|
Originally Posted by HeathrowGuy
(Post 14242186)
More to the point, I previously spent several summers working as a grad fellow within various parts of the US intelligence community, in areas where I was routinely exposed to the nature of the security threats facing the United States. It opened my eyes bigtime and permanently disavowed me of any notion that many of the rules that must normally apply to LEOs in other contexts should apply at the border. Candidly, our border security services need to be strengthened, not weakened.
|
Originally Posted by halls120
(Post 14243736)
While we do indeed face significant threats at the border, the Constitution gives the BP and Customs the tools they need to face those threats. Being an arrogant a**h**e isn't one of the tools that the BP officer needs to accomplish his/her mission.
These type of people are counterproductive to the macro job of national security. You probably can't fire them, but, you can at least put them in jobs where they don't have any interaction with the public they serve. |
Originally Posted by FliesWay2Much
(Post 14245162)
Agree 100%. I'm getting way out of my professional lane, but, I'm convinced that there is something in the DNA of some (not all) people attracted to these "retail" types of authority jobs -- BP, TSA screener, mall cop, etc -- in which they get their jollies out of being able to bully somebody without fear of being punched in the nose. I'm sure a competent shrink or two can draw direct parallels between common "bullies" and you-know-who.
These type of people are counterproductive to the macro job of national security. You probably can't fire them, but, you can at least put them in jobs where they don't have any interaction with the public they serve. |
Funny-ish bump
XtraNormal is blowing up online. One video parody made concerning one of the videos earlier discussed in this thread.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ne2v7qBBrZg |
US Customs & Border Patrol has jurisdiction within 100 miles of the border. See this for a map - http://news.medill.northwestern.edu/...aspx?id=101659
BUF is within 100 miles of the border with Canada, which is why they are there. However, as a United States Citizen, under the 4th / 5th Amendment you can decline to answer their questions if you are flying domestically (eg. BUF to BOS or BUF to DCA) |
Originally Posted by xSTRIKEx6864
(Post 15622964)
US Customs & Border Patrol has jurisdiction within 100 miles of the border. See this for a map - http://news.medill.northwestern.edu/...aspx?id=101659
BUF is within 100 miles of the border with Canada, which is why they are there. However, as a United States Citizen, under the 4th / 5th Amendment you can decline to answer their questions if you are flying domestically (eg. BUF to BOS or BUF to DCA) 1) Border Patrol is a sub-agency withing US Customs and Border Protection. 2) The power these idiots have has actually been pretty well defined by the courts. According to Firebug, they consider these "consensual encounters" as opposed to actual seizures as are done at road checkpoints. That means no one has to talk to them. 3) You do realize that 4th and 5th Amendment protections are not limited to citizens, right? |
I know the Constitution applies to non-citizens, but when you're a non-citizen they can deport you and deny future entry to the USA. You can't deport a U.S. Citizen who is in the country.
|
Originally Posted by xSTRIKEx6864
(Post 15665809)
You can't deport a U.S. Citizen who is in the country.
|
Anyway, standing at the entrance to the TSA gauntlet at BUF was an armed Border Patrol agent (she had a colleague standing nearby too, along with ) demanding whether people were US citizens or not and demanding papers if they answered in the negative. This is Buffalo Niagara International Airport, not a checkpoint facility as outlined in Martinez-Fuerte. This essentially functioned as a suspicion-less, probable cause-less and assuredly warrantless stopping of people as they attempted to travel, only they were on foot in an airport as opposed to being in a car. You may be right. It always amazes me, when I return to my hometown, to see that the juvenile violators, bullies and truants of my high school days are now the cops. |
Originally Posted by xSTRIKEx6864
(Post 15665809)
I know the Constitution applies to non-citizens, but when you're a non-citizen they can deport you and deny future entry to the USA. You can't deport a U.S. Citizen who is in the country.
2) The circumstances under which a permanent resident can be deported are extremely limited. 3) The constitutional protections against unlawful seizure and self-incrimination exist here.
Originally Posted by new2japan
(Post 15667173)
Should your rights be violated then feel free to take them to court. Should you not want to do that, it would seem like your rights don't matter too much or they weren't violated in the first place.
2) The defense the Border Patrol would put up, as Firebug stated, is that this was a "consensual encounter." We all know that is garbage, but that is what they try and say. 3) The NYCLU of Western New York was made aware of this when it actually happened, and has been considering options to counter, including canvasing the airport to tell people they don't have to talk to the BP. |
Originally Posted by udontknowme
(Post 14245872)
You may be right. It always amazes me, when I return to my hometown, to see that the juvenile violators, bullies and truants of my high school days are now the cops.
Whenever I encounter a police officer, I'm painfully polite and patient, because I'm aware of the personality type that pervades law enforcement. When someone with one hand on their gun and another on their baton is barking questions at me, it's only natural to answer. This is particularly true if I am with my family. I don't want an unnecessarily extended encounter with a mentally ill government thug to detract from my primary duty to protect my elderly family members and my children. Further, it is a woman's responsibility not to voluntarily enter into or exacerbate situations where her male relatives might become duty bound to defend her, placing them at risk of life, liberty and limb. I actually feel more free to assert my rights when I'm alone, because then it's just my life, liberty and limb I'm putting on the line, not my loved ones. The contention that these overtly threatening encounters with law-enforcement and pseudo-law enforcement agents are consensual is nonsense - at least as far as I'm concerned. These encounters are very coercive. You'd have to spend your life on a mushroom farm to avoid the knowledge of just how much misery a power-mad government thug can inflict. |
Originally Posted by Firebug4
(Post 13677056)
If you really want to discuss use of force, we can do that as well. I am guessing you are referring to the pastor and his video. We will all see how that plays out in court. I will comment this far. The pastor was told to move his vehicle to the secondary area. He chose not to. He ultimately was arrested by state authorities for blocking the highway.
A six person jury from Wellton, AZ, found Pastor Anderson of Faithful Word Baptist Church not guilty on the count of “obstructing the highway.” When asked why, one of the jurors stated that “they were the ones who stopped [Pastor Anderson] and caused [him] to be in the roadway against [his] will, and they had no right to send [him] to secondary to be searched." . . . A few new facts about the incident surfaced in the course of the two day trial as the state’s witnesses were questioned and cross examined. A detective with DPS who is an expert in dog handling and dog training and which had actually had experience with the border patrol K-9, “Jerry C”, that supposedly alerted to “concealed humans or narcotics” in Pastor Anderson’s vehicle, explained that the dog did not actually alert to the Pastor’s vehicle. In his words, the dog “was on the fringe” or on the verge of an alert by dragging its handler toward the vehicle, but that an actual alert would have consisted of the dog sitting down where the supposed contraband was located. The dog never sat down. . . . Pastor Anderson is suing the DPS and US Border Patrol on five counts: Negligence and/or Gross Negligence, False Arrest and Imprisonment, Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress, Assault and Battery, and 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Deprivation of Constitutional Rights). . . . As one of the six jurors shook Pastor Anderson’s hand on his way out of the courtroom, the juror told him, “Thanks for standing up for our rights as Americans.” Now we will watch the civil proceedings the most interesting of which will be when the qualified immunity issue is taken up by the 9th Circuit. Federal courts all over the country are cracking down on these Fourth-Amendment-exceptions-gone-LEO-entitlements; Gant is just the tip of the iceberg. SWAT raids, GPS/Phone tracking and electronic searches (border and non-border)* will come up before the court in the decade to come and I would count on some of these entitlements going away due to LEO abuse. Melendez-Diaz might be here to stay, but I doubt the court is going to put up with what the BP has actually been doing during these stops as opposed to what they envisioned. *See the recent opinion from the Supreme Court of California about cell phone searches for an opinion the Supreme Court of the United States is bound to reverse; I predict certiorari and reversal of this stupid decision just like they did in Brendalin (except they techincally just vacated the CA opinion in this case-- they didn't bother to reverse it). |
Originally Posted by Ari
(Post 15670073)
I thought an update was in order in case you missed it; here's how it played out in court (round one-- criminal court):
[url]http://theintelhub.com/2010/08/15/jury-returns-not-guilty-verdict-on-all-counts-in-pastor-anderson-trial/[/url). It's great to see a jury reach such a conclusion and I'd welcome more jurors like the one who shook the pastor's hand. This is yet another reason to not avoid jury duty if at all able to serve. |
New information released on the Border Patrol's unlawful detention of the military officer. Several weeks after the incident discussed in this forum, the Chief Border Patrol Agent of the entire Del Rio Sector wrote a letter to the military officer's commander alleging several different things, including that the military officer's conduct in the video was unbecoming "such a high ranking" military officer. The Chief's letter is posted here: http://www.veteransagainstpoliceabus...derPatrol.aspx
I for one would LOVE to get Firebug's response to this... |
Originally Posted by VAPA
(Post 15751466)
New information released on the Border Patrol's unlawful detention of the military officer. Several weeks after the incident discussed in this forum, the Chief Border Patrol Agent of the entire Del Rio Sector wrote a letter to the military officer's commander alleging several different things, including that the military officer's conduct in the video was unbecoming "such a high ranking" military officer. The Chief's letter is posted here: http://www.veteransagainstpoliceabus...derPatrol.aspx
I for one would LOVE to get Firebug's response to this... |
| All times are GMT -6. The time now is 3:20 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.