Posted on 05/22/2009 4:55:40 AM PDT by whatisthetruth
The checkpoints are set up on the highways well aways from the border. you don’t even have to be going to the border to be stopped and checked.
I’ve been stopped and checked by dogs and a cursory search of my trunk on a number of occasions,but usually they just ask if you and any other occupants of your vehicle are American Citizens and if the answer is yes they wave you on through.
Something aroused the Agents’ suspician here. I have BP Agents in my family and I know they just don’t go around beating up Americans (or illegals for that matter) just for kicks.
They, like any of us can be provoked, however.
Since Ramos and Compean, these guys have been walking on their tip toes.
I think the tasing was heavy-handed and unnecessary and was done out of spite and I hope he wins his case and gets some of those people suspended, if not fired.
I also want to assert that while failure to comply with an officer’s instructions does not necessarily constitute suspicious behavior, it is always stupid to refuse to comply. I was acknowledging that there MAY be legitimate concerns, not meaning to side with the suspect even on these grounds. Officer tells you to get out of the car, you get out of the car. If the officer tells you that you are arrested, and you don’t obey him, you are resisting arrest, and asking for trouble.
Once you are safe, get a lawyer and fight about it then whether your rights have been violated. It takes a lot less corruption on the part of a police officer to do very harmful things to you once you create the altercation, then it does for him to want to check you out.
Very good. Sounds like the preacher doesn’t hold with “Produce your papers, please” checkpoints. I kinda sympathize with him.
And it sounds like this one may go to SCOTUS. I wish him well.
You may call it “law and order.” I call it tyranny.
Not only is it wrong, it is stupid. BP has an absolute, unquestionable right to check a car out. AZ DPS does, according to court precedent, but someone could get a lot more reasonable support in challenging the validity of that precedent than in challenging the BP.
Your choice.
Open the borders and have at it.
We will let thinking people decide.
The Pastor could be exaggerating in some areas but I also believe authorities tend to circle the wagons to cover their own asses when necessary.
Only this “checkpoint” wasn’t at the border. True, SCOTUS says that they may set up at a “reasonable” distance from the border.
I don’t think that’s a good idea. Slippery slope and all that.
The border is the border. It’s on the map. I’m all for checkpoints there where you have to show papers and submit to complete searches without probable cause.
But not inside the borders.
Molon labe.
Pastor is lying, clearly.
Sheesh, the pastor couldn’t even get his lie straight.
Here is another thread somewhat related.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2255628/posts
Trio says traffic stop was ‘out-of-control’ (Libertarian ping)
Laurel (MS) Leader Call ^ | May 21, 2009 | Charlotte A. Graham
The SCOTUS upheld the law.
It is law, not SCOTUS ruling.
Well, he “tyranny,” then, is the existence of these checkpoints. I don’t see any evidence of any wrong-doing by the cops involved. Where are the marks from these tasers? Where are the huge bruises from the beating?
The guy had his car rigged to record the incident. There goes any credibility about what a dog may or may not have detected. He wanted to escalate a civil-rights issue (the checkpoints) into one that seemed more like tyranny.
“Entrapment” of cops? Hmmmmm. Sounds like a plan. Cops and prosecutors of all types have for many years used entrapment to lure otherwise law-abiding citizens into lawbreaking.
They always say paybacks a bitch. We shall see, I suppose.
The guy was standing up for what he believes is his 4th Amendment Rights. Not sure why some of you people feel he deserves to be tased for that.
I’m not familiar with the geography of the area. While it looks like this pastor got what he had coming to him as far as police “abuse,” there does seem to be a reasonable issue as to whether these border checkpoints are reasonable.
Reasonable to accomplish what? If the goal is to patrol cities near borders to stop and check for illegal aliens, this checkpoint is quite reasonable, but maybe I have problems with that court’s assertion that such a goal is constitutional. (maybe not, I haven’t considered it carefully enough.)
If the goal is to provide a secondary line of defense against intruders (as in, “You bolted past the border checkpoint, but we’ve got you now!”), then the ruling seems imminently valid... but the checkpoint isn’t “reasonable” under the ruling, from what I can tell just from maps.google, anyway. I could see US 95 having such a checkpoint, since it connects Yuma with the border, 30somthing miles away, but most people on US-8 are passing through at quite a distance from the border
Good post. Those short YouTube videos can distort the facts and I believe this one did.
I think that many are loosing for real issue here. It does not matter if this were a border checkpoint, a sobriety checkpoint, a checkpoint at the airport or anywhere else. If you:
1. Don’t follow or acknowledge any instructions by the checkpoint officers.
2. Ask or demand the officers to prove their reasonable cause for searching you.
3. Debate and argue with the officers.
3. Continue items 1 through 3 PERSISTANTLY while resisting the checkpoint officers.
It will not lead to a happy ending. Period. This individual’s actions DIRECTLY influenced how the agents treated him. If he only just followed their instructions, he would be on his way in minutes and all would be well. But NO, he did not.
Rigged? The authorities could clearly see his camcorder, where are you getting your information from?
But isn't a SCOTUS ruling the law? And hasn't "law" always been nothing but a combination of court rulings and legislative acts? And as such, law is always subject to challenge, interpretation and amendment, isn't it?
In my opinion, this should be challenged. I applaud the preacher for having the stones to step up. Tyranny never sleeps.
In one video, he follows a police officer around the airport and harangues him about the size of the gun he is carrying. The video's title: Policeman with a Machine Gun Harasses US Citizens. (Who was harassing whom, really?)
In another, titled Another Cop Harrasses me for ABSOLUTELY NO REASON, he is parked in a private parking lot when the police approach him to find out what he is up to. After an argument, they tell him he can park at another lot just up the road - after which he grabs his camera and runs back to the first lot to harass the police even more (though by now they have already gone).
Anderson isn't some poor innocent bystander whom bad things happen to thanks to the big bad government. He's a low-rent bully who instigates confrontations with cops, so he can videotape the result and post it to YouTube. He went too far this time and got the comeuppance he was hoping for. I'm sure there are legitimate concerns about the scope of power exercised by Border Patrol and other law-enforcement agencies, but Anderson isn't helping to highlight them. He's an attention whore, nothing more.
If he wants to challenge, great, have at it. More power to him, but a better way would be to challenge in the courts by filing suite, unless he wants to provoke an incident. In that case, his choice, but no whining allowed, and this guy whines like a little girl. Oh, and how about getting the basic facts straight.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.