Originally Posted by FlyingHoustonian (Post 21033782)

Well, my pilot's licenses list citizenship, my passport card, my GE card, and I have a DoD/NATO ID and one cannot be an officer in the US uniformed services without being a citizen (not sure if DHS knows that) and NATO ID shows citizenship and I have a wallet sized birth cert that Texas issues for something like $10 IIRC plus my Italian ID card though that is probably not the citizenship they want.

Now, I'd show none of that to a CBP agent at an internal checkpoint mind you because I think they are rubbish, supreme court notwithstanding (seperate but equal anyone? they don't always get it right).

Most people probably do not have docs that do however.

Originally Posted by Firebug4 (Post 21034501)

I would suggest that before you make comments like that you do a little research. The public baits Law Enforcement on topics that we can all agree that the Law Enforcement officer should be aware of such a civil liberties and the right to travel unimpeded.

Let’s make sure that the analogies are at least correct. When I am talking about other professions not being videotaped and baited, I am talking about topics that those professions should be aware of. For example, in the medical field, I do not see video cameras being used to catch doctors or nurses in purposefully contrived situations making mistakes. Yet medical errors kill, maim, and otherwise hurt millions of people every year. That is just the medication errors that are not even touching wrong site surgeries, botched procedures, or infections do to staff mistakes. Yet, no public outcry, no video cameras. I detest the hyperbole that happens frequently here. However, those medical error numbers equate to two 737’s crashing every day for a year. Yet, no public outcry, no video cameras over the shoulders of nurses and doctors. Why? Because it is not exciting, it is not going to result in an argument or physical confrontation so in turn is not going to increase ratings or subscriptions.

When you say civil liberties, I agree the Law Enforcement officer should get it right. However, these are human beings who make mistakes that why when you are talking civil liberties kind of lawsuits (because that is the correct place to deal with such issues not roadside or in a checkpoint) there is a good faith measure that is used to account for human mistakes. If the officer is purposefully and personally, violating civil liberties I am right there with you in disciplining that officer either civilly or criminally but you and I don't make that determination the courts do.

When you say the right to travel unimpeded, I have to assume you are talking BP checkpoints and TSA checkpoints, correct me if I have made a wrong assumption. In that case, I don't believe the individual officer is the place to take that up with. The courts have decided that these practices are legal and constitutional. If you don't agree, the place to take that up with is your elected representative.

FB

Originally Posted by Boggie Dog (Post 21034608)

Most other professions don't have armed employees. Those that do have a responsibility to ensure their employees aren't of questionable character.

As far as being video/audio recorded just why does that bother any LEO if they aren't doing anything wrong? If you have nothing to hide I see no problem.

Originally Posted by chollie (Post 20996322)

Unproductive waste of time.

Originally Posted by Firebug4 (Post 20996167)

You don't go into the details in your recent example. However, some observations and questions. Why would it be an unreasonable requirement for you to remove your sunglasses when speaking to a CBP Officer or Agent at a checkpoint or POE?

Originally Posted by GUWonder (Post 21030038)

The burden to prove foreign status should be upon the state rather than the individual who is already in the country.

Personally, I don't fancy adopting the Old World ethno-nationalist ways of requiring people to have proof of citizenship and/or identity in order to travel domestically or otherwise participate in normal domestic life.

Originally Posted by Firebug4 (Post 21030236)

Not everyone does nor is there any law that requires that of a US Citizen. How does that fit into the scenario discussion? Are we going to add a law that requires a US Citizen be able to document his or her citizenship on demand? There are many perceived pros to that but there are many perceived cons as well. I have to say it would make my job easier.

FB

Originally Posted by Firebug4 (Post 21034671)

What difference does being armed have to do with it? In my example, the medical profession is not armed yet they are killing exponentially more people than law enforcement every year not public outcry not even really a whimper. Why because it doesn't play to the public's increasing need to see physical confrontation as a spectator sport.

It is not the video/audio recording that bothers most LEO's. Most agencies started video/audio recording way before the public thought it was cool. What bothers most LEO's is the point I have been making here which hasn't changed. Video has its place as a tool when it is used correctly by the correct people. Just as you would not have a video of a medical procedure critiqued by an untrained individual an officer doesn't what his procedures critiqued by an untrained individual either.

FB

Originally Posted by Boggie Dog (Post 21034651)

Doctors and other professionals don't hide behind immunity when citizens try to address wrongs committed. LEO's do!

Originally Posted by lovely15 (Post 21034678)

I should point out, that many people video not to harass, but to protect themselves and their belongings. Otherwise it's he said she said, or in the case of an airport checkpoint, disappearing belongings.

Also, you certainly don't see government agencies publicly posting videos of what goes on. The public needs to know.

Originally Posted by Firebug4 (Post 21034713)

No, they hide behind professional ethic and medical review boards that are not open to public review.

Originally Posted by Firebug4 (Post 21034713)

No, they hide behind professional ethic and medical review boards that are not open to public review. In most all accept the absolute worst issues, it is other doctors that judge and discipline doctors without any input from the public not even the patient.

If you do have a case that makes to a forum (ie court) that the public has access to both sides present their case using expert witnesses (ie people with training that know what they are looking at). It is not people with no training forming an opinion from ignorance because they believe they know more than the professional. In those cases, the people that decide are at least receiving information from professionals that are supposed to know the subject matter.

FB

Originally Posted by lovely15 (Post 21034768)

This is true. But if a doctor tells you that you cannot have a witness to your treatment, you can demand a new doctor. You can ask why. You can pitch a fit. You can sue the hospital. When the TSA (and I'm sorry for bringing them into it, but I have had one issue with CBP in my life) tells me my husband cannot witness me being fondled because he is not traveling that day, I have no recourse. I can't ask why. I apparently can't even cry, because all terrorists cry while being groped in the genitals, of course.

BIG difference.

ETA: I'd sign a release for video of how I've been treated to be posted.

Originally Posted by Boggie Dog (Post 21034712)

The difference is that I can sue a doctor. I can try to sue a CBP agent but claims of immunity will block most prosecutions. When there is no fear of consequences for ones behavior we will get people pushing the boundaries and beyond. That is happening in law enforcement including CBP.

So video is ok as long as it is the right people doing the recording. I guess that would be law enforcement in your opinion but not citizens.

LEO's don't want to be recorded because that builds evidence of wrong doing. Smple as that. I bet at CBP check points that you guys have cameras mounted to record pretty much everything. For what purpose? Protection of the CBP employees or the public?

edit to add: What difference does being armed matter? You really are asking that? Ask the two paper ladies in LA what happens when LEO's go off the reservation and start shooting the place up.

Originally Posted by Firebug4 (Post 21034671)

What difference does being armed have to do with it? In my example, the medical profession is not armed yet they are killing exponentially more people than law enforcement every year not public outcry not even really a whimper.

Originally Posted by Firebug4 (Post 21034857)

That is not what I said. I don't care who does the recording. As long as the UNEDITED version, is used by individuals who have the training and knowledge to judge what they are seeing.

For instance, someone brought up the Rodney King video as an example in this thread. The poster described the incident incorrectly stating that Mr. King was handcuffed and facedown. Not at all what happened, he was uncuffed and moving around and kicking at officers. It was said that all that matters is what is on the video. People that actually have training would disagree. Mr. King was tased two times with no effect before that video started recording. That fact certainly makes a difference to the officers with training who were on that scene. Mr. King was struck 33 times with a baton on that video. I can't say that I would have done that or allowed that to be done if I was on that scene. However, other options were already tried so I am not sure what I would have done next. However, that being said I believe we have all seen that video. It was very hard to watch but when did the use of force become excessive?

In the Federal court case, after the testimony of experts and a judge who is versed in the legal principles in play it was determined that only the last 6 strikes out of those 33 baton strikes were excessive. I can pretty much predict that public who is untrained in the use of force and the principals involved believe that it became excessive way before that.

That is the point that I am trying to make. The solution is not to have people that don't have training or understanding of the legal principles making these decisions. If you want to pay people to sit on boards to make these decisions that have the required expertise to do so, I am all for that as long as they know what they are looking at.

FB

Originally Posted by SeriouslyLost (Post 21034858)

Your sig is really amusing right about there.