Border Patrol discussion

[Coreece 190]

Quote

Since we're all friends again...

I knew you'd be back.

I was actually gonna make a wager with you, but didn't want that to influece your decision.

welcome back!
btw...next time anyone says they are leaving the forum, this should be the default response:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WUl9NPPMx8s

Your secrets are the true reflection of who you really are...

[VAPA 0]

Quote

Quote

Since we're all friends again...

I knew you'd be back.

I was actually gonna make a wager with you, but didn't want that to influece your decision.

welcome back!
btw...next time anyone says they are leaving the forum, this should be the default response:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WUl9NPPMx8s

And I was betting nobody would respond to the substance of my last post or admit they were wrong about it not being a Fourth Amendment violation!

[bigbearfng 18]

So according to your view/interpretation, if the BP observes enough to reasonably suspect a crime is staring them in the face (other than citizenship status) they have to ignore it?
They are LE-if they smell drugs/see blood dripping out of the trunk, they're supposed to ignore that?

[masterrig 1]

Also, the fact they are dealing with a 'wise-ass' could be enough to lead them to believe he's up to something or hiding something?


Chuck

[VAPA 0]

Quote

So according to your view/interpretation, if the BP observes enough to reasonably suspect a crime is staring them in the face (other than citizenship status) they have to ignore it?
They are LE-if they smell drugs/see blood dripping out of the trunk, they're supposed to ignore that?

Nope. Not at all. Never said that.

However, according to the law, they cannot begin fishing for those things not related to immigration status. They can't just ask, just to see, or investigate, just to see what might turn up. Not my rules, it's the law of the United States. As my citations make perfectly clear.

[VAPA 0]

Quote

Also, the fact they are dealing with a 'wise-ass' could be enough to lead them to believe he's up to something or hiding something?


Chuck

Ha ha. No. There are plenty of wise asses who haven't broken the law.

Come on guys, just admit when you're wrong. I've posted the laws, if you want to respond, respond with the law and legal citations. It's not that hard!

[masterrig 1]

Quote

Quote

Also, the fact they are dealing with a 'wise-ass' could be enough to lead them to believe he's up to something or hiding something?


Chuck

Ha ha. No. There are plenty of wise asses who haven't broken the law.

Come on guys, just admit when you're wrong. I've posted the laws, if you want to respond, respond with the law and legal citations. It's not that hard!

You're right back at it after a very hollow apology.


Chuck

[bigbearfng 18]

Here's the scenario for you to digest-
I see a guy walking down the sidewalk in a residential neighborhood at 10 at night with a knapsack on his back
I detain him pat him down and check his bag. (Allowed to check for weapons within reach of him for officer safety if you want to pick at that also.)
I do find something in the bag and arrest him.
On the face of it-it's getting tossed out of court.

However-if this neighborhood has had a recent run of burgleries in the evenings, and this guy may even match a description of someone seen in the area of a recent burg-then it's a good detention and bust when I find burg tools and stolen property in his bag.

So it may appear to be fishing-but if current circumstances rise to reasonable suspicion, then it's not fishing-it's doing a good job and not being lazy.

And in this BP case we obviously don't know all the circumstances involved.

I do understand the concern for not trampling constitutional rights-and at the same time do the job and do it well.

And you have to admit he was baiting and probably hoping they would "treat him like a King" so he could sue.......

[masterrig 1]

#1!!!


Chuck

[VAPA 0]

your example about the person wandering and matching a description is completely different than this video incident.

The law is the law, "baiting" or otherwise, the driver behaved legally and the agents did not. Anybody care about the law or want to argue the law?

[VAPA 0]

It wasn't a hollow apology Chuck. I'm sincerely sorry I called you a moron and suggested you were uninterested in accepting the facts or arguing a point.

Of course I am still waiting for you to post some substance here to back up your position, or admit you were wrong about your understanding of the law.

[masterrig 1]

Quote

your example about the person wandering and matching a description is completely different than this video incident.

The law is the law, "baiting" or otherwise, the driver behaved legally and the agents did not. Anybody care about the law or want to argue the law?

Go back and re-read any of my posts... I just flat, didn't present that example. You must have me confused with someone who gives a shit.


Chuck

[masterrig 1]

Quote

It wasn't a hollow apology Chuck. I'm sincerely sorry I called you a moron and suggested you were uninterested in accepting the facts or arguing a point.

Of course I am still waiting for you to post some substance here to back up your position, or admit you were wrong about your understanding of the law.

I think, you're just hurt because everyone isn't jumping on your band-wagon and agreeing with you. You might try trolling in other waters.

Have a nice day!

Chuck

[VAPA 0]

Quote

You must have me confused with someone who gives a shit.


Chuck

You have consistently painted the interaction by giving the agents a pass on illegal action (I have posted the law and Border Patrol procedure, there is no dispute they broke the law and you have offered not a single shred of substance otherwise), instead choosing to call the driver a jerk, say that he "set it up," and implying that he had it coming. You have no sympathy, you said, for this guy who behaved legally, did nothing wrong, and was harassed by the government for thirty five minutes. Beyond that you said that he should have just rolled down his window and answered a few questions, despite the clear fact the driver answered every question other than naming his commanding officer. I hope you have more attention to detail when you're packing chutes.

I think you nailed it. You do not give a shit if your government breaks the law and harasses its citizens. You are right, I am hurt by the apathy of Americans who think this is ok, and who side with unlawful armed power over the rights of their countryman.

Take care.

[bigbearfng 18]

And in this BP case we obviously don't know all the circumstances involved.
And that includes you.......
Hmmm,
Looking at the fact that you recently registered here, with no info filled out whatsoever-
And has only posted to this thread....
Yea, I have to call troll also.
Or someone with an ax to grind that randomly searches for places to spout their one sided rant on the internet.......
I do appreciate getting to see the other side of things that I may not have seen otherwise by looking in SC.
However I guess we shouldn't feed the trolls.

[masterrig 1]

Quote

Quote

You must have me confused with someone who gives a shit.


Chuck

You have consistently painted the interaction by giving the agents a pass on illegal action (I have posted the law and Border Patrol procedure, there is no dispute they broke the law and you have offered not a single shred of substance otherwise), instead choosing to call the driver a jerk, say that he "set it up," and implying that he had it coming. You have no sympathy, you said, for this guy who behaved legally, did nothing wrong, and was harassed by the government for thirty five minutes. Beyond that you said that he should have just rolled down his window and answered a few questions, despite the clear fact the driver answered every question other than naming his commanding officer. I hope you have more attention to detail when you're packing chutes.

I think you nailed it. You do not give a shit if your government breaks the law and harasses its citizens. You are right, I am hurt by the apathy of Americans who think this is ok, and who side with unlawful armed power over the rights of their countryman.

Take care.

I'm not going to fool with you. You continually mis-quote me, twist my words and come real close to personal attacks and etc.
That's my last word on the matter.


Chuck

[Throttlebender 0]

Agreed

Life expands or contracts in proportion to one's courage. ~Anais Nin

[VAPA 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

You must have me confused with someone who gives a shit.


Chuck

You have consistently painted the interaction by giving the agents a pass on illegal action (I have posted the law and Border Patrol procedure, there is no dispute they broke the law and you have offered not a single shred of substance otherwise), instead choosing to call the driver a jerk, say that he "set it up," and implying that he had it coming. You have no sympathy, you said, for this guy who behaved legally, did nothing wrong, and was harassed by the government for thirty five minutes. Beyond that you said that he should have just rolled down his window and answered a few questions, despite the clear fact the driver answered every question other than naming his commanding officer. I hope you have more attention to detail when you're packing chutes.

I think you nailed it. You do not give a shit if your government breaks the law and harasses its citizens. You are right, I am hurt by the apathy of Americans who think this is ok, and who side with unlawful armed power over the rights of their countryman.

Take care.

Quote

I'm not going to fool with you. You continually mis-quote me, twist my words and come real close to personal attacks and etc.
That's my last word on the matter.


Chuck

Quote

Go back and re-read any of my posts... I just flat, didn't present that example. You must have me confused with someone who gives a shit.


Chuck

Quote

Also, the fact they are dealing with a 'wise-ass' could be enough to lead them to believe he's up to something or hiding something?


Chuck

Quote

...the driver of the car approached the incident WRONG. Had he rolled his window all the way down, answered a couple questions, he'd have been on his way with no problem. The driver set it up and the Agents let that asshole get to them....the driver was acting like a jerk and has had previous encounters similar to this. Got NO sympathy for him.


Chuck

Quote

The guy in the car acted like a jerk, right from the start. Had he approached the incident like someone with some sense, he would've saved himself a big headache. As for getting what he deserved... yes! It's like I said earlier... if he wasn't such a self-centered jerk, he've been all-right. Too often, people bring things on themselves.


Chuck

----------------------------------------------------------------

Quote

Here is what the official Border Patrol Inspector's Field Manual (2008), which is compiled to comply with the law set by the Courts, has to say:

"18.6(E) Checkpoints:

The Border Patrol conducts two types of inland traffic-checking operations: checkpoints and roving patrols. Border Patrol agents can make routine vehicle stops without any suspicion to inquire into citizenship and immigration status at a reasonably located permanent or temporary checkpoint provided the checkpoint is used for the purpose of determining citizenship of those who pass through it, and not for the general search for those persons or the vehicle. Inquiries must be brief and limited to the immigration status of the occupants of the vehicle. The only permissible search is a “plain view” inspection to ascertain whether there are any concealed illegal aliens."

"18.7(B) Reasonable Suspicion:

Before an inspector may constitutionally detain a person (non-entry related case), the inspector must have reasonable suspicion that the person is an alien and is illegally in the United States. This higher degree of suspicion arises generally in questioning persons encountered in and around the port who are awaiting persons referred to secondary. This suspicion is based on questioning of alienage alone and also involves specific articulable facts, such as particular characteristics or circumstances which the inspector can describe in words."

The Border Patrol refused to provide that manual for quite some time, in light of several lawsuits, but eventually a lawyer got it with his FOIA request.

It's based on the case law previously cited, including:

"We have already noted that the permissible duration of the stop is limited to the time reasonably necessary to complete a brief investigation of the matter within the scope of the stop. The scope of an immigration checkpoint stop is limited to the justifying, programmatic purpose of the stop: determining the citizenship status of persons passing through the checkpoint. The permissible duration of an immigration checkpoint stop is therefore the time reasonably necessary to determine the citizenship status of the persons stopped. This would include the time necessary to ascertain the number and identity of the occupants of the vehicle, inquire about citizenship status, request identification or other proof of citizenship, and request consent to extend the detention. The permissible duration of an immigration checkpoint stop is therefore brief. Indeed, the brevity of a valid immigration stop was a principal rationale for the Supreme Court's conclusion in Martinez-Fuerte that immigration checkpoints are constitutional: 'The stop does intrude to a limited extent on motorists' right to free passage without interruption; but it involves only a brief detention of travelers during which [a]ll that is required of the vehicle's occupants is a response to a brief question or two and possibly the production of a document evidencing a right to be in the United States.' Within this brief window of time in which a Border Patrol agent may conduct a checkpoint stop, however, we will not scrutinize the particular questions a Border Patrol agent chooses to ask as long as in sum they generally relate to determining citizenship status."

- Fifth Circuit (U.S. vs Machuca Barrera), 2001

Quote
"As we have stated, 'the Constitution [is] violated...when the detention extends beyond the valid reason for the initial stop.'"

- Fifth Circuit (U.S. vs Machuca Barrera), 2001


So does anybody still think the Border Patrol did not violate the Constitution? And for those who have concentrated their venom on the driver's behavior, and now understand that this was a violation of the driver's civil rights upon clear proof, don't you think it's strange to spend your energy pointing fingers at the driver who simply didn't want (and was not legally required) to roll his window down all the way for any number of reasons, such as perhaps one of these:

1. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=btzlmMRU6pI

2. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bJF5cUWXA_A

BTW the Baptist Pastor in that video refused to go to secondary, refused to answer any questions, refused to roll down his window despite the agent's lying that a drug dog hit on his car--not only did he have his windows smashed in, get tazed for 20 seconds, and have his head slammed into the broken edge requiring 11 stitches, he was charged with multiple crimes. In his first trial, the judge dismissed the case with prejudice (ie, saying the prosecution was out to lunch). The prosecution appealed the case, and Pastor Anderson had to go to another trial to defend himself. This time it wasn't dismissed and a jury heard it. Verdict--> NOT GUILTY on all charges (and one juror thanked the Pastor for standing up for our rights). Youtube has the first trial for those who wish to watch.

3. Why Don't You Just Roll Your Window Down and Answer the Question?? https://www.checkpointusa.org/...oll_down_your_window

The military driver was exercising his Constitutional rights, and honoring his oath to defend the Constitution domestically. You may not like the way he talked, the clothes he wore, or his legal course of action but you SHOULD appreciate that, and spend your venom on the clear Constitutional violation and unlawful actions of the Border Patrol. Except you Nigel, you're not American so you can still believe in the divine right of Kings or whatever you believe.

Still think these guys got what they deserved? I'll let the Pastor respond to that: http://www.youtube.com/...&feature=related

• Quote

[VAPA 0]

Quote

And in this BP case we obviously don't know all the circumstances involved.

Yes, we are limited to merely having the entire thirty-five minute incident captured on two different cameras uploaded to the internet with clear audio and video. Hard to say what actually happened...

[masterrig 1]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

IAll he had to do was unroll the window a reasonable amount at the first area and all would have been good..

So how would the driver rolling the window down all the way, have done anything to help the BP determine his citizenship?

It would have helped set the scene of a compliant and helpful person, rather than someone out to be awkward. Have you ever tried to talk next to a busy road? It is very difficult to hear against the background noise.

And do you really think the window being all the way down would have helped the agent determine citizenship when he never asked about it? He asked about car ownership (which the driver answered). Don't you think if the driver were asked, "Are you a U.S. citizen" instead, that he would have answered that question?

I watched the video and I am sorry but the border patrol guy is polite.

He says "Can you wind down your window sir?"

Muppet "Yes"

BP "Is that as far as it will go?"

Muppet "it can go down more" ---> ATTITUDE PROBLEM is here!

If a guy askes you if it can wind down more why not simply wind it down if you are not looking for confrontation?

BP "Is this your vehicle sir?" is the 3rd question asked.

Honestly what did the guy think when someone asks if your window can wind down more? Did he think that the BP guy doesn't know how far a cars window winds down? Sure if he was asked "are you a US citizen?" he would probably have answered.

I have no problem with authorities giving suspicious or awkward people a closer look - in my opinion that does help to reduce the threat of terrorism and criminal activities.

I wonder why, the Agent didn't ask the guy about his citizenship? I think the Agent may have gotten a bit 'rattled' by the driver's actions. Makes me wonder how often the agent has worked a check-point. Still, the driver's actions were probably throwing-up 'red flags' all over the place. I do believe, you get a lot farther by cooperating and not being a jerk by showing-off how informed you are. Bottom line... the driver, being in the military, should've known better and not been such an arrogant jerk. The Border Patrol Agents were courteous, though.


Chuck

[Amazon 7]

I am betting the drivers car and licence plate was already on their "black list" and that is why they asked if it was HIS car and forgot about everything else wanting to make sure the guy COMPLIED. Some people are just completely and utterly eat up with their POWER.

[VAPA 0]

Quote

I am betting the drivers car and licence plate was already on their "black list" and that is why they asked if it was HIS car and forgot about everything else wanting to make sure the guy COMPLIED. Some people are just completely and utterly eat up with their POWER.

I think you may be on to something. The video states that he had been through the checkpoint numerous times before, and put up the cameras after problems there. Plus in the video, during a phone call the driver says he thinks they had been expecting him.

[VAPA 0]

Quote

I do believe, you get a lot farther by cooperating and not being a jerk by showing-off how informed you are. Bottom line... the driver, being in the military, should've known better and not been such an arrogant jerk. The Border Patrol Agents were courteous, though.


Chuck

No doubt about it, you're right about getting further by cooperating regardless of whether you're cooperating with government officials acting wrongly. Some chose to do this in Nazi Germany, even some Jews. Cooperating with wrongful armed power is easy, and cowardly.

Bottom line, this guy was military and took an oath to support and defend the Constitution. That doesn't mean cooperating in its violation, no matter how easy that is for some people.

[masterrig 1]

Quote

I am betting the drivers car and licence plate was already on their "black list" and that is why they asked if it was HIS car and forgot about everything else wanting to make sure the guy COMPLIED. Some people are just completely and utterly eat up with their POWER.

...or their own 'importance'. I'm sure, this guy had caused problems before and the Agents were on the look-out for him. I've watched that video several times and all I can see is, the guy was 'baiting' the Agents. I think too, he'll slip-up and get his fanny in a crack. I can respect the Agents fo keeping their cool.

edit to add... bottom line... we only have a snippet of what really happened. To me, this is typical of the news media. We are given only tid-bits of information. I'd like to know more about the situation.


Chuck

[VAPA 0]

Yeah, we were only given tidbits. Like the entire thirty plus minutes recorded on two different cameras. Hard to make out anything with that limited information. If only we had word of mouth, or maybe a hastily written account instead of digital audio and video to re-enaact what happened. But we just have those snippets of complete time stamped video footage.

But what we can tell from those tidbits is the driver was "baiting" the poor agents, basically forcing them against their will to break the law and violate the Constitution. Those poor agents. Much like a convenience store owner who has his store burglarized several times in the past, is "baiting" the thugs when he then installs a surveillance system. The thugs will tell you that the surveillance videos are just tidbits and we don't have the full story. They will say they were baited into breaking the law.

I have a feeling that know it all store owner will slip up though and get his arrogant jerk fanny in a crack.

I can respect the thugs fo keeping their cool as they broke the law and robbed the store.

What some don't realize, is that it doesn't matter if your actions are legal or illegal according to the law, but rather how you conduct yourself and if you're polite. Take for instance Ted Bundy. From the little I know about him, he was described as a very "polite" and "courteous" man. I've watched the videos over and over and wasn't some jerk like some of his murder victims more than likely were. That's why as a God fearing law-and-order Texan conservative, I spend my time ranting about the arrogant jerk sorority girls he knifed up and give him a pass. He was polite and courteous and kept his cool.

Sarcasm over. I realize others have these values/views, but I don't.

Something tells me this driver is going to clean house in federal court and the taxpayers will be paying him and his lawyers. And something tells me some self described conservatives don't care, as they don't care about limiting the actions of the government (even when said government actors are specifically limited by the law). Something also tells me I'll be posting in the forum about how the U.S. federal courts found that the driver's Fourth Amendment rights were violated in a guilty verdict against the agents.

But something also tells me that won't be convincing enough to some, who think cowardice/cooperation with unlawful government is more important than an oath before God, and who think a "wise ass" jerk, "know it all" citizen deserves their anger (despite acting legally), while agents who repeatedly lied and broke the law deserve a pass.