
Thus, I propose that you take one for the team and refuse to stop at the next DHS checkpoint that you encounter. Don't even slow down - blow through that mofo. I'll contribute $50 to your legal defense fund (assuming that you survive the experience), and I'm sure that the other good members of M4C will match my generosity. Then, we will finally have our day in court to adjudicate this issue once your case makes it up the chain over the next 10 years.
The goober around the 12-minute mark is the best. He can barely form a sentence but he's got a badge and "authority" and every intention to use it. Reminded me of an article I read a while back describing the type of people that excel in those wannabe-cop roles that are popular in fascist regimes. Can't find it at the moment but will drop a link if i do.
platoonDaddy
03-01-13, 05:51
Being an oldMan, I always thought that if you didn't answer the LEO's question, you would be prone on the concrete? :confused:
Must you answer and or exit a vehicle at a DWI CP?
Voodoo_Man
03-01-13, 06:47
Being an oldMan, I always thought that if you didn't answer the LEO's question, you would be prone on the concrete? :confused:
Must you answer and or exit a vehicle at a DWI CP?
Generally every state does DUI/DWI/etc checkpoints differently, to an extent. I would find what your state/local rules are.
I always went with, if you are not drunk at a DUI checkpoint, you have nothing to worry about.
Littlelebowski
03-01-13, 06:54
Being an oldMan, I always thought that if you didn't answer the LEO's question, you would be prone on the concrete? :confused:
Must you answer and or exit a vehicle at a DWI CP?
Depends on your state but odds are....no.
platoonDaddy
03-01-13, 07:01
Generally every state does DUI/DWI/etc checkpoints differently, to an extent. I would find what your state/local rules are.
I always went with, if you are not drunk at a DUI checkpoint, you have nothing to worry about.
The reason I brought up DUI CP's is reading this thread the majority agree with the actions of the drivers of the video. I always thought one HAD to comply with questions from LEO's, therefore at those CP's I would have answered their questions.
The reason I brought up DUI CP's is reading this thread the majority agree with the actions of the drivers of the video. I always thought one HAD to comply with questions from LEO's, therefore at those CP's I would have answered their questions.
I would not be surprised if the rules governing DUI checkpoints are different than the rules for an Immigration checkpoint.
Get an education.
United States v. Martinez-Fuerte, 428 U.S. 543 (1976)
http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/428/543/case.html
Michigan State Police v. Sitz, 496 U.S. 444 (1990)
http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/496/444/case.html
Indianapolis v. Edmond - 531 U.S. 32 (2000)
http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/531/32/case.html
Thus, I propose that you take one for the team and refuse to stop at the next DHS checkpoint that you encounter. Don't even slow down - blow through that mofo. I'll contribute $50 to your legal defense fund (assuming that you survive the experience), and I'm sure that the other good members of M4C will match my generosity. Then, we will finally have our day in court to adjudicate this issue once your case makes it up the chain over the next 10 years.
18 USC Sec. 758
High speed flight from immigration checkpoint
Whoever flees or evades a checkpoint operated by the Immigration and Naturalization Service, or any other Federal law enforcement agency, in a motor vehicle and flees Federal, State, or local law enforcement agents in excess of the legal speed limit shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than five years, or both.
I don't think $50 is going to be of much help.
Get an education.
Now why would you want to confuse this discussion with facts? :smile:
How does or would DHS handle what a state would consider lawful possession of a firearm?
Why don't we just put checkpoints everywhere and we can all submit to a cavity check? Kinda like that Texas trooper who stuck her hand up those ladies' vaginas.
The government twisting the original intent and meaning of the Constitution is no different than the anti-gun ****wads doing the same thing to try to legislate our gun rights away.
How does or would DHS handle what a state would consider lawful possession of a firearm?
When I worked checkpoint ops I could careless about lawfully possessed/carried firearms, however, if we found an illegally concealed firearm, well you were going to have a very bad day with a deputy.
Now why would you want to confuse this discussion with facts? :smile:
But hyperbole, rumor, and innuendo make for better argument. Like this thread, remove those three from the discussion, look at the well reasoned SCOTUS take on the situation and then there is nothing to see here.
thopkins22
03-01-13, 11:36
But hyperbole, rumor, and innuendo make for better argument. Like this thread, remove those three from the discussion, look at the well reasoned SCOTUS take on the situation and then there is nothing to see here.
Right. So nobody is wrong per the USC and existing case law. The motorists aren't wrong by not playing into the hands of the agents, and the agents aren't wrong by having the checkpoints.
What sayeth you regarding the agents' refusal to answer/deceitful answer to the question "am I free to go?" That seems to be the only issue I have with it.
I have no problem with checks on the border but I do have a problem with internal checkpoints in my country.
Basically it seems like an attempt to get around the City of Indianapolis v. Edmond decision in which SCOTUS limited the power of law enforcement to conduct suspicionless searches, specifically, using drug-sniffing dogs at roadblocks. So without reasonable suspicion or probable cause these stops, a seizure, violate the 4th Amendment under normal circumstances but since it's within 100 miles of the border you give up your constitutional rights.
Nearly 2/3 of Americans live within this 100 mile "Constitution-free zone".
http://survivalacres.com/blog/constitutionfree.jpg
Get an education.
United States v. Martinez-Fuerte, 428 U.S. 543 (1976)
http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/428/543/case.html
Michigan State Police v. Sitz, 496 U.S. 444 (1990)
http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/496/444/case.html
Indianapolis v. Edmond - 531 U.S. 32 (2000)
http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/531/32/case.html
Indianapolis v. Edmond was mentioned on the very 1st page of this thread.
But hyperbole, rumor, and innuendo make for better argument. Like this thread, remove those three from the discussion, look at the well reasoned SCOTUS take on the situation and then there is nothing to see here.
Except posting the SCOTUS decisions doesn't really answer the question I'm asking. Obviously the checkpoints are legal, or have at least been ruled legal, or else they wouldn't continue to operate.
I asked in the OP: "I don't have any good data, but I doubt these checkpoints are doing anything but costing money and giving drivers problems. Is that right or wrong?"
So I'm not as concerned with arguing this descriptively (their technical legal status at this moment) as I am with looking at it prescriptively (whether these checkpoints should exist from both a legal and practical perspective).
Are these interior checkpoints effective, and if so, can you please point me to where I can find the data?
The reason I brought up DUI CP's is reading this thread the majority agree with the actions of the drivers of the video. I always thought one HAD to comply with questions from LEO's, therefore at those CP's I would have answered their questions.
You must (unless you want to receive unfortunate consequences) comply with directives and orders of a law enforcement officer in the performance of their duties. If you pay careful attention in the video, you'll notice that the agents never say "You must", "You shall", "I am ordering you to" and with one exception from a young and inexperienced agent before his supervisor arrived "You are being detained".
They are saying things like "I need you to" "Would you", "Answer the question", none of which are actual directives. They use social engineering and your desire to give authorities the answers they ask for against your best interests. You'd be amaze how many times the subject of a field interview will incriminate themselves, simply because an officer or agent uses authority and command presence to elicit answers to their questions. People confuse ask and demand. Words matter and they're not the same.
18 USC Sec. 758
High speed flight from immigration checkpoint
Whoever flees or evades a checkpoint operated by the Immigration and Naturalization Service, or any other Federal law enforcement agency, in a motor vehicle and flees Federal, State, or local law enforcement agents in excess of the legal speed limit shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than five years, or both.
I don't think $50 is going to be of much help.
If you have video evidence that you complied with the directive to stop at the checkpoint, the agent was non responsive in affirming that you were being detained, and that you stated that you believed you were not being detained and left at a normal speed, I'd think you'd have a great civil case if they tried to arrest and charge you with violating 18 USC Sec. 758.
Obviously that's not going to help you NOT get arrested, which is what DHS is leaning on to compel compliance without any actual authority to do so. ;)
Right. So nobody is wrong per the USC and existing case law. The motorists aren't wrong by not playing into the hands of the agents, and the agents aren't wrong by having the checkpoints.
What sayeth you regarding the agents' refusal to answer/deceitful answer to the question "am I free to go?" That seems to be the only issue I have with it.
SCOTUS has ruled that agents may use deceit and deception to elicit information and evidence. It's a double standard that a citizen may not legally lie and deceive an agent, but it is what it is.
Voodoo_Man
03-01-13, 12:49
As some have stated, a DUI checkpoint is not a government (agency) checkpoint. There is a lawful reason for them and they are recognized in many states as completely legitimate.
Does that mean they will stand up in court? Who knows. But it is not a border patrol agent asking you to do stuff, it a police officer giving a lawful order.
You must (unless you want to receive unfortunate consequences) comply with directives and orders of a law enforcement officer in the performance of their duties. If you pay careful attention in the video, you'll notice that the agents never say "You must", "You shall", "I am ordering you to" and with one exception from a young and inexperienced agent before his supervisor arrived "You are being detained".
They are saying things like "I need you to" "Would you", "Answer the question", none of which are actual directives. They use social engineering and your desire to give authorities the answers they ask for against your best interests. You'd be amaze how many times the subject of a field interview will incriminate themselves, simply because an officer or agent uses authority and command presence to elicit answers to their questions. People confuse ask and demand. Words matter and they're not the same.
Many people have hung themselves due to the subtle nuances.
So driving on a "Public" hi-way, is a "Privilege", then why is it that in order for one to "Obtain", "Posses", a "Privilege" card from a "Govt." agency, one has "Pay" for a "Permission" slip, to drive on "Public" roads? If we pay taxes on gas to support roads, if we pay "Taxes" on auto license plates (again, Permissions) pay "Taxes" to state and local "Govt." then why is it after ALL these "Purchases" we ONLY have a "Privilege" and not a "Right" after "Purchasing" "Privilege" from said Govt.? If you have "Purchased" said documentations and paid such taxes, then shouldn't it be a "Right"? Why can't the LEO's admit that we are headed right smack into being just like Hitler's Germany? And yet all the illegals can come here and do whatever they want, including vote, vote the "Citizens" rights, right out of existence. How two faced is that?
So driving on a "Public" hi-way, is a "Privilege", then why is it that in order for one to "Obtain", "Posses", a "Privilege" card from a "Govt." agency, one has "Pay" for a "Permission" slip, to drive on "Public" roads? If we pay taxes on gas to support roads, if we pay "Taxes" on auto license plates (again, Permissions) pay "Taxes" to state and local "Govt." then why is it after ALL these "Purchases" we ONLY have a "Privilege" and not a "Right" after "Purchasing" "Privilege" from said Govt.? If you have "Purchased" said documentations and paid such taxes, then shouldn't it be a "Right"? Why can't the LEO's admit that we are headed right smack into being just like Hitler's Germany? And yet all the illegals can come here and do whatever they want, including vote, vote the "Citizens" rights, right out of existence. How two faced is that?
All I saw was:
http://fancyoatmealblog.files.wordpress.com/2012/04/air-quotes.gif
So driving on a "Public" hi-way, is a "Privilege", then why is it that in order for one to "Obtain", "Posses", a "Privilege" card from a "Govt." agency, one has "Pay" for a "Permission" slip, to drive on "Public" roads? If we pay taxes on gas to support roads, if we pay "Taxes" on auto license plates (again, Permissions) pay "Taxes" to state and local "Govt." then why is it after ALL these "Purchases" we ONLY have a "Privilege" and not a "Right" after "Purchasing" "Privilege" from said Govt.? If you have "Purchased" said documentations and paid such taxes, then shouldn't it be a "Right"? Why can't the LEO's admit that we are headed right smack into being just like Hitler's Germany? And yet all the illegals can come here and do whatever they want, including vote, vote the "Citizens" rights, right out of existence. How two faced is that?
Maybe you're on to something here. Perhaps you could petition your state legislature to propose an amendment to your state constitution granting the right to drive provided that you pay the necessary taxes.
All I saw was:
http://fancyoatmealblog.files.wordpress.com/2012/04/air-quotes.gif
You didn't miss much...
Alaskapopo
03-01-13, 14:55
So driving on a "Public" hi-way, is a "Privilege", then why is it that in order for one to "Obtain", "Posses", a "Privilege" card from a "Govt." agency, one has "Pay" for a "Permission" slip, to drive on "Public" roads? If we pay taxes on gas to support roads, if we pay "Taxes" on auto license plates (again, Permissions) pay "Taxes" to state and local "Govt." then why is it after ALL these "Purchases" we ONLY have a "Privilege" and not a "Right" after "Purchasing" "Privilege" from said Govt.? If you have "Purchased" said documentations and paid such taxes, then shouldn't it be a "Right"? Why can't the LEO's admit that we are headed right smack into being just like Hitler's Germany? And yet all the illegals can come here and do whatever they want, including vote, vote the "Citizens" rights, right out of existence. How two faced is that?
So requiring people obtain drivers license to make sure they are competant to drive and making them license their car to help pay for the roads is one step away from sending people the the gas chambers?
So requiring people obtain drivers license to make sure they are competant to drive and making them license their car to help pay for the roads is one step away from sending people the the gas chambers?
I get what you're saying but :lol: So many knuckleheads behind the wheel it's ridiculous.
Alaskapopo
03-01-13, 15:22
I get what you're saying but :lol: So many knuckleheads behind the wheel it's ridiculous.
I also think we should make people retest for their license every year after they hit their 65th birthday.
Pat
Told you, or ordered you? Are you LEO in any capacity? If not, I would observe that it is an easy claim for you to make. If you are, then my hat is off to you.
Yes I am.
Get an education.
United States v. Martinez-Fuerte, 428 U.S. 543 (1976)
http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/428/543/case.html
Michigan State Police v. Sitz, 496 U.S. 444 (1990)
http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/496/444/case.html
Indianapolis v. Edmond - 531 U.S. 32 (2000)
http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/531/32/case.html
Get an education, Case law does not usurp the Constitution. The Federal Supreme Court DOES NOT HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO REVIEW AND OVER TURN AND/OR RULE ON CASES. Educate yourself, and maybe you would know that. Just because the felt like doing it in 1803 doesnt mean its right, kinda like unconstitutional checkpoints. By your logic, the Fed. Supreme Court could rule that its constitutional and legal to ban firearms unless in the hands of the military, because THEY think militia means military. Well guess what, they would be wrong...but it would be gospel to you wouldnt it?????????
Ya I know, most of you Maoists/Marxists authoritarians love it and are begging to be stopped on the street or the highway.....but some of us are not. The Ununited States of Amerika...."make sure you have your papers".
But yet you'll bitch all day about "protecting the 2nd amend".......
Alaskapopo
03-01-13, 16:17
Get an education, Case law does not usurp the Constitution. The Federal Supreme Court DOES NOT HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO REVIEW AND OVER TURN AND/OR RULE ON CASES. Educate yourself, and maybe you would know that. Just because the felt like doing it in 1803 doesnt mean its right, kinda like unconstitutional checkpoints. By your logic, the Fed. Supreme Court could rule that its constitutional and legal to ban firearms unless in the hands of the military, because THEY think militia means military. Well guess what, they would be wrong...but it would be gospel to you wouldnt it?????????
Ya I know, most of you Maoists/Marxists authoritarians love it and are begging to be stopped on the street or the highway.....but some of us are not. The Ununited States of Amerika...."make sure you have your papers".
But yet you'll bitch all day about "protecting the 2nd amend".......
Case law is how the constitution is interpreted. The Heller decision is case law for example. His education is just fine.
Pat
What I am really wondering is, What are some of the interpretations between "Rights" and "Privileges"? I realize sometimes I have a Strange way of expressing some things, which leads to misinterpretation, but at my age I'm used to it. I'm "Black and white" (Not good makins for a Lawyer) and this sometimes causes trouble when interpreting some things. I'm not quite sure what the differences between "Rights" and "Privileges" can be. Someone posted earlier that you "Don't" have the "Right" to drive down the road, but rather it is a "Privilege". Don't get me wrong, I realize society just wouldn't function very well for everyone, with out laws, guidelines, and someone to enforce them. I'm just stuck at Rights and Privileges. It would help ME, to get some other input on this.
thopkins22
03-01-13, 18:16
The right to travel has been recognized by SCOTUS...so while driving may be a privilege, the right to move freely is not.
platoonDaddy
03-01-13, 20:05
I also think we should make people retest for their license every year after they hit their 65th birthday.
Pat
Hopefully this is tongue-in-cheek!
Alaskapopo
03-01-13, 20:22
Hopefully this is tongue-in-cheek!
No not after early this winter an elderly person ended up killing a DOT worker because he was driving too fast for conditions and did not brake properly. He should not have been behind the wheel. I see this a lot with older drivers. I end up pulling someone over for weaving in the lane only to find out their not drunk just older and have issues with vision and should not be behind the wheel. I usually do the paper work for them to be retested at DMV. Folks like it or not you lose reaction time and other skills needed for driving as you age. There comes a point I think where you should have to be retested so you don't kill someone.
Pat
Alaskapopo
03-01-13, 20:23
The right to travel has been recognized by SCOTUS...so while driving may be a privilege, the right to move freely is not.
So if you don't want to get a license your free to walk or ride a bike.
Pat
So if you don't want to get a license your free to walk or ride a bike.
Pat
Or drive and pay the ticket for driving without a license if you get caught, options. :)
thopkins22
03-01-13, 21:31
So if you don't want to get a license your free to walk or ride a bike.
Pat
Can I ride my bike or walk through a checkpoint without stopping? ;)
Belmont31R
03-01-13, 21:38
As it stands now the only right to travel we have is on our own two feet, and even that has been legislated and ruled down to a shadow of its former self.
Just like you need a permit to peacefully assemble, and not having a permit in most places automatically makes it an unlawful assembly.
Permit=permission which is not a right. You should not need permission to use a right.
There should be ZERO taxes/fees paid to use a right..just like the poll tax to vote was ruled unconstitutional.
"The Federal Supreme Court DOES NOT HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO REVIEW AND OVER TURN AND/OR RULE ON CASES"
Really? I have to get a new copy of the Constitution then. I must have an old one.
Alaskapopo
03-01-13, 22:11
Or drive and pay the ticket for driving without a license if you get caught, options. :)
You could but its an arrestable offense up here. I bet it is in most states.
Pat
Littlelebowski
03-02-13, 20:06
http://www.daybydaycartoon.com/030313.jpg
No not after early this winter an elderly person ended up killing a DOT worker because he was driving too fast for conditions and did not brake properly. He should not have been behind the wheel. I see this a lot with older drivers. I end up pulling someone over for weaving in the lane only to find out their not drunk just older and have issues with vision and should not be behind the wheel. I usually do the paper work for them to be retested at DMV. Folks like it or not you lose reaction time and other skills needed for driving as you age. There comes a point I think where you should have to be retested so you don't kill someone.
Pat
Once again your "liberal authoritarian" side is showing. So since one person ****ed up, everyone should be punished? Just like the TSA, checkpoints, and gun control?????
NEWS FLASH, life is kinda danger filled thing. Get over, and move on with your life. People die, do stupid shit, and.....die. It happens.
By your logic, if someone dies backpacking or in an avalanche they should either be tested to see if they are "fit" to venture into the wilderness OR just kept away from nature.....since its dangerous. Or maybe they could make a law against backpacking and avalanches....set up checkpoints to check for evil hikers that could hurt themselves.
Welcome to Agenda 21 bizarro Amerika.
You can not legislate morality or safety. You can take away God given rights and enforce tyranny.........
Once again your "liberal authoritarian" side is showing. So since one person ****ed up, everyone should be punished? Just like the TSA, checkpoints, and gun control?????
Speaking of TSA searches http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-1KS6DXz7fY, but local LEO comes to defence of the 1st amendment.
"The Federal Supreme Court DOES NOT HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO REVIEW AND OVER TURN AND/OR RULE ON CASES"
Really? I have to get a new copy of the Constitution then. I must have an old one.
That statement had me perplexed as well.
Alaskapopo
03-02-13, 21:03
Once again your "liberal authoritarian" side is showing. So since one person ****ed up, everyone should be punished? Just like the TSA, checkpoints, and gun control?????
NEWS FLASH, life is kinda danger filled thing. Get over, and move on with your life. People die, do stupid shit, and.....die. It happens.
By your logic, if someone dies backpacking or in an avalanche they should either be tested to see if they are "fit" to venture into the wilderness OR just kept away from nature.....since its dangerous. Or maybe they could make a law against backpacking and avalanches....set up checkpoints to check for evil hikers that could hurt themselves.
Welcome to Agenda 21 bizarro Amerika.
You can not legislate morality or safety. You can take away God given rights and enforce tyranny.........
Lots of older people are having issues and driving is not a right it is a privlidge.
As for your hiking example we lose climbers every year on Denali so people are required to have enough supplies etc before they are allowed to climb the mountain. The reason being if they screw up we will have to send people in to rescue them. It seems you want total anarchy which is not a good thing.
Pat
GeorgiaBoy
03-02-13, 21:12
It seems you want total anarchy which is not a good thing.
Pat
Yup.
Plus, a incompetent/dangerous driver poses a lot more harm to innocents than a lone skier that gets in an avalanche.
The_Biased_Observer
03-02-13, 21:18
I get stopped at one of these once a week. These fellas get way more dope than they do illegals.
And now with the release of a bunch of illegals due to budget, what's the point in having them?
Lots of older people are having issues and driving is not a right it is a privlidge.
As for your hiking example we lose climbers every year on Denali so people are required to have enough supplies etc before they are allowed to climb the mountain. The reason being if they screw up we will have to send people in to rescue them. It seems you want total anarchy which is not a good thing.
Pat
We lost tourists every year on Maui when they were on vacation !
People sadly get in accidents doing something adventuresome or on vacation or at their home ?
Maybe we should test tourists before going to Maui on vacation make sure they prepare !
Seems to me there are more young kids causing accidents from texting than their are old folks causing them by just being to old these days ?
Maybe everyone should get tested every 4 years ? Make it even
IMHO either you are a good driver or a bad driver ! And bad drivers were bad when theynwere young and stay bad their whole life :)
Alaskapopo
03-02-13, 22:11
We lost tourists every year on Maui when they were on vacation !
People sadly get in accidents doing something adventuresome or on vacation or at their home ?
Maybe we should test tourists before going to Maui on vacation make sure they prepare !
Seems to me there are more young kids causing accidents from texting than their are old folks causing them by just being to old these days ?
Maybe everyone should get tested every 4 years ? Make it even
IMHO either you are a good driver or a bad driver ! And bad drivers were bad when theynwere young and stay bad their whole life :)
I am not for people texting and driving either that is already a crime in most states comparable to DUI.
Again there is a balance between anarchy and total state control. Neither extreme is a good thing.
Good drivers do get old and lose their reaction time, vision etc and become bad drivers. There is a certain age that re-testing should occur and family members also need to know when to take the keys from grandpa or grandma not just for their own good but for the good of every one else on the road or sidewalks or shopping malls.
Pat
I agree about a balance :)
And texting and such I think 65 is to young ? Maybe 75 then every 2 years or see how some do tough thng I have seen some at 80 still sharp as a tack and some at 50 who should be revoked ?
Wish they had stricter lic guidelines actually ?
Sadly drivers ed anymore is a joke IMHO at least
Have to think if it was strict and people failed they would drive anyway ?
Sadly though accidents do happen anywhere everywhere
Good thing its not like Russia here :) some crazy driving over there :)
Alaskapopo
03-02-13, 23:11
I agree about a balance :)
And texting and such I think 65 is to young ? Maybe 75 then every 2 years or see how some do tough thng I have seen some at 80 still sharp as a tack and some at 50 who should be revoked ?
Wish they had stricter lic guidelines actually ?
Sadly drivers ed anymore is a joke IMHO at least
Have to think if it was strict and people failed they would drive anyway ?
Sadly though accidents do happen anywhere everywhere
Good thing its not like Russia here :) some crazy driving over there :)
70 or 75 could be a good compromise and testing every 2 years would be fine. What is really needed is for the family members to step up and have the talk with their loved one when its time to take the keys. I know its not an easy thing to do.
Pat
70 or 75 could be a good compromise and testing every 2 years would be fine. What is really needed is for the family members to step up and have the talk with their loved one when its time to take the keys. I know its not an easy thing to do.
Pat
Yeah if family would do that ! I have to think some would and some would not though ?
Speaking of TSA searches http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-1KS6DXz7fY, but local LEO comes to defence of the 1st amendment.
Interesting video, thanks for sharing. That Deputy is a great example.
platoonDaddy
03-03-13, 20:27
70 or 75 could be a good compromise and testing every 2 years would be fine. What is really needed is for the family members to step up and have the talk with their loved one when its time to take the keys. I know its not an easy thing to do.
Pat
Pat
Are your friggin real? !! I just stepped over the frontier of the early 70's and believe me there is no friggin way my love ones would ever attempt to take my keys! Believe me it would be "over my cold dead hands!"
The only true law is that which leads to freedom!
When I read about a kid texting killing someone pisses me off
Someone old blowing through a store front because they hit the accelerator
Someone drunk driving taking someone out
Sadly all people should be tested harder and laws should be more enforced like texting and drinking
Those are much like having a loaded gun waving it around with finger on the trigger then wondering how the gun went off !
Maybe the key is all people old enough to drive should be tested the same ? Maybe testing needs to become the norm every 4 years ?
Would it help ? I doubt it I think we would just have more folks driving ilegal
Maybe amke the penalties stiffer so you text and drive its severe ! That kinda thing
That way you just punish the violators not everyone else !
The other day saw a ambulance swerving all over caught up I was in the left turn lane they were going straight the driver was busy texting ! Nice !
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.