"No, Thanks" Best DHS Checkpoint Refusals EVER!

a reply to: milkyway12
Cops dont like being questioned. IVe seen many examples of this kind of behavior from LEO. I can post 100's of examples if you want.
Where i live there is plenty of LEO that have been exposed of dealing with the traffickers and are corrupt. Its kind of difficult to trust them when the people who are supposed to be stopping crime are the ones committing it and letting it happen. Where i live there is no sidewalks but u can bet the police get fancy new vehicles.

originally posted by: milkyway12
Just going to warn you guys now, i am a part time police officer and i do it mainly to help out my community since we are so under manned now.

Do NOT ever try to avoid a road block, which is illegal. Do not EVER try to out smart the officer and ask for a Probable Cause. You'll just agitate him.

It is good to get a real "subject matter" expert to comment on this thread, thanks!

I think most people would take your position -- not the people on this particular thread maybe -- but in general yes.

I think most people here on this thread do not understand or are not thinking about how oppressively brutal the real world is, and what police actually do for a living.

Finally, I don't think people understand the justice system, which is really pretty good in the USA (compared with other countries), and which police are a fairly small part of.

I posted earlier that there are frequent roadblocks in the part of Florida I live in, for drugs and sobriety. I realize that this particular video was about immigration checkpoints. However, I wanted to relay this information. I did some research on the roadblocks in Florida and found that a drug roadblock is illegal and if seen, it is to be reported to the local ACLU. The U.S. Supreme Court deemed these roadblocks unconstitutional in all states. It doesn't mean law enforcement aren't still doing them. The trick is they put up a sign warning you of an upcoming roadblock and if you willingly pull over and they see or suspect drug usage, you can get arrested. What they don't tell you is that it your choice to participate or not.

The DUI blocks/checkpoints are legal and you do have to participate.

The immigration and TSA roadblocks are legal and you have to comply 100%.

reply to: GENERAL EYES Ah yes. So true! Who needs those pesky civil rights if asserting them will delay traffic? If you have done nothing wrong, and have nothing to hide, just identify yourself to keep the line moving. Just let us run a quick nonintrusive background check, search your person, your car, your closed containers, your body cavities, and while we're at it, how about we follow you home and search your other vehicles, your garage, your house, and all members of your household. After all, we're just doing our job of keeping you and other bona fide citizens safe.

a reply to: quirkygirl That's right. Their initial contact with drivers makes a bold show of official authority. They ask the drivers to answer carefully phrased questions and to do certain things. When the drivers comply they are deemed to have given consent and thereby waive any objection they might otherwise have had. The vast majority of Americans will comply without a fuss, as General Eyes insists they should. They do so because they believe they have done nothing wrong and have nothing to hide, so there is nothing for the officially clothed persons to find which would give them a basis to haul the drivers off somewhere. They correctly believe that resisting would create suspicion, not to mention irritating the drivers in the line of cars behind them. As others have noted, it is reminiscent of what the common German people, Jews and non-Jews alike, did during the Nazi years before they woke up to what was actually happening and it had become too late because the Nazis had gained too much military, law enforcement, and social control power.

That was by for the best video I've seen in months!

Love it! Love it!

I'm proud of these Americans.. Educated with regard to their rights; brave and steadfast.

Imagine how many violations or our constitutional and civil rights occurred before smart phones with video...

a reply to: Pearj

Proud of them? Well, that's not the prevailing attitude here, or in the country I would wager. They have one right that they're exercising. They don't have to say they're American citizens, or anything else? Asserting that right gets them nowhere except to the side of the road, until Border agents have been satisfied that the car doesn't contain any illegals.

By the way, they're not running any risk of prosecution for just failing to answer, so what makes them especially brave?

It's like going up to the aquarium window and teasing the shark on the other side, you're safe but it's a childish thing to do.

The guys in videos? They are just trying to find something to rebel against without taking any risks. They can't properly determine which battles to fight. In picking this wrong battle, they earn the descriptions of other posters. I believe "Jerk" was the mildest of them.

They are "steadfast," as you say. I would prefer to call them stubborn idiots who can't think ahead. They also have self-esteem problems, but isn't that true of most of us?

What I'm proud of is that America allows them the right to be bone-shakingly stupid, without being clubbed or killed on the spot, as would happen in many other countries.

Oh, this silliness that the cops are trying to take away your constitutional right? Does it work both ways? The police have the right to stop you, and by any legal means they may choose, including pulling you off to the side, to determine whether anyone in your car is not an American citizen. Why try to take away their constitutional rights?

a reply to: charles1952

Yes, I'm proud of them; regardless of the opinions of others.

To my perspective, the officials are the ones teasing us behind the glass - not the other way around.

Thank goodness our "stubborn idiot" founding forefathers thought ahead with the Constitution, with their obvious "self-esteem issues" and everything. What "Jerks" they were to stand up..

originally posted by: charles1952
a reply to: Pearj



They are "steadfast," as you say. I would prefer to call them stubborn idiots who can't think ahead. They also have self-esteem problems, but isn't that true of most of us?

What I'm proud of is that America allows them the right to be bone-shakingly stupid, without being clubbed or killed on the spot, as would happen in many other countries.

Charles I will have to respectfully disagree with you on some of your statements. It's true that those doing this may be jerks and only making everyone's life a bit harder however without cameras they do on occasion step way out of line abusing their position to the point of breaking the law they are sworn to uphold. If you have never had such an experience then I am glad however I have had such experiences with LEO's. I don't know if you watched all the videos but if you had you would see many of them do not even know what authority they actually have. They are just "following orders". If these "jerks" by doing what they are doing force those LEO's to actually learn the law then they are doing some good. Even with the cameras there is a level of risk because I have seen LEO's destroy such evidence. I sincerely doubt those doing this would have gotten by with as much as they did without the cameras though and that should tell everyone there is a need for people to do what they are doing.

Below is a video and probably the motivation for that person to make these tapes. You may not believe his story however I think his story is more than plausible. I believe that once video streaming to secure cloud storage become more of the norm with technology LEO's will be on better behavior because those like myself will then hide the cameras on our person or in our vehicles then the true face of law enforcement will become more apparent to everyone.

Now without anyone asking me the question of if I would do what they are doing I give my answer of "probably not". There are parts f me that still haven't completely healed from prior altercations with LEO's from over 10 years ago where I was trying to help someone and they didn't like it. How was I supposed to know they were the ones who put that persons life in jeopardy. Anyway that is a long story and a bit off topic. Just FYI Charles I do get what your saying and agree on some level but IMO there is a need for what they are doing though it isn't that easy to explain.

a reply to: Grimpachi

I already posted that video =P

Sorry for the manners violation. I'll try more politely.

Thank you Milyway12 for your thoughts and verifying my assumptions that police are meanies and don't mind harassing people over petty nonsense. No wonder you're all so proud of yourselves. I'd probably mess with people on a daily basis and bother them over what most others would consider to be nothing if I had a gun and free reign to use deadly force on anyone who spoke above 40 decibels at me.

a reply to: GENERAL EYES

If what he said is true (and I don't know for sure), the "gamer" is an ex marine. He is just trying to prove a point, although I do think he tends to over do it. I agree.... it must be frustrating to the officers who are just trying to do their jobs. I learned from this guy's videos however....I thought you HAD to consent.

a reply to: StealthyKat

If the low level 'enforcers' have taken the time to attend civics class, they would be able to resist unlawful orders. They are duty bound to do so. Any official who DECIDES to not follow instructions that are contrary to law can only be thanked.

If chuckleheads are employed as policy generators, we can get a whole lot of stupid on the street. We are not complying because they have no effing RIGHT to demand cooperation. They are stupid and vile.

The fact that there are so many compliant with their victimization is not an argument for ME doing so.

I am never scanned at the airport. I've told cops I will not follow their (unlawful) orders. I have been assaulted by crowd control. I refuse to take crap from anyone including those who think I am supposed to be subordinate to authority because they are milk-toast, weak and immoral. (OK, maybe amoral.) Covering yourself in feces to blend in lends no air of glory, dignity or having any substance.

You of this ilk may form a line in order to KMA. You are nothing but grist for someone's mill and I don't want you as friends, comrades or close compatriots. You will turn with the wind long before you are, or know you are, dead.

a reply to: Grimpachi

Dear Grimpachi,

Hello, again, and my sincere thanks for disagreeing with me, wonderful! I'm either wrong, in which case my error can be corrected, or I'm right, which give me an incentive to polish up my communications skills.

Looking over my post, and yours, I see that I wasn't right. I really don't mind videoing the police. You're right, obviously, that some encounters go wrong and it's nice to have the camera rolling.

I think my objection here is two-fold. They knew what they were going to do from the beginning and it seems they were not interested in documenting police violence. It looked as though they were more interested in getting a name for themselves as tough guys who stood up to the cops.

But it also serves as an encouragement to others to refuse to cooperate with the system. That's a risky position, even if someone tells you it's OK to resist in a certain situation.

I'm also not disturbed that any Law Enforcement Officer doesn't know the Statue which gives them authority. It was probably all explained while they were doing their training, then they set it aside. They are told what is required of them in Situation A, B, or C, and if something else comes up, to call their supervisor.

I'm still having some trouble with the purpose of all this. What right are we defending when we refuse to say, "I'm a citizen and I'm going to (pick a place, true or not)? Whatever it is, that's the only right we're defending. Once you say, "I'm not going to answer," you can be reasonably sure of being pulled to the side (Constitutional), having your trunk searched for people (Constitutional), or whatever legal method they can think of to ascertain your citizenship and make sure there is no one else in the vehicle (Constitutional).

I don't get it. All of this, the stitches, pain, and delay. What did he win? Sure, keep the camera on in case it gets violent, but the video from the OP seems to have, as it's only purpose for being on the Internet, the idea that you can have a great victory over tyranny, if you're as "cool" as these guys.

With respect,
Charles1952

a reply to: largo

That is what I meant. This guy is teaching a lot of people something they did not realize....that you have the option to refuse.....without going to jail. Post 9/11, it is a necessary evil. However, we have become so accustomed to it, we don't think twice. No one questions it. Sadly...... because of terrorism (especially in airports), it is something which must be done. I don't like it, but it is a precaution which I feel has to be taken.

I love Gavin. He's the best.

The 3 kids in the back.... Pricelss!

Fight for your rights!

a reply to: milkyway12

I have thought about this for awhile. The driving being a privilege, I agree. And I buy that privilege with licenses, fees, and insurance. I abide by the traffic laws and the police have no right to stop me without probable cause. Such as, looking for a criminal that fits my description. I agree that we need lots of checkpoints and patrols at the border. But 100 miles in the border is abuse of power and the constitution.

a reply to: MOMof3

If I can throw in a thought? I understand that for most everybody, the less contact with the government the better. If I had tatoos, that might be a worthy thought to immortalize.

I abide by the traffic laws and the police have no right to stop me without probable cause.

If you're talking about city police, that's a different set of rules that federal border agents. The Supreme Court has determined over and over that "Reasonable suspicion" is the standard that a brief vehicle stop requires.

www.supremecourt.gov...

But 100 miles in the border is abuse of power and the constitution.

Sadly enough the Supreme Court has ruled that it is perfectly Constitutional.

I really understand you not liking it, and it's easy to see how this could be abused, but it's OK with the Supremes.