She never answered his questions. Citizens in this country do have rights you know. If she wanted to further the conversation she should of answered his initial questions which he is entitled to ask of any so called law enforcement agent.
She never answered his questions. Citizens in this country do have rights you know. If she wanted to further the conversation she should of answered his initial questions which he is entitled to ask of any so called law enforcement agent.
Originally posted by: palehorse74
WTF?!You have it entirely bass-ackwards.
My side of the argument has already been proven using several legal precedents and SCOTUS decisions listed in this very thread. We established the agent's legal authority to set up the checkpoint, stop drivers, and ask the specific questions heard in the video.
Farang has yet to cite a single legal reference of any sort to back up his argument that "the agent is required to answer the driver's question first."
It is my contention that no legal statute exists to back up of Farang's claims; therefore the onus is on him/her to prove me wrong and post such a legal reference.
I've already stated why her right to man the checkpoint is irrelevant.
I've already stated why the agent is required to answer her question first, in fact the driver is not required to answer questions from anyone except a judge. The agent, on the other hand, is required to inform the man what he is being detained for, and if he is not being detained he is free to go (my first claim here is basic knowledge, my second I backed up with a source earlier and is also common knowledge).
You have provided little in the way of evidence, what you have provided is irrelevant to my argument. I think we're just going in circles here because you're not connecting with my point and keep firing at the wrong target.
edit: I am done repeating myself for the fifth or sixth time. Every time I put together a clear point and think 'this'll finally do it,' you or someone comes back and repeats an argument I just refuted without actually addressing what I've said. So if it is just going to be another repetition of 'prove it' then just fit in a one or two sentence last word and don't waste your time.
Is he even required to answer her questions at all? Answer that question.
He has a right to know if he is being detained or arrested when stop by a law enforcement agent in this country. If he is told that he is being detained or arrested then he has the right to a lawyer and to remain silent. If he is not being detained or arrest he has no legal obligation to stay there and can freely move on at his own leisure and does not have to answer her questions.
Law enforcement agents have a right to ask questions and stop people but no right to force an answer out of them or hold them without probable cause or an arrest. If a person is being detained/arrested they do not have to answer questions hence why he asked her this question to begin with. Her refusal to answer the question was an attempt force him to answer her questions and he was in his rights not to do so at all.
Again if he is not being detained he has no legal obligation to answer any questions from her at all and can leave if he likes.
palehorse
Lifer
- Dec 21, 2005
- 11,521
- 0
- 76
"common knowledge" enough to where you can't cite a single g'damn legal reference?!Originally posted by: Farang
Originally posted by: palehorse74
WTF?!
My side of the argument has already been proven using several legal precedents and SCOTUS decisions listed in this very thread. We established the agent's legal authority to set up the checkpoint, stop drivers, and ask the specific questions heard in the video.
Farang has yet to cite a single legal reference of any sort to back up his argument that "the agent is required to answer the driver's question first."
It is my contention that no legal statute exists to back up of Farang's claims; therefore the onus is on him/her to prove me wrong and post such a legal reference.
I've already stated why her right to man the checkpoint is irrelevant.
I've already stated why the agent is required to answer her question first, in fact the driver is not required to answer questions from anyone except a judge. The agent, on the other hand, is required to inform the man what he is being detained for, and if he is not being detained he is free to go (my first claim here is basic knowledge, my second I backed up with a source earlier and is also common knowledge).
You have provided little in the way of evidence, what you have provided is irrelevant to my argument. I think we're just going in circles here because you're not connecting with my point and keep firing at the wrong target.
edit: I am done repeating myself for the fifth or sixth time. Every time I put together a clear point and think 'this'll finally do it,' you or someone comes back and repeats an argument I just refuted without actually addressing what I've said. So if it is just going to be another repetition of 'prove it' then just fit in a one or two sentence last word and don't waste your time.
wow... yet another deflective post from you without ANY legal citations -- not a single one since you began this bullsh*t redirection of yours! that's f'n amazing!
I've asked you 10 times now to show us some sort of legal statute - anything - that states that a Federal Agent must answer this man's questions -- which was your claim.
"But..but... I already proved it! She has to answer his questions first cuz... cuz... cuz I said so! and cuz everyone knows that!"
seriously, stay in school. GG.
palehorse
Lifer
- Dec 21, 2005
- 11,521
- 0
- 76
no, he's not -- and I never said he was. All I've cited is her legal authority to stop him and ask him the citizenship questions.
OK, I'll give you the same chance I gave Farang... please cite a statute or legal precedent that states a Federal Agent must answer his questions.
He doesnt EVER have to answer ANYONES' questions (Thank you 5th Amendment!). My debate with Farang, and now you, concerns some sort of legal obligation, on her part, to answer the driver's questions. If you can cite the statute or precedent that lays out that premise in black and white, then I'll concede defeat.
It is my contention that you and Farang are wrongfully assuming that such a legality exists.
please prove me wrong.
Originally posted by: palehorse74
"common knowledge" enough to where you can't cite a single g'damn legal reference?!Originally posted by: Farang
Originally posted by: palehorse74
WTF?!
My side of the argument has already been proven using several legal precedents and SCOTUS decisions listed in this very thread. We established the agent's legal authority to set up the checkpoint, stop drivers, and ask the specific questions heard in the video.
Farang has yet to cite a single legal reference of any sort to back up his argument that "the agent is required to answer the driver's question first."
It is my contention that no legal statute exists to back up of Farang's claims; therefore the onus is on him/her to prove me wrong and post such a legal reference.
I've already stated why her right to man the checkpoint is irrelevant.
I've already stated why the agent is required to answer her question first, in fact the driver is not required to answer questions from anyone except a judge. The agent, on the other hand, is required to inform the man what he is being detained for, and if he is not being detained he is free to go (my first claim here is basic knowledge, my second I backed up with a source earlier and is also common knowledge).
You have provided little in the way of evidence, what you have provided is irrelevant to my argument. I think we're just going in circles here because you're not connecting with my point and keep firing at the wrong target.
edit: I am done repeating myself for the fifth or sixth time. Every time I put together a clear point and think 'this'll finally do it,' you or someone comes back and repeats an argument I just refuted without actually addressing what I've said. So if it is just going to be another repetition of 'prove it' then just fit in a one or two sentence last word and don't waste your time.
wow... yet another deflective post from you without ANY legal citations -- not a single one since you began this bullsh*t redirection of yours! that's f'n amazing!
I've asked you 10 times now to show us some sort of legal statute - anything - that states that a Federal Agent must answer this man's questions -- which was your claim.
"But..but... I already proved it! She has to answer his questions first cuz... cuz... cuz I said so! and cuz everyone knows that!"
seriously, stay in school. GG.
You have yet to prove anything yourself. He has the right not to answer her questions and if he is in fact being detained or arrested a right to a lawyer and to remain silent.
A law enforcement agent may stop a person and ask them questions but they cannot hold a person without acknowledging to that person that they are being detained or arrested.
You see in the US you are innocent until proven guilty. I don't know how it works in the little despotic 3rd world country that you live in but here in the US we believe in protecting the people from the over bearing and sometimes corrupt power of government and it's officials/agents. We have this thing called rule of law that we abide by that works both ways and not just for the government. If we did not have a "rule of law" we would already of succumbed to some form of governmental tyranny as a nation.
P.S. I almost forgot we also have a right to a fair and speedy trial if we are being detained or arrested as given to us by the 6th amendment.
I see what you are doing now. You are nit picking. She does not have to answer his questions but neither does he have to answer her questions either. He did nothing wrong in asking if he was being detained and he did nothing wrong in terms of not answering her questions. He was well within his rights throughout the whole video. If you find that offensive then I suggest you leave this country IMHO.
Originally posted by: palehorse74
Originally posted by: smack Down
Originally posted by: palehorse74
WTF?!
My side of the argument has already been proven using several legal precedents and SCOTUS decisions listed in this very thread. We established the agent's legal authority to set up the checkpoint, stop drivers, and ask the specific questions heard in the video.
Farang has yet to cite a single legal reference of any sort to back up his argument that "the agent is required to answer the driver's question first."
It is my contention that no legal statute exists to back up of Farang's claims; therefore the onus is on him/her to prove me wrong and post such a legal reference.
There is nothing to prove. The agent doesn't have to answer the persons question, but by default if the police don't tell you are being detained then you are free to go.
But hey if you want proof it is called http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Habeas_corpus
Beyond the "spirit" of the concept, what aspect of U.S. habeas corpus, specifically, applies to the driver being "free to go" if the agent does not answer his question?
I'm not a lawyer, but I'm not sure you can simply drive away from Federal Agents who are questioning you... you can answer their questions, or plead the 5th, but what makes you think you can just drive away?
I'm not saying that you're wrong, or that Farang is either; but, please, humor me and point me toward some sort of existing law or precedent that spells it out.
Either the person is by default being detained if the agent doesn't answer his question and there for the right of Habeas corpus attaches and the agent would be forced to answer it in front of a judge or by default not answering is means the person is free to go.
MadRat
Lifer
- Oct 14, 1999
- 11,999
- 307
- 126
Originally posted by: palehorse74
WTF?!
In all fairness, I might have. I went back a page and saw you repeating the same argument. If there is no change in an argument it is best to leave them alone to their circular reasoning. It really doesn't help to fall for troll bait.
palehorse
Lifer
- Dec 21, 2005
- 11,521
- 0
- 76
As this pertains to Federal agents, I believe you guys are assuming some things that may not be accurate.Originally posted by: smack Down
Originally posted by: palehorse74
Originally posted by: smack Down
Originally posted by: palehorse74
WTF?!
My side of the argument has already been proven using several legal precedents and SCOTUS decisions listed in this very thread. We established the agent's legal authority to set up the checkpoint, stop drivers, and ask the specific questions heard in the video.
Farang has yet to cite a single legal reference of any sort to back up his argument that "the agent is required to answer the driver's question first."
It is my contention that no legal statute exists to back up of Farang's claims; therefore the onus is on him/her to prove me wrong and post such a legal reference.
There is nothing to prove. The agent doesn't have to answer the persons question, but by default if the police don't tell you are being detained then you are free to go.
But hey if you want proof it is called http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Habeas_corpus
Beyond the "spirit" of the concept, what aspect of U.S. habeas corpus, specifically, applies to the driver being "free to go" if the agent does not answer his question?
I'm not a lawyer, but I'm not sure you can simply drive away from Federal Agents who are questioning you... you can answer their questions, or plead the 5th, but what makes you think you can just drive away?
I'm not saying that you're wrong, or that Farang is either; but, please, humor me and point me toward some sort of existing law or precedent that spells it out.
Either the person is by default being detained if the agent doesn't answer his question and there for the right of Habeas corpus attaches and the agent would be forced to answer it in front of a judge or by default not answering is means the person is free to go.
Let me spell this out for you: I do not believe that the man can simply "drive away" unless the Federal agent who stopped him gives him permission to do so -- regardless of her own silence in response to any of the driver's questions. I believe doing so would likely, and legally, result in his being detained for longer. They'd probably chase him down, stop him, take him out of his car, cuff him, and search his entire vehicle -- and precedent indicates that each of those actions is likely to be entirely legal.
My contention: Right or wrong, you can't simply walk/drive away from a Federal Agent who stops you, even if they're mute!
So, for the last time, I'm asking you - or Drifter, or Farang - to actually cite the Federal statute that spells it out and proves me wrong.
I think you guys are arguing past each other and on different aspects of the law. Law enforcement officials always only have two options. They can arrest you, or not arrest you. They are right that unless a law enforcement official specifically tells you that you are detained/under arrest, you can refuse to do anything they ask you and leave.
If they ask you questions and you answer them your answer is considered voluntary compliance, if you refuse to comply then they can demand you to answer, with the threat of arrest if you choose not to. Then it all comes down to if the police officer's request was reasonable or not. In this case at a border patrol checkpoint, it's pretty clear that asking if you're from the US or not is reasonable. Ie. dude in the car would lose.
So, in this case no.. the guy could probably not just drive off and you are correct. In most cases during your daily life however you can very much just walk away from police and federal officials unless they have some good reason to demand things from you and are willing to arrest you to get them. The burden is on the official to have a reason to stop you, and if he/she can't muster up a good one you can tell them to fuck off and go home. Most of the power that they have comes from the intimidation factor and lack of citizen knowledge of what police can and cannot do.
palehorse
Lifer
- Dec 21, 2005
- 11,521
- 0
- 76
thank you.I'm also still confident that there are some differences concerning Federal agents, versus local or state LE, that apply to certain other instances as well; but I'm not 100% sure about that.
I do know that trying to walk/drive away from a Federal agent is not the smartest thing to do...
I wish i had gone to FLETC at some point in my career... Some aspects of the authorities given to 1811's have always been a big '?' to me...
I was also genuinely hoping that someone here would cite a source that proved me wrong... I would have actually welcomed it!
Originally posted by: palehorse74
I'm also still confident that there are some differences concerning Federal agents, versus local or state LE, that apply to certain other instances as well; but I'm not 100% sure about that.
I do know that trying to walk/drive away from a Federal agent is not the smartest thing to do...
I wish i had gone to FLETC at some point in my career... Some aspects of the authorities given to 1811's have always been a big '?' to me...
I was also genuinely hoping that someone here would cite a source that proved me wrong... I would have actually welcomed it!
Actually I'm certain there is no difference between federal and local agents in terms of your rights as I put them out. What might be considered reasonable for them to demand of you is different based on their job, like a border patrol agent can ask you what country you're from and have it be reasonable while a local cop probably couldn't though.
Walking away from one might not be the smartest thing, but I wish people would do it more often. Police and federal officials rely heavily on people not knowing their rights, and they rely heavily on intimidation to go fishing for crimes based on what people say to them 'voluntarily'. They frequently abuse this, and if more people fought this I think we would be better off.
They cannot, that's the point. There is nothing they can do but attempt intimidation.
Good for him.
Hrmm, there's a good chance they could have detained him actually. What the driver did do is use intimidation back on her, and considering how often law enforcement abuses that, I'm all for it.
daniel1113
Diamond Member
- Jun 6, 2003
- 6,448
- 0
- 0
?
He placed her on the defensive by answering her questions in an unexpected and challenging way. I'm not saying what he did was wrong, but he certainly pushed back at her forcefully and she gave way. Call it a forceful assertion of his rights if you want, but it was intimidating. I think more people should adopt such an attitude.
In the end though, she could have detained him if she had wanted to and she would have won in court almost certainly.
jonks
Lifer
- Feb 7, 2005
- 13,918
- 20
- 81
http://www.lawcollective.org/article.php?id=204
Mostly on point wrt police questioning while on foot, w/sources. Car situations are diff.
Don't those sobriety checkpoints have to have an "out"? IE you don't have to go to them you have an option of taking another route?
daniel1113
Diamond Member
- Jun 6, 2003
- 6,448
- 0
- 0
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: 384
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
Facebook
Twitter