How to handle a homeland security checkpoint.

[Farang]

Originally posted by: JD50

Originally posted by: Farang

Originally posted by: JD50

Originally posted by: Farang

But instead, he decided to harass her

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.

That is way too simplistic and you know it. If that's all you can handle then please don't even bother debating this with me.

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.

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.

Again, you're applying different standards. You seem to be saying that the officer's use of questioning at a checkpoint is upheld by the Supreme Court, and therefore justified. The man's questions of whether or not he is being detained and if he is free to go are required of the officer to answer by law, however she refuses to respond to them. By your line of reasoning he is justified in asking those questions, and it is not harassment. He is asking her to abide by the law--if the officer has a problem with the law and believes giving the citizens the right to be given answers to those questions obstructs her ability to do her job, then she should go down the proper avenues to change the law rather than ignore his questions and continue to harass him.

edit: see how I used your argument against you? I just wanted to make that clear, my point here being you are applying different rules to each party and your argument as it stands is weak for that reason.

 

[NoStateofMind]

Originally posted by: wetech

Originally posted by: PC Surgeon

Originally posted by: wetech

Originally posted by: PC Surgeon
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.

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.

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?

No, these situations are entirely different. I outlined them in the previous post. You cannot compare the two. One is working that involves SAFETY and PAY, the other merely TRAVELING. How can I spell it out for you?

 

[JD50]

Originally posted by: Farang

Originally posted by: JD50

Originally posted by: Farang

Originally posted by: JD50

Originally posted by: Farang

But instead, he decided to harass her

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.

That is way too simplistic and you know it. If that's all you can handle then please don't even bother debating this with me.

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.

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.

Again, you're applying different standards. You seem to be saying that the officer's use of questioning at a checkpoint is upheld by the Supreme Court, and therefore justified. The man's questions of whether or not he is being detained and if he is free to go are required of the officer to answer by law, however she refuses to respond to them. By your line of reasoning he is justified in asking those questions, and it is not harassment. He is asking her to abide by the law--if the officer has a problem with the law and believes giving the citizens the right to be given answers to those questions obstructs her ability to do her job, then she should go down the proper avenues to change the law rather than ignore his questions and continue to harass him.

edit: see how I used your argument against you? I just wanted to make that clear, my point here being you are applying different rules to each party and your argument as it stands is weak for that reason.

Yes, I am applying different rules to each party. Police Officers enforcing the law and civilians are not equal. Some people have authority over others, thats how a civilized society works. Don't take this the wrong way, I am not saying that cops have complete authority and control over civilians. I am saying that in certain situations like this one, the Police have authority over regular civilians.

For example....Let's say that your car matches the description of a car that was just involved in a drive by shooting and the Police stop you and take you out of the car at gun point. You cannot just jump out of the car and refuse to do anything before they explain to you why they stopped you. Once they secure you and the vehicle, then they will explain what's going on, and most likely send you on your way since you didn't commit the crime.

Edit - I am by no means implying that you should always bow down to authority no matter what. But there are times that you must obey someone in the position of authority, according to SCOTUS this is one of those times. Here is an example of what should have happened.

CBP agent - Sir, of what country are you a citizen?
Asshat - I am a US Citizen, why am I being stopped and am I free to go?
CPB agent - This is an immigration checkpoint (or whatever it's called) and yes you are free to go, have a nice day.

Now the guy is free to go file a complaint, protest agaisnt immigration checkpoints, or whatever.

 

[ShotgunSteven]

It would be interesting to see what happened if a line of fifty or more vehicles, all with drivers equipped with camcorders, went to one of these stops and all of the drivers used his tactics.

 

[Nebor]

Originally posted by: JD50

Originally posted by: Farang

Originally posted by: JD50

Originally posted by: Farang

Originally posted by: JD50

Originally posted by: Farang

But instead, he decided to harass her

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.

That is way too simplistic and you know it. If that's all you can handle then please don't even bother debating this with me.

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.

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.

Again, you're applying different standards. You seem to be saying that the officer's use of questioning at a checkpoint is upheld by the Supreme Court, and therefore justified. The man's questions of whether or not he is being detained and if he is free to go are required of the officer to answer by law, however she refuses to respond to them. By your line of reasoning he is justified in asking those questions, and it is not harassment. He is asking her to abide by the law--if the officer has a problem with the law and believes giving the citizens the right to be given answers to those questions obstructs her ability to do her job, then she should go down the proper avenues to change the law rather than ignore his questions and continue to harass him.

edit: see how I used your argument against you? I just wanted to make that clear, my point here being you are applying different rules to each party and your argument as it stands is weak for that reason.

Yes, I am applying different rules to each party. Police Officers enforcing the law and civilians are not equal. Some people have authority over others, thats how a civilized society works. Don't take this the wrong way, I am not saying that cops have complete authority and control over civilians. I am saying that in certain situations like this one, the Police have authority over regular civilians.

For example....Let's say that your car matches the description of a car that was just involved in a drive by shooting and the Police stop you and take you out of the car at gun point. You cannot just jump out of the car and refuse to do anything before they explain to you why they stopped you. Once they secure you and the vehicle, then they will explain what's going on, and most likely send you on your way since you didn't commit the crime.

Seems to me that people pointing guns at innocent people are liable to be shot by innocent people. I know I personally hate having guns pointed at me.

 

[JD50]

Originally posted by: Nebor

Originally posted by: JD50


Yes, I am applying different rules to each party. Police Officers enforcing the law and civilians are not equal. Some people have authority over others, thats how a civilized society works. Don't take this the wrong way, I am not saying that cops have complete authority and control over civilians. I am saying that in certain situations like this one, the Police have authority over regular civilians.

For example....Let's say that your car matches the description of a car that was just involved in a drive by shooting and the Police stop you and take you out of the car at gun point. You cannot just jump out of the car and refuse to do anything before they explain to you why they stopped you. Once they secure you and the vehicle, then they will explain what's going on, and most likely send you on your way since you didn't commit the crime.

Seems to me that people pointing guns at innocent people are liable to be shot by innocent people. I know I personally hate having guns pointed at me.

So in that situation you think that you would be perfectly justified in shooting the Police? How about you take a minute and think about what the Cops would be thinking in that situation. I'll help you out.

[cop] Hmmm....this car matches the description of the car just involved in a drive by shooting. There are probably people with guns in that car that don't mind shooting up innocent people. I'd kinda like to live to see my two kids, my wife, and my two dogs tonight so I should probably take every necessary precaution when I investigate this. [/cop]

 

[Farang]

JD50--

You say authorities should have power over civilians, which at first sounds fascist but you then clarify that by saying they do not have complete authority over civilians. Fine, I see the point of that in civil society.

Where is the line drawn? When do civilians need to bow down to authorities, and where does the power of authorities end? Who answers this question? The law. The courts, as I'm sure we can agree. So you really haven't taken your argument any further, as we are both citing the law. The law says she must answer those questions and she refuses, and as a civilian it is his right (in my opinion "duty") to repeat it until she does. This is the boundary that our laws have given to authorities. So when the man repeats the question, he is not harassing some women 'just doing her job,' he is calmly asking for his legal right to two pertinent pieces of information. When I said you're applying different standards, I wasn't meaning in the context of police officer versus civilian. I was meaning you are applying a legal standard to one person (the officer) and some arbitrary standard you have set to the other (the civilian). What I am saying is that when we apply the law to both sides, they are both exercising their legal rights to the fullest extent in order to gain the most leverage in the situation.

You began your argument by citing supreme court cases as her right to work that checkpoint. The legality of the checkpoint is irrelevant. What is at issue here is her behavior as an officer, something she has direct control over and can be faulted for. She should have answered those questions when first asked, her failure to do so was an act of an officer stepping outside of her legal bounds, and therefore being at fault in the situation (as opposed to the civilian who did not step outside of his legal bounds).

 

[Nebor]

Originally posted by: JD50

Originally posted by: Nebor

Originally posted by: JD50


Yes, I am applying different rules to each party. Police Officers enforcing the law and civilians are not equal. Some people have authority over others, thats how a civilized society works. Don't take this the wrong way, I am not saying that cops have complete authority and control over civilians. I am saying that in certain situations like this one, the Police have authority over regular civilians.

For example....Let's say that your car matches the description of a car that was just involved in a drive by shooting and the Police stop you and take you out of the car at gun point. You cannot just jump out of the car and refuse to do anything before they explain to you why they stopped you. Once they secure you and the vehicle, then they will explain what's going on, and most likely send you on your way since you didn't commit the crime.

Seems to me that people pointing guns at innocent people are liable to be shot by innocent people. I know I personally hate having guns pointed at me.

So in that situation you think that you would be perfectly justified in shooting the Police? How about you take a minute and think about what the Cops would be thinking in that situation. I'll help you out.

[cop] Hmmm....this car matches the description of the car just involved in a drive by shooting. There are probably people with guns in that car that don't mind shooting up innocent people. I'd kinda like to live to see my two kids, my wife, and my two dogs tonight so I should probably take every necessary precaution when I investigate this. [/cop]

Jesus, a cop with dogs? They must live in constant fear of being shot.

 

[JD50]

Originally posted by: Nebor

Originally posted by: JD50

Originally posted by: Nebor

Originally posted by: JD50


Yes, I am applying different rules to each party. Police Officers enforcing the law and civilians are not equal. Some people have authority over others, thats how a civilized society works. Don't take this the wrong way, I am not saying that cops have complete authority and control over civilians. I am saying that in certain situations like this one, the Police have authority over regular civilians.

For example....Let's say that your car matches the description of a car that was just involved in a drive by shooting and the Police stop you and take you out of the car at gun point. You cannot just jump out of the car and refuse to do anything before they explain to you why they stopped you. Once they secure you and the vehicle, then they will explain what's going on, and most likely send you on your way since you didn't commit the crime.

Seems to me that people pointing guns at innocent people are liable to be shot by innocent people. I know I personally hate having guns pointed at me.

So in that situation you think that you would be perfectly justified in shooting the Police? How about you take a minute and think about what the Cops would be thinking in that situation. I'll help you out.

[cop] Hmmm....this car matches the description of the car just involved in a drive by shooting. There are probably people with guns in that car that don't mind shooting up innocent people. I'd kinda like to live to see my two kids, my wife, and my two dogs tonight so I should probably take every necessary precaution when I investigate this. [/cop]

Jesus, a cop with dogs? They must live in constant fear of being shot.

Of course, doesn't everyone?

 

[wetech]

Originally posted by: PC Surgeon

Originally posted by: wetech

Originally posted by: PC Surgeon

Originally posted by: wetech

Originally posted by: PC Surgeon
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.

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.

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?

No, these situations are entirely different. I outlined them in the previous post. You cannot compare the two. One is working that involves SAFETY and PAY, the other merely TRAVELING. How can I spell it out for you?

Maybe with BOLD CAPITALS next time. Who cares if one relates to PAY and one doesn't. What does that have to do with someone's 4th Amendment rights? As to SAFETY, please explain how checking that someone operating a vehicle (i.e. TRAVELING) has a valid driver's license doesn't involve SAFETY.

 

[NoStateofMind]

Originally posted by: wetech


Maybe with BOLD CAPITALS next time. Who cares if one relates to PAY and one doesn't. What does that have to do with someone's 4th Amendment rights? As to SAFETY, please explain how checking that someone operating a vehicle (i.e. TRAVELING) has a valid driver's license doesn't involve SAFETY.

You keep grasping at STRAWS to make an argument that doesn't fit. You CANNOT compare the two. CONVENIENTLY you ignore the differences and try to ADD to what is NOT THERE. JOBS given to illegals have to be TAKEN from Citizens. The PEOPLE care about PAY, either you are illegal and getting ripped off or your a Citizen without a job because it would cost the company more to employ you rather than an illegal. I AM NOT arguing 4th Amendment Rights in the worker case. Please explain how WORKING in a LOUD environment with a NON-ENGLISH SPEAKING illegal is the same as someone DRIVING. IF you don't get it now you NEVER will.

Happy with BOLD CAPITALS? Good, my pleasure.

 

[wetech]

Originally posted by: PC Surgeon

Originally posted by: wetech


Maybe with BOLD CAPITALS next time. Who cares if one relates to PAY and one doesn't. What does that have to do with someone's 4th Amendment rights? As to SAFETY, please explain how checking that someone operating a vehicle (i.e. TRAVELING) has a valid driver's license doesn't involve SAFETY.

You keep grasping at STRAWS to make an argument that doesn't fit. You CANNOT compare the two. CONVENIENTLY you ignore the differences and try to ADD to what is NOT THERE. JOBS given to illegals have to be TAKEN from Citizens. The PEOPLE care about PAY, either you are illegal and getting ripped off or your a Citizen without a job because it would cost the company more to employ you rather than an illegal. I AM NOT arguing 4th Amendment Rights in the worker case. Please explain how WORKING in a LOUD environment with a NON-ENGLISH SPEAKING illegal is the same as someone DRIVING. IF you don't get it now you NEVER will.

Happy with BOLD CAPITALS? Good, my pleasure.

What am I adding that's not there? I'm not ignoring any differences, I'm just not pretending that being at work means that you have less rights then when driving. You're saying that because illegals take the jobs of citizens, that citizens can be asked about their citizenship while at work. But, because nothing is taken if an illegal drives, that citizens can't be asked about citizenship while on the road.

I'm not disputing that you're not arguing 4th amendment rights in the worker case. My argument is that it doesn't make sense to say that 4th Amendment rights are being infringed by arbitrarily stopping people driving on the road and asking for a country of citizenship, and yet not being infringed by arbitrarily asking them for the same info at a place of business.

 

[piasabird]

Since we do not have a national ID or any standardized method to prove your citizenship, there is no real means to check for it.

 

[daniel1113]

Originally posted by: piasabird
Since we do not have a national ID or any standardized method to prove your citizenship, there is no real means to check for it.

Hopefully it will staty that way.

 

[ahurtt]

I wish they had dragged that guy from his car and beat him to a bloody pulp. What an asshat being an asshat for the sake of asshattery.

 

[ahurtt]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard
I'm appalled that this guy is blamed for being a "jackass" in the video. He was illegally stopped by law enforcement officials. Anything else in this scenario doesn't matter.

I had a German roommate went on a road trip to L.A. after he finished his PhD. He was cruising along the northern edge of New Mexico (which is far more than 20 miles from the border) and came across one of these check points. He was almost deported because he didn't have his passport or visa papers with him. The only reason he wasn't was because he explained his situation and had the BP agent call the university and try to get him to fax the visa papers to the BP, which the university refused to do (privacy issues ). The BP agent got so fed up trying to deal with the university official that he just let him go on his way.

Bottom line: law enforcement should not have the ability to stop me in my car without probable cause. We are no longer the "land of the free" when I have to produce my papers every time I drive down the interstate. I know that the US Supreme Court (or at least lesser courts) have supported law enforcement's right to run DUI checkpoints, but I vehemently disagree with these decisions.

Nobody asked him for any goddamn papers. She asked him one very simple question. . .Of what country are you a citizen? All he had to do was say USA. After that, the following scenario would have probably taken place:

"Ok, thank you sir. Have a nice day. Proceed."

 

[daniel1113]

Originally posted by: ahurtt
I wish they had dragged that guy from his car and beat him to a bloody pulp. What an asshat being an asshat for the sake of asshattery.

Well said, comrad.

:roll:

 

[yllus]

Originally posted by: ahurtt
Nobody asked him for any goddamn papers. She asked him one very simple question. . .Of what country are you a citizen? All he had to do was say USA. After that, the following scenario would have probably taken place:

"Ok, thank you sir. Have a nice day. Proceed."

Yeah, I'm sure that's the only question she'd ask. I mean, asking a verbal question without requesting to see any hard proof is such an effective method of rooting out illegals.

 

[Jaskalas]

Originally posted by: JD50
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"

Maybe she should answer the question.

 

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: bctbct

Originally posted by: Jmman
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........

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?

the same agents do BOTH... but the truth is, there is absolutely no f'n way to have someone posted along every inch of border, at all times. For that reason, checkpoints such as this one are set up further into each border state. They are meant to catch the illegals that hopped onto the main roads well north of the border itself -- which, surprisingly enough, many illegals still do. (apparently it has something to do with the deserts being too tough to survive..)

These random checkpoints work pretty well, and they have been deemed legal and constitutional by the SCOTUS, and other legal precedents. Harassing the agents who are doing their jobs doesnt do a g'damn thing to change that, no matter how each of you feels about the 4th amendment.

The camera-toting moron in the video would be much better served by writing his congresspersons on a daily basis.

We really need to build a tall f'n wall...

 

[daniel1113]

Originally posted by: Jaskalas

Originally posted by: JD50
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"

Maybe she should answer the question.

Actually, I believe she is required to answer both questions. Of course, DHS tends to play by its own rules.

 

[daniel1113]

Originally posted by: palehorse74
These random checkpoints work pretty well, and they have been deemed legal and constitutional by the SCOTUS, and other legal precedents.

Not quite.

Random DUI checkpoints that meet certain requirements (i.e., can be easily avoided through the use of other roads) have been deemed legal.

 

[ahurtt]

Originally posted by: yllus

Originally posted by: ahurtt
Nobody asked him for any goddamn papers. She asked him one very simple question. . .Of what country are you a citizen? All he had to do was say USA. After that, the following scenario would have probably taken place:

"Ok, thank you sir. Have a nice day. Proceed."

Yeah, I'm sure that's the only question she'd ask. I mean, asking a verbal question without requesting to see any hard proof is such an effective method of rooting out illegals.

It's about as effective as the clerk at the airline counter asking if anyone other than yourself has placed anything in your bags. You say "No" and you go about your business. . .but you answer the question. You don't make the clerk's life and the lives of everybody else waiting in line more difficult because you have some asshat agenda or point to prove. The question is there just as a tool to guage a person's response. You can sometimes tell if somebody is being deceitful by their body language or tone. I'm sure border patrol officers probably go through some training in how to spot people who are being insincere or deceitful as do probably all law enforcement personnel.

 

[daniel1113]

Originally posted by: ahurtt
It's about as effective as the clerk at the airline counter asking if anyone other than yourself has placed anything in your bags. You say "No" and you go about your business. . .but you answer the question. You don't make the clerk's life and the lives of everybody else waiting in line more difficult because you have some asshat agenda or point to prove. The question is there just as a tool to guage a person's response. You can sometimes tell if somebody is being deceitful by their body language or tone. I'm sure border patrol officers probably go through some training in how to spot people who are being insincere or deceitful as do probably all law enforcement personnel.

Sorry, but a private airline is different than a public road, so comparing the two is moot.

 

[Capt Caveman]

Originally posted by: ShotgunSteven
It would be interesting to see what happened if a line of fifty or more vehicles, all with drivers equipped with camcorders, went to one of these stops and all of the drivers used his tactics.

It would suck for them to have to wait for so long for being assholes.