Citizen of Israel vs Nazi Checkpoint

[Kowalski 5,771]

That is just gorgeous. I am so proud of those people.

The armed march on DC planned for July 4 made a little bit of sense to me after I realized there were other armed marches planned just like it that actually happened on July 4th, and here's the kicker, nobody was killed! And now, like the stand made at the Alamo. These aren't the guns they're looking for, are they?

Kudos to the Texas General Land Office for approving it also. The difference between this, and an armed march down Pennsylvania Ave and up past Freedom Plaza is that Texas respects our rights and provided an outlet through which it can prove it.

The Texas Land Commissioner Jerry Patterson, is very, very pro Second Amendment. He is also running for Lt. Govenor, in the upcoming elections against Dewhurst. Not a big fan of Dewhurst, he's too much of a career Republican, like Cornyn....But seeing, Patterson's interviews, he seems like a very straight forward, honest type guy...

[media=]

[/media] Edited October 21, 2013 by Kowalski

[Dumbledore the Awesome 45,070]

I find it ironic, in this very thread the sentiment of popularity was used to try and disclaim Yamato....several times.

Yet, I'm now being told that popular opinion on youtube and less regulated (censored I'm guessing?) newspaper websites, are indicators of being dumb. I'm confused.

Have you seen the level of coherence and the command of the English language in many of the comments in many of these videos, or in newspaper websites? Surely that's all the evidence you need of the level of dumbness. Other good indicators are irrelevant rants about the Jews, references to Satan and Old Testament quotations. Are you recommending that these kind of people should be the ones that should be the standard bearers for Democracy?

[Yamato 13,197]

Have you seen the level of coherence and the command of the English language in many of the comments in many of these videos, or in newspaper websites? Surely that's all the evidence you need of the level of dumbness. Other good indicators are irrelevant rants about the Jews, references to Satan and Old Testament quotations. Are you recommending that these kind of people should be the ones that should be the standard bearers for Democracy?

"These kind of people" as opposed to those kind? Anderson had coherence and command of the English language and a lot of good that did him in your various rants about such little things.

[Dumbledore the Awesome 45,070]

"These kind of people" as opposed to those kind? Anderson had coherence and command of the English language and a lot of good that did him in your various rants about such little things.

Oh yes, he was very eloquent, but I'm talking about the people who comment on viedos, I wasn't talking about him.

[Rlyeh 14,258]

The crickets are deafening.

And that's because simply "being" in time and space is not a legitimate reason for suspicion of being a criminal.

No, but lying is.

[green_dude777 937]

Have you seen the level of coherence and the command of the English language in many of the comments in many of these videos, or in newspaper websites? Surely that's all the evidence you need of the level of dumbness. Other good indicators are irrelevant rants about the Jews, references to Satan and Old Testament quotations. Are you recommending that these kind of people should be the ones that should be the standard bearers for Democracy?

I'm well aware of who you are referencing, I just simply stated I found it ironic that on one public message board, popular opinion is dumb (your words). Yet, you and a few others, were pointing out Yamato being wrong in this thread, because popular opinion was against him.

Just to clarify, I think popular opinion is irrelevant.... At one time, a majority thought slavery was a good idea.

[green_dude777 937]

No, but lying is.

You guys don't want to accept it, but he wasn't lying, he even provided context for his statement. He didn't give an indicator one way or another when asked if he was a US citizen. To appease you all, he should have just said he refuses to answer the question. Yeah, he's clearly being a thorn, but there's nothing illegal about that. What is illegal is unwarranted stops and seizures.

That's what you all are not getting.... they didn't have a probable cause to stop him and ask the question. At best, they should have asked for a photo ID. That's the one thing he is legally obligated to respond to.

[Rlyeh 14,258]

You guys don't want to accept it, but he wasn't lying, he even provided context for his statement. He didn't give an indicator one way or another when asked if he was a US citizen.

I don't give a flying crap if he had a piece of toilet paper saying he was the president. He was asked if he was a US citizen and he dodged it with religious BS.

The fact is this tool lied, he knew what they were asking and he chose to play theological make believe.

Edited October 22, 2013 by Rlyeh

[green_dude777 937]

I don't give a flying crap if he had a piece of toilet paper saying he was the president. He was asked if he was a US citizen and he dodged it with religious BS.

He's allowed to dodge the question, it shouldn't have been asked to begin with. There is literally one thing in the U.S. you have to provide to an LEO, a photo ID. You can plead the 5th to the rest. You can also ramble about nothing, all the while pleading the 5th to the LEO's questions. If you don't like it, I suggest contacting your local congressman.

[Rlyeh 14,258]

He's allowed to dodge the question, it shouldn't have been asked to begin with. There is literally one thing in the U.S. you have to provide to an LEO, a photo ID. You can plead the 5th to the rest. You can also ramble about nothing, all the while pleading the 5th to the LEO's questions. If you don't like it, I suggest contacting your local congressman.

Apparently the video implies otherwise.

[green_dude777 937]

Apparently the video implies otherwise.

No, the scenario is perfect. LEO's in this country are allowed to lie, even encouraged. It baits people into giving up their freedoms. The fact that this guy was allowed to leave reinforces my point. He agitated some LEO's, and they had to let him leave. How is that implying otherwise?

[Rlyeh 14,258]

No, the scenario is perfect. LEO's in this country are allowed to lie, even encouraged. It baits people into giving up their freedoms. The fact that this guy was allowed to leave reinforces my point. He agitated some LEO's, and they had to let him leave. How is that implying otherwise?

So you support these stops then?

Because what you earlier said does not follow the video. The tool behind the wheel gives a BS answer and is asked to park the car where he is questioned then allowed to leave. Pretty sure that wasn't your point, but maybe you watched a different video.

Edited October 22, 2013 by Rlyeh

[green_dude777 937]

So you support these stops then?

Where did you get that implication? That's two in a row where I have no idea what you are referencing.

No, I don't support these stops. I do support citizens like this man who actually exercise their rights when being harassed.

[green_dude777 937]

So you support these stops then?

Because what you earlier said does not follow the video. The tool behind the wheel gives a BS answer and is asked to park the car where he is questioned then allowed to leave. Pretty sure that wasn't your point, but maybe you watched a different video.

I see you made an edit after I had already responded, so I apologize for the consecutive posts.

You mind pointing out my contradiction?

[Rlyeh 14,258]

You mind pointing out my contradiction?

"He's allowed to dodge the question, it shouldn't have been asked to begin with. There is literally one thing in the U.S. you have to provide to an LEO, a photo ID. You can plead the 5th to the rest. You can also ramble about nothing, all the while pleading the 5th to the LEO's questions."

Do you see how video doesn't show this? Rather he is being questioned and stopped. I'm not sure how the video supports what you just said.

[Yamato 13,197]

"He's allowed to dodge the question, it shouldn't have been asked to begin with. There is literally one thing in the U.S. you have to provide to an LEO, a photo ID. You can plead the 5th to the rest. You can also ramble about nothing, all the while pleading the 5th to the LEO's questions."

Do you see how video doesn't show this? Rather he is being questioned and stopped. I'm not sure how the video supports what you just said.

There is one thing in the US you have to provide an LEO and that is a reason for suspicion. You have to have suspicion in order to be stopped in the first place.

Show me this law about the photo ID since you sound so sure of yourself. People don't even have to carry IDs dude. Now while driving is a special case, you didn't say anything about that. You just seem to think that you need to show a cop a photo ID when asked, and where do you get that idea from? Source, please.

[Yamato 13,197]

Oh yes, he was very eloquent, but I'm talking about the people who comment on viedos, I wasn't talking about him.

So eloquence doesn't matter, then stop suddenly pretending that it does. What about people who comment on message boards? Viedos?

I'm afraid you have no evidence to believe that people on the internet commenting on videos are any "dumber" than people offline who don't. People aren't writing their thesis under Youtube videos, people don't care about their spelling, people who are the most wired are young people. Implying that Youtube users are dumber than the pale is another stupid attempt to make argument out of nothing.

[Yamato 13,197]

The tool behind the wheel gives a BS answer and is asked to park the car where he is questioned then allowed to leave. Pretty sure that wasn't your point, but maybe you watched a different video.

The agents are authorized to stop and question; we are under no duty to answer. Do you understand that?

He could have said pollywollyfoofoonanadookieyodarushbin. It doesn't matter what he said. It's BS to you, well you don't have the right to discriminate based on your personal religious beliefs or lack thereof.

He's a tool for our rights; you must be a shill for our slavery.

[green_dude777 937]

"He's allowed to dodge the question, it shouldn't have been asked to begin with. There is literally one thing in the U.S. you have to provide to an LEO, a photo ID. You can plead the 5th to the rest. You can also ramble about nothing, all the while pleading the 5th to the LEO's questions."

Do you see how video doesn't show this? Rather he is being questioned and stopped. I'm not sure how the video supports what you just said.

He didn't answer any of the questions the officer asked. Never gave a date of birth, never told him his name or where he was born. The only info he gave them was his DVD.... they're response, "Ok, have a nice day". How does that not show he dodged the question? He points out that their suspicion doesn't arise until after he's stopped, how does that not show he shouldn't have been asked to begin with?

He didn't even show a photo ID, as a federal agent isn't a peace officer.

[green_dude777 937]

There is one thing in the US you have to provide an LEO and that is a reason for suspicion. You have to have suspicion in order to be stopped in the first place.

Show me this law about the photo ID since you sound so sure of yourself. People don't even have to carry IDs dude. Now while driving is a special case, you didn't say anything about that. You just seem to think that you need to show a cop a photo ID when asked, and where do you get that idea from? Source, please.

Sorry, that was my mistake. I made a bad assumption (assuming LEO's know what they're doing) on cases like this http://yro.slashdot.org/story/07/09/03/1449200/man-arrested-for-refusing-to-show-drivers-license

It has been upheld in courts that if you are driving a motor vehicle, or a passenger on an aircraft, that you have to show photo ID.

Edited to add this case as well http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/03-5554.ZS.html

Edited October 22, 2013 by green_dude777

[Dumbledore the Awesome 45,070]

So eloquence doesn't matter, then stop suddenly pretending that it does. What about people who comment on message boards? Viedos?

I'm afraid you have no evidence to believe that people on the internet commenting on videos are any "dumber" than people offline who don't. People aren't writing their thesis under Youtube videos, people don't care about their spelling, people who are the most wired are young people. Implying that Youtube users are dumber than the pale is another stupid attempt to make argument out of nothing.

I can only presume that this is the first video on any kind of 'political' subject that you've ever seen on You tune, and you similarly have never looked at the comments on the less well regulated newspaper websites (i.e. those that just allow people to post any old nonsense without any moderating process). Unless you really do believe that rambling about Satan and satanic NWO plots to take over the world and FEMA camps and the International Jewish Conspiracy and so on really is a representative sample of what the educated population with a sound knowledge of current affairs really is thinking.

[Yamato 13,197]

To show photo ID when? Right after we ask what crime it is we're being suspected of committing, to only be answered by grunts and moans and more questions? No.

There is more duty here than what can be placed on citizens and motorists. The discussion tends to drift to what you or I have to do, and doesn't seem to be able to focus on what the law says the guards have to do.

Anderson offered the guards a photo ID in the video and they wouldn't even accept it. They said no over and over again before they said yes. So they don't know Riyeh's law very well (I think it's safe to say these guards aren't geniuses, generally speaking) or Anderson is right and all we really need to get through an "immigration checkpoint" in the US interior is a pro-enough looking DVD cover art with our picture, name and job title on it.

There are laws that authorize a LEO to ask a SUSPECT to show their ID, such as when we're pulled over for being suspected of speeding, of swerving over lines in the road, of having an expired tag, a broken windshield, a burned out taillight, not wearing a seat belt, et al.

What we're NOT under the law is suspects already just for sitting in our cars and driving down the street.

The take home message here is very simple: In US law, you must have a reason for suspicion for treating someone as a suspect. The reason the Anderson video is compelling isn't the Judeo-Christian stuff, it's because the guards could not reveal any reason for suspecting him of immigrating. Anderson should have been free to go at that moment. Without watching the OP video again and providing timestamps, the guards were asked why they were suspicious and they chewed on their gums in response. Their authority to waste everyone's time ended at that moment.

No cop can suspect me of not being a citizen (or suspect me of any other crime whatsoever) for no reason and make me show my ID for it.

"Why did you stop me?" "What crime do you suspect me of committing?" "Am I being detained or am I free to go?" and other leading questions should be mandatory in the fight for our rights.

[green_dude777 937]

To show photo ID when? Right after we ask what crime it is we're being suspected of committing, to only be answered by grunts and moans and more questions? No.

There is more duty here than what can be placed on citizens and motorists. The discussion tends to drift to what you or I have to do, and doesn't seem to be able to focus on what the law says the guards have to do.

Anderson offered the guards a photo ID in the video and they wouldn't even accept it. They said no over and over again before they said yes. So they don't know Riyeh's law very well (I think it's safe to say these guards aren't geniuses, generally speaking) or Anderson is right and all we really need to get through an "immigration checkpoint" in the US interior is a pro-enough looking DVD cover art with our picture, name and job title on it.

There are laws that authorize a LEO to ask a SUSPECT to show their ID, such as when we're pulled over for being suspected of speeding, of swerving over lines in the road, of having an expired tag, a broken windshield, a burned out taillight, not wearing a seat belt, et al.

What we're NOT under the law is suspects already just for sitting in our cars and driving down the street.

The take home message here is very simple: In US law, you must have a reason for suspicion for treating someone as a suspect. The reason the Anderson video is compelling isn't the Judeo-Christian stuff, it's because the guards could not reveal any reason for suspecting him of immigrating. Anderson should have been free to go at that moment. Without watching the OP video again and providing timestamps, the guards were asked why they were suspicious and they chewed on their gums in response. Their authority to waste everyone's time ended at that moment.

No cop can suspect me of not being a citizen (or suspect me of any other crime whatsoever) for no reason and make me show my ID for it.

"Why did you stop me?" "What crime do you suspect me of committing?" "Am I being detained or am I free to go?" and other leading questions should be mandatory in the fight for our rights.

As thorough as you have been explaining what is wrong with this picture, I fear it went over their heads. Instead of encouraging people to exercise their rights, people here seem to be bent on people complying in all situations.

[Yamato 13,197]

You guys don't want to accept it, but he wasn't lying, he even provided context for his statement. He didn't give an indicator one way or another when asked if he was a US citizen. To appease you all, he should have just said he refuses to answer the question. Yeah, he's clearly being a thorn, but there's nothing illegal about that. What is illegal is unwarranted stops and seizures.

That's what you all are not getting.... they didn't have a probable cause to stop him and ask the question. At best, they should have asked for a photo ID. That's the one thing he is legally obligated to respond to.

"But...but Christianity isn't true! .....HE'S LYING! Burn him! Burn the witch!!"

It's the Riyeh's and Rhuairs of the world that are why we have Constitutionally-protected rights in the first place.

As thorough as you have been explaining what is wrong with this picture, I fear it went over their heads. Instead of encouraging people to exercise their rights, people here seem to be bent on people complying in all situations.

I couldn't have said it better.