Troublemakers or standing up for our rights?

[Mindflayer]

[dorminWS]

This just goes to show that one of our God-given rights is to be a pain in the ass.

[FiremanBob]

History is written by the victors.

[mtbinva]

Have to be honest, I believe this video CLEARLY shows my rights, and the violations. If there is no RS, I will be polite, but I will not be subjected to an illegal search and seizure. Just my $0.02.

[dorminWS]

Have to be honest, I believe this video CLEARLY shows my rights, and the violations. If there is no RS, I will be polite, but I will not be subjected to an illegal search and seizure. Just my $0.02.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

I'm not unsympathetic to that. But the other side is, how are we to police our borders if we can't stop non-citizens from crossing it? PC prevents them from overtly stopping anybody that looks hispanic or semitic; which is pretty stupid under those circumstances, IMO. And from what I could see on the video, the guy driving was olive-skinned enough to at least suggest he WAS hispanic or semitic. So the deal sort of smells of setting up a confrontation to make for a provocative video.

I think I wouldn't refuse to say I was a US citizen, but I would refuse to be searched or questioned beyond that point. Of course, I'm so obviously a pure WASP good ole boy that if they were going to let anybody by it ought to be me. And I guess I'd buy into the argumant that if you leave the country you ought to be prepared and willing to show that you are a citizen to get back in. I'd feel more strongly about that if they were not letting non-citizens waltz in at will.

[widefat]

What the video didnt show - the drivers being tazed, pulled from the vehicle, pummeled, and arrested for not submitting.
Sorry, under the circumstances the video is alluding to, I dont think it is going to be as simple as refusing to answer questions -

[allingeneral]

Have to be honest, I believe this video CLEARLY shows my rights, and the violations. If there is no RS, I will be polite, but I will not be subjected to an illegal search and seizure. Just my $0.02.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

how are we to police our borders if we can't stop non-citizens from crossing it?

Part of the problem is that this is not a border checkpoint - these are checkpoints that are 30 miles from the border. Where does it stop? Will we soon see a DHS "citizenship checkpoint" on I-95 North of Richmond?

I think the video makes a great point - being that DHS cannot detain you without reasonable suspicion, as defined by Terry.

I just happened to read this today, as it was posted in the VGOF Facebook group
http://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/Opinions/Pu ... 5084.P.pdf

It's an interesting read regarding the limits of reasonable suspicion as governed by the 4th Amendment and Terry v. Ohio. Here's a lead-in:

In Terry v. Ohio, Chief Justice Earl Warren recognized that police officers need discretion to perform their investigative
duties. 392 U.S. 1 (1968). Since Terry, this discretion has been judicially broadened, giving police wide latitude to ful-
fill their functions. In some circumstances, however, police abuse this discretion, and we must remind law enforcement
that the Fourth Amendment protects against unreasonable searches and seizures. Because in this case, we find the police
disregarded the basic tenets of the Fourth Amendment, we reverse.

[dorminWS]

Have to be honest, I believe this video CLEARLY shows my rights, and the violations. If there is no RS, I will be polite, but I will not be subjected to an illegal search and seizure. Just my $0.02.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

how are we to police our borders if we can't stop non-citizens from crossing it?

Part of the problem is that this is not a border checkpoint - these are checkpoints that are 30 miles from the border. Where does it stop? Will we soon see a DHS "citizenship checkpoint" on I-95 North of Richmond?

I think the video makes a great point - being that DHS cannot detain you without reasonable suspicion, as defined by Terry.

I just happened to read this today, as it was posted in the VGOF Facebook group
http://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/Opinions/Pu ... 5084.P.pdf

It's an interesting read regarding the limits of reasonable suspicion as governed by the 4th Amendment and Terry v. Ohio. Here's a lead-in:

In Terry v. Ohio, Chief Justice Earl Warren recognized that police officers need discretion to perform their investigative
duties. 392 U.S. 1 (1968). Since Terry, this discretion has been judicially broadened, giving police wide latitude to ful-
fill their functions. In some circumstances, however, police abuse this discretion, and we must remind law enforcement
that the Fourth Amendment protects against unreasonable searches and seizures. Because in this case, we find the police
disregarded the basic tenets of the Fourth Amendment, we reverse.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Yes, I forgot to qualify my statements by acknowledging that the screening ideally ought to be at the border. But there are so many ways to bypass roads and check stations that it seems reasonable to me to allow such stops withinin a reasonable proximity of the border. If we had that 15-foot high eletrified border fence, I'd agree wholeheartedly. But getting into this country ought not to be like scoring a touchdown where if you break the plane of the border and you've scored. Immigration officials ought not be allowed to abuse people or their rights, but we desperately need a workable system to stop the entry of illegal aliens. Bottom line is that I'm just as jealous of my rights as the next guy; but I'd probably choose not to stand on them if it kept us from policing our borders and assuming I was treated fairly and with respect. Biggest problem I think I saw was that the agents were just poorly trained.

[DaRoller]

Part of the problem is that this is not a border checkpoint - these are checkpoints that are 30 miles from the border. Where does it stop? Will we soon see a DHS "citizenship checkpoint" on I-95 North of Richmond?

Completely possible. The government claims anything within 100 miles of the border is fair game: 2/3 of the population lives in that zone.

[allingeneral]

Part of the problem is that this is not a border checkpoint - these are checkpoints that are 30 miles from the border. Where does it stop? Will we soon see a DHS "citizenship checkpoint" on I-95 North of Richmond?

Completely possible. The government claims anything within 100 miles of the border is fair game: 2/3 of the population lives in that zone.

Well at least the ACLU has our backs on this one!

[TacticalMom]

Do I think some people look for a fight? Yes I do.

However, it is best practice, a "cover your ass", to record any such goings on. That way down the line if there is any problems you have video/audio evidence of what you said, and what they said.

Would I tell them if I was a Citizen? Yes I would. Beyond that if I have done nothing illegal they get nothing.

If one of them were to threaten pulling me, my kids, or any of my family friends out of the car if I did not exit the car, he/she, their supervisor, and their legal representatives would be receiving communication from my Lawyer. If a threat is uttered at all I would prosecute to the fullest extent.

I don't take kindly to threats to me and mine (if you so happen to be some one I call a friend you fall into the mine category, lucky you), and will react accordingly.

If people don't like it or my views, I have a saying that I return to often. "They can go F8&k themselves, and leave me alone". I was not asking permission, and don't care that they disagree.

On that note... isn't it beautiful outside today?

[grumpyMSG]

14 minutes of people refusing to say "Yes, I am a U.S. citizen" within 30 miles of the border, most of which appeared to be at one of the fixed checkpoints. They are trolling for trouble, looking to be insulted or offended. In each case the camera was already rolling when they rolled up to the checkpoint. They get no sympathy from me, you want to act like a jerk, you deserved to be treated like one.

For those who don't understand how it works in the Tuscon sector, here is quick lesson:
In the middle of the afternoon, people are dropped off at the border (Mexican side), they wait until dark. They walk/ run across the border with a few clothes, some water in antifreeze or windshield fluid jugs tied together with a short piece of rope and try to make it a couple of miles into the U.S. where a "Coyote" will pile a bunch of them into a van, station wagon or truck and get them 50 miles into the state. border patrol agents will try to catch them while they are on foot or in those vehicles. Every month or two there will be a horrific crash with a vehicle that has 15-20 Illegals in it, usually hitting a fixed object trying to run from the Border Patrol. 10 or more will be killed or seriously injured. The "compassionate" folks will complain about the "jackbooted" behaviors of the Border Patrol agents causing the accident. It wasn't the "Illegals" fault for sneaking into the country, it wasn't the "Coyote"s fault for putting 2 tons of people in a vehicle and not being able to control or stop it, it is the fault of the guys trying to enforce the immigration laws.

Border Patrol Checkpoints
The Court analyzed a permanent immigration checkpoint 66 miles north of the Mexican border.4 A uniformed agent visually screened all northbound vehicles, directing some to a secondary checkpoint to answer questions about citizenship and immigration status for three to five minutes. The Court considered that the extremely important national policy limiting immigration could only be served by interior checkpoints, because the vast border cannot be controlled effectively. Further, this interest outweighs the checkpoint's minimal intrusion on driver privacy. The agent's plain-view visual inspection was not a search. Even if a driver were stopped, he only answered a question or two and produced a citizenship document. Consequently, the checkpoint was constitutionally valid.

Driver's License Checkpoints
The Fourth Amendment's reasonableness standard prohibits officers from randomly stopping vehicles to check driver's licenses and registration.5 In Delaware v. Prouse, a patrolman stopped a vehicle without reasonable suspicion to check the driver's license and registration. He seized marijuana in plain view. Addressing the stop's constitutionality, the Court noted that the public interest in ensuing that motorists are licensed and cars are registered justified the checkpoint's slight intrusion on motorists. In Prouse, however, the officer had unbridled discretion regarding which cars to stop, making the checkpoint unconstitutional. By contrast, license checkpoints conducted in a systematic, predesignated manner are constitutional.

Sobriety Checkpoints
Sobriety checkpoint stops without individualized suspicion are constitutional.6 Considering a checkpoint program to detect drunk drivers, the Court noted that each stop lasted approximately 25 seconds. Officers directed any driver who showed signs of insobriety to the side and administered field tests; intoxicated drivers were arrested. The Court held that the magnitude of the government's interest in eradicating the increasing problem of drunken driving outweighed the slight intrusion the stop imposed on all motorists.

General Crime Control Checkpoints
Vehicle checkpoints for general crime control are constitutionally unreasonable.7 At an Indianapolis checkpoint to detect unlawful drugs, each driver was briefly stopped and asked to produce a driver's license and registration. The officer looked for any signs of impairment and conducted a plain view examination of the car. A narcotics detection dog walked around the outside of each vehicle. Each stop was conducted in the same manner and lasted five minutes or less. The Court concluded that a roadblock to check for narcotics was an investigation for general criminal activity. The Court noted:

We decline to suspend the usual requirement of individualized suspicion where the police seek to employ a checkpoint primarily for the ordinary enterprise of investigating crimes. We cannot sanction stops justified only by the generalized ever present possibility that interrogation and inspection may reveal that any given motorist has committed some crime.

Informational Checkpoints
Illinois v. Lidster asks, Are information-seeking checkpoints constitutional?8 The Court answered Yes, concluding that the substantial interest in solving a serious crime outweighed the minor intrusion the stop imposed on motorists. Applying the balancing test, the Court noted that the government's interest in solving a deadly hit-and-run accident is a grave public concern, and the checkpoint's purpose was not general crime control but investigation of a specific, particular crime. The checkpoint was narrowly tailored to advance the government interest (same location as the crime, about one week after the crime, and at approximately the same time of day). Finally, stops were extremely brief, systematic, and limited in scope to a request for information. There is no Fourth Amendment prohibition on officers simply asking citizens in a public place for voluntary cooperation in providing information. Rejecting the argument that allowing information stops would result in a proliferation of checkpoints, the Court pointed to the limitations of police resources and community intolerance of traffic interferences as inherently limiting forces.
Although the Fourth Amendment permits information-seeking checkpoints, the protection against unreasonable search and seizure still applies to the procedures used:
•The crime about which information is sought must be serious.

•Checkpoints must be narrowly tailored (location, time of day, and duration) to the investigative purpose.

•All checkpoint stops must be brief and systematic; arbitrary stops are unconstitutional.

•Officers may not stop vehicles to conduct generalized interrogation.

That information came from:
http://www.policechiefmagazine.org/maga ... e_id=32004
From that information, I do believe the Border Patrol would have been well within it's duties to detain those individuals until they decided to answer the question of whether they were citizens or not. I would even say it wouldn't be unreasonable for the Border Patrol to demand to see some IDs at that point. I am a firm believer that if a citizen wants to take the difficult route, by all means let him have the difficulty he desires...

[mtbinva]

I agree in securing our borders, however, at the border. Secondly, securing our border is not working out so good these days.

[thekinetic]

Ah many people forget the power of NOPE!

[SHMIV]

Do we want closed borders or open borders? If we want them closed, we must tolerate these little inconveniences. Considering how porous our border is currently, it's not unreasonable to have these checkpoints within 50 miles of the border.

What gets me, though, is the decidedly Hispanic heritage of the average BP agent. Seems counter-intuitive, to me.

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

[gunderwood]

14 minutes of people refusing to say "Yes, I am a U.S. citizen" within 30 miles of the border, most of which appeared to be at one of the fixed checkpoints. They are trolling for trouble, looking to be insulted or offended. In each case the camera was already rolling when they rolled up to the checkpoint. They get no sympathy from me, you want to act like a jerk, you deserved to be treated like one.

Ah, another statist I see. Ever heard of the 4th Amendment? How about United States vs. Martinez-Fuerte?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Sta ... nez-Fuerte

The court ruled 7 to 2 that the internal checkpoints were not a violation of the Fourth Amendment, but rather were consistent with the amendment. They went on to say that it would be impracticable for the officers to seek warrants for every vehicle searched and that to do so would eliminate any deterrent towards smuggling and illegal immigration. The court felt that any intrusion to motorists was a minimal one and that the government and public interest outweighed the constitutional rights of the individual.[1]

Apparently most of the justices haven't either. So much failure at history.

Nebulous public interest is greater than the Natural Law and the Supreme Law of the Land (aka US Constitution)? Yep, definitely statism.

The 3rd and 4th Amendments are tied together because British soldiers were doing exactly what these checkpoints are. In order to enforce the Stamp Acts, they had to search your property to verify that it had the appropriate tax stamp. However, it would be impractical to get a warrant, so the soldiers were authorized to "create their own warrant" on the spot for searches. No, RAS or PC required. If they crossed your path, they could search you. If they wanted to search your house or other property, they simply gave themselves the authority to do so on the spot. Of course, once they committed that violation of the Colonists Rights, why not have a free meal or take something else of value just like corrupt cops today? Hence, the 3rd and 4th Amendments.

Ironically, the SCOTUS gave the BP the EXACT SAME ILLEGAL POWERS! Only difference is that they don't even have to pretend to create a legal warrant to perform a search.

The court also ruled that the stops were Constitutional even if largely based on apparent Mexican ancestry.[2]
However the court added that restrictions still exist: "We have held that checkpoint searches are constitutional only if justified by consent or probable cause to search" (though the court did hold that the probable cause bar was low for permanent checkpoints with limited impact on motorists). The Court also held, "our holding today is limited to the type of stops described in this opinion. -[A]ny further detention...must be based on consent or probable cause. Our prior cases have limited significantly the reach of this congressional authorization, requiring probable cause for any vehicle search in the interior and reasonable suspicion for inquiry stops by roving patrols [as opposed to permanent checkpoints]." 428 U.S. 543, 567 (1976).

At least the court wasn't 100% on drugs that day, but even then they set the bar so low that it's practically non-existant. Thus, we have the setup for the video. They have this tiny legal bar to overcome in order to perform what should be an illegal search and they will basically illegally detain you as long as possible so as to pressure you into letting them violate your Rights. You need the camera or else violations of the 3rd Amendment or other corruption may occur.

Yes sir, the state does own us and all of our things. I for one welcome our statist overlords.

[Reverenddel]

Vehicles, and the privileges of driving give the LEO's a greater scope according to the courts (IE: Transporting goods, Chimmel wing-span searches, DUI stops without probably causes, etc.)

But if one of these punks jump up while I'm WALKING, without probably cause, or detain me without suspicion? I'm gonna change my name to "Sue", and find the nastiest lawyer on the planet.

You know, I don't hate LEO's, or chide them for the job they've volunteered to do... but don't be an abusive azzhat... it's just bad for business.

[TacticalMom]

Vehicles, and the privileges of driving give the LEO's a greater scope according to the courts (IE: Transporting goods, Chimmel wing-span searches, DUI stops without probably causes, etc.)

But if one of these punks jump up while I'm WALKING, without probably cause, or detain me without suspicion? I'm gonna change my name to "Sue", and find the nastiest lawyer on the planet.

You know, I don't hate LEO's, or chide them for the job they've volunteered to do... but don't be an abusive azzhat... it's just bad for business.

Generally I am the same way. I do not begrudge the LEO's what they have to do. I do not like azzhats and do not want my rights tread on. I also believe they serve a great purpose, I however, know that things like quotas on tickets (don't know if they do that any more but because I have not heard otherwise I will assume they do), and other political leanings (politcal moneys that they depend on to run) can compromise the LEO's ability to do their job fair and safely without treading on people.

I respect and thank those LEO's who get into the business to protect the innocent and go after the bad guys. I don't like the bullies that go in thinking they can bully everyone. I reserve my judgement for such people on how they treat me and mine. One flicker of azzhattery and all bets are off.

[TacticalMom]

Vehicles, and the privileges of driving give the LEO's a greater scope according to the courts (IE: Transporting goods, Chimmel wing-span searches, DUI stops without probably causes, etc.)

But if one of these punks jump up while I'm WALKING, without probably cause, or detain me without suspicion? I'm gonna change my name to "Sue", and find the nastiest lawyer on the planet.

You know, I don't hate LEO's, or chide them for the job they've volunteered to do... but don't be an abusive azzhat... it's just bad for business.

Generally I am the same way. I do not begrudge the LEO's what they have to do. I do not like azzhats and do not want my rights tread on. I also believe they serve a great purpose, I however, know that things like quotas on tickets (don't know if they do that any more but because I have not heard otherwise I will assume they do), and other political leanings (politcal moneys that they depend on to run) can compromise the LEO's ability to do their job fair and safely without treading on people.

I respect and thank those LEO's who get into the business to protect the innocent and go after the bad guys. I don't like the bullies that go in thinking they can bully everyone. I reserve my judgement for such people on how they treat me and mine. One flicker of azzhattery and all bets are off.

[gunderwood]

Vehicles, and the privileges of driving give the LEO's a greater scope according to the courts (IE: Transporting goods, Chimmel wing-span searches, DUI stops without probably causes, etc.)

Yes, all three branches of the Federal government have been colluding for years. The 4th doesn't say "unless you're traveling" or other such nonsense. In all of these cases, the courts have basically ruled that a general public interest is greater than the contract which created and authorized them in the first place, as well as the immutable Laws of the universe. It's utter nonsense.

However, it is the same tactic that is taken against the 2nd Amendment? Notice it? Because some bad may occur <insert suicide, murder, etc. here>, the government is authorized to regulate and even outright ban <insert Right here>. You can justify anything with nebulous "public interest" merely be the lack of defining what that really is. How can the public interest override the very Natural Rights of the individuals who make up that public? It can't, it's illogical, but it works because it sounds good.

Government was created to protect our Rights, not violate them just because someone might be misbehaving. When you believe that the "public interest," which really is the governments interest parading around like something it's not, is greater than the Rights of the very citizens who make up that public, you're a statist.