Border Wars

[dburkhead]

or maybe it was but they got stonewalled because of the liberal law makers who don't want to irritate the mexicans. as a parrable look at what obamas doing with with his foreign relations policy. he won't allow the U.S. to act on intel because he doesn't want the middle east to be mad at him.

That. does. not. give. them. the. right. to. break. the. law.

Once they start breaking the law because they have "good reason" (for whatever "good reason" they cite) then it becomes that much easier to break the law the next time for some other "good reason". As a nation, we can survive a lot more lawbreakers on the streets than we can among those who are tasked with enforcing the law.

A good rule of thumb: anything the goverment can do for you it can do to you.

 

[Joe Williams]

thats kind of a reach there. it had to do with children being denied schooling because of their staus when they had no choice whether they wanted to be illegal or not. I'm saying does the second you knowingly illegally cross the border give you constitutional rights.

The Supreme Court ruled Constitutional protections applied to those kids, illegal or not, because they were clearly "persons," and the 14th Amendment extended Constitutional protections to all persons. Which is why I made the post earlier about slavery. The 14th is the amendment that made the Constitution apply to all people, and the Supreme Court affirmed that people are people regardless of their legal residency status.

In light of that, the only way to say Constitutional protections do not extend to illegal immigrants is to declare them to not be people.

 

[tyler34]

Holy cow, folks.

One simple question... if the BP had such good intel, why couldn't they get a warrant?

Hmmm....

without asking the entities involved I have to theorize that it could be liberal judges and or corrupt officials on the cartel payroll.

 

[tyler34]

The Supreme Court ruled Constitutional protections applied to those kids, illegal or not, because they were clearly "persons," and the 14th Amendment extended Constitutional protections to all persons. Which is why I made the post earlier about slavery. The 14th is the amendment that made the Constitution apply to all people, and the Supreme Court affirmed that people are people regardless of their legal residency status.

In light of that, the only way to say Constitutional protections do not extend to illegal immigrants is to declare them to not be people.

ok so why do we have borders then?

 

[Joe Williams]

ok so why do we have borders then?

So we can send them back. Constitutional rights do not mean they cannot be held accountable for violating the law. It merely means that our law enforcement entities must themselves operate within the law. Otherwise, we are dealing with two groups of criminals, and frankly if it comes to that choice, I'd rather face illegal immigrants than a government that is operating without legal basis.

 

[dburkhead]

without asking the entities involved I have to theorize that it could be liberal judges and or corrupt officials on the cartel payroll.

Or maybe their "intel" wasn't as good as you seem to think.

Once again, you can "prove" anything if you're allowed to make up the data and, so far, that's what it looks like you're doing here (in this case the "data" being how good the "intel" was).

 

[Bigum1969]

without asking the entities involved I have to theorize that it could be liberal judges and or corrupt officials on the cartel payroll.

So the solution is to just take the law into their own hands?

 

[tyler34]

So we can send them back. Constitutional rights do not mean they cannot be held accountable for violating the law. It merely means that our law enforcement entities must themselves operate within the law. Otherwise, we are dealing with two groups of criminals, and frankly if it comes to that choice, I'd rather face illegal immigrants than a government that is operating without legal basis.

does violence(cartels) play a factor in how things are dealt with?

 

[tyler34]

Or maybe their "intel" wasn't as good as you seem to think.

Once again, you can "prove" anything if you're allowed to make up the data and, so far, that's what it looks like you're doing here (in this case the "data" being how good the "intel" was).

the only data I'm using is what the show let me see and by the outcome I would say the intel was good.

 

[ATF Consumer]

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?

Not necessarily, BUT, the home owner DOES. And just because the officers have intelligence about it being a stash house, if a judge will not approve a search warrant, then it is wrong for them to ignore that denial and make their own attempts to gain access.
I could care less as to the reasons why they are infringing on our rights. Two wrongs don't make a right!...it simply bothers me that they think they can get around the constitutional rights of the people to get what they want. This is no different than implementing the Patriot Act...it is after all in place to keep us all safe.

 

[Bigum1969]

Just sayin'

 

[tyler34]

So the solution is to just take the law into their own hands?

no not at all. the real solution is to take back the border but thats obviously easier said than done. how do we know they didn't get a warrant? after all it is is T.V. but we all know the media has never done any creative editing like that.

 

[tyler34]

note to self- remind me never to play devils advocate again.

 

[Bigum1969]

no not at all. the real solution is to take back the border but thats obviously easier said than done. how do we know they didn't get a warrant? after all it is is T.V. but we all know the media has never done any creative editing like that.

The show specifically quoted the BP agent as saying he wasn't able to get a warrant. Words came directly from the horses mouth.

 

[Bigum1969]

note to self- remind me never to play devils advocate again.

Ahhh, it's makes for a good debate!

 

[dburkhead]

the only data I'm using is what the show let me see and by the outcome I would say the intel was good.

That doesn't follow. There are old saws about stopped clocks, blind hogs, etc., for a reason. You only saw what the show let you see. Since you are presuming "the intel was good" it would appear that you did not see the actual "intel." How do you know that they didn't pick the one case that was "good" and not show the five (or whatever) which were "oops."

But that wasn't what I was getting at but rather the "data" of the reasons why they could not just go ahead and get a warrant that you put forward in support of the intel being good enough to justify the actions shown.

 

[ATF Consumer]

note to self- remind me never to play devils advocate again.

I think a better note to self would be never support the other side of "Don't Tread On Me!"

 

[tyler34]

I think a better note to self would be never support the other side of "Don't Tread On Me!"

or maybe don't argue on the internet.

 

[Bill of Rights]

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 not 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.

OK. I locked the other thread. No, you do not have to notify, nor do you have to answer any questions. You also can, according to SCOTUS, be asked to step from the car for any reason or no reason. The "frisk" is where it becomes spotty, as I understand it, because the societal norm of the society in which we live presently answers direct questions with direct answers. Whether those answers are truthful or not, they are direct. "Do you have any guns in the car?" Folks, that's a "yes" or a "no" answer. You can play around with it, you can "Officer, with all due respect, I decline to answer that question." all you like, but unless you answer "yes" or "no", you're going to raise his suspicions.

Consider that you ask your child, "Did you take cookies out of the cookie jar?" and the child answers, "I don't have any cookies on me!" This very well may be true, but it does not answer the question. As his/her parent, are you going to just drop it at that or take it further?

Admittedly, the example is not an ideal one, but only because LEOs are not our parents, they are our employees (collectively, not individually) however they are assigned the task by us, their employers, to enforce the laws as written. If they are given reason to suspect that you are concealing something from them, they do not (obviously) know what it is, and it may well be the intention to end their career before that traffic stop is completed. This is where the old saw about "officer safety" comes in and will be upheld by just about any court.

Reasonable suspicion + officer safety in question = your butt out of the car.

At that point, you KNOW he is GOING to find your firearm. You can tell him before he does or you can deal with the consequences:

Deliberate defiance of lawful authority + Possibly unlawful possession of an object that could be used to harm the officer = you eating Crown Vic if you're lucky, cement if you're not.

You don't have to like the above facts, but they are still facts. Hell, *I* don't like those facts... But I do understand them.

I also understand that until I'm the one standing at the side of the road next to an unknown vehicle, alone, on a county road, with no backup on the way and any backup on duty being 15 minutes away at best, I probably don't have a whole lot of business criticizing those who are willing to do that job.

One of the LEOs on here wrote me a message a while back. It included this phrase:

I just get tired of certain people giving out horrible advice. I am afraid that someone is going to take them at their word as how to really act during a LE encounter, and believe me it will not go well.

Maybe some of you out there can read those words and see in them the deep concern I do. Maybe some of you can recognize the professionalism of that officer. I suspect someone (or several someones) are going to blow that off, though. Let me put this in plain English:

This guy is trying to keep you from being thrown to the pavement with a gun to your head and a knee in your back, getting handcuffed and possibly even printed and jailed.

Sure, you can completely clear your record by showing your LTCH. If you'd done that when you were first asked, you would already be where you were going, having a much better day.

I do not at all like the amount of authority that police officers are given over everyone else. I do not like the presumption given to their words that they are truthful when that same presumption is not given to those of us who don't wear a badge at work. The fact is, though that until those two facts are changed in the legislature and the courts, that is the reality in which we live. You can play the "nothing illegal in this car" game all you want, but the end result is that on the side of the road, that officer is in charge and you either do what he says or you have a really bad day....

And Joe, you may think you can fight this forever in court, but don't forget that it's your tax money that's paying their attorney and your wages that are paying yours. Who you think's going to run out of money first?

I closed the other thread not because "people advocated not succumbing to the cop's whim", but because the thread was, IMHO, going down that same tired road all such threads seem to follow. Stopping it where I did is the only thing that kept some people from getting infractions or temporary bans.

Like I said in the other thread, "no good deed goes unpunished."

<asbestos suit on>

Bill

 

[alxjmrk]

or maybe don't argue on the internet.

repped