Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 2
Yamato

Citizen of Israel vs Nazi Checkpoint

599 posts in this topic

Id like to point out yet again that:

1. He wasnt prevented from freely moving around, as he ended up driving away through the checkpoint, did he not?

2. No one asked him to show his papers proving he's an american citizen.

You're still trying to turn this into something it's not, and its not going to work, Yamato. Most people here are rational enough to see the video for what it is.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The officer has to take what the man says at face value. If he says he's a citizen of Israel he has to assume that it is the Sovereign nation of Israel. Especially when asked multiple times. 'Are you a US Citizen' and he says he's a citizen of israel.

But is it impossible to have a double citizenship?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Possible double citizenship and officer's use of common sense that the man is jerking around after he takes the bible?

Law Enforcement Officers are expected to be up to speed on theological pedantry?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Law Enforcement Officers are expected to be up to speed on theological pedantry?

You know the answer to that. But the off-chance he had both Israeli & US citizenships, official and all... leaving religion aside there. My point is, even if he says he's a citizen of one country, does it have to make him automatically a non-citizen of another (US) even if it's the most likely case? You can assume, but cant know based on that unless it's impossible to have both citizenships.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You know the answer to that. But the off-chance he had both Israeli & US citizenships, official and all... leaving religion aside there. My point is, even if he says he's a citizen of one country, does it have to make him automatically a non-citizen of another (US) even if it's the most likely case? You can assume, but cant know based on that unless it's impossible to have both citizenships.

if he said he was a citizen of Israel, then it would be incumbent on him to demonstrate that he had official permission to be in the U.S. So by telling them that, for purposes of being a smart Alec, he gave them a perfect right to request him to pull over so they could check that.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You know the answer to that. But the off-chance he had both Israeli & US citizenships, official and all... leaving religion aside there. My point is, even if he says he's a citizen of one country, does it have to make him automatically a non-citizen of another (US) even if it's the most likely case? You can assume, but cant know based on that unless it's impossible to have both citizenships.

If he had both a US and Israeli citizenship, then the answer to the officer's question would have been "Yes, I am a US citizen".

Its not so much about whether he actual is or isnt a US citizen, because we know from our perspective he is. Its about whether the officers knew he was a citizen. They asked a question, and that lead to a situation which warranted further investigation.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Humans dont always act as you'd expect, they can be difficult for no good reason and I dont like that kinda thing, but that doesn't mean I can't assume no one would behave that way towards me. It'd be intolerant of me. I dont have to like it, I dont have to let it fly all the time, but I can't help it either if someone decides to be a jackass to me or has a reason to be obscure or beat around the bush. It has to be spelled out I guess. This can concern any situation, but in this case the double citizenship thing.

I still regard his cause important, and while he seems to have a habit of being an ass about it, he does make it clear what he's there for, doesn't he? With clear words, and he does bother to go through all that, spend his time there like that. It's what you'd call demanding. Demanding your cause be heard and acknowledged more. A demonstration. I dont think it's the best method to go around these things, but it has potential. And it can have an influence on lawmaking, as laws are adjusted in accordance to how well they work in practise and how well the public receives them. For example, the alcohol prohibition law didn't work too well in practise and was ill-received by a lot of the public, thus it became revoked. More due to it's impracticality overall, making more problems than what good it brought when it was there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, they dont always act as you'd expect. Regardless, there are repercussions for peoples actions. If the person had said "No, I'm not a US citizen", would the officers' reaction been justified in your mind?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yup, there are. But those repercussions dont have to stop you. It's a choise. If he had said "no, I'm not an US citizen", then yeah, I think he would had made it more clear and more justified. In a practical level it's the same yeah, but it's a fundamental flaw if a system discourages law enforcement officers and citizens who deal with them act impractically, flaw in a system. I've learned not to always grab at the first most obvious choise that stands out, if it's not a life-and-death matter or a fast-decision situation. Can understand officers making their decisions quickly as they can, but due to the flawed system they shouldn't jump conclusions but play by the book. What if a citizen with double citizenship did drive through the checkpoint and had a "slow day", trouble speaking his mind though being a native?

I think you can see a bottom line here. You seem to disagree with his right to remain silent and I can see why and I can agree with the reason but it ends there in my part. If you disagree with his right to remain silent even when being asked a question there's no good reason to not answer, like are you a citizen of US, then how about you at least vote for someone who would revoke that right? The saying "I have right for this and that" is I think misleading, because as you pointed out there are actions and consequences when it comes to law. So more appropriately, maybe there ought to be consequences for obstructing police officer's work by not answering simple questions, but that would precede those answer could not be used against you.

I'm not sure how things work here in Finland, haven't verified, but I think we have here a compilation of what's been said at the interrigation, and the suspect or witness will either sign or not sign that compilation. Compilation, all things written down about what's been said. Hearsay is hearsay anyhow here so I think it's more an appropriate form of handling things, even if it might be less flexible towards witnesses. Being less flexible allows less slithering and crookery on both sides, even if it can be rigid and harsh. Judges and board members will make the final decisions anyhow and the scale of punishments is relatively wide I think so it fits.

And, you can probably see the usefulness of this video now. That you live in a system which is impractical, the guy's pointing that out for you. As an inhabitant of a country with different system (one I've not experienced first-hand but have heard of from people who experienced it), I think people in US ought to pay some serious thought to your system and stop holding on to every single right as if it was a loss of something holy, because ultimately it's compromises, trades between rights and responsibilities, balancing things out. The law shouldn't be a jungle business it is there, but clear.

Edited by Mikko-kun

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But is it impossible to have a double citizenship?

Yes it is possible but that does not play a part in the OP Video, there is no evidence of it and LEO have to use the facts known and the fact is known that he states he is Israeli.

~Thanato

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yup, there are. But those repercussions dont have to stop you. It's a choise. If he had said "no, I'm not an US citizen", then yeah, I think he would had made it more clear and more justified. In a practical level it's the same yeah, but it's a fundamental flaw if a system discourages law enforcement officers and citizens who deal with them act impractically, flaw in a system. I've learned not to always grab at the first most obvious choise that stands out, if it's not a life-and-death matter or a fast-decision situation. Can understand officers making their decisions quickly as they can, but due to the flawed system they shouldn't jump conclusions but play by the book. What if a citizen with double citizenship did drive through the checkpoint and had a "slow day", trouble speaking his mind though being a native?

But thats why they asked him more questions is it not?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And, you can probably see the usefulness of this video now. That you live in a system which is impractical, the guy's pointing that out for you. As an inhabitant of a country with different system (one I've not experienced first-hand but have heard of from people who experienced it), I think people in US ought to pay some serious thought to your system and stop holding on to every single right as if it was a loss of something holy, because ultimately it's compromises, trades between rights and responsibilities, balancing things out. The law shouldn't be a jungle business it is there, but clear.

Indeed, I've often said that a lot of people seem to tend to see the Constitution and all that as like holy texts, which it would be sacrilege to dare to suggest that perhaps what applied 200 years ago or more may not be entirely appropriate now, and that even those precious Amendments admitted as much, but even they (and this is the ironic bit) are regarded as holy texts themselves, and can never be amended themselves, nor dare anyone suggest that they might be outdated themselves now.

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes it is possible but that does not play a part in the OP Video, there is no evidence of it and LEO have to use the facts known and the fact is known that he states he is Israeli.

~Thanato

Yeah, it's an odd-chance you wouldn't think of really, and would assume those few who had would say so if it mattered. That's how it ought to go in practise. How it plays a part, is it's a possibility cops would do well to be aware of in case of the oddest of cases, even if it's more of a technicality. I dont see why they couldn't/shouldn't think of the possibility he was an Israeli citizen who didn't want to reveal a double citizenship until the bible came to picture, it was a joke from there on, and there's different opinions on how that affected the value of what he did.

But thats why they asked him more questions is it not?

Yes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We seem to be getting stuck on the citizen of Israel bit, distorting the entire message of the video by adding in extracurricular words like "the Sovereign state of Israel". If someone actually thinks that the sovereign state of Israel that exists today is the same thing that's written about in the Bible, I don't know what to say to such a person. Maybe make an earnest attempt to learn the differences between the sovereign state of Israel and what's written in the Bible because one has nothing to do with the other.

People who don't understand what the value is in the OP video probably cannot visualize a scenario when they would ever not want to talk to police officers about something they did, or were doing, or had to do to save the life of a loved one, or themselves, or their families, or best friends, and found themselves on the receiving end of a federal goon doing another on-street interview for petty reasons, or in the case of this video no reason whatsoever. "He was there" is no reason for suspicion. Being some arbitrary distance away from the politically undesirable brown people to the south doesn't make every US citizen a suspect in the Land of the Free.

If people can't even creatively visualize using their rights in their own life, how are they intellectually capable of acknowledging and accepting someone else doing it in theirs? And that's the pattern this discussion has taken. When the outright denials subsided it became a personal mud-throwing contest about why someone who is personally disagreeable to someone else shouldn't have rights. It's these people who are so out of tune with American rights, they can't even imagine a case where asserting those rights would be appropriate. What's more important to them is pointing out Pastor Anderson's character flaws, just because he happens to be asserting his rights and doing it successfully. The point is, if thousands more people did just what Anderson does, our rights to privacy, freedom from unwarranted searches, right to remain silent, freedom of expression, freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom to travel the country unmolested would not be violated. When we find ourselves under the government microscope, wherever and however that occurs, we won't incriminate ourselves as suspicious characters just for refusing to cooperate.

Someone willing to throw out the most precious parts of the US Constitution for any reason, particularly over emotional responses seeming to judge someone's rights by the measure of their personal character, their personal opinions about someone else's character they've never met, prove what they're really made of where rights are concerned. The laundry list of insults thrown at Anderson here is a long one. Fortunately none of that third class rhetoric took away his rights, and that fact might wind up being the most important take-home message that this discussion yields. Even if someone is annoying, even if someone is Christian, even if someone believes something that's written in the Holy Bible and takes it literally, even if a statist actually believes that asserting one's rights is "dumb, idiot, stupid, jackass", the Constitution doesn't get thrown in the trash by those who think that guy doesn't deserve to enjoy Constitutionality and the rule of law in his own life.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Id like to point out yet again that:

1. He wasnt prevented from freely moving around, as he ended up driving away through the checkpoint, did he not?

2. No one asked him to show his papers proving he's an american citizen.

You're still trying to turn this into something it's not, and its not going to work, Yamato. Most people here are rational enough to see the video for what it is.

Nonsense. You're outright lying here, do you even care?

1. He was stopped. If you can deny that, gravity might as well point up and not down.

2. They asked him to show his papers proving he was a citizen of somewhere, or immigration papers showing he was an immigrant.

You can keep lying, but to give you every benefit of the doubt I possibly can, it sounds like you might not have even watched the video yet and you're just making oblivious statements about what occurs there based on who knows what.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes.

The reason they had to ask him more questions had nothing to do with why they suspected him to pull him over in the first place, because they had no reason to suspect him of anything to pull him over in the first place. "It's a checkpoint" doesn't excuse that, when the checkpoint IS that.

It all came from the premeditated assertion of his rights in this case referring to his Biblical ties to Israel. These goons and their IQ problems should be checked. they should be confused, they should be asked questions that leave their jaws hanging open, the recipients of their unconstitutional policies should exercise their rights. The principle goes beyond whatever little tidbits someone finds disagreeable about the minutia in the video. If there were a million videos they'd have a million differences that make them all unique, and the rights people enjoy under the rule of law will remain.

Indeed, I've often said that a lot of people seem to tend to see the Constitution and all that as like holy texts, which it would be sacrilege to dare to suggest that perhaps what applied 200 years ago or more may not be entirely appropriate now, and that even those precious Amendments admitted as much, but even they (and this is the ironic bit) are regarded as holy texts themselves, and can never be amended themselves, nor dare anyone suggest that they might be outdated themselves now.

Don't like it? Amend it. It's been amended before. Are we now supposed to shirk the rule of law entirely and not even acknowledge the Constitution anymore when we decide how our government is supposed to treat us? That's the implication you've been making here ever since you showed up and from an American standpoint, it's disgusting. Full of complaints, name-calling, extracurricular rhetoric that misses the point, and not a shred of respect for the US Constitution. Wherever you actually live, whether it's Leningrad written in Russian as you've had on your profile before or somewhere else, you owe a lot of gratitude to the US Constitution and the wave of freedom that has swept over Europe in the past few centuries whether you know it or not. Maybe you find Communism more palatable than freedom perhaps? The old Soviet Union do it for you?

I could just have easily put "Soviet Checkpoint" in the subject line and it would have been just as accurate. Getting you back to the big picture: This is liberty vs. tyranny. On the front line, civilly, constitutionally and non-violently exercised.

Edited by Yamato
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

if he said he was a citizen of Israel, then it would be incumbent on him to demonstrate that he had official permission to be in the U.S. So by telling them that, for purposes of being a smart Alec, he gave them a perfect right to request him to pull over so they could check that.

If an agent is too dumb to understand the difference between the Biblical Israel and the "sovereign state of Israel" that's a lousy reason for the motorist to give up their rights.

Based on the agents own responses, their job gives them "the perfect right" to pull people for whatever reason they want. They don't even need a reason to suspect someone if they're too stupid to even provide one when asked.

He was stopped already. To imply that he wasn't stopped is not only in blind denial of the video, it also implies that when you're stopped and an agent walks over and starts asking you questions, you can just hit the gas pedal and continue on your way! That is not true.

Let's get back to the law here and understand the rule of law through the combinations and permutations we're needlessly introducing here: While agents can (and will) stop you; you don't have to answer their questions. Capish?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If an agent is too dumb to understand the difference between the Biblical Israel and the "sovereign state of Israel" that's a lousy reason for the motorist to give up their rights.

I really do think you're just trying sophistry to try to pretend that any Low enforcement agent should be expected to know that a "Citizen of Israel" is an abstruse biblical reference.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

but thanks for this compliment.

" Full of complaints, name-calling, extracurricular rhetoric that misses the point, and not a shred of respect for the US Constitution."

If I had room I'd put in in my profile thimgumijig.

i think it pretty much proves just what I was saying about the reaction if one dares to question someone's holy text. It immediately becomes personal.

Edited by Colonel Rhuairidh

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I really do think you're just trying sophistry to try to pretend that any Low enforcement agent should be expected to know that a "Citizen of Israel" is an abstruse biblical reference.

Small potatoes to the big picture. We can have no Constitution-free zones in this country.

An American isn't a suspect just because he drove too close to Canada wtf. Or got too close to the brown people God forbid.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I posted videos of immigration checkpoints and instead of just making Christian comments with the anti-Constitutional goons -which is better treatment than they deserve- I should have included the dictionary definition of the word Immigration.

Not only is it blatantly illegal for the govt to do this, it's past absurd that driving in a car a hundred miles from the border is equivalent to the suspicion of immigrating. I don't know what the laws are in other countries but in the US, just because you have a badge, you cannot just come up to an American for whatever or no reason and ask them for their papers. It doesn't matter what we call it, and it doesn't matter if Anderson is an idiot for playing these guards like a violin either.

In the US the legal presumption needs to be that law enforcement assume we're all Americans - unless they have a credible reason not to.

"Your car is dirty." is not a credible reason.

Crossing the border is a credible reason. Immigration.

If I'm at the border and some guy with a patch on his shirt says he needs to check some ID for an immigration checkpoint I would say "Of course you are" and hand him my ID.

Making a contemporary accurate reference to Israel, I don't want the US to look like Israel. With fences and checkpoints and barriers to entry of all kinds. Unless everyone is happy we're the United States of Imprisonment, and prefer to continue to provide clown entertainment, especially to Europeans who love to dole out the "land of the free" jokes.

One brave individual decides to stand up and do something about it and a five alarm fire breaks out. Really?

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But Yamato not once did they ask to see his 'papers' they asked if he was American. They were going to take his word but he decided to be a dick and lie. He said he was from Israel, which despite the fact he is a religious man they have to take as 'he is israeli.' They let him go without charge or detention. They just decided he wasn't worth the trouble even though they were well with in their authority to detain him.

He was just being a dick for the fun of it plain and simple.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Whyever has this been brought up yet again?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But Yamato not once did they ask to see his 'papers' they asked if he was American. They were going to take his word but he decided to be a dick and lie. He said he was from Israel, which despite the fact he is a religious man they have to take as 'he is israeli.' They let him go without charge or detention. They just decided he wasn't worth the trouble even though they were well with in their authority to detain him.

He was just being a dick for the fun of it plain and simple.

Oh how do you know they were going to take his word? Do you have any video evidence of this at other checkpoints? Do you have any evidence at all? Present it here, please.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Whyever has this been brought up yet again?

Because fighting the trend that's turning the US into a country of goddamned prison cells, fences and checkpoints is a very frigging important thing to do. Why don't you ask that question of "Guns Save Lives Thread" from freaking March.

What the hell are Americans going to put up with after the next 9/11 terrorist attack? How far down on our hands and knees for this **** of a foreign policy do we need to get, before you get the point?

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 2

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.