|
Originally Posted by thesaints
(Post 13694516)
Everything started when the driver refused to roll down the window and started behaving like a jerk.
All the rest is well deserved. I mean try to go to the post office and be rude. It may be your constitutional right, but you'll get less than stellar service. CBP is no different. |
Originally Posted by thesaints
(Post 13694516)
Everything started when the driver refused to roll down the window and started behaving like a jerk.
All the rest is well deserved. I mean try to go to the post office and be rude. It may be your constitutional right, but you'll get less than stellar service. CBP is no different. 2) He's not required to roll down his window all the way. It is no easier to be heard with the window rolled down partially and all the way. What if he had been driving a Subaru SVX? 3) A HUGE part of this was that he was secondaried before they even asked his country of citizenship. Indeed, they asked the completely inappropriate "is this your car?" Are they trying to interdict auto thefts now? Sorry, but that instantly makes checks at that checkpoint unconstitutional. 4) Even after he answered their inappropriate question, he was secondaried (without any sort of reasonable suspicion) and finally asked for some sort of ID. He gave them his military ID, which identified him as an officer. Should have ended there. The agents continued to harass him, and lied about having asked if he was a US citizen, which they didn't until he was long into secondary. They claimed he was being evasive, then showed either a terrible grasp of the English language or further dishonesty by back tracking on the definition of the verb "to evade" and its cognates. 5) He was again harassed after providing two passports, which were of course unnecessary because he had already shown that he was a military officer. 6) He was then retaliated against when they called his CO and likely lied about his degree of cooperation, which was actually quite high. |
Originally Posted by Firebug4
(Post 13693763)
... If the gentleman would answer the question it would help immensely instead he just keeps answering the question with another question. The problem I have with this and why I term this baiting is because he is doing this on purpose in order the get a reaction. ...
If a person is legally required to answer the question there is no need for any dialogue. Ask the question and if you do not get an answer, make a proper arrest. No need for any repeated back and forth. If a person is not legally required to answer the question there is also no need for any dialogue. Once it becomes apparent that the person will not answer (15 seconds or so) any further delay is nothing but retaliatory harassment. So which is it? Does the right to remain silent not apply? Is an answer mandatory or not? |
what's so bad in rolling down the window, smile and answer a couple easy questions ? Less than a minute and you're gone.
You guys instead go ahead playing Little Rosa Parks. After all being smart is not one of the inalienable rights of Man. |
Originally Posted by thesaints
(Post 13695876)
what's so bad in rolling down the window, smile and answer a couple easy questions ? Less than a minute and you're gone.
You guys instead go ahead playing Little Rosa Parks. After all being smart is not one of the inalienable rights of Man. The beauty of this country is that "live and let live" is (or used to be) a large part of our shared credo. If my neighbor wanted to engage in behavior that I found strange, that's OK. As long as he doesn't harm others he is free to behave as he wishes. Each of supposedly extends a wide range of forbearance to others in exchange for them extending the same to us. If a fellow citizen chooses not to answer an LEO's questions, I might disagree with his logic, tactics or manners, but that is his choice. As long as what he is doing is legally permissible LEOs have absolutely no business trying to punish him for his behavior. If a LEO retaliates against someone for law-abiding behavior the fault is with the government official, no matter how much he may have been provoked. After all, LEOs are supposed to be professionals and they have tremendous powers granted to them that go well beyond anything ordinary citizens have. The are, and should expect to be, held to a higher standard. |
Originally Posted by thesaints
(Post 13695876)
what's so bad in rolling down the window, smile and answer a couple easy questions ? Less than a minute and you're gone.
You guys instead go ahead playing Little Rosa Parks. After all being smart is not one of the inalienable rights of Man. Flex Your Rights has published a list of 10 rules for dealing with police: 1. Always be calm and cool. 2. You have the right to remain silent. 3. You have the right to refuse searches. 4. Don’t get tricked into waiving your rights. 5. Determine if you’re free to go. 6. Don’t do anything illegal. 7. Don’t run. 8. Never touch a cop. 9. Report misconduct: Be a good witness. 10. You don’t have to let them in. Many of these rules — the ones about shutting up, not consenting to searches, not waiving rights, and demanding that police clarify whether you are free to go — are excellent points about asserting constitutional rights. Asserting your rights may, in the real world of cops, get you detained, abused, assaulted, tased, arrested, accused of false charges premised on “testilying”, and occasionally murdered for contempt of cop, but it’s crucial that you know what those rights are and how to assert them. But then there’s that first rule — “always be calm and cool.” In the movie, it’s dramatized by a young black man being pulled over and, when he gets mouthy, subjected to retaliatory detention and searches. Women’s rights advocates often complain that advice to women about how to avoid rape often degenerates into ancient victim-blaming rapist-excusing stereotypes, no matter how well-intentioned or sensible (for instance, “don’t go to a frat party alone and get drunk”) the advice is. I’ve always had a conceptual problem with this complaint; I think one can advise a friend not to walk down a dark alley at midnight without suggesting that people who do so “deserve” to get mugged, or that muggers are justified or excused. There’s a difference between recognizing a need for prudence, on the one hand, and accepting the circumstances that call for it, on the other. But when I watch 10 Rules, I can understand better what the women’s rights advocates are talking about. See, if your goal is not to be abused, wrongfully arrested, falsely accused, searched without probable cause, or proned out on the pavement because you irritated someone with a gun and a badge, then “don’t be mouthy to a cop” is excellent practical advice. But dammit, we shouldn’t have to give that advice. The concept that you should expect to be abused if you aren’t meek (or, to be more realistic, subservient) in dealing with public servants ought to be abhorrent to a society of free people. Courtesy is admirable, and unnecessary rudeness is not, but rudeness ought not be seen as inviting government employees to break the law. But the reality is that our society largely issues apologias for, not denunciations of, police abuse. The prevailing belief is that claims of abuse are about lawyers or crooks trying to game the system, that people accused of crimes generally committed them, and that cops are heroes of the sort who deserve the benefit of the doubt when their account of a roadside encounter differs from that of a citizen. Our society, for the most part, indulges cops in their expectation that citizens will be subservient. As a result, “don’t talk back to a cop” remains tragically apt practical advice. Moreover, the truth of it is that many cops will interpret an assertion of your constitutional rights, however politely delivered, as a rude challenge. They are supported in that view by four decades of “law and order” talk that classifies constitutional rights as mere instrumentalities of crime, not as the rules by which we have chosen to live. Shame on us if we put up with that. |
Originally Posted by wildcatlh
(Post 13696639)
The only answer you should ever give to a law enforcement officer is "I will not answer any questions except in the presence of an attorney."
Bruce |
Originally Posted by wildcatlh
(Post 13696639)
The only answer you should ever give to a law enforcement officer is "I will not answer any questions except in the presence of an attorney".
Let's say officer stops you and asks some questions of for ID. I assume you have the right to keep your mouth shut. Then officer can detain you for some reason right? You still keep your mouth shut and you might be arrested. I guess, my confusion is as what can you say them and what can you show them. The probable cause is very subjective, and the officer might think of anything to give you probable cause in order to arrest you if do not cooperate (do not answer their questions). |
If they want to arrest you, then they are going to arrest you. Simple as that. Probable cause will be explained later, if necessary.The number of times that police officers are meaningfully criticized (like being reprimanded) for improper arrests is vanishingly small. What you say really doesn't matter once they make up their minds.
Bruce |
Originally Posted by Firebug4
(Post 13680425)
Well I have been to both I can guaranty that there is no one forcing the college student to do anything after class. In many cases, there is nothing forcing the student to attend class.
Where I went to University, my afterschool studies were surely at a 2.5:1 ratio and attendance was positively mandated. More than 3 class misses PER SEMESTER (!!) meant an automatic failure of the course. There may be low end party schools were students can still nilly-willy their way through college, but these days that is the far exception to the rule. |
Originally Posted by bdschobel
(Post 13697890)
If they want to arrest you, then they are going to arrest you. Simple as that. Probable cause will be explained later, if necessary.The number of times that police officers are meaningfully criticized (like being reprimanded) for improper arrests is vanishingly small. What you say really doesn't matter once they make up their minds.
Bruce Let's say they stop you to ask some questions. You respond you'd prefer not to answer and ask I you are free to go. They say no, you ask if you're detained and officers confirm that. They keep asking you questions and you still refuse to answer. Can they arrest you for not cooperating? |
Originally Posted by thesaints
(Post 13695876)
what's so bad in rolling down the window, smile and answer a couple easy questions ? Less than a minute and you're gone.
You guys instead go ahead playing Little Rosa Parks. After all being smart is not one of the inalienable rights of Man. This is exactly the complacency that the government wants from it's citizens. So it is your belief they should be allowed to ask any questions, and you should be required to answer them? Mind you that if you do answer, the answer better be truthful, as lying to a federal agent is a crime. So if they asked you questions that were out of their scope for asking, you would actually answer them? This is exactly why this country has rolled over and allowed everyone, including our own government, to walk all over us. |
Originally Posted by Awtas
(Post 13698062)
Yes but can they arrest you for not answering their questions or not presenting the ID? Let's say they stop you to ask some questions. You respond you'd prefer not to answer and ask I you are free to go. They say no, you ask if you're detained and officers confirm that. They keep asking you questions and you still refuse to answer. Can they arrest you for not cooperating?
Bruce |
Originally Posted by bdschobel
(Post 13698117)
A recent Supreme Court case said that you must identify yourself. Beyond that, I don't believe that you have to say anything. But I'm not a lawyer. And too much determination to remain silent will get you arrested with absolute certainty. I like my seemingly friendly approach: "I'd really love to answer your questions, officer, but I just can't without my attorney present."
Bruce 2) Only if they are investigating a crime and have reasonable suspicion that you may be involved. 3) You only have to give your name, not actually pull out an identity document. |
Having never gone through a checkpoint like this, what do they ask of passengers in a vehicle? The driver would at a minimum have a drivers license, but even that does not prove you are a US citizen. Do they merely ask if you are a US citizen, or is some proof required.
Passengers are not required to have any form of ID on them, so what really is accomplished at these checkpoints? |
| All times are GMT -6. The time now is 6:21 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.