It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Calling the cops on cops

page: 2
3
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 7 2009 @ 03:38 AM
link   
reply to post by RFBurns
 


Actually, I served in the Military and I questioned many officers and refused plenty of orders. 7th Standing Order for ALL Soldiers. ALL Boot Campers are supposed to memorize ALL 12, or did you forget yours?
7th Satnding Order: I will Obey all LAWFUL Orders given by my Superiors. Did you know that most of the Commands they give you are not Lawful in the State, Country, or territory you are located, and that you are BOUND by allLaws that apply to that location, and, not just the UCMJ, which itself has Laws about the use of UNLAWFUL Commands which violate the Laws and treaties for the area you are located at ALL Times. And, that for many cases, the Government in which you are located may fine/ or imprison you for breaking their Laws and the US can not and will not, without exceptions, help you?

Just what makes you think it is legal for the HS to play the role of Cop. Did you know that more crooks arm themselves with a Uniform and Clipboard more than anything else, because the majority of people are so blindly trusting. Did you know that if I put on a suit and tie and set up a card table with some deposit slips and bank forms I obtained for the bank table for customers the day before, and I have a partner dressed as a Security Guard, and I hang a pre printed sign on the table saying that the Systems are down and being repaired. And set all this up in an out of the way bank on a busy holiday, when the bank is closed. Many people will be so greatful to find a bank open, and when I tell them we are taking deposits only, and keep a locked cashbox onhand to dish out change, that, many, many people (tested and recorde9 times out of 10) will not question it, will sign the forms, get them stamped, with a stamper which was pre ordered, and hand over their cash, walking off content. And even the ones who find out it's for deposits only and have no business to conduct, still make it look busy and therefore all the more legit. And the cops who patrol, well, one was recorded stopping walking up, and, greatful that a bank was open on a holiday (which they are not ever by the way, as it's only open when the clearinghouses and financial lenders are) and signed over his whole paycheck for deposit. After the experiment was done, everyone was tracked down and their money returned. The test was over, the results were in. Put on a uniform and don a clipboard and people become stupid. Throw on a gun, as the fake Security guard did, and, people are jello in your hands. Go, keep complying. I think I need a new job, I wonder which clipboard, uniform, and gun I should buy? Hey, got some money? Crooks, coming to a town near you. Oh, wait, they're already there. Just look past the guy with the suit and breifcase full of papers, there, the hungry guy the suit just ripped off, going after some food, quick get him, before him and that homeless guy the other suit stole the house from, before they find an abandoned building for shelter. We'll never be safe as long as that kind of scum are around. Quick hire more police, more soldiers, better yet, just make them para military police and call them Homeland Security.

Oh and the right to be disrespectful, that's Freedom of speech, I for one fought so people with a pair, like that guy, can use them, and if it slows down someone's day, well, good, people are to instant gratificationist's these days, any way. Do 'em good to take the time to go to jail to make a stand, if more people would around the world, we'd need less people to shoot people once they got so ticked off they reacted violently out of rage. going to jail is not always a bad thing. It's called peaceful protest. Ever hear of it? Most people talk about peaceful protests but never do, because, Lord forbid, their record get's smudged. Then don't get mad when they take on a larger role. And when your Congress spends a trillion Dollars on everything it can print up in a week, while debating over peaces, so, you forget it's irrelevant, if they've never even seen the whole thing, since all debates on every side about it are taken out of the context of the Bill as a whole, in the real world of adults, it make's the out of context statement, null and void. Oh wait, they do that already. Imagine if more people were just plain rude to them and demanded they answer for the powers they were claiming, no matter how great or small? Hmmm. Paying for it now, aren't you. But, go ahead. Keep your polite position, then, you can smile and applause when you are the Citizen of a Broke and Dissolved Country. Because, they were nice to you, when they took those little trinkets of rights and privelages away. You sound like you are still in the government, or, own a business. None of those of us otherwise, seem to understand where you are coming from. It's like saying I have nothing to hide, guess what, thanks, now, there's nowhere you could.

And Typo's I know. I don't care to fix 'em.

[edit on 7-2-2009 by PhyberDragon]




posted on Feb, 7 2009 @ 04:25 AM
link   
This guy obviously watched that “Flex Your Rights” Video, and is trying to apply that to Boarder Patrol. I might be wrong, but the Laws for Customs are different then the Laws for a Police Terry Stop. I think that the officer handled him pretty patiently considering that he did not know what the guy was up to.



posted on Feb, 7 2009 @ 04:31 AM
link   
reply to post by PhyberDragon
 


Answer the question..did you ever say to your C.O. "Do I have to comply".

Dont dance around the question. You answered only part of it.

Now answer the rest of it. Have you ever said to your superiors when given an order "Do I have to comply".

There is such a thing as being responsible to have rights. Giving hell to an officer, no matter what branch of service they are in, is not being responsible and doesnt qualify under the Bill of Rights whatsoever. Being disrespectful is nowhere defined in the Bill of Rights. That is just a stupid choice you make. You have the right to be stupid..be my guest.

Obviously you dont know the difference between a boarder patrol officer at their checkpoints vs a Homeland Security officer. I suggest learning the difference. Who did you fight...did you fight in WWII? Cuz any other conflict after that was no fight for American freedom. Those other conflicts were to fight for those country's freedoms. Keep in mind, while those conflicts were happening, especially Desert Storm and the Iraq war, the infamous Homeland Security was being formed and our rights were being chipped away. So who's freedoms were you fighting for again?

The only pair required in this issue is 1. A brain, and 2. Respect.

It takes more than thinking with the other pair to do something so simple a pre schooler can figure it out.

It comes down to this...if you be an ass to these officers, your gonna get treated like an ass. Plain and simple.

But hey, as the slogan goes....."Be All You Can Be"...even if that means being an ass.




Cheers!!!!

[edit on 7-2-2009 by RFBurns]



posted on Feb, 7 2009 @ 04:39 AM
link   
reply to post by jaamaan
 


I had to call the cops to cops one night, I was watching tv and saw an older black woman walking in front of my house, and the police were pulling up to her, she stopped and they took the Kmart bag she was carrying out of her hand and had her put her hands on the back of the car, and spread her legs. She stood like this until a female cop arrived, who was also a black lady, now there were two male cops and one female cop, the female cop jerked this lady's dress up in the back, right there on a busy main street, and started pulling her panties down and searching her crack, the lady was telling her this was wrong, and was crying, one of the male cops dumped her Kmart bag out, nothing but 3 tomatoes, and threw the bag down in my front yard. They let the woman turn around, and she was very upset and pointed her finger at the first cop who had approached her and told him she had not done anything and did not deserve this, and that he needed to pick up her tomatoes, about that time he grabbed her around the neck and started choking her. I beat on the window sill and screamed for them to stop, the female cop and the other cop turned their backs to what the other cop was doing, but the female cop saw me and hollered at the window that if I didn't mind my own business I would go to jail for interfering, so I closed the window and called the cops. They dropped this poor woman and took off. I went out and gave her my name and number and told her to call me if she needed a witness to what just happened, but she never called.



posted on Feb, 7 2009 @ 04:43 AM
link   
Yep, its not the same thing as a Terry stop, and so the same laws do not apply:

Federal Courts Law Review
[II.1] The Fourth Amendment states:
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. (18)
The first clause of the Fourth Amendment proscribes unreasonable searches and seizures; (19) the second clause addresses the requirements necessary to obtain a warrant. (20)
[II.2] Generally, a search requires a warrant based on probable cause, (21) a level of individualized suspicion, (22) or an exception to the warrant requirement. (23) One of the exceptions to the warrant requirement is that found for routine searches and seizures which take place at the international border, (24) or its functional equivalent. (25)
[II.3] It is well-established that a traveler crossing an international boundary reasonably may be required "to identify himself as entitled to come in, and his belongings as effects which may be lawfully brought in." (26) Consequently, "[a]t the border one's expectation of privacy is less than in the interior and the Fourth Amendment balance between the government's interests and the traveler's privacy rights is 'struck much more favorably to the Government.'" (27) As a result, routine searches at the border "are not subject to any requirement of reasonable suspicion, probable cause, or warrant[.]" (28) Under the Fourth Amendment, border searches are deemed reasonable because of "the single fact that the person or item in question had entered into our country from outside." (29)

If this guy keeps messing with the Boarder Patrol, he is going to end up in a world of hurt, and rightly so. He obviously does not have a clue about what he is doing.



posted on Feb, 7 2009 @ 04:47 AM
link   
reply to post by space cadet
 


In situations like that, you need to get pictures or video.

In these boarder checkpoint scenarios, this guy is purposely causing interference to those boarder patrol officer's duty. Big difference from what your describing.

Again it doesnt take a nuclear scientist to see that all the drivers in front of this bozo dont have a problem answering "yes" to a very elementary question. Yet this guy thinks its cute and necessary to not only interfere with the officer's duties, but to also hold up everyone else behind him, which at that point, that idiot is infringing upon their rights.

If this cracker jack as a problem with the boarder checkpoints, he should pull over, get out and film and ask questions without holding up other people's rights to move along. If he is so brave and wants to stand up for rights, why does he cower in his locked vehicle with the window only rolled down just enough to hear and pick up the officer's voice on his cameras?

One of these days he will push those officers to a point where they will just smash out his windows and drag his butt down to the floor for interfering with official business. Probably be charged and jailed for it too.

And the evidence, all those videos, will be there that clearly shows him as the source of the whole problem.

Maybe he never was taught how to say the word "yes".



Cheers!!!!

[edit on 7-2-2009 by RFBurns]



posted on Feb, 7 2009 @ 05:19 AM
link   
reply to post by RFBurns
 


Actually yes Twice, once when I was ordered to fire a missle at a Country (Iraq) during a time of Peace, That was in direct responce to the STS1, STSCM, and Captain (Commander Smith's) Direct order from their Crypto from Clinton's Washington, USS JEFFERSON CITY SSN 759, started the Second Gulf War, look it up. It got fired anyways, but not by me, after my watch, two hours later, when it was over, and I rotated over to keep the Logs for Battle Stations. No Court Martial and No Write up, because I cited the 7th Standing Order and the Geneva Convention Article on warships being in a Foreign Water and Attacking unprovoked, during a Time of Peace "Cease Fire", remember? The Second Time was in Port, I refused the STS1, the STSMC, and the FTCM (COB) Ignawski, who is now, I believe, the Point Loma San, Diego Base Master Chief, when they Ordered me to Divorce my Wife not Once but Thrice, threatening to discharge me for what ever they could trump up to put me away for the next five years, and, as the COB says, who'd believe your word over mine. Good thing he admits to it on the Court Martial record, With the Captain who acknowledges signing the blamk Court Martial Orders for Convenience, which the COB stored in his his safe, and investigation found, I was not the only one he'd used them to threaten, and the XO in attendance to give witness, and the recorded tape, so folks who just can't believe the Man in Uniform can be such a (well ,I can't think of a good enough word and it'd probably be edited anyways) But since zero Tolerance was Clinton's new baby, it didn't matter that I was vindicated, I was still Discharged on JKK Other Than Honorable Gen. Administrative. Good thing it wasn't dishonorable. As to Border Patrol and the HS I confused it since the SS, oops, HS were the subject, as far as which war is real, you old dogs are the same, death is death even if I get better toys with bigger boom and better aim! I'm from 3 Generations of Marine Sharpshooter's by the way, so don't think I got to grow up a punk.
Fearful of what he'd make up and not risking if it was a bluff, I knew, short of murder Military Court, unlike Civilian ones deal only with the worst offenses. So, I got high, thanks to Clinton's Zero Tolerance, he'd have to be real creative and with more proof than I had to trump it. The COB told me two weeks before the test that my number was up and what day it was on, that's how it really work's, so I waited until the night before and smoked and ate an entire ounce, that was the deadline day for my decision also, after he was done giving the test to all whose Social's ended in 2 just as he'd announced publically, two weeks before, I was to meet with him, and confirm whether or not I would Divorce my wife, or be arrested on site and carted off to the Brigg for whatever he fabricated. So, now, he's an honourable Command Master Chief, and I'm another druggie (though up till then I was clean and didn't even smoke and barely drank) tossed out of the USN Special Forces. To bad I scored a 29-32 on My ASVAB Composite (That's the Top 98% Nat'l Average) but, hey, never mind that I'm trained in terrorism/ Counter Terrorism Tactics and Measures. You really didn't need me in Iraq, fighting your enemies. Thank your President Clinton for Illegally starting War, and thank the COB for me, you don't need a Guy who ignore's order's to illegally initiate an Act of War, just our being there was that, they didn't need me, and you don't need a guy who says they can't make you get divorced, you don't need a guy who'll get "HIGHER THAN ANY TEST NEGATIVE AMOUNT I'VE EVER SEEN"-- FTCM Jeff Ignowski I wanted there to be no doubt, if I am opting out to save my Freedom, then I'm going Green. I smoke weed to this day and I don't care who knows or sees, police know and have never done a thing, and if they did, I'll just refuse to Obey ALL UnLawful Orders.

Don't play that you're not specific Game, I ain't the One. I told you, the 7th Standing Order.
YES. YOU HAVE THE RIGHT TO DISOBEY ALL UNLAWFUL ORDERS
Especially since a Right is that which another man may not take away, and, even if you surrender it, you can retrieve it any time you wish. It's only Law, if you support it. If you know that it is not spelled out specifically, or, that it is specifically denied by Law, you not only should not follow it, you are actually guilty if you do, and if you allow another to break the Law you are an Accomplice. Just because you don't know the Law doesn't make it Legal. You have the right to ask and they have the duty to tell you or to politely refer you to one who does. That guy even has the right to halt the officer in his tracks and motion him off his vehicle while he contacts his lawyer, he can even hold up traffic while they wait for his lawyer to do whatever and get there, and, until his lawyer arrives, he cannot be made to move his vehicle from the scene where the disturbance occured, as his lawyer may or may not want photos, and even then, as the lane is designated to handle parked and stall traffic, the man can say he does not feel safe pulling off for any reason, real or imagined (it's discriminatory to question him about it or undegreed imply him crazy)

Now, which method to get the answer do you think would have been easier? I could list all the little times I questioned and clarified Orders, but not one write up, not one Court Martial. But, I think I've been plenty specific.

[edit on 7-2-2009 by PhyberDragon]



posted on Feb, 7 2009 @ 05:39 AM
link   
reply to post by PhyberDragon
 


I will play the specific thank you. And lets put this into prospective shall we.

The boarder patrol officer is not asking this idiot to fire a missile. He is asking 1 simple question that the rest of the drivers seem to fully understand, but obviously he doesnt understand and wants to instigate a problem, which he does for himself quite nicely.

Now for your situation in the military not obeying an order to fire a missile at Iraq during peace time. If the order was not justified, and warranted, then that missile would not have been fired. Obviously someone else, who followed the order and found that it was a justified order, obeyed it and done their duty. Why didnt you?

I know about the 7th standing order blah blah. Your not talking to a newbie here. I happen to have command experience so please put that bent card back into your worn out deck.

Again we are not talking about fireing missiles. Were talking about answering a simple question at a boarder patrol checkpoint. Im sorry if that seems too out of your league to understand, as this video idiot cannot comprehend the simplicity of answering a very simple question.

But hey you know what...its your butts that will end up in the fryer for the attitudes towards these officers simply doing their job. Interfere with their duty and you get to reap the consequences.

They have a job to do and will do it. And if some idiot wants to make their job more difficult, they will accomodate that wish and make the idiots day more difficult too.

Show off your rear and it will end up getting kicked down a peg or two.

Now run off and antagonize these officers till your heart's content, or until they haul you off and show you how easily it is for them to knock that chip off your shoulder.



Cheers!!!!



posted on Feb, 7 2009 @ 06:33 AM
link   
In my short 49 years, I have politely asked two police officers to obey the traffic laws. I watched one run 3 stop signs in a row, I caught up with him at a stop light. and asked him whats the hurry - you know you ran 3 stop signs back there.... and his mouth just opened and he said I'm in a hurry and I said that no excuse without your light on....
the second was a motorcycle cop... and I said -
I've been watching how you drive that thing.... better not let a cop see you - you might get a ticket... and he just started laughing...

BP...



posted on Feb, 7 2009 @ 06:53 AM
link   
reply to post by BornPatriot
 

Police are allowed to speed without their lights or siren on. There are three different modes that they are told to go under when preceding to a call; both lights and siren, Lights only, and neither. They use neither when they are trying to sneak up on a situation without alerting others to their presence. You really have no business telling an officer that he cannot drive fast simply because he is not using his lights, he is lawfully allowed to do so when on certain types of calls.



posted on Feb, 7 2009 @ 10:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by RFBurns
reply to post by PhyberDragon
 


Im sorry if that seems too out of your league to understand, as this video idiot cannot comprehend the simplicity of answering a very simple question.


The whole point is, why would he answer if he doesnt have to by law ??
Just because you or some cop says so ?
Are you the law ? , i dont think so.
And i am glad i dont have to live by your rules or laws but by the ones we all made up together.
By those laws i dont have to answer every silly question some cop, or border patrol askes me.

Maybe you should point out where in the law it says, answer any question some law official askes me.

Any way, i still think your mentality is still the perfect example of bullying of law enforcement, thats why a post like this is importand to show people they dont have to go allong with these silly made up games.

You go right ahead and make people cross the line so you can push them against the ground and show them.
I am just glad that there are laws to protect me against people like you.

And as a side point, we dont live in the military, our countries are made up of civilians mostly and we dont live by martial law, yet



posted on Feb, 7 2009 @ 11:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by jaamaan

The whole point is, why would he answer if he doesnt have to by law ??

...........................................................................................

By those laws i dont have to answer every silly question some cop, or border patrol askes me.


Answering the "silly" question about your citizenship before entering any country is not silly. It is the right of that country to confirm who is trying to enter that country. Its called security.

I live in northern NY and have traveled into Canada on numerous occasions (to buy beer at the duty free store, its better) and have to answer the same question when crossing into Canada. "Who are you, why are you here, when will you be returning, etc."

Thirty minutes later I turn around and do the same thing to get back into the US. "Who are you, where were you born, why were you in Canada."
I answer , "Dave S., NY, buy beer at duty store (there is a limit)" and I'm on my way. The guy's looking for terrorists, drug smugglers, and others of that ilk and could care less that I just bought some beer for my cottage.

And if they have any, and I mean any, reason to suspect that there is something fishy going on they have the right granted by the US (or Canada, for that matter) to detain you and strip your car and check all of your belongings in the process. Its called security and protecting your border for cripes sake. And, we have some of the easiest borders to cross in the whole friggen world.

This issue has nothing to do with cops pulling you over or what rules you have to follow in the military, its our country verifying who is trying to enter.

Good God people, not everything is a conspiracy. I can't believe sometimes how things can get so blown out of proportion on ATS. Stop being so paranoid.



posted on Feb, 7 2009 @ 10:26 PM
link   
reply to post by RFBurns
 


Anytime Special Forces enters International waters during a time of Peace and the Command from your Commander in Cheif begin's with the words "We are about to enter International water's during a time of Peace. What we are about to do is considered an Act of War. We are about to fire a missle at Saddam's Southernmost Palace where Intelligence has placed Saddam Hussein. our mission is to take out said target, President Saddam Hussein. Your actions will be in direct violation of the Geneva Convention Articles of War, especially, in regards to warship's in Foreign Waters during a time of Peace, and, not taking out the Leaders or Heads of State. If you are compromised your Country will disavow all knowledge of your activities and you will be subject to the full authority of your pursuers. If you should be caught, you are required to recite the following words. I can neither confirm nor deny any allegations or accusations you may have as I was neither here nor did this event occur........"

Sound legal to you? Black Op's are illegal activities period. And as for being a worn out card, I didn't mind disobeying the Commander in Cheif, I'm sure I'd have ridden your ass, too, if you gave an ILLEGAL Command.
And, as for the dope who did Commit a Crime by firing that missle, well, for one he's an InterNational Felon, guilty of starting War illegally. An accomplise to President Clinton, whether they get away with it or not. My hand's are free of the Blood.

He sat station behind me, telling me I should follow the Order, they even tried to relieve me of Command, but, I threatened to arrest them if they did and Charge them, even the Captain, for interferring with the Lawful duties of the Watch Officer, a legal battle no one wanted I'm sure-- since I'd have won. So, they waited for my shift to be over. The whole time he said some things that are retisent of your very word's. That noble Pariot of your's who did his Illegal duty, his noble position was, "Don't risk your Career. You'll just be replaced and Someone else will do it." I asked him whether he believed it legal. He said, "Of course it's not, that's why we're here. If it were don't you think the Standard NAVY could do the job. We can get in and get out without ever being caught, and they'll all blame each other and the truth will get buried. Now, fire the damn missle so we can all go home."

I sir, am a Patriot. I represent all that is still true, good, moral, productive, and noble about America. By refusing to do my duty, I preserve faith in the hope for LAW and ORDER, while people like the STS1 who did fire, and those who think him doing his duty, he was a punk, a bitch, a loser. He was a disgrace to his uniform, as were the men who commanded him. Regardless of whether it was right or wrong to attack Iraq, sir, America is a light to the World for Freedom. We don't represent Chaos and Disorder. We come at you like Men, face to face in the Light of Day, not Thieves in the Night. If the War was declared officially, or, we were truly attacked, then yes, I would be the first to launch that missle, and back it up with my fists and guns. I sir have Honour, and you impugn it by suggesting that it was a legal launch. Here, I can prove it. Go back and read the official account of events. You see the story goes that Iraqui's fired a barrage at the American ship, who had no choice , but, to return fire, and officially, we were there to render fire support. Answer two question's how did the frigate fire back at Iraq, if it were an unarmed warship in Foreign Waters during a Time of Peace, in violation of Treaties. And, Being so armed as warships in a Foreign Water, thus being an Act of War, and further, girding itself along the Iraqui Coast, near to it's Southern most Command, deliberately, not by accident, to instigate the conflict, wasn't then the Iraqui Barrage, not a breakibng of Ceasefire, but, a Defensive reaction to a Warship whose presence alone constituted an Act of War?

I'm not surprised you were in Command. Honest Law Abiding Thinkers could and would never hold such hypocritical positions. Even the Marines who I went to first said I was too smart for entry to try the Air Force, they said folks like them and the Army and the general NAVY were more interested in idiots and criminals, who they could unscrew their heads like a jar and remove all the contents and replace their minds and hearts with whatever they fed them.

I am clearly not a follower as so many are who lead.



posted on Feb, 7 2009 @ 11:00 PM
link   
Well if you live in Los Angeles call the LA sheriffs dept. They absolutely hate the LAPD. won't respond to their calls. THink they are all immature and untrained/improperly trained. Dumb meat heads. you name it. The LA sheriffs dept. hates the LAPD. Call them next time LAPD get out of control.

CHP aren't fans of the LAPD either. On the outside they all claim to be brothers in their LEO profession. but behind closed doors, or simply go on a ride along with the LASD and they will rant all day about LAPD> I know I've done the ride along, LASD hates the LAPD. would probably love to throw some trouble their way.



posted on Feb, 7 2009 @ 11:08 PM
link   
reply to post by RFBurns
 


The guy in the car did test the patience of the border patrol guard...with pertinent questions about his rights, which the guy refused to answer.

Whether he is an annoying man is not the issue. The guard said that: "he didn't have any reason to believe that the guy in the car wasn't a criminal"

That's a whole world away from having reason to believe he is a criminal. Very clever wording on his part too I might add. But that doesn't make it a legal stop and search.

If we cant be bothered to follow laws properly what's the point in having them? Having justification for making a search isn't as much of a grey area as some people would like to make out. This guy, if it went to court, would have to show evidence that he had reason to believe this guy was an illegal immigrant.

There are a lot of people who really don't care about being criminalized property of their government. That makes the job of us folks who are trying to live free, a heck of a lot harder.

Not to turn this post into an unreadable ramble (moreso than it is already at any rate) But I really get ticked off by the fact that people like this border guard clearly have no idea about the extent of their powers, or the laws which his powers are derived from. Why are these clearly uninformed people ordering us around, when we have a better understanding of the law than they do?

This is not just a problem with cops and border guards. Or anyone working in a store who has no knowledge about warranty law. Or anything specific, the problem is people as a whole are totally ignorant of their rights as private citizens. This is something our governments rely on, so they can pass laws which restrict our rights, because we have no idea we are losing them.

But our rights are not taken away as part of some grand Nazi conspiracy, nothing like that. It is just more convenient to create law which treat people as cattle because it makes the whole system run a lot smoother.

If our politicians could create systems and laws, which catch the bad guys, and let us live without fear of being tasered for not turning off our cameras, that would the very least we could ask of them.

[edit on 7-2-2009 by Lazyninja]



posted on Feb, 7 2009 @ 11:14 PM
link   
reply to post by zlots331
 


Your right when you say they can search your vehicle and your occupants at the border. In fact if you give them cause , they can take your vehicle apart and leave it for you to put back together. This guys been lucky. They can really screw you around if they want to.



posted on Feb, 7 2009 @ 11:14 PM
link   
A Border Checkpoint. I know them well.

They operate under Executive Order based on laws passed by Congress. Their stated purpose is to search traffic coming into and out of the border zone with Mexico for smugglers of drugs and illegal immigrants.

Under that Executive Order, the officers have the right (and the duty!) to stop and question, even to inspect, any vehicle they deem suspect. They try to speed things up as much as practical so traffic can still flow freely, but whenever some idiot with a camera shows up and starts arguing about his 'rights', it tends to back traffic up.

Make no mistake, the camera made this a lot different than it would normally have been. The guy ignored a lawful order to pull to the secondary station, then refused to cooperate with the officer by 1) refusing to roll his window down, 2) refusing to open the door, 3) refusing to turn off the car, 4) refusing to get out of the car, and 5) refusing to answer the officer's questions. Had there been no camera present, he would have been instructed to exit the vehicle, and had he refused to comply at that point, he would have been forcefully removed from the vehicle, cuffed, and held while a full inspection of the vehicle (up to and including disassembly if it is deemed appropriate) and thorough background check is conducted.

As it is, this guy is heading for a heartbreak if and when he comes upon some officer who isn't as polite and controlled as this officer was. At the time this video was made, in the eyes of the officer, he was not a US citizen. He was a suspected illegal immigrant or drug runner based on his failure to follow a lawful order to pull to the secondary station, misunderstanding or not. He could very well have been treated as such, and that will hold up in court.

On a positive note, every time I have been stopped, it has been a not unpleasant experience. I have enough sense to have my ID out as I approach the station, I drive through past the drug dogs, stop, an officer climbs up on the running board and asks me who I am, am I a citizen, and where am I going to/coming from. I hand him my ID, answer with general locations, and he hops back down and waves me on. That's not including the 60-70% of the time they simply wave me on before I stop (although the dogs always get a good sniff).

These guys have a job to do. They have no way of knowing who you are or what you are doing. To purposely pull this kind of nonsense is just asking for whatever he eventually gets. I just hope that car isn't very expensive; it wouldn't be the first time if next stop it is inspected and sent to his home address in about 20 crates afterward.

That's assuming he makes it home by then to reassemble it.

TheRedneck



posted on Feb, 7 2009 @ 11:26 PM
link   
ALthough to be honest. the first video posted. THe cop was in the right. the guy ran from a check point or at least made the appearance to. I fully understand the COPS point of view in this case. the guy was being a jackass to the cops. THe cop was VERY, polite with him. an LAPD officer would have tasered that guy in about 15 seconds.

And to be honest. the guys refusal to cooperate in any fashion would appear suspicious to me too. from my perspective his behavior is classic trying to hide something from the cops. He probably was some jerk who just passed his bar and though he knew everything in the world. and when they did extract him they were still very nice about it. THey could have put him in a choke hold and slammed his head against the asphalt like the LAPD does. he should feel lucky that he was stopped by the boarder patrol and not the LAPD.



posted on Feb, 7 2009 @ 11:32 PM
link   
We should not ever count ourselves lucky that we did not get choked tasered or slammed onto asphalt.



posted on Feb, 8 2009 @ 06:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by Lazyninja
reply to post by RFBurns
 



Whether he is an annoying man is not the issue. The guard said that: "he didn't have any reason to believe that the guy in the car wasn't a criminal"

That's a whole world away from having reason to believe he is a criminal. Very clever wording on his part too I might add. But that doesn't make it a legal stop and search.

If we cant be bothered to follow laws properly what's the point in having them? Having justification for making a search isn't as much of a grey area as some people would like to make out. This guy, if it went to court, would have to show evidence that he had reason to believe this guy was an illegal immigrant.


I believe you ar pointing in the right direction with this.
Not all uniformed peole just have the right to stop you when ever they want, and the video series of this man clearly shows that.
Only in the posted video he gets pulled out of the car, in all the others they let him pass without him aswering any questions, this can only be because they dont have a right to go further than asking.



new topics

top topics



 
3
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join