|
Thanks Firebug4, for posting your thoughts on both parties involved.
I must agree that watching the video, no real conclusions can be made on the whys or whats. What these videos bring is a discussion of what exactly are our rights. People in law enforcement are allowed to lie, but the person being question can be charged with lying if they do. Is that just? I am not for pushing my rights to antagonize, but do wish to know my rights when they are violated, so I can take some precautions. The government seems to have unlimited resources to prosecute someone, and that fear is what makes many people "fall in line" when confronted by a LEO. Since this forum is about flying, my concern is that the TSA does not publish what they expect from the public, nor have they ever define the rights that we have at the checkpoint. It is all a guessing game. TSOs tell people to do many things, and TSORon has even stated here that he feels he has the right to tell people to do things that are beyond his scope, and that it is the passengers fault if they comply. Somehow he thinks we should know the boundaries, yet we can't because the TSA has said it is secret. If the TSA wants to project a more understanding image with the flying public, they need to publish a "Passenger's Bill of Rights". This would go a long way in preventing the bad press incidents that seem too occur all too often. I have asked over at Blogger Bob's PV, but as usual, it falls on deaf ears. Standing up for one's rights should not be frowned upon, because as we have seen, the government is the one pushing the limits on eroding our rights, and that should be concern for all, as what is their goal or agenda in doing so? The government should be on our side, not on the opposing side. |
There are all sorts of legal specialties. Surely lawyers who specialize in civil rights can explain what a citizen's rights at a border crossing are. I would think the ACLU is also quite interested in the muddled areas.
|
Originally Posted by LuvAirFrance
(Post 13704717)
There are all sorts of legal specialties. Surely lawyers who specialize in civil rights can explain what a citizen's rights at a border crossing are. I would think the ACLU is also quite interested in the muddled areas.
That is not how it is was meant to work. As I have said before, the government doesn't care how much it wastes in resources to get to the point that they can deem you a criminal. Yet the government can "get away" with most criminal acts upon citizens. This whole mess has become worse with everything now being associated with terrorism. We as a nation seemed obsessed that terrorist wants every American dead, and that we must give up our freedoms and rights because we are at war with terrorists. |
Well, the people we hired to catch criminals do sometimes seem to see everyone but themselves as the enemy. I wonder if all those Americans who lusted for the Patriot Act realized that was what they were asking for. Or were they gullible enough to actually think the enforcers would only see OTHER people as risky.
|
Originally Posted by star_world
(Post 13684830)
You're asking a question expecting a black and white answer but there isn't one.
Originally Posted by TerminalBliss
(Post 13684858)
Based ONLY on what you described, it is not likely that an agent could justify reasonable suspicion for a roving patrol stop.
TB |
Originally Posted by wildcatlh
(Post 13704545)
Why shouldn't he have to tell you? It should be a requirement.
Because you want it to be that way doesn't mean that it is. It is not a requirement so the officer is not obligated to tell you. FB And a citizen is never required to talk to an officer (nor should he be). Your statement is completely irrelevant... that's not what the Flex Your Rights video talks about. That depends on what state you are in and what you are asked. In some places if you are detained with reasonable suspicion for the purpose of investigating a crime you are required to give your name. If you are arrested for a crime you are required to give your name and other bio information. FB No it can't. An exercise of the right to remain silent in the presence of an officer can never be a part of reasonable suspicion. If you think it is, you probably need some more training. No, but only opening the window a crack can. My training is just fine thank you I didn't get it off the internet. FB Or maybe he was afraid that an officer on a power trip would endanger his military career through lies and other obfuscations of the truth. Then he shouldn't have brougnt his employer into it by providing his military ID. FB Yeah right. If you used it on a traffic stop, the officer would laugh, slap you on the back, and let you on your way without a ticket. Your agency would never be contacted. After all, officers generally see themselves (and other officers) as being above the law. A while back there was a website called "Cops Writing Cops", wherein officers would call out other officers who dared to give them tickets like any of us peons would be given in the same situation. Such is the police mentality. If you say so it must be true. Should I tell all the IA guys in my agency they are out of a job? FB If you pull me over because you think I meet a BOLO, why the hell shouldn't you have to tell me? Look it at the person's perspective. They're doing nothing wrong, minding their own business. All of a sudden they're descended upon by officers demanding information. They know nothing about going on. What in the hell is wrong with just saying "Sir, we pulled you over because you meet the description of a person who _____. Can you please show me ID so we can clear this up and you can go on your way?". But instead you seem to be shocked that a mere non-officer would have the audacity to question what you're doing. THE NERVE OF THEM! FB
Originally Posted by LuvAirFrance
(Post 13704802)
Well, the people we hired to catch criminals do sometimes seem to see everyone but themselves as the enemy. I wonder if all those Americans who lusted for the Patriot Act realized that was what they were asking for. Or were they gullible enough to actually think the enforcers would only see OTHER people as risky.
FB |
Originally Posted by Firebug4
(Post 13699839)
The military member had two passports with him. Why didn’t he provide either one of them first? He was driving a car. Why didn’t he provide his driver’s license? Why did he provide his military ID? I am well aware he is not required to provide any of the above but if you are going to provide something why give the least useful of the three types you have? The military ID does not prove citizenship. There is no indication that the member is an officer. It doesn’t really matter as CBP officers have no way of knowing that military officers have to be US Citizens it is not part of their training. I believe he used that ID because he thought it was going to carry more weight. I have seen comments that as to why the officers wanted to call the members commanding officer. I can verify a passport or a driver’s license with equipment available at the checkpoint or border crossing. The only way I can verify a military ID is by calling. The military member was not comfortable giving up the name of his CO because I think he realized that his military ID is not supposed to be used in this manner. I also believe that he probably did not think that his CO or employer would see his actions in the favorable light that the posters here do. However, the military member chose to involve his employer by showing his military ID.
|
Originally Posted by LuvAirFrance
(Post 13704717)
There are all sorts of legal specialties. Surely lawyers who specialize in civil rights can explain what a citizen's rights at a border crossing are. I would think the ACLU is also quite interested in the muddled areas.
FB
Originally Posted by Ari
(Post 13705121)
Questions:
I can make the same statements. You are assuming immigration RS is gone after seeing the passports. I didn't see what the passports looked like did you? What "magic" were you using to see that. ( I am guessing they were just fine but do you get my point about assuming) I didn't see them verify any documents did you? I would tend to wonder why the member doesn't want me to contact his CO. Questions start to form as to why. Is the member AWOL? Is the member a deserter? Is the member no longer in the service and is now impersonating a service member? Couple that with him not rolling down the window as an officer I do start to get suspicious. The fact that he keeps telling me he wants to talk to somebody but won't roll the window down tells me he wants my supervisor. Remember, we are all viewing this video with the knowledge of why the member was acting the way he was (to flex his rights so to speak). The agents did not have the benefit of that knowledge. In my opinion, Please take note this is my opinion things changed in this encounter when the cameras were discovered not because the agents were afraid of doing something wrong on camera rather because it explained the members behavior. In a way it made what he was doing make sense and at that point reasonable suspicion went away. I hope that helps you. I can't do much better because you are asking me to be in those agents heads and I can't do that. FB |
Originally Posted by Firebug4
(Post 13705204)
I can only give you my opinion. I was not there. I can't tell you what the officers were thinkng. That is the problem with trying to do this with a video. Watching it is not the same a being there to deal with the problem because you don't have the same information. Information is not "magic" video is never going to show you everything.
I can make the same statements. You are assuming immigration RS is gone after seeing the passports. I didn't see what the passports looked like did you? What "magic" were you using to see that. ( I am guessing they were just fine but do you get my point about assuming) I didn't see them verify any documents did you? I would tend to wonder why the member doesn't want me to contact his CO. Questions start to form as to why. Is the member AWOL? Is the member a deserter? Is the member no longer in the service and is now impersonating a service member? Couple that with him not rolling down the window as an officer I do start to get suspicious. The fact that he keeps telling me he wants to talk to somebody but won't roll the window down tells me he wants my supervisor. Remember, we are all viewing this video with the knowledge of why the member was acting the way he was (to flex his rights so to speak). The agents did not have the benefit of that knowledge. In my opinion, Please take note this is my opinion things changed in this encounter when the cameras were discovered not because the agents were afraid of doing something wrong on camera rather because it explained the members behavior. In a way it made what he was doing make sense and at that point reasonable suspicion went away. I hope that helps you. I can't do much better because you are asking me to be in those agents heads and I can't do that. FB How would contancting the CO help them determine or confirm his citizenship status (the purpose of the stop) in any event? Instead of questioning the motives of the drive, why not the motives of the CBP agents there? You make many excuses and ignore the most obvious motive the continued detention: retaliation. Are there other possibilities? Yes. Are they as likely? Not really. If they guy was really up to no good-- and by that I mean something illegal-- why would he be taping the whole thing, by the way? |
Originally Posted by Ari
(Post 13705241)
As far as the detention, according to the poster, it went on for 30 minutes only 9 of which is on tape. The CBP officer took the passports to "go verify" them. (Listen again). Are we to assume he lied and instead used them as bathroom reading?
How would contancting the CO help them determine or confirm his citizenship status (the purpose of the stop) in any event? Instead of questioning the motives of the drive, why not the motives of the CBP agents there? You make many excuses and ignore the most obvious motive the continued detention: retaliation. Are there other possibilities? Yes. Are they as likely? Not really. If they guy was really up to no good-- and by that I mean something illegal-- why would he be taping the whole thing, by the way? The stop taking thirty minutes is not unreasonable if they did verify the documents. The immigration purpose of the stop doesn't preclude the officers from developing reasonable suspicion of another criminal act. I have been clear why the officers may have wanted to confirm his military ID with his CO. I will say it again. If he didn't want his employer involved he should have kept the military ID in his pocket. If he didn't want to appear to be doing something wrong he shouldn't have provided the military ID then refused to talk about that ID. I am not making excuses for anything. You asked me why I think things happened. I can't answer that for you because I can't be in those agents head. I can tell you that had I been there I would have considered it reasonable suspicion up until the point the cameras were discovered. You underestimate the effect of knowing why the member was acting the way he was before viewing the video. You think the most likely reason is retaliation. That is fine you are entitled to your opinion. I don't agree because I deal with this everyday. You don't think the other reasons are likely because you don't agree with the checkpoints and are somewhat bias in your thought. That is OK I will continue to explain has much as you and other posters want. My purpose is not to try and change your opinion. My purpose is to try and show the other perspective. As for him taping the encounter, like I have said multiple times now the discovery of the cameras is probably part of what made the reasonable suspicion go away because it explained his behavior. Also, if you think nobody tapes themselves doing illegal acts may I suggest you go to you tube and watch for awhile. Not to mention DTO's have started to use GPS trackers and videos to combat thefts by drivers and ripoffs from competitors. FB |
Originally Posted by Firebug4
(Post 13705125)
... Couple that with him not rolling down the window as an officer I do start to get suspicious.
To be honest, this video frightens me. What I see (admittedly based on limited information) is a law officer who is unable to restrain his impulses. He has no basis in law to prevent an individual from filming the interaction; he just doesn't like it. What else might have happened? Could he have grabbed the driver by the throat instead of grabbing the camera? Could he have used pepper spray or a taser? If a LEO will give in to impulse as quickly as the one in the video did having the window up is nothing but prudent, precautionary behavior. I certainly understand that 99.99% of all LEOs would never behave this way; however, how am I to know beforehand whether the one that approaches me is the 99.99% or the 0.01%? |
Originally Posted by Firebug4
(Post 13705125)
http://bodybuilderspro.info/pictures...818/random.gifYou are correct to an extent. The problem is an individuals rights at a border crossing are very different then an individual who is inside of the United States. Immigration lawyers tend to be very aware of this. Unless the civil rights lawyer deals with border cases specifically they may not be the best choice. Had the example in this video happened at the border instead of at an interior checkpoint, I am guessing it would have been very different. The subject more than likely would have be ordered out of the vehicle. The vehicle would have been searched before the subject was released.
FB I can only give you my opinion. I was not there. I can't tell you what the officers were thinkng. That is the problem with trying to do this with a video. Watching it is not the same a being there to deal with the problem because you don't have the same information. Information is not "magic" video is never going to show you everything. I can make the same statements. You are assuming immigration RS is gone after seeing the passports. I didn't see what the passports looked like did you? What "magic" were you using to see that. ( I am guessing they were just fine but do you get my point about assuming) I didn't see them verify any documents did you? I would tend to wonder why the member doesn't want me to contact his CO. Questions start to form as to why. Is the member AWOL? Is the member a deserter? Is the member no longer in the service and is now impersonating a service member? Couple that with him not rolling down the window as an officer I do start to get suspicious. The fact that he keeps telling me he wants to talk to somebody but won't roll the window down tells me he wants my supervisor. Remember, we are all viewing this video with the knowledge of why the member was acting the way he was (to flex his rights so to speak). The agents did not have the benefit of that knowledge. In my opinion, Please take note this is my opinion things changed in this encounter when the cameras were discovered not because the agents were afraid of doing something wrong on camera rather because it explained the members behavior. In a way it made what he was doing make sense and at that point reasonable suspicion went away. I hope that helps you. I can't do much better because you are asking me to be in those agents heads and I can't do that. FB |
Originally Posted by T-the-B
(Post 13706210)
Firebug, I appreciate your responses on this thread. It is always good to try to see things from the "other side" and I appreciate your efforts to further the dialogue. In an attempt to explain why many people would be reluctant to roll down the window more than a crack take a look at this.
To be honest, this video frightens me. What I see (admittedly based on limited information) is a law officer who is unable to restrain his impulses. He has no basis in law to prevent an individual from filming the interaction; he just doesn't like it. What else might have happened? Could he have grabbed the driver by the throat instead of grabbing the camera? Could he have used pepper spray or a taser? If a LEO will give in to impulse as quickly as the one in the video did having the window up is nothing but prudent, precautionary behavior. I certainly understand that 99.99% of all LEOs would never behave this way; however, how am I to know beforehand whether the one that approaches me is the 99.99% or the 0.01%? The vast majority of people do not act that way when dealing with anyone let alone a law enforcement officer. To some this type of behavior has become a game. If someone else came into our workplaces (OK not mine) and intentional goaded us and purposely made in very difficult to do our jobs, we would screaming about harassment and probably call law enforcement to have them removed. LEO's don't have that option. I agree LEO's signed on knowing this (though I have to say this didn't happen when I started). It does get frustrating at times. How many occupations, baring sports competition and I don't get paid as much as they do, get filmed, posted on the internet, then everybody who doesn't have the same training gets to tell them what they did wrong from the safety of a keyboard many times those comments being taken as fact which further promotes the problem. As to your last question, you don't. Just as the officer who walks up to the window doesn't know if you are going to be 0.01% who is going to be the young person who is trying to provoke the officer so he can get his film for you tube or worst the 0.01% who is going to try and kill the officer. I also don't think you are going to be acting the way those two individuals were in the car. FB |
Originally Posted by Firebug4
(Post 13705502)
Nope, I spent my time watching the video and trying to listen. I have to tell you having all the pop ups on the video was extremely distracting and I wasn't going to continue watch it over and over.
The stop taking thirty minutes is not unreasonable if they did verify the documents. The immigration purpose of the stop doesn't preclude the officers from developing reasonable suspicion of another criminal act. I have been clear why the officers may have wanted to confirm his military ID with his CO. I will say it again. If he didn't want his employer involved he should have kept the military ID in his pocket. If he didn't want to appear to be doing something wrong he shouldn't have provided the military ID then refused to talk about that ID. I am not making excuses for anything. You asked me why I think things happened. I can't answer that for you because I can't be in those agents head. I can tell you that had I been there I would have considered it reasonable suspicion up until the point the cameras were discovered. You underestimate the effect of knowing why the member was acting the way he was before viewing the video. You think the most likely reason is retaliation. That is fine you are entitled to your opinion. I don't agree because I deal with this everyday. You don't think the other reasons are likely because you don't agree with the checkpoints and are somewhat bias in your thought. That is OK I will continue to explain has much as you and other posters want. My purpose is not to try and change your opinion. My purpose is to try and show the other perspective. As for him taping the encounter, like I have said multiple times now the discovery of the cameras is probably part of what made the reasonable suspicion go away because it explained his behavior. Also, if you think nobody tapes themselves doing illegal acts may I suggest you go to you tube and watch for awhile. Not to mention DTO's have started to use GPS trackers and videos to combat thefts by drivers and ripoffs from competitors. FB |
Originally Posted by Firebug4
(Post 13705502)
As for him taping the encounter, like I have said multiple times now the discovery of the cameras is probably part of what made the reasonable suspicion go away because it explained his behavior.
FB |
| All times are GMT -6. The time now is 8:52 am. |
This site is owned, operated, and maintained by MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Designated trademarks are the property of their respective owners.