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.

 

Man Sticks Up For His Constitutional Rights At An Internal Checkpoint In The U.S.

page: 2
13
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 23 2009 @ 02:40 PM
link   
why did obama close guantanamo again ?


.... It is beyond sad people.




posted on Apr, 23 2009 @ 02:44 PM
link   
reply to post by Shakesbeer
 



Tell me what would have been the harm of him just rolling down the window like any normal person would do?

He was looking for confrontation, hence the video camera rolling before he hit the check stop.

To be honest, I got bored with the whole thing 5 minutes or so into it. His attitude at the beginning caused the 30 minute showdown. All he had to do was roll down the window. But nope, he had to be hard headed about that so he can get some good footage.



posted on Apr, 23 2009 @ 02:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by Shakesbeer

Very interesting,

"...Anything outside of the norm, couldn't that be consider suspicious?"

"you are not acting in a normal fashion, so that is suspicious..."

Says the the border agent.

This is pretty amazing how agitated everyone is right now in general. Not to mention this is a great example of how our rights as US citizens have been reduced by implication not indoctrination.

And seriously...Nun Chucks?! Geez, who does that massive dude think he is, Bruce Lee?

www.blacklistednews.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

[edit on 21-4-2009 by Shakesbeer]


Normal must mean pulling our butt cheeks open for easy access.

Good for this guy, he knew his rights, it seemed to upset the border patrol that someone was aware of what the constitution says. Sometimes I think those that are supposed to be upholding the law, are confused as to what that really means.

Little or no suspicion? Out of the norm is suspicious? So, standing up for our constitutional rights, means we are being suspicious? dddaaannnggg

Would having brown hair and brown eyes instead of blond hair and blue eyes equal being suspicious?

Cooperate or be detained. Toss your constitutional rights out the window, or be penalized and dang it pull your butt cheeks open wider.

By the way, it is NOT illegal for me to refuse to roll my window down, neither is it suspicious. It is actually suggested that you only roll your window down about an inch when being stopped by police or border patrol for safety.



Peace



posted on Apr, 23 2009 @ 03:03 PM
link   
We have allowed our constitution to be circumvented in order to make things easy. We want to help the peace officers so we allow ourselves to be searched. We have been intimidated into doing this. The peace officers want us to do this. We have the right to refuse, but this will invoke thier punishment. The driver has the right to sue for his 27 minutes of lost time. By all means, he should be paid. This is the rule of law.



posted on Apr, 23 2009 @ 03:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by amazed

Originally posted by Shakesbeer

Very interesting,

"...Anything outside of the norm, couldn't that be consider suspicious?"

"you are not acting in a normal fashion, so that is suspicious..."

Says the the border agent.

This is pretty amazing how agitated everyone is right now in general. Not to mention this is a great example of how our rights as US citizens have been reduced by implication not indoctrination.

And seriously...Nun Chucks?! Geez, who does that massive dude think he is, Bruce Lee?

www.blacklistednews.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

[edit on 21-4-2009 by Shakesbeer]


Normal must mean pulling our butt cheeks open for easy access.

Good for this guy, he knew his rights, it seemed to upset the border patrol that someone was aware of what the constitution says. Sometimes I think those that are supposed to be upholding the law, are confused as to what that really means.

Little or no suspicion? Out of the norm is suspicious? So, standing up for our constitutional rights, means we are being suspicious? dddaaannnggg

Would having brown hair and brown eyes instead of blond hair and blue eyes equal being suspicious?

Cooperate or be detained. Toss your constitutional rights out the window, or be penalized and dang it pull your butt cheeks open wider.

By the way, it is NOT illegal for me to refuse to roll my window down, neither is it suspicious. It is actually suggested that you only roll your window down about an inch when being stopped by police or border patrol for safety.



Peace


It is not illegal, but it is necessary to provide your documentation to the police (ie Driver's License, etc). This is a law in all 50 states. By not rolling down the window, there was no way to get said information. Did they ask for it? Don't think so, but I didn't watch the whole thing. Is it illegal? In that instance, no. However, they are law enforcement officers, and they asked him to roll down his window. He refused. This is disobeying a lawful order, which is illegal. They could have actually arrested him on the spot and searched his car. I have a feeling that it would have been even more of a waste of their time with the paperwork and et cetera that is involved with an arrest for it to have been worth it. Not to mention the ICE agents didn't exactly seem to have a full grasp on the law to begin with. Otherwise, their responses would have been a little bit different, not "Roll down your window cause you can't hear me." Was he guilty of something illegal? Yes. Did the ICE agents know it? Probably not.



posted on Apr, 23 2009 @ 03:51 PM
link   
reply to post by jd140
 


So just do what you're told or whatever they do is justified? Is that criterion that you are trying to establish? For simply standing up for the rights we are supposed to have under the constitution of this nation? So do your duty as a citizen and your reward is a beating? These agents & the Arizona police seem to think so in a sense. Although I think they'd side with your implied expression of: Do what they say or else get your car vandalized & your body brutally gang attacked even if it's constitutionally illegal. Which is pretty much what they said to him after doing this 2 months later.....



Is it easy to roll down a window? Yeah it is. Is it easy to just allow them to search your car? Yeah it is. Should they be able to just search car if you don't consent? HELL NO!

That's what the 4th Amendment is for:

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.

Omg, oh-no! I just cited the Bill of Rights! I must be a terrorist too like the agent called the pastor




[edit on 23-4-2009 by Shakesbeer]



posted on Apr, 23 2009 @ 03:53 PM
link   
reply to post by Highground
 


They had his vehicle sitting there in their checkpoint...License plate in full accessible sight and easy enough for them to track. He plainly stated that he owns the car & is registered..so, eeyeah...Worth the harassment, intimation, and slander? Because they wouldn't do something they can & do do all the time?

 


Here's both the police & the border patrol lying to the local news about using a taser:





[edit on 23-4-2009 by Shakesbeer]



posted on Apr, 23 2009 @ 04:51 PM
link   
reply to post by Shakesbeer
 



In this instance if he had rolled down the window (which isn't inpeding on any civil rights) none of this would have happened. It was a check point. They wanted him to roll down his window, take a quick peek and move him on. That is what a check point is for. Him having an attitude from the get go threw up an alert. While he was trying to get to work, they were only trying to do their jobs. Which is hard enough as is.

I will concede that the BP agent that whipped out his niffty baton (not nunchucks) should be fired as he did not have cause. But for the most part, espeacially the guy who was at the window when that idiot came up and called the driver a liar, was calm and tried to difuse the situation.



posted on Apr, 23 2009 @ 04:53 PM
link   
reply to post by Shakesbeer
 


They may have his plate number, but how easy is to steal a LP? In that video do you honestly think he would have given his liscense and registration to them?



posted on Apr, 23 2009 @ 05:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by jd140
In this instance if he had rolled down the window (which isn't inpeding on any civil rights) none of this would have happened.....


Okay so you are saying just do what you're told and you won't get beat..gotcha. Because it's not required by law to roll down the window, and they where obviously communicating just fine with it up.

Beatings, torture, & electrocution...it's the American way!



Originally posted by jd140
They may have his plate number, but how easy is to steal a LP? In that video do you honestly think he would have given his liscense and registration to them?


Is that what happened? Is that pertinenate to this particular case in question?

I do believe this man was INNOCENT of all the implications they tried to through at him both times. So I guess you're glad this man got beaten-up, harassed, etc then...as a lesson to the rest of citizens?



posted on Apr, 23 2009 @ 06:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by Shakesbeer
Okay so you are saying just do what you're told and you won't get beat..gotcha. Because it's not required by law to roll down the window, and they where obviously communicating just fine with it up.
[...]
Is that what happened? Is that pertinenate to this particular case in question?

I do believe this man was INNOCENT of all the implications they tried to through at him both times. So I guess you're glad this man got beaten-up, harassed, etc then...as a lesson to the rest of citizens?


Your first mistake is thinking he does not have to roll down his window. Rolling down his window is not a violation of his rights. A sworn law enforcement officer told him to do it. It was a lawful order, making him guilty of violating a lawful order.

As for the "innocent until proven guilty" thing... It is also a requirement to provide your driver's license while in operation of a vehicle to any sworn LEO that requests it. This is a law. If they asked, he must provide it. Plates have nothing to do with it. If he had just stolen the car, he could have looked at the registration and claimed to be that guy. Or, better yet, he may not have had said license and registration, and could have just been saying it. Do you expect criminals to be truthful when they are caught breaking the law?



posted on Apr, 23 2009 @ 07:05 PM
link   
reply to post by Highground
 


Please present the written law that makes it mandatory to follow that particular instruction.

They also didn't charge him with anything, nor did they cite that particular law to force entry though did they?

[edit on 23-4-2009 by Shakesbeer]



posted on Apr, 23 2009 @ 07:59 PM
link   
reply to post by Shakesbeer
 


www.azleg.state.az.us.../ars/28/03169.htm&Title=28&DocType=ARS

A. A licensee shall have a legible driver license in the licensee's immediate possession at all times when operating a motor vehicle. On demand of a justice of the peace, a police officer or a field deputy or inspector of the department, a licensee shall display the license.

www.azleg.state.az.us.../ars/28/00622.htm&Title=28&DocType=ARS

A. A person shall not wilfully fail or refuse to comply with any lawful order or direction of a police officer invested by law with authority to direct, control or regulate traffic.
B. A person who violates this section is guilty of a class 2 misdemeanor.


Him being placed under arrest for the misdemeanor would have been reason enough to search the car. That is probably the DPS's reason for taking the action they did. I don't believe the DPS ever said they were arresting him for the drug charges. I have a feeling he is leaving out a part of the story, such as the questions that were asked. If he refused to give his name, that's also a violation of law. Again, I bet he's just looking for reasons to go after the gubment.

edit: I'm not sure why the links aren't working, it appears to strip my URL tags. Weird. Just copy/paste, I guess.
[edit on 23-4-2009 by Highground]

[edit on 23-4-2009 by Highground]



posted on Apr, 23 2009 @ 08:26 PM
link   
reply to post by Highground
 


Because he wouldn't submit to an illegal search (and maybe seizure), they are justified for playing lawyer-ball to achieve absolutely nothing? Because this man is obviously a threat to society
Does a Border Patrol agent fall under any of those classifications officially?

And where does it say in the law that "roll down your window" is either a lawful or unlawful command?



posted on Apr, 23 2009 @ 08:36 PM
link   
reply to post by Shakesbeer
 


It doesn't have to say it, it does not violate his civil rights, therefore it is lawful. And I never said that because he wouldn't submit to the search he was subject to the treatment. I said that because he violated the above law - disobeying a sworn law enforcement officer, he was guilty of a misdemeanor and would not get out of the car. This then falls into resisting arrest. After he is arrested, they have full rights to search his car. His refusal to allow the car to be searched has nothing to do with it. It's how he decided he wanted to handle the situation. His complete defiance is not protected by law, or the constitution. If he had rolled down the window, he would not have had the trouble he did. I suspect something similar happened the second time. I'm sorry, but "They asked some questions and I refused to answer" doesn't cut it for me. Just like a guy running from a robbery saying, "Man, I was walking down the street and these cops just started chasing me" doesn't cut it either.

edit: And you say he is OBVIOUSLY not a threat to society? How do you know that? If a guy pulled up to your checkpoint, was being belligerent about simple things such as rolling down a window, would you just say, "Oh, silly me, fourth amendment, riiight!" and let him go, or would you wonder why he was acting so strange and wish to inquire further? I would personally do the second, as I believe any reasonable person would.

[edit on 23-4-2009 by Highground]



posted on Apr, 23 2009 @ 09:10 PM
link   
reply to post by Highground
 


Okay how do I know he's not dangerous? Well I'm going to go out on a limb here and assume, judging by the rest of his youtube channel content (which are sermons given at his church):

www.youtube.com...

And after reviewing his church's website:
www.faithfulwordbaptist.org...

That this man isn't a drug-smuggler, or Al Qaeda...but by all means, go talk to him and prove me wrong and let me know how mean & evil this man was so I can go thank the abusive cops/agents for taking care of this threat to society

-ahem-
SARCASM ALERT

2ND: and most important, the alleged misdemeanor only came AFTER the agent (who you still have not verified qualities under Arizona police regulation) wanted to submit this man to an illegal search. Unless you believe "mere suspicion", which is as arbitrary of term as one could us, justifies this man's treatment for something he didn't even do....

Very American of you...beat'em & taze'em...bomb'em if you have'em... It's now the American way!

Just like they tried to get him on yet another misdemeanor on tap for blocking traffic while following the instructions to stop at the check point until he's allowed to leave.

It's Lawyer ball time! Batter up!

[edit on 23-4-2009 by Shakesbeer]



posted on Apr, 23 2009 @ 09:39 PM
link   
reply to post by Shakesbeer
 

So, let me get this right. You now want all law enforcement to run people's names through YouTube and Google them prior to stopping them, to verify whether or not they are considered a risk or not? This is what your are suggesting, here. You are clearly not thinking if you believe that to be the case. How was law enforcement supposed to know he was a pastor? How were they supposed to know he wasn't a risk? By running his driver's license? OH, WAIT...

And I don't see how an illegal search preceded the misdemeanor. The agent came up to the car, and asked the driver to roll down his window. He refused, resulting in the possibility of arrest. Anything after that was an attempt to arrest him at that point. No attempt to search his car was made before he was being belligerent and hostile.

They are ICE agents. They are sworn law enforcement, federally recognized. Last time I checked, federal agents were still considered Law Enforcement in all 50 states, of which Arizona was included.

edit: And blocking traffic... I guess I did not get to this point in the video. They were motioning for him to go to a second area. If he did not go to this area, he was obstructing the flow of traffic. They made him stop, but they waved him out of the flow of traffic, which again, he refused to follow directions. Another misdemeanor.

[edit on 23-4-2009 by Highground]



posted on Apr, 23 2009 @ 10:22 PM
link   
reply to post by Highground
 


No dude, I was answering you question about why I don't think he's a threat. The FEDs have all kinds of groovy tracking and checking methods at their disposal for that don't they? So don't try to spin my opinion into national policy making speculation like you apparently like to do.

They also didn't give him any reason (probable cause) nor did they present a warrant. Based on his argument of the 4th amendment, he felt he did not have to comply. That is precisely why the constitution is there.



posted on Apr, 23 2009 @ 10:25 PM
link   
reply to post by Highground
 

I asked how do you OBVIOUSLY know he's not a threat if he pulls up to your checkpoint. I can see where the confusion came in, I guess, but I figured it was pretty self-evident what I was asking.

And what in the fourth amendment makes it unconstitutional to ask you to roll down your window? Please find that and inform me, because I would like to know.



posted on Apr, 23 2009 @ 10:29 PM
link   
reply to post by Highground
 


These are border patrol agents, not 'law enforcement'. They are agents of the federal government, and have no authority over intra-state affairs such as intra-state travel.



new topics

top topics



 
13
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join