Another Blow to the Constitution

[BUZO71]

Well, if you concede they acted legally, then why the comment,
"He just needed to forget his Constitutional rights as they had. "

 

[jason97496]

I also take issue with him getting the crap kicked out of him for being a jerk and I will gladly "bash the bpa" who acted in this way.

 

[BUZO71]

I also take issue with him getting the crap kicked out of him for being a jerk and I will gladly "bash the bpa" who acted in this way.

How do you know that he was the victim? they just all ganged up on him... he didn't do anything to get hurt? And you based that on, what?

 

[gunnoob75]

That one of your precious officers brandished a weapon?

 

[clearconscience]

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?

I know, I used to work for a place in NE that had gangs and I use the term loosely, going through our lot and breaking into our customers cars or just stealing them. I would call the Police and they would show up and hour later. By that time the bad guys were long gone. So I got tired of this and started running them off myself. Unless they pulled a gun or knife I wouldn't bother the cops. Do I blame them? Of course not.
I don't blame Police for "harassing" people, or whittling away my rights. I blame our govt and the idiot politicians that break our country into the scared dependent people we are.
Those cops have the toughest job, get treated like crap and get paid crap. They don't do it too be tough guys and push your freedoms to a thin line.
It's stupid to think so.
I know I have a strong view of this but if you hate being treated like criminals start bashing your congressmen, senate, and judges.
Don't hate someone that just does what they have to do to protect YOU, and make sure they go home to their families.
Reading some of these posts just boils my blood.

 

[BUZO71]

Well, he didn't "brandish" a weapon... its looks like he readied his ASP to break out the window to arrest the guy. If you read the previous posts, he was in violation of federal law. At that point, they could have arrested him. The baton can be used to break a window to take him from the vehicle to arrest him.

 

[jason97496]

Well, if you concede they acted legally, then why the comment,
"He just needed to forget his Constitutional rights as they had. "

Again, I believe that the Constitution and what is legal in this great country of ours are still the same thing.

 

[jason97496]

How do you know that he was the victim? they just all ganged up on him... he didn't do anything to get hurt? And you based that on, what?

He had the stitches

 

[PhysicsGuy]

What the heck is going on in this thread?

 

[jason97496]

How do you know that he was the victim? they just all ganged up on him... he didn't do anything to get hurt? And you based that on, what?

The law enforcement officers in this great country of ours are very well trained. I am very certain that they could have gotten him out of that car and into a jail cell without breaking the glass out of his car and grinding his face into it.

 

[jason97496]

What the heck is going on in this thread?

Just a little friendly debate

 

[Trlsmn]

here ya go though, I had some time...
[FONT=&quot]United States v Massie[/FONT][FONT=&quot] (65 F. 3d 843
At fixed checkpoint, border patrol agents may stop, briefly detain and question people without any reasonable suspicion.
Agents at secondary inspection can inquire into any suspicious circumstances they observe, as long as questioning is related to their duties.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT][FONT=&quot]United States v Forbes (528 F. 3d 1273[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Border patrol agents have virtually unlimited discretion to refer cars to the secondary inspections area, and may make such referrals without any particularized suspicion of criminal activity.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]United States v Whitted (541 F. 3d 480
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Searches conducted at the nation's borders represent an exception to the warrant requirement, which applies not only at the physical boundaries of the United States, but also at the functional equivalent of a border including the first port where a ship docks after arriving from a foreign country.[/FONT]

OK sorry but I'm going to have to call BS to your proof, this is pulled out of context and isn't relevant to this situation.

And let me also say when you present proof you should always show links to your proof so others can double check.

Read here and tell me that your proof is relevant,
<broken link removed>

So unless you have some actual criminal code to link to I will have to say the basis for your argument and your posts after your proof just left the building.

I am always willing to listen to further evidence as the truth is more important to me than being the "winner" of an argument.

 

[BUZO71]

OK sorry but I'm going to have to call BS to your proof, this is pulled out of context and isn't relevant to this situation.

And let me also say when you present proof you should always show links to your proof so others can double check.

Read here and tell me that your proof is relevant,
<broken link removed>

So unless you have some actual criminal code to link to I will have to say the basis for your argument and your posts after your proof just left the building.

I am always willing to listen to further evidence as the truth is more important to me than being the "winner" of an argument.

These cases provide the proof on which search and seizure is based. K9 deployment, the website you are referring to is search based. What part is BS... as you so eloquently stated? Out of context in what way. These are the legal decisions that are directly or indirectly providing the legal basis for the search and detention. So, are you saying ALL of these BPA are acting illegally and you are the only person to point this out??? wow

 

[Trlsmn]

These cases provide the proof on which search and seizure is based. K9 deployment, the website you are referring to is search based. What part is BS... as you so eloquently stated? Out of context in what way. These are the legal decisions that are directly or indirectly providing the legal basis for the search and detention. So, are you saying ALL of these BPA are acting illegally and you are the only person to point this out??? wow

The first two sentences are key here:

"Expectation of privacy at an international border is less than in the interior."

This is not an international border, it was in inland check point.

"The length of detention at a border is still limited to immigration related business."

This was not immigration business.

So, are you saying ALL of these BPA are acting illegally and you are the only person to point this out??? wow

So you are stating 100 people with the wrong answer trumps me? Make no mistake I still don't say that I am right just that you haven't shown the proof, and that is the only thing that matters to me.

Again I ask you to submit your source (in the form of a link) for study.

 

[clearconscience]

The first two sentences are key here:

"Expectation of privacy at an international border is less than in the interior."

This is not an international border, it was in inland check point.

"The length of detention at a border is still limited to immigration related business."

This was not immigration business.



So you are stating 100 people with the wrong answer trumps me? Make no mistake I still don't say that I am right just that you haven't shown the proof, and that is the only thing that matters to me.

Again I ask you to submit your source (in the form of a link) for study.

Before we seek proof to whether what the BPA did was right or wrong shouldn't we validate the youtube.com video?
Who says this guy isn't some momma's boy looking for his 15 mins and viewer count.
His head looked like it had dried BBQ sauce on it.
Or maybe he just fell off the short bus on a day he forgot his helmet?

Either way he didn't look like he had been roughed up. I didn't see a cut that required stitches.
I think were all getting upset and angry with each other (obviously I was) for some make believe story.
Does this stuff happen of course. Does the BPA has reason to act this way. Some of you say no, I would differ.

 

[clearconscience]

The law enforcement officers in this great country of ours are very well trained. I am very certain that they could have gotten him out of that car and into a jail cell without breaking the glass out of his car and grinding his face into it.

Have you tried to get a guy or even worse a women out of a car when they are resisting? I don't care how hard you train every situation is different, and you don't know whether he has a gun, knife, what training he has, or if he's just some know-it-all punk that thinks he has rights to do this and that.

And most people don't know the law or their rights.
All they know is their interpretation or what they feel they should get.

 

[Trlsmn]

Before we seek proof to whether what the BPA did was right or wrong shouldn't we validate the youtube.com video?
Who says this guy isn't some momma's boy looking for his 15 mins and viewer count.
His head looked like it had dried BBQ sauce on it.
Or maybe he just fell off the short bus on a day he forgot his helmet?

Either way he didn't look like he had been roughed up. I didn't see a cut that required stitches.
I think were all getting upset and angry with each other (obviously I was) for some make believe story.
Does this stuff happen of course. Does the BPA has reason to act this way. Some of you say no, I would differ.

Were speaking of this video, no validation necessary:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KFS7oZtE8Ks

I attach no credibility to the beating video without further evidence.

 

[BUZO71]

The first two sentences are key here:

"Expectation of privacy at an international border is less than in the interior."

This is not an international border, it was in inland check point.
Up to 100 miles inland is considered within the jurisdiction for check points.

"The length of detention at a border is still limited to immigration related business."

This was not immigration business.
It was. They were attempting to identify him and search the vehicle.



So you are stating 100 people with the wrong answer trumps me? Make no mistake I still don't say that I am right just that you haven't shown the proof, and that is the only thing that matters to me.

What do you want for proof... the cases have been cited for you.... on a silver platter.

Again I ask you to submit your source (in the form of a link) for study.

You already did... if you want those cases reviewed, do it yourself. I don't have to prove it to you. Those cases have done enough

 

[Trlsmn]

The first two sentences are key here:

"Expectation of privacy at an international border is less than in the interior."

This is not an international border, it was in inland check point.
Up to 100 miles inland is considered within the jurisdiction for check points.

"The length of detention at a border is still limited to immigration related business."

This was not immigration business.
It was. They were attempting to identify him and search the vehicle.



So you are stating 100 people with the wrong answer trumps me? Make no mistake I still don't say that I am right just that you haven't shown the proof, and that is the only thing that matters to me.

What do you want for proof... the cases have been cited for you.... on a silver platter.

Again I ask you to submit your source (in the form of a link) for study.

You already did... if you want those cases reviewed, do it yourself. I don't have to prove it to you. Those cases have done enough

An immigration check point and a border crossing check point in this case are two different things The key difference is whether you are crossing an international boundary, because immigration has the authority to set up a check point up to 100 miles inland doesn't give them the same authority over someone that never crossed a border before crossing the inland check point.

A) United States v Montoya de Hernandez (473 U.S. 531 (1985) U.S. Supreme Court

Consistent with Congress' power to protect the nation by stopping and examining persons entering this country, the Fourth Amendment's balance of reasonableness is qualitatively different at the international border than in the interior

But I still say these examples are out of context and still not proof of the law of the land anyway, so I don't quote them as having any credibility for a warrantless checkpoint search, I will be convinced by the law, legal code, statutes etc in black and white, try as I may the interweb has not yet giving up any proof either way.

 

[clearconscience]

Are you kidding me. Obviously this guy was just trying to get a rise out of them and test them. Why else would he have the camera on, ready to go.

This guy is an idiot.
This is why I couldn't be a cop or BP. If I had to deal with this guy I would have busted his window, maced, tasered, and beat him into submission.

Blithering idiot.
So according to this guy he can walk through airport security and not go through metal detectors, and so on. If he did this at the airport he would get tackled stripped and get a big security guard with rubber gloves.

I really can't believe this guy.
You guys that agree with this guy go try this, and see what happens to you. See if you win this court case.
This guy is the reason were going to start losing our rights cause we fight the power for stupid reasons, and the power will fight back and win.
I think the BP showed extreme patience with this fool.

It really blows my mind anyone would take this guy side.