KBCraig wrote: Obe wrote: Punkass. They should detained him for being stupid. Simple enough.If stupidity were a crime, posts like yours would constitute probable cause.
Also, personal attacks really are not encouraged. Judging by your post count, I thought you were a veteran and had such knowledge already. Just try to be friendly bud.
"Are you a citizen?" "Yes." "Ok, thank you, move along." Done. That's it.
Yeah that's real intelligent law enforcement. Let's apply the same to terrorists, gang members, and hardened criminals. "Hi. Are you a member of Al-Qaida?...Ok. You may now board the airplane."
Law enforcement needs to focus on real crime and real tactics to catch these people. Simply pulling people over and asking whether or not they are citizens does nothing productive. If that's the best law enforcement can do, we have serious problems on our hands.
Up in Michigan we don't have these 'checkpoints'...yet (Canada is not that far away).
LEO is right, anyone really illegal will just lie. Obviously, these stops are not designed to actually determine the citizen status of the detainees, but rather allow the agents to get a free look in the vehicles (a driver's license is not a guarantee of citizenship). It reminds me of the question they used to ask during air travel; "did anyone else pack your bags for you?". They stopped asking that stupid question years ago.
Most of these discussions revolve around the 4th Amendment, that is illegal search and seizure. Why not, during such a stop, invoke your 5th Amendment right against self-incrimination in that what you say 'may' be used against you (but most certainly won't be used 'for' you).
I drive through one of a pair of these checkpoints every week. At the less busy one, they actually ask everyone their citizenship and if you're driving a U-haul or enclosed truck, or you have large plastic wrapped objects in a pickup, they ask a couple more questions and see how nervous you are. I've had that happen a total of three times. At the one on I-10 however, I usually end up going through at 20 mph as the guard is waving traffic through with no questioning at all. I've seen them stop U-hauls and the occaisional semi for a brief word. I've never seen ANYONE being searched at either of these two checkpoints. When I did mineral exploration work in Mexico there was always a vehicle being searched at the Mexican border checkpoint. It was me about 30% of the time. The Mexican police state always made me glad to cross back into the US - now not so much, these Border Patrol points are a violation of our rights.
However, I don't think they're even remotely effective. Those guys are pretty much just going through the motions and punching the timeclock. I believe the Mexican checkpoints I went through were largely motivated by the potential for bribe money if they caught someone smuggling a TV or whatever in. Smart professional smugglers find ways around the checkpoints, regardless of which country they're in.
The one thing I will say in favor of these checkpoints, at least they aren't as blatantly stupid as airport security has become. They do actually base their judgement on talking to you and gauging your nervousness rather than just making everybody take off their shoes or confiscating water bottles or whatever.
The real shame to me is less the existence of these checkpoints, but how quickly we accept them as "necessary for security" or whatever. The kid is a jerkface, sure. But I have a lot more respect for him than the rest of us who just placidly accept this and go back to chewing our cud. No, this thread has nothing to do with open carry itself, but it has to do with your rights. Who's going to stand up for the rights you value if you don't stand up for the rights that you take for granted? Welcome to the Peoples Republic of Amerika - not just Kalifornia anymore.
jmlefler wrote: Up in Michigan we don't have these 'checkpoints'...yet (Canada is not that far away).
LEO is right, anyone really illegal will just lie. Obviously, these stops are not designed to actually determine the citizen status of the detainees, but rather allow the agents to get a free look in the vehicles (a driver's license is not a guarantee of citizenship). It reminds me of the question they used to ask during air travel; "did anyone else pack your bags for you?". They stopped asking that stupid question years ago.
Obe wrote: KBCraig wrote: Obe wrote: Punkass. They should detained him for being stupid. Simple enough.If stupidity were a crime, posts like yours would constitute probable cause.
Thanks Craig. Because clearly the fact that he had the right to cause trouble for a casual question. If they had stopped them. Pulled them out of the car, asked for I.D., and ran his name into a computer, then you can get pissed. But come on. The guy was doing his job. He was stationed there. Regardless of whether or not he was not supposed to be there or whatever, it was his job. Why hassle the guy? Being a little punk rebel just makes problems worse. I did not see any violation of rights there.
"Are you a citizen?" "Yes." "Ok, thank you, move along." Done. That's it.
I fixed this for you.
Because clearly the fact that he had the right to cause trouble for a casual question. If they had stopped them. Pulled them out of the car, asked for I.D., and ran his name into a computer, then you can get pissed. But come on. The guy was doing his job. He was stationed there. Regardless of whether or not he was not supposed to be there or whatever, it was his job. Why hassle the guy? Being a little punk rebel just makes problems worse. I did not see any violation of rights there.
"Are you a Jew?" "No. Of course not. Heil Hitler" "Ok, thank you, move along." Done. That's it.
I know we are a long way away from being anything like Nazi Germany, but after a while these little Homeland Security stunts will start to add up, and soon we'll be wondering how our rights slipped away without us notocing. I applaud that kid. Those checkpoints do nothing but violate the rights of every U.S. citizen that gets stopped there. If I ever see one of those here in central VA, I hope I have the stones to stand up like he did. Of course, by the time they put one of those checkpoints here, it may be too late for all of us.
Last edited on Mon Jun 16th, 2008 01:50 am by Nozoki
I got stopped one time when going for a jog in an upscale neighborhood. It was very late at night and past midnight and I was carrying a gun openly displayed and this was in front of an elementary school. The police thought it was extremely "suspicious" and "unusual." Needless to say, I basically hinted that should they do another terry stop like that again, I would take action against the department and/or the city. The point is that yes, it probably was unusual to see a man with a gun at that hour in that neighborhood but the fact is that I was lawfully going about my business obeying traffic laws as well as any other laws. Just because someone looks or seems weird does not give an officer probable cause to stop them. They try to push the limit, unfortunately. The whole point behind living in a "free country" is that it allows citizens to be different and still free. That is not the reality, however, because being different seems to mean that you are now a suspect. A free country is also one in which the authorities stay out of Joe Citizen's business. It doesn't matter how "unusual" something is, if it isn't illegal, it is nobody's business. This assumptive license for Joe Citizen as well as Joe Police Officer to always be in everyone's personal business needs to end.
RE: Your legal "disclaimer". OK you are a JD, we are all suitably impresed, especially knowing how most people feel about "sharks" and "ambulance chasers". Such a highly respected scab on the a@@ of society. Drop it you are merely wasting space and looking foolish. You are not the only atty that is a site member, they all seem brighter.
As for, " I am an attorney..just not your attorney", am I the only one glad about that?
I've pondered the 5th amendment approach to these checkpoints, watched youtube videos regarding these stops as well as the "Do not talk to the Police" video presented by a ConLaw prof.
My takeaway:
1. When the Homeland Security officers are asked as to the 'purpose' of the stop they generally remark 'Immigration Checkpoint'. While this is a description of the area, it does not speak to the purpose. In assuming that they are looking for illegal immigrants you may be jumping to conclusions; by declaring that you are a US citizen, you are assuming that we will be allowed to go on our way. You do not know that that is the answer they want because they won't disclose the purpose of the stop.
2. HS may very well be looking for a US citizen involved in illegal smuggling, terrorism, weapon transport or WMD. By declaring that you are a US citizen, you may be providing them (incriminating yourself in the process) with the exact information they are seeking.
3. Anything you say can be used against you. Any information you offer consenually can be construed in such a way as to grandize any subsequent investigation. This can include your attitude, the veracity of any statement you make and, if more than one officer is involved, can create a lopsided numbers game in any he said/she said testimony. For sure, any information you give that may help you will not be allowed in court (heresay - see ConLaw video).
4. When you're digging yourself in a hole the first rule is to stop digging. Politely covering yourself with the umbrella of the 5th Amendment along with a declaration of non-consent can go a long way in protecting yourself as an individual in any follow-on confrontation. "Officer, I have nothing to say to you and I do not consent to this conversation - am I being detained?"
Got a post from you regarding checkpoints, in which you call me to task. Unfortunately, you sent it to the wrong person. I've never posted or replied to anything on that topic. Honest error.
jmlefler wrote: I've pondered the 5th amendment approach to these checkpoints, watched youtube videos regarding these stops as well as the "Do not talk to the Police" video presented by a ConLaw prof.
<snip>
Anyone else want to flesh this out?
IANAL IAMANAL
jmlefler---
I can't agree more.
To your point #2, though it is not official grounds for a further escalation, it is certainly cause for any LE to pay more attention and be more aggressive in their interrogation/detention (whether legal or not), if one is initially cooperative but then later refuses to answer questions. It's best to refuse to answer questions from the start. And since most people don't realize they don't HAVE to answer questions, they risk incriminating themselves thinking they are obliged to do so. Not that I condone illegal activity, but candidly there are so many laws in so many different jurisdictions, it's difficult if not impossible to know whether you're fully compliant.
To your point #3, isn't it interesting that NOTHING you say can EVER later help you. But EVERYTHING you say WILL later hurt you should that unfortunate situation develop. Why participate in anything which cannot possibly help you but WILL definitely hurt you?!?! So, even when you "have nothing to hide", answering questions only puts you at potential risk.
Which goes right into point #4. Just hope it's not too late and you haven't already given them enough of a confession to formulate a reasonable articulable suspicion.
Alex Jones exposes the Problem-Reaction-Solution paradigm being used to terrorize the american people into accepting a highly controlled and oppressive society.
Last edited on Sun Jun 29th, 2008 03:08 am by 44Brent
Just remember, the guys stopping you are just like you and me. They're trying to earn a living for themselves and their families. And they're just taking orders from their bosses. Right or wrong, these guys are just trying to keep their jobs.
So, feel free to interact with them however you like, but I suggest (and personally follow this suggestion) that when asserting your rights, you can get your point across politely. And while being polite is not REQUIRED of you, what's the harm in doing so?
I don't want my rights violated, and so long as my assertion of my rights is respected (if stopped a checkpoint and I'm waived through after refusing to answer their question), there is nothing to gain from being an @#$% to these guys.
That's not saying you should passively accept this attempted illegal infringement upon your rights, but I don't think there's anything to gain from being rude. Consider, if a cop pulls his gun on you, it's not the time to argue about constitutional law or statewide preemption. Do not resist and physically comply (still remaining silent by the way).
You can have your day in court later, when you have time to prepare, and have a lawyer at your side. Remember, asserting your right to remain silent doesn't just mean refusing to answer questions, it means REMAINING SILENT. Since nothing you say can later help you but most definitely WILL later be used against you, why make any voluntary statement, even if not in response to a question?
If you're illegally arrested while being polite, you better bet your ass you'd have been illegaly arrested if you were rude. To that end, if you consider these guys are violating your rights to begin with, in this new world order, this police state, it's possible that if you'd also be arrested for being rude with the guy, you may be able to spare yourself of spending a night in jail by being polite.
Just my humble opinion, but having gone thru these highway checkpoints a number of times, the officers were always very nice. I always joke with them and ask if they're having fun. I get an exaggerated yawn. Like someone else said, they just want a look inside the car. I'm sure there are things they would rather be doing, but orders are orders. However the 'Marine' jerk, should have been given a dose of reality.
Going thru airports are a totally different thing. I had a black lady in LAX that was taking out years of pent up hate on a number of us. If the outfit she worked for had anyone with an IQ of over 40 she'd have been jerked off the line and sent home. Permanently. Traveling thru many countries I've only seen one idiot as bad as her, and he was a Pakistani security man.
First post, still considering OC. Thought I'd share some info on this subject....
"Are you a US Citizen?" - NO
Excerpt from attached pdf
"That the government purposefully tries to deceive constitutional citizens into falsely identifying themselves through willful abuse of "words of art" into declaring themselves as statutory citizens on government forms and in legal pleadings. This causes a surrender of all constitutional rights and operates to their extreme detriment by creating lifetime indentured financial servitude and surety in relation to the government. This occurs because a statutory citizen maintains a domicile on federal territory, and the Bill of Rights does not apply on federal territory."
There is a BIG difference between a US Citizen and a US National.
skoaldiak wrote: First post, still considering OC. Thought I'd share some info on this subject....
"Are you a US Citizen?" - NO
Excerpt from attached pdf
"That the government purposefully tries to deceive constitutional citizens into falsely identifying themselves through willful abuse of "words of art" into declaring themselves as statutory citizens on government forms and in legal pleadings. This causes a surrender of all constitutional rights and operates to their extreme detriment by creating lifetime indentured financial servitude and surety in relation to the government. This occurs because a statutory citizen maintains a domicile on federal territory, and the Bill of Rights does not apply on federal territory."
There is a BIG difference between a US Citizen and a US National.
IANAL and candidly, I did not read the 98 page PDF you attached here, though I did save it in case I one night suffer from insomnia and lack other reading materials to help bore me to sleep.
So, please forgive me for posing a question that may be answered in the PDF, but just what makes you think the Bill of Rights does not apply everywhere? If I'm in Germany and an FBI agent (authorized to work in Germany) asks me questions, notwithstanding German law, I am free to exercise the rights protected by the US Constitution related to any USA matter.
If I'm in a US territory like Guam, I haven't given up my constitutional rights. Regardless of Guam law, I don't have to talk to the US Government. Having read the US constitution numerous times, I've never seen a reference to geographical limitations upon my rights. To that end, I've never seen an enumerated limitation of rights period. Even an illegal immigrant has rights guaranteed and protected by the constitution. Like it or not, illegal immigrants are "legal" until proven "illegal". Innocent until proven guilty. It's not just a catchy phrase, it's the basis for our legal system.
If there were such a limitation, it may be a basis of defense (by LE) for all rights violations in this country. "Your honor, I arrested him for being an atheist because I believed he was an illegal immigrant." Rights are not contingent upon a citizen proving his citizenship.
I recently had this debate with my brother, a state trooper from Maryland. He equated my assertion of rights to a tolerance of criminal behavior. Quite the contrary. While I want to see criminals face justice and be prosecuted for their crimes, I refuse to submit to "presenting my papers" or "proving my innocence" in the name of catching them.
I don't want to see criminals go free, but candidly, my freedom is more important to me than the incarceration of criminals. And while I have nothing to hide, you may not search my home to make sure no illegals are hiding in my basement.
I am tough on crime. If I'm on a jury and believe a defendant is guilty, you better believe I will vote for the maximum penalty.
But as a citizen, if you try to convince me I should give up my rights in the name of my safety, not only will I refuse, but I will actively resist your efforts. How is this productive?
Some terrorists objectives are killing as many people as possible. There's nothing I can do about them. But I truly believe terrorists don't want to kill me, but to change my way of life. Terrorists are not necessarily genocidal, they just disagree with my way of life......so if you are suggesting I give up that which is most important and fundamental to my way of life - my rights - aren't you effectively giving terrorists that which they seek?
Fewer than 5,000 people died as a result of the 09/11 attack upon this country. And while the loss of life is tragic, an attack upon 0.001% of the US population resulted in significant restrictions upon 100% of the US population. Not to be insensitive to those who lost their lives, but wasn't this a big win for the terrosists who orchestrated the attacks? Rather than launch nuclear missiles and kill hundreds of millions, their murder of 5,000 accomplished their goal - hundreds of millions changed their way of life ----
Just this week I flew home from a visit with my family...my mother gave me a childhood Christmas ornament - a globe filled with glitter. Unfortunately it was also filled with more than 3.2oz of water and was therefore restricted. By murdering 5,000 people nearly 7 years ago, terrorists forced me to make a choice as to whether TSA should trash my childhood memory or inconvenience me by making me leave the secure area, check my bag, and then wait for my checked bag at my destination. My wife convinced me of the latter, but what a silly decision I was forced to make! It wasn't the people who died that was the target of those terrorists, but rather those who survived.
I firmly believe that the current "War on Terror" has a drastic flaw. It seems US government is singularly focused on protecting my "life". But honestly, if the government isn't working to protect my life AND my WAY OF LIFE, haven't the terrorists already won? I don't want to die, but I don't want to live in a world where my life requires me to give up my WAY of life. Look at a bank robber. Shoot one hostage to prove you're willing to shoot the other 50 hostages. Terrorists killed 5,000 people to hold the other 300,000,000 people hostage and to give up their rights, their way of life. If I'm right, they succeeded.
Anyone who's studied war, or even history, knows that to dominate your enemy, you needn't destroy your enemy, you simply destroy their ability or will. If the objective of terrorists was to change the lives of 300,000,000 Americans, they didn't need to kill 300,000,000 people, just convince them to give up that which the terrorists oppose. Next time you go to an airport and your bottle of water is confiscated, forget about the bottle of water and instead consider the rights and freedoms you've lost....in the name of keeping you "safe".
Just try to be friendly bud. 
Let's apply the same to terrorists, gang members, and hardened criminals. "Hi. Are you a member of Al-Qaida?...Ok. You may now board the airplane."
That reminds me of this skit: George Carlin - Airport Security (NSFW) 
