Border Wars

[techres]

Yes, in the situation he described absolutely. We do NOT have to answer questions at a traffic stop (or anywhere else for that matter) and any abuses that follow our exercise of rights are all one and the same. Do YOU think exercising your right not to answer questions is GROUNDS for ripping you out of your car, frisking you, sticking a gun in your ear, and splitting your head open? Or do you support his contention that exercising your rights constitutes suspicious behavior and justifies such actions?

If not answering questions is grounds for such roadside punishment, we don't really HAVE our rights, do we?

I agree that exercising our rights should not negatively effect us in any way.

And again, I will point out that he said he would ask you not to move, or else once he found a gun on you. That is not the same as threatening to kill you for exercising your right to say nothing.

In the first, he will take your gun and handcuff you once he has control of your firearm. In the second the firearm is irrelevant and he will just kill you for exercising your rights.

I guess I see those as utterly, and completely different. One may be overboard in tone but otherwise legal, the other evil and criminal.

 

[techres]

Why did you guys close down the other thread if we're just going to talk about it here?

Oops. Let me check on that question. Be right back.

 

[tyler34]

Why did you guys close down the other thread if we're just going to talk about it here? I would have liked to talk about it too, but of course, several people were advocating not succumbing to a cop's whim, so it got locked. I don't understand the argument going on here...or why there is one, rather.

In the state of Indiana we do NOT have to let an officer know we are carrying. It does not say we "do have have to notify the officer one has a gun until the officer asks about it" or we "do not have to notify the officer one has a gun until one is being frisked". It just says we don't have to notify. Correct me if I'm wrong, but are we not innocent until proven guilty? Does that only apply to the courtroom? Why do certain Law Enforcement officers get to assume I'm illegally carrying a gun, just because I chose to plead the 5th? On that note, is the 5th Amendment gone? Because it seems that we no longer have the right to remain silent. Believe it or not, we have the right to remain silent, always, not just after we're arrested.

So here was the scenario - You get pulled over for "using every bit of the yellow lines" (yes, real pull-over reason here, apparently staying inside my two yellow lines is not acceptable anymore?) The cop asks if you have any weapons and you reply to the officer "Public servant, I have no illegal weapons in my car. Is there a reason why you pulled me over, apart from wondering about my weapons? Then the cop asks again, and you reply, "Public servant, I have nothing illegal in my car, am I free to go?" Then the cop makes you get out of the car, because you clearly didn't make him happy by answering a question you lawfully don't have to answer. He pats you down, finds a gun, and puts a gun to your head, ready to "split your head open". Yes, this does seem wrong to me. We either need to change the law or educate police officers, once again (as gun owners had to do with Open Carry) that we legally do not have to tell them we are carrying in the state of Indiana.

again I say rule of averages, how many times does this happen to him and its on the up and up?

 

[Bigum1969]

Oops. Let me check on that question. Be right back.

BOR shut it down.

It did get a little heated, but I was actually learning from the thread. I think we all yearn to know what goes on in the mind of an LEO, especially if we are going to deal with them while armed.

 

[22lr]

Know your rights, how to use them, and what they mean. Don't back down and don't let them intimidate you. Shut the door and call a lawyer if they persist, then enjoy the million dollar lawsuit.

Know your rights, know how to use them, and know when to shut up and call someone who knows your rights better than you. Have a lawyers number saved on your phone and dont be afraid to use it.

Every professor I have ever had has told me to 1) know my rights, 2) never talk to cops about anything until you've called a lawyer, and 3) never talk to the cops without a lawyer. Know your rights people, you have no excuse to not know the basics.

 

[jsgolfman]

IBTL

 

[techres]

BOR shut it down.

It did get a little heated, but I was actually learning from the thread. I think we all yearn to know what goes on in the mind of an LEO, especially if we are going to deal with them while armed.

I share your desire to have these conversations and can only ask that people continue the threads as both polite, and as discussions. Those two things are the best way to proceed in any thread, but especially the LEO threads if the threads are to remain open and the participants willing to keep in the conversation. Spiraling leads to lock.

As of now, this thread has not been closed or broken away into another thread.

Again, if the OP sees a threadjack here, I can break it off into a separate thread.

Otherwise, back to the OP's thread...

 

[level.eleven]

Know your rights, how to use them, and what they mean. Don't back down and don't let them intimidate you. Shut the door and call a lawyer if they persist, then enjoy the million dollar lawsuit.

Know your rights, know how to use them, and know when to shut up and call someone who knows your rights better than you. Have a lawyers number saved on your phone and dont be afraid to use it.

Every professor I have ever had has told me to 1) know my rights, 2) never talk to cops about anything until you've called a lawyer, and 3) never talk to the cops without a lawyer. Know your rights people, you have no excuse to not know the basics.

That's good advice, and I too practice what you have suggested. I guess I don't have a lawyer in my cell phone, but I'm not sure how much that would help the immediate situation.

On the other hand, its a pretty sad commentary that one is required to memorize volumes of traffic and firearms laws, Supreme Court decisions, and have a lawyer on speed dial to remain safe when interacting with the state. It certainly puts a large segment of society at a disadvantage from the get go. Namely the less wealthy and the less educated. Not everyone has a broadband connection or the capacity to read legalese and play the legal gymnastics game. Some argue that the state knows this, and isn't interested in making it any easier.

As far as Border Wars, I probably won't watch it. "Cop" shows have a tendency to raise my blood pressure.

 

[rambone]

I'd like to see this thread reopened, personally. I totally missed it.
https://www.indianagunowners.com/fo...e/71049-what_to_do_during_a_traffic_stop.html

As per this thread, it is sad to see that some people with power think that their safety, or their desire to solve crimes, or their desire to stop illegal immigration, should ever supersede the individual rights of American citizens (and therefore, the Constitution).

 

[tyler34]

As per this thread, it is sad to see that some people with power think that their safety, or their desire to solve crimes, or their desire to stop illegal immigration, should ever supersede the individual rights of American citizens (and therefore, the Constitution).

could you expand on this as I don't quite understand what your saying.

 

[Bigum1969]

I saw this episode of Border Wars. It did rub me the wrong way when the BP agent said they didn't have enough evidence for a warrant, so they would basically intimidate their way to their desired conclusion.

I do want the BP agents to catch illegal immigrants. But not at the risk of finding ways to "get around" our constitutional rights.

I have to say, even though it is difficult at times, getting the bad guy or guys is a hollow victory if the very foundation of this great country is being chipped away.

 

[mrjarrell]

In the war against "other people" the Border Patrol has extended their power to unheard of proportions. We now have a 100 mile internal border where these people set up unconstitutional roadblocks and commit illegal searches and detentions. They, along with ICE disappear people at will, even legal US citizens. All in the name of curbing "illegal immigration". It's not worth it, (and this comes from someone who is trained in a field that is directly impacted by immigrants).
There was a good article the other day that addressed this very subject.

Immigration, United States Citizens, and Freedom

his is the second in a series on immigration and freedom. Back in the 1990s, I would have said that the so-called War on Drugs was by far the most significant threat to freedom in the United States. Then came the so-called War on Terror that quickly escalated and became an obvious challenger for that title, integrating the War on Drugs into a newer and scarier threat. But it was not until the last few years that I realized that, increasingly, anti-immigration policy is right up there with those two. In trying to sort out the numbers in my last post in this series, it became clear that anti-immigration policy, like the War on Terror, integrates many of the booga booga elements of the other two with its own unique scaremongering features.
If you think immigration policy has little to do with you because you’re not an immigrant and you live nowhere near the Mexican border, I encourage you to reconsider. Please take a look at the map to the right put together by the American Civil Liberties Union. If you are located in the area highlighted in orange, you are in what has effectively become a Constitution-free zone as the ACLU explains:

• Normally under the Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, the American people are not generally subject to random and arbitrary stops and searches.
• The border, however, has always been an exception. There, the longstanding view is that the normal rules do not apply. For example the authorities do not need a warrant or probable cause to conduct a “routine search.”
• But what is “the border”? According to the government, it is a 100-mile wide strip that wraps around the “external boundary” of the United States.
• As a result of this claimed authority, individuals who are far away from the border, American citizens traveling from one place in America to another, are being stopped and harassed in ways that our Constitution does not permit.

When I ask “What do you mean by the border?”, this is the reason why. Advocating government surveillance of the border while refusing to specify what constitutes “the border” is dangerously close, if not tantamount, to accepting the government definition of the border- that is, the abusive 100-mile wide zone illustrated to the right.
And that has serious implications for most residents of the United States, citizens included. Here are a few other facts, also courtesy of the ACLU:

• More than 2/3 of the United States population (nearly 200 million people) lives in this Constitution-free zone.
• Nine of the ten most heavily populated metro areas in the United States are in this Constitution-free zone.
• Twelve states fall completely within this zone, including the so-called Free State of New Hampshire.

This past summer, the Motorhome Diaries crew documented this firsthand upon making a wrong turn and being denied permission to turn around in Michigan before unintentionally leaving the country. Note that upon trying to re-enter the United States, border enforcers informed the MHD crew of basically of what the ACLU notes regarding the Constitution-free zone shown in the above map.

Read the rest at the source. It's a great read.

 

[ATF Consumer]

devils advocate again, last time I checked ILLEGAL immigrants don't have rights. so doing what they have to do and reading between the lines of liberal lawmakers rules set up to give ILLEGALS a red carpet treatment is fully justified. what do you do when you don't like a law like the speed limit? obey it anyway or speed? I'm guessing the latter. skirting the law happens everyday I guess it just depends on what side of the equation your on as to your opinion of it. if they are getting ILLEGAL immigrants off U.S. soil and making me even a pinch safer then I say go for it. and if you've done nothing wrong accept it as par for the course a deal with it because if they didn't do what they did and how they did there would be a lot more criminals around.

The home is on US property, therefore the law enforcement should not be above the law by breaking in without a warrant. Are you implying that just because we have illegal activity going on allows our police force to break the law as well?

 

[rambone]

As per this thread, it is sad to see that some people with power think that their safety, or their desire to solve crimes, or their desire to stop illegal immigration, should ever supersede the individual rights of American citizens (and therefore, the Constitution).

could you expand on this as I don't quite understand what your saying.

It is not constitutional, fair, or just for a cop to walk up to a man shopping in a store and disarm him. Having not witnessed any crimes, he is disarming a citizen, for no reason other than a perceived safety issue. But his safety does not supersede the U.S. Constitution.

It is not constitutional, fair, or just for a border patrol agent to conduct a warrantless search of a home in Texas because he wanted to catch some illegals. Having not witnessed any crimes, he is searching a citizen's home for no reason other than his desire to stop illegal immigration. He thinks that warrants get in the way of catching illegals. But the quest to catch illegals does not supersede the U.S. Constitution.

It is not constitutional, fair, or just for a police department to set up a DUI roadblock and stop cars for no reason, other than driving on a particular road. Having not witnessed any crimes, they are acting on behalf of the State and searching (and intimidating) citizens who haven't done anything. The motive is to stop drunk drivers. But the methods of catching drunks must not supersede the U.S. Constitution.

 

[tyler34]

The home is on US property, therefore the law enforcement should not be above the law by breaking in without a warrant. Are you implying that just because we have illegal activity going on allows our police force to break the law as well?

no I'm not implying that what I'm saying is they had intelligence that told them it was a stash house for illegals they did what they had to do, the knew it wasn't full of U.S. citizens. I don't see them detaining and arresting U.S. citizens on that show. now I'll flip the coin and ask are you implying that because the illegals were in a house that is U.S. property they should be afforded the same rights of U.S. citizens?

 

[tyler34]

It is not constitutional, fair, or just for a cop to walk up to a man shopping in a store and disarm him. Having not witnessed any crimes, he is disarming a citizen, for no reason other than a perceived safety issue. But his safety does not supersede the U.S. Constitution.

agreed

It is not constitutional, fair, or just for a border patrol agent to conduct a warrantless search of a home in Texas because he wanted to catch some illegals. Having not witnessed any crimes, he is searching a citizen's home for no reason other than his desire to stop illegal immigration. He thinks that warrants get in the way of catching illegals. But the quest to catch illegals does not supersede the U.S. Constitution.

if the intelligence tells them that the house is full of illegals. I.E. vans full of mexicans coming in and out with no other activity than I feel he is fully justified in baiting them out if he can't get a warrant.

It is not constitutional, fair, or just for a police department to set up a DUI roadblock and stop cars for no reason, other than driving on a particular road. Having not witnessed any crimes, they are acting on behalf of the State and searching (and intimidating) citizens who haven't done anything. The motive is to stop drunk drivers. But the methods of catching drunks must not supersede the U.S. Constitution.

if your not drinking why would you care to be stopped for a couple minutes if it gets a number of drunk drivers off the street? before getting angry at cops try getting mad at the criminals who flippant disregard for the law. and the legislators that create laws that invade privacy because they would rather invade your privacy and violate your rights than do anything effective on for fear of being branded/called a racist or bias towards a certain group or societal class and potentially lose votes that would keep them in office.

 

[Joe Williams]

no I'm not implying that what I'm saying is they had intelligence that told them it was a stash house for illegals they did what they had to do, the knew it wasn't full of U.S. citizens. I highly doubt they are blindly going house to house. now I'll flip the coin and ask are you implying that because the illegals were in a house that is U.S. property they should be afforded the same rights of U.S. citizens?

Are you saying that we should take the cops at their words that any particular house has criminal activity? That approach would sure speed things up, what with not having to get pesky warrants and all. Heck, if we are going to take the cops at their word as being good enough reason to invade our homes, seems to me we can just take 'em at their word that somebody is a bad guy, and just do away with those lengthy and expensive trials, too!

 

[Blue Tile Spook]

Are you saying that we should take the cops at their words that any particular house has criminal activity? That approach would sure speed things up, what with not having to get pesky warrants and all.

They wouldn't even have to tell the truth to get the warrants, either.

FOXNews.com - Report: FBI Illegally Collected Phone Records

FBI general counsel Valerie Caproni told the Post that agents technically violated the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, which was enacted in 1986, by citing nonexistent emergencies to collect records. "We should have stopped those requests from being made that way," she said.

 

[tyler34]

Are you saying that we should take the cops at their words that any particular house has criminal activity? That approach would sure speed things up, what with not having to get pesky warrants and all. Heck, if we are going to take the cops at their word as being good enough reason to invade our homes, seems to me we can just take 'em at their word that somebody is a bad guy, and just do away with those lengthy and expensive trials, too!

your lack of nicotine is showing I'm referring to the show and in that instance they had plenty of intelligence that it was an illegal stash house. I saw no U.S. citizens having their rights violated and they were right the house was full of illegals. they weren't going door to door asking people if they had illegals in their house they had a target house did the recon and acted on the intelligence. your painting broad strokes with my statement that didn't pertain to my comment to suit your agenda. and I will again refer you to this.

before getting angry at cops try getting mad at the criminals who flippantly disregard the law. and the legislators that create laws that invade privacy because they would rather invade your privacy and violate your rights than do anything effective on for fear of being branded/called a racist or bias towards a certain group or societal class and potentially lose votes that would keep them in office.

 

[Joe Williams]

your lack of nicotine is showing I'm referring to the show and in that instance they had plenty of intelligence that it was an illegal stash house. I saw no U.S. citizens having their rights violated and they were right the house was full of illegals. they weren't going door to door asking people if they had illegals in their house they had a target house did the recon and acted on the intelligence. your painting broad strokes with my statement that didn't pertain to my comment to suit your agenda.

So.... if they have REALLY GOOD intel, we can dispense with warrants and trials?