|
Forum Rules | Firearms Safety | Firearms Photos | Links | Library | Lost Password | Email Changes |
Register | FAQ | Calendar | Search | Today's Posts | Mark Forums Read |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
May 25, 2010, 10:01 AM | #76 |
Member
Join Date: May 21, 2010
Posts: 63
|
"It is obvious to me the folks out side could not hear everything the guy inside the car was saying...."
Like what? Can you quote what the driver said that the agents couldn't hear? |
May 25, 2010, 10:20 AM | #77 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: September 7, 2008
Posts: 550
|
Hmmm... Aren't the grounds for arrest "probable cause" and don't the officers still have to get a search warrant if the suspect refuses to give then permission? I seem to remember a CIA or NSA Director that didn't understand the reasonable suspicion vs probable cause restriction.
I realize you are relating your Irac experiences and there are probably differences, so no slight intended, just a question. Cannonfire said: Quote:
__________________
In my hour of darkness In my time of need Oh Lord grant me vision Oh Lord grant me speed - Gram Parsons |
|
May 25, 2010, 10:26 AM | #78 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 24, 2005
Location: North Carolina
Posts: 2,902
|
Quote:
LOL |
|
May 25, 2010, 10:53 AM | #79 | ||
Senior Member
Join Date: September 7, 2008
Posts: 550
|
Quote:
Quote:
__________________
In my hour of darkness In my time of need Oh Lord grant me vision Oh Lord grant me speed - Gram Parsons |
||
May 25, 2010, 11:57 AM | #80 |
Member
Join Date: May 21, 2010
Posts: 63
|
"Can you quote what the driver said that the agents could hear?
LOL" Everything he said could be heard by the agent. There were a couple of times the agent said, "what?" and he repeated himself and was heard. Your claim that they couldn't hear him is not supported by the video. |
May 25, 2010, 12:07 PM | #81 |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 24, 2005
Location: North Carolina
Posts: 2,902
|
We "get it" that you joined this forum to advance an agenda. You have already drank the kool-aid and there is no room for debate or disagreement in your mind.
It's been fun, but it's over for me. |
May 25, 2010, 12:27 PM | #82 |
Junior member
Join Date: May 16, 2008
Posts: 9,995
|
Gc70, I think you need to reconsider who drank the kool aid. He obviously went to the checkpoint with an agenda. That agenda was to document LEOs breaking the law. I don't think there is anything wrong with that, legally or morally.
He probably should have rolled down his window, but I doubt he had a legal obligation to do so. It seems he may have had legitimate concerns about being dragged out of the vehicle or tased since it has obviously happened before. LEO don't have the right to just push citizens around at their convenience and just because most people put up with it does not mean it is legal or right. I just watched the entire video. By the end both sides seem to have realized they lost. Last edited by johnwilliamson062; May 25, 2010 at 01:31 PM. |
May 25, 2010, 12:52 PM | #83 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: August 16, 2007
Posts: 2,153
|
Quote:
|
|
May 25, 2010, 01:17 PM | #84 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: September 7, 2008
Posts: 550
|
I installed video in the truck and car when cameras got small enough to not be prominent. Also, I turn my cell phone to "record" when I go thru a roadcheck. Before digital, I carried an Olympus micro recorder. I've been through the "He said, she said" crap before. Guess who the court believed? Next time I'll have proof!
Squad car video also seems to not be very reliable in my area. Quote:
__________________
In my hour of darkness In my time of need Oh Lord grant me vision Oh Lord grant me speed - Gram Parsons |
|
May 25, 2010, 02:28 PM | #85 | ||
Senior Member
Join Date: May 24, 2005
Location: North Carolina
Posts: 2,902
|
johnwilliamson062
Quote:
Quote:
|
||
May 25, 2010, 02:48 PM | #86 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: December 13, 2005
Posts: 4,439
|
Quote:
I've never had my citizenship questioned, and I am not sure I could prove it conclusively roadside. Short of a birth certificate, I can't say how I would prove that I am not canadian (short of not wearing plaid flannel).
__________________
http://www.npboards.com/index.php |
|
May 25, 2010, 03:01 PM | #87 |
Senior Member
Join Date: September 11, 2008
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 1,014
|
I think that the conduct unbecoming gig is a fair punishment for being an jerk. It is not the duty of an Military Officer to be playing games with Federal Officers.
|
May 25, 2010, 03:07 PM | #88 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 24, 2005
Location: North Carolina
Posts: 2,902
|
Quote:
With respect to Pastor Anderson, he stated that he refused to answer the question. |
|
May 25, 2010, 03:37 PM | #89 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: September 7, 2008
Posts: 550
|
zukiphile said:
Quote:
__________________
In my hour of darkness In my time of need Oh Lord grant me vision Oh Lord grant me speed - Gram Parsons |
|
May 25, 2010, 03:37 PM | #90 | ||
Senior Member
Join Date: December 13, 2005
Posts: 4,439
|
Quote:
If it is a checkpoint for nebulous police interrogation, the concept itself may be problemmatic. EDIT I did watch almost half the video by Andersen. It doesn't strike me as especially smart to respond to police overstepping their bounds by letting matters get to the point of having them seize you by force. You can make your lack of consent loud and repeated, but your better remedy is to tell the judge after the fact, and pursue the department for civil damages for a false arrest, not to goad he and his friends into action.
__________________
http://www.npboards.com/index.php Last edited by zukiphile; May 25, 2010 at 03:56 PM. |
||
May 25, 2010, 03:57 PM | #91 |
Member
Join Date: May 21, 2010
Posts: 63
|
Gc,
My apologies if I have offended you by disagreeing. I have a viewpoint, that is true. I also have an agenda, which is to provide this incident for discussion and debate. But me disagreeing with you and asking you to give examples for claims you have made (what statement did he make that wasn't heard) isn't an agenda, it's me asking you to show me how you reached your conclusion to better understand your viewpoint. "With respect to the military officer, it appears it did not reach the point of the question (Of what country are you a citizen?) before the entire encounter spun into a dominance contest." I agree with this. But the OBJECT of that dominance was firmly the driver. Both the driver wanted to maintain dominance of himself, and the agents wanted to dominate the driver. This was not the driver trying to dominate the agents clearly. I think it's an American characteristic to want to maintain dominance of yourself and prevent unlawful government agents to dominate you (ie, get out of the car, get arrested and tazed or searched for no reason). |
May 25, 2010, 04:07 PM | #92 | |
Junior member
Join Date: May 16, 2008
Posts: 9,995
|
Quote:
If his passport and .mil ID are not sufficient to prove citizenship, what is? Someone earlier asked if you need to be a citizen to be an officer. I know USMC, AF and Army do for sure. I am fairly certain all of the services require you to be a citizen in order to be commissioned, although BP agents with no military background can't be expected to know this. He still had his passport. Last edited by johnwilliamson062; May 25, 2010 at 04:21 PM. |
|
May 25, 2010, 05:33 PM | #93 |
Member
Join Date: May 21, 2010
Posts: 63
|
Pnac,
You're probably aware of this but just in case, an excellent tool for mobile phone is Qik.Com - it's free and transmits video/audio in real time to a server that you can keep private. It's a great tool and works well. I agree with you completely, it's imperative that you record any encounters with LEO to ensure you don't lose the "word against word" battle that is leveraged frequently. LEO in my area also are not reliable when it comes to providing dash camera video or audio... |
May 25, 2010, 05:58 PM | #94 |
Senior Member
Join Date: September 7, 2008
Posts: 550
|
Thanks for the link, VAPA, that's exactly what I've been looking for!
__________________
In my hour of darkness In my time of need Oh Lord grant me vision Oh Lord grant me speed - Gram Parsons |
May 25, 2010, 10:42 PM | #95 | ||
Senior Member
Join Date: May 24, 2005
Location: North Carolina
Posts: 2,902
|
VAPA,
I was not offended by your disagreement - that is an integral part of debate. I was peeved by the unanswerable question you posed (Can you quote what the driver said that the agents couldn't hear?), which only the BP agents could answer with certainty. I do recognize that it is possible that the agents might not have heard everything the driver said, as explained by the BP supervisor in Video #4 @ 4:08: "I know you may be able to hear us just fine, but we have a lot of traffic out here, there is the highway noise, there is traffic behind you. If you could roll down your window - I can understand you may not want to roll it all the way down, but at least enough that we can communicate with you." As to the basic premise of who was right and who was wrong, both the driver and the BP succeeded in being disastrously wrong. Brief detention for questioning about citizenship status at a checkpoint is not a Fourth Amendment violation. Quote:
The driver messed up by thinking he did not have to get out of his car when ordered to do so immediately upon being approached by the BP agents in secondary. (Video 1 @ 1:36: "For what? You haven't told me anything and now you're making me exit my vehicle.") Quote:
Nevertheless, the driver invited repercussions by deliberately involving himself in actions that he knew were frowned on by the military. I was glad to see that the driver's subsequent foray (April 10 video) through the checkpoint was without incident. |
||
May 26, 2010, 07:48 AM | #96 |
Member
Join Date: May 21, 2010
Posts: 63
|
Good post. Just two thoughts.
First, the PA law doesn't apply to the driver as far as exiting the vehicle. The driver had no legal obligation to exit the vehicle because this was not a lawful stop for the purpose of immigration status but was a fourth amendment violation from the onset. He stopped, they asked if the car was his, he answered, he was sent to secondary and then told to "hop out of the vehicle." That's clearly not how a brief stop for the purpose of checking immigration status is supposed to work anymore than it would be if the driver stopped, was asked what his favorite color was, and then ordered out of the vehicle. Second, the driver was not putting himself in that situation. He was driving to get a destination and this checkpoint was in the way. The agents thrust that situation upon him illegally and the driver was the victim of it. This isn't a case of both were wrong. This is a case of abuse and the driver was the victim. IMHO. |
May 26, 2010, 02:08 PM | #97 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 3, 2008
Location: Ona,West Virginia
Posts: 1,215
|
Quote:
It's not like they drug him out kicking and screaming or him on the ground saying "don't taze me bro"nor were they beating him like a 4 year old in walmart.Had the guy simply rolled down the window and handed him his license,more than likely none of this would have happend. As i watched the video again,i still see it from the bp's point .Someone rolls up to a checkpoint and when asked if the window in his car could go down and he said yes but refused to roll it down more than an inch,i would at the least think he was hiding something he didn't want them to see or smell which is probably what they were acting on. Now i do agree with someone who posted that they should have let him sit there and called for someone else,no since ruffling feathers cause someone doesn't want to (fully) comply.
__________________
it's better to have a gun on your hip than one to your head |
|
May 26, 2010, 02:22 PM | #98 |
Member
Join Date: May 21, 2010
Posts: 63
|
So let's just say, hypothetically, that a cop pulls you over for no reason and says, "I just want you to sit in your car for thirty minutes and then you can go." That wouldn't be abuse? Sure it's not Rodney King but it's still abuse. Abuse of authority, illegal, and there would be a victim of that abuse. The driver.
As to your second point...not being full cooperative (which isn't supported by the agent at the end of the video who says he understands if the driver doesn't want to roll the window down all the way but just enough so they can communicate), then let me ask you this. If when the driver came up they asked him who owned the car and then the agent said, "can you pinch your nipples and stick out your tongue" and the driver instead only pinched one nipple and stuck out his tongue, and was sent to secondary, would you still have the same argument? At the end of the day, pinching one or both nipples or rolling your window down a few inches or a few miles, has no impact on the mission of the BP to determine immigration status. I think I understand your, and the BP, perspective though. It's summed up with "Obey Me." That contrasts with the American perspective, "Don't Tread on Me." |
May 26, 2010, 02:25 PM | #99 | |
Junior member
Join Date: April 10, 2010
Location: Kodiak, Alaska
Posts: 791
|
Quote:
Why didn't they do that? Because they didn't have any probable cause and such a search would have found their case thrown out of court followed by a civil suit. They would be breaking the law - and they knew it was all being recorded. Note - they didn't ask to actually examine the documents provided by the guy in the car until a supervisor showed up. That alone should tell you that they didn't care if this guy was an American citizen or not - they just wanted to hassle him for his lack of servility. I'm glad I don't live in the southwest! |
|
May 26, 2010, 02:48 PM | #100 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 3, 2008
Location: Ona,West Virginia
Posts: 1,215
|
Quote:
__________________
it's better to have a gun on your hip than one to your head |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
|