JD50
Lifer
- Sep 4, 2005
- 11,918
- 2,883
- 136
She asked him a simple question, if he answered that question then I'm sure she would have answered his. He would have been out of there in 10 seconds and could have used all of that time he wasted writing his congressman, filing a complain, etc.... It's not like the guy was pulled over at random, he knew exactly what was going on. He knew that he was free to go, and that if he just answered her question it'd be over and he would be free to fight the CBP in a more efficient way. But instead, he decided to harass her.
ha·rass
1. To irritate or torment persistently.
2. To wear out; exhaust.
"Am I being detained"
"Am I being detained"
"Am I being detained"
"Am I being detained"
"Am I being detained"
"Am I being detained"
"Am I being detained"
"Am I being detained"
"Am I being detained"
"Am I being detained"
"Am I being detained"
"Am I being detained"
"Am I being detained"
"Am I being detained"
"Am I being detained"
"Am I being detained"
"Am I being detained"
"Am I being detained"
"Am I free to go"
"Am I free to go"
"Am I free to go"
"Am I free to go"
"Am I free to go"
"Am I free to go"
"Am I free to go"
"Am I free to go"
"Am I free to go"
"Am I free to go"
"Am I free to go"
"Am I free to go"
"Am I free to go"
"Am I free to go"
He harassed her? So if you are innocently driving down the highway, doing nothing suspicious, and a fellow citizen stops you and starts asking you questions pertaining to your citizenship status and wants you to pull over for further questioning.. you are harassing them. That makes a whole lot of sense.
Well lets not forget the pigs response
She was being uncooperative and refused to answer the question. I'm sure we both know that if he took the pigs non answers as a yes you are free to go he would have been pulled from the vehicle and arrested.
No, I don't know it. You want to frame this as a 'Who is to Blame?' argument in black and white terms, and I'm trying to say that if anyone is to blame for being "harassed" the only person that you can fault is the officer for initiating the aggressive questioning of an innocent civilian who has aroused no suspicion. You never provided any reasoning behind which of the two of them deserved the blame, you seem to assume we'll all agree with you on that application of blame. You accuse me of being simplistic, but your argument is nothing more than 'She asked him a question, he refused to answer and harassed her with [repetitive questions.' The fact is they acted the same way towards one another (repetitive questions) so you need to provide some reason why she is more entitled to ask questions than he is.
I think anyone who refers to another human being as a pig, regardless of whether you agree or not with their actions, needs to grow up a little bit.......:frown:
The Homeland Security Officer was doing her job *BUT* her job is not lawful in the face of the 4th amendment. Regardless of who ordered it or why she is there she must present probable cause to "inspect" the law abiding Citizen. She failed to do that so his questions were valid. She avoided the questions and expected that her badges' seeming authority should be enough for his compliance. It is *NOT* harassment to assert the Rights given us but rather it *IS* harassment for someone in the position of authority to usurp those very Rights without probable cause.
I am not sure where you got your law degree, but the Supreme Court has already clearly ruled that these checkpoints are legal and not adverse to the 4th admendment. Might want to read up on US vs. Martinez-Fuerte I believe......:roll:
palehorse
Lifer
- Dec 21, 2005
- 11,521
- 0
- 76
anti-establishment types, like PC Surgeon, have never let little things like federal law, legal precedents, SCOTUS decisions, or, most importantly, common sense, get in their way... on one hand, I appreciate their efforts to guard our civil rights -- while on the other hand, their overt hostility toward anyone in federal law enforcement is downright disturbing.
It's also a bit ironic that they would be so opposed to a group of agents whose primary function is catching illegal immigrants -- after all, these same posters are the ones screaming the loudest about Mexico "invading" the U.S. Perhaps, though, they themselves miss that irony whenever there's a federal agent to target...
I have no Law Degree although I may pursue that avenue. Thanks for bringing that case up. For those interested:
United States v. Martinez-Fuerte, 428 U.S. 543 (1976)
This is insane to read and disheartening to believe. Constitutional Law is where I am interested in making changes especially in light of the above case. I feel it does infringe on the Fourth Amendment regardless of the Supreme Courts decision.
Thanks Jmman.
I'm not ant-establishment as you think, but I am anti-tyranny. IMO each Citizen has Rights *over* Government. The Government is *subject* to its Citizens, not the other way around. Government doesn't have the Right to "Life, Liberty and pursuit of happiness", thats for the people.
If you wanted to catch illegals all they would have to do is go to the construction sites and chicken/turkey plants for surprise inspections of legal working permits/green cards. They could also shut down the border with thousands of soldiers from Iraq. The point being made here as it was earlier is this is nothing but "show boating" to say your tax dollars are at work. I have no doubt the actual agents themselves are doing a fine job and doing the best they can, but the people in charge whether it be in Homeland Security or State Government are to blame.
I just wanted to add another little tidbit of information for the people who think these checkpoints serve no purpose or are "showboating".
The most readily available data on the benefits of interior checkpoints are
the drug seizure and apprehension data recorded by the Border Patrol on a
daily basis at its checkpoints and stations. In fiscal year 2004, for example,
the Border Patrol reported that the southwest interior checkpoints, which
were staffed by about 10 percent of Border Patrol agents in those sectors,
were responsible for 96,000 illegal alien apprehensions, or 8 percent of all
Border Patrol apprehensions, and for seizure of 418,102 pounds of
marijuana and 10,853 pounds of cocaine in fiscal year 2004, or about 31
percent of the marijuana and about 74 percent of the cocaine seized
nationally by the Border Patrol.
In addition to the benefits of seizing contraband, and mitigating the
smuggling of humans, there were at least six incidents reported to us
where individuals with suspected ties to terrorism were identified when
transiting a Border Patrol interior checkpoint and appropriate actions
were coordinated with the FBI.
-from the GAO........
The most readily available data on the benefits of interior checkpoints are
the drug seizure and apprehension data recorded by the Border Patrol on a
daily basis at its checkpoints and stations. In fiscal year 2004, for example,
the Border Patrol reported that the southwest interior checkpoints, which
were staffed by about 10 percent of Border Patrol agents in those sectors,
were responsible for 96,000 illegal alien apprehensions, or 8 percent of all
Border Patrol apprehensions, and for seizure of 418,102 pounds of
marijuana and 10,853 pounds of cocaine in fiscal year 2004, or about 31
percent of the marijuana and about 74 percent of the cocaine seized
nationally by the Border Patrol.
In addition to the benefits of seizing contraband, and mitigating the
smuggling of humans, there were at least six incidents reported to us
where individuals with suspected ties to terrorism were identified when
transiting a Border Patrol interior checkpoint and appropriate actions
were coordinated with the FBI.
-from the GAO........
If they did as you suggested, this thread wouldn't be about some tool at a traffic stop, but about how the gov't is trampling the rights of construction and poultry workers.
Agreed, the argument would shift but there is a different precedent when illegally working somewhere as opposed to travel. Working illegally can pose a multitude of problems, from under paid wages, poor safety (other health risks) and taking jobs from Legal Citizens. I wouldn't be fighting for 4th Amendment in that circumstance.
JD50
Lifer
- Sep 4, 2005
- 11,918
- 2,883
- 136
See Jmman's and PC Surgeon's post that cites the ruling that gives the CBP that authority. If you disagree with that ruling, then fine, take it up with the SCOTUS, but I seriously doubt harassing some CBP agent is going to do anything persuade the SCOTUS to overturn their ruling. Thanks for playing.
Just to be clear, my problem is not with those of you that disagree with the checkpoints, thats fine and thats your right. My problem is with asshats like the guy in the video that seem to think that giving a Border Patrol agent a hard time is going to do anything besides annoy the crap out of said agent and the people waiting behind him.
Why is this any different? You'd be checking the status / paperwork of anyone working construction, etc. versus those driving. How can you claim that it's a violation due to no probable cause in one situation, but not the other?
Would you be defending Joe Illegal's "right" to not answer questions about his national origin, if asked at one of these checkpoints? How about one of your raids against construction sites?
Those are nice stats however if they protected the border the numbers would rise since I imagine that is a small percentage that gets here.
Why do we waste time on a hwy when we can police the border?
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 22K
-
News NVIDIA and Intel to Develop AI Infrastructure and Personal Computing Products- Started by poke01
- Replies: 396
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
Facebook
Twitter