How to handle a homeland security checkpoint.

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: 1prophet
This guy wasn't so lucky.

Text

Sounds appropriate to me considering his belligerence. Now as to the exact laws in play - I don't know but it's entirely stupid to act like a tough guy like that - it'll only cause you problems and won't change a F'n thing. If you don't like the laws or the situation - petition the gov't- - don't take it out on the people who are just doing the job they were assigned. Sheesh - I swear some of you angst filled kiddies just enjoy fighting with law enforcement. Grow up.

 

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: 1prophet

Date: Sun, 29 Dec 2002 12:53:20 -0700 (MST)
From: Terry Bressi <tbressi@seds.lpl.arizona.edu>
To: gnu@toad.com
Subject: Police checkpoint incident

<snippit>

As time went on, what appeared to be illegal immigrants were loaded into
an INS bus. These individuals were most likely identified by their failure
to have a drivers license - indicating the license check, for which I was
being detained, was being used to share information with the INS for
federal law enforcement purposes. Additionally I was informed later that
several hundred pounds of pot had been seized (probably through the trunk
searches being conducted by the enforcement officers at the check point.)

:thumbsup: It looks like the checkpoint worked!! excellent!

Maybe Mr. Bressi shouldnt have been such a douche...

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: JD50
What an asshole.

That's uncalled-for. Granted, in a perfect world, she would have had the integrity and personal courage to push back on her bosses and refuse to violate the Constitution of the United States of America. Unfortunately, it's not a perfect world, she undoubtedly has a family to feed and bills to pay, and she was stuck between a rock and a hard place. I think she did an acceptable job of recognizing the man she stopped was properly asserting his rights. It would have been better had she done so more quickly, but at least she ultimately let him pass and didn't escalate the infraction, unlike the other example above. They were assholes. She was just a poor cop stuck in a no-win situation.



Removing tongue from cheek, that's the really hard part about examples like the OP. Being a cop sucks. It's a largely thankless job where good men and women literally put their lives on the line every day to protect a public who mostly ignores them until someone screws up. I think our public safety employees deserve tremendous respect

That said, what is the appropriate response when good cops are charged with enforcing bad laws or, as in this case, executing inappropriate tactics? As American citizens, we have certain rights guaranteed to us by our Constitution. We have every right to resist any government official who attempts to violate those rights. On the other hand, it's critical to recognize that in cases like the above, the issue isn't individual officers nearly as much as it is the agency they work for.

In short, how does one target the message without unduly harassing the messenger? I would have taken a different approach than the subject of the OP, but I can't condemn what he did as unreasonable. He wasn't violent. He was in no way abusive or demeaning to the officer. He simply stuck to the letter of the law and demanded that she, someone sworn to uphold the law, do so too.

What I do find appalling are the people here who viciously attack this man for asserting his legal rights. Sorry comrades, but welcome to America. Kindly leave your brown shirts and jack boots back in your despotic dystopia. As much as you may applaud the intent of the stops, the end does not justify the means.

 

[bamacre]

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: 1prophet

Date: Sun, 29 Dec 2002 12:53:20 -0700 (MST)
From: Terry Bressi <tbressi@seds.lpl.arizona.edu>
To: gnu@toad.com
Subject: Police checkpoint incident

<snippit>

As time went on, what appeared to be illegal immigrants were loaded into
an INS bus. These individuals were most likely identified by their failure
to have a drivers license - indicating the license check, for which I was
being detained, was being used to share information with the INS for
federal law enforcement purposes. Additionally I was informed later that
several hundred pounds of pot had been seized (probably through the trunk
searches being conducted by the enforcement officers at the check point.)

:thumbsup: It looks like the checkpoint worked!! excellent!

Maybe Mr. Bressi shouldnt have been such a douche...

Yup, a clear case of two rights being taken away with just one roadblock.

Never before has the federal government been so efficient. :thumbsup:

 

[bamacre]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: 1prophet
This guy wasn't so lucky.

Text

Sounds appropriate to me considering his belligerence. Now as to the exact laws in play - I don't know but it's entirely stupid to act like a tough guy like that - it'll only cause you problems and won't change a F'n thing. If you don't like the laws or the situation - petition the gov't- - don't take it out on the people who are just doing the job they were assigned. Sheesh - I swear some of you angst filled kiddies just enjoy fighting with law enforcement. Grow up.

Yeah, how dare he try to take advantage of his civil rights. :thumbsdown:

 

[alphatarget1]

That girl is pretty cute

 

[smack Down]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: 1prophet
This guy wasn't so lucky.

Text

Sounds appropriate to me considering his belligerence. Now as to the exact laws in play - I don't know but it's entirely stupid to act like a tough guy like that - it'll only cause you problems and won't change a F'n thing. If you don't like the laws or the situation - petition the gov't- - don't take it out on the people who are just doing the job they were assigned. Sheesh - I swear some of you angst filled kiddies just enjoy fighting with law enforcement. Grow up.

Yeah and that rape victim deserved it for wearing a short skirt.

 

[yowolabi]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
That guy is a total jackass. No matter how you feel about the checkpoints the guy is a complete tool. It's one thing to oppose the checkpoints but it's a totally different thing to be a complete asshole like this guy is. He was trying to instigate a confrontation so he could get it on film. Grade F'n A moron is what he is.

Why would knowing your rights and exercising/demanding them instigate a confrontation? The fact that you believe one would occur says nothing about his intentions, but says a lot about your expectations from law enforcement.

Originally posted by: palehorse74
I admire the woman's patience, and her decision to finally let him go on his merry way was VERY mature and professional -- a lot of junior officers may have taken the bait, but she did not. That shows fantastic judgment and restraint on her part. I'd hire 10 of her to work on any of my teams!

He did nothing against the law. Why should the woman be admired for also following the law and letting him go on his way, absent of a valid reason for detaining him? If you think that a lot of officers would have behaved differently, you should be campaigning hard for better training for officers.

Originally posted by: gentobu

Well said, but none of this changes the fact that the guy in the video is being an ass. If he wants change, he should take his issue up with someone who has the power to make that change. What he did is like yelling at a cashier because he doesn't like corporate policy. It changes nothing, and it ends up pissing off the cashier and the people waiting in line. He was not "standing up for his rights", he was acting like a stubborn bratty child.

So when you get stopped for no reason, do you sit there and write a letter to your congressman? What do you do in the meantime when you continuously get stopped? What happens when the people in power have no desire to change the ways things are done?

The fact is that they people in power are not going to stop checkpoints just because this guy asks. Another fact is that, if he just does whatever they want him do in the meantime, that makes it less likely that anyone will care to change the policy. The most effective way of stopping these checkpoints would be if everyone did exactly as this guy did, therefore making them useless. It's unfortunate that agents get caught in the crossfire, but it comes with their job. I'm certainly not going to surrender my rights because I feel sorry for the person attempting to deprive me of them.

 

[Jaskalas]

Originally posted by: BoomerD
I kept hoping she would have sent him over for a full inspection, including a strip and cavity search...then, dismantle his van because, "our drug sniffing dog" indicated the presence of an illegal substance.

I'm one of the horrible bastards who thinks our country doesn't do nearly enough to stop the illegal invasion, and support these checkpoints.

Shoot them dead at the border, bring our military home from Iraq to do it, but DO NOT throw a blanket on the rights of Americans to get the job done.

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: palehorse74
...and then, after he made a sweeping summary statement that included the word "both," I rightfully identified the connection of the two types of checkpoints as being pulled directly out of his arse.

I happen to agree with the TSA side of the debate... but I don't believe it's very relevant in this case. Checkpoints, such as those in the OP, done in the name of public safety, have been a semi-effective means of finding illegals, for decades -- and they happen to be done in direct response to known tactics used by the illegals everywhere along the border.

My point still stands: that is, if you are trying to compare them to TSA screening, you're out in left field.

The two are directly connected. Both are unreasonable search of my person and my belongings without probable cause. Moreover, though irrelevant because of what I said in the previous sentence, both are woefully ineffective at stopping anyone committing the intended infractions and can be circumvented by anyone with a brain larger than a chipmunk's. I don't see anywhere in the Constitution (you know, that document you are sworn to uphold?) where public safety supersedes my right to be protected from unreasonable search and seizure.

U.S. Constitution: Fourth Amendment

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

I couldn't have said it better myself. Shall not be violated is very strong language here in protection of my right to be secure against unreasonable searches and seizures.

 

[daniel1113]

Originally posted by: yowolabi
The most effective way of stopping these checkpoints would be if everyone did exactly as this guy did, therefore making them useless. It's unfortunate that agents get caught in the crossfire, but it comes with their job. I'm certainly not going to surrender my rights because I feel sorry for the person attempting to deprive me of them.

An even more effective way to stop these checkpoints would be for the agents of the government that carry them out to quit. I blame them as much as the policy makers.

 

[Nebor]

Originally posted by: daniel1113

Originally posted by: yowolabi
The most effective way of stopping these checkpoints would be if everyone did exactly as this guy did, therefore making them useless. It's unfortunate that agents get caught in the crossfire, but it comes with their job. I'm certainly not going to surrender my rights because I feel sorry for the person attempting to deprive me of them.

An even more effective way to stop these checkpoints would be for the agents of the government that carry them out to quit. I blame them as much as the policy makers.

Oh but they're "just doing their jobs," or "just following orders." :roll:

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: smack Down

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: 1prophet
This guy wasn't so lucky.

Text

Sounds appropriate to me considering his belligerence. Now as to the exact laws in play - I don't know but it's entirely stupid to act like a tough guy like that - it'll only cause you problems and won't change a F'n thing. If you don't like the laws or the situation - petition the gov't- - don't take it out on the people who are just doing the job they were assigned. Sheesh - I swear some of you angst filled kiddies just enjoy fighting with law enforcement. Grow up.

Yeah and that rape victim deserved it for wearing a short skirt.

Yeah, that's exactly what I was saying. :roll: F'n moron. Sheesh.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: 1prophet
This guy wasn't so lucky.

Text

Sounds appropriate to me considering his belligerence. Now as to the exact laws in play - I don't know but it's entirely stupid to act like a tough guy like that - it'll only cause you problems and won't change a F'n thing. If you don't like the laws or the situation - petition the gov't- - don't take it out on the people who are just doing the job they were assigned. Sheesh - I swear some of you angst filled kiddies just enjoy fighting with law enforcement. Grow up.

Yeah, how dare he try to take advantage of his civil rights. :thumbsdown:

And what exactly did his outburst get him? Nothing except a future lawyer bill. Now again, if he/you/whoever doesn't like the tactics or whatever - USE THE PROPER F'N CHANNELS. Do you really think this moron is going to change things by being belligerent? No. It's not like the BP agents are suddenly going to stop doing what they were assigned to do because a bunch of angst filled kiddies start whining. The only way you stop it is to contact local, state, and federal officials and express your disapproval and then vote the bastards out of office.

 

[bctbct]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY


And what exactly did his outburst get him? Nothing except a future lawyer bill. Now again, if he/you/whoever doesn't like the tactics or whatever - USE THE PROPER F'N CHANNELS. Do you really think this moron is going to change things by being belligerent? No. It's not like the BP agents are suddenly going to stop doing what they were assigned to do because a bunch of angst filled kiddies start whining. The only way you stop it is to contact local, state, and federal officials and express your disapproval and then vote the bastards out of office.

haha, use the USA grievance system. Not how that works.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: bctbct

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY


And what exactly did his outburst get him? Nothing except a future lawyer bill. Now again, if he/you/whoever doesn't like the tactics or whatever - USE THE PROPER F'N CHANNELS. Do you really think this moron is going to change things by being belligerent? No. It's not like the BP agents are suddenly going to stop doing what they were assigned to do because a bunch of angst filled kiddies start whining. The only way you stop it is to contact local, state, and federal officials and express your disapproval and then vote the bastards out of office.

haha, use the USA grievance system. Not how that works.

So it's alright to throw a tantrum(which is basically what they were doing) in front of people who can't change it is the answer?

Oh, and btw, I have used the proper channels on this very issue. Here in Iowa they can search your car any time you are pulled over even if you refuse their request to search. Now, I didn't have anything to hide but I refused(as I was in a hurry and knew they needed atleast one more squad present to do the search) and they detained me anyway.(no cuffs) I eventually got a copy of their report and sent it to all my elected representatives and stated how stupid it was. I got a few responses back but obviously one person can't do a whole lot. But that got me much more satisfaction and potential upside than if I would have thrown a tantrum and they would have arrested me for refusing. So the point is - to pick your battles and know what will actually have a return on your investment. A tantrum gets you no ROI and a lawyer bill.

 

[smack Down]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: smack Down

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: 1prophet
This guy wasn't so lucky.

Text

Sounds appropriate to me considering his belligerence. Now as to the exact laws in play - I don't know but it's entirely stupid to act like a tough guy like that - it'll only cause you problems and won't change a F'n thing. If you don't like the laws or the situation - petition the gov't- - don't take it out on the people who are just doing the job they were assigned. Sheesh - I swear some of you angst filled kiddies just enjoy fighting with law enforcement. Grow up.

Yeah and that rape victim deserved it for wearing a short skirt.

Yeah, that's exactly what I was saying. :roll: F'n moron. Sheesh.

You are say asserting means it is ok for the pigs to assault you. How is that any different

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
And what exactly did his outburst get him? Nothing except a future lawyer bill. Now again, if he/you/whoever doesn't like the tactics or whatever - USE THE PROPER F'N CHANNELS. Do you really think this moron is going to change things by being belligerent? No. It's not like the BP agents are suddenly going to stop doing what they were assigned to do because a bunch of angst filled kiddies start whining. The only way you stop it is to contact local, state, and federal officials and express your disapproval and then vote the bastards out of office.

I don't think you know what "belligerent" means. This guy was not hostile, aggressive, or combative in any way. He knew his rights and refused to allow them to be trampled. You fault him for this. The agents should have done what they are legally required to do if they are not going to detain him - let him go on his way. The "proper channel" for the protection of my rights is for me to protect my rights from anyone who tries to take them from me against my will, not for me to bend over then write a useless letter a few weeks later.

 

[Nebor]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: 1prophet
This guy wasn't so lucky.

Text

Sounds appropriate to me considering his belligerence. Now as to the exact laws in play - I don't know but it's entirely stupid to act like a tough guy like that - it'll only cause you problems and won't change a F'n thing. If you don't like the laws or the situation - petition the gov't- - don't take it out on the people who are just doing the job they were assigned. Sheesh - I swear some of you angst filled kiddies just enjoy fighting with law enforcement. Grow up.

Yeah, how dare he try to take advantage of his civil rights. :thumbsdown:

And what exactly did his outburst get him? Nothing except a future lawyer bill. Now again, if he/you/whoever doesn't like the tactics or whatever - USE THE PROPER F'N CHANNELS. Do you really think this moron is going to change things by being belligerent? No. It's not like the BP agents are suddenly going to stop doing what they were assigned to do because a bunch of angst filled kiddies start whining. The only way you stop it is to contact local, state, and federal officials and express your disapproval and then vote the bastards out of office.

If everyone did what this guy did, things would change. It renders their tactics ineffective.

 

[MadRat]

The truth is if you do not exercise said rights then one does not own the rights. You use them or lose them.

 

[JD50]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: JD50
What an asshole.

That's uncalled-for. Granted, in a perfect world, she would have had the integrity and personal courage to push back on her bosses and refuse to violate the Constitution of the United States of America. Unfortunately, it's not a perfect world, she undoubtedly has a family to feed and bills to pay, and she was stuck between a rock and a hard place. I think she did an acceptable job of recognizing the man she stopped was properly asserting his rights. It would have been better had she done so more quickly, but at least she ultimately let him pass and didn't escalate the infraction, unlike the other example above. They were assholes. She was just a poor cop stuck in a no-win situation.



Removing tongue from cheek, that's the really hard part about examples like the OP. Being a cop sucks. It's a largely thankless job where good men and women literally put their lives on the line every day to protect a public who mostly ignores them until someone screws up. I think our public safety employees deserve tremendous respect

That said, what is the appropriate response when good cops are charged with enforcing bad laws or, as in this case, executing inappropriate tactics? As American citizens, we have certain rights guaranteed to us by our Constitution. We have every right to resist any government official who attempts to violate those rights. On the other hand, it's critical to recognize that in cases like the above, the issue isn't individual officers nearly as much as it is the agency they work for.

In short, how does one target the message without unduly harassing the messenger? I would have taken a different approach than the subject of the OP, but I can't condemn what he did as unreasonable. He wasn't violent. He was in no way abusive or demeaning to the officer. He simply stuck to the letter of the law and demanded that she, someone sworn to uphold the law, do so too.

What I do find appalling are the people here who viciously attack this man for asserting his legal rights. Sorry comrades, but welcome to America. Kindly leave your brown shirts and jack boots back in your despotic dystopia. As much as you may applaud the intent of the stops, the end does not justify the means.

I agree with everything you said except for the last part. I personally don't have a problem with these checkpoints (although I DO have a problem with DUI checkpoints) but the correct way to go about it would be to contact the people in charge, or better yet, don't vote for a politician that is in favor of these checkpoints.

Harassing an individual cop because he/she is enforcing a law that you disagree with does absolutely nothing to improve the situation. I used to get harassed every now and then because someone didn't agree with the law or policies that I was enforcing, and it was a waste of their time and a waste of my time because there is absolutely nothing that I can do (as a cop) about a law that someone does not agree with.

IMO, the guy was being a jerk just because he could. It's similar to many of the cop bashing threads/posts you see here. For some reason some people just get off doing the whole "fuck the police" thing. If you really care about an issue, you should actually do something about it besides wasting everyone's time and being a dick to some cop that's just trying to make a living. Write your congressman, file a complaint, go to the local news, etc....

 

[smack Down]

Originally posted by: JD50

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: JD50
What an asshole.

That's uncalled-for. Granted, in a perfect world, she would have had the integrity and personal courage to push back on her bosses and refuse to violate the Constitution of the United States of America. Unfortunately, it's not a perfect world, she undoubtedly has a family to feed and bills to pay, and she was stuck between a rock and a hard place. I think she did an acceptable job of recognizing the man she stopped was properly asserting his rights. It would have been better had she done so more quickly, but at least she ultimately let him pass and didn't escalate the infraction, unlike the other example above. They were assholes. She was just a poor cop stuck in a no-win situation.



Removing tongue from cheek, that's the really hard part about examples like the OP. Being a cop sucks. It's a largely thankless job where good men and women literally put their lives on the line every day to protect a public who mostly ignores them until someone screws up. I think our public safety employees deserve tremendous respect

That said, what is the appropriate response when good cops are charged with enforcing bad laws or, as in this case, executing inappropriate tactics? As American citizens, we have certain rights guaranteed to us by our Constitution. We have every right to resist any government official who attempts to violate those rights. On the other hand, it's critical to recognize that in cases like the above, the issue isn't individual officers nearly as much as it is the agency they work for.

In short, how does one target the message without unduly harassing the messenger? I would have taken a different approach than the subject of the OP, but I can't condemn what he did as unreasonable. He wasn't violent. He was in no way abusive or demeaning to the officer. He simply stuck to the letter of the law and demanded that she, someone sworn to uphold the law, do so too.

What I do find appalling are the people here who viciously attack this man for asserting his legal rights. Sorry comrades, but welcome to America. Kindly leave your brown shirts and jack boots back in your despotic dystopia. As much as you may applaud the intent of the stops, the end does not justify the means.

I agree with everything you said except for the last part. I personally don't have a problem with these checkpoints (although I DO have a problem with DUI checkpoints) but the correct way to go about it would be to contact the people in charge, or better yet, don't vote for a politician that is in favor of these checkpoints.

Harassing an individual cop because he/she is enforcing a law that you disagree with does absolutely nothing to improve the situation. I used to get harassed every now and then because someone didn't agree with the law or policies that I was enforcing, and it was a waste of their time and a waste of my time because there is absolutely nothing that I can do (as a cop) about a law that someone does not agree with.

IMO, the guy was being a jerk just because he could. It's similar to many of the cop bashing threads/posts you see here. For some reason some people just get off doing the whole "fuck the police" thing. If you really care about an issue, you should actually do something about it besides wasting everyone's time and being a dick to some cop that's just trying to make a living. Write your congressman, file a complaint, go to the local news, etc....

How is asking LEO what their purpose in stopping you or if your being detained Harassing.

 

[JD50]

Originally posted by: Nebor

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: 1prophet
This guy wasn't so lucky.

Text

Sounds appropriate to me considering his belligerence. Now as to the exact laws in play - I don't know but it's entirely stupid to act like a tough guy like that - it'll only cause you problems and won't change a F'n thing. If you don't like the laws or the situation - petition the gov't- - don't take it out on the people who are just doing the job they were assigned. Sheesh - I swear some of you angst filled kiddies just enjoy fighting with law enforcement. Grow up.

Yeah, how dare he try to take advantage of his civil rights. :thumbsdown:

And what exactly did his outburst get him? Nothing except a future lawyer bill. Now again, if he/you/whoever doesn't like the tactics or whatever - USE THE PROPER F'N CHANNELS. Do you really think this moron is going to change things by being belligerent? No. It's not like the BP agents are suddenly going to stop doing what they were assigned to do because a bunch of angst filled kiddies start whining. The only way you stop it is to contact local, state, and federal officials and express your disapproval and then vote the bastards out of office.

If everyone did what this guy did, things would change. It renders their tactics ineffective.

If everyone did what CADsortaGUY suggested, things would also change. I think people are much more likely to do what CADsortaGUY suggested than they are to harass border patrol agents, especially in border states where people are fed up with illegal immigration have sympathy for the losing battle that CPB agents are fighting.

But yea, good idea, lets harass the only people that are out there (CPB agents) trying to fight illegal immigration. They get paid for shit, their job is incredibly dangerous, and sometimes they even go to jail for shooting a convicted, lying, drug smuggler. And to top it all off, you have morons like this guy harassing them. Maybe you badasses will get all of them to quit, that will really help cut down on illegal immigration....:roll:

 

[NoStateofMind]

JD50 where do you get harassment out of what that guy did? If anything, the LEO was the one harassing IMO.

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: JD50
I agree with everything you said except for the last part. I personally don't have a problem with these checkpoints (although I DO have a problem with DUI checkpoints) but the correct way to go about it would be to contact the people in charge, or better yet, don't vote for a politician that is in favor of these checkpoints.

Harassing an individual cop because he/she is enforcing a law that you disagree with does absolutely nothing to improve the situation. I used to get harassed every now and then because someone didn't agree with the law or policies that I was enforcing, and it was a waste of their time and a waste of my time because there is absolutely nothing that I can do (as a cop) about a law that someone does not agree with.

IMO, the guy was being a jerk just because he could. It's similar to many of the cop bashing threads/posts you see here. For some reason some people just get off doing the whole "fuck the police" thing. If you really care about an issue, you should actually do something about it besides wasting everyone's time and being a dick to some cop that's just trying to make a living. Write your congressman, file a complaint, go to the local news, etc....

I think this is the real disagreement here. You see these cops as enforcing a law, but what law are they enforcing? Is there a law that requires random searches and seizures, requiring the production of an ID card without probable cause, or requiring me to yield my constitutional rights on a whim? I don't think so.