Another Blow to the Constitution

[BUZO71]

But when did it become the Border Patrols assigned job to look for drugs within the continental US? I thought they were getting paid to stop illegal immigrants from crossing into our country? Maybe if they focused more on "PATROLLING THE BORDER" as their very name implies, we would have less illegals in our country, and less drugs. But we already have agencies that deal with trafficing illegal substances. We actually spend ALOT of money on agencies that deal with trafficing illegal substances. And we spend good money on Border Patrol also. So if this guy was a Spanish speaking Mexican, who didnt understand english, and had three wiggling arms hanging out the back of his car, then by all means, search him. But there are plenty of god fearing legal US citizens who pass thbrough these check points, and the arrogant BP agents who treat everyone as though they are doing something wrong, is wrong.

You're missing the point. During the course of their duty (immigration enforcement), they also did the above listed enforcement activity. If BPA's only enforcement immigration laws, would they then let the drugs go? No, that's not realistic, that's why they are AGENTS with law enforcement powers.

Also, BP doesn't just 'patrol the border' ... here's their mission ...

• CBP officers protect America’s borders at official ports of entry, while CBP’s Border Patrol agents prevent illegal entry into the United States of people and contraband between the ports of entry.
• CBP Air and Marine, which manages the largest law enforcement air force in the world, patrols the nation’s land and sea borders to stop terrorists and drug smugglers before they enter the United States.
• CBP agriculture specialists prevent the entry of exotic plant and animal pests, and confront emerging threats in agro- and bioterrorism.

 

[BUZO71]

I really wish that I had been given the opportunity to vote on that issue. They certainly would have had my vote. I am sorry that they are treated like children. If I could stop that I would. But, this in no way gives them the right to act like children and beat the tar out of this guy for being difficult.

Ok, how do you know this guy did not resist and hurt BPA's during his confrontation? Do you know what they look like? Do you know they did not use the justified force? I say they but how do we even know how many were there. We don't, we only hear his side of things. We saw him on tape violating the law, do we know how far he violated the law. Do we know if the guy WAS transporting drugs or aliens? From the video of his encounter, we don't see inside his car.

What I'm saying in reference to this incident is we are only getting his, subjective statement on what happened.

 

[jason97496]

I do not know that this guy did not resist physically. If he did then I would be in favor of him getting an attitude adjustment.

I have asked for the side of the issue of the Border Patrol but they will not say anything. As long as they will not comment, I have to stick with the evidence presented to me.

 

[jason97496]

I will have to continue this discussion later. My son is hovering over me waiting for me to help him fix his bike.

 

[candyman]

ive been reading the law and its clear as mud

you shouldnt say that he broke the law tho

you could just as easly say the bp broke the law

 

[BUZO71]

ive been reading the law and its clear as mud

you shouldnt say that he broke the law tho

you could just as easly say the bp broke the law

Well, two state laws.... fail to furnish proof of driver's license
28-1595. Failure to stop or provide driver license or evidence of identity; violation; classification
A. The operator of a motor vehicle who knowingly fails or refuses to bring the operator's motor vehicle to a stop after being given a visual or audible signal or instruction by a peace officer or duly authorized agent of a traffic enforcement agency is guilty of a class 2 misdemeanor.
B. After stopping as required by subsection A of this section, the operator of a motor vehicle who fails or refuses to exhibit the operator's driver license as required by section 28-3169 or a driver who is not licensed and who fails or refuses to provide evidence of the driver's identity on request is guilty of a class 2 misdemeanor. The evidence of identity that is presented shall contain all of the following information:
1. The driver's full name.
2. The driver's date of birth.
3. The driver's residence address.
4. A brief physical description of the driver, including the driver's sex, weight, height and eye and hair color.
5. The driver's signature.
C. A person other than the driver of a motor vehicle who fails or refuses to provide evidence of the person's identity to a peace officer or a duly authorized agent of a traffic enforcement agency on request, when such officer or agent has reasonable cause to believe the person has committed a violation of this title, is guilty of a class 2 misdemeanor.
D. A peace officer or duly authorized agent of a traffic enforcement agency may give the signal or instruction required by subsection A of this section by hand, emergency light, voice, whistle or siren.
E. A person shall not be convicted of a violation of subsection B of this section if the person provided evidence of identity required by subsection B, paragraphs 1 through 5 of this section and produces to the court a legible driver license or an authorized duplicate of the license that is issued to the person and that was valid at the time the violation of subsection B of this section occurred.


and...
28-622. Failure to comply with police officer; classification
A. A person shall not wilfully fail or refuse to comply with any lawful order or direction of a police officer invested by law with authority to direct, control or regulate traffic.
B. A person who violates this section is guilty of a class 2 misdemeanor.

 

[capdek]

Want to see a slippery-slope? Here you go:

We must protect the U.S. from Islamic terrorists who would do us harm.
Clearly, Islamic terrorists have no rights under our constitution.
Since, we cannot "profile" people to identify Islamic terrorists, we have to randomly identify Islamic terrorists.
Since we must randomly identify Islamic terrorists, citizens have to tolerate some loss of their rights in the identification of Islamic terrorists.

Now we have airport security searches, terror watch-lists, eves-dropping on Americans, etc.

Since most Islamic terrorists would come from outside the U.S., we need to protect against them entering the country.
Therefore, we must ramp-up border security.
Since we are ramping-up border security to prevent Islamic terrorists from sneaking in, we should also ramp-up enforcement against illegal immigrants sneaking in.
Since we cannot "profile" people to identify illegal immigrants, we have to randomly identify for illegal immigrants.
Since we must randomly identify for illegal immigrants, citizens have to tolerate some loss of their rights in the identification of illegal immigrants.
Since most illegal immigrants bypass border points-of-entry, we need to widen the border by 100 miles.

OK, this is where we are right now with this thread. Now consider what our new administration is probably thinking:

Since we are ramping-up border security to prevent Islamic terrorists and illegal immigrants from sneaking in, we should also ramp-up enforcement against the gun violence of the Mexican drug cartels from sneaking in.
Since the guns used by the Mexican drug cartels are "assault weapons", we must try to prevent violence with "assault weapons" from sneaking in.
Since we cannot "profile" people to identify illegal smugglers of "assault weapons", we have to randomly identify for illegal smugglers of "assault weapons".
Since we must randomly identify for illegal smugglers of "assault weapons", citizens have to tolerate some loss of their rights in the identification of illegal smugglers of "assault weapons".

Or how about this:

We must protect the U.S. from domestic terrorists who would do us harm.
Clearly, domestic terrorists have no rights under our constitution.
Since, we cannot "profile" people to identify domestic terrorists, we have to randomly identify domestic terrorists.
Since we must randomly identify domestic terrorists, citizens have to tolerate some loss of their rights in the identification of domestic terrorists.

The one common element that leads us down all these slippery slopes is our aversion to "profiling". But do we really want to allow "profiling" in order to prevent these slippery slopes? I think this is a good question.

 

[BUZO71]

What does profiling have to do with this thread?

 

[candyman]

bp isnt a traffic enforcement agency so that dosnt apply

what lawful order did he refuse ?

 

[BUZO71]

bp isnt a traffic enforcement agency so that dosnt apply

what lawful order did he refuse ?


btw i thought i would add i think hes an ***
and i would have beat him

He did not "show evidence" of his identification...A lawful order... also a federal law when in conjunction with the requirement to show identification at all permanent and tactical checkpoints

 

[capdek]

What does profiling have to do with this thread?

I was just trying to look at the issue from a broader perspective. I mean the supposed whole point of these BP check-points is to identify potential terrorists and illegal immigrants. Or is it really more than that? I mean look at this guy. Is he really likely to be a Islamic terrorist or illegal immigrant? But since the BP cannot "profile", they have to pull people over at random, and I think - deep down - this is what this guy - as a law-abiding American citizen - is angry about. Sorry, I didn't really mean to distract from the details of your thread.

 

[clearconscience]

I really can't believe some of you. People complain all the time about the Police never being around, or not doing anything but when they do, OH NO! they abuse your rights.
Your either a part of the solution or a part of the problem.
If a cop ask me to search my car, cause or not, I tell them go right ahead. Does it really inconvenience you?
Are your rights abused?
No. You just want to piss and moan cause you can. That's the rights you have. But the more you abuse it the more you can expect them to be hard on you, and your right they have the power and you will lose.
You people that complain about cops "harassing" you make me sick.
Your the reason this country sucks. Your the people that sue a Mcdonalds for your dumb @$$ being stupid and spilling it on yourself.

How about you do all of us a favor and go to North Africa or Central America where the cops don't care what you do and see how long you stay alive....
No please do!
But oh no let's sue everyone. You don't get what you want sue them, you are incinvenienced in your meaningless life for a few minutes sue them.

Get a life.

 

[gunnoob75]

I really can't believe some of you. People complain all the time about the Police never being around, or not doing anything but when they do, OH NO! they abuse your rights.
Your either a part of the solution or a part of the problem.
If a cop ask me to search my car, cause or not, I tell them go right ahead. Does it really inconvenience you?
Are your rights abused?
No. You just want to piss and moan cause you can. That's the rights you have. But the more you abuse it the more you can expect them to be hard on you, and your right they have the power and you will lose.
You people that complain about cops "harassing" you make me sick.
Your the reason this country sucks. Your the people that sue a Mcdonalds for your dumb @$$ being stupid and spilling it on yourself.

How about you do all of us a favor and go to North Africa or Central America where the cops don't care what you do and see how long you stay alive....
No please do!
But oh no let's sue everyone. You don't get what you want sue them, you are incinvenienced in your meaningless life for a few minutes sue them.

Get a life.

Watch yourself, my friend...

 

[BUZO71]

"The Border Patrol Agent may ask to see any proof of citizenship you may possess. The US Border Patrol uses various aids in determining whether the documents provided to an Agent by you are real or forgeries."

 

[jason97496]

I really can't believe some of you. People complain all the time about the Police never being around, or not doing anything but when they do, OH NO! they abuse your rights.
Your either a part of the solution or a part of the problem.
If a cop ask me to search my car, cause or not, I tell them go right ahead. Does it really inconvenience you?
Are your rights abused?
No. You just want to piss and moan cause you can. That's the rights you have. But the more you abuse it the more you can expect them to be hard on you, and your right they have the power and you will lose.
You people that complain about cops "harassing" you make me sick.
Your the reason this country sucks. Your the people that sue a Mcdonalds for your dumb @$$ being stupid and spilling it on yourself.

How about you do all of us a favor and go to North Africa or Central America where the cops don't care what you do and see how long you stay alive....
No please do!
But oh no let's sue everyone. You don't get what you want sue them, you are incinvenienced in your meaningless life for a few minutes sue them.

Get a life.

Believe me.

I love this country and I do wish that I could expect the police to protect me. I know that I can not. I owned a gift shop for a couple of years. I had so much shoplifting and break ins that I could not afford to stay open. I called the police after I was broken into. The officers were very helpful. They offered to mail me a self reporting form that I could mail back to them. I asked if an officer would be coming to the store. They told me that their is no point because they would not likely find anything beyond what I could just fill out on the form.

Now that i know that the safety of myself and my property are not the greatest priority I can go on.

Now, for the real purpose of my including the quote in this response. I agree that it would have been much easier for him to have simply let them search his car. He just needed to forget his Constitutional rights as they had.

My question is where do you draw the line. How much of your freedom are you going to let them slowly whittle away before you say ENOUGH? For Steven Anderson it was the Border Patrol moving away from the border and moving one step closer to turning his home into a military state. For me it will likely be when they start the door to door searches looking for firearms. What will it be for you?

 

[jason97496]

I am sensoring myself

 

[BUZO71]

Believe me.

I love this country and I do wish that I could expect the police to protect me. I know that I can not. I owned a gift shop for a couple of years. I had so much shoplifting and break ins that I could not afford to stay open. I called the police after I was broken into. The officers were very helpful. They offered to mail me a self reporting form that I could mail back to them. I asked if an officer would be coming to the store. They told me that their is no point because they would not likely find anything beyond what I could just fill out on the form.

Now that i know that the safety of myself and my property are not the greatest priority I can go on.

Now, for the real purpose of my including the quote in this response. I agree that it would have been much easier for him to have simply let them search his car. He just needed to forget his Constitutional rights as they had.

My question is where do you draw the line. How much of your freedom are you going to let them slowly whittle away before you say ENOUGH? For Steven Anderson it was the Border Patrol moving away from the border and moving one step closer to turning his home into a military state. For me it will likely be when they start the door to door searches looking for firearms. What will it be for you?

Hold on... go back through the thread and read the court cases adjudicated by the Supreme Court that gives the BP the legal ability to search the car.... the BPA did not "forget his Constitutional rights" they followed the rule of law. You may not like it, but you are wrong to bash the BPA.

And, lets not forget, Anderson went to the checkpoint with the intent of having this incident to occur. He lives in the area and knows checkpoints happen. This one is even a permanent checkpoint.... not like the tactical ones found all over the border areas. He had a camera running when he pulled up and from the get go, refused to comply with the law.

 

[treemanx]

Believe me.

I love this country and I do wish that I could expect the police to protect me. I know that I can not. I owned a gift shop for a couple of years. I had so much shoplifting and break ins that I could not afford to stay open. I called the police after I was broken into. The officers were very helpful. They offered to mail me a self reporting form that I could mail back to them. I asked if an officer would be coming to the store. They told me that their is no point because they would not likely find anything beyond what I could just fill out on the form.

Now that i know that the safety of myself and my property are not the greatest priority I can go on.

Now, for the real purpose of my including the quote in this response. I agree that it would have been much easier for him to have simply let them search his car. He just needed to forget his Constitutional rights as they had.

My question is where do you draw the line. How much of your freedom are you going to let them slowly whittle away before you say ENOUGH? For Steven Anderson it was the Border Patrol moving away from the border and moving one step closer to turning his home into a military state. For me it will likely be when they start the door to door searches looking for firearms. What will it be for you?

Right on, jason97496, I think you and I would get along good. I think your right on target here. Thanks!

 

[treemanx]

Watch yourself, my friend...

My sentiments exactly. Too bad cussing isnt allowed on this site......

 

[jason97496]

I do not need to go back through the thread. I believe that it is very possible that the border patrol acted legally.

I also believe fully that the law that they were following is an Unconstitutional law. If he had cooperated and not gone in spoiling for a fight and just ignored the Unconstitutional way they are treating law abiding American Citizens, I would still be unaware of the situation along with all of the other sympathizers he has gained.