|
FB |
Originally Posted by Ari
(Post 13710587)
How long does it take a BP agent to verify only a passport?
That depends on how well he can type and how fast the system is working that day. Like what in this case? So far, they have RS that the person they are dealing with is a jerk and that he is a member of the armed forces who doesn't want to talk about his service. Is that alone RS of a crime? No, but there are other things to consider. Which rather you like it or not may include information not available to us viewing the video. Such things can include the vehicle itself. The officer I heard on that video was very interested in the vehicle and who owns it in the first 5 seconds of the video that is unusual. After doing this type of thing for quite a while that tells me something that it probable doesn't tell you. So if I produce my DL, the officer can ask me anything about my driving like tickets I've gotten in the past or what I got on my driver's test? Or is there a different standard for a military ID? The officer can ask you anything he wants. You can chose to answer anything you want. The officer will go from there. The officer will gauge what you say and how to react to the question. Up to and including you refusal to answer the question. Also, you haven't answered this: once the passports were in the officer's hand, what was the purpose of contacting the CO (bearing in mind that that extended the detention)? What RS could there have been for the extended detention for that purpose? Even if the BP officer thought it was misuse of the military ID, is that RS of a crime? I have answered this question several times. The crimes could be AWOL, desertion, the member may have been discharged and is now impersonating a military member. This is why went military members are traveling on orders. If they chose to travel on military ID and not a passport they are required to provide the orders to the CBP Officer. The officer can develop RS for a non-immigration violation if the it appears there may be one. I understand that before the passports were produced, there is an argument that the CO needed to be reached to verify the military ID; I buy that. But after the passports came out, was there still an LE purpose to cerify the military ID or contact the CO? See the above answer and previous posts. If the member didn't want his employer involved than he should have left his employee ID in his pocket. He believed the military ID would carry greater weight then it did. In reality for the purposes being discussed the military ID is no different then say a hospital employee ID except that there are laws concern impersonation of a military member and laws concerning AWOL etc. After he told them it was all on tape, they did continue. Like I said it takes time to verify ID. The real question I have is I wonder how long it would have taken if he rolled down the window, provided his passport, and talked with the officer as opposed the raising the officer suspicion to begin with. I will say it again because it is worth repeating. It is easy to watch this video already having the knowledge of why the subject was acting the way he was. It is something different to be the one standing outside the window having never seen the subject before. It is even easier to watch and make judgments without the benefit of any training beyond the internet. I will also say it again. Those that enjoy doing this should check with their local law enforcement and see if they offer ride alongs. You might be surprised at what you discover and how much you thought you knew. It didn't make the officers go away, however. The guys in the car were jerks. There is no reason not to pull the window down a reasonable amount other than to be an asshat. Still, the officer lost his composure. The jerks in the car proved the very point they set out to prove; that BP officers at these internal checkpoints can be goaded into illegal acts. Pretend it were an undercover narcotics operation: An undercover cop poses as a drug buyer and gets a drug dealer to sell him drugs. The undercover cop has proved that the drug dealer is in fact a drug dealer. Now pretend that this is an operation to prove that BP officers can exceed their authority: Two people pose as jerks and videotape their encounter at the checkpoint. They act like jerks and the officer grabs their camera. They have proved their point-- that BP officers can exceed their authority. The drug dealer did not have to sell the drugs and the BP officer did not need to grab the camera, but each engaged in the act provoked. Is a "sting" operation by citizens to catch LEO's doing the wrong thing when prompted really that nefarious? Maybe in poor taste, but in both operations neither of the target actors had to engage in the illegal act and did so anyway. The difference is the forum the outcome is determined. The undercover cop is gathering evidence to present in court not on the internet. The court has the training and knowledge to interpret correctly what they are seeing . The general public doesn't Just look to the posts earlier in this thread. We are discussing CBP checkpoints and he is posting TSA id requirements. I would have less of a problem if the two jerks were doing it for lofty goals that you think they are. However, they are not. They are doing it because they think it is fun and their you tube film will get a lot of hits to make them popular. That is a very big difference. It is easy for LE to be nice to the citizen who treats them with respect and dignity; it is much more difficult to be nice to the citizen who antagonizes you; that's where being a professional LEO comes into play. As far as I'm concerned officers who allow themselves to be bated into being a jerk by citizens who act like jerks are not professional-- they are unprofessional. The one thing they definitely are is human. Humans make mistakes. The question is do they learn from their mistakes. There are people here that expect perfection that is unattainable. There are plenty of professions that if the individual makes a mistake the results can be tragic. Yet, they are not vilified when they do and it doesn't matter if they work for the government or private sector dead is dead and ruined is ruined. If I were a construction worker on a public street and you video taped me and told me I was laying concrete wrong, would I be allowed to call an LEO and have you removed or arrested? Grab your camera? Yes, you could especially if I had my buddy doing his best to make it difficult for you. Continuing to ask you questionings and correct you repeatedly to the point of distraction. Depending on how far it went, it could be disturbing the peace, or Disorderly conduct it would depend on the local, state ordinances as well. LEO's are already held to a higher standard it is written in to most ordinances and backed up by the courts that you can't disturb an officers peace. go figure. The Rodney King cops hated that, too. :D Notice plan B had to used in that case. Since local/state court exonerated the officers, the federal court had to used after the officers were cleared. The vast majority of all LEO's are good, and they shouldn't mind being on video; any LEO who needs to be working undercover should not be out in public in a uniform. You still haven't got it have you. I don't object to the video. I have no problem with the video. Most LEO's don't have a problem with video. I have a problem with people using video to purposely make an officers job more difficult there is a big difference. They are not doing it for the good of everyone they are doing for fun. I am also not fond of the effects of the video which has people running around thinking they know the law. It encourages them to incorrectly resist when they are in the wrong. Their time would be better spent taken some law courses if they are truly interested instead of trying to learn it on the internet. Your above statement is evidence of the true lack of understanding and knowledge. There is no way an officer is going to go from the academy to working undercover without ever working as the grunt so to speak. At best he would not be making any cases at worst he would be dead in a week. I understand that you believe most of the time the officer is being retaliatory. However, I do the job everyday. I know different. I know the job has changed drastically in the past decade. The days of the friendly warning concerning violations is gone. Everything now has to be documented down to the most minor detail. That is the secondary effect of the video age so to speak. That and just about any LEO will tell you the incident that comes back to bite you with a complaint etc 9 time out of 10 will be the one you gave the guy a break. So now every thing gets documented and that takes even more time. Now if you will excuse me I have to go look up some information about a 747 on the internet so I can start telling that pilot that he doesn't know what he is doing the next time I fly. What's that supposed to mean? :confused: |
Originally Posted by Firebug4
(Post 13710640)
The TSA requirements have nothing to do with this.
Originally Posted by Firebug4
(Post 13710640)
It is a CBP Border Patrol checkpoint.
Originally Posted by Firebug4
(Post 13710640)
Folks this is what I am talking about in prior posts. The people making judgments have no idea what they are talking about.
For example, I got pulled over two months ago for having an expired registration tag. It was late at night. I had the new registration in the car and forgot to put on the sticker. :duncecap: I was asked if I had been drinking that night. I told the officer very nicely that I understand he has a job to do, but that I really don't want to answer that question. Then he asked me where I was coming from and where I was going. I gave him the same non-answer in a very polite way. Then I was asked to get out of the car. I didn't ask why or demand some sort of RS/PC, I just did it and made sure to keep my hands in plain sight. He asked me if I had any weapons on me. I told him I did not. (There was no need to be coy here and make him somehow fear for his safety-- that would be impolite and invite a compulsory patdown). He then asked me (in total classic cop fashion) "so then you don't mind if I pat you down real quick to check?". I told him I'd rather he didn't. He didn't. Then he asked me if I had anything illegal in the car. I decided that because this question didn't involve his safety I gave the same "I understand you have a job to do, but I really don't want to those kinds of questions" response. Asked for consent to search the car in the same classic-cop fashion as above; consent politely denied. Next he called for backup. I didn’t ask him for the RS/PC for the continued detention; I stood there patiently with my hands out of my pockets. His Sgt. happened to show up responding to his call. His Sgt also happened to be a trained DUI investigator. The Sgt. asked me the same drinking and origin/destination questions and I gave him the same polite non-answers. He then asked me to do some FST's. (He didn't ask me that way, he asked to come over to him and just stand and look at the tip of his pen and follow it with my eyes). I politely declined. I then asked him if he minded if I went and got my registration and put the sticker on the back of my license plate which he I allowed me to do. At that point, the two officers conferenced for a few minutes and I heard such things as "odor of alcohol and bloodshot eyed", "refuses to answer any questions" and "suspicious" from cop #1 and "his speech and eyes seem fine to me [the DUI expert] and he isn't having problems waking" and “but he does smell like alcohol” from the Sgt. The Sgt. came over and asked me if I "don't have anything to hide" would I mind if he searched my car. I politely declined. Then another conference where I heard from the Sgt. “we've got nothing to go on here” and saw a very disappointed look from cop #1. I was released with a verbal warning for my registration since I already fixed it in their presence. I thanked the officers and went on my way. So I'm not a keyboard warrior, I'm just not a jerk who incites LEO's. I choose to take advantage of my rights and expect LEO’s to respect that. They did in this case. For the record, I had had four generous glasses of wine much earlier that night but was in good condition to drive given my age, gender, weight, food intake and mostly given the time that had passed (including my nap). Had I made any admissions to that effect, I would likely would have been arrested based on refusal to do FST’s (to prove my innocence) but mostly with the admission as PC. Then I’d have to take a breath test to prove my innocence and I'd have had my car towed. I would have come in well under the legal limit and not gotten charged with anything, but by asserting my rights, I avoided any further investigation. So not everyone here is a keyboard warrior and not everyone here comes without perspective. Officers with less respect for the law could have invented something to arrest me for and lied about it to justify it after the fact (when I would blow something below a .04%, for sure). They respected me and the constitution and did the right thing. That’s what I expect. I didn’t see that in either video liked, though the passengers in each case acted like total asshats. |
Originally Posted by Firebug4
(Post 13710753)
That depends on how well he can type and how fast the system is working that day.
Originally Posted by Firebug4
(Post 13710753)
No, but there are other things to consider. Which rather you like it or not may include information not available to us viewing the video. Such things can include the vehicle itself. The officer I heard on that video was very interested in the vehicle and who owns it in the first 5 seconds of the video that is unusual. After doing this type of thing for quite a while that tells me something that it probable doesn't tell you.
Originally Posted by Firebug4
(Post 13710753)
I have answered this question several times. The crimes could be AWOL, desertion, the member may have been discharged and is now impersonating a military member. This is why went military members are traveling on orders. If they chose to travel on military ID and not a passport they are required to provide the orders to the CBP Officer. The officer can develop RS for a non-immigration violation if the it appears there may be one.
Originally Posted by Firebug4
(Post 13710753)
See the above answer and previous posts. If the member didn't want his employer involved than he should have left his employee ID in his pocket. He believed the military ID would carry greater weight then it did. In reality for the purposes being discussed the military ID is no different then say a hospital employee ID except that there are laws concern impersonation of a military member and laws concerning AWOL etc.
Originally Posted by Firebug4
(Post 13710753)
Like I said it takes time to verify ID. The real question I have is I wonder how long it would have taken if he rolled down the window, provided his passport, and talked with the officer as opposed the raising the officer suspicion to begin with. I will say it again because it is worth repeating. It is easy to watch this video already having the knowledge of why the subject was acting the way he was. It is something different to be the one standing outside the window having never seen the subject before. It is even easier to watch and make judgments without the benefit of any training beyond the internet. I will also say it again. Those that enjoy doing this should check with their local law enforcement and see if they offer ride alongs. You might be surprised at what you discover and how much you thought you knew.
Originally Posted by Firebug4
(Post 13710753)
The one thing they definitely are is human. Humans make mistakes. The question is do they learn from their mistakes. There are people here that expect perfection that is unattainable. There are plenty of professions that if the individual makes a mistake the results can be tragic. Yet, they are not vilified when they do and it doesn't matter if they work for the government or private sector dead is dead and ruined is ruined.
Originally Posted by Firebug4
(Post 13710753)
Yes, you could especially if I had my buddy doing his best to make it difficult for you. Continuing to ask you questionings and correct you repeatedly to the point of distraction. Depending on how far it went, it could be disturbing the peace, or Disorderly conduct it would depend on the local, state ordinances as well. LEO's are already held to a higher standard it is written in to most ordinances and backed up by the courts that you can't disturb an officers peace. go figure.
Originally Posted by Firebug4
(Post 13710753)
Notice plan B had to used in that case. Since local/state court exonerated the officers, the federal court had to used after the officers were cleared.
EASTERBROOK, Chief Judge. The distance between civilization and barbarity, and the time needed to pass from one state to the other, is depressingly short. Police officers in Milwaukee proved this the morning of October 24, 2004. . . . Bartlett, Spengler, and Masarik were prosecuted in state court and acquitted after Schabel and others committed perjury on their behalf, while many people who had been at the party claimed to suffer memory loss. That made it impossible to show who had done what, and the judicial system (unlike a mob) demands personal responsibility. The Civil Rights Division of the Justice Department then investigated, and federal prosecutors persuaded several witnesses to cooperate.
Originally Posted by Firebug4
(Post 13710753)
You still haven't got it have you. I don't object to the video. I have no problem with the video. Most LEO's don't have a problem with video. I have a problem with people using video to purposely make an officers job more difficult there is a big difference. They are not doing it for the good of everyone they are doing for fun. I am also not fond of the effects of the video which has people running around thinking they know the law. It encourages them to incorrectly resist when they are in the wrong. Their time would be better spent taken some law courses if they are truly interested instead of trying to learn it on the internet.
Originally Posted by Firebug4
(Post 13710753)
Your above statement is evidence of the true lack of understanding and knowledge. There is no way an officer is going to go from the academy to working undercover without ever working as the grunt so to speak. At best he would not be making any cases at worst he would be dead in a week.
Originally Posted by Firebug4
(Post 13710753)
I understand that you believe most of the time the officer is being retaliatory.
Originally Posted by Firebug4
(Post 13710753)
However, I do the job everyday. I know different. I know the job has changed drastically in the past decade. The days of the friendly warning concerning violations is gone. Everything now has to be documented down to the most minor detail. That is the secondary effect of the video age so to speak. That and just about any LEO will tell you the incident that comes back to bite you with a complaint etc 9 time out of 10 will be the one you gave the guy a break. So now every thing gets documented and that takes even more time.
Originally Posted by Firebug4
(Post 13710753)
Now if you will excuse me I have to go look up some information about a 747 on the internet so I can start telling that pilot that he doesn't know what he is doing the next time I fly.
|
Originally Posted by Firebug4
(Post 13709647)
I agree and I realize that is part of it. I also think it is because people have begun to see it as a way to a paycheck at the end via lawsuit. Abuse is bad and shouldn't happen but people should not set out to purposely set up the circumstances and attempt to make it happen. You won't agree but I believe that is because of the less reputable members of your chosen profession. I will leave it at that cause I am still trying to be polite.:p
FB |
Originally Posted by Firebug4
(Post 13710640)
The TSA requirements have nothing to do with this. It is a CBP Border Patrol checkpoint. Folks this is what I am talking about in prior posts. The people making judgments have no idea what they are talking about.
FB I find it interesting that when specifically asked your opinion on the agents' actions, you say that you can't get into their heads. You weren't there. But you have no problem getting into the head of the driver and assuming he was pulling a stunt or baiting the agents in some way. You claim he used his military ID for some sort of special treatment yet nothing in the video supports that. While you have expressed you don't like the annoying (yet informative) popups on the video, one of the first popups explains the driver has been harassed several times at this checkpoint. That may explain why he put cameras in his vehicle. There is nothing in the video to suggest he is trying to impede the work of the agents. You also question, for whatever reason, his claim to have called the FBI. Yet another popup links to other footage which shows the call made to the FBI: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3m0zhMX0nC0 You minimize camera footage and claim there must be some reason not shown to support the actions of the agents. You cited perhaps they thought the car was stolen or the military members was AWOL. Both are outside the scope of the checkpoint, however, which exists to determine immigration status. Can they take action if they have seen a crime committed outside this scope? Certainly. But it's obvious this is not the case in this incident. Of course there is nothing from any of the footage to support your given reasons why the agents may have acted as they did and the words and actions of the agents actually belie your explanations (AWOL, stolen car, etc) but you appear unconcerned. They said they secondaried him for not answering questions while the video clearly shows that is not correct. They claim they secondaried him for an immigration violation (not any of the reasons you imagine), yet they release him. What the video certainly shows is that the agents secondaried him, lied and contradicted themselves on why they did so, and then harassed and intimidated him and called his military commander after he had provided four forms of ID including two passports. You give these agents a pass here. Your comments indicate you have no credibility and are merely another apologist for government abuse. While the agents can secondary individuals for the limited purpose of determining immigration status, anything outside that scope that extends the detention is a violation of the fourth amendment. The violation is clearly shown in this video and cannot be disputed. This will be shown the case very easily in federal court. Your apologetic stance toward clear government abuse and unprofessionalism is just one of many indications that the problem here is not one of a few bad apples but is a systemic problem that the American people must correct. |
Originally Posted by Ari
(Post 13710863)
20 minutes ever?
Longer I have had to give up querys and release to have the query come back two hours later. That is an extreme example but it does happen. The real issue is the hoops you have to jump through to log in the various systems. One would think in this age of computers there would be one database. There is not I have no less then 15 passwords to maintain. It is a computer mess. Like what? Again, I have answered this question. If I had to guess and it would be because it is not something you are going to see on the video. They were interested in the car right off the bat. I would guess that the vehicle matched a description in a BOLO. They didn't care about him until his behavior became suspicious to them. There are plenty of crimes one can commit as an officer in the miliraty, the question is if giving a military ID alone and refusing to answer questions about it gives rise to any RS of one of the above crimes. Sure, any of them are possibe, but would a reasonable officer think that that is likely? Yes, but I am not talking about all of those crimes. Only the ones directly connected with the ID. They don't want to discuss his military service with him or the CO. They want to verify the military ID that the member provided. It is a reasonable request. You want to pick apart the encounter and justify each piece. It doesn't work that way. It is the whole picture and how each piece fits together. But did he have RS of any of those violations, or was it more of a fishing expedition? (I know it is hard to tell from just the video, but give it your best shot). I don't know. I don't even know if the agent thought that because you are asking things that are only available to the agent not me, not you, and certainly not the millions on the internet. I have said it before and I will say it again. If I was the officer standing at the window and not a video with the knowledge of why this guy was acting the way he was I would conclude that he was acting suspiciously. That is how these matters are judge legally by the way with the information the officer had at the time not what is discovered later. Unfortunately, there is no check list to follow and many times it is a very subjective task. I do know that I tend to try to complete the tasks that have to be done as quickly and easily as possible not only for me but for the subject. I don't need your CO name and number to verify the ID but it will speed up the process a lot. Since, bad guys don't wear signs a law enforcement officers job, and I mean any law enforcement officer not just CBP, is a fishing expedition as long as the officer operates within the legal parameters that our set out for him that is how the system works. I have to say that arrest powers and the power to use deadly force when necessary invites more scrutiny than the average job-- and when people in other jobs do tragic things, they often do get called out on it. Again, I have no problem with the scrutiny as long as the scrutiny is being done buy someone who is qualified to do it. That doesn't include the masses on the internet with no training. A plane crashes and the NTSB does the investigation we don't call the guys from the local body shop to determine the cause. A Doctor makes a mistake while poking around in someone’s body we don't call Joe the plumber to tell us what he did wrong. Right, but short of a crime (which neither of the asshats in theses cases did), the construction worker would be left with nothing other than to keep working or to quit. Unless the level of interference gets to the point of disorderly persons or disturbing the peace, the point being others have options the LEO does not. That is true. No one should resist under virtually any circumstances and the law is better learned in class or from legal reading than from internet forums like this one. (I can't count the number of times people post legal nonsense here). But whatever the provocator's motives, LEO's should never take the bait and give the "concerned citizen/self-appinted patriot" that which he seeks. Never. You are correct and that is how it would be in a perfect world where Law Enforcement were robots. However, this is reality and law enforcement is subject to the same human frailties as everyone else. I thought of that and understand that, but there is no way to prevent that. Are you suggesting banning cameras from ever recording LEO's? I just found the "fear for safety/family" reasoning to be a copout since no one could ever record any LEO without that risk. What I meant was that someone should not be working in uniform one week and undercover the next week; perhaps I should have explained that better, but don't assume that thought didn't cross my mind. I didn't explain myself well at all. I don't believe that most of the time at all. I just believe it happens sometimes and from what I saw about contacting the CO to complain about the military officer's non-cooperation seemed like retaliation. That's my understanding of what happened. No I am not suggesting banning cameras from ever recording LEO's. The point I am trying to make is the resulting video should be reviewed by the appropriate people with the training to interpret what they are seeing not by the general public on the internet. Even in the video we a discussing we see the agents, see their names, yet the military guy bleeps his name and obscures his face. What do you think the outcry would be if law enforcement started to release every dash cam film on the internet every time there was an arrest just to keep the populace honest so to speak? Everyone is quick to point out Law Enforcement are government agents, they are unique and should have more scrutiny, they should be held to a higher standard, greater responsibility YADA YADA YADA. I agree with all of that. However, you also should acknowledge the job has other unique qualities, safety being the most important one. There are few other occupations that include people wanting to hurt and kill you just because of the uniform you wear. It is far from "copout" as you call it. It is a fact of life for the officer and more importantly a fact for the officer's family. There were 123 families last year who didn't consider the officer's safety a "copout". Really? You mean that if I am given a break on a speeding ticket and the cop doesn't document it, it is likely to come back to bite him in the ...? What do you mean by this? Can you provide an example? Yes, I stop you for speeding. You tell me fill in the blank the reason doesn't matter. I listen think that sounds reasonable. I tell you slow down and have a good day. Three weeks later, you are filing a complaint with IA about how I only pulled you over because you were a minority; I stole your first born, turned you upside down and shook everything out of your pockets. My boss wants to know what happened and where is the record of the stop etc. I don't have it cause I cut you break remember. Now, you claim I didn't document or destroyed the documentation because I really did do the things you say I did. It happens more often then you would think. That is why I brought it up. FB |
[Note to Moderators: I want to keep this here, not in Omni. So if you feel this is argumentative, please feel free to delete]
FB: I want to ask you a serious question. If you were to witness one of your fellow officers commiting an act which you felt violated the rights of a non-officer, would you report that officer's behavior to your higher ups or to internal affairs (not sure of what equivalent to IA there would be in CBP). How about if it was a "questionable" act? The reason I've come to the sad "there are few good cops" conclusion isn't that I think most officers commit malfeasances of their own. It's the fact that most officers are willing to give their fellow officers too much of a "benefit of the doubt" or "professional courtesy" and let things slide. It's a reason I don't trust internal investigations -- you can say that "it's different when watched by a trained eye", but it's statistically unlikely that the number of claims that are actually substantiated by internal affairs divisions (on a nationwide basis) are as low as the number that should be substantiated based on evidence. Internal Affairs divisions are staffed by officers -- again, many of whom are all too willing to give other officers "the benefit of the doubt" and let things slide. As a secondary issue, would you have a problem with a review board of non-officers who can give a unbiased viewpoint to complaints? What about a review board that might be made up of an equal proportion of officers and non-officers? |
I haven't seen any of the posted videos, but what's all this noise about not rolling the window down far enough? If I can hear them and they can hear me, why roll it down any further?
I ask because I was in AZ last week and got stopped at a ridiculous internal border checkpoint. It was 86 degrees out, so I only rolled the window down about 3 inches. Comrade border patrol agent complained that I didn't roll it down further. :rolleyes: |
Originally Posted by wildcatlh
(Post 13714152)
[Note to Moderators: I want to keep this here, not in Omni. So if you feel this is argumentative, please feel free to delete]
FB: I want to ask you a serious question. If you were to witness one of your fellow officers commiting an act which you felt violated the rights of a non-officer, would you report that officer's behavior to your higher ups or to internal affairs (not sure of what equivalent to IA there would be in CBP). How about if it was a "questionable" act? The reason I've come to the sad "there are few good cops" conclusion isn't that I think most officers commit malfeasances of their own. It's the fact that most officers are willing to give their fellow officers too much of a "benefit of the doubt" or "professional courtesy" and let things slide. It's a reason I don't trust internal investigations -- you can say that "it's different when watched by a trained eye", but it's statistically unlikely that the number of claims that are actually substantiated by internal affairs divisions (on a nationwide basis) are as low as the number that should be substantiated based on evidence. Internal Affairs divisions are staffed by officers -- again, many of whom are all too willing to give other officers "the benefit of the doubt" and let things slide. As a secondary issue, would you have a problem with a review board of non-officers who can give a unbiased viewpoint to complaints? What about a review board that might be made up of an equal proportion of officers and non-officers? As for an all civilian review board, yes I would have a problem with a completely civilian review board for the above stated reasons. If the board were employing consultants with the necessary knowledge I would be more accepting. I would much rather see a mixed board of law enforcement and civilians. I have never said nor do I believe that officers should operate without any oversight. I just believe that people in the position of oversight should have expertise and knowledge in the field that they are supervising. I have heard repeatedly on this site that folks here would like to see someone from the aviation security field become the TSA administrator because they would understand the problems, issues and have the knowledge particular to the field they are to manage. I am really only asking that you look at this problem in Law Enforcement from the same perspective. FB
Originally Posted by Big Mo
(Post 13714308)
I haven't seen any of the posted videos, but what's all this noise about not rolling the window down far enough? If I can hear them and they can hear me, why roll it down any further?
I ask because I was in AZ last week and got stopped at a ridiculous internal border checkpoint. It was 86 degrees out, so I only rolled the window down about 3 inches. Comrade border patrol agent complained that I didn't roll it down further. :rolleyes: FB |
I don't feel like covering 13 pages here. I'll be in BUF on Thursday. If CBP is checking IDs before reaching the TDC, what are my options? Can I say, "Sorry, I'll reluctantly show this to the TDC, but that's all."
|
Originally Posted by VAPA
(Post 13713046)
The TSA requirements do have something to do with your allegations that the driver should not have used his military ID. As that TSA link shows, a military ID is an accepted form of identification. It's reasonable to assume it's acceptable in this situation, as well. In fact your claim that a military member should not use their ID is unfounded.
The CBP is initially looking at citizenship/status, not just for a random ID. One can have a DL and not be a citizen for example. Now, as noted earlier, a military ID of a commisioned officer, by default, means the holder is a citizen though it seems the CBP agents did not know this (which I find hard to believe but that is tangent to my point about IDs). There are other documents, that are not accepted by the TSA, but do show citizenship status...pocket birth certificates (sold by many states including Texas), FAA pilot's licenses, some concealed carry gun permits. TSA has ZERO to do with the CBP here. As for the military ID, I have seen agents at this inland stop ASK for a military ID. Most of the Armed services have gone back to window stickers (after a few, like the Air Force, did away after 11 Sep 01) which identify if the vehicle is registered on base, and if, by colour, the owner is an officer, enlisted, contractor, etc. At the very stop near Uvalde where this video was taken, I had had them ask if I was in the military and then want to see the ID. Ironically, I have driven north on IH-35 from Laredo to San Antonio many times, and stopped at that inland checkpoint with European foreign nationals in my vehicle and been waved through without even a check of a passport when I answered the citzenship question with "I am a citizen and they are Italian" or "British" or "Spanish". I'm lucky I guess because I have been hassled more over the years at the state ag checkpoints at the Arizona and California borders. Ciao, FH |
Originally Posted by C. Howitt Fealz
(Post 13714359)
I don't feel like covering 13 pages here. I'll be in BUF on Thursday. If CBP is checking IDs before reaching the TDC, what are my options? Can I say, "Sorry, I'll reluctantly show this to the TDC, but that's all."
FB |
Originally Posted by Firebug4
(Post 13714323)
I would not have a problem reporting the officer to a higher up. It is an easy answer as I would not have to report the officer I am in a position to correct the problem. The problem I have is that the things that people think as of evidence is not always the case. You are talking about statistics but do you even know what the actual numbers are. If so where did you get them, was it a reputable source or was it from I hate cops.com I don't think it is unreasonable to ask that things be looked at by someone who knows what they are looking at. We don't ask untrained people to review other occupations. The public isn't reviewing the EMT, Lawyer, Firefighter, Doctor, Plumbers, Engineers, or Teachers work product. If we think we have problems with an occupations work product have it reviewed call the person who has some expertise in the field. Why do we think law enforcement should be any different? If it truly has all the added responsibility, which I believe it does, I don’t think that an untrained person is the best one to be deciding if an error occurred. Yes, I understand I can arrest and use deadly force that doesn't mean John Q Public is going to have the required understanding of the applicable laws.
As for an all civilian review board, yes I would have a problem with a completely civilian review board for the above stated reasons. If the board were employing consultants with the necessary knowledge I would be more accepting. I would much rather see a mixed board of law enforcement and civilians. I have never said nor do I believe that officers should operate without any oversight. I just believe that people in the position of oversight should have expertise and knowledge in the field that they are supervising. I have heard repeatedly on this site that folks here would like to see someone from the aviation security field become the TSA administrator because they would understand the problems, issues and have the knowledge particular to the field they are to manage. I am really only asking that you look at this problem in Law Enforcement from the same perspective. FB You are different than an EMT, a doctor, a lawyer. You can deprive me of my liberty or my life, under color of law. That's a very big responsibility. I understand that officers are human. But you cannot deprive somebody of liberty because they piss you off. That's not how things work. "Pissing an officer off" is not an arrestable offense anywhere (and yes, I understand the catch-all "disorderly conduct" or "resisting arrest" statutes may come into play when an officer doesn't have anything real to arrest somebody for) The fact of the matter is, to me, your response looks like an excuse. "Oh, sure, I WOULD say something if it ever happened... but it never does, and any time it looks like something bad happened it's because you just don't understand what's going on". To me, that means that you wouldn't say anything. I know I use blatant examples, like Sal Culosi. Do you realize how it looks to the world when the most punishment an officer gets for 'accidentally' shooting an unarmed, non-dangerous person is a 3 week suspension? Do you realize how it looks to the rest of the world when that three-week suspension is challenged for being too severe? Video is the only thing that we non-officers have right now as a check on your behavior. Videotaping of officers has been upheld as a constitutional right. And despite what you say, I'm going to trust a videotape far more than an officer's word. How about this for a proposal: Everything you do when interacting with us peons is taped. Everything. Tazer tapes, dash cam, cameras in interrogation rooms, whatever. Everything. Tampering with or disabling the tape is an offense resulting in immediate termination and misdemeanor arrest. How does that sound? |
Originally Posted by wildcatlh
(Post 13714887)
You are different than an EMT, a doctor, a lawyer. You can deprive me of my liberty or my life, under color of law. That's a very big responsibility. I understand that officers are human. But you cannot deprive somebody of liberty because they piss you off. That's not how things work. "Pissing an officer off" is not an arrestable offense anywhere (and yes, I understand the catch-all "disorderly conduct" or "resisting arrest" statutes may come into play when an officer doesn't have anything real to arrest somebody for)
In your opinion counselor not in mine. A Doctor, Lawyer, and EMT for that matter have just as large a responsibility as I. They are judged and their mistakes reviewed by people who know their job, their responsibilities and the applicable laws and procedures. Law Enforcement should not be any different. You will have to show me where I ever said that Pissing an officer off is an arrestable offense. I believe you will have a hard time doing it. The fact of the matter is, to me, your response looks like an excuse. "Oh, sure, I WOULD say something if it ever happened... but it never does, and any time it looks like something bad happened it's because you just don't understand what's going on". To me, that means that you wouldn't say anything. I know I use blatant examples, like Sal Culosi. Do you realize how it looks to the world when the most punishment an officer gets for 'accidentally' shooting an unarmed, non-dangerous person is a 3 week suspension? Do you realize how it looks to the rest of the world when that three-week suspension is challenged for being too severe? Again you are putting words in my mouth that I never said. I never said substantiated complaints never happen. Far from it, what I said was I would not have to report the officer because I am in a position to correct the problem. You can figure out what that means right after all you passed three bar exams. Video is the only thing that we non-officers have right now as a check on your behavior. Videotaping of officers has been upheld as a constitutional right. And despite what you say, I'm going to trust a videotape far more than an officer's word. That is your choice. Video is just another tool and very often doesn't tell the whole story. How about this for a proposal: Everything you do when interacting with us peons is taped. Everything. Tazer tapes, dash cam, cameras in interrogation rooms, whatever. Everything. Tampering with or disabling the tape is an offense resulting in immediate termination and misdemeanor arrest. How does that sound? And to go along with that proposal is to post each and every film on the internet. Along with everyone’s name and I mean everyone’s name and no one and I mean no one blurred to hide anything. Just to make sure we are all on the up and up. Also, let me know when you are going to open up your office as well. Because we all know lawyers have nothing to hide right. |
| All times are GMT -6. The time now is 4:20 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.