Border Wars

[infidel]

or maybe don't argue on the internet.

Question: Do illegal Mexican aliens have the right to argue on the internet?

 

[Bill of Rights]

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.

We do, you're right, Bigum... And if people would keep things civil and discuss, rather than jump straight to Godwin's effing Law, we might actually get to learn what some of us seek.

I know that's how I've learned what I have from the officers I've PMd with... I write, I ask, and I listen. I both give and receive respect in those conversations; it's a two way street. I guarantee you that if one of them came back at me with unprovoked , the conversation would not continue to be respectful. I am proud to say that I've never had to prove that; not once.

I cannot say the same about some of the non-LEO members of this forum.

Blessings,
Bill

 

[jsharmon7]

or maybe don't argue on the internet.

People are here to discuss various topics, disagreements are going to happen. It's all part of giving/getting information. Isn't that why you're here?

 

[public servant]

People are here to discuss various topics, disagreements are going to happen. It's all part of giving/getting information. Isn't that why you're here?

I'm strictly here for the amusement anymore.

 

[alxjmrk]

disagreeing and intentionally arguing to force ideas on others are two different things. i am not saying either particular type is present in any specific situation.

 

[jsharmon7]

disagreeing and intentionally arguing to force ideas on others are two different things. i am not saying either particular type is present in any specific situation.

If tyler34 was referring to arguing for the sake of arguing, then I agree with that.

 

[tyler34]

Question: Do illegal Mexican aliens have the right to argue on the internet?

is that up there with if a tree falls in the woods?

 

[tyler34]

If tyler34 was referring to arguing for the sake of arguing, then I agree with that.

yes, arguing on the internet is akin to arguing with your cat. its going nowhere.

 

[ATF Consumer]

is that up there with if a tree falls in the woods?

The bear that was taking a dump heard it.

 

[Bigum1969]

yes, arguing on the internet is akin to arguing with your cat. its going nowhere.

My cat and kick my :moon:.

 

[hornadylnl]

I am currently watching a bit of Border Wars on NatGeo and am disturbed by the LEOs technique they use when they cannot obtain a legal search warrant. They call it a "knock and talk" procedure in which they have every bit of intent to enter the home in which they believe houses illegal activity, whether it be illegal aliens or drugs. They basically pressure and scare the occupants into allowing them to search the property without a warrant.

They do this in traffic stops every day. Pull you over for your license plate light being out and ask to search your car, etc. They didn't pull you over to inform you that your light was out. They used that as an excuse to find something bigger to bust you for. The consensus on this forum seems to think that is ok.

 

[Eddie]

They do this in traffic stops every day. Pull you over for your license plate light being out and ask to search your car, etc. They didn't pull you over to inform you that your light was out. They used that as an excuse to find something bigger to bust you for. The consensus on this forum seems to think that is ok.

That's called a "pretextual stop" and yes, I think the current position of the appellate courts in Indiana is that pretextual stops are OK, so long as there is an infraction. The problem is the difficulty for the citizen in defending against the pretextual stop if the stated reason for the stop is something like crossing the center line or driving one mile an hour over the speed limit. The average citizen doesn't have a video camera in their car to prove whether or not they were obeying the law. Thus they are stuck with risking a ticket if they don't cooperate or allowing their car to be searched. Sure they can defend in court but then it just costs them more money.

 

[hornadylnl]

That's called a "pretextual stop" and yes, I think the current position of the appellate courts in Indiana is that pretextual stops are OK, so long as there is an infraction. The problem is the difficulty for the citizen in defending against the pretextual stop if the stated reason for the stop is something like crossing the center line or driving one mile an hour over the speed limit. The average citizen doesn't have a video camera in their car to prove whether or not they were obeying the law. Thus they are stuck with risking a ticket if they don't cooperate or allowing their car to be searched. Sure they can defend in court but then it just costs them more money.

I don't care what the current courts say. Is a "pretextual" stop in the spirit of the 4th Amendment? Last I checked, the 4th hasn't been repealed through the process of amending the constitution.

 

[Eddie]

I don't care what the current courts say. Is a "pretextual" stop in the spirit of the 4th Amendment? Last I checked, the 4th hasn't been repealed through the process of amending the constitution.

I don't personally think that it is fair. The balance of power is tipped too far against the citizen. If they don't consent to the search they get a ticket. It costs money to fight or pay the ticket. They have to choose whether to submit to the search or to submit to the "fine" of refusing.

 

[rambone]

As much as I am frustrated by the surge of illegal immigrants into this country, I am more worried about they growth of the federal government, the lack of attention paid to our constitution, and the tyranny that is brewing on the federal level. We must keep the government in check (as well as illegals). All government workers are obligated to follow the constitution. The Bill of Rights lists the restrictions that are placed on Government agents. Those restrictions must not be forgotten or discarded for any reason.


Some suggestions up for debate:

• More Border Patrol agents present at the border. Divert some of our troops from around the world to guard our borders. Perhaps sections of walls constructed to help funnel the flow of people through certain choke points. Harsher reactions to the "coyotes" found at the border, bringing illegals into the country. Word will spread quickly that the agents at the border are not playing around anymore.
• Citizens will all obtain a state ID (not federal) at which time citizenship is verified. No state benefits shall be received without it.
• Without documentation, jobs will be restricted to only citizens or registered immigrant workers. Documentation must be provided by every single employee at the time of hiring, so no discrimination lawsuits can be claimed. Employers will be more inclined to follow the law since they won't be at such a risk of a racial lawsuit.
• Without documentation, benefits will all be cut off. No public school, no free emergency room clinic, no Obamacare, no food stamps, no welfare, no federal housing. Sorry, America is bankrupt. No more free stuff.
• Future citizens of the United States must be born to 2 current American citizens, or else they must be naturalized like everyone else.
• Border Patrol will primarily focus on the border. Warrants must be acquired as usual when searching private property. The border is fair game.
• Punishments for citizens who assist people in breaking into this country. Enforce the law.
  
• Punishments for citizens who illegally hire undocumented illegal immigrant workers. Enforce the law.
  
• English is made the official national language.
  
• No more Sanctuary Cities for illegal immigrants. No freebies and no jobs, so no point in risking your neck crossing the border.
• Captured illegal-immigrants will be deported by barge back to the southern tip of Mexico, roughly 800 miles away.
  

The end.

 

[hornadylnl]

Yes, our government is a much bigger threat to the citizens than illegals are.

 

[infidel]

Yes, our government is a much bigger threat to the citizens than illegals are.

Here's to the internet and not being able to read tone. Before going further, did you mean to put that in purple for sarcasm?

 

[dburkhead]

Here's to the internet and not being able to read tone. Before going further, did you mean to put that in purple for sarcasm?

Considering his posting history here I think he was dead serious.

I'll go so far as to echo the same sentiment in all seriousness: our own govermnment is a greater threat than illegals.

 

[hornadylnl]

Here's to the internet and not being able to read tone. Before going further, did you mean to put that in purple for sarcasm?

No, I had the right font color.

 

[dross]

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.

This same advice could have been given to interracial couples forty years ago, or to black folks in the wrong part of town thirty years ago, or to Jews traveling in Alabama during the civil rights movement, or in any number of situations where an officer asks questions that are none of his business, or without sufficient reason to make them his business.

Personally, I find the "Where are you headed?" question incredibly intrusive.

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.

Bill, frankly, it's a terrible analogy because you see, I'm in charge of my kids. I'm their parent. The state is NOT my parent, and I despise it when the arm of the state specifically charged with interacting with me decides to act like my parent.

Enforce laws as written. Not figure out how to get around the intent or the spirit of laws as written because that spirit and intent make their job a little harder.

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.

Yes, well the courts have collectively proven to be the biggest enemy of our rights. I should be able to "conceal" any damned legal thing I possess, including some knowledge. This skims very, very close to the argument, "If you have nothing to hide..."

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.

Do you not see how this chain is an absolute circumvention of liberty? The officer steps a little over the line, right up to where the courts will support him, then if you assert your rights, he'll use the fact that you stepped right up to the line to press a little further, using what you did, combined with phrases he knows will play in court. This continues until there's a chain he can sell. And, as an officer of the state, HE knows the intricacies of the law better than you, in that he knows what will play and what won't, which leaves you not knowing what to do in any given situation. As a citizen, shouldn't there be a way to tell an officer, "You've gone too far, I'm not cooperating," then later have that held up?

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.

So do I. Hence my anger.

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.

I cry foul on this paragraph, and frankly I'm surprised to read it from you. I get to criticize because I'm a taxpayer and that guy works for us, albeit indirectly, and because cops stand in a very long line to get that job. You have to really want it. I respect that, but it does not make them immune to criticism, in fact, because of the huge amount of authority, discretion, and benefit of the doubt we must give them, as well as the large amount of prestige we bestow on them, they should be prepared to gracefully accept much more criticism than any other job but politician.

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


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.

Fair enough. But let's still call it what it is: WRONG.

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.

If he saw my firearm and asked for my permit, that's one thing. It's another to ask everyone you stop if they have any weapons, which is just a way to get around the freedom of not having to inform that some states have codified. Why not just advocate a "require to inform" provision and this argument becomes moot. What you're saying is that the freedom not to inform is only to be had at the discretion of each individual officer.

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....

Agreed. And yet this is WRONG.

Who you think's going to run out of money first?

Yes, the state uses this power quite often - the power to ruin you financially if you stand up for your rights.