I, a U.S. citizen, was arrested by a U.S. Border Patrol Agent today

page: 27
45
<< 24  25  26    28 >>

log in

join

posted on Aug, 9 2009 @ 10:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by dragonridr
And they have the right to arrest you Has nothing to do with this county so stop trying to say border agents are different here then anywhere else there not.


Are you just pretending to be so ignorant?


In a program unique to the Yuma Sector, Border Patrol agents were given the authority to write citations in low-quantity marijuana cases as though they were deputies working for the Yuma County Sheriff's Office.


Again, the checkpoint is unconstitutional, they're using a loophole to get around the supreme court and target citizens, no amount of BS and selective morality is going to change that fact. The ONLY reason the BP was granted the ability to use dogs at checkpoints, was to stop illegal immigration PRIMARILY, and drugs SECONDARY, meaning if they check a vehicle suspected of harboring illegal immigrants and find drugs they sieze them. But since it's CLEARLY stated that is no longer the primary mission for this checkpoint, they're ability to set up dog checkpoints in that area should be REVOKED, period. There are no more illegals coming through that area regularly, thanks to the new fences.


Few would argue that big dope smugglers or those carrying an arsenal of hard drugs shouldn't feel the pinch of the law. If it weren't for the trained dogs, smugglers could run thousands of pounds of drugs through the Yuma Sector checkpoints.

But the vast majority of people getting busted at checkpoints in Arizona near Yuma aren't smugglers or illegal immigrants. They aren't even big-shot partiers like Lil Wayne. They're just average people who happen to be carrying a smidgen of marijuana in their vehicles.


This checkpoint is no longer performing the PRIMARY function is what put in place to perform, and should be taken down and moved to an area where the BP can do the job they are supposed to be doing.



[edit on 9-8-2009 by 27jd]




posted on Aug, 9 2009 @ 10:20 AM
link   

omg who really cares what he had in his car anyways?

How about a dead hooker?
How about 100Lbs of heroin?
How about a vial of anthrax?
How about a dirty bomb?

Well the point is they aren't allowed to search you randomly for any of those things. The problem with the scenario is that a k9 unit will be able to find any of those things, along with illegal immigrants and pot. The problem with that it is totally constitutional, and I can explain why. There is not supposed to be illegal search and seizure, but they retain the right of probable cause. Literally hundreds of thousands of illegals use that corridor to enter california. You would be hard pressed to argue that they don't have probable cause at that point. Once a pattern starts to repeat itself and this is recorded over and over, it's impossible to say "there was no probable cause".



posted on Aug, 9 2009 @ 10:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by ReelView
Drugs, like illegal aliens are just a ruse for the feds to systematically condition people to feeling dependent on the fed and think of themselves as helpless and subvervient. While at the same time, of course, the fed runs the drug war and the drug peddling industry and the importation of illegals.


Black Market - Foreign Borders - Large diverse population - Major transport highways - significant increase in violence.

Yes - I personally believe the drug trade is planned and fueled by a global power. So what. Who is behind the drug trade is completely irrelevant to this discussion.

Its pretty simple. Would you intentionally make a U-turn in front of a cop where its clearly posted No- U-turn? Personal responsibility. Laws are made to protect the masses.

Reality is reality - - - not everything is a conspiracy.



posted on Aug, 9 2009 @ 10:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by jprophet420
Literally hundreds of thousands of illegals use that corridor to enter california.


What the HELL are you talking about?? Hundreds of thousands of illegals use an EASTBOUND interstate to enter California (which is WEST by the way) from Arizona??? I guess that's why you were busted twice, lol.

Hundreds of thousands of illegals, yeah, right...


In the Yuma Sector, low-level busts of people with marijuana are staving off boredom for Border Patrol agents.

Spokesman Schappell talks almost wistfully of the days when the sector was hopping with illegal immigrants. Now, agents don't spend much time chasing down border crossers and hauling in big loads of drugs, he admits.

On a sunny February day, Schappell cruises a sandy road on the northern side of the imposing security fence that runs from San Luis to just past the distant Tinajas Altas Mountains on the horizon. Not a footprint can be seen for miles in the soft earth.

"Anybody who says a fence doesn't work, I say, 'Come to Yuma,'" Schappell says.


The BP spokesman even ADMITS they don't catch illegals anymore.





[edit on 9-8-2009 by 27jd]



posted on Aug, 9 2009 @ 10:46 AM
link   
reply to post by Annee
 


See what I mean about dimentia, Annee? That post illustrates it pretty clearly, you should see a doctor about the loss of memory and reasoning. Serious. You just said that the war on drugs in your opinion is a conspiracy, then basically said it's okay for the conspirators to shake people down in the name of "safety", then you said not everything is a conspiracy. All in one short post. This is why, IMO, older folks shouldn't have as much influence on law making as they do. They are FAR too frightened and easily manipulated to support anything, as long as they think it is keeping them safe and sound.



posted on Aug, 9 2009 @ 11:00 AM
link   

What the HELL are you talking about?? Hundreds of thousands of illegals use and EASTBOUND interstate to enter California (which is WEST by the way) from Arizona??? I guess that's why you were busted twice, lol.

Hundreds of thousands of illegals, yeah, right...

I've live in SD and Pheonix and they both have millions of illegal immigrants. If you know of an interstate that only goes in one direction let me know.



posted on Aug, 9 2009 @ 11:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by 27jd
reply to post by Annee
 


See what I mean about dimentia, Annee?


Wrong! First I live in the REAL WORLD.

Pick your conspiracies.



posted on Aug, 9 2009 @ 11:20 AM
link   
Personally I find this complaint about being caught at a Border Patrol check point by a drug dog - - a bit silly.

Laws - checks & balances - are to protect the average citizen. The fact you were found with an illegal substance - then released with little more then a slap on the wrist - - instead of going to jail is significant to me.

Stop complaining - - and drive clean - - when you choose to make a U-Turn in front of a cop where its posted no U-Turn.

Here is where my thoughts lie on a bigger scale - - The "Big Pond" - - not the tiny guilty fish.

dotconnectoruk.blogspot.com...



posted on Aug, 9 2009 @ 11:27 AM
link   
reply to post by jprophet420
 


Yes, i've lived in phoenix and stayed many a summer in san diego, and both have their share of illegals. They fill the kitchen of every applebee's and the parking lot of every hardware store. Shows how effective these checkpoints are at doing what they were supposed to do, pretty clearly. Also, why don't police have special powers to arrest illegal immigrants? Everybody on here has been using the word 'illegal' to justify the checkpoint. We all know where illegals are in large numbers, they do too. If i was standing in the parking lot of a store waving a bag of a controlled substance around, the police would very quickly arrest me. But the police drive right by the 30 or so illegal immigrants waiting for work in the parking lots of hardware stores, because they feel it's not their job and don't have the resources if they wanted to deal with it. But they are still 'illegal'. So, basically the agency meant to police them, is now given special powers and direction to target citizens (IN the U.S.), but the agency meant to police citizens will completely overlook illegal immigrants. They have more rights in our country than we do, and so many blindly accept it.

edit: when thinking about it, i realized that the reason illegal immigrants have more rights, is because they usually don't have any money or property to confiscate, it's not worth it to our government to "protect" us from illegals. How does that escape you people??

[edit on 9-8-2009 by 27jd]



posted on Aug, 9 2009 @ 11:34 AM
link   
reply to post by Annee
 


Okay Annee, you've already said that like 10 times on this thread. Like I said before, you seem to have the memory of dory from Finding Nemo. How many more times are you going to wag your finger and shame on me? This thread is about a clear violation of our constitution. I am paying the fine, and i have said SEVERAL times that i accept responsibility for my actions, as far as MY personal circumstance is concerned. ON THE BACK END, i feel the CHECKPOINT ITSELF is a violation of our constitution and that is what this thread is MEANT to be about.



posted on Aug, 9 2009 @ 11:42 AM
link   
reply to post by 27jd
 


I would really like to continue this conversation but I need to violate ToS to give my true insight and I cant really do that. All I can say is good luck with the system and do the right thing. Peace.

[edit on 9-8-2009 by jprophet420]



posted on Aug, 9 2009 @ 11:55 AM
link   
reply to post by jprophet420
 


I understand, pretty hard to keep a topic like this from spilling into that area, as you can see. Thanks for contributing...



posted on Aug, 9 2009 @ 11:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by 27jd
reply to post by Annee
 


Okay Annee, you've already said that like 10 times on this thread.


And how many times can you and your "followers" repeat your opinion - - - while completely and totally ignoring others who have proven your opinion invalid?

I am RIGHT in my perspective. Whether you agree with it or not.

Border Patrol check points are 100% in the open - - on 100% open highways. It is openly posted on the Internet - where they are - and what they do - including using dogs.

Let me know when that changes.



posted on Aug, 9 2009 @ 12:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by Annee
Let me know when that changes.


Alrighty, we'll keep you posted.



posted on Aug, 9 2009 @ 12:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by harvib
reply to post by Annee
 


Understanding there importance and value you must then be in support of these measure being used in increasing numbers and for various other crime prevention purposes. I believe random house checks may also be effective. Why not support measures such as those?

[edit on 8-8-2009 by harvib]


I think the problem with establishing 'random checks' as a method crime prevention, in general , largely stems from the point in which the government cannot absolutely ensure they are truly random.

I believe that the Border Patrol, in that they check every vehicle or some set ratio 1:3, 2:5 1:7 etc, does so in a manner that is fair and impartial; and importantly can be demonstrated as fair and impartial in a court of law.

Random checks on the other hand, could be challenged as unfair, that they are not impartial and or biased under a multitude points. The challenges largely stemming from, race, economics, age, political party support (bumper stickers), political activism (again bumper stickers or political rallys), neighborhood, and so on.

Since the burden of proof as to if such checks were not improperly motivated or not, would end up tying the courts of law up for years; as case after case was challenged under the point of such searches not being 'truly' random. (Which if I am not mistaken, such searches have been tested in the courts, with mixed results.) It becomes apparent, that a policy of 'random checks' would cause more problems than they would solve.

Which is likely why we do not see random checks in action all over the place.

M.



posted on Aug, 9 2009 @ 12:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by Moshpet

Originally posted by harvib
reply to post by Annee
 


Understanding there importance and value you must then be in support of these measure being used in increasing numbers and for various other crime prevention purposes. I believe random house checks may also be effective. Why not support measures such as those?

[edit on 8-8-2009 by harvib]


I think the problem with establishing 'random checks' as a method crime prevention, in general , largely stems from the point in which the government cannot absolutely ensure they are truly random.

I believe that the Border Patrol, in that they check every vehicle or some set ratio 1:3, 2:5 1:7 etc, does so in a manner that is fair and impartial; and importantly can be demonstrated as fair and impartial in a court of law.

Random checks on the other hand, could be challenged as unfair, that they are not impartial and or biased under a multitude points. The challenges largely stemming from, race, economics, age, political party support (bumper stickers), political activism (again bumper stickers or political rallys), neighborhood, and so on.



I agree.

There is a fine line which IMO - has not been crossed yet. That doesn't mean the possibility should not be considered or monitored.

I specifically state these checks are 100% in the open - on open highways - and exactly what they do is listed openly on the internet.

Public pressure has brought awareness and funding to the Border - - thus the increase in personnel and a more thorough checks. I see it as that simple.

Random checks on private residences is not a part of this discussion. Even though I did mention it - I don't see the relation. YET!



posted on Aug, 9 2009 @ 01:01 PM
link   
By the way. I have been driving AZ to San Diego for 15 years. The checks have been in existence for 20.

I drive this road about every 2 weeks. I have been stopped once - - which I now realized is because my grandson was technically hiding under a quilt. I did not realize the dogs are trained to alert if a human is hiding - even if it is as simplistic as a toddler covering his head because of driving into the sun.

However - ignorance - is never an excuse. I was technically guilty of doing something that the dogs should catch and did.

The dog did its job.



posted on Aug, 9 2009 @ 04:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by Annee
By the way. I have been driving AZ to San Diego for 15 years. The checks have been in existence for 20.


For the last time, nobody is disputing that there have been BP checkpoints for a long time. The fact of the matter is, they never ran dogs around every car, only if they suspected the occupants of wrong doing. If you're trying to say the checkpoints have always been that way then you are not being honest. As a matter of fact, the checkpoints were closed most of the time, before there was a fence and illegal immigration was actually a problem in that area. Now it is open for business, and nothing more.



[edit on 9-8-2009 by 27jd]



posted on Aug, 9 2009 @ 07:29 PM
link   
The Op has a provided a very good example of why ATS is pointless, no revolution will occur and why the majority of us really truly deserve the government we have. It isn't just the moronic, it's the educated well spoken (Slightly less crude than the OP) that are to blame here.

I personally cannot unite with people that oppose the op and spew nonsense like "Grow up, you're lucky", they think they have the moral high ground, can't stay on the real topic and they are exactly why none of us will unite any time soon.



posted on Aug, 9 2009 @ 07:46 PM
link   
reply to post by jprophet420
 





There is not supposed to be illegal search and seizure, but they retain the right of probable cause. Literally hundreds of thousands of illegals use that corridor to enter california. You would be hard pressed to argue that they don't have probable cause at that point.


The Fourth Amendment applies to people not places. I pointed to a Supreme Court case earlier that states the same. You need probable cause against the person and although "investigatory detainment" is more lenient on what constitutes probable cause it is still required. This is why even the Supreme Court is forced to concede these checkpoints to be unconstitutional.





new topics
top topics
 
45
<< 24  25  26    28 >>

log in

join