Citizen of Israel vs Nazi Checkpoint

[+Paranoid Android]

Trolls are under bridges, and as it turns out, also in checkpoints. What law says he has to go to a secondary location?

From the link I gave earlier:

The United States Supreme Court ruled that Border Patrol agents may stop a vehicle at fixed checkpoints for brief questioning of its occupants even if there is no reason to believe that the particular vehicle contains illegal aliens.^[4] The Court further held that Border Patrol agents "have wide discretion" to refer motorists selectively to a secondary inspection area for additional brief questioning.

Wide discretionary powers to refer motorists to secondary inspection areas for "additional brief questioning". It's right there! I suppose that moves on to your next comment/s:

If the OP is suspicious behavior because you say so then they can name whatever behavior they want as suspicious because they say so. Someone's voice is shaky. Maybe their hand is shaking. They must have something to hide! They're awful quiet! Something doesn't seem right! They're not obeying everything I tell them to do? I'm suspicious now! Whatever, brother. That's a standard of whatever the agents think or say goes, and it pees our rights straight out the window at their pleasure.

In essence that is absolutely right. That is their job, to make sure they do their job. In the case of the video, the pastor stated he was an Israeli citizen, that is enough to be asked to move to a secondary location to ensure he has a Right to be in the country. If they are awfully quiet, if a voice is shaky or a hand is shaking, then they absolutely have "wide discretion" to move them to a secondary site. Once at this secondary site they are asked further questions - maybe a person's hand is shaking because they are a recovering alcoholic and suffering from hand tremors. Or maybe there's a boot full of explosives. Here the officers make a further appraisal, is there "probable cause" to search the vehicle? If yes, they need a warrant (warrants are issued by the Judge, the Judge has to be convinced that the warrant will hold up, or they're up for trouble). But if the person answers their questions then there isn't a problem. The brief questioning is over and they are let on their way.

So back to the pastor, he's now at the secondary location, and he's flat out refusing to answer questions. He won't say he's a US citizen, he won't say who he is, he won't even say whether he has the Right to be in the vehicle he is in. It's his Right to be silent. But it's also his Right to understand that not answering is suspicious behaviour.

You know what, I'm through with this, I've explained my position, several times. I've explained why the checkpoints are not violating your Rights as far as I can tell. And nothing you've told me or said in this thread or in this video has even begun to change my mind on that. So have fun with this, at the very least you've given me a topic to laugh at when I meet my friends at the pub on Friday night.

Edited July 23, 2013 by Paranoid Android

[Space Commander Travis]

And by the way, the rest of what you're describing here is just nonsense... provably false if you're even honest enough to watch the video and comment on what you're seeing accurately. He didn't have a DVD in hand until 9:48 of a 12:32 video. And he was just driving along, into the checkpoint. Is it the camera on his dash that's got you flustered? Well that's just too bad then isn't it?

Well, yes, he just happened to have one of his DVDs to hand, didn't he? Presumably in case he was stopped by a fan who wanted a signed copy. And yes, having a camera trained on you while you're out looking for ways to exercise your rights does indeed look very fishy. It really does all add up to the conclusion that he was looking for ways to get publicity out of it, and so reduces one's sympathy for him by a good 40%.

[Yamato]

From the link I gave earlier:

The United States Supreme Court ruled that Border Patrol agents may stop a vehicle at fixed checkpoints for brief questioning of its occupants even if there is no reason to believe that the particular vehicle contains illegal aliens.^[4] The Court further held that Border Patrol agents "have wide discretion" to refer motorists selectively to a secondary inspection area for additional brief questioning.

Wide discretionary powers to refer motorists to secondary inspection areas for "additional brief questioning". It's right there! I suppose that moves on to your next comment/s:

In essence that is absolutely right. That is their job, to make sure they do their job. In the case of the video, the pastor stated he was an Israeli citizen, that is enough to be asked to move to a secondary location to ensure he has a Right to be in the country. If they are awfully quiet, if a voice is shaky or a hand is shaking, then they absolutely have "wide discretion" to move them to a secondary site. Once at this secondary site they are asked further questions - maybe a person's hand is shaking because they are a recovering alcoholic and suffering from hand tremors. Or maybe there's a boot full of explosives. Here the officers make a further appraisal, is there "probable cause" to search the vehicle? If yes, they need a warrant (warrants are issued by the Judge, the Judge has to be convinced that the warrant will hold up, or they're up for trouble). But if the person answers their questions then there isn't a problem. The brief questioning is over and they are let on their way.

So back to the pastor, he's now at the secondary location, and he's flat out refusing to answer questions. He won't say he's a US citizen, he won't say who he is, he won't even say whether he has the Right to be in the vehicle he is in. It's his Right to be silent. But it's also his Right to understand that not answering is suspicious behaviour.

You know what, I'm through with this, I've explained my position, several times. I've explained why the checkpoints are not violating your Rights as far as I can tell. And nothing you've told me or said in this thread or in this video has even begun to change my mind on that. So have fun with this, at the very least you've given me a topic to laugh at when I meet my friends at the pub on Friday night.

Just like I'm not disputing that they can stop people and question people, I'm not disputing that they can refer people to secondary areas for questioning. They can refer to just about anything they want.

In essence that is absolutely right.

Yeah.

That is their job, to make sure they do their job.

Their job is to make sure they do their job? Well this is a failure of epic proportions based on the video evidence where they haven't made sure they did their job.

is there "probable cause" to search the vehicle? If yes, they need a warrant (warrants are issued by the Judge, the Judge has to be convinced that the warrant will hold up, or they're up for trouble).

Correct, except you don't need to put probable cause in quotes because it's a legal term not a quotation.

So back to the pastor, he's now at the secondary location, and he's flat out refusing to answer questions. He won't say he's a US citizen, he won't say who he is, he won't even say whether he has the Right to be in the vehicle he is in.

That's just not true. He doesn't flat out refuse to answer their questions. And he does say who he is. In fact, that's what the latest acne outbreak of problems from the people you're agreeing with have switched to complaining about. The right to be in the vehicle he is in? Tell me what gives us "the right to be in the vehicle that we're in". What are you implying now? That he's required to give papers that he's not even being asked for? On what authority?

But if the person answers their questions then there isn't a problem. The brief questioning is over and they are let on their way.

That's not true. Usually Anderson answers their questions, they just don't like the answers. If you say you're not a citizen, which Anderson has been falsely accused of about three times here so far, they're going to ask you for your papers. That's the next step. Except having immigration papers would be relevant for crossing the border, not for people traveling within the country. Maybe some arbitrary number of miles pulled out some bureacrat's rear end is appropriate enough for you, but you don't live here.

I don't support endless years of an inept federal government unable to secure the border so the mainstream media has to villainize people like Sheriff Arpaio on TV a hundred times a day because he's not allowed to do a policeman's job in his own state just so the federal government can make up for its own failure with these federal agents posing as police officers along with all the endless election-time rhetoric about a magic wall that never gets built. If you lived here, you'd see enough of the ruse that you'd get sick of it too. Doug Stanhope explains how asinine these immigration fanatics and their hypocritical arguments really are and makes people laugh in the process.

*snip*

Edited July 24, 2013 by Paranoid Android
Removed inappropriate video link

[Yamato]

Well, yes, he just happened to have one of his DVDs to hand, didn't he? Presumably in case he was stopped by a fan who wanted a signed copy. And yes, having a camera trained on you while you're out looking for ways to exercise your rights does indeed look very fishy. It really does all add up to the conclusion that he was looking for ways to get publicity out of it, and so reduces one's sympathy for him by a good 40%.

It looks very smart. You don't want to give liars in costumes (and all law enforcement are liars and they're allowed to lie) any excuse to pull some nonsense on you in court where it becomes a he-said she-said situation because that's not a winning strategy on how to deal with these clowns. You keep a 2nd camera on you at all times and that's how you protect yourself best when you're asserting your rights. Describe this 60% sympathy you have for him. I'd love to hear you explain it.

[Yamato]

I've explained why the checkpoints are not violating your Rights as far as I can tell. And nothing you've told me or said in this thread or in this video has even begun to change my mind on that. So have fun with this, at the very least you've given me a topic to laugh at...

Nothing? That's because you're not connecting the dots. Connect post #3, and #58, to your own statement "is there "probable cause" to search the vehicle? If yes, they need a warrant (warrants are issued by the Judge, the Judge has to be convinced that the warrant will hold up, or they're up for trouble)." So where's the search warrant? There was no warrant. You can read and understand the law well enough, why can't you apply it to the discussion? His rights were violated, it's a ridiculous spectacle of police brutality, the charges were dropped, and now they've got a lawsuit for their lies and ineptitude. Their whole story of probable cause now turns out to be consummate BS because the dog didn't alert to a dead body or anything else and why? Because there was nothing in the car to alert to.

[Yamato]

Yamato: He has the right to remain silent

Paranoid Android: If he would just answer their questions, they wouldn't suspect him of anything. I just don't see how his rights are being violated. I'm going to laugh about this at the bar with my friends.

Paranoid Android: Their job is to make sure they do their jobs.

Just doing their jobs:

Just wow.

[+Paranoid Android]

I don't support endless years of an inept federal government...

I had planned on just ignoring your last comment, I really have said everything I needed to say, but I was intrigued by this comment. I wonder, is the reason you are so against this a matter of your Rights as a citizen, or your faith in the government in which you live under? Or is it a mix of both, an (in your opinion) inept government being forced to infringe what you believe are your Rights via the Supreme Court in order to keep your country safe?

I could be wrong, I've just seen your post/s in an entirely new light now. I still don't agree with you, but now that I'm reading this, I'm wondering if I'm getting closer to your raison d'etre (at least in terms of starting this thread). And just as an aside:

So where's the search warrant? There was no warrant.

And there was no search either. End of story. Edited July 23, 2013 by Paranoid Android

[Yamato]

I had planned on just ignoring your last comment, I really have said everything I needed to say, but I was intrigued by this comment. I wonder, is the reason you are so against this a matter of your Rights as a citizen, or your faith in the government in which you live under? Or is it a mix of both, an (in your opinion) inept government being forced to infringe what you believe are your Rights via the Supreme Court in order to keep your country safe?

I could be wrong, I've just seen your post/s in an entirely new light now. I still don't agree with you, but now that I'm reading this, I'm wondering if I'm getting closer to your raison d'etre (at least in terms of starting this thread). And just as an aside:

And there was no search either. End of story.

Yes, it's my rights as a citizen and my faith in government "to keep me safe", both.

Yes there was a search, again I refer you to #58.

They tortured him and cut him up for what amounted to refusing to answer questions, even though he had a right to remain silent, which should be making it quite clear that he never had a duty to answer questions!

Then if that's not enough already (it is enough already), these agents claimed that a dog gave them probable cause, and then they claimed that probable cause gave them the right to search. Probable Cause is not a right to search. Probable Cause is a prerequisite to ASK a judge for a search warrant.

[+Paranoid Android]

Yes, it's my rights as a citizen and my faith in government "to keep me safe", both.

Ok.

Yes there was a search, again I refer you to #58.

They tortured him and cut him up for what amounted to refusing to answer questions, even though he had a right to remain silent, which should be making it quite clear that he never had a duty to answer questions!

Then if that's not enough already (it is enough already), these agents claimed that a dog gave them probable cause, and then they claimed that probable cause gave them the right to search. Probable Cause is not a right to search. Probable Cause is a prerequisite to ASK a judge for a search warrant.

Umm, ok, we must be talking of different things, I was referring to the video in your OP. The pastor who was asked to provide ID and refused to answer questions. I must have missed how this moved from that to some torture case you're referring to.

Sorry, crossed purposes,

[Yamato]

Ok.

Umm, ok, we must be talking of different things, I was referring to the video in your OP. The pastor who was asked to provide ID and refused to answer questions. I must have missed how this moved from that to some torture case you're referring to.

Sorry, crossed purposes,

NP. You said "nothing you've told me or said in this thread", and my response in #80 followed.

[+Paranoid Android]

NP. You said "nothing you've told me or said in this thread", and my response in #80 followed.

Just to be clear, a Moderators #80 is not necessarily the same as your #80. We can still see deleted posts, of which a few happened here, so whatever deleted amount has happened in between so a discrepancy arises. I haven't stringently read every post of yours in this thread. I've only realy dealt with our interaction with each other. If you brought up an issue that was directly related to Immigration Checkpoints in which someone was tortured, could you please repost it?

[Space Commander Travis]

Yamato: He has the right to remain silent

Paranoid Android: If he would just answer their questions, they wouldn't suspect him of anything. I just don't see how his rights are being violated. I'm going to laugh about this at the bar with my friends.

Paranoid Android: Their job is to make sure they do their jobs.

Just doing their jobs:

Just wow.

Godwin fail.

[Thanato]

Driving is not a right, it is a privilege. If you are behind the wheel of a motor vehicle and asked questions (such as drivers license etc) you have to answer or risk arrest.

You have to be licensed to drive in the United States if you are not you are obviously not insured thus risking pain and suffering on any potential crash victims.

~Thanato

[Yamato]

Just to be clear, a Moderators #80 is not necessarily the same as your #80. We can still see deleted posts, of which a few happened here, so whatever deleted amount has happened in between so a discrepancy arises. I haven't stringently read every post of yours in this thread. I've only realy dealt with our interaction with each other. If you brought up an issue that was directly related to Immigration Checkpoints in which someone was tortured, could you please repost it?

Well is my #80 yours? You should first acknowledge that before ignoring it with a dodge like this and motoring into something else. Being tortured or not doesn't have anything to do with the rights that are being infringed that I've presented to you. When you're able to acknowledge that, we'll be ready for a tangent off into something else.

I would like to see an admission that his rights were violated based on something I've said on this thread. Again, he had a right to remain silent, which should make it clear that he never had a duty to answer questions. #58 (the 3rd video posted) violated his Fourth Amendment rights because they had no search warrant. If you read the Amendment and know his rights, and write " they need a warrant (warrants are issued by the Judge, the Judge has to be convinced that the warrant will hold up, or they're up for trouble)" then there's just no way that you can squirm your way out of this admission at this point. I hope you're honest enough to admit it.

[Space Commander Travis]

It looks very smart. You don't want to give liars in costumes (and all law enforcement are liars and they're allowed to lie) any excuse to pull some nonsense on you in court where it becomes a he-said she-said situation because that's not a winning strategy on how to deal with these clowns. You keep a 2nd camera on you at all times and that's how you protect yourself best when you're asserting your rights. Describe this 60% sympathy you have for him. I'd love to hear you explain it.

Any ordinary Citizen, out for a drive, should have at least two cameras trained on them all the time, just in case the liars in costumes try to pull some nonsense on them?

I'm afraid that "all law enforcement are liars and they're allowed to lie" really doesn't do very much towards persuading people that you want to look at this with any objectivity, you know. It really does just reinforce the impression that you're willing to take the side of any attention seeker and would-be martyr in the cause of Freedom out of a deep-seated antipathy towards authority of any kind.

[Yamato]

Driving is not a right, it is a privilege. If you are behind the wheel of a motor vehicle and asked questions (such as drivers license etc) you have to answer or risk arrest.

You have to be licensed to drive in the United States if you are not you are obviously not insured thus risking pain and suffering on any potential crash victims.

~Thanato

It doesn't matter. Driving isn't a cause for reasonable suspicion that a cop needs to pull you over and stop you.

And you're just parroting the nonsense again that somehow people don't have the right to remain silent. You can't get arrested for remaining silent or not answering questions. If you do, you've got a huge civil suit ready in the wings.

[Yamato]

Any ordinary Citizen, out for a drive, should have at least two cameras trained on them all the time, just in case the liars in costumes try to pull some nonsense on them?

I'm afraid that "all law enforcement are liars and they're allowed to lie" really doesn't do very much towards persuading people that you want to look at this with any objectivity, you know. It really does just reinforce the impression that you're willing to take the side of any attention seeker and would-be martyr in the cause of Freedom out of a deep-seated antipathy towards authority of any kind.

You're afraid. That's the crux of your problem. You live your life how you want to, in Leningrad, or Germany, or wherever you'll wind up being from next.

[Yamato]

Godwin fail.

I used the word Nazi in the subject line, so you're a little late, Godwin.

[+Paranoid Android]

Well is my #80 yours? You should first acknowledge that before ignoring it with a dodge like this and motoring into something else. Being tortured or not doesn't have anything to do with the rights that are being infringed that I've presented to you. When you're able to acknowledge that, we'll be ready for a tangent off into something else.

I would like to see an admission that his rights were violated based on something I've said on this thread. Again, he had a right to remain silent, which should make it clear that he never had a duty to answer questions. #58 (the 3rd video posted) violated his Fourth Amendment rights because they had no search warrant. If you read the Amendment and know his rights, and write " they need a warrant (warrants are issued by the Judge, the Judge has to be convinced that the warrant will hold up, or they're up for trouble)" then there's just no way that you can squirm your way out of this admission at this point. I hope you're honest enough to admit it.

I'm not "dodging" anything. I've watched one video clip in this thread - the OP. Based on what I saw I did not see a single violated Right. Yes, he had a Right to remain silent and I saw no point where he was forced not to keep silent. BUT - in keeping silent, you also must admit that he was "acting suspicious"". Case closed. The end. Game over. I still don't know how Internal Immigration Checkpoints resulted in torture - your claim, please provide a video. If you already have please do so again, I haven't seen it. Edited July 23, 2013 by Paranoid Android

[some new guy]

umpteen years ago I was sitting in a family restaurant when a policeman suddenly walked up to me and asked what I was doing

"I'm eating breakfast, sir"

"Yeah, well, I've got my eye on you"

I chuckled and said, "well thats awful sweet of you, I'll be sure to keep my eye on you too - but unfortunately you're not my type, I'm into women"

the cop looked at me like I had 3 heads and walked away

it took me a while to figure out why he did what he did and then I suddenly realized I was wearing a punk rock t-shirt that said "The Blood, The Guts, The Glory" in a family restaurant - that made me chuckle even more

I own a record store, thats how I make my living - back in the 80's a fat policeman walked in and asked "Do you sell those kinds of records that makes kids commit suicide" - "why, yes sir, of course I do - you'll find the Ozzy and Judas Priest records in the heavy metal section" - Mr Policeman looks through the Metal section and said something like "Those LPs are disgusting, how can you sell those kinds of records" - I chuckled and said, "Oh, thats nothing - check out this LP" - from behind the counter I pulled out a Psychic TV LP, the one where Genesis P-Orridge is sticking a nail in his private parts - I hand it to the cop and he freaks "What?! - you sell this to kids?" - I chuckled again and said "No sir, you just saw me pull this LP from behind the counter - the kids dont see this LP, its for the adults who are into this sort of thing" - he then chuckled himself and left the shop

sorry to derail this thread with something unrelated to Constitutional rights and the actions of Nazi goons (yes, its true - all cops are Nazis and liars) - neither of these events were pre-planned and recorded for DVD release but I wish I had the foresight to do that - my hats off to the guy in the car, not only did he say what he wanted to say, he was allowed to drive off without getting his vehicle searched or getting arrested - geez, its almost like the Nazi goons thought the guy was just a nutcase instead of an actual threat or illegal alien, and now he's selling DVDs of his awesome confrontational performances - I'm so glad to learn this guy makes a habit of these types of actions, he's got his act down pat

God Bless America and its Freedom Fighters

BEST - Ron

Edited July 23, 2013 by some new guy

[Yamato]

I'm not "dodging" anything. I've watched one video clip in this thread - the OP. Based on what I saw I did not see a single violated Right. Yes, he had a Right to remain silent and I saw no point where he was forced not to keep silent. BUT - in keeping silent, you also must admit that he was "acting suspicious"". Case closed. The end. Game over. I still don't know how Internal Immigration Checkpoints resulted in torture - your claim, please provide a video. If you already have please do so again, I haven't seen it.

If all you watch is the OP video then you're not qualified to make statements like "nothing you've said to me or on this thread..."

If exercising one's rights equals "I must admit" he was "acting suspicious", and so giving law enforcement an excuse to throw away his rights, then it's as if he doesn't have that right at all, and you've just spun yourself into the very infringement you were asking for.

Tangents about torture aren't relevant. If you were able to make the on-topic admissions I mentioned above, I would have been willing to explain the video content on this thread that you can't watch for some reason but I have no interest in spoon feeding you, holding your hand or taking you to water that you won't drink.

[Yamato]

umpteen years ago I was sitting in a family restaurant when a policeman suddenly walked up to me and asked what I was doing

"I'm eating breakfast, sir"

"Yeah, well, I've got my eye on you"

I chuckled and said, "well thats awful sweet of you, I'll be sure to keep my eye on you too - but unfortunately you're not my type, I'm into women"

the cop looked at me like I had 3 heads and walked away

it took me a while to figure out why he did what he did and then I suddenly realized I was wearing a punk rock t-shirt that said "The Blood, The Guts, The Glory" in a family restaurant - that made me chuckle even more

I own a record store, thats how I make my living - back in the 80's a fat policeman walked in and asked "Do you sell those kinds of records that makes kids commit suicide" - "why, yes sir, of course I do - you'll find the Ozzy and Judas Priest records in the heavy metal section" - Mr Policeman looks through the Metal section and said something like "Those LPs are disgusting, how can you sell those kinds of records" - I chuckled and said, "Oh, thats nothing - check out this LP" - from behind the counter I pulled out a Psychic TV LP, the one where Genesis P-Orridge is sticking a nail in his private parts - I hand it to the cop and he freaks "What?! - you sell this to kids?" - I chuckled again and said "No sir, you just saw me pull this LP from behind the counter - the kids dont see this LP, its for the adults who are into this sort of thing" - he then chuckled himself and left the shop

sorry to derail this thread with something unrelated to Constitutional rights and the actions of Nazi goons (yes, its true - all cops are Nazis and liars) - neither of these events were pre-planned and recorded for DVD release but I wish I had the foresight to do that - my hats off to the guy in the car, not only did he say what he wanted to say, he was allowed to drive off without getting his vehicle searched or getting arrested - geez, its almost like the Nazi goons thought the guy was just a nutcase instead of an actual threat or illegal alien, and now he's selling DVDs of his awesome confrontational performances - I'm so glad to learn this guy makes a habit of these types of actions, he's got his act down pat

God Bless America and its Freedom Fighters

BEST - Ron

Here's another group of stories about trustworthy benevolent cops holier than thou, and another guy named Ron who actually cares about the Bill of Rights.

[+Paranoid Android]

If all you watch is the OP video then you're not qualified to make statements like "nothing you've said to me or on this thread..."

If exercising one's rights equals "I must admit" he was "acting suspicious", and so giving law enforcement an excuse to throw away his rights, then it's as if he doesn't have that right at all, and you've just spun yourself into the very infringement you were asking for.

Tangents about torture aren't relevant. If you were able to make the on-topic admissions I mentioned above, I would have been willing to explain the video content on this thread that you can't watch for some reason but I have no interest in spoon feeding you, holding your hand or taking you to water that you won't drink.

Then either present the video you referred to in which a person was "tortured" because they were stopped at an Immigration checkpoint, or get to your point. Otherwise nothing will happen.

[Yamato]

Then either present the video you referred to in which a person was "tortured" because they were stopped at an Immigration checkpoint, or get to your point. Otherwise nothing will happen.

I've already presented it and referred to it. Your laziness or whatever your problem is to not do your own research is not my obligation.

We have Constitutional rights in this country. If you want to live your life never exercising your rights in your country, if you even have any, then you go do whatever you think is best for you. But don't tread on me pal.

[Thanato]

It doesn't matter. Driving isn't a cause for reasonable suspicion that a cop needs to pull you over and stop you.

And you're just parroting the nonsense again that somehow people don't have the right to remain silent. You can't get arrested for remaining silent or not answering questions. If you do, you've got a huge civil suit ready in the wings.

You do have the right to remain silent, however that does not mean the officer has to let you go. This man was stating he is a citizen of the sovereign nation of Israel. When asked if he was an American citizen he refused to say yes and kept going on how he was a Citizen of Israel. At that point you have to show your documents to state that you are in the Country legally or you can be detained until it is sorted out.

~Thanato