Man remains silent at federal checkpoint, agents break window & extract him

[kiddchaos]

The guy who made the video should setup a checkpoint at the end of the officer's driveway.

 

[Sfrandolph]

So what happened to the Miranda act where you are advised to be silent so that anything you say can not be used against you?

 

[mayor al]

I guess I would be 'infringing on the "rights" of the driver' if I suggested that Immigration Officers consider checking this truck for papers and contraband, Afterall , that might be considered "Profileing" !! A check point is a check point, whether it is run by Federal, State, Local, or Private agencies. Does a Volunteer Fireman who sticks a boot into my car window collecting for the "Crusade for Children Charities" differ from the Insurance paper checker, or the MP at the gates of Ft Knox...They all are impeding my progess towards where ever I am going.

Would You check this one??? ()

 

[jbombelli]

Ah, you've stumbled on to the point I'm trying to make to you. Since you're accomplishing nothing, why don't you try a different tactic? This one is getting tiresome. Or, you could continue to pine away your remaining days here on INGO positing stories about police abuse and fantasizing about the glorious day when every man, woman, and child can smoke crack on the street corner and Mexicans can stream across the border unimpeded.

What would you suggest?

 

[Liberty1911]

What would you suggest?

The answer lies in States exercising their 10A rights and weaning themselves off the Federal teat. How do we get there? I'm not sure, but I'm pretty sure voting for Libertarian candidates then posting 300 police abuse screeds per day on INGO isn't the way to get our Constitutional liberties back.

 

[Destro]

So what happened to the Miranda act where you are advised to be silent so that anything you say can not be used against you?

Miranda only applies when your questioned after being detained

 

[jbombelli]

The answer lies in States exercising their 10A rights and weaning themselves off the Federal teat. How do we get there? I'm not sure, but I'm pretty sure voting for Libertarian candidates then posting 300 police abuse screeds per day on INGO isn't the way to get our Constitutional liberties back.

In other words you don't know what to suggest. Good job. Thanks. That's really helpful.

 

[Destro]

I have an extremely difficult time believing that the same government that is trying 6 ways to Sunday to grant amnesty to illegals is actually operating these checkpoints more frequently and in more locations with more aggression is actually trying to combat illegal immigration.

That's part of the problem...some think because people carry a badge and a gun they voted for Obama

 

[Cameramonkey]

Stop me to make sure Im not OWI. If I feel the need to prove my citizenship I'll actually cross an international border. Inland Immigration checkpoints are unconstitutional IMHO because it creates an unwarranted "papers please" moment.

100 miles from the border is legal? Sure this wasnt a "Brazil" style typo? Not that its any more constitutional, but I could understand being able to check within 10 (not 100) miles of a border, but 100 is excessive.

What the hell, lets just make the limit 1,000 miles from the border.

 

[Destro]

True. But he wasn't at the border. He was many miles from any border between Mexico and his state. The checkpoint was not a border checkpoint, it was an illicit internal checkpoint away from any border. This was the Stasi operating outside of their true jurisdiction.

The checkpoint was set up in a National Park (Cleveland national) between the checkpoint and the border there is nothing but forest and desert

 

[hooky]

Miranda only applies when your questioned after being detained

Those rights exist without Miranda and certainly whether you're detained or not. I would further argue that the guy WAS being detained.

 

[steveh_131]

The answer lies in States exercising their 10A rights and weaning themselves off the Federal teat. How do we get there? I'm not sure, but I'm pretty sure voting for Libertarian candidates then posting 300 police abuse screeds per day on INGO isn't the way to get our Constitutional liberties back.

I've seen him open peoples' minds up to restoring constitutional liberties. I'd call that progress.

Exposing people to the truth about their government is never a bad thing. At least not in my opinion. Or anyone else's opinion that I've heard, so far, except yours.

 

[rambone]

Ah, you've stumbled on to the point I'm trying to make to you. Since you're accomplishing nothing, why don't you try a different tactic? This one is getting tiresome. Or, you could continue to pine away your remaining days here on INGO positing stories about police abuse and fantasizing about the glorious day when every man, woman, and child can smoke crack on the street corner and Mexicans can stream across the border unimpeded.

What would you suggest?

The answer lies in States exercising their 10A rights and weaning themselves off the Federal teat. How do we get there? I'm not sure, but I'm pretty sure voting for Libertarian candidates then posting 300 police abuse screeds per day on INGO isn't the way to get our Constitutional liberties back.

In other words you don't know what to suggest. Good job. Thanks. That's really helpful.

10th amendment, that's a fine solution. And how's that going to occur, by magic? People don't even know what the 10A is.

There is only one thing that can save our freedom, and it is the exact same thing that is NEVER going to happen.

The public needs to wake up and give a ****.

First they need to get mad, by simply seeing the truth that has been hiding under their noses. (This is where I fit in.) Then they need some direction for how to fix things, i.e. 10th amendment resolutions.

Right now most people are unaware of the systematic dismantling of their rights. They are so ignorant they wouldn't even know what rights are, much less that they are in danger or need defending. Some are aware, but apathetic. Others know what goes on, but they make excuses and defend the abuses, and start fights with people who expose the problems.

As long as public schools raise children and people learn about politics through the television, the decline will continue towards its logical conclusion. As I said, waking them up is the only way out, and it is just not going to happen. Its too late in a lot of ways, anyway.

I organize campaigns, have an elected party position and I do my online thing. And I try to get people to prepare themselves for impact. Until the paradigm shifts or collapses, I don't see a better alternative.

 

[Destro]

Those rights exist without Miranda and certainly whether you're detained or not. I would further argue that the guy WAS being detained.

to clarify, Miranda is not required unless your questioned after a detention, In this case, a "stop and question" (no Miranda needed) to a "detention"

 

[Destro]

The public needs to wake up and give a ****.

First they need to get mad, by simply seeing the truth that has been hiding under their noses.
Right now most people are unaware of the systematic dismantling of their rights.

many know exactly what is going on and could care less

 

[Kirk Freeman]

Miranda=in custody, not just detained.

 

[Liberty1911]

Right now most people are unaware of the systematic dismantling of their rights. They are so ignorant they wouldn't even know what rights are, much less that they are in danger or need defending. Some are aware, but apathetic. Others know what goes on, but they make excuses and defend the abuses, and start fights with people who expose the problems.

The rest of your post, I generally agree with, so I'll just address this section.


First of all, this is correct. People don't have a clue about their "rights".

There's where we differ though. You've narrowed that down to the right to cross international borders at will and the right to shoot heroine on the street corner.

You're not really educating people about the erosion of their rights. You have a singular agenda to advocate drug legalization and use the "erosion of rights" argument only so far as it intersects with your legalization agenda.

Government imposed gay marriage? You're on board.

Dismantling the welfare state? You don't have time for that since "we will never get rid of it anyway".

Right to life? You don't believe in it.


So, pardon me if I don't buy your "concern" for the erosion of rights when you're silent on everything that doesn't involve "possessing plants".

In the grand scheme of things, the right to "possess a plant" ranks somewhere below being able to buy a 100w incandescent bulb. So, pardon me again if I don't have the same level of concern as you do, that my neighbor can "possess a plant", when far more important rights are being violated.

 

[rambone]

many know exactly what is going on and could care less

Bonjour.

 

[longbarrel]

I will assume he is a human smuggler. I have the luxury of assuming he is guilty until he proves otherwise.

+1 to CBP

If you are joking it is supposed to be pink.​ If you aren't joking, get right!

 

[rambone]

The rest of your post, I generally agree with, so I'll just address this section.

Great, I look forward to the personal inquisition.

There's where we differ though. You've narrowed that down to the right to cross international borders at will and the right to shoot heroine on the street corner.

Seriously, the border again? What posts of mine are you referring to? That's like a half-dozen times you've brought that up in the last 24 hours.

I'll go on record saying that I'm against the neo-Berlin wall, but I have never said anything about zero border regulation.

Dismantling the welfare state? You don't have time for that since "we will never get rid of it anyway".

You lie. I said that I think it is ludicrous to wait around for the welfare state to disappear before doing other necessary reforms, like ending prohibition. I said they should both be ended at the soonest possible opportunity, in any order, without delay. Go ahead, find it and quote it.

Right to life? You don't believe in it.

Wow, never said that either.

You're not really educating people about the erosion of their rights. You have a singular agenda to advocate drug legalization and use the "erosion of rights" argument only so far as it intersects with your legalization agenda.

So, pardon me if I don't buy your "concern" for the erosion of rights when you're silent on everything that doesn't involve "possessing plants".

You can browse my threads for 30 seconds and see all manner of subjects. Spying, gun control, foreign wars, residential raids, brutality, executive orders, government schooling, checkpoints, terrorism, I mean come on man.

In the grand scheme of things, the right to "possess a plant" ranks somewhere below being able to buy a 100w incandescent bulb. So, pardon me again if I don't have the same level of concern as you do, that my neighbor can "possess a plant", when far more important rights are being violated.

As long as you ignore the millions of people being jailed, the billions of dollars spent, and the police state built on top of it.

Then you could trivialize it to that level.