Abusive border patrol agents "im pretty sure you are a terrorist" {video}

page: 2
51
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join

posted on Apr, 18 2009 @ 06:10 PM
link   
good #ing job on that guy. but is he not attacking his brethrin. who are the real perpertratiiiiors?

these police man are as dumb as there waists be wide

dont fight the messenger

drive the pole into the heart of the corruption

peace




posted on Apr, 18 2009 @ 06:18 PM
link   
Just think if EVERY American citizen made that much of a fuss over unjust searches, there wouldn't be any anymore.

this guy in the video (the one in the car) is a true patriot.


i love how the cops made some dip #$@! excuse to let him leave after they were told he is right by there superiors. *oh our superiors said this silly game is a waste of our time.* (or something like that)

god bless Americans.... real ones at least.



posted on Apr, 18 2009 @ 06:44 PM
link   
What really amazes me are the people who say "well he wasn't cooperating so he was suspicious". The man did everything the law required of him. He hadn't crossed a border, he exercised his rights to refuse the search and refuse further questioning that might incriminate him.

How many of you would like to travel a checkpoint road daily and have to stop, answer questions and submit to illegal, baseless searches daily? Think about it. You take the time to learn your rights and then you think long and hard about how every time you were stopped they violated your rights. How long would it take for you to stand against the injustice? I have a feeling a lot of people would just sit there and take the violation and just be thankful they didn't anger the "peace officer".



posted on Apr, 18 2009 @ 06:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by purehughness
The US constitution doesn't apply within 100 miles of the border? Pfft! This guy is really switched on, he knows his rights but the pigs won't admit they're in the wrong. Probably just bored and looking to cause a fuss.


Just curious, but does the US Constitution say that? If it doesnt, then that is an illegal law/rule. Doesnt matter who put it forth. Illegal rules are still illegal, no matter who says they arnt.



posted on Apr, 18 2009 @ 06:55 PM
link   
Two thumbs up to this guy for standing up to his rights. I think he pushed these donut goons a little too far. In their own ignorance they appearently failed to figure out he was a pastor at a church. Hopefully the pastor will file a million dollar lawsuit against these clowns. Regaurdless of the hassle he gave them earlier that doesn't give them the right to beat the hell out of him. They have no respect for human beings and everyone involved should be fired on the spot.
Since the introduction of homeland security it seems like the government found all the abusive types of personalities, hired them, gave them a plastic badge and told them they are in charge.



posted on Apr, 18 2009 @ 08:10 PM
link   
A MESSAGE TO THE VIDEO CREATOR.

PLEASE, STOP DOING THIS!

Although you think it is a good idea, it is going to have the exact opposite effect of what you want.

I hate to say it, but people like this are the ones who force new laws to be created so it doesn't happen again. You are going to ruin our rights by forcing them to create new laws that allow them to do exactly what you don't want them to do.

Have some common sense people. Finding and using any type of "loophole" will just force them to fix the "loophole". Please do not ruin my rights by forcing them to change them, because you wanted to film it on video and show the world. This will turn out to be a case of "one person ruining it for the rest of us".

Just my opinion.

[edit on 18-4-2009 by 0nce 0nce]



posted on Apr, 18 2009 @ 08:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by wiredamerican
UPDATE UPDATE !

Fresh off liveleak.com !

They stopped him again.. Same guy with the firefighter shirt.

This time they beat and taserd him then "laughed" at him no joke.

Border patrol gets Revenge !!

Here is the link... Border Patrol Revenge


[edit on 18-4-2009 by wiredamerican]


Well it looks like some nazi border guards are going to lose their jobs and when this guy sues, he'll be a millionare.



posted on Apr, 18 2009 @ 08:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by prjct

ya know...i watched in dismay when I first saw this clip yesterday and then found that the pastor seems to be purposely doing this in order to??? The ?? are purposely from me as it seems he also has an agenda and there are more then just two videos of him floating around - each one showing nearly the same scenario - guy gets stopped at a checkpoint - guy resists - guy eggs on the patrol - guy gets smacked by the patrol...or sumum like this........now for sure the the patrol dudes were way out of line - at least from what we've all seen, yet the "pastor" seems to be a bit out of line himself.....

eh?

[edit on 18-4-2009 by prjct]


Seems like the only agenda the pastor may have is exercising his CONSTITUTIONAL rights.



posted on Apr, 18 2009 @ 08:27 PM
link   
reply to post by jfj123
 


Yeah.....well.....here's another take on this 'poor victim'.



All fire and brimstone much, Mr. Anderson???

editing here, because I don't wish to be mis-understood. Irrespective of anyone's personal religious beliefs, we are all afforded the same rights and priveleges under the law. Maybe it takes a little bit o'crazy to make one's point...at least it's out in the open, and made it to the mainstream (well, local Fox affiiate, anyway...). Let's see what Papa Bear O'Reilly has to say now....

[edit on 4/18/0909 by weedwhacker]



posted on Apr, 18 2009 @ 08:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by GENERAL EYES
While I'm not a proponent of excessive use of force or intimidation...

The pastor was being a bit of a jerk, the kind of behaviour that smacks of disrespect and being unwilling to be cooperative - and yeah, that sets off red flags for border checkpoint guys.

He was exercising his rights under the Constitution.
If they knocked on your door, told you to open up so they could search your house without reasonable/probable cause, would you let them in? Even knowing that in doing so, they were violating the law?


The fact he was videotaping the incident smacks of intent to "create a scene" and almost guarentees he was TRYING to illict a negative response.

Or he was trying to document an ongoing abuse of Constitutional rights.


Careful pastor - you might just get what you're after. Oh wait. You did.

Yep, he got his CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS violated. I assume you're not in favor of the Constitution?


And now you have the limelight as a "victim" while denying your responsibility as part of a greater American Collective.

So you think he did something wrong because he refused to allow others to do something illegal to him?


Yay. No wonder our country is going to crap in so many areas.

It's going to crap because of collaborators who make excuses for those who violate Constitutional law.


Everyone wants respect and rights, but seem to think law enforcement isn't deserving of the same considerations.

If they try to enforce an illegal policy, they deserve no respect. Actually they deserve to be sitting in a jail cell.


These videos are a joke, and symptomatic of a class of people I not only wish to distance myself from - but also pray I'm never behind in line at one of those checkpoints.

Yes heaven forbid that standing up for your Constitutional rights slightly inconveniences your busy schedule.


They hold things up,

Actually the border patrol who violated Constitutional law held things up. Big difference.
It's obvious you don't want to be bothered with The Constitution, Bill of Rights, Justice, Patriotism, etc... so your best bet is to move to a country where you don't need to worry about having any rights.


create drama and just make the agents on duty even more angry, suspicious and intolerant of citizens....

Oh because they were soooo tolerant before he got there right?


which leads to further instances of unfair behaviour and bad treatment of average people. Vicious cycle.

Only if the border patrol keeps violating the law.



And Interstate 8? One of the main routes for drug trade, human smuggling etc...

Maybe they should shore up the borders in that area then. This station was NOT a border station. The drugs and human smuggling should have never gotten to this checkpoint in the first place.


Just be polite, roll down your window four inches, answer the questions and keep the line moving.

Yes and when they ask you for your papers because you were traveling outside your neighborhood, be polite and give them to them.
And when they put a tattoo on your arm, be polite as they put you on a train.
And when they tell you it's shower time, be polite and step into the showers.



"In Germany, they came first for the Communists, And I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a Communist;

And then they came for the trade unionists, And I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a trade unionist;

And then they came for the Jews, And I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a Jew;

And then . . . they came for me . . . And by that time there was no one left to speak up."

- pastor Martin Niemoller -

[edit on 18-4-2009 by jfj123]



posted on Apr, 18 2009 @ 08:53 PM
link   
reply to post by jfj123
 


jfj, I think I get your point.

Upon thought, it occured to me that the mention of a Supreme Court decision that was bandied about by the Border Patrol officer was in reference to...? The US Supreme Court? Or the NM State Supreme Court?

AND, is a Border Patrol officer actually a 'peace officer' with jurisdiction to demand a vehicle operator's license?

Any Constitutional attorneys in the house?



posted on Apr, 18 2009 @ 09:11 PM
link   
This is supposed to be America and the land of the free. This man is a patriot for your constitutional rights. I am sickened by the way just about everyone I know doesn’t care anymore about their rights. My father and grandfather told me as a child that so many laws had changed that they didn’t even feel like Americans anymore. I am sure many people out there have trouble seeing past their next paycheck lest looking back to the past when Americans were actually free. I would rather be inconvenienced by people exercising their rights than losing the right to exercise mine….



posted on Apr, 18 2009 @ 09:31 PM
link   
Look there is a difference between sticking up for your Constitutional Rights and trying to make a scene of yourself sticking up for your Constitutional Rights. Why did he have the camera on when he got there? Why didn't he just answer that he is an American Citizen, maybe showing some credentials? It is a big difference when you are in your home or on private property and a government agency starts questioning you. But you are driving on a state road, which is a privilege, that just so happens to be frequented by drug dealers, coyotes (human smugglers), cartel hitman etc. that has an ESTABLISHED checkpoint. It's not as if they just singled him out and pulled him over. I am sure there have been wrongful cases in the past, but this "pastor" who reminds me of the Westboro Bapist Church, is looking for a fight. He wants the attention. He wants to be angry. Fine by me, it's your reputation.

So why don't we all just start being non-compliant? I am sure that will decrease the violence that is coming over from Mexico... right? We should all be allowed to go wherever we want without questions 100% of the time, right? Because we all know all 240 million of us so well. Questions should be asked, because that's how lives are saved, criminals caught and the government controlled by we the people. If I were the border patrol I would have been very suspicious too.

Yeah you have your rights to not say a thing. Even though you are left alone for 99% of your life. You also have the right to use common sense. Unless you live with your head in the sand you will realize that they aren't doing this because everyone in the world loves the United States. This guy is not a patriot. He is a trouble maker looking for an unjustified fight in a potentially dangerous part of the country. When the unjustified home invasions start, when Homeland Security starts putting RFID chips in people, when there is Gestapo style of martial law being offered, when we are on the brink of a 1984 scenario, then it's gonna be on. But action such as these needed to be taken care of and I wouldn't be surprised if he gets off on this sort of stuff. Nice try pastor. You remind me of the boy who cried wolf. It is people like you who make the government search for new ways to get around our rights. Don't make a scene, you self righteous attention junky. God forbid something legitimate happens next time.

You sir have FAILED.

We do need to watch our government for abuse. We all have to be watchdogs. This is just a very poor example in my eyes. A total setup, and if this is how Americans should talk to every law enforcement officer in the United States, then I am ashamed of being an American. We are tough, resilient, cunning and smart as hell. This video is a poor example of that.



posted on Apr, 18 2009 @ 09:42 PM
link   
I'm sickened to think that just because you get your butt kicked that you deserve a million dollars. This suing crap has got to stop.

Yes the pastor was exercising his rights under the constitution and the 4th amendment but he pretty much gave these border agents " probable cause " by the way he acted. You can defend your rights but being a jerk about it won't help your case. I've seen this guys videos before and he always has his camera with him. Where's the video of him getting his butt whipped? Believe me when I say the border agents were wrong to do what they did but for me I think they all need their butts kicked. The pastor for being a jerk and the border agents for violating his rights. More people need to stand up and fight for their rights as did this pastor but do it in a manner that makes you look good and them bad.



posted on Apr, 18 2009 @ 10:06 PM
link   
8 USC Section 1357 (USC = United States Code)
"within a reasonable distance from any external boundary of
the United States, to board and search for aliens any vessel
within the territorial waters of the United States and any
railway car, aircraft, conveyance, or vehicle, and within a
distance of twenty-five miles from any such external boundary to
have access to private lands, but not dwellings, for the purpose
of patrolling the border to prevent the illegal entry of aliens
into the United States;"

8 C.F.R. § 287.1 Definitions (CFR = Code of Federal Regulations)
(a)(2)Reasonable distance. The term reasonable distance, as used in section 287(a) (3) of the Act, means within 100 air miles from any external boundary of the United States or any shorter distance which may be fixed by the chief patrol agent for CBP, or the special agent in charge for ICE, or, so far as the power to board and search aircraft is concerned any distance fixed pursuant to paragraph (b) of this section.

Case law has held that warrantless searches of vehicles, is sometimes permissible, due to the highly mobile nature of a vehicle. Basically, after providing proper identification, the preacher would have been within his rights to leave...without his vehicle, if the officers had required the search of his vehicle.

It is tiring to read all of the comments indicating a "violation of constitutionl rights", with absolutely no citation of the law on which they base their accusation. Here is the law permitting the Border Patrol Agents to conduct check points. Why does everyone ignore the reason for the check points? To prevent criminal activity. To prevent crimes against the United States of America. You are the USA.

I won't comment on the second video, which purports an assault occurred, with the only evidence being the preacher's accusations. However, at what point in the first video were his "rights violated"? He cites the Fourth Amendment... " 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." Did an unreasonable search occur? Would an unreasonable search have occurred if he had followed their requests? The odds are astoundingly against that.

His video appears to show the check point is permanent one, obvious from the structures. If so, being from the area, and having probably traveled the same route to his original destination, he was well aware it was there and intended to be a problem from the start. Had he merely rolled down his window and answered couple of harmless questions, he would have been on his way.

I do not advocate the abuse of authority by our law enforcement. However the only abuse here was by the driver, upon the officers. Just as with all of humanity, there are a few bad apples in law enforcement. Just as with all of humanity, they are the minority. Its just that the jerks stick out in our minds. Like this guy.

I always ask people to consider this: if the person who had just murdered your family were traveling this same route, wouldn't you want the officers to have the opportunity to observe possible evidence of that crime? Or would you prefer they just let him/her speed on by, out of fear they might be accused of "violating someone's rights" if they did their job.

"Reasonable" works both ways.



posted on Apr, 18 2009 @ 10:27 PM
link   
i really cant believe this thread

finally someone stands up for the United States, and these are the posts on here

people talking about how he shouldnt do what he did and crap like that


thats ridiculous

more people NEED to do what he did

what he did was learn the laws
learn his rights
and then actually applied them when the time came

instead of getting scared and intimidated like every other american

he stood up for his rights, and he put the fools in their place

this is america, where we are supposed to be free

these kinds of things arent supposed to happen here

and if they secured our borders instead of playing games like they are, they wouldnt need stops up to 100 miles from the border

we should have safe borders, and free states

and our rights should count anywhere in the united states, i dont care how far you are from the border, if you havent crossed the border, then youre in the states and deserve the freedom these states fought for

also any officer or lawmaker who says we dont have rights somewhere in the states, that officer should be fired, and investigated in order to find other charges to bring up against him


idiotic lawmakers screwed that up, and allowed idiocracy to run rampant, point proven by the moronic officers in this video


every american should learn the laws, learn their rights, and apply them, maybe then lawmakers would learn we arent stupid pawns they can push around, then maybe we'll be able to keep our freedom and gain our safety back

or at least shut up theses post 911 fear mongers



posted on Apr, 18 2009 @ 10:35 PM
link   
The reason the border patrol does what they are doing is to protect the constitution and it's ideologies from malevolent foreigners.

If you don't like it? Then speak out against illegal immigration. If you can be aggressive like that person in the video being uncooperative with the border patrol. You can do the same in speaking out and taking other appropriate actions against illegal immigration, drug-smuggling, arms-smuggling, human-trafficking, etc. With the constitution by your side.

If everybody would do just that then we'd have no need for a border patrol to 'step on your constitutional rights' within 100 miles from the border. Or perhaps no need for a border patrol at all.

It's that simple.

My two cents.

(IMHO: I also think the guy in the video was being a smart-ass with that camera.)

[edit on 4/18/09 by Marked One]



posted on Apr, 18 2009 @ 10:42 PM
link   
First of all I'm not going to talk about the pastor because he already has his own thread HERE

The guy in the OP. Well I agree with his frustration, and It is downright chilling to hear someone in uniform announce that the U.S. constitution does not apply within 100 miles of a border and within a minute or so also informing our victim that You have NO rights inside a boarder checkpoint He then states that his assertions are upheld by the supreme court after telling the guy point blank that due to his non-compliance he is "pretty sure he is a terrorist"

Frankly I am surprised the guy was released. In the days where "mere suspicion" can be considered enough suspicion to satisfy the 4th amendments "reasonable" suspicion requirement. Mere suspicion is described by the officer as being little to NO suspicion What?

Refusing to be searched is a right and cannot in and of itself be used as probable cause to suspect illegal activity, however, you can bet your bottom dollar that they will try any intimidation or trickery they can to get you to consent.

They also cannot use your being nervous as probable cause of illegal activity because it is your right to feel afraid or intimidated in the presence of law enforcement. That is in the constitution too.

Anyway, CheckPointUSA.org has a hand in encouraging these antics. Take this guy





He has his own series of these and surprisingly enough, they always let him through. Now I'm not sure I agree with the general rudness of these, but I guess being rude is not illegal either.

I wonder anyone in the southwest.. What is required at these, do you just have to say you are a U.S. citizen and go? Or is stating you are a citizen just the first question that then leads to producing ID, being asked to consent to a search etc?

If the answer is the latter then I guess I do agree with the guy, you are not bound by anything to enter into a conversation with law enforcement. You do have to produce a valid drivers license but he was not asked.

The issue is important and needs attention but I think this is more like poking a sleeping bear. Still I ALWAYS refuse consent to search on general principle, and I only comply to questions to the absolute minimum required by law.

~fixed bb code


[edit on 4/18/2009 by AlienChaser]



posted on Apr, 18 2009 @ 10:46 PM
link   
reply to post by prjct
 


I'm sorry, but it is not "out of line" to refuse to allow someone - even a law enforcement official - to violate your rights. It is not a cause for suspicion to insist on your rights. There is nothing "provocative" about insisting on your rights. If you say such behavior is "provocative", then you might as well not have those rights. If officers are allowed to intimidate people into waiving their rights, then those rights may as well not exist.

What do you think this Fourth Amendment is about, if not to prevent law officers from abusing their power?

I repeat: Asserting your rights is no "provocation", nor is it evidence of misconduct.



posted on Apr, 18 2009 @ 10:53 PM
link   
I know what this guy was trying to do and i know he was thinking this would prove something. But honestly this guy was wrong! IF he would have just answered the CBP officers questions he would not have been referred to secondary inspection and he would have been on his way.

since he refused to answer any questions that automatically gave the CBP officer enough cause to refer him to secondary inspection for a closer look! He's right he didn't have to let them search his car without a warrant. he only had to roll his window down 4 inches so he and the CBP officers could communicate with each other.

As for the update, wheres his proof? honestly anyone could have beat the crap out of him and he is just saying it was the CBP when he came back through the checkpoint. He made sure he had a camera with him for the first video. did he not have the camera with him when he came back through the checkpoint later? where is the footage from this supposied CBP revenge? Oh thats right they probably took his camera.

reply to post by weedwhacker
 



Upon thought, it occured to me that the mention of a Supreme Court decision that was bandied about by the Border Patrol officer was in reference to...? The US Supreme Court? Or the NM State Supreme Court?


its was a U.S. supreme court case. I don't remember which one off the top of my head, But the CPB officer was right. in the ruling the U.S. Supreme court ruled the CBP could setup check points within 100 miles of the border and do imigration inspections. just like they do at the border.

Border patrol and ICE officers ARE FEDERAL LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS ( I Put that in bold so everyone sees it) they have authority between the border and a 100 mile zone after the border. they can only enforce federal law. But if they see you violating a state or local law they can detain you until the local authority arrives on scene to take over.

Yes they can demand to see a drivers license or any other type of identification. (no I'm not a lawyer but over the years i have dealt with CBP officers on a regular basis.) and yes they can detain you until you can prove you're a U.S. Citizen a drivers license does not count as proof of citizenship! either a birth certificate, social security card, green card, passport or visa are proof of citizenship!

reply to post by WTFover
 


Thanks for going and and finding the relevant federal statutes saved me from doing it.




[edit on 4/18/2009 by Mercenary2007]





new topics

top topics



 
51
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join