Another Blow to the Constitution

[candyman]

but he's not asserting his rights. The law gives BPA the right to do certain things, this apparently one of them. BPA Hutchinson told him the law but he refused to listen.
Asserting his rights would apply to him if he was right, but he was not.

if he wasnt right why did they let him go ?

 

[BUZO71]

More importantly, his incorrect thought process bolsters others to do the same.

 

[BUZO71]

if he wasnt right why did they let him go ?

Just like they said, they had better things to do. They probably weighed this one individual against the line of cars behind him. I'm guessing, but its not because they couldn't have.

 

[PlayboyPenguin]

People complain and moan about drug trafficing and illegal immigrants, but then as soon as law enforcement does anything at all to try and crack down they start screaming about their rights to not be "harassed" by law enforcement. It seems everyone only wants something done to the point where it mildly inconveniences them...then it is "going too far." The hypocrisy of it all makes me sick.

 

[candyman]

the incorrect thought process
is to say you wont let me illegally search your car so thats proable cause for me to do it anyway

 

[PlayboyPenguin]

the incorrect thought process
is to say you wont let me illegally search your car so thats proable cause for me to do it anyway

See, this is a perfect example of "incorrect though process" right here. You are making a statement about the search being illegal when it is not illegal at all. Courts have upheld time and time again the legality of such searches and laws regarding border security allow for such searches.

 

[Trlsmn]

but he's not asserting his rights. The law gives BPA the right to do certain things, this apparently one of them. BPA Hutchinson told him the law but he refused to listen.
Asserting his rights would apply to him if he was right, but he was not.

Did you watch the whole vid? If so tell me what law he refused to comply with. If you read my posts I'm not one of the guys here that demonizes police, but I also think my rights trump police power.

 

[treemanx]

In the new video, he obviously was intending on trying to do the minimal amount allowed by law at the checkpoint and expected a confrontation, since he had his camera ready. But so what? Like the irritating little guy says in the video, they are taping him, so why not tape them?

I have to admit, the guy is irritating as all get out, but was what he did wrong? I dont think so. If the Border Patrol had their "mere" suspision to detain and seach him, why did the stalemate result in the man driving "on his way?" Becasue the superiors said they had better things to do? I dont think so. Cops dont suspect you of being a "terrorist" as they said in the video, and then just let them drive away. If they had probable cause, or mere suspision and were operating within the law, they would have pushed the issue with him until it was resolved THEIR way. Not his.

That would be like saying, someone was pulled over for DUII, because they were swerving in the road(theres your PC), and the cops pulled him over and the guy says, you have no right to stop me, I want to go on my way. And then to have the cop say, well, I just radioed my sergeant and he said I have better things to do.....so your free to go. WONT HAPPEN MAN.

If they were within their right to detain and search him, they would have, period. The fact that they let him go, and then caught up with him later to beat him up and arrest him, shows they were not operating within the law from the get go, if you believe the facts as they are presented so far. Thats my take anyhow.

 

[treemanx]

In my opinion, that guy just pulled the ol Constitution out of the garage, checked the oil and water, filled it full of gas, and took it for a spin. Good for him.

 

[Trlsmn]

See, this is a perfect example of "incorrect though process" right here. You are making a statement about the search being illegal when it is not illegal at all. Courts have upheld time and time again the legality of such searches and laws regarding border security allow for such searches.

See now that is an example of incorrect correction of the facts, the search is illegal unless there is suspicion of illegal activity. Just because "suspicion" is abused often does not make the practice anymore legal, if this guy had not had a camera an illegal search would have been performed and later denied, sure we want our borders secured but we must balance that will respect for our rights at the same time and yes it can be done.

And to whomever said they let him go because the lost interest, give me a break, once the police are in a confrontation with someone the don't let it go unless the legally have to, you know that and I know that.

They let him go because they knew the had no other choice, you can bet they were on the phone receiving legal advice on how to handle the situation.

 

[BUZO71]

Rights do trump police power, but not the law. I watched the entire video. This is not about the police, its about the law. If that is the problem, change them.

According to federal law, BPA has the right to stop people w/in 100 miles of the US border. (Upheld by the Supreme Court). This stop was inside that limit, so that is a good stop. According to federal law, BPA has the right to detain and identify people at that stop. So, the detention is legal. The driver, Steve Anderson, refused to produce identification or answer questions to allow to be identified. Since he did not and he was on a state highway, he was also in violation of state laws.

Here in Oregon, we don't have checkpoints based on our constitution. They are attempting to change that like many other states have done for the purpose of DUII enforecement.

 

[Trlsmn]

Cops dont suspect you of being a "terrorist" as they said in the video, and then just let them drive away.

Bingo! did you see the big grin when the BPA agents face when he said they suspected him of being a terrorist! That shown the guy's utter disrespect of all our rights and proved that he doesn't deserve his job.

 

[Trlsmn]

Rights do trump police power, but not the law. I watched the entire video. This is not about the police, its about the law. If that is the problem, change them.

According to federal law, BPA has the right to stop people w/in 100 miles of the US border. (Upheld by the Supreme Court). This stop was inside that limit, so that is a good stop. According to federal law, BPA has the right to detain and identify people at that stop. So, the detention is legal. The driver, Steve Anderson, refused to produce identification or answer questions to allow to be identified. Since he did not and he was on a state highway, he was also in violation of state laws.

Here in Oregon, we don't have checkpoints based on our constitution. They are attempting to change that like many other states have done for the purpose of DUII enforecement.

I have to say name that tune, show me the law in black and white.

And BTW I'm all for checkpoints, at the border only!

 

[treemanx]

And then did you see the gang of these BP Agents trying to talk the guy out of the video tape of the incident? That was a little late for CYA, they had already said he was free to go. But they surely didnt want the video of the first agent pulling out nunchucks, of the second saying that he was a terrorist, or the fact that the guy was complying with the agents to the level of the law but no further, getting out to the media.

 

[jason97496]

I have to wonder if this guy acted like an idiot at these check points more to show how badly the Constitution has been perverted over the last couple hundred years.

I am sure that the law now states that with even a hint of suspition of illegal activity, they can search him and his car. I am also sure that this was justified in the minds of a few nut jobs in DC.

I am sitting here thinking about when the Constitution was written and why it was written. The Founding Fathers were dealing with a tyranical British govenment who could bully the citizens without fear of reprisal.

Sounds familiar.

 

[BUZO71]

In the new video, he obviously was intending on trying to do the minimal amount allowed by law at the checkpoint and expected a confrontation, since he had his camera ready. But so what? Like the irritating little guy says in the video, they are taping him, so why not tape them?

I don't see a problem with video taping, except in Oregon where it is a crime to, while in someone's presence, record their voice without their knowledge. I couldn't speak to Arizona.

I have to admit, the guy is irritating as all get out, but was what he did wrong? I dont think so. If the Border Patrol had their "mere" suspision to detain and seach him, why did the stalemate result in the man driving "on his way?" Becasue the superiors said they had better things to do? I dont think so.
You'd be surprised. What we are looking at is what amounts to a minor crime. The supervisor has to look at the fact that for however long, he's had what about four BPA's dealing with this one guy for a minor crime. They did have better thins to do... like the fifty cars behind this guy!

Cops dont suspect you of being a "terrorist" as they said in the video, and then just let them drive away. If they had probable cause, or mere suspision and were operating within the law, they would have pushed the issue with him until it was resolved THEIR way. Not his.

See above remarks. The terrorist remarks were more tongue and cheek- maybe to prove the point of the stop.

That would be like saying, someone was pulled over for DUII, because they were swerving in the road(theres your PC), and the cops pulled him over and the guy says, you have no right to stop me, I want to go on my way. And then to have the cop say, well, I just radioed my sergeant and he said I have better things to do.....so your free to go. WONT HAPPEN MAN.

Apples and oranges. DUII (immediate public safety) and illegal alien checkpoint.

If they were within their right to detain and search him, they would have, period.
And they did.

The fact that they let him go, and then caught up with him later to beat him up and arrest him, shows they were not operating within the law from the get go, if you believe the facts as they are presented so far.
Well, the second stop was a different situation than the first. My guess is that he was looking for a confrontation and kept fishing for it.... finally, someone had the time and desire to deal with him. He probably tried pulling the same thing at a different checkpoint, since it worked for him the last time. However, this time, someone pressed the issue and decided to arrest him.

Thats my take anyhow.

 

[BUZO71]

I have to say name that tune, show me the law in black and white.

And BTW I'm all for checkpoints, at the border only!

Its there, but I don't work for free

I do have a theory about the 100 mile rule (From living in El Paso for years). Often runners don't get on the main roads for miles past the border... they use trails, etc.

Border only checkpoints don't work.... it just pushes runners to the backroads. I have been stopped at border checkpoints hundreds of times (literally). They ask some questions and I'm on my way. The only time I was searched was foreign (Canada) checkpoint... oh, and one in Panama. (Canada was the worse).

 

[BUZO71]

I have to wonder if this guy acted like an idiot at these check points more to show how badly the Constitution has been perverted over the last couple hundred years.

I am sure that the law now states that with even a hint of suspition of illegal activity, they can search him and his car. I am also sure that this was justified in the minds of a few nut jobs in DC.

I am sitting here thinking about when the Constitution was written and why it was written. The Founding Fathers were dealing with a tyranical British govenment who could bully the citizens without fear of reprisal.

Sounds familiar.

This I agreed with... of course, the BPA's aren't the ones to complain to... its not like they can change the law. This guy should drive to DC and try to enter the white house property..... Maybe he could video Obama???

 

[Trlsmn]

Its there, but I don't work for free

I do have a theory about the 100 mile rule (From living in El Paso for years). Often runners don't get on the main roads for miles past the border... they use trails, etc.

Border only checkpoints don't work.... it just pushes runners to the backroads. I have been stopped at border checkpoints hundreds of times (literally). They ask some questions and I'm on my way. The only time I was searched was foreign (Canada) checkpoint... oh, and one in Panama. (Canada was the worse).

You said it, you back it up or your words don't get any respect from me, Your statement is subjective not objective without proof.

 

[BUZO71]

You said it, you back it up or your words don't get any respect from me.

Oh no, no respect from you?