Armed Polite Society
Main Forums => Politics => Topic started by: 41magsnub on February 28, 2013, 12:01:15 AM
-
http://reason.com/blog/2013/02/26/enjoy-this-montage-of-people-refusing-to (http://reason.com/blog/2013/02/26/enjoy-this-montage-of-people-refusing-to)
Great montage of a guy not cooperating with DHS inspections not on the border.
-
What is the deal with these things? Are they voluntary or not? What's the purpose?
-
I really don't have a problem with the agricultural checkpoint.
I like that last guy that asked the Border Patrol agent if HE was a US citizen and asked for HIS ID. :rofl:
-
Oh man... That was awesome... I just loved seeing how they went into vaporlock as soon as someone questioned what authority they had... Especially the guy at the agricultural checkpoint.... :D
-
And bob, I totally understand the reasoning behind the ag checkpoint.... But at the same time, the vaporlock was awesome.... :)
-
What's the purpose?
Ok. The purpose of this stop is an immigration checkpoint, sir, ok?
-
What is the deal with these things? Are they voluntary or not? What's the purpose?
They are NOT voluntary at the US border crossings. Elsewhere, I don't think Border Patrol really has authority to stop anyone without probable cause.
-
Right... *at* the border, I can see that... But the first one, they were 30 or 50 miles north of the border (the agent said two different distances, kinda threw me off)...
-
If not at the border, I would cooperate just a little; tell them I'm a US citizen. I'm not ashamed of that. I would not show them any ID though, they are not entitled to see it.
http://youtu.be/HOMueumw750 "What's YOUR business in Canada?"
-
Question: Are the personnel that man these checkpoints sworn state or federal LEO?
At 13:44 someone who appears to be an officer gives a driver a "direct order" to move his car to the line 2. In this case, does the driver legally have to comply?
-
Question: Are the personnel that man these checkpoints sworn state or federal LEO?
At 13:44 someone who appears to be an officer gives a driver a "direct order" to move his car to the line 2. In this case, does the driver legally have to comply?
But was it a LAWFUL order? (I don't know; I doubt it)
-
the ag guy was hilarious, clearly not used to this kind of thing.
-
I wonder how many names were added to the no fly list?
One on hand it's kind of scary to see the JBT attitude on display like that, on the other it warms my heart to see a little civil disobedience in action.
-
Right... *at* the border, I can see that... But the first one, they were 30 or 50 miles north of the border (the agent said two different distances, kinda threw me off)...
Supposedly, the law is "within 100 miles of any point of entry" or something of that nature. So, 100 miles from any border or coastline, AND from any international airport... There are huge swathes of CONUS where it is supposedly legal for CBP to stop, interrogate, and search, based on that, including a lot of ground where you wouldn't imagine they WOULD have that authority.
-
Supposedly, the law is "within 100 miles of any point of entry" or something of that nature. So, 100 miles from any border or coastline, AND from any international airport... There are huge swathes of CONUS where it is supposedly legal for CBP to stop, interrogate, and search, based on that, including a lot of ground where you wouldn't imagine they WOULD have that authority.
But you don't have to make it easy for them.
Non compliance. Authorities only have as much Authority as the people grant them. If you hold them to a low standard and allow them to interrogate and conduct searches willy-nilly, you are just spoiling them and that's dangerous. Hold them to a higher standard.
-
Question: Are the personnel that man these checkpoints sworn state or federal LEO?
At 13:44 someone who appears to be an officer gives a driver a "direct order" to move his car to the line 2. In this case, does the driver legally have to comply?
Was that during the ag inspection? That was a CA Highway patrol officer. They usually keep a car at the ag checkpoints. I'm guessing the filmers complied there, because unlike the other segments, you didn't see them leave.
Interesting that a few people have said they understand the ag inspection and are not as bothered by it as the border inspection. I certainly understand the reasoning for keeping infected produce out, but going through ag stations bugs the hell out of me, much more so than just telling someone I'm a US citizen ("show me papers please" is a different argument).
When I go through the CA ag stations and they ask me where I'm coming from, I always just say from whatever the border state is, even if I've been through several others. Then I'm on my way.
If you want to see aggressive ag inspectors, visit Hawaii.
-
I don't have a problem with the border checkpoints that aren't precisely on the border. But then again, I have some knowledge of what they've caught
-
I don't have a problem with the border checkpoints that aren't precisely on the border. But then again, I have some knowledge of what they've caught
And there it is.
Non-border checkpoints are OK because they sometimes catch some things that are bad, as I see it.
I don't have a problem with registering firearms and owners because registration will catch some guys that shouldn't have guns, as I see it.
-
The right to travel using the common mode of conveyance is not a human right.
It is a conditional right bestowed upon us by our benevolent rulers.
-
Interesting video.....I'd like to see them do the same thing with DUI checkpoints.....
-
I don't have a problem with the border checkpoints that aren't precisely on the border. But then again, I have some knowledge of what they've caught
So do I. For every one terrorist caught, a thousand US citizens are harassed. Air Marshal program has resulted in more air marshals being arrested than terrorists. They average $200 million per arrest, not per conviction. TSA is not at $200 million per arrest, but they arrest a LOT more innocent people. AFAIK, they have never caught a terrorist. Yes, some bad people have entered the US with bad things and have been arrested.
Yes, it's tricky. We have to do a good job AT the border, and then their powers are very sharply limited. That's very very hard to do well. Few Americans have a problem with border protection. But we do NOT want the border to be everywhere.
The right to travel using the common mode of conveyance is not a human right.
It is a conditional right bestowed upon us by our benevolent rulers.
Right to travel is a human right. Because the Constitution grants no authority to restrict it, unless it's for a good reason and the folks restricting it are backed up with court papers.
There's no "right to drive yourself on public roads". You can, with the owner's permission travel on private land as much as you want, as far as you want. Feds have no cause to stop you from being a passenger being transported by private car or aircraft. They can only yank that person's license.
-
Right to travel is a human right. Because the Constitution grants no authority to restrict it, unless it's for a good reason and the folks restricting it are backed up with court papers.
There's no "right to drive yourself on public roads". You can, with the owner's permission travel on private land as much as you want, as far as you want. Feds have no cause to stop you from being a passenger being transported by private car or aircraft. They can only yank that person's license.
I was speaking of the practical reality, illustrated using hyperbole of course :)
-
I don't have a problem with the border checkpoints that aren't precisely on the border. But then again, I have some knowledge of what they've caught
statist! er reality does that huh >:D
-
"Citizen of Montana" :lol:
Then one could go into a long dissertation about not sure whether a US citizen or not since one can only buy a handgun in one's home state =| >:D
-
I've lived on two border states.
Never been harassed
Whatever.
The checkpoints I've seen weren't right on the border, but were fairly close
-
I've lived on two border states.
Never been harassed
Whatever.
The checkpoints I've seen weren't right on the border, but were fairly close
Live in a border state and hit the border every once in a while. They have been pushing the BP checkpoints quite a ways in over time and increasing the pressure on Americans. As is the usual case, when Americans clamor for gov't to shoulder its responsibilities, gov't chooses to do it in a way that maximizes harassment of citizens and minimizes impact on evildoers.
-
Live in a border state and hit the border every once in a while. They have been pushing the BP checkpoints quite a ways in over time and increasing the pressure on Americans. As is the usual case, when Americans clamor for gov't to shoulder its responsibilities, gov't chooses to do it in a way that maximizes harassment of citizens and minimizes impact on evildoers.
Last time I crosse regularly was in 2007... Has it gotten worse? It wasn't bad at all then
If it has, then I retract my "I'm cool with it"
-
The one near Falfurias, TX is 71 miles from the border near McAllen, TX.
-
I will allow an officer to search my vehicle under 3 conditions:
1) they have a warrant
2) they can articulate probable cause
3) they let me pee in their boot first
Otherwise? Nope. Don't care about your checkpoint, or anything else. And I have PLENTY of time...
-
Is that warrant AND articulable probable cause AND pee in the boot, or warrant OR probable cause...
-
Any one of the three is acceptable.
Problem being, some of the local cops know me, and would keep a spare boot on hand just because...
-
Live in a border state and hit the border every once in a while. They have been pushing the BP checkpoints quite a ways in over time and increasing the pressure on Americans. As is the usual case, when Americans clamor for gov't to shoulder its responsibilities, gov't chooses to do it in a way that maximizes harassment of citizens and minimizes impact on evildoers.
anarchist er reality does that huh >:D
-
I'm rather partial to the guy asking the check point dude for his ID.
-
So the feds choose not to secure the border, but harass tens of thousands of US citizens instead :facepalm:
I can sorta understand it if it was a road heading directly to/from the border. For one thing, an outsider would see that they were passing a check station when headed south, and could choose to continue or not. But if this is happening on major east-west highways 50 to 100 miles from the border, then it is absolutely unacceptable. :mad:
I'm rather partial to the guy asking the check point dude for his ID.
It's kind of ironic when a "mexican" is asking a white if he/she is a US citizen ;/ :P
-
In defense of the BP, not everything they do at the border is a complete CF. And most of the agents are decent sorts, having met a bunch. Sadly, their management is the most mendacious cabal of poltroons this side of a pirate ship and intentionally place stimbling blocks in their way and try to maximize the harassment of citizens.
To that end, placing BP checkpoints a ways in at road choke points in-country a makes some sense, even if it is unconstitutional. My main objections are:
1. Too far inland and catch up too many innocent folk.
2. Foreign infiltrators need to be nabbed at the border or near the border.
3. Unconstitutional. Being within 100miles of the border is not PC.
This is where a quality Israeli-style fence is vital to slow down and channel foreign infiltrators. Toss in training on patrols & ambushes by Regular Army, NG, and Reserve infantry & MPS & other similar units along the border (with a BP agent/sheriff's deputy along). You know, have our defense forces actually defending the country for a change. A good fence, ground sensors, commo & sensor fusion, and mounted & foot patrols could easily nab 95% of infiltrators. Oh, and put proposed/demo/LRIP hardware to the test.
This is not crazy talk, as American companies actually design & implement such for allies with border problems and the money to pay for an effective solution. We are just not allowed to do it for, you know, America. InStead, BullshIt requests for proposals are seNt out and lEast likely To succeed candidates are chosen to be implemented. Then they fail in ways we predicted they would fail.
Boeing: If you absolutely, positively must strangle a ground system in the cradle, award us the contract and we'll make sure nothing useful ever sees the light of day while paying our satellite engineers to play Army Man.
-
So the feds choose not to secure the border, but harass tens of thousands of US citizens instead
Kinda like the airport. Little old white ladies from Iowa are far less potential trouble than a guy named Farouk from the Sudan.
-
So the feds choose not to secure the border, but harass tens of thousands of US citizens instead :facepalm:
I can sorta understand it if it was a road heading directly to/from the border. For one thing, an outsider would see that they were passing a check station when headed south, and could choose to continue or not. But if this is happening on major east-west highways 50 to 100 miles from the border, then it is absolutely unacceptable. :mad:
It's kind of ironic when a "mexican" is asking a white if he/she is a US citizen ;/ :P
The few i've dealt with have been on major north/south arteries. The one in north san diego county, for example, is at a natural choke point.
That said, i haven't been harassed. And like mentioned above, the BP guys i've met have been, overall, a bunch of good guys doing a rough job with *expletive deleted*it management.
-
In defense of the BP, not everything they do at the border is a complete CF. And most of the agents are decent sorts, having met a bunch. Sadly, their management is the most mendacious cabal of poltroons this side of a pirate ship and intentionally place stimbling blocks in their way and try to maximize the harassment of citizens.
To that end, placing BP checkpoints a ways in at road choke points in-country a makes some sense, even if it is unconstitutional. My main objections are:
1. Too far inland and catch up too many innocent folk.
2. Foreign infiltrators need to be nabbed at the border or near the border.
3. Unconstitutional. Being within 100miles of the border is not PC.
This is where a quality Israeli-style fence is vital to slow down and channel foreign infiltrators. Toss in training on patrols & ambushes by Regular Army, NG, and Reserve infantry & MPS & other similar units along the border (with a BP agent/sheriff's deputy along). You know, have our defense forces actually defending the country for a change. A good fence, ground sensors, commo & sensor fusion, and mounted & foot patrols could easily nab 95% of infiltrators. Oh, and put proposed/demo/LRIP hardware to the test.
This is not crazy talk, as American companies actually design & implement such for allies with border problems and the money to pay for an effective solution. We are just not allowed to do it for, you know, America. InStead, BullshIt requests for proposals are seNt out and lEast likely To succeed candidates are chosen to be implemented. Then they fail in ways we predicted they would fail.
Boeing: If you absolutely, positively must strangle a ground system in the cradle, award us the contract and we'll make sure nothing useful ever sees the light of day while paying our satellite engineers to play Army Man.
Interesting you mention SBINet.
One of the reasons MY network was created (outside of OneNet and SBINet) is to leverage the existing raw technology (UGS, RVSS, radar) but put it on a system not hampered by the idiotic shitstorm that is SBINet and OneNet.
-
The few i've dealt with have been on major north/south arteries. The one in north san diego county, for example, is at a natural choke point.
That said, i haven't been harassed. And like mentioned above, the BP guys i've met have been, overall, a bunch of good guys doing a rough job with *expletive deleted* management.
Seems like a waste of effort. So it's okay if the illegals just stay in SD ??? Also, isn't there a major highway heading east from roughly downtown SD? (all I know is from Lindbergh Field out to near Miramar, and a little bit over to La Jolla and Torrey Pines)
Still, I dunno that I would have a problem just being asked if I was a US citizen - notwithstanding the unconstitutional limitations that make that status somewhat ineffectual. I might point out that I had at least one great great great grandfather that served in the Colonial Army :P