A True American!

[Kilomph]

Damn Ferdinand, you're more of an American than most here. And yes, Blunts a complete moron.

I think it's safe to say:

/thread.

[Ferdinand]

exactly. I would have had a problem with it if the guy was being totally respectful and THEN they fucked with him.

You guys have your heads you so far up your asses, it's amazing.

You think this is just a matter of respect?!?

If someone gets raped, it's only a crime to you if the victim was being respectful before getting raped? But if the victim "asked for it" by being disrespectful, then it's all okay if (s)he gets raped?!?

Your Constitutional rights apply equally to ALL Americans, whether you're black or white or even Hispanic, male of female, polite or even a disrespectful dick. You are ALL entitled to the same rights. Your law enforcement officers are bound to operate under those rules. The moment things cease to operate like this, that's when anarchy starts.

If it boils down to a mere contest of who is showing respect, then the guys carrying the machine guns and wearing the swastika uniforms are always going to win at that game.

Someday soon, they'll starting knocking on your door, asking your "permission" to search your house. Are you going to meekly step aside? You'll say yes sir, sure sir, I'm an American citizen with nothing to hide, therefore I have no objection to you searching my house, or my car.

After you have volunteered your consent to a search it'll be too late for you if they find the porn stored on your computer, and you'll get arrested because of some right-wing fanatical religious leader who has decided that his Bible makes it illegal for you to view porn.

Your neighbours, hiding behind their curtains, will wonder, when the nazis asked your permission to search your belongings, why didn't you simply say, "no"? Didn't you know that unless they have probable cause or a warrant to search your car, it's still your Constitutional right to say, "no".

Once all Americans have been conditioned to believe that it's "disrespectful" to stand up for your Constitutional rights, then you're truly fucked. By then it'll be too late.

Evidently, it's already too late.

Apparently everyone already believes that only criminals ever insist on having their Constitutional rights respected. If you've done nothing wrong, have nothing to hide, then why would you need to ask the law enforcement types to respect your rights. Obviously you wouldn't need a lawyer to speak for you unless you're guilty of something. If they ask for your permission to search your car, obviously you must be a criminal if you refuse to give consent to a search. And therefore, since you're obviously a criminal, and a disrespectful dick to boot, suddenly the Homeland Security goons think it's okay to drag you from your car?

Once everyone has accepted this to be normal behaviour, it won't be long at all before the rest of you sheep meekly accept to sit at the back of the bus, because the front of the bus will be reserved exclusively for Homeland Security officers. Anyone with enough balls to question such unfair treatment, the very rare brave Rosa Parks amongst you, will be given the treatment suggested by your champion Blunt and "killed on the spot".

The remainder of you worms won't mind being enslaved like this, because as long as you're always respectful to your superiors, clicking your heels and saying "Sieg Heil", as long as you haven't broken any laws like trying to sit at the front of the bus when you're proper place is at the back, you'll have nothing at all to worry about. Everything will be just fine. Really it will.

[joshh]

It's not a double standard because it is not applied to the same type of law enforcement,

It's the law and it's being violated by our government, why does that not sink in for you?

This was not at the border, this was on a public road.

THAT'S WHY IT'S A DOUBLE STANDARD. "Types" of law enforcement....please explain would you.
So it's ok to do at the border but not ok to do it miles from the border. Ok Mr. Slippery slope.

[CorvallisBMW]

exactly. I would have had a problem with it if the guy was being totally respectful and then they fucked with him.

qft

[uofom3]

it's acceptable when the guy is a fuck trying to provoke exactly what happened
and if you can't see it, well, ........

exactly. I would have had a problem with it if the guy was being totally respectful and THEN they fucked with him.

[gwb72tii]

it's acceptable when the guy is a fuck trying to provoke exactly what happened
and if you can't see it, well, ........

[Ferdinand]

The fourth amendment prevents law enforcement from searching a car without cause.

Agreed.

There are circumstances the courts have upheld that give law enforcement the ability to do their jobs, i.e. if getting a warrant would be so time-consuming that it would allow evidence to escape the cop has a right to search your car. (If you smell like weed and get pulled over, the cop has the right to search your car based on the smell of weed on you.) It's called "exigent circumstances" I believe.

Also agreed.

However, in your example the car first had to have been pulled over for some other offence. Without probable cause, they have no authority to stop you in the first place.

The Homeland Security officers are not "cops". Their mandate, as immigration officials, is to search for illegal aliens. They can stop you if they suspect you of being an illegal alien, or of transporting illegal aliens. In the absence of probable cause, they need your consent to detain you. If they have neither probable cause, nor your consent, then they have no legal right to detain you.

In each of Terry's videos he is stopped by the Homeland Security officers for no reason at all. They politely ask him, a thousand times, if he's an American citizen. He responds by asking them why he's being detained. Eventually, they always let him go.

They already know he's an American citizen. Despite the fact that he has never agreed to show them ID, they already know his name. They ran his licence plates to find out who he is. And yet they still insist on playing this same game every time.

Also, his Miranda rights were not violated either, which is what I think you were getting at with the 4th amendment stuff. He was not interrogated. (He can only incriminate himself if he is being questioned with the purpose of accusing him with a crime. There's a list of 3 circumstances that must be met. I don't remember them well enough to post here, but look them up.)

Hey, I'm just a dumb Canadian. Why should I have to look up your laws for you. If you're trying to present a case here, look them up yourself!

The point is, he is not required to give any answers at all. The officers are required to prove that he has done something wrong. Innocent until proven guilty. By stopping him, they are implying that he's guilty of something, and inviting him to defend himself. Produce evidence that you're an American and we'll let you pass.

That's the sort of thing that your Constitution is supposed to prevent.

If they have no probable cause for stopping him, and he declines to answer questions and ignores their repeated invitations to submit to a voluntary search, then they have absolutely no right to detain him.

That is your Constitutional right. That is what it says in your Constitution, which your government is sworn to uphold. Your government, and your Homeland Security forces, are supposed to protect you from invasion by illegal aliens, like the Taliban, whose goal it is to overthrow your Constitution. Instead, you have government sponsored goon squads operating within your own borders who seem to be doing an even better job than the Taliban of terrorizing your citizens.

Lastly, the checkpoint is necessary to defend the borders from invasion, as set out in Section 4 of the constitution. I find it funny to think that people assume the entire physical border is protectable, and that once something/someone crosses the border they should have nothing to worry about.

Oh puhlease. This guy drives the same road to work and back every day. He never crosses the border. The checkpoint is 40 miles from the border. Why would Homeland Security think this man is "invading" your country?

Watch the other videos. Yes, he's being a dick about it. Yes, he could simply surrender his Constitutional rights as an American and voluntarily answer their stupid questions. Yes, he could also invite them into his vehicle to paw through his belongings and search his shorts everyday.

But, as an American he is supposed to be protected by your Constitution from such ridiculous abuse. Open your eyes. He is not the one invading your country. The Homeland Security goons are the ones invading your country.

If you're all so sure that Homeland Security has the right to detain and arrest someone simply for being a non-cooperative dick, don't you think they would have arrested this guy by now, or as Blunt suggested, shot him on the spot? I mean come on, the guy is practically begging for trouble. If they had any excuse at all, don't you think the officers would have long ago dragged him from his car and given him a well-deserved attitude adjustment?

Watch these other two clips involving other people.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=msFEj-UBU9Q

"If you're not an American citizen, that makes him harboring you a felon."

Huh? What the fuck is that supposed to mean?

Let's say I and my family are driving to Florida for a mid-winter break. Assuming I haven't already been placed on some blacklist for my comments here, let's say we are successfully permitted to cross the border from Canada into your charming country.

Now I could be stopped again anywhere up to 100 miles inside your borders and harassed by these goons? How am I, a Canadian citizen, supposed to reply to an idiotic statement like the one made by the officer in the clip above?

My car has Ontario licence plates. Not one of us in the car is an American citizen. Does that mean I am harbouring felons? What a crock of shit.

Okay, here's a much scarier video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UrFRObbSDDo

"Would you mind shutting the camera please?"
"You mind rolling down the window please?"
"Can you shut off the vehicle please ma'am?"
"If you don't mind shutting off the vehicle please, and come out please real quick."
"There should be no reason why the normal person wouldn't allow us to run checks on their identification to see if they happen to have a criminal history or anything else like that."
"Is there reason to believe that we do?"
"There is as of right now because you're not being cooperative."
...
"There's no difference that tells me as of right now that you're any different than anybody else that we've caught, that we have found drugs in the trunk, because they've been uncooperative. There is nothing for me right now to believe that you are no different than them."
"Allow us to run your checks, misunderstanding's over."
"If you're going to impede me from doing this, I'm going to take you out of the vehicle."
"There's nothing right now that tells me that you're not a criminal."
"Do I have to step out of the car?"
"Please step out of the car."
"In order allow me to search inside here..."
"I am not allowing you to search inside here."
"I have nothing right now that tells me you're either telling the truth or evading the truth."
"Would you please step out of the car sir, if not I'm going to bring you out of the car."

Note that during the entire confrontation, the officer never once says the guy is required to cooperate, or required to step out of the car. Because they have no probable cause for making the stop, the officer instead must obtain voluntary consent.

As the officer forcibly drags the man from the car he continues to say, "Please step out the car sir, I'd appreciate it. Okay thank you very much."

And with that the Gestapo has forcibly obtained "consent" to search the car, seize the video camera, and whatever else.

Since when is it considered acceptable for anyone to be arbitrarily pulled over and forced to prove that you're not a criminal?

And please, don't say that as long as you're not a criminal then you have nothing to worry about. Every time someone voices such an inane opinion, your democracy dies another small death as it continues its downward slide to becoming just another Taliban state.

[mrsleeve]

ok I could live with a few meaning less than 10 miles not 40 to 100 miles in. Shit the boarder patrol frequently harasses people in the bus and train stations in nearly every major city in the country for ID.

I think these road blocks in side that 10mi buffer would be acceptable and put forth all the wasted resources that they are using well away form the boarder along the actual boarder we would not be having this debate

[Ral]

I fully understand that some officers of the law take things too far, and I fully agree with you that the constitution should be guarded by normal citizens. (I'm sure you can also understand that by exercising your right to refuse a search, it might frustrate police officers who are trying to do their job. You were well within your rights, and they did let you go, but if you were the officer you might have been upset as well.) However, I don't think these are unconstitutional. They are well within their jurisdiction and are executing their duties professionally and in a manner in accordance with their mission. Being from Arizona, I can fully understand why they would set up this roadblock on a road a few miles inland, as it is most likely a primary artery used during the border crossings. If this was in Nebraska or Kansas, I would feel differently. If you want to complain about unconstitutional laws, the banning of radar detectors in some states is in direct violation of FCC regulations for example.

[mrsleeve]

If you smell like weed then thats reasonable suspicion that you are doing some thing illegal. If you are driving down the road then and doing nothing wrong and everything is in order law enforcement has no reason to stop you, question you , or bother you in any way, Not to say they dont just pull you over any way and make some shit up, I know I have had it happen on several occasions, and have used my rights on one such occasion as well.

short story, I was heading home at 3am form work had just worked 21 hours, was covered with mud an dirt and did not smell real good. Got pulled over for speeding ( I was maybe 3 over the limit as the road I am is heavily patrolled) by a cop traveling in the opposite direction he turned around an pulled me over. I was never told how fast I was going I gave the officer my papers that he requested, blew into his little breathlizer and he was shocked that it was 0.0. He comes back give me my shit an no ticket, but askes to search the truck, at this point I told him politely that I would not cosent to a search with out a warant. He said "well you must have some thing to hide then" I told him that I did not an that I will be right here napping till he got a warant and rolled the window up. I sat ther for about 25 mins while about 3 other cops showed up, then the 1st one showed up at my winodow and in a pissy manner told me that I could leave.

The point of the story is that he no reasonable suspicion to get a warrant other than my non consent to his search. That in itself is not enough, was I pissed about getting harassed after a very long day at work yes did it piss me off that I was stoped out of the blue for doing nothing wrong other than being out at 3am of damm right I was. But I as not about to let someone search myself or my truck with out the legal authority to do so as that one of the great things about where we live. We have law enforcement, its their job to to up hold the laws, not run around with gestapo like powers and do what ever they feel like at any time, or toss people in jail for no reason other than the officers whim.

These check points are in a very gray area when it come to violating the Constitution, while the guy in the video is a idiot for poking a badger with a spoon, hes also a model american citizen, this is the type of civil disobedience that the founding fathers wanted all amercans to participate in. Keeping the Government in check and from over stepping its bounds is the job of all citizens, but sadly has been lost in the last 200 years and it will be th d own fall of this great land and the largest symbol of freedom in the history of the world will have fallen.

[Ral]

The fourth amendment prevents law enforcement from searching a car without cause. There are circumstances the courts have upheld that give law enforcement the ability to do their jobs, i.e. if getting a warrant would be so time-consuming that it would allow evidence to escape the cop has a right to search your car. (If you smell like weed and get pulled over, the cop has the right to search your car based on the smell of weed on you.) It's called "exigent circumstances" I believe.

Also, his Miranda rights were not violated either, which is what I think you were getting at with the 4th amendment stuff. He was not interrogated. (He can only incriminate himself if he is being questioned with the purpose of accusing him with a crime. There's a list of 3 circumstances that must be met. I don't remember them well enough to post here, but look them up.)

Lastly, the checkpoint is necessary to defend the borders from invasion, as set out in Section 4 of the constitution. I find it funny to think that people assume the entire physical border is protectable, and that once something/someone crosses the border they should have nothing to worry about.

[mrsleeve]

hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha I love it, thank you ferdinand.

[Ferdinand]

it is not unconstitutional to set up a roadblock to enforce the law, such as border enforcement. there is no constitutional right to not answer a law enforcement officer's questions without being arrested. all of these matters have been adjudicated by the courts. the fact that this guy would not cooperate with a law enforcement officer in the execution of his duties as set forth in law is why the guy was arrested. he does not have any constitutional right to non-cooperation in enforcement of law.

I was really hoping you could point out to me exactly where in your Constitution it says anything remotely like that. Evidently you are unable, otherwise you would have done so.

So allow me, a mere Canadian, to take a stab at it.

Amendment IV

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
--------

Unreasonable search and seizure seems to be what's happening here. There is no probable cause, certainly none supported by oath or affirmation, no warrant, nothing of the sort.

one does have all the rights enumerated in the constitution only in specific circumstances. silence, non-cooperation with the law is anarchy.

Amendment V

"No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."
--------

Illegal entry to a country obviously is prohibited. If you try to enter a country illegally you should expect to be turned away or arrested at the border. Citizens of your country not crossing an international border but simply minding their own business while travelling within the country should not be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law, nor should they be compelled to be a witness against themselves.

the fact that this guy would not cooperate with a law enforcement officer in the execution of his duties as set forth in law is why the guy was arrested.

Have you actually watched any of the guy's videos?

There are more than just one. Listen carefully to what everyone is saying in those videos.

The Homeland Security officer only ever "asks" Terry to roll down his window. The officer then only ever "asks" him what his citizenship is. They know damn well that they don't have the right to force him to roll down his window, nor to force him to answer any questions whatsoever.

They are only permitted to detain and question you if they have "probable cause" to believe you have committed an offence, or if you have volunteered your "consent" to be searched.

If they "ask" you to roll down the window, and you voluntarily do so, that means you have consented to their request.

If they "ask" you, "would you mind opening your door and stepping out of the car please", and you do so, that means you have consented to their request.

If they "ask" you to please open the trunk of your car sir, and you do so, that means you have expressly given your consent to have the trunk searched.

However, if you choose to assert your 4th and 5th Amendment Constitutional rights and choose not to give your consent to an illegal search with no probable cause, then the Homeland Security officers have no right to detain you further.

It is obvious when watching the videos that the officers know damn well they are on shaky legal ground and that the author of these videos is perfectly within his rights not to give his consent.

the fact that this guy would not cooperate with a law enforcement officer in the execution of his duties as set forth in law is why the guy was arrested.

The officers repeatedly deny that Terry is being detained. But they implythat he is not free to leave until he has answered their questions about his citizenship. In each case though, he is eventually allowed to leave without having responded to any of their question. He is not arrested. Ergo, he obviously has not broken any laws, otherwise he would have been arrested.

this guy was not singled out, all drivers were stopped.

Ding, ding, ding! Thank you. No further calls please. We have a winner!

That is precisely the problem here. They should be detaining illegal aliens at the border. They should be stopping people for which they have "probable cause" for suspecting them of smuggling illegal aliens across the border.

Instead, they are stopping ALL vehicles passing on this road, 40 miles away from the border, and interrogating their occupants.

The Homeland Security people, dressed up in slick uniforms with badges, flak jackets, guns, and bright lights, rely completely on their Gestapo tactics to intimidate people into voluntarily submitting to searches of their vehicles. In the process they hope to flush out smugglers, drug traffickers, illegal aliens, paedophiles, and any other Americans as stupid as you who clearly haven't taken the time to study their Constitutional rights.

And when someone actually has the guts to stand up to such an obvious abuse of power, and declare that this just ain't right, of course we can count on the usual idiots in this forum to step right up and be the first to post insightful responses like, "he should be killed on the spot". I've come to expect no less from a comedian like Blunt, but frankly, the warped opinions of so many of you other upstanding Americans are quite disturbing.

[a_thomasmr23]

In France, you can be stopped at anytime for checking your identity. If you don't have your official papers on you (papiers d'identité), you get arrested and go to jail until somebody can prove who you are. You can be checked out several times per day, especially if you look arabic or black. Cops can arrest anyone, without any reason (they don't need a reason), and you are guilty until you prove your innocence.

Is that what you guys are ready to accept in the US, on the false pretext that it is for your own good?

For the record you can be stop for id anytime in the US too and you are required to prove correct information

As soldier, personal if some starts acting like at CP they are going to get detained and search, PERIOD. Anywhere warzone US doesn't matter. You act strange like that and its a safety issue for the squad or whatever

[gwb72tii]

Please, enlighten me. Where have I misunderstood your Constitution?

Seriously, don't just tell me to go read the whole damn thing again. Point to specific paragraphs and clauses. I'm curious.

it is not unconstitutional to set up a roadblock to enforce the law, such as border enforcement. there is no constitutional right to not answer a law enforcement officer's questions without being arrested. all of these matters have been adjudicated by the courts. the fact that this guy would not cooperate with a law enforcement officer in the execution of his duties as set forth in law is why the guy was arrested. he does not have any constitutional right to non-cooperation in enforcement of law.
one does have all the rights enumerated in the constitution only in specific circumstances. silence, non-cooperation with the law is anarchy. the courts have recognized all this many times, although there are continuing circumstances that demand reinterpretation from time to time, which is the ultimate strength of our constitution.
the guy went looking for trouble, found it, and has the gumption to complain. none of his circumstances is remotely comparable to blacks being pulled over without probable cause etc. this guy was not singled out, all drivers were stopped.

the first amendment guarantees free speech. you cannot however yell fire in a theater without being arrested. even though we all benefit from our constitutional rights, there are in fact limits to those rights and how they are exercised.